There are rumblings that the reason our system doesn’t work is because we really don’t have a representative democracy. Now, I’m not sure what that means since there are many different forms of both representation and democracy.  At one extreme is anarcho-syndicalism and at the other is a democratically represented republic. But if the idea is that we should form policy around majority rule we can all kiss our negative liberties good-by. I’d prefer anarchism if for nothing more than my ability to exit under such a system.

The very-wise-for-his-age Will Wilkinson, writing about the Occupy movement, spends some time discussing what I see as modern tribalism and how we might think of it:

But we will never all agree. Refractory disagreement is a bedrock fact of liberal society. As is, I would add, the darkly utopian idea Mr Sanchez identifies: the notion that disagreement is a product of malign, illegitimate, external influence. We are much too confident in our political beliefs, and our over-confidence is sustained in part by just-so stories about why others fail to see things our way. The liberal media! Right-wing think tanks! The socialist indoctrination camps known as “colleges”! George Soros! The Koch brothers! The Bilderbergers! Corporations! The state! The military-industrial complex!

There is something profoundly satisfying about believing that one’s own team alone has seen through the fog of disinformation and propaganda to the real truth about the treacherous interests that stand between our condition and the reign of justice. And there is something terrifically exciting about the sense, often engendered by visible protest movements, that one’s own team is growing, that its narrative is catching on. Conversely, there is something profoundly dissatisfying, and a little bit demoralising, in acknowledging that most people will never accept many of ones’ most ardently-held convictions, and that, therefore, none of us will ever get to live in a society that closely matches, or even roughly approximates, our beloved ideals. But it’s true all the same. And it’s true all the same that our actual democracy, for all its problems, does about as well as democracy can be realistically expected to do, given the size and diversity of this country. Frankly, we’re pretty lucky our democracy works as well as it does. There’s a great deal we can do to make it a little better, but there’s very little we can do to make it a lot better, because we’ll almost never agree enough about the really big stuff.

And bless those disagreements. That’s not a bug, that’s a feature.

Thoughtful libertarians and former Reason Magazine contributor Julian Sanchez has a great piece on Occupy Wall Street and its ilk on democracy. Here are some snips:

For most of human history, we’ve spent our whole lives in social clusters of a few hundred people—we’re basically hardwired for groups of that size. That makes it easy to look at a throng of a few thousand out at a rally and tell yourself: “This is what democracy looks like.”  Except, of course, it isn’t really. Or at any rate, it’s only a tiny part of what democracy looks like.  A small group of people self-selected for their commitment to some set of shared goals and values may be able to pick a set of slogans to chant in unison, or resolve their limited disagreements by consensus process.  But real democracy in a pluralist society involves deep and often ineradicable disagreement—and not just on the optimal uses of public parks and other commons. It’s true, of course, that concentrated and wealthy interests routinely capture the apparatus of government, and use it to serve ends inimical to the general good. But a frame that sets up an opposition between “the 99%” and “the 1%” —or, if you prefer, between “Washington/media elites” and “Real America”—suggests a vain hope that profound political differences are, at least in some spheres, an illusion manufactured by some small minority.

[...]

I’m neither cynical enough to believe that our deeply flawed democracy is a complete sham, nor optimistic enough to hope the appearance of fundamental political conflict is a stage production masking an underlying harmony. But if disagreement is real—if large numbers of my fellow citizens sincerely hold very different views about what policy is best—then protest, however vital as a consciousness raising tool,  can only be a preparation for the more humdrum enterprise of convincing your neighbors with sustained arguments (or being convinced yourself), electing candidates, and all the rest. To imagine protest not as prologue to politics, but as a substitute for it, suggests a denial of the reality of pluralism, and an unwillingness to find out what democracy actually looks like.

Yeah, you know who you are.

Here is Andrew Sullivan’s Quote Of The Day II:

“I’d have to say that I like Trout Mask Replica, which came out in ’68, all the way through Bat Chain Puller – I mean, they represent the diversity of Beefheart. I’m a fan of the really innovative spirit of Beefheart came with the Magic Band, and they really hit it off in ’68,” – Jon Huntsman.

It’s a pretty good stretch of the imagination that I might ever vote for a John Huntsman but now knowing that he and I share a weird affection for Captain Beefheart (Don Van Vliet) his odds of getting my vote have increased substantially.

I wonder how much credit he affords Zoot Horn Rollo for the Magic Band’s genius?

I have to admit that when thinking about language I display my radical  inner right-winger.  It’s an unusual contradiction given the fact that I have occasional bouts of contempt for the constraints of arbitrary rules. That said, I often am left with such a lack of clarity when reading contemporary text that I wish people we be just a bit less lazy in writing. That also poses for me an economic contradiction, however, if one is to embrace the goal of efficiency and economy. That is to say that everything is best produced with a minimum of inputs.  Let’s take a recent text message I received from my daughter,

r u on ur way yet

From an economic perspective this communication should be celebrated. But my Luddite tendencies would have this written,

Are you on your way yet?

In that context my daughter’s message is 27% more efficient that mine as measured by the number of characters it takes to communicate the same question.  Yet, reading it seems to violate my aesthetic sensibilities. It offends my eyes.

Of course the problem with any form of conservatism is embrace of inevitable change. The reality is, as unfortunate as I find it, that I’ll just have to “deal with it…”

At home I have the reputation of being a grammar nag. My biggest pet peeve is the improper use of “well” vs “good.” But, of course, I’m way behind the language curve on this as I’m continually told by politicians that it’s OK to modify a verb with and adjective while they tell us how damned hard they’re working to provide “good paying jobs.”  That phrase, at least to my ear, helps discredit both their studiousness and their wisdom. It’s an anti-intellectual twofer. But I digress.

There’s an interesting article on the subject of punctuation in the WSJ by Henry Hitchings that discusses the evolution of punctuation as rhetorical devises instead of grammatical constructions. He offers this little graphic:

I’m hopeful that both the interrobang and the snark will soon show up on computer keyboards (it would also be nice for us in the financial community for the € to be standard issue.)

But there is other scant evolution on the use of punctuation in modern times. Kurt Vonnegut was an early leader when, in Slapstick, he defined his symbol for an asshole as an asterisk.  It has affected me at a base level noting since then every time I see an ” * ” – which now, pun intended, represents the butt of punctuation.

I’ve read on numerous occasions that the average American vocabulary is roughly 1/4 the size it was at the beginning of the 20th century. My aesthetic tendencies find this quite unfortunate and I think the richness of language is reduced by the obsolescence of colorful words increases. But the lack of variety also makes us communicate less well as we conflate words that have, etymologically speaking, significant differences like bigotry to racism, dislike to hate and sexism to misogyny.  Our ability to know the difference exasperates an already overly hyperbolic society.  So, what’s wrong with that? Think Newton; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It’s hard to get above the noise it causes in modern discourse. It also ruins the superlative effect of superlatives. Thus, we get clutter with multiple exclamation points for writers to make sure readers know a superlative is, in fact, the intent. Idiots!!!!!!!!!!!

It is both naive and romantic of me to hold any notion that we might resuscitate the beauty of English so it can be integrated into our texting and tweeting world.  But there is somewhat of an upside for those of us who love antique words. We now can get away with insulting politicians out-loud since we know that they are too lazy to look up words like snollygoster and blatherskite.  Unfortunately, using such language probably won’t get you a new BFF. 2 bad 4 u *

It wasn’t long ago when I viewed the world in a pretty binary fashion. I looked upon society as a competition between irreconcilable ideals; left v right, security v freedom, liberty v democracy. I can no longer abide these false dichotomies.

No, I’m not admitting that I was wrong on my greater instincts about how society should work. I’m still a radical for liberty – including capitalism.  I still have an increasing distrust of government and its ability to solve problems. I still am cynical about the motivations of do-goodery by professional do-gooders.  And I still think that Locke was right and Hobbes was wrong (although not as wrong as Rousseau.) The difference, I think, is that now I’m much more certain that I could be wrong. Not that I am.

I began publishing thoughts on the internet about 10 years ago. At first it was my own musing at the old pre-blog davebudge.com and then as a contributor at EnterStageRight.com and other “conservative” on-line publications. And as I increased my writing over the years I become nothing more that another member of the perennially pissed-off. I honed my skills in hurling churlish insults at my ideological others.  I became a caricature of the three Vs of blogging; vitriol, vituperation and veneer.  What a waste of time.

I have become increasingly disillusioned with conservative commentary with respect to seeing that the right’s confirmation bias is as stark as the left’s. I’m disappointed by most, left and right alike, in the failure to argue in good faith. And I’m just tired of everyone calling each other stupid or evil or lazy.

It was an encouraging break when, recently, ProblemBear of 4&20 Blackbirds decreed that being angry was personally counter-productive. And young Lizard, of the same ilk, has come to a similar reflection.  I’m also appreciative of the fact that it’s been several years since Pogie has called me an idiot and a while since Wulfgar has gone, well, Wulfgar on my ass. In both cases I think we’ve recently had some quite rational discourse.  And I even think that JC no longer thinks that I’m summarily full of shit. That, however, may be my confusing his demonstration of good manners toward me as opposed to what he really thinks. At least our interactions haven’t been personal polemics. Additionally, I would be remiss in not mentioning that jhwygirl is and always has been gracious when called out with competing ideas (even though I think she’s often a bit too quick on the trigger in promoting the lasts blast du jour from the left.) But at the end of the day she is always thoughtful and open to argument while very rarely resorting to ad hominem rhetoric.  And all the while I have to admit that any bad will between anyone with whom I become nasty is not all their fault. I’ve excelled, at times, in being an insufferable ass-hole. Just ask my kids.

I won’t go as far as to say that I am tolerant of everyone in the blogosphere. It is intolerably tedious to me when my co-bloggers at Electric City Weblog are treated in bad faith. All of them, Gregg, Rob and Travis are huge intellects with deep resumes (far beyond my own) and all deserve not simply courtesy but respect – even if one disagrees with their thinking. As I’ve said in the past, I often hold back over there because I’m afraid that they will be painted with guilt by association to me. They are all more  thoughtful and gracious than I might ever be and I’m privileged to be able to publish with them.  My inclination is almost always to tell their detractors to “fuck off” but I know that all of them would prefer to do their own defense.  But just for the record, if you refer to Rob as “purfessur” or some such you can take it as a given that I’m telling you to “fuck off.”

I think it was about six months ago when I decided that I would try my best to knock-off the insults. I’ve violated that rule from time to time but, overall, I’m working on my manners.    The upshot to my own behavior is that I’m no longer perpetually pissed-off. I no longer  think that every motivation is suspect and has ulterior motives. I no longer care to fight. In a twelve step program this would be called living one’s way into better thinking rather than thinking one’s way into better living.

What does seem profitable to me is looking for new, big, ideas. It also appears to me that I would profit by attempting to understand my opponents motivations and logic to the point where I can argue their position as well as I can argue my own.  That’s hard to do. Our thinking gets subsumed by our experiences and maybe Descartes was right to hold suspect all that we perceive to be real.  The best example is the modern libertarian  notion that our rights are being continually attacked. That may be true if one is a white male but if one is a gay black women freedom is looking damn respectable when compared to life in 18th century America. As always, where you stand depends on where you sit. We all profit from keeping that in mind (and yet another reason to read John Rawls.)

So, if I could ask anything of everyone who engages in political and philosophical discourse it would be to at least try to approach the world with a great deal more of good faith and stop calling each other names. There are good socialists and there are good capitalists and no one has a monopoly on truth. No one.

To correct what the Wizard of Oz should have said, it’s not a matter of how much people like you. What really matters is how much you like them.  That’s a matter of choice.

Thanks.

See you later.

Hey all you ballet fans! Hey all you baseball fans! The Missoula Osprey game of August 20th includes a benefit for Rocky Mountain Ballet Theatre.

An Osprey game is always a great night out.  Beyond the aspiring athletes there are silly physical challenges for willing fans who step up to make asses of themselves, great music and cheering crowds.

And of course there’s food for all from $3.00 hot dogs to Cold Stone Ice Cream and, or course, peanuts, Cracker Jack and candy. Just enough to keep your little kids awake with little risk of having to scrape them off the ceiling.

So, here’s the deal: The Missoula Osprey have reserved a block of very good seats right on the third base line from which a generous portion of the proceeds goes to Rocky Mountain Ballet Theatre. Tickets are the regular price at $10 each. There are two ways you can buy tickets that will benefit RMBT. The first is to go to the Osprey on-line Group Portal Login and  purchase your tickets.  Going this route is the fastest way of getting it done but there is an additional handling charge for the convenience.

For those of you who are a bit more price sensitive you can also contact RMBT and get a voucher that you can use to purchase your ticket either at the Osprey downtown office or at the park box office.  The contact information is:

Rocky Mountain Ballet Theatre, 2704 Brooks, Missoula (406) 549-5155

And, if you really need them to, they probably can deliver them.

The dancers will perform at around 6:45 -  just before the game and, although it’s only a rumor at this point, they might even do another bit at the seventh inning stretch.

Oh, and BTW, that’s my kid in the picture at the top.  She’ll be there. So will I – but don’t let that stop you from showing up and having a great night.

If you have any other questions drop me a line at dave@davebudge.com or to RMBT at rmbtrs@aol.com.

Hope to see you there.

You can follow me @davebudge

Click on images to enlarge.

Before

After

Before

After

I still have another set of stairs to build at the bottom of the garden – and a fence – and a gate. And then pea gravel between the beds. But we’re getting there.

Missed in the jubilation of the killing of OBL was an election in Canada.

May 3 (Bloomberg) — Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper won a majority of seats in Parliament for the first time, giving his Conservative Party a mandate to secure the economic recovery with additional tax cuts and erase the country’s deficit with curbs on government spending.

Tax cuts? Spending cuts? A progressive country indeed.

John Ensign gave his farewell speech in the Senate today in which he apologized to the Senate.

To my Senate colleagues, I would like to take a moment to apologize for what you have each gone through as a result of my actions; I know that many of you were put in difficult situations because of me, and for that I sincerely apologize.

That’s nice, John. I have but one response: Fuck you! How about an apology to your voters?

It’s been almost two years since I put a post on this site.  For the most part I’ve just been using it as my home page to keep my favorite links in a place that is both handy and familiar. More importantly, however, is that I been doing most of my posting at Electric City where my attention has been on the Econ beat.

My co-bloggers at ECW are surely more astute and better writers than I am.  I would suggest that I’m an outlier in that group insofar as I’m  more libertarian – almost to the point of being an anarchist nowadays.  I’m also far more banal and churlish as well.  Therein lies the rub.

Upon reflection I see that I have been prone to significantly “hold back” at ECW whether it’s in response to a comment or writing a post that I think my co-bloggers could be painted with guilt by association in their public and professional lives.  I’m sensitive to that out of my great respect for each of them.  I also often wonder if they don’t participate as much due to that concern and my propensity to lob F-bombs at morons.

I also wonder if my increasing (at an increasing rate) interest in esoteric economic theory detracts from the flavor of the site and overall interest of ECW’s reader base.  What I know for sure is that, for the most part, I’m writing away from the average audience there since most people, save those in economics and finance, aren’t interested in things highly theoretical based on abstractions developed by thinkers the popular culture largely ignores.  But it is exactly those ideas that come closest to providing me the intellectual satisfaction I need.

Finally, there are so many things that I should write about that are more personal; family, food, music, poetry, etc. that I have been neglecting – and this isn’t due to my affiliation at ECW – that seem so much more appropriate here than there.  On a certain level I’ve posted things there simply because my co-bloggers are otherwise occupied.  I don’t think, in retrospect, that makes ECW more attractive.

Anyhow, I don’t know what my future is with respect to blogging. I’m sure I won’t stop. I’m also sure that, lately at least, it hasn’t been at all satisfying.