Thursday, December 29, 2005

Locking the forum (not to keep us out, but to keep the windbags safely away)

I was thinking earlier today - why are politicians so irresponsible and short-sighted? Probably part of it is that the least logical people make the best leaders. There's not a lot we can do about that. We could make logic tests necessary for holding office, but, by virtue of the irrational being the best leaders, they would still make trouble, elected to office or not.

However, while not exemplars of logic, or of knowledge, or perhaps even common sense, politicians are rational - they do what they perceive to be best for themselves. And it seems to me that for the most part, politicians pursue whatever sounds good, as pleasing the people will lead to re-election. Not what is good, or what they think is good, but what sounds good. Many have a knack for saying things that sound logical, moral, and insightful, but which are actually proven not to work.

Take, for example, the issue of corporate taxes. Many argue that corporations have more money, so they should pay more. That they have a debt to society, and must help to pay for the burden of governance. Currently, corporate taxes in this country are at nearly 40%. Most corporations find loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Many legislators are outraged by this, and say that better enforcement must be put in place, and loopholes closed. However, they forget that businesses can locate themselves wherever they wish - if taxes are high, they will leave. It does not matter how good enforcement is, if there are no businesses to collect from. These same people will argue that we cannot lower taxes because the government is running a deficit. They ignore that businesses, when allowed to keep the money they earn, are much better at investing than the government. They ignore the fact that a low tax rate allows for high growth and for a bigger economy - this brings in just as much, if not more, tax revenue, and has the added benefit of raising everyone's standard of living. And why should business be responsible for government's inability to restrain itself?

But politicians ignore this, because it is far easier to demonize big business for big problems, and to ignore the fact that government is usually to blame when acts of God are not. After all, if big business can cause big problems, what worse mischief could our government cause? It is, after all, larger than any company on earth.

So, what can be done?

Politicians say what sounds good. So, what will they say if no one can hear them? I would propose a system whereby politicians are given no media voice - the media can report their actions, but not their words. And politicians will not be allowed, under any circumstances, to appear on TV. The only possible exception being the President, who as commander in chief, must occasionally address the entire nation.
Just think how pleasant life would be if there were no more political commercials! We could spend election months watching the usual ads for beer, feminine hygiene, and food. They are insipid, mindless, and even disgusting enough to hold us over, I'm sure.
I expect politics would carry on as usual, for a time. Then politicians, attention-seekers by nature, would notice that no one was watching. Perhaps that means they would be more corrupt, but I fail to see how they could be. With no one watching their grandstanding, they would be forced to accomplish things for the papers to report - without accomplishments, people would wonder what exactly they were doing. Accomplishments would be the only way of seeking attention.

Perhaps denying them all outlets would be too harsh. I don't especially think so, as most people are rather reasonable when discussing issues other than politics. And since most are ignorant of issues until politicians raise them, I believe most people would be more reasonable if they were not so misled. However, as I said, some people may think it too harsh to deny these firebrands all communication.
Perhaps they could be permitted time in the slow media - newspapers and the like. Sound bites work well on TV, but are much harder to sell in written form. And since people often don't read, the discussions would be limited to politicians, those who understood the issues, and the insane. The first and third categories would be assumed by the second to be dangerously ill-informed, and rightly so. Once those two sides were excluded, only those with understanding would be left, and their recommendations could be easily examined. In practice, it might not be possible to separate the first and third groups. At any rate, written discussions take more effort and thought, and it is much harder to intimidate or yell over the other side. Of course, the extra effort and thought might go into making even more devious and misleading statements, but, since the supply of truly devious writers is rather limited, I am willing to risk that.

In summary: politicians will nearly always pursue their rational self-interest; that is, to get re-elected. The only way to be elected is for people to know of you, and to support what you do. In order to be known, you must get attention. The current system allows politicians to garner attention mostly by making nonsensical statements, or to say whatever is popular at the moment, both being usually the same thing. If these masters of publicity were restricted - if people could only know of them by their actions - they would be forced to act, rather than bloviate, in order to receive attention. No amount of "ethics training" and no set of qualifications will change the way politicians act: human nature never changes. So it is far better to change the system, in order to reward different behaviors.

The main problem with this proposal is that legislators make the rules, and rarely make rules restricting themselves. So I expect this idea will never be implemented. But I do want to see it happen, if only to discover why it is a bad idea.

Advice on writing

Ach. I was going to write something earlier. I was excited, motivated, and knew precisely what I was going to say. And actually, I still know what I'm going to say, because it is directly related to my forgetting. But it won't be as good, and it will definitely be less organized.

I was going to say: here are my rules for writing.
It's not like I'm some wonderfully successful writer (I have won a little prize money, but nothing to brag about); however, these work for me.

The first, most important rule, and the one that I can't forget because forgetting reminds me of it, is this: never, never, never delay writing anything down. When it comes to mind, write it down. Don't wait until it's convenient. That'll be too late. Thoughts are ethereal - they leave once new ones come, and are gone without a trace. Sometimes you can summon them back by mulling over the same things that led to them, but that depends on you remembering those thoughts. Thoughts are like lives - they are ours, but they are not ours to keep. Use them while you have them.

The other important rule is very similar - write all the time. I say it is similar because most people will say to themselves, "someday I will write this or that," but someday is always another day away. There is only now.
As an excuse, people often say, "I don't know how to write very well," or, "I don't know what to write." That isn't important. The only way to improve is to practice. So, even though the first efforts will almost certainly be terrible, write them anyway. Go nuts. Finish them. Then, when time has removed you from the effort, go back and read it. You will be disappointed, and, if not, have someone else critique it. You will be disappointed. Write something new. Repeat. And if you say you have nothing to write about - well, having nothing to say has never stopped anyone from talking, has it? Write whatever comes to mind. If nothing comes to mind, you might be dead. Get that checked out. If you're not dead, something will come to mind. If you are, try writing anyway. Everyone wants to know what the dead can tell.

I suppose it would also be helpful to read good writing. Very helpful. Having friends, or even enemies, tear apart your writing can probably do an alright substitute job. But it is always easier to learn by following an example, than to learn through error what is not allowed. Writing only seems easy while you're reading it. When you know how difficult it is to write, you will learn much more from reading. Chances are, you will lose respect for some authors when you see how boring and mechanical their writing is. And of course you will gain respect for others.
A big part of writing is forcing people to see. We all forget the things that are always around us, due to familiarity. Often these things are important. So the writer's job is to find a new way of looking at the familiar, in a way that makes it strange and new again.


There are exceptions to these rules, and by no means are they inclusive. If you can concentrate on one thought, uninterrupted, you might not want to write it down immediately. Consider it, and let it develop and mature. See how it is embellished and changed. It may become more interesting than it originally was. Of course, it might also become dull, and then you will not want to write your original thought. Which is your loss, really - that thought may not have been bad, and it may be that it only occurred to you. Or, more likely, it has occurred to many, but none have written it. Be the first. There are other good rules on writing, but I am stubborn: I only know the ones I use, and ignore the advice of others.




I give this advice assuming you want to write, and that you are fool enough to trust me. I think nearly everyone wants to write, though. Most people like the idea of making their thoughts known, or at least making them permanent (as permanent as things get around here). Like I said, there is no way of knowing when, where, or whom 'your' thoughts will next strike - with such an uncertain future, it seems best to immortalize what we can while we still have time.

Probably the biggest misconception people have about writing is that it's easy. That is where nearly all the problems originate. People assume that, because it is easy, it requires no practice - the thoughts on paper will flow beautifully without effort. That writers do no 'real' work, but only relax and amuse themselves. Those are both totally wrong, of course. Writers are all crazy - the importance and difficulty of their work is out of all proportion to their pay. They control ideas, the most powerful tools we posses. And yet, most writers can only afford to write on the side, when they are not earning money at a 'real' job.

So, my message, especially for those of you in school: write. Now. Don't put it off.
(Oh - heh - and let me read it. We can help each other out.)