(Corporate Quotient + Government Control Quotient + Government-Corporation Partnership Bonus + Religion bonus)/[(People + 0.5%)^(Number of Executives / Total Population) * Proximity] = Authoritarian Quotient
Where the Corporate Quotient (a) = total workforce (b) / number of executives (c)
and the Government Control Quotient (d) = Republican Sum (e) / (Democrat Sum (f) - Independent Sum (g) )
where the Republican Sum (e) = total number of republicans in Congress (h) + 10 for a republican president (i) + 5 for each conservative judge (j) + 15 bonus for holding a majority in Congress (k) + 5 bonus for holding a majority in the SJC (m)
where the Democrat Sum (f) = total number of democrats in Congress (n) + 10 for a democrat president (o) + 5 for each liberal judge (p) + 15 bonus for holding a majority in Congress (q) + 5 bonus for holding a majority in the SJC (r)
where the Independent Sum (s) = the number of Independents in Congress (and if so the SJC and the presidency) (t) + the percent of votes received by an Independent in the last presidential election (u).
and where the Government-Corporation quotient (v) = the Republican Sum (e) - the number of monopolies broken up in the last presidential term (w)
and the Religion Bonus (x) = (number of people practicing a religion (y) / total adult population of the United States) (z) + 1/10th of the Republican Sum
and People (!)= the population of the United States at the last census (@) + 0.5% to the power of the number of executives (c) / the total adult population (z)
and Proximity (#) = the average population density of the country ($)
That is to say:
Authoritarian Quotient = (a+d+v+x) / (!#)
or
Authoritarian Quotient = {(b/c)+(h+10i+5j+15k+5m)/[(n+10o+5p+15q+5r)-(t+u)]+h+10i+5j+15k+5m-w+[y/z+1/10(h+10i+5j+15k+5m)]}/[@ + 0.5@^(c/z) * $]
Explanation:
The larger this number is the more authoritarian this country is. The greater the fraction the more libertarian this country is. 1+ is Authoritarian. 0-0.5 is Libertarian. 0.5-1 is middle of the road. Try it sometime, logically it should work. Let's see if in real life it does. I'll give it a shot when I've got time.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Thursday, February 9, 2006
When It Comes to Sex
Let's talk about sex for a minute. What the hell is so wrong about sex? You wouldn't be here if not for sex. Your parents have had, will have, may right now be having sex, so have your grandparents and their parents before them. Back and back, to the beginning of time, we have all had sex. And, I'm all for sex. But some people believe that sex for reasons other than children is wrong, that it is immoral or against God's plan. Retracting... Some people believe that premarital sex is wrong, that it is immoral, against God's plan. Or that homosexual sex is immoral, blasphemous. There are people who believe that the world is too loose with sex today. There are people who believe that the world isn't loose enough with sex today. There are people who don't know what to think about sex. There are people who've never had sex and who's sole purpose for dating is to have sex. There are people who have had sex, many a time frequently, and want to have more. There are people who've had sex once or twice, or a hundred times who don't want to have sex again.
In short, there are a lot of opinions about sex and a lot of reasons why people say what they say and believe what they believe about sex. As a person, I cannot describe sex without my own personal biases, for if I could described another's view adequately, then it would have to be my view in the first place. Not only with sex, but with most if not all issues that we debate today, one only knows best their own views. That said, I can only give my own views. And here they are:
Sex is a completely natural and extremely expressive act. It is a way in which to experience with someone else something which cannot be fully achieved or appreciated alone.
There are two types of sex: sex for pleasure and sex for emotional attachment.
Sex for pleasure foregoes a bond between any two specific people. Partners become just a vessel for achieving a high watermark, the fulfillment of potential sexual pleasure. Most of the time these people don't have emotional attachment to one another and many times don't ever have sex again. Case and point, the one-night-stand or "hooking up" at a party, bar, or like establishment. It is done for pleasure not emotional fulfillment.
Sex for emotional attachment is sex for the purpose of "becoming one" with the one you love. In short, this type of sex is "relationship sex." Some believe that this is the most fulfilling type of sex, that it is sex that bonds two persons on a level beyond that of the physical world. Of course, this holds true for those searching for a bond beyond the physical world. One looking for pleasure would likewise say that their version is just as fulfilling, if not more.
Of course, there is debate on what types of sex are natural or unnatural, against God's will. Sex is defined as penetration of a sex organ into something else on another's body. Of course this sex organ could be a strap-on and the something else could be any number of places (typically, oral, anal, and vaginal) on a subject of either gender. Aside from definitions, we as a society decide which types are acceptable and which are not. I have my opinion and you have yours and there's nothing wrong with having opinions (in my opinion) just so long as one's opinions does not hurt others or oneself. I believe that there is nothing wrong with any type of sexual activity, that all have their merits and drawbacks and all have their dangers. When done carefully, all sex acts can be both a pleasurable and emotionally bonding experience.
There are those who believe that there are some types of sex that are wrong, immoral, or against God's will. Primarily I have to say that if God truly didn't want something to happen, He/She/It/Etc. could have and would have stopped it a long time ago. If God is perfect then God does not make mistakes, does not have accidents. Therefore, I believe that God has no problem with any kinds of sex involving consenting and understanding participants. Personally, I think that the whole world would be better if we all had more protected sex. But that's just me.
As to the claim that sex can be wrong or immoral, I'm certain that if God in God's infinite wisdom does not find it immoral, then we as imperfect people should strive for the same.
I believe that sex is fun. It is a way to live and to express yourself, that we should not limit consenting and understanding participants from engaging in any type of sex that they prefer. Personally, being straight, I find certain types of sex more appealing than others, both on a physical and emotional level, but I don't see why anyone should be allowed to tell people what they should be attracted too. Of course, that is just my opinion.
In short, there are a lot of opinions about sex and a lot of reasons why people say what they say and believe what they believe about sex. As a person, I cannot describe sex without my own personal biases, for if I could described another's view adequately, then it would have to be my view in the first place. Not only with sex, but with most if not all issues that we debate today, one only knows best their own views. That said, I can only give my own views. And here they are:
Sex is a completely natural and extremely expressive act. It is a way in which to experience with someone else something which cannot be fully achieved or appreciated alone.
There are two types of sex: sex for pleasure and sex for emotional attachment.
Sex for pleasure foregoes a bond between any two specific people. Partners become just a vessel for achieving a high watermark, the fulfillment of potential sexual pleasure. Most of the time these people don't have emotional attachment to one another and many times don't ever have sex again. Case and point, the one-night-stand or "hooking up" at a party, bar, or like establishment. It is done for pleasure not emotional fulfillment.
Sex for emotional attachment is sex for the purpose of "becoming one" with the one you love. In short, this type of sex is "relationship sex." Some believe that this is the most fulfilling type of sex, that it is sex that bonds two persons on a level beyond that of the physical world. Of course, this holds true for those searching for a bond beyond the physical world. One looking for pleasure would likewise say that their version is just as fulfilling, if not more.
Of course, there is debate on what types of sex are natural or unnatural, against God's will. Sex is defined as penetration of a sex organ into something else on another's body. Of course this sex organ could be a strap-on and the something else could be any number of places (typically, oral, anal, and vaginal) on a subject of either gender. Aside from definitions, we as a society decide which types are acceptable and which are not. I have my opinion and you have yours and there's nothing wrong with having opinions (in my opinion) just so long as one's opinions does not hurt others or oneself. I believe that there is nothing wrong with any type of sexual activity, that all have their merits and drawbacks and all have their dangers. When done carefully, all sex acts can be both a pleasurable and emotionally bonding experience.
There are those who believe that there are some types of sex that are wrong, immoral, or against God's will. Primarily I have to say that if God truly didn't want something to happen, He/She/It/Etc. could have and would have stopped it a long time ago. If God is perfect then God does not make mistakes, does not have accidents. Therefore, I believe that God has no problem with any kinds of sex involving consenting and understanding participants. Personally, I think that the whole world would be better if we all had more protected sex. But that's just me.
As to the claim that sex can be wrong or immoral, I'm certain that if God in God's infinite wisdom does not find it immoral, then we as imperfect people should strive for the same.
I believe that sex is fun. It is a way to live and to express yourself, that we should not limit consenting and understanding participants from engaging in any type of sex that they prefer. Personally, being straight, I find certain types of sex more appealing than others, both on a physical and emotional level, but I don't see why anyone should be allowed to tell people what they should be attracted too. Of course, that is just my opinion.
Wednesday, February 1, 2006
One Nation Divided
I figured since I've launched unwilling-dystopia 2.0 that I should explain my choosing for the title.
We as Americans are part of a nation where each and every citizen is (supposed) to be allowed to agree with or disagree with political bodies without fear of reprisal. Because of this, we are one nation divided amongst ourselves. Except for a few short instances, we as Americans have chosen to proclaim our differences in the most vocal ways possible and as members of this country it is our right to do so.
Of course, there are things you can't say, because they are harmful to others. Slander is illegal, for good cause. As is libel. You can't yell bomb on an airplane and expect to get away with it, and for good reason too.
The biggest fear of those in power is to lose power. Of course, George Washington stepped down after two terms of his own free will. It just goes too show us that he was an exceptional and humble man. For the most part however, politicians like power, as does most everyone. And, a funny little thing happens when one sect of society or one group believes itself to be in a firm grasp of the majority, they make the minority opinion seem wrong, silly, impractical, pompous, vague, unstable, laughable, and immoral.
All of the sudden, opposing opinion is "ill-timed" or "insensitive". Anything that the party believes is the law of the land and anything said out against it will be seen as (in this country) unpatriotic. "You are not supporting your country," they say. "You have no pride in your nation." Then, all of the sudden, you are the bad guy. You are the enemy. If you don't like what they have to say, you must say nothing at all. There is no debate; our will is complete; our word is final. We are the majority; we are in charge; they voted for us; you do not matter. This is the way of things.
If democracy is majority rule and minority acceptance, then put me down for something else. If I was ever in charge, I'd redefine democracy. To me democracy is majority rule and minority challenge. It is politics at it's finest, where all sides debate issues and come to a compromise.
In a country where one rules all, ideas, in this case protectionism, are labeled as defeatist, that someone who believes in these concepts are weak and stupid. Let me tell you about a person who believed that "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world..." He was our first president.
[To further concrete his credibility he also said: "...Avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty." and "...Cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible...avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt....it is essential that you...bear in mind, that towards the payments of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not...inconvenient and unpleasant..."]
He realized of course that a fledgling country is not safe on the world stage and indeed until WWII we remained very isolationist. But now, because members of our political process have an ear turned towards the special interests of overseas groups and conglomerate organizations, we are pressed into international situations. When these people might benefit economically from a war or conflict, we are told to fight for our country, in essence, to make those in power stronger and wealthier.
Republicans controlled Congress during the mid-20th century because if you were Democrat during this time, you were tossed aside, because they couldn't fight Communism the way Republican war hawks could. Though in the end, economic sanctions have worked when properly enacted by Democratic presidents, in Cuba, post-WWI Germany, post-WWII Japan, and others.
Protectionism = defeatism? Let's break down the word protectionism. It's root is "protect". To protect means to keep safe. Defeatism means to be defeated. Any way you swing it, safe does not equal defeated, rather quite the opposite. Of course, they are careful in choosing a word to describe protectionism. Defeatism is "un-manly" and weak. One with a defeatist attitude is doomed to failure. How many times must I ask why this even becomes a player in politics. It seems that some people need to have their egos deflated. Americans are not better than anyone else, we only have it better than many others.
Then they say that protectionism does not work. Actually, protectionism does not fail if one actually follows the definition correctly. To protect one's country they must provide job opportunities for every citizen. Products bought by it's citizens must be made in the country and those that make them must be able to afford them. Americans must travel abroad to learn. They must have an incentive to bring this knowledge back home with them. They will further succeed if they export goods to other countries. And, most importantly, maintain an education system second-to-none in the world. Then protectionism will work, as it did for 170 years.
Either that or we must force the rest of the world to be equal by our set standards (of course, still prosecuting homosexuals) and to enact labor laws, workers rights, and most importantly a minimum wage. Having such, products will not cost less for manufacturers if assembled in other countries. This is the path set before the Republican Party today. To succeed in strengthening this country they must control the rest of the world.
Personally, I believe that instead of pushing change off on other people, that it is time that we ourselves change, that to accomplish our goals we step back from traditional rules of I came, I saw, I conquered, and work internally to accomplish our goals. Liberals believe that the change must come from within.
Furthermore, I for one believe that until one path or another is followed through to completion, that we will remain one nation bitterly divided.
We as Americans are part of a nation where each and every citizen is (supposed) to be allowed to agree with or disagree with political bodies without fear of reprisal. Because of this, we are one nation divided amongst ourselves. Except for a few short instances, we as Americans have chosen to proclaim our differences in the most vocal ways possible and as members of this country it is our right to do so.
Of course, there are things you can't say, because they are harmful to others. Slander is illegal, for good cause. As is libel. You can't yell bomb on an airplane and expect to get away with it, and for good reason too.
The biggest fear of those in power is to lose power. Of course, George Washington stepped down after two terms of his own free will. It just goes too show us that he was an exceptional and humble man. For the most part however, politicians like power, as does most everyone. And, a funny little thing happens when one sect of society or one group believes itself to be in a firm grasp of the majority, they make the minority opinion seem wrong, silly, impractical, pompous, vague, unstable, laughable, and immoral.
All of the sudden, opposing opinion is "ill-timed" or "insensitive". Anything that the party believes is the law of the land and anything said out against it will be seen as (in this country) unpatriotic. "You are not supporting your country," they say. "You have no pride in your nation." Then, all of the sudden, you are the bad guy. You are the enemy. If you don't like what they have to say, you must say nothing at all. There is no debate; our will is complete; our word is final. We are the majority; we are in charge; they voted for us; you do not matter. This is the way of things.
If democracy is majority rule and minority acceptance, then put me down for something else. If I was ever in charge, I'd redefine democracy. To me democracy is majority rule and minority challenge. It is politics at it's finest, where all sides debate issues and come to a compromise.
In a country where one rules all, ideas, in this case protectionism, are labeled as defeatist, that someone who believes in these concepts are weak and stupid. Let me tell you about a person who believed that "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world..." He was our first president.
[To further concrete his credibility he also said: "...Avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty." and "...Cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible...avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt....it is essential that you...bear in mind, that towards the payments of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not...inconvenient and unpleasant..."]
He realized of course that a fledgling country is not safe on the world stage and indeed until WWII we remained very isolationist. But now, because members of our political process have an ear turned towards the special interests of overseas groups and conglomerate organizations, we are pressed into international situations. When these people might benefit economically from a war or conflict, we are told to fight for our country, in essence, to make those in power stronger and wealthier.
Republicans controlled Congress during the mid-20th century because if you were Democrat during this time, you were tossed aside, because they couldn't fight Communism the way Republican war hawks could. Though in the end, economic sanctions have worked when properly enacted by Democratic presidents, in Cuba, post-WWI Germany, post-WWII Japan, and others.
Protectionism = defeatism? Let's break down the word protectionism. It's root is "protect". To protect means to keep safe. Defeatism means to be defeated. Any way you swing it, safe does not equal defeated, rather quite the opposite. Of course, they are careful in choosing a word to describe protectionism. Defeatism is "un-manly" and weak. One with a defeatist attitude is doomed to failure. How many times must I ask why this even becomes a player in politics. It seems that some people need to have their egos deflated. Americans are not better than anyone else, we only have it better than many others.
Then they say that protectionism does not work. Actually, protectionism does not fail if one actually follows the definition correctly. To protect one's country they must provide job opportunities for every citizen. Products bought by it's citizens must be made in the country and those that make them must be able to afford them. Americans must travel abroad to learn. They must have an incentive to bring this knowledge back home with them. They will further succeed if they export goods to other countries. And, most importantly, maintain an education system second-to-none in the world. Then protectionism will work, as it did for 170 years.
Either that or we must force the rest of the world to be equal by our set standards (of course, still prosecuting homosexuals) and to enact labor laws, workers rights, and most importantly a minimum wage. Having such, products will not cost less for manufacturers if assembled in other countries. This is the path set before the Republican Party today. To succeed in strengthening this country they must control the rest of the world.
Personally, I believe that instead of pushing change off on other people, that it is time that we ourselves change, that to accomplish our goals we step back from traditional rules of I came, I saw, I conquered, and work internally to accomplish our goals. Liberals believe that the change must come from within.
Furthermore, I for one believe that until one path or another is followed through to completion, that we will remain one nation bitterly divided.
Unwilling-Dystopia 2.0
So, yeah, I've decided to remake the site to better tailor it to what I was speaking about. The black background was too drab anyways. Hopefully, I'll post something soon, 'cause we all know how much you people like to argue with me.
Peace,
FlyFreeForever.
Peace,
FlyFreeForever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)