Modern Capitalist Feudalism

Any mechanic who suggests you buy a new car because your spark plug is broken is running a scam and definitely doesn’t have your best interest at heart. The same can be said for our modern markets. 

Say what you will about capitalism today - it has its issues big and small - but, it has also been the engine of incredible change and wealth generation for all classes of society. Naturally, nothing is perfect and talks about improvements occur, and should be encouraged.

However, anybody who suggests a full replacement of the system because of problems here and there definitely doesn’t know what they’re talking about, and probably have some ulterior motive, like a bad mechanic.

Any honest person hoping for a better world will admit there are problems with today’s markets beyond typical crony capitalism. But, the mistake comes in suggesting a complete replacement of the engine when all we might need is just a tune-up.

I consider myself an honest man, and the problem I see is that modern markets have evolved to become Capitalist Feudalism (a term I made up for this piece, thank you). And, if you’re familiar with how feudalism works, I hope you would agree.

You can't use the internet anywhere without bowing to Comcast.
You can't analyze data or have any presence online without paying homage to Google.
You can't have a social presence without submitting to Facebook.
You can't sell anything without dealing with Amazon.

And that's just for individuals. Imagine how much more hard it becomes to operate as a company.
The fact that companies, governments and people have to defer to these companies in order to conduct business, access sites using equipment that doesn't actually belong to them, and surrender their personal data and security in order to post pictures of their kids, does not sound like a free society to me.

And for companies, that’s not competition, it's feudalism.

Something needs to be done. If left unchecked, I foresee a world in which we wake up in our Amazon beds, eat our Google cereal, ride in our Facebook cars to our Amazon jobs and pay our Google taxes to pay for Comcast infrastructure.

Really though, the problem isn't really with the markets (naturally, these companies will want to grow and absorb others to maximize profits; it’s in their nature). But, it's with those who support the current status quo, or support the current form of the markets, because the only suggestion coming from the opposition is a complete engine replacement.

Let’s get on the same page, please?

Can we recognize that capitalism has created the greatest growth of wealth never before possible?
Can we recognize that there are problems inherent in the system?
Can we agree that recognizing those problems and wanting to address them means we do not want to buy a whole new car?
Can I argue that breaking them up would be a good thing for the world, without being called a socialist?

To quote Scott Galloway from L2inc, “We don’t break them up because they’re evil […] we don’t break them up because they avoid taxes […] we don’t break them up because they destroy jobs […] we break them up because we are capitalists.”

(This article appeared originally on thelatest.com)

Joseph Stalin made me a PB&J

If Joseph Stalin made me a sandwich, would I say thank you? Would I compliment him on his sandwich-making abilities if it were a good sandwich? If it were the best sandwich I'd ever had, would I throw it away and claim it wasn't?

Of course you can ask this question of any distasteful, mass-murdering, dirt-bag. I would have used Hitler, but that's a bit played out at this point, isn't it? Besides, old Joe Stalin killed more people, so the question should be more powerful.

I can tell you my answer: I don't know.

But that's the point. Especially about someone I don't know enough about to make any kind of judgement about how I would react in that situation: I haven't predetermined my reaction. I haven't automatically decided if I would throw it in his face, or ignore him. I admit maybe I should, and I probably would (If I know myself well enough). But I haven't made up my mind beforehand.

What if we were to walk the streets of San Francisco (or better yet Portland, Oregon) and ask the people on the streets if how'd they react if Donald Trump made them a sandwich. (You could have asked the same question about Obama to people in, say... Texas, but let's keep it in the present for now).

Can we predict with relative certainty how a majority of the participants would react? I would say so. (You're welcome to disagree).

The problem with today's world is that we're so set on choosing sides, making sure that our side is "right" that we are willing to disregard any good thing, any victory, that comes from the other side. People in every political party, in every walk of life, are susceptible to the mistake of prejudging the actions of others, and automatically assigning motive and morality to actions, good or bad.

I mention this because the (fingers crossed) impending peace with North Korea is definitely a good thing. I don't think there is a single honest person in the north or the south of that peninsula who doesn't want peace with each other. This is a good thing, no matter what others say about it.

Isn't that annoying? Am I the only one growing tired of the hecklers and the naysayers?

Don't get me wrong, there are things Trump has done that I don't like. But the fact that talking heads and pundits continue to make the issue about them, about him, about how it can't possibly be as good a thing as we believe because of who is behind it, proves that they're not in it for us, they're in it for themselves. It's not healthy for us as a nation.

Our democracy didn't fall apart, as promised, when Trump was elected.

Millions of people didn't die when we repealed the mandate for the Affordable Care Act.

Maybe I have a better view of him because I don't have Twitter? But it seems every other day there is a news story about something the president tweeted, and not about what he did. What if he didn't have Twitter? Would the country's perception of him and the things he does change?

Maybe we should remember that actions speak louder than words.

Portrayal is not Perpetuation

Depiction is not endorsement, acknowledgement is not approval, and reflections are not acceptance. I could go on, but hopefully the point is already clear. The fact that some people need this explained to them is a sad fact of today's society.

Let's pull up a recent, but not too sensitive topic to begin: Xmen Apocalypse.

In 2016, this movie started controversy before it ever entered theaters because of one billboard.
Apparently showing a scene from the movie in which the bad guy was acting…well…bad, is bad?
The complaint is that it was depicting, and therefore perpetuating violence against women. The fear was that young people will look up at the billboard and think, "Y'know, that looks like fun."

Sound like someone else you know?

It sounds like Christians on the far right complaining that gay characters on TV will make their children gay.

It sounds like far-left radicals attacking Dave Chappelle for transgender jokes because they think it incites anti-trans violence.

It doesn't take a genius to deduce that portraying something, and actively campaigning for it, are two completely different things.

It just takes a five-minute break to think about the situation. The problem isn't your political stance, it's a lack of good judgment and logical thinking. This applies to everyone, no matter your political or moral leanings.

To help illustrate the problem let me ask a question:

What if there was a blockbuster movie released this summer (maybe a Marvel movie?) in which the main antagonist was an incredibly evil, merciless, and mass-murdering warmonger and he/she also happened to be gay?

What would the response be?

Would those on the left lose their minds because Hollywood was trying to depict all gay people as evil?

Would those on the right still take up arms because it's just another example of Hollywood ramming their politically-correct agenda down our throats?

Or would most people realize that movies are just a snapshot of the culture at the time, and to be more believable they will include gay characters, because they also exist in real life. (And like it or not, there might just be good and bad homosexuals, just as there are good and bad heterosexuals).

To wrap this all up, here is the most recent example I could find:

This video review of Farcry 5 released this month. I personally love the Farcry series, and the fifth is no exception.

But it is mind-boggling that those in this video are so hung up on the fact that the game portrays an "Obama-hatin' conservative" as one of the good guys.

To these reviewers it is impossible that anyone right of them on the political spectrum could possibly be a good person, that he could possibly have any motivation for being conservative other than racism.

Does the game portray those from all walks of life? Yes. Does it make any comment on whether those views are right or wrong? No. Instead it accurately represents the people that actually exist today.

Those on the right think the same about those left of themselves.

We don't see each other as humans, as brothers and sisters anymore.

We're all rivals, all competitors.

And that's the problem.

Letter to a Friend

As I've mentioned in the past, I've taken up calligraphy as a very minor pastime.

I say minor. I'm not doing it to show off. Obviously.

I can't remember what got me into it initially, probably a boring afternoon when I was looking for something to do... next thing you know I have a pile of books, a pack of calligraphy pens next to me, an open inkwell, and an inclined table specifically used for calligraphy (imagine those old tables you see in medieval movies with monks writing painstakingly slow manuscripts of scripture. Same thing essentially)

I admit I have slowed down recently, only breaking out the ink and nibs every once in a while for a special occasion. But I enjoy it no less than when I initially began.

This is one of my earlier attempts (probably about a year and a half ago) of a birthday card for a friend. I had spent so much time on making sure the name was right that I ran out of time on the actual letter, which is why it looks like the rest was written with normal pen in a rush... which it was.

I use heavy parchment paper when I practice, and you can see the true color in the first photo after it has been folded and sealed with hot wax and a "W" for Webber.


My normal penmanship has improved since this time, since it is terrible form to have calligraphy and bad handwriting on the same page! So don't look at anything else besides the name itself.

The only thing I like about it, now that I look back, is the "N" at the beginning. The other letters are all out of proportion, and much to thick for the height at which I made them. But, hey, what can you expect for a first try at a letter for someone I don't even talk to anymore?

What is Democracy to You?

A century ago, this question would win me weird looks and scoffs. Today though, it seems like we need to ask this question. Why? Whether people are willfully ignorant or deceptively clever, the definition and meaning behind what a democracy is or is not continues to change.

Let's be honest: if you answered the question with anything other than "a system of government in which the citizens exercise control over policy and leadership," then you're incorrect, and you're not alone.

Many use the word "democracy" to suggest wearing blue jeans and listening to NPR is democratic. They throw "undemocratic" as an insult to those whose ideas, morals, or policies don't line up with their personal version of what democracy looks like.

Republicans are undemocratic because they limit illegal immigration.

Democrats are undemocratic because they shut down speakers on college campuses.

While insults may be warranted, "undemocratic" isn't appropriate.

Let us remind ourselves that while behavior may be immoral or abhorrent, unless they're staging a military coup it isn't "undemocratic."

In his famous book, The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis describes this confusion in detail:
"You can use the word democracy to sanction in his thought the most degrading (and also the least enjoyable) of human feelings: The feeling I mean is, of course, that which prompts a man to say I’m as good as you."

"We, in Hell, would welcome the disappearance of democracy in the strict sense of that word, the political arrangement so called [...] And what we must realize is that “democracy” in the diabolical sense [...] is the fittest instrument we could possibly have for extirpating political democracies from the face of the earth."

He continues:
"Allow no pre-eminence among your subjects. Let no man live who is wiser, or better, or more famous, or even handsomer than the mass. Cut them down to a level; all slaves, all ciphers, all nobodies. All equals."

For “democracy” or the “democratic spirit” (diabolical sense) leads to a nation without great men, a nation mainly of subliterates, full of the cocksureness which flattery breeds on ignorance, and quick to snarl or whimper at the first sign of criticism. And that is what Hell wishes every democratic people to be."

Doesn't that describe our world today?

On a more personal note, I remember a quote given by Tom Hanks, according to Fox News: "...the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them."

It seems he took the problem of mixing "democracies" and "democratic behavior" and took it even one step further by confusing "American" with "American behavior." (This is all beside the fact that America isn't a democracy in the first place, but that's a discussion for another day.)

We must be careful in our word choice. Not because they are harmful or dangerous, but because willingly or accidentally confusing the meaning of words and concepts makes it easier for the "bad guys" on both sides of the aisle to take advantage of the ambiguity. Be specific, and particular, in your vocabulary, and you'll be able to identify those who use the confusion to their advantage.

How are you?

I remember one thing that I found particularly interesting during my Earth history classes at the Imperial Academy.

I had seen that across most all of the old cultures that, to an extent, still persist on Earth today, the form of greeting took the same manifestation. 

In essence, an individual would inquire as to the passing of the day, or health, of another, usually along the lines of (and forgive me for my terrible accent) “How are you?” or “How is it going?” referring to the day. And do you know how the other would respond? (This is the funny part in a quite depressing way) They would answer with positive salutation, regardless of how they were or what events had already transpired that day. 

And do you know what else would happen? The questioner would actually grow agitated, and indeed become quite uncomfortable, if the answer was anything than the expected answer, positive or negative, but most particularly if it were negative.

           

Imagine asking after someone’s health and growing irate if they actually answered honestly!

            

A better example of the hypocrisy, pride, and greed of the Old System surely cannot be found! To feign concern, love, or even the slightest attention towards someone, then resenting that same person when they, in reality in need of consolation, healing, and help, actually required it of you!

            

Most assuredly this tiny example of a cultural norm is a symptom of the larger sickness. The increasing divide between what a person thought they were expected to be, and what they actually were, made it socially unacceptable to bare aspects of their lives, good or bad, that did not conform to external expectations.

-Jules Ferrero, Imperial Auditor.

You Are What You Eat

Countries, just like our bodies, reflect both inside and out the kinds of things we put into them. A society is made up of millions of individuals, and when those individuals insist on feeding on garbage, then we can't be surprised at the prodcuts that society produces.

Isn't it interesting that the people who get their news from Comedy Central, the Daily Show's Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee, Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel or any other late-night host, or watch Keeping up with the Kardashians more than they read books, are all the most surprised and upset that a reality TV star is president?

You'd think that would be what they've wanted all along. I mean, the state most upset (judging by the number of calls for secession), California, elected Arnold Schwarzenegger as their governor. They should be the LEAST surprised that this happened.

But it did. Whether you're happy about it (*waves*), or upset (I feel you) or you just don't care because there's a new episode of Game of Thrones, the fact remains that a large enough number of citizens of this country were sufficiently angry about the state of affairs that they believed a reality TV star was the best option to fix it.

Now, there are problems coming from both side of the aisle (unfortunately we only have one aisle, apparently, but that's a different topic), and if you're unwilling to admit that, then you're part of the problem. Both sides are guilty of feeding their "bodies," their society, with garbage, and both sides are guilty of acting on emotion rather than common sense.

I'm not saying that Trump is president because the left subconsciously wanted it (I'm no scientist, but wouldn't that be crazy?), I'm just saying I think it's funny that the main audiences for these types of shows, the main population of Hollywood, are the ones most upset that he's in politics at all. I'm also saying that when Trump began his campaign, none of the "smart," funny, stars took him seriously. They ridiculed, they joked and even mockingly encouraged him. And you know what happened? So did their viewers and fans. And they continued to do so until it was too late to actually do anything about it.

And none of these late-night bastions of morality have the guts to admit that they helped make their "worst nightmare" a reality.

Smart people don't forget the simple fact that these people are entertainers. They're there to make you laugh to make money. Nobody became a comedian, a movie star or a news anchor out of the charity of their heart. They did it because they're good at making you feel the emotions they want. And that pays their salary.

Do you get your science from Bill Nye? Or find out the important issues from Facebook's trending section? Do you get your economics information from YouTube pundits? Or your investment advice from Twitter polls? If you don't know what your opinion is until Stephen Colbert tells you what it should be, maybe you should turn the TV off and figure out your life.

Calligraphy Progress 4/23/18

Every few months I copy the text of a passage or a quote I like into the calligraphy hand I'm practicing at the time.

And since at the moment I'm practicing traditional gothic calligraphy, that's what I use.

I find that I can't just sit down and write down a dozen As then a dozen Bs, without getting distracted and doing other things. Very early on in my practicing I discovered that if I sit down for two hours or so, spending the first while getting my station set up, then a half hour getting warmed up, another half hour practicing, then the remaining time actually working on some kind of product on finer, heavier, paper that isn't lined, then I tend to focus more on each stroke and movement because this is something I put on my practice wall until I replace it with something better.

I believe this works for two reasons:

1. When I hang it up, it forces me to compare it with an older work I completed earlier, seeing where I was too quick, or where I improved. I notice the things that are hard to see when you don't hold it up to something older.

2. Working to produce a quote I like on paper that is expensive means I force myself to take my time and be careful. When I hammer out fifteen Gs on college-ruled paper, I ted to get more sloppy and less interested, and even discouraged. I know I can do the letters, so when I mess up I get even more frustrated. But when I am halfway through a passage on paper that costs more than usual, I am motivated to not mess up. I focus more on my posture, my arm movement, so that all the work I have done so far is not ruined.

Obviously it's not a masterpiece, ever, I'm not to that point yet. I see letters grouped too close, or the tails or the stems extending too far, or the lines of the words floating up or down toward the ends of the page. But that's what it is, practice. And the next time I try a new passage, I'll remember my mistakes and I'll improve.

Here is the latest example, taken from a quote of Odysseus in Homer's Odyssey, one of my favorite books, and (in my opinion) the greatest work of literature ever written.

First, a capital F.

You can tell I got too hasty in the ornamentation, as the line is not straight. But the letter itself is pretty good I think.




Second, a capital L. Again, the letter itself is solid, and the ornamentation is good this time. However the flourishes to the left I didn't begin pulling with the full contact of the nib, so it looks broken and shabby.



Finally, the full quote I used to practice:



"Yea and if some god shall wreck me in the wine-dark deep, even so will I endure... For already have I suffered full much, and much have I toiiled in perils of waves and war. Let those be added to the tale of those." Odyssey

Rich Millenial, Poor Millenial

A new study shows that nearly half of millennials in the USA have $0 in savings. The same report shows that the number of millennials who have significant savings put away has increased. What's going on? Who is to blame? Grab your pitchforks, people. Let's do this.

If you're active on LinkedIn or other financially-focused websites, you've probably seen this Bank of America report released today.

In short, almost 50% of the "millennial generation" have nothing in a savings account. While a growing number of the same demographic have large amounts of savings. The group in the middle is disappearing. So if you're a millennial, statistically you either have a lot put put away, or nothing at all.

What does this mean?

It means that the generalization that millennials are bad at saving is more true than before, but also more false. Sorry to say, but stereotypes exist for a reason. The generalization of twitch-streamers, YouTube millionaires, adults living in mom's basement, and avocado toast with a Starbucks latte seems to have some basis in fact.

A few charts to highlight the study:

Now, the discussion regarding causation and correlation is one we don't have time (or the word count limit) to address here. But the fact that two different banks found the same data in reputable studies shows that something is happening.

Granted this study doesn't compare the numbers with other generations. Or even other generations at the same point in their timeline. That data is easy to find, and I assume that it would be very different than these data.

So, the question:
Who do we blame for this growing disparity?

The answer:
Nobody. Sometimes life just sucks, that's guaranteed. Are some millennials just terrible at cash management, putting away savings, or self control? Definitely. Are some the victims of some financial disasters? Of course. Maybe it's just a reflection of the changing lifestyles of the generation. The fact that the number of those who have significant savings is also increasing shows that nobody is out to "get" the millennials. That there is no grand conspiracy to keep them poor forever.
I attended a devotional at which Mitt Romney spoke in 2014, at one point he mentioned: "The self-help guides that I read said I was doomed, because they claimed that in order to have a successful life, you had to have a clear goal in mind and then work relentlessly toward that goal. But that isn’t how life worked out for me. As a matter of fact, almost nothing I have done in my career was planned in advance."

(Cue the comments about "taking advice from a millionaire on how poor millenials should save money is stupid. 1% this and 99% that." That's not the point of the quote and you know it. Stay focused, people!)

Maybe we should stop looking for people to blame, and instead focus on ourselves and how to make our lives, and the lives of those around us, happier, better, and more prepared for the hard times in life. Life is unpredictable and we're all in this together.

What is Justice?

   From page 98 of the draft of Annals of an Empire:       

            A smoke trail was all that remained of the other ship Pharsalus had destroyed earlier.

            The cheer of battle-hungry soldiers went up from the bridge, but Marcus was lost in thought.

            “Berthier, a word.” And he motioned to the exit.

            Only when in his office, did Marcus speak again. “Chairman Tyke was the one who informed me of the insurrection on this planet.” He paced the office. “Obviously he was correct that something was happening here, but I’m not sure either of us understand what exactly it was. What do you think we just witnessed, was it rebellion?

            “No.” Was the terse reply.

            “Neither do I. That’s the problem. Something else was happening here, and exactly what it is eludes me.” He clicked a pen on the table in frustration. “Was it a diversion? Some kind of suicide pact?”

            “I’m afraid it’s impossible to determine without more data, sir.”

            “Indeed.” Marcus acceded. He paused. “Another thing, Berthier…”

            “Yes, Commander?” He still stood at attention.

            “I know you don’t approve of my methods, and you disagree with my handling of the situation.” Marcus waited for a response, but Berthier remained at attention. “You may speak freely, Berthier. As my XO I want to reach a level of understanding with you.”

            “Very good, sir.”

            “You joined the crew of Cannae about what, nine months ago?”

            “Yes sir, after six I was transferred here as your XO.” Berthier replied.

            Marcus nodded, “Did Captain Antonius tell you why you were being transferred?”

            “No, sir.”

            Marcus sat down behind his desk and motioned for Berthier to do the same, “It was because I noticed the way you managed your crew. You are efficient and effective. Your men look up to you and respect your decisions. The XO position requires someone I can rely on and trust. I felt you were a perfect replacement for the job.”

            “Thank you, sir.”

            “Which is why I respect what you have to say.” Marcus tried to make himself look relaxed, which was difficult in his chair which did not recline. “So please, tell me what’s on your mind.”

            “I don’t like it, sir.” Berthier’s voice was level. “In the Legionnaire Directive it states we are to uphold and enforce the values of the Empire and establish its order throughout the galaxy. I didn’t see any of that today.”

            Marcus nodded. “What are imperial values? Berthier?”

            “Pardon?”

            “You mentioned your duty as an Imperial Legionnaire is to uphold Imperial values. Well, what are those values?” It was a probing question, but also one Marcus had been wondering himself, so he was curious what Berthier’s answer would be.

            “The Directive doesn’t specify.”

            “Correct. But in your opinion?”

            “In my opinion? They would be liberty, equality, and fraternity. Definitely the virtues of the gods, and strength and justice.”

            “So, a nebulous grouping of all things good and praiseworthy?”

            “It would seem so.” Berthier nodded.

            “But why justice?” Marcus asked.

            “A modern society is built on justice. Without it, everything would be chaos.”

“I agree, but surely justice isn’t unique to the empire? I assume there is some form of justice in the free cities, and in the Republic.”

            “Well… yes, but I wouldn’t count being thrown into fighting pits and tortured by pirates as just.”

            “Why not? Justice is just punishing someone for a crime.”

            “I wouldn’t say that, sir. You would need laws in order to have crime. Those remote colonies don’t have any laws. Their punishments are random and arbitrary. Justice is the natural consequence of your actions, like a dropped ball will inevitably hit the floor.” Berthier paused, taking a breath before continuing. “The evil tortures in those places are above and beyond what the people deserve, justice doesn’t call for that.”

            “So, the death sentence is not just for petty theft?”

            “Right.”

            “And neither is a slap on the wrist for murder?”

            “I would have to agree, sir.”

            “But who decides what is an appropriate punishment?”

            Berthier thought for a moment, “I would say the government decides, which it does. But then you would ask by what authority they assign such punishments. And I would respond: the authority that there is nobody to argue with them.”

            “I knew you were smart for a reason.” Marcus couldn’t help a laugh. “We agree, then, that two different cultures could have two very different punishments for the same crime, and both are considered just.”

            Berthier thought for a moment, “I suppose that’s true.”

            Marcus nodded, “So justice isn’t really a specific law, or punishment for crime?”

            “No.” Berthier agreed. “I would have to agree with your implication that it’s simply the natural consequence of action. The form of justice depends on your situation.”

            “Well said!” Marcus was enjoying himself and it came out in his voice. “What is the natural consequence for murder, rebellion, and attacking imperial forces within the empire?”

            Berthier was silent for a moment. “Death.” He said.

            “So, using your own definition, was justice served today?”

            Berthier frowned, “You’re turning my words on me, sir.”

            “I’m an Imperial Commander, it’s my job to turn my enemies on each other.” That drew a smile from him, before Marcus continued. “According to The Directive which you quoted earlier, part of my responsibility is to make sure justice is served, no matter the consequence.”

            “No matter the consequence…” Berthier repeated almost whispering.

            “I don’t expect you to like it, Berthier. Indeed, I want to you speak out when you have something to say. As long as it’s not in front of the crew, I need your input, and your counsel. But I also need you to understand that consequences are something I deal with after I have served justice.”

            “Understood, sir.”

            “Thank you, XO. Inform the bridge to descend to bombard range, the facilities on the surface have been compromised. Proceed with the bombardment of insurrection strongholds.”

            Berthier stood and turned to the door. “Very good, sir.”