Outsourced Democracy

Scott Adams took a break from vainly trying to convince people that stealing copyrighted material is, in fact, stealing to suggest a novel idea. His basic idea is to leverage the innovations which have given us barely comprehensible, hesitantly English speaking tech support workers to solve the problems of our democracy:

It's common knowledge that all major government decisions in the United States are made via a process that Thomas Jefferson described in the constitution as 'lobbyists bribing weasels'. Voters attempt to solve this problem by electing the weasels who do the best job lying about their intentions to change the system. So far this hasn't worked.

That's why we need to outsource the important decisions to India. I'm sure a consulting firm in India could help the United States come up with a coherent energy policy, a plan for universal health care, a cure for global warming, and an anti-terrorism plan.

He further goes on to suggest that these plans would then be debated in the public sphere for implementation by our politicians. Having the plans available, though, would allow for public debate which is completely lacking now.

Communist Art

In today's Dilbert Blog entry, Scott Adams posits:

I think a reasonable person can dislike capitalism and wish for a more socialist world where art is free for all takers. But a reasonable person can't expect that a socialist world would produce nearly as much art. That's bat-shit thinking.

His justification is that the time and effort he spent building Dilbert, pretty much dawn-to-dusk for 10 straight years with minimal time off, wouldn't be worth it if he wasn't able to achieve his level of economic wealth. This is, basically, the main problem with strict communism: the number of people willing to put forth the time and effort to become a doctor, start a business, create new technologies, etc., wouldn't be wouldn't be so inclined if they received the same rewards as a cubicle worker who spends more of his work hours on the Internet than doing actual work. This being said, I can certainly appreciate his argument.

However, it falls apart in that the vast majority of artists don't have his level of dedication (or, to be honest, talent). The vast majority of artists putz around with their painting or sculpting or hot gluing or cross-stitching, assuming that it should be enough to make them a living. Most artists, i.e., the non-commercially viable artists, don't have the talent or dedication to actually put out art that other people would actually place value in (shown, in our society, by paying money for it). As they can't make a living as an artist, they instead find a job working as a barista or English Garden's cashier. If we lived in a communist society, they'd be able to make the same living creating their shitty art that they would by ringing up my flat of azaleas. It's just the good artists - the ones who put in the time, effort, and dedication to make items of true value to society - who would be disinclined to create art.

The net result isn't that we would have less art, as Adams suggests. We would have less good art and a whole lot more shitty art, while I'd have to learn how to steam a latte without burning myself.

How the surge can work

In dilbertblog today, Scott Adams asks how the surge can work:

How the surge can work:

1. Various leaders of Al Qaeda and insurgent groups are captured or killed. This has already happened in at least one situation, in the case of Ahmed Farhan Hassan, who was captured last week.
2. Allowing diplomacy an opportunity to work. Having a peaceful Baghdad and Anbar allow the Iraqi government and U.S. diplomats to work with local leaders to sway their support from insurgents and Al Qaeda to the Iraqi government. This has already happened in Anbar province, where many local tribal leaders have repudiated Al Qaeda and have persuaded many of their people to join the Iraqi military or police forces.
3. Imposing a cease-fire between the Sunni and Shiia militias which have been engaging in revenge killings with each other. There's a hope that an imposed cease-fire will allow the individuals and opportunity to honorably allow the Iraqi government and U.S. forces to protect their populations which they felt were threatened by the other side.
4. Give the local economy a chance to rebuild. As people see that having the Iraqi government and U.S. forces a peace that allows them to go to work, open their shops, and try to find a normal way of life in a freer Iraq they will see a strong difference between what the Iraqis and U.S. are trying to impose - safe, normal life - and what Al Qaeda and the militias are trying to impose - violence and lawlessness. This will sap local support from the militias and Al Qaeda.
5. Give the Iraqis a chance to build up. The entire U.S. strategy to this point has been "Stand down as the Iraqis stand up." This has been difficult, to say the least, as untrained, green Iraqis and recruits are killed by insurgents an Al Qaeda. giving the Iraqis time to fully train and equip their military and police forces without having their recruits and raw forces killed by terrorist attacks will put them in position to maintain the peace.

Quote of the Day

Scott Adams -

There are many things about North Korea. The national color is gray. Their Dear Leader is a cross between a Chia Pet and a douche bag.

Quote of the Day

Scott Adams -

Now, since I know from the comments that many of my readers are - inexplicably - also troglodytes, allow me to include a disclaimer here. I'm way more hawkish than you are. It just doesn't look that way because my thinking is that if a bully punches you, you should run away. Later, when he's asleep, put a bullet in his head and leave the gun in his little brother's crib so it looks like a sibling squabble. In other words (again, for the troglodytes) being tough doesn't require being stupid. It's totally optional.

Quote of the Day

Scott Adams -

I have a theory that only people who have never been rich would believe that the rich are routinely willing to kill enormous amounts of people to get richer. Personally, I've been poor and I've been rich. And I can speak from first hand experience about how it changes you. I'm far less bloodthirsty than before.

Quote of the Day

Scott Adams -

I should note that I'm a vegetarian, but only for selfish reason. Saving critters from pain is an excellent goal if it's practical. But I can't reconcile that goal with what would happen if humans stopped killing animals. The alternative is to wait until the bears - for example - are about to copulate and then swoop in and place the condom on the boy bear without him noticing. Otherwise it seems to me that we'd have too damned many bears. If that happened, you'd be all 'Where's the remote control for the TV?' and your spouse would be all 'A bear is sitting on it' and you'd be all 'Again?!!' And you know how much you hate it when people say 'I'm all' instead of 'I said.' That has to be at least as bad as killing animals. That's my only point.