Thursday, August 18, 2005
Photoblogging
Thanks to Eric's family. They were giving this one-quarter-megapixel camera away for free. It's not high-res, but OMFG it's a camera that actually *has* a lens and apperture (As opposed to the pinhole system of that old JL2005A-based camera)
More photos: I'm starting to get used to the way the camera handles exposure and focus.
Patti fills the house with these flying pig things. I guess its some weird inside marital joke between her and Dave. I don't care what it is, pigs make me angry.
I hate them because they are filthy, dirty, ugly animals. That, and they come from farms, and farms are depressing because they are rural and remote. If pigs are capitalist, then bears are communist. Therefore: dinosaurs must be socialist libertarians. (since there aparently aren't many of those anymore.)
And this whole thing just gave me an idea:
It's the UN! During the heat of the cold-war nonetheless.
I suppose this would be about Berlin, or who gets what halves of Germany.
These are the delegates:
Obviously, the Russian *must* be my brother's red-shirted teddy-bear. Because, bears *are* communist.
And if you have bears are communist because of capitalist pigs. Therefore, in this cold-war scenario, it only makes sense for the pig to be American. You know, as in:
American Capitalist Pig! naturally.
And because I said so, Dinosaurs are socialist. Actually, I probably said they were socialist libertarians. Well, we can just forget about the libertarian thing here, this is the cold war, after all. You sort of need a big government to protect you, right?
Okay, I'm finished.
# posted by H_R : 10:34 AM
Comments:
<< Home
I'm moving in on the 20th: This Saturday.
I found it in the same pile of plushies I found Cam's bear. The pig is one of the multitudes of flying pigs Patti has around the house.
I suppose the idea of socialist libertarians is sort of an oxymoron, but yet a very idealistic one at that. I mean, if it were politically possible, I would be a socialist libertarian. But socialism requires increased goverment size, bureaucracy and regulation, while libertarianism, by principal, is against large government and regulation. Now, I agree with different parts of these policies. I don't think the government has any business in prohibiting same-sex marriage, abortion, certain narcotics policies (which I believe make the drug 'problem' far worse). So socially, I am very, very libertarian. However, economics are different. I beleieve it is the goverment's responsibility to ensure the country's economic stability and viability. There are some things outside of the government's control, that is true. But there are some things that it can do that can make the difference between recession and prosperous growth. I'm not a communist, because when the goverment owns everything, there is corruption abound. I just recognize that socialism recognizes the roles of economics, business and government for what they are. The goal of business is to thrive and acquire capital. The goal of government is to defend and maintain order for a population. The principal being that the government runs things with the welfare of the population in mind. Economics are pretty important, so economic welfare is one of these things. I think in many circumstances, socialism (Not communism) effectively acknowledges the need for a population to posess private wealth for business to function, while addressing economic issues with a greater arsenal of regulation options than de-regulationism has at it's disposal.
Ok, I'm done with my thesis now.
Post a Comment
I found it in the same pile of plushies I found Cam's bear. The pig is one of the multitudes of flying pigs Patti has around the house.
I suppose the idea of socialist libertarians is sort of an oxymoron, but yet a very idealistic one at that. I mean, if it were politically possible, I would be a socialist libertarian. But socialism requires increased goverment size, bureaucracy and regulation, while libertarianism, by principal, is against large government and regulation. Now, I agree with different parts of these policies. I don't think the government has any business in prohibiting same-sex marriage, abortion, certain narcotics policies (which I believe make the drug 'problem' far worse). So socially, I am very, very libertarian. However, economics are different. I beleieve it is the goverment's responsibility to ensure the country's economic stability and viability. There are some things outside of the government's control, that is true. But there are some things that it can do that can make the difference between recession and prosperous growth. I'm not a communist, because when the goverment owns everything, there is corruption abound. I just recognize that socialism recognizes the roles of economics, business and government for what they are. The goal of business is to thrive and acquire capital. The goal of government is to defend and maintain order for a population. The principal being that the government runs things with the welfare of the population in mind. Economics are pretty important, so economic welfare is one of these things. I think in many circumstances, socialism (Not communism) effectively acknowledges the need for a population to posess private wealth for business to function, while addressing economic issues with a greater arsenal of regulation options than de-regulationism has at it's disposal.
Ok, I'm done with my thesis now.
<< Home
