Browsed by
Author: Bartleby

What to do

What to do

What to do

I mean

What to do when you’re running against an administration that’s imperiling the rule of law, the democratic process, human rights, race relations, honesty, international stability, and everything else you’d thought the US could maybe pull off?

You run a first thing’s first campaign:

In this four years, we take care of the threats to democracy, we pivot away from money-driven lobbyist-bought sound-bite image-drunk politics to a thoughtful shared conversation. We make every voting day (second Tuesday in November once every two years) a national holiday and voting obligatory, starting in eleventh or twelfth grade (when you take US Government in high school, depending on how it lines up with the election year). We push against gerrymandering and other distortions of the people’s will. We stand up for for human rights, shared concentration and joy, clarity and honesty, international cooperation,and everything else necessary to avoid idiotic flame outs.

For the nonce, we pick policies that make obvious sense to everyone: shore up Obamacare; pursue a greener infrastructure repair; and so on.

You don’t need free college or free healthcare. We can moderate spending on education and healthcare without reinventing wheels.

We can come up with a humane and workable immigration policy that admits the issue is not dead easy to deal with. We can be free trade without being suckers. We can be decidedly-not-Trump without blowing off all the concerns of those who voted for Trump. We can put together a moderate program that reinvigorates the democratic process and our shared journey, and that addresses our global need to move quickly and decisively towards a more sustainable use of natural resources. We can move sure and clear.

It’s not about giving up on all your big ideas. It’s about picking a few politically doable and existentially necessary issues and spending four years on them. After that, you can think again about the next four years. But for now, help us to get out of this jam!!!!!!

AW/BW
copyright AMW

An Ad for “First Loves” that also pushes The Something Deeperism Institute

An Ad for “First Loves” that also pushes The Something Deeperism Institute

Of course, many of the essays in our upcoming “First Essays” are only found in the book “First Essays”, soon to be released (like this weekend).

But some of the book’s essays we consider a basic public service and have accordingly posted online for all to read.

We’re speaking here of the fundamentals of Something Deeperism, which we firmly believe should be not just available, but actively foisted upon everyone in the world.

We’re referring, of course, to our Institute of Something Deeperism https://www.from-bartleby.com/something-deeperism-institute/

Maybe, yes maybe, some of the essays there are little dull. And maybe some of the essayists repeat themselves a little much. And maybe some of the dogmatism is a little ossified and chipping and/or flaking at the edges. And maybe life is short and difficult, and the answers are not clear.

We’re referring, of course, to our Institute of Something Deeperism https://www.from-bartleby.com/something-deeperism-institute/

Maybe, yes maybe, some of the essays there are little dull. And maybe some of the essayists repeat themselves a little much. And maybe some of the dogmatism is a little ossified and chipping or flaking at the edges. And maybe life is short and difficult, and the answers are not clear.

Still, one thing I know for sure; or at least sternly and longingly and desperately imagine:
A Simpler Shared Something Deeperism https://www.from-bartleby.com/a-simpler-shared-something-deeperism/ is not too tedious.

Author: Who else?
Editor: Uh huh!
Copyright: AM Watson

Nope

Nope

Bartleby: Nope.

Amble: No.

Reporter Reporter: I don’t understand.

Bartleby: Have to read it once more.

Amble: Next weekend.

RR: Why not tomorrow?

Bartleby: Copyright holder’s constraints.

Amble: Paper mounds drown. Ceilings leak and boilers fail. People tell him he’s no good, that he doesn’t care since (they assume) his ceiling doesn’t leak and his boiler works.

RR: But surely these physical and psychological interruptions cannot be allowed to delay such a great spiritual, emotional, and intellectual achievement!

Bartleby: Now comes five days of stressful boredom invading and boiling through the system. Not much literature can be accomplished in this painfully loud hubbub.

Amble: Can’t be helped.

RR: It seems a great misallocation of resources.

Bartleby: Mmm. If you want me, I’m turning into a blue whale to settle upon the sandy ocean floor, thinking nothing.

Amble: Did you ever even read “First Loves”?

RR: Well …

Amble: Did you?

RR: Not in the actual, literal sense. But aren’t you guys all about non-literal senses?

Amble: So there you go! You’ve got a week’s worth of reading ahead of you.

Bartleby: It’s not that long. I don’t see why you need a week. How come no one’s bought that book, anyway?

Amble: Anyway, time to drift on out.

Bartleby: What’s wrong with it? Doesn’t Something Deeperism and Pure Love meander gently through its fictions like a nutrient- and life-rich muggymuddy river winds through the grateful plains?

Amble: I don’t know. I can’t remember. So long ago. So many shoulder shrugs between then and now.

RR: You heard it here first, folks! “First Essays” delayed! A sad scoop, but a scoop none the less! Terrible news, but still a notch on my belt! You heard it here first!

Author: Bartleby Willard
Editor: Amble Whistletown
Copyright Holder: Andrew Mackenzie Watson

Eve of the big day

Eve of the big day

R. Reporter: Hello I’m Reporter Reporter, here with Bartleby Willard and Amble Whistletown on November 2, 2019, the night before the release of their upcoming essay collection “First Essays”. Hi guys!

Bartleby: Hi.

Amble: Hey.

RR: So! Big moment!

Bartleby: Yeah

Amble: Glad to be done.

RR: I bet! Glad to be getting your thoughts out there, too I bet.

Bartleby: We’re not done yet. We’re going to work on it some more tomorrow.

Amble: We’re basically done.

RR: It must feel good to put together a coherent and livable philosophy.

Bartleby: It would if we could do it. Maybe tomorrow when we get up early and start the whole project over from zero. Maybe this time!

Amble: It will be released tomorrow and then we’ll stop thinking about whether or not we’ve adequately sketched Something Deeperism.

RR: The book is causing a lot of buzz all over the globe. Many anticipate progress not just in the whys and hows of Something Deeperism, but also — and concomitantly — with our understanding of consciousness, free will, and enlightenment. Not to give anything away, and understanding that no one can live up to the kind of hype you guys have been getting here, but, people wanna know: can you deliver?

Bartleby: Maybe if we can shake off the Evil and stand up for real within ourselves tomorrow morning. Maybe if we can find the rhythm and sustain it.

Amble: The book will be OK. Not sure how much it will add to humanity’s understanding of anything, but open-minded/-hearted readers will be rewarded. We hope. Honestly we’ve gotten so tangled up in the process that it is hard for us to assess the book. Basically pretty good. Repeats itself too much, but we just gotta be done. And Bartleby keeps adding things!

Bartleby: Will the God help us? Why won’t the God help us? What is the sin keeping us from adequate insight into Godlight?

R. Reporter: OK! That’s Bartleby Willard and Amble Whistletown, author and editor duo of “First Loves”, released in September of this year, and of “First Essays”, set for international erelease tomorrow, November 3, 2019.

Bartleby: Unless the contours are off and the Hurt overpowers our vision. Then we won’t be able to publish anything tomorrow.

Amble: Any bit of the book that gives us trouble tomorrow will be cut. We are releasing the book tomorrow.

R. Reporter: OK! There you have it! Men with a vision! Heartening! Nice to see!

Author: B. Willard
Editor: A. Whistletown
Producer: R. Reporter
Copyright: AM Watson

demon dogs rising

demon dogs rising

did I tell you that?
did I tell you how they slobber forward through curved snapping fangs?
Demon dogs on the rise
and the small little Truth
squished down
like tender curling petals
in between pavers gray and smooth
slanting the morning rain
and cool beneath a gray sky.

did I tell you that?

[Bartleby’s Poetry Corner]

It is time to start politics

It is time to start politics

It is time perhaps to be begin thinking about politics.
With the 2020 election looming and all.

The first thing that’s popped into my head is the wealth tax.
Yes: a 2% wealth tax on fortunes over $50 million and 3% for $1 billion is fine.
Probably good even.
However, it can’t be done in jumps because that will make people squirrelly, incentivizing both not quite amassing $50 million and pretending you haven’t.
The way to do the wealth tax is to start it at a penny over $10 million in assets per household; make the beginning tax rate very small; and then gradually increase it as the fortune goes up.

Make a number line from $10 million to $1 billion, and put a percentage line from 0% to 3% directly above it. Then you just look at where you are on the fortune number line and look up to the percentage number line to see what percentage you have to pay.
For example, if in a given year your assets stand at $20 million, you will pay 3% * (1/9) = 3%/9 = .33%, which is $20,000,000 * .0033 = $66,000; leaving you with $20,000,000 – $66,000 = $19,934,000
For another example, if in a given year your assets stand at $50 million, you will pay 3% * (4/9) = 4/3% = 1.33%, which comes to $50,000,000 * .0133 = $665,000; leaving you with $50,000,000 – $665,000 = $49,335,000
And finally, supposing you managed to hold onto one billion dollars at the end of a given tax year, you’d pay 3% * (9/9) = 3%, which would be $1,000,000,000 * .03 = $30,000,000; bringing you way down to $970,000,000
This is not going to deincentivize getting rich.
And it is a fairer way to redistribute wealth than raising the income tax because in some businesses and lives, you have the occasional bonanza and need to be able to use that money to stay afloat for the dry years.

A wealth tax of this nature would be a gentle and fair corrective against the overaccumulation of capital, which is dangerous because money is power.

And we’re $22 Trillion in debt with an aging infrastructure and a climate crisis that seems to be leaving the looming stage and is now before our eyes weaving a worrisome future.

What about reinventing the economic wheel?
Should we outlaw fracking?
Ban coal?
Make college free?
Put the nation under a single payer plan?

Hmmm, not right now, at any rate.
You presidential hopefuls should talk about where we are and where we can reasonably hope to get to without risking political chaos, which only makes things worse.
And think about the nature of economies: they are hard to steer; they should not be steered, because they cannot be steered reliably.
And though getting deeply into debt for college is onerous, it doesn’t follow that absolutely no financial sacrifice should ever be made by the student towards this expensive collective undertaking.

Rather than banning imperfections, we should nudge the markets with judicious use of regulations and redistributions.
We can incentivize cleaner fuels with a carbon tax, and perhaps a further tax could be placed on fracking. Environmental taxes keeps the free market in charge but help the free market account for the kinds of externalities (costs to our shared resources [note that a democracy is a shared resource]) that the free market often does not on its own adequately consider. And the taxes can be put directly towards righting the wrongs of the polluters (environmental clean-up, greener infrastructure, etc). Rather than banning, we can nudge. Renewables are already competitive. We don’t have to lurch about in the economy outlawing carbon; by preventing established energy industries from gaming the system and taxing externalities we can gently guide ourselves into an exciting green economy, which will be so fun and profitable that, in the absence of excessive corruption, it will succeed on its own merits. Research and infrastructure spending that encourage greener power grids, transportation, waste processing and etc would also help — and money will be spent on energy infrastructure in any case; we should lean green.

This election the Democrats should focus on the basics: fight against dishonesty and confusion-spreading, which undermines democracy; fight against lobbyist-attached campaign money, which undermines democracy; fight against corruption in government, which undermines democracy; fight for education environment and healthcare, which strengthen democracy and its citizens; and redistribute wealth gently so that the rich don’t run away or quit trying to build interesting new businesses, but they do have less ability to buy political campaigns and thinktanks and otherwise exert an oversized influence on our democracy, and we as a collective can find a way out of our current unwieldy $22 trillion debt while also fixing bridges, paying for education, getting all kids access to safe living environments and quality education, etc.

We also need to focus on judges with non-fundamentalist readings of the Constitution, particularly the First and Second Amendment. But that’s for another post.

This year the Democrats should focus on working to improve the health of our shared democracy. It is a worthwhile goal and a sound political platform in a time when the other side has taken to so blatantly ignoring democratic norms and the institutions and processes upon which a democratic nation depends for its structural integrity and the concomitant health and happiness of the whole and its parts.

There’s no need to get it all figured out. And we humans can’t figure it all out. There’s no need to change everything in this election. It is wiser to make this election about a step away from the abyss and towards a healthier, happier, more thoughtful future.

Last Minute Wealth Tax Revision:
Or maybe a 0 to 4% number line next to a $10 million to $2 billion fortune line.
Then at $20 million, you’re rate would be way down at 4% * (1/19) = .21%, and you’d pay $20,000,000 * .0021 = $42,000 and keep $19,958,000
I think that number line pairing is better than the 3% & $1 billion line. It shifts the focus higher. We don’t want to make making money painful; we just want to push back on dangerously uneven capital distribution.

Author: Pigeon Wright, professor of wandering around talking to himself
editor: BW/AW
copyright: Andrew M Watson