The inanity of some people drives me crazy.

I’ve been in an ongoing conversation the last few days with someone on the Academy of Art University Facebook app discussing the Egypt protest situation. Today that conversation just went somewhere I never expected: circumcision. That’s right. It went there. How or why is beyond me, but it did. Below are excerpts from the conversation:

Derek Fidler: Who’s ​been ​watching ​the ​news ​intently ​wondering ​what’s ​going ​to ​happen ​in ​Egypt?

Gisele Schoenberger: yeah, ​don’t ​go ​now!

Josh Rincon: It’s ​exciting ​to ​see ​what’s ​happening ​in ​Egypt ​and ​I ​have ​hope ​for ​our ​‘brothers’ ​fighting ​for ​their ​rights ​in ​a ​country ​that ​has ​been ​oppressed ​by ​a ​dictator ​for ​the ​last ​3 ​decades ​in ​which ​the ​United ​States ​has ​supported. ​FREE ​EGYPT!

Derek Fidler: “has ​supported” ​ie “still ​supports”

Gisele Schoenberger: Free ​Egypt… ​requires ​a ​megaload ​of ​education ​for ​the ​people; ​which ​the ​Taliban ​is ​NOT ​interested ​in ​assisting ​the ​humans ​who ​live ​there ​with. ​ ​Why ​are ​they ​so ​backward, ​anyway? ​ ​We ​are ​all ​evolving ​simultaneously ​and ​yet ​there ​are ​no ​expected ​hopes ​for ​each ​generation ​to ​acquire ​an ​education ​especially ​for ​the ​fair ​gender. ​ ​It ​freaks ​me ​out.

Josh Rincon: The ​Taliban ​have ​nothing ​to ​do ​with ​Egypt. ​They ​are ​concerned ​with ​the ​rulings ​in ​Afghanistan, ​not ​Egypt. ​That ​should ​answer ​your ​first ​question. ​As ​to ​your ​second ​question, ​I ​leave ​you ​this ​wonderful ​quote ​by ​Noam ​Chomsky, “If ​you ​assume ​that ​there ​is ​no ​hope, ​you ​guarantee ​that ​there ​will ​be ​no ​hope. ​If ​you ​assume ​that ​there ​is ​an ​instinct ​for ​freedom, ​that ​there ​are ​opportunities ​to ​change ​things, ​then ​there ​is ​a ​possibility ​that ​you ​can ​contribute ​to ​making ​a ​better ​world.”

Gisele Schoenberger: Good ​quote, ​hope ​you ​can ​abide ​by ​it. ​ ​Are ​you ​so ​sure ​about ​the ​taliban ​Not ​being ​a ​part ​of ​this ​insurgence? ​ ​Look ​at ​the ​news, ​the ​internal ​strife ​not ​driven ​by ​Mubarak ​is ​externally ​incited ​and ​names ​(as ​usual) ​are ​not ​being ​divulged. ​ ​Anderson ​Cooper ​was ​inside ​last ​eve ​in ​hiding, ​bcz ​journalists ​are ​being ​beaten ​by ​the ​insane ​wildebeasts ​native ​to ​that ​land. ​ ​It ​is ​not ​a ​highly ​educated ​people ​and ​they ​can ​be ​and ​are ​being ​stirred ​by ​religious ​fanatacism ​in ​the ​surrounding ​regions. ​ ​They ​are ​pawns ​in ​whose ​larger ​and ​eviler ​plans? ​ ​Abinadina- ​jacket ​probably. ​

Derek Fidler: Actually ​Egypt ​has ​one ​of ​the ​best ​educational ​systems ​in ​the ​region ​with ​compulsory ​education ​from ​age ​6-15. ​Over ​93% ​of ​children ​are ​enrolled ​in ​school ​and ​the ​literacy ​rate ​for ​the ​country ​is ​around ​73%. ​(Compared ​to ​the ​US ​which ​has ​less ​than ​80% ​functional ​literacy ​according ​to ​the ​NALS, ​Egypt ​looks ​quite ​good)

Additionally, ​there ​is ​no ​fundamentalist ​Islamic ​political ​organisation ​in ​Egypt ​and ​as ​a ​whole ​the ​few ​fundamentalists ​receive ​more ​publicity ​than ​the ​average ​Egyptian ​which ​skews ​the ​media.

Attempts ​to ​paint ​the ​situation ​as ​a ​fundamentalist ​take ​over ​is ​purely ​the ​western ​presses ​and ​governments ​trying ​to ​make ​up ​for ​the ​fact ​that ​they ​supported ​a ​horrible ​tyrant ​for ​30 ​years ​in ​the ​name ​of “stability/peace ​in ​the ​middle ​east” ​and ​are ​seeking ​to ​ensure ​that ​a ​pro-western ​leader ​comes ​into ​power ​after ​Mubarak; ​whether ​he ​is ​another ​tyrant ​or ​sincerely ​a ​good ​leader ​is ​irrelevant ​as ​long ​as ​he ​can ​be ​co-opted ​into ​the ​US/Israel ​hegemony.

Nevertheless, ​both ​Republicans ​and ​Democrats, ​including ​the ​Obama ​administration, ​are ​continuing ​to ​provide ​billions ​of ​dollars ​in ​military ​aid ​each ​year ​to ​Egypt ​which ​will ​remain ​our ​number ​2 ​recipient ​of ​foreign/military ​aid ​as ​long ​as ​a ​pro-Western ​leader ​is ​in ​power.

Gisele Schoenberger: Interesting ​information. ​ ​What ​kind ​of ​a ​leader ​do ​you ​want ​to ​see ​there, ​one ​that ​is ​of ​anti-western ​thought? ​ ​I ​think ​Western ​thought ​is ​cool. ​ ​The ​whole ​world ​should ​have ​the ​opportunity ​to ​have ​a ​Western ​Education. ​The ​education ​you ​refer ​to ​in ​the ​middle ​east ​is ​already ​sloshed ​around ​with ​anti-western ​sentiment ​until ​western ​thought ​is ​seen ​as ​‘other’ ​and ​not ​good, ​other.

What ​is ​the ​predominant ​religion ​over ​there; ​it’s ​not ​Judeo/Christian; ​ ​I ​think ​they ​are ​muslim ​and ​angry ​that ​everyone ​else ​in ​the ​world ​isn’t, ​so ​therein ​lies ​the ​heretical ​religious ​slant ​or ​tirade ​from ​extremism ​from ​the ​inside. ​It’s ​sad. ​ ​Most ​Americans ​want ​to ​Live ​and ​let ​live ​and ​live ​in ​peace ​on ​this ​planet. ​ ​Nobody ​want ​to ​go ​to ​war. ​ ​My ​dad ​didn’t, ​he ​was ​a ​boy ​of ​14 ​forced ​to ​and ​was ​destroyed ​by ​war.

Unfortunately, ​I ​see ​from ​internal ​journalists ​that ​there ​is ​a ​lot ​of ​bloodshed. ​ ​Anderson ​Cooper ​is ​not ​skewing ​his ​stuff, ​he ​is ​a ​liberal ​and ​he ​cares ​about ​humanity ​ ​... ​these ​people ​who ​are ​ending ​up ​broken ​up. ​ ​Yes, ​there ​are ​political ​forces ​around ​Egypt ​with ​fanatical ​and ​financial-power-gain​ ​viewpoints. ​ ​Who ​are ​you ​kidding?

​ ​Rioting ​in ​the ​streets ​and ​beating ​up ​the ​world ​media, ​c’mon. ​ ​These ​are ​educated ​people? ​ ​ ​Hmmm ​more ​Western ​thought ​and ​education ​needed; ​perhaps ​the ​inherent ​individual ​violent ​natures ​of ​all ​the ​men ​there ​in ​the ​ENTIRE ​region ​ ​would ​be ​better ​off ​if ​they ​were ​circumcised. ​ ​For ​some ​reason ​it ​just ​seems ​to ​stave ​off ​the ​violent ​ ​tendencies ​in ​the ​male ​nature ​in ​the ​first ​place. ​Compare ​world ​societies ​and ​figure ​it ​out ​yourself. ​ ​It ​should ​be ​mandatory ​for ​male ​humans ​born ​onto ​this ​planet. ​ ​Really ​all ​this ​fighting ​and ​aggression. ​ ​It’s ​disgusting ​we ​haven’t ​evolved ​past ​this ​stupidity.

Derek Fidler: There ​are ​stories ​like ​this ​one ​and ​thousands ​of ​others ​that ​prove ​positive ​how ​destructive ​pro-western ​backed ​dictators ​are ​to ​liberal ​ideology ​in ​the ​middle ​east. ​What ​temporary ​stability ​we ​gain ​comes ​at ​the ​cost ​of ​millions ​of ​oppressed ​people, ​trillions ​of ​lost ​dollars, ​and ​an ​increasing ​number ​of ​fundamentalist ​muslims.

We ​must ​realise ​that ​our ​involvement ​with ​politics ​and “aid” ​in ​the ​middle ​east ​is ​actively ​undermining ​the ​spread ​of ​freedom ​and ​democracy. ​We ​have ​continuously ​aided ​anti-democratic ​leaders ​in ​the ​middle ​east ​when ​it ​suits ​us ​and ​turned ​on ​them ​when ​they ​go ​against ​our ​wishes; ​we ​have ​supported ​such ​figures ​as ​the ​Shah ​of ​Iran, ​King ​Abdullah ​of ​Saudi ​Arabia, ​Saddam ​Hussein ​against ​the ​ayatollah, ​Osama ​bin ​Laden, ​the ​mujaheddin, ​and ​the ​Taliban ​against ​the ​Russians, ​and ​countless ​other ​ruthless ​leaders ​in ​the ​middle ​east ​as ​well ​as ​around ​the ​world.

We ​need ​to ​get ​out ​of ​their ​politics ​and ​bring ​our ​troops ​home ​before ​we ​can ​see ​real ​pro-democratic ​change ​in ​the ​middle ​east.

For more information regarding the protests in Egypt please read this article by Maajid Nawaz. The sooner people realise that Western-backed leadership are worse for democracy and freedom the sooner we will see peace in the middle east, an end to our military involvement in the region, and greater prosperity for all.

Image courtesy of New Statesmen

I just wanted to start a quick discussion on the musical merits of the closing years of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s. These years saw the synthesis of two of my favourite musical forms, Punk and Electronic, into what we now know as the beginning of New Wave music. Whether you like Punk, Electronic, and New Wave or not, I believe proper appreciation of all music requires a simple understanding of prior forms. Our generation has been affected by this considerably small movement more than perhaps any other when it comes to our view of modern electronic music. Had it not been for a handful of independently operating bands in North England and New York, the electronic music we hear today would be totally different, perhaps following a more American tradition such as Disco or a more German tradition such as Trance.

The synthesis of Punk and Electronic came in part by the development of the Moog Synthesizer, which allowed poor, independent bands to experiment with electronic instruments, the increasing popularity of Punk ideology, which encouraged untrained, lower-class musicians to produce music, and the arrival of Disco from the United States and Krautrock from Germany. For more information about the development of New Wave music, watch “Synth Brittania” by the BBC.

Below are a few of my favourite songs from the period, comprising of Punk, New Wave, and Electronic music between the years 1977 and 1984 (with the exception of In The Night by the Pet Shop Boys, release in 1985). Above is Yashar by Cabaret Voltaire.

1. Are Friends Electric - Gary Numan

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

2. Damaged Goods - Gang of Four

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

3. Moments in Love - Art of Noise

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

4. Smalltown Boy - Bronski Beat

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

5. Auto Modown/Space Girl Blues - DEVO

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

6. Wishing - A Flock of Seagulls

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

7. Money (That's What I Want) - Flying Lizards

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

8. Love Action - The Human League

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

9. Underpass - John Foxx

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

10. Mad World - Tears for Fears

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

11. Vienna - Ultravox

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

12. I'm Still Searching - Visage

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

13. This Must Be the Place (Naive Melody) - Talking Heads

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

14. In The Night (1985) - Pet Shop Boys

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

To remove files from this site contact the administrator here.

Amendment to Reaffirm the Constitution and Limit Governmental Power

Section 1.

The President shall not deploy or quarter troops abroad without the consent of Congress, through a Declaration of War, unless in times of emergency in which the nation, or people within the nation’s borders, are in imminent danger.

Section 2.

Congress shall make no law without explicit jurisdiction derived from the Constitution which shall be put forth in accompanying documentation. Laws challenged in the Judiciary without such documentation shall be required to put forth explicit Constitutional jurisdiction in documentation in a speedy manner.

Section 3.

Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income so long that the tax system is impartial to religious or political affiliation, age, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, or marital status, and does not reward or penalise any specific behaviour or character.

Section 4.

No representative of the Government shall receive compensation, neither in payment nor gift, in return for influence over legislation from any source.

I think the argument between free market and fair market individuals has been going on for long enough and it’s about time someone proposed a new figure in the equation. The parties today represent two sides of the same coin, one expounds the belief that our government should protect the freedom of commerce while the other believes that our government should control aspects of commerce. Both the power of commerce and the government has slowly risen year after year so now we only hear the slight ebb and flow of power between the two. Both parties, while arguing bitterly, have created a governmental system which benefits only commerce and government at the expense of the true sovereign power of any democratic nation, the people.

To any reasonable business person, the only people that truly matter are the customers: without them there would be no business. Likewise, our founders created a government in which all power was derived from the consent of the people: without people there would be no government. Often I feel that our current parties have forgotten this simple fact, and we have returned to the days in which absolute despotism reigns, although under a democratic guise. I believe power should flow amongst the three constituents—the people, commerce, and government—although with the acknowledgment that all power originates from the people. If we forget that last fact, we end up with government for its own sake, business for its own sake, and, worst of all, business and government in concert working for their own sake.

My proposed amendment redresses a few key grievances that I see as an affront to the power of the people: mainly the enlarged power of the Executive and the enlarged power of Congress in regard to law making, taxation, and partiality to certain interests.

First and foremost, the power of the President has grown beyond the execution of law to a domain in which the President has absolute power over the entire government. This absolute power derives from control of the military which has become the most expensive portion of the government’s discretionary spending. Through this, the executive can now bankrupt our entire nation with costly foreign activities. The original founders countered this eventuality by requiring Congress to provide a declaration of war in Article 1, Section 8; however, they failed to anticipate that Congress would usurp the consent of the people and diminish their own power while providing the President with the ability to deploy troops without a declaration of war, ie. the War Powers Resolution. My attempt to diminish these powers is two-fold. Section 1 reiterates the requirement for the government to abide by Article 1 Section 8 so that Congress regains structural control of the military. Secondly, I attempt to reiterate and reinforce the spirit of the Third Amendment by expanding its power to all activities of our military, both foreign and domestic. Had the founders assumed we would become an aggressor nation, as England was at the time of the Revolution, they would have included such a statement; however, it was assumed our military would solely be used for defense.

My focus for the second section is the reiteration of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Congress has passed many, many laws which have no Constitutional authority. Explicitly within the last two amendments of the Bill of Rights is the reservation of all rights to the people not enumerated to Congress and the States, and the idea that even the enumerated rights shall not infringe upon the rights of the people. As late as 1919, people still felt that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land and Congress was beholden to it, and as such felt it necessary to provision the Constitution with a prohibition of alcohol, granting Congress power to legislate on that singular issue. Since then our government has forgotten what its enumerated powers are and has taken more and more power and choice from the people, banning the proliferation of “illicit substances”, “illicit images”, and “illicit language”, while promoting ephemeral social ideas such as segregation and affirmative action, and allowing some marriages while banning other marriages. It is comical to me that at one time people felt they had to change the Constitution for a singular item like alcohol when today Congress can ban anything from harsh words to a particular cigarette brand without a single reference to the enumerated power that allows them to do so. I support an idea, that I have heard before, in which Congress must clearly reiterate their enumerated power in each piece of legislation they wish to pass. Additionally, in accordance with ex post facto, existing laws shall not be required to abide by the new Amendment until challenged in a court of law.

A legitimate government, with power derived from consent of the people, must have laws that the people can understand and abide, but who can understand or abide by a law that is over 54,000 pages long? Legitimate government must also treat all people equally under the law, but our income tax is amongst the most guilty of laws for treating people unfairly. Within its complexities are thousands of unfair agendas, designed to engineer the people into certain actions without their knowledge or consent. For example, the government encourages home ownership as a quick way to raise GDP and as a result has provided mortgage deductions and numerous home ownership credits. Unfortunately, this discriminates against low income renters who cannot gain access to these deductions. The IRS code also promotes bigger government by providing tax breaks and incentives to those who buy government bonds while double taxing dividend income and other corporate investment. Another example is the marriage tax penalty which originally was not a penalty but a reward. In 1969 the reward became a penalty, and in 2003 became a reward once again. Then there’s the single parent tax credits. If you have one child you get a small credit, and if you have more children you get larger credits, but if you invest or save some money—say, for your children’s education—outside of IRS approved accounts, your credits are taken away. My proposition would require Congress to create a tax system that treats all people equally by removing the rewards of credits and deductions, and the penalties of the AMT and investing. All persons, no matter their social circumstance, should be taxed equally with a person in the same circumstance.

The final section is focused not only on diminishing the power of the government, but limiting the power of special interests. The power of special interests has been important in American history since its founding, but in the past, influence was much harder to garner when Representatives met only a few months per year. Being a Representative now is a full time job, and quite often the Representatives rarely return to their represented states. I see the detachment of Representatives from their electors as the reason for the expansion of special interest power, and I write this section of my proposed Amendment with special attention to lobbyists and the activities of businesses, social advocates, and unions who all disregard the power of the people for the combined strength of business and government. The fact that lobbying is now an everyday part of business in Washington, that billions of dollars from the oil, drug, tobacco, auto, teaching, alcohol, investment, and recently tech industries are now flowing into Washington, that there are ex-Representatives earning six-figure incomes for their “services” is evidence enough that power is pooling at the capital when, truly, the power should be derived from only one place: the consent of the people. I propose to Constitutionally ban this flow of money from businesses, unions, and special interest groups into Washington so that it could be better spent employing people, developing new technologies, contributing to grassroots causes, education, or whatever else billions of dollars could go towards. I make my departure from free market people, who prefer all lobbyists to have their “freedom”, and also my departure from fair market people, who prefer their specific industries—whether business, governmental, or union—to have their “freedom”. I think the Representatives should never forget who their constituents are, who gave them their power, and who can take it away.

This is only the first Amendment I propose to right some of the wrongs with our current government, but there are many other issues which I feel only Amendments to the Constitution will right. Among these, I would propose an Amendment for a balanced budget and an Amendment guaranteeing all people an economical education with the fundamental choice of school. Perhaps soon I will have time to write about these other issues.

For anyone with some time, this is good reading. It’s the final text from the latest Proposition 8 hearing which Judge Walker overturned today. I’ve gotten to about page 10 but have to stop, although the whole thing is fascinating.

I am partial to saying that neither side has a strong “constitutional” argument and the entire matter is social and has nothing to do with law. The “same-sex marriage is constitutionally protected” argument is a huge stretch, and the reality of the matter still stands that the Constitution doesn’t grant the government power to marry individuals in the first place, much less decide who gets to marry. Marriage and “due process” are not the same. All the government need do is recognize all those that want to be married as married as it was done in Common Law days, and we’d be done with this whole argument. An excerpt I have read on early American marriage portrays the very system that we should return to:

The Dutch and Germans performed the wedding ceremony in their native languages, employing customs from their homelands. The Quakers held weddings in their meetinghouses. There, couples could marry themselves, often by reciting vows they devised, without a clergyman. For many years, Anglican traditions, based on the Book of Common Prayer, prevailed in the South.

Just looking at the signers of the Declaration of Independence would tell you that they wouldn’t agree on just one way to get married.

Marriage has been a pain in the ass in Western Culture since the Council of Trent, when society switched from Common Law marriages to religious marriages that had to be performed by a Roman Catholic priest. Ever since then, minority groups have fought their governments against marriage laws, eg. after the English Marriage Act of 1753 people would elope from Ireland to Scotland to marry under Scottish law. Is there any reason to think that after 400 years our governments would be able to pass a law that everyone could agree with? Not from what I’ve seen.

Additionally, people tend to forget that the Constitution is a legal document, not a moral document. America’s moral document is the Declaration of Independence in which the preamble famously states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Moral advocates on either side tend to think that both documents are the same, but in reality the Constitution only provides safeguards against the government interfering with people’s lives, not promoting or deciding what is Life, Liberty, and Happiness. If people were honest about the Constitutional argument, they would be arguing that the government has no right to decide who gets married, not whether one group is protected or not.

Pro-8 defendants originally argued about some moral superiority of heterosexual relationships, but this had no legal standing. The legal argument they’ve conjured up regard to statistics about raising children in heterosexual relationships, but I find it hard to believe that this information is useful considering the tiny number of same sex couples with children. The oddest argument I’ve noticed is the advancement of America through procreation. The last time I checked America had a growing population and suddenly allowing same-sex couples to marry wouldn’t jeopardize that growth rate unless these are the same people that think legalizing heroin would create an entire country of drug addicts, but that’s just conjecture on my part.

Con-8 proponents argue about the happiness they would gain from social acceptance and the freedom to choose who to marry. That sounds like something out of the Declaration to me. Arguing that the 14th Amendment protects the choice of whom to marry isn’t exactly the same argument I would make since the Constitution doesn’t grant anyone the right to marry, but having the right to live your life how you want is more American sounding than what the Pro-8 people are selling and that’s what counts to me.

Image Credit

That moment has finally come that I have dreaded for a long time: Expression Engine, my long time go-to CMS, has finally gone to a pay-only system.

For the last couple years, my clients have loved the fact that they could get a fully-functioning, robust, and feature filled CMS without paying anything more than the customization costs. On top of that, EE’s ease of use made training their employees a cinch since it handled content in a blog-style form which practically anyone could learn how to use. I loved EE, too. After quickly learning about the limitations of Wordpress, I moved on to EE and so it was the first CMS that I really learned the in’s and out’s of. It’s templating system was simple, practical, and highly modular. Pages could be broken into any number of sub-templates and conditions could be set so any number of sub-templates could be infinitely nested. And then there was the abundance of quality free, and cheap, modules and extensions that improved upon practically any foreseeable client need. Really, EE was a great CMS.

But now, like many successful tech companies, they have had to start charging for their product or else face the fact that expanding without steady income is a quick death warrant. So, upon the completion and debut of their new CodeIgniter-based version 2.0, I am saying my adieu.

The nail in the coffin is the new pricing scheme for EE2. The original pricing plans covered three tiers: a free community tier, a $100 non-profit tier, and a $250 enterprise tier. The new pricing scheme still offers three tiers but the community version is gone forever. The new tiers start at $75 for individual licenses with no member support, the second tier for non-profits is $150, and the enterprise tier is a whopping $300. Where I once could offer clients a simple, fully functional site for $500 built on the community version, I now would need to pass on the $300 to my clients for the for-profit version which is unreasonable. Not to mention it wouldn’t be truly open source if clients are forced to have an expensive proprietary CMS with a $300 entrance fee. Basing something on open source and being open source are two different things completely, and I no longer can support EE.

Now my top two options are Joomla and Drupal. I have always opposed Joomla due to its lack of features and overly simplistic CMS system, which really just leaves me Drupal. Lucky for me, Drupal is soon coming out with their newest release, version 7, which will bring Drupal down to a level that is easier to develop, and more importantly, easier to learn and maintain for my clients. Drupal 7 will also continue to be true to their open source beginnings and provide the full CMS at no cost. Whether they choose to provide specific features and support at different pay grades is welcome by me as that would provide Drupal with income for further development and also provide their customers with choice, and that’s what open source is all about.