mushinnoshin

• Went to the South Nashville planning kickoff meeting last night. I feel so civic and responsible and stuff. This can’t be good for my street cred. Anyway all they did was give us a little presentation talking about sustainable urban development & tell us a bit about what the meetings are for. The real work apparently starts at the next meeting in two weeks.
• Farewell, Mr. Gates. I’ve got an HTPC (think homebrew Tivo for nerds) at home that is my last machine running Windows. Well, something hosed one of the hard drives last week — couldn’t boot, couldn’t even boot the rescue disk or run chkdsk. Spending the better part of the weekend, I was able to salvage about 40 gigs of material off the drive using a Knoppix live CD, and finally got it reformatted and was able to boot again last night. Only problem is that now Windows doesn’t see that drive (actually 2 SATA drives in a RAID array) at all. Well, it looks fine in the device manager, but there’s no F: drive anywhere to be found otherwise. So I think the machine is not-so-subtly trying to tell me it’s ready for Linux and MythTV (maybe the KnoppMyth mash-up?) I’m afraid the drivers for my ATI All-In-Wonder may be a problem, but it *is* an older model now, so maybe that will work out. Otherwise I do also have a Hauppage capture card & would just need a new card for TV out. I’m sure I probably could fix the XP installation if I really tried, but I’ve been meaning to switch anyway, and this seems as good a time as any.
• I have to admit, I don’t get it. What’s with the whining about NPR/NPT pledge drives? Seems to me there are three types of people here: 1) those of us that pledge, we get to feel snooty and superior, so the campaign doesn’t bother us, 2) those who listen but don’t pledge — freeloaders with no right to complain, and 3) those who don’t listen & thus wouldn’t be affected. So which are you, Fabricator?
• On the subject of things I don’t get, why the hell must the local eateries turn the A/C down to 40 degrees as soon as the weather gets warm? Yesterday at Subway, I thought perhaps I’d mistakenly ordered a bag of hypothermia on the side or something, but then today at Moe’s it was the same deal.
• Another great piece from OnTheCommons on advertising’s invasion of noncommercial space.
• Oh! I remembered another thing I’ll have to do while in CA — yoga with Manouso (my teacher’s teacher, whose workshop I attended in January). Good stuff.

The SelectSmart Candidate Selector is up & running. It seems to give pretty good results sometimes. Here’s how it scored me:

(100%) 1: Sen. Barack Obama (D)
(88%) 2: Gov. Bill Richardson (D)
(84%) 3: Ex-VP Al Gore (D)
(82%) 4: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D)
(81%) 5: Retired Gen. Wesley Clark (D)
(75%) 6: Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) Withdrew from race.
(72%) 7: Sen. Joseph Biden (D)
(69%) 8: Sen. Christopher Dodd (D)
(68%) 9: Ex-Sen. John Edwards (D)
(68%) 10: Rep. Ron Paul (R)
(66%) 11: Sen. Hillary Clinton (D)
(54%) 12: Sec. Condoleezza Rice (R)
(49%) 13: Gov. George Pataki (R)
(47%) 14: Sen. John McCain (R)
(44%) 15: Ex-Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R)
(43%) 16: Gov. Mitt Romney (R)
(42%) 17: Gov. Mike Huckabee (R)
(40%) 18: Sen. Chuck Hagel (R)
(34%) 19: Ex-Rep. Newt Gingrich (R)
(30%) 20: Sen. Sam Brownback (R)
(24%) 21: Rep. Duncan Hunter (R)
(23%) 22: Rep. Tom Tancredo (R)

Interesting. Noteworthy perhaps that Hillary’s the only (D) to fall below an (R) — though I would probably actually rank the (R) in question much higher. Here’s an off the cuff take on how I think I might actually rank ‘em, leaving out the ones I just don’t know enough about, and adding in a few candidates and/or potential candidates that are missing. Admittedly Mr. Richardson’s position may be elevated somewhat by his actually having a (granted, remote) shot at the thing. And Mr. Nader might not be so high if that film weren’t fresh on my mind. Anyway –

Bill Richardson (D)
John Mackey (L)
Ralph Nader (I)
Al Gore (D)
Barry Hess (L)
Steve Kubby (L)
Jello Biafra (G)
Ron Paul (R)
Barack Obama (D)
Dennis Kucinich (D)
Doug Stanhope (L)
George Phillies (L)
Ed Thompson (L)
Wesley Clark (D)
John Edwards (D)
Chuck Hagel (R)
Hillary Clinton (D)
Condoleezza Rice (R)
George Pataki (R)
Rudy Giuliani (R)
Newt Gingrich (R)
Mitt Romney (R)
NOTA
John McCain (R)
Mike Huckabee (R)
Sam Brownback (R)
Duncan Hunter (R)
Tom Tancredo (R)

Update: This reminded me why Dr. Paul needs to at least be higher than Obama. Meanwhile this reminded me that Hagel needs to top the rest of the Republicans (a term which I’ve decided might as well include Hillary).

Update2: Just read up on Huckabee — dropped him below NOTA. The idiot is a creationist AND apparently, according to CATO, not even up to par on economics. Next.

Many of us including myself have given WKRN’s Jamey Tucker a hard time about the overwhelming Christian (or at least Abrahamic) bias at his Faith and Ethics blog. So in the spirit of giving credit where due, I’m happy to link up to this announcement of a new Buddhist meditation center opening in Nashville.

It’s small, but it’s a start. Kudos!

My friend Joey King, compatriot in both post-libertarian and Buddhist thought, sent me this link to a wonderful essay on the true nature of corporations. Though written from a Buddhist perspective, the essential message is universally understandable.

It’s as good and concise a summary as I’ve seen explaining the disconnect between the free-enterprise that conservative libertarians claim to champion and the corporate mercantilism for which they so often serve as apologists — and why libertarians — if they actually believe their anti-state, pro-market rhetoric — really belong on the left side of the aisle.

The solution to these problems was ingenious: legally limited liability.[...] Such an arrangement required a special charter from the state [...] What is the relevance of all that now? It shows us, first, that from the very beginning corporations have been involved in colonialism and colonial exploitation [...] Second, it shows us that from the very beginning corporations have also had an incestous relationship with the state.

Aren’t conservatives and libertarians the ones always telling us about the value of personal responsibility?

We begin to understand how “a principle purpose of corporations is to shield the managers and directors who run them, and shareholders who profit, from responsibility for what the corporation actually does.”

So why is this a bad thing?

corporations are legal fictions. Their “body” is a judicial concept — and that is why they are so dangerous, because without a body they are essentially ungrounded to the earth and its creatures, to the pleasures and responsibilities that derive from being manifestations of the earth. You may prefer to say that corporations are unable to be spiritual, for they lack a soul; but I think it amounts to the same thing.

Indeed:

transnational corporations are by their very nature problematical. We cannot solve the problems they create by addressing the conduct of this or that particular corporation; it’s the institution that’s the problem.

Good stuff.

Kick ass. Mike and I are being sent by the benevolent employer out to the San Jose/San Francisco/Bay Area region for a MySQL conference. We’ll be there officially from 4/23 to 4/26, but can probably swing a few personal days on the head and/or tail of that week.

So, anyone have any input on things to do to maximize the time while we’re out there? I’m sure we can find something better to see than the Apple Store and the Intel Museum (rolls eyes…)

Getting there early enough for some 420 shows has been suggested, and so has been staying later for the San Francisco International Film Festival. Both are possibilities, but neither rocks my world … any suggestions from the peanut gallery?

Topics of interest — hippies, punks, goth/industrial (wasn’t 21st Circuitry & Xorcist from there?), Hunter Thompson (and/or porn — is the club that he used to manage still open?) … lsd, zen, Berkely … hell I don’t even know where to begin… anything bubbling up from the underground. The seedier the better, maybe.

I’ve been meaning to say my piece on global warming for a while, so I’ll take this chance to springboard off Lesley’s wonderful post on the subject, since she pretty much said everything that I would.

The bottom line seems to be that yes, the earth is getting warmer, and the jury is out as to whether humans are causing it. To be sure, the overwhelming majority of the people who actually know what they are talking about seem to think we are, and the overwhelming majority of people who seem to think otherwise are generally unqualified to make that call. (“The global warming debate is odd in that it appears to be between climate scientists and rightwing pundits.”). But it is also true that there is plenty of money to be made as a proponent for either side — so those of us who *aren’t* climate scientists can’t simply take either opinion as gospel.

But who cares? The “solutions” to global warming are things which we need to do anyway. Reduce pollution. Use renewable energy. Live more efficiently. Et cetera.

Certainly, the case isn’t strong enough to take radical measures that greatly inhibit human freedom with little or no actual benefit. So — show me where Al Gore or any other global warming crusader is actually proposing that we do so, and I’ll happily stand with you against the measure in question. But, for one example, replacing payroll taxes with carbon and pollution taxes? Well that’s the geolibertarian thing to do anyway, something I believe in regardless of global warming. What, do the right wingers like the income tax now?

(PS: Lesley’s comments on vegetarianism are a good read as well, but I’ll save that for my next overdue-topic-posting : )

So Sunday I saw An Unreasonable Man. The film has definitely helped raise my esteem for Mr. Nader. I get it now.

Back in 2000, I basically knew who he was, but I didn’t grasp the sheer depth of his involvement in the shape of our society over the previous 30 years, or of the passion he inspired in his core following, or — to put it bluntly — the dogged hard headed-ness of his commitment to principle. To me he was just the guy running for the Greens — a party to which I’m sympathetic, but not sold. A party which only partially correlated to the aforementioned core supporters in the broader consumer rights movement.

So I didn’t vote for him in 2000, at that time I was campaigning for Browne. I mention all this for two reasons — first, to point out that I am not trying to retroactively justify myself in the wake of the Bush nightmare, and second to underscore that it means something when I now say: Ralph Nader should have been elected. And I believe that if our system were not corrupt and broken, he would have been elected. Actually that’s not true — if our system weren’t corrupt and broken, he would not have needed to run.

That’s what his campaign was trying to say, that’s what it was all about. That’s why he had to run, and why he was right to run.

It was a little funny and a little sad to hear the vile nonsense being spewed by some of the left wingers they interviewed who wanted to blame Nader for everything that has come about since then. The rhetorical disconnect between Michael Moore 2000 and Michael Moore 2004 alone was especially revealing (the hypocrisy of which greatly exceeds the sins of which he is usually accused).

But — well, look. I’ve come to like Gore. I think he should run in 2008, and I think he should be elected, and will be, if he runs. That is, the Al Gore we know today should be elected. But the Gore we know today would not exist if he had won in 2000.

Would we have been better off had Gore won in 2000? Short term, probably yes. But long term? Ralph gave us a better Gore, and maybe even a better Democratic Party. Sure, Ralph gave us the GOP — a GOP that self destructed. Would the Democratic takeover of 2006 have happened without Nader’s act of creative destruction on the wavering left?

Would it have happened two years sooner if they had chosen to learn the lesson, rather than try to make him a scapegoat?

I’m not saying he worked miracles. I’m just saying that acting on principle is always the right thing to do, and history usually bears this out. So — here’s my belated thank you: Mr. Nader, thank you for running, thank you for being unreasonable.

Pardon me while I channel the spirit of S-town Mike by spreading the word about some upcoming community planning for my South Nashville peeps:

Nashville.gov – Planning Department – Subarea 11

South Nashville’s Community Plan is seven years old, and due for an update; community input is a major part of that process, and we’re scheduling meetings throughout April and May to give everyone an opportunity to be heard.

The first one will begin at 6:00 pm March 27 at the Knowles Senior Center, 174 Raines Avenue – click here* for a complete schedule and a map of the area, y oprima aquí para el itinerario en español.

* Damnit Metro, PDF sucks. It’s OK for the mailer, but not for spreading word ’round the tubes.

Well well well — seems we’ve got a celebrity socialite among us!

Even though I’ve formally disassociated myself with the LP (seeing as they are apparently cool with bigots and drug warriors now), I still support ‘em when they’re on the right side of something. This is such a case:

URGENT UPDATE: This bill is now scheduled for hearings in the State Senate on March 20th and in the State House on March 21st. Now is the time for them to hear from you. See more details below.

If you’d like to see third-party candidates able to use their party labels on the ballot rather than being forced to run as “Independent” candidates, then we need your help. Keep reading to find out what you can do.

A bill has been introduced in the current session of the Tennessee state legislature (designated as HB0626 in the House, and SB0288 in the Senate) that would do just that.

Currently the Democrat and Republican parties are the only groups that meet the legal definition of “political party” in Tennessee. As recognized political parties they are granted some special privileges not available to third-party groups like the Libertarian Party. The nominated candidates of recognized political parties get an automatic right to be listed on the ballot, they get to use their party label on the ballot, and the government will bear the cost of their use of primary elections to nominate their candidates.

The state says that the qualification standards for new political parties should be at a pretty high threshold because of the cost the state incurs when political parties nominate their candidates by primary, but that is only one of three privileges granted to political parties. We have previously asked the legislature to simply allow “Independent” candidates to designate a party label for themselves if they wish. The legislature rejected that idea on the grounds that there was not enough of a qualification process to prevent silly ballot labels.

This new bill would solve the problem with an approach used in 19 other states. Basically it would create a two-tier system, creating major and minor parties, respectively called “political parties” and “partisan organizations”, with lower qualification thresholds for becoming a partisan organization.

Partisan organizations would nominate their candidates by convention at their own expense rather than having the option for a primary election, so it would cost the government absolutely nothing to implement this solution. It avoids the state’s concern about the cost of primaries while allowing qualified partisan organizations to have the ballot access and party label privileges currently only granted to Democrat and Republican nominees.

It’s a good solution for both the taxpayers and for third-party groups. It will provide voters more useful information on the ballots, properly identifying party affiliations for partisan candidates currently forced to label themselves as “Independent” candidates.

Not only is this bill better policy than the existing law, but the 6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court (which covers Tennessee) has ruled Ohio’s ballot access laws for new political parties to be unconstitutionally restrictive, though they are LESS restrictive than our laws in Tennessee are. The citation for this case is 462 F 3d 579, Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell. Our legislature needs to perform their duty to the citizens of Tennessee and correct this flaw in our law.

What can you do to help this bill become law?

1. Sign our online petition calling on the legislature to pass HB0626 / SB0288 and improve the fairness of our system for third-party candidates.
2. Contact your own State Representative and State Senator and ask them to co-sponsor HB0626 / SB0288. Be kind, polite, persuasive, and professional. If Senator Tim Burchett or Rep. Mike Turner is from your district, thank them for sponsoring the bill.
3. We need to get this bill through the subcommittees and onto the floor for a vote.
   – On March 20th it is scheduled for a State Senate hearing in the State & Local Government committee.
   – On March 21st it is scheduled for a State House hearing in the Government Operations committee.

After you contacted your own legislators, contact each of the members of this committee, asking for their support as well. Click the links above, or visit www.legislature.state.tn.us, click on “House”, and then “Committees” to find a listing of who is on this and how to contact those legislators.

Click here to read the bill and monitor its status.