Conspiracies. Modern media requires modern methods...

It seems like more and more of my daily news feed on social networks is taken up by conspiracy laden posts. Given the current economic and political climate, I suppose I can understand the appeal.

A post about government taking "big brother" too far....or a post about some evil corporation tainting our existence...such things feed into the sense many of us have that things aren't "right". And there are PLENTY of things that aren't right. Some of them glaringly obvious, but only if you take the time to investigate claims.

...

We live in a time that is in many ways quite disturbing, but equally fascinating. We have a media environment largely dominated by corporate news outlets. But we also have more people engaged in communication and the dissemination of knowledge than ever before.

We have horrendously vertically aligned communities online where you can easily surround yourself with people who will either agree with you....or perhaps more insidiously convince you to agree with them.

The most vicarious of nonsense story can easily go viral, and be believed en-masse by many thousands, and yet be sitting in the same web browser one could use a tiny bit of effort to easily debunk.

People confuse authority truth and knowledge to their detriment. In order to navigate the modern stream of information one must embrace a few basic tenets to survive and grow.

1). BE A SKEPTIC, ESPECIALLY OF THOSE THINGS YOU MIGHT AGREE WITH.

I made this first tip big because it is vitally IMPORTANT. Case in point, I consider myself a relatively liberal person when it comes to social philosophy and leaning towards libertarian ideals when it comes to fiscal and constitutional matters. So when I see something posted by the largest Libertarian group on Facebook I'm probably going to check it out. What I'm not going to do, even if I self-identify as a person with Libertarian ideals, is take anything they post at their word. I tend to try to fact check things, especially if the claims made are extraordinary ones.

And I don't do this because I mistrust the intentions of others, so it isn't some cynical ploy. I do it to fight against my own confirmation biases...and reveal those of others.

Most importantly, it is shockingly easy to do if you have at least a few firing neurons. It's not hard...AT ALL!

In today's particular example, a couple of minutes worth of digging showed a post by a Facebook group with half a million followers was made up nonsense written originally by a certifiable wacko. Groups large and small can make mistakes true, but large ones influence large groups of people.....perhaps into believing things that aren't remotely true.

This is bad....and insidious...

2). Do your own investigative reporting. 

We have an interesting dynamic at play in modern media....at least for the lazy. And I don't mean this as a slight either. We've all for generations expected our news and media outlets to at least present the news in a reasonably balanced fashion, but this isn't really the case anymore.

• Fox News. Hates anything about democrats or the government.....unless its the military of course.
• MSNBC. Hates anything about republicans....skeptical of the government....unless its entitlements of course.
• CNN. Tries to dumb down the news too far, almost to the point it's not even news anymore.
• Insertnameofwannabenewsblog.com. Linear articles that narrowly align with a given worldview or ideology (one that may or may not actually track with reality).

It goes down hill from here....

What doesn't go downhill however is the absolute plethora of real information online. But there is so much of it that simple and parochial ideas of knowledge and truth aren't going to just fall into your lap like you've (probably falsely) believed they should....because you thought they always had.

Those days (if they ever truly existed) are over. 

There is a benefit to this process as well. You discover so many of the "gloom and doom" stories you tend to have hammered into your face daily on social media are complete bullshit. It doesn't mean everything is 100% peachy....but you can at least comfort yourself with the fact that "conspiracy" isn't required to explain all the bad things that seem to happen. 

Plain old human nature, shortsightedness, insularity, and a hefty dose of ego and greed usually suffice. Those sorts of things are solvable whether there are real conspiracies or not, so it makes the whole idea of focusing on conspiracy stand out as the true waste of time that it is.

Partisan Dysfunction - Why Are We Here?

Even if you're not the sort that pays much attention to politics (given the nature of politics in recent years this would perhaps be understandable) you'd have to have been living under a rock to have missed our most recent debacle of dysfunction.

House Republicans recently held the entire nation hostage over their dislike for the Affordable Care Act, more aptly known as "ObamaCare". Having failed to defeat it via democratic means, having failed to defeat it via the Supreme Court, they decided to try defeating it through tyranny. And though the effort failed miserably, it is certainly not cause for celebration.

Regardless of where you personally stand on the ACA, or our current President for that matter, the fact that such an event occurred shines an unflattering light on the systemic problems in our electoral process.

There are many who would agree with me that this country desperately needs campaign finance reform. And the problem isn't voters, rather it's the process that vets those who we are even allowed to vote for. In the last election cycle less than 150,000 individuals comprised over 90% of *ALL* campaign monies spent by all sides of the political process, whether they be Democrat, Republican, or Independant. Just on the presidential election alone this was over $2 Billion Dollars. And though it is true that the Obama Campaign did a better job at grassroots money raising, when combined with all spending by dems and republicans that 90% still stands.

We have in essence ceded our democracy to the wealthy and elite, because *THEY* get to decide who gets to run for office, because it is primarily from them that the money flows. And *THIS FACT* is what has driven our entire countries slide towards.....Conservatism. Clearly conservative extremism, such as witnessed a few weeks ago would have been impossible 40 years ago.

So how did the extreme right gain so much power? It is because we don't really have a progressive left anymore. Granted, Nancy Pelosi is a nut (as are many of her ilk), but she's not a progressive lefty by any stretch of the imagination, despite Republicans attempts to paint her into that corner. Rather, our entire politics has shifted, drastically in my view, to the right regardless of party.

How did this happen?

Much of this begins in the late 1960's and the changes that occurred in the Democratic leadership during that time frame. While perhaps it is an oversimplification, it can be said that it culminated with George McGovern's utter dismissal of Labor. And though the influence of Labor was beginning to decline (and in some senses rightly so, due to abject Labor Union corruption) McGovern's move with the Democratic Party is really what began the long slide towards dismantling the Democratic Party's liberal base of power.

Now, elections still need to be held and candidates still have to raise money to run for office. So after the collapse of labor, the dems still had their hands out, like any good politicians would. And who came in to fill the void? The wealthy and elite, i.e. the ones who already controlled much of Republican finance.

This became evident to me during the Reagan Administration, when we began this wholesale experiment in Trickle Down economic theory. Prior to Reagan, much of our countries economic politics revolved around Keynesian theory, a fact we generally owe to the Roosevelt Administration which led to many decades of skyrocketing growth in both GDP and middle class incomes and standard of living. And yes, during this era the wealthy were taxed at progressive rates far far higher than they are today.

What fails to bubble to the surface for the wealthy who were still wealthy in this era.....is that they were still far wealthier than the average American in spite of this fact.

It doesn't take a genius to see that 30 years worth of conservative economic ideology has destroyed the middle class, at least so long as you either pay attention to the numbers or happen to be an average non-wealthy American. So why don't things change? Why can't we right this ship? Why?

It's primarily because of my earlier statements. The 150,000 elites that run our electoral process aren't suffering. They've done well. In some cases obscenely well. Obscene because their gains in wealth and power came with a real cost, that being the well being of an entire country.

The Wealth Challenge!

Are you stupendously wealthy? Do you want to add real intrinsic value to that wealth, without needing to consult a financial advisor? It's really easy. All you have to do is give a large portion of it away, not to charity either!! And I'm going to try to convince you why this is such a compelling and excellent idea, so bear with me.

This thought process for me began when I read in the paper the other day that the most recent Powerball Jackpot winner was in South Carolina. It did kind of suck for me personally that it was some guy in Lexington and not me, but it was certainly a good day for him.

If that person had taken the lump sum distribution, after taxes he would have had $123 Million Dollars, a rather princely sum.

I began to think to myself "Self, what would I do with $123 Million Dollars?"

One of the first thoughts that floated to the top was the idea of getting 50 Cashier's Checks for $1 Million Dollars and giving those to 50 people I know. I mean why not right? Even after that gesture of generosity I'd have $73 Million Dollars free and clear!!

Given that this would be roughly 1800 times my current net worth, I think I'd be doing ok.

When you stop and think about it there are only a few real classifications of wealth.

• Poor. These are the 49 Million Americans who rely on Food Stamps to feed their families. 
• Making Ends Meet. This is where I fit. I don't need government assistance to survive, but I am living largely paycheck to paycheck.
• Middle Class. These are people who have enough left over to save a little.
• Affluent. These are people who have quite a bit more left to save, and at this level of wealth you see people making personal lifestyle investments (luxury car, vacation time share, etc)
• Wealthy. Anyone with a net worth over $1 Million Dollars. If you qualify for this distinction, you are wealthy compared to the overwhelming majority of Americans.
• RICH AS FUCK!!!!® This is a special classification that requires more explanation.

Imagine yourself as an individual who just turned 20 with $100 Million Dollars net worth or greater. Now, imagine that you could turn that net worth into liquid assets. COLD HARD CASH. Now lets imagine a game where you are limited to spending no more than $500,000 of your cold hard cash on any given thing. You cannot donate to charity either. Think of this as a modern reboot of the movie "Brewster's Millions."

It doesn't take too much pondering to realize you'd have to be the most colossally irresponsible person in the world to go broke before you reached your 80th Birthday.

At this level of wealth, wealth itself begins to lose its meaning. And, as you move further up the wealth ladder, this trend continues.

Look at Bill Gates. At an estimated net worth (at this moment) of around $72 Billion Dollars, he's had to establish a charitable foundation to deal with this specific problem. The William F. Gates Foundation was established to allow him, and other participants such as Warren Buffet, an avenue to do something meaningful with their wealth.

But it goes beyond merely adding meaning to wealth. This is essentially a structured effort to get rid of wealth, not only in a meaningful way, but in a practical sense. It's difficult to figure out WHAT THE FUCK to do with such an obscene level of wealth. At this level, wealth is little more than an abstraction on a spreadsheet, similar to George Carlin's idea of the "Bigger Dick Theory Of Foreign Policy" except applied to economics.

And the problem here is a much greater issue than merely avarice. When you note that the Fortune 500 comprises wealth greater than the GDP of entire countries (like Russia), and contrast this with how we've let Detroit descend into the kind of town Mad Max wouldn't want to visit, you begin to realize that we've lost the ability to understand what wealth even is.

So here's my plan. At the moment in America there are roughly 29,000 Individuals with a net worth greater than $100 Million Dollars. Nearly 600 of these people have net worth greater than $1 Billion Dollars. Doing some quite conservative napkin math gives me a great idea.

Have all 29,000 of these RICH AS FUCK!!!!® people give away 1/3rd of their net worth in $1 Million dollar increments to non-wealthy people. No need for complex and expensive tax attorneys. No charities at all. No need to even liquidate your assets. Just give it away in the form it's already in. Let the beneficiaries figure out what to do with it.

I feel that many amazing and positive things would happen, but I can guarantee with 100% certainly that two things would happen, and they are the most important facts to consider.

1). You'd create around 2.1 Million new Millionaires in this economy. Let the absurdity of that number jiggle around in your skull.
2). Everyone who gave? Would still be RICH AS FUCK!!!!®  

Other things that would happen?

1). Incalculable billions would be SPENT INTO THE ECONOMY. I can guarantee you that 2.1 Million random out of the blue new millionaires have some bills to pay, and they'd be paid off like a motherfucker!!

2). Real investment would occur. New homes. New cars. Helping that wacky cousin with his new business idea. An Ivy League education for your kids, etc...

3). Charitable contributions would increase.Drastically. Why? Because people who have a real sense of what money *IS* would have disposable worth.

4). You could guarantee millions less on government programs.

5). You could guarantee millions more real jobs.

What would not happen?

1). There'd be no need for new taxes. Real people spending real money have better things to do with their time than dodge taxes.
2). No need for new regulation.
3). No need for angst ridden new political parties who really like tea.

But *ONLY* if such a thing could actually happen. And it can't....and won't.

We have an obscene amount of wealth in our country in essence held hostage by social, cultural, political, and economic ideologies. Forty years worth of bad ideas got us here. Until we can drastically change the zeitgeist, no amount of anything is going to make a significant improvement in how things currently are.

p.s. If any RICH AS FUCK!!!!® individuals come across this blog and disagree with me, don't waste time trying to debate me. If you fail to see the brilliance here, you obviously have some overarching reason to believe you "deserve" to be so obscenely wealthy. In actuality you're just a greedy self righteous prick! :)

The Unreality Of The Surveillance State

I noted sadly today the loss of Groklaw. The legal news blog, which has been a popular standby of the legal community for the better part of ten years, is shutting its doors as of today.

The blogs owner Pamela Jones said in a rather impassioned statement today "But I really know, after all my research and some serious thinking things through, that I can't stay online personally without losing my humanness, now that I know that ensuring privacy online is impossible."

...


I've always had a strong sense of our utter lack of privacy online, at least in the parochial sense most of us seem to think of. But I've been online far longer than the average person, having gotten my first dialup "shell" account 25 years ago.

Everything you say or do online can, in theory, be captured stored and analyzed till the cows come home. Given the nature of modern IP networks this is even more pervasive than we realize too. Much in the way of voice traffic from "traditional communications" such as cellphones and landlines ends up being sent as VOIP information over existing internet infrastructure by backbone service providers. So your voice call on Verizon or AT&T can at some point end up as internet traffic, at least some of the time based on the needs of carrier networks and their peering arrangements.

It is the theoretical nature of this reality though that has always given me a reasonable level of comfort. It has always been quite clear that the sheer volume of data traveling over IP networks makes actual surveillance quite difficult.

However, given enough technical resources, such individualized surveillance is indeed possible and has been for some time. Edward Snowden's revelations of the length and scope of these capabilities, while an employee for NSA contractor Booz-Allen-Hamilton, makes it clear that this is so.

The capacity and sophistication of these resources is ALWAYS going up as the cost of them goes down. This truth is a mere function of how technology works. So it is safe to assume that we are nearing (or perhaps have already reached) a point where anyone can be easily and perhaps more disturbingly AUTOMATICALLY profiled and targeted for surveillance.

Thinking about this gives me more than a little pause personally. Looking back over the course of my online existence I can think of a myriad of things that would, at least in theory, have me on some government analysts radar. These are just a handful of them...

• I have in the past, and occasionally continue to, communicate with individuals outside the U.S.
• I have blogged and been formally published writing about privacy and surveillance.
• I have privately consulted on and directly rendered forensics analysis of computers and networks.
• I have written scathing op/ed's on the state of copyright and IP law.
• I have interviewed and championed the cause of one person, who in the past was involved in the largest copyright infringement case in history up to that point.
• I have used encryption, proxies, IP blocklists, and all sorts of other methods to communicate online.

According to the surveillance guidelines and justifications outlined in the now public PRISM program, I have ticked several of the boxes necessary for *ALL* of my internet traffic to be scrutinized automatically by the NSA, without even the need of a FISA order. Whether this is actually occuring or not, I cannot say for certain.

But I have little evidence to the contrary telling me that I should doubt this is happening.

What does this mean? What does this mean for me personally?

I am not by nature a person given to paranoia. I know at least one person who has taken these realities to heart to such an extreme, that they are now attempting to live entirely "off the grid", outside of all systems including simple and pedantic ones we take for granted daily. As a result this persons life has now utterly imploded.

Me? I still have bills to pay and people that rely on me, so I'm not interested in taking any extreme precautions. Moreso, I'm not interested in taking any precautions at all.

Pamela Jones in her impassioned exit post on Groklaw implied that she felt her very humanity was as stake. Indeed we have countless lessons throughout history that a surveillance state does have a chilling effect on ones humanity. But, in a connected society such as ours, the double edged sword that is the internet is really too important an aspect of our human connectedness now to shy away from.

It's a pandora's box to be sure, but one we must dive into and accept the realities of lest it become the master of us all.

Need vs Want. An important distinction...

This little blog rant all started with a playful post on a social network of the following question earlier today.

"Here's a fun idea! Finding someone to date is finding someone to reliably and safely have sex with. True or False? Discuss!!"

Though the obvious answer is True (every bit of sociology and psychology I've ever studied seems to confirm this irrefutably) boy did this question shake the tree LOL.

But that was the point. I wanted to see what sort of justifications people would have to claim it was a false statement. More specifically women seemed to take issue with it, but I'm of a mind (from a lifetime of experience, coupled with having been raised by a considerably smart psychology degree wielding mother) that women so innately buy into double standards about their own sexuality, that many of them can easily fail to grasp the truth of this. And I think it is rather sad and unnecessary.

I like coming at ideas and thoughts from various directions. Though at times this can confuse (and also annoy) people, I feel that it is for me a valuable tool to deconstruct my thoughts.

The more difficult a thought idea or concept is, the more resources you should allocate towards it. Makes sense right? But as is the case with most things in life answers are often pretty easy. The real trick is asking the right questions.

Most people would say that, as a for instance, quantum mechanics is difficult. And perhaps in a sense this is true, but only in a sense. One of the "gatekeepers" of the physical sciences is that nasty thing many people find extremely hard to grasp, Calculus. But calculus can be mastered by nearly anyone, given enough time and resources. So I'd say the things we often call "difficult" are really just resource intensive and not actually difficult at all.

The biggest difficulty we face as human beings is really ourselves, and by extension each other. Almost anyone can set aside their emotions (except perhaps frustration) and learn calculus, or molecular biology regardless of their IQ, because at their core these are not emotional pursuits. At all.

The most important pursuit in human existence, is the pursuit of self awareness. And again by extension this must include others, as almost nothing of our existence can be experienced properly alone.

Our emotions, our instincts, indeed our very survival encompasses this pursuit. One of the keys to self discovery that I have found that works for me is this very process of intellectual deconstruction that I pursue. And I've found that making the effort, the truly difficult effort, to understand ones basic needs, ones basic primal instincts is a critical key to self discovery and perhaps even enlightenment.

We as human beings are dominated by our needs, our basic needs. And every esoteric, esthetic, intellectual, or noble pursuit we believe we engage in...ultimately stems from these primal needs. Given that these needs are not always predictable, or perhaps even rational, it is imperative to grasp their significance. Otherwise we run the risk of becoming a slave to them.

Air. We all need air to breathe in order to live. This is such a basic need that we don't even discuss it....until we are deprived of the privilege. And when this happens our primal instincts for survival take over...utterly so. The same goes for water....for food....to lesser degrees for shelter and comfort.

We should look at one of our more taboo laden needs in the same manner. The need for intimacy. I use the word intimacy as opposed to merely sex, because sex is merely a part of human intimacy.

Take any animal, and deprive it of contact with others of it's species (including ourselves) and several reliable things will happen. First, that animal will become clinically depressed. This is true whether we're talking Cocker Spaniels or humans. Secondly, and this is where the taboo's leak in, that animal will begin to sexually pleasure itself.

Conversely you shelter animals together, and they will naturally seek one another out..even if it is just for physical contact as simple as a touch.

Why do we hug our children? Because not only does it make us feel good, it makes them feel good. It is intrinsic to our nature to need the company of others, and it isn't just philosophical..it is quite tangible and real.

To think otherwise puts a fundamental need at odds with reality...with it's very purpose.

As we humans exist in organized societies we have often crafted "rules" about these basic needs of ours, and usually for sensible reasons. In a collective tribal species such as our own, order has it's place. But there are problems with leaning on cultural and social conventions too hard. Big ones in this day and age.

Just imagine if you will, the role of the average woman in human culture over the last 100,000 years that we can reliably say humans have lived in organized societies. That role was largely unchanged for, lets say about 99,900 years.

For the math challenged that means you, if you are a woman, are living in a very special time in human history. One fundamentally different for you than 99.9% of it has been for your gender.

Please take a moment to pause and bask in the amazing truth of that statement...

And {sticking to heterosexuality for the sake of simplicity here} consider that both men and women are fundamentally having to come to grips with this near about-face in human behaviors and expectations.

The very nature of gender itself, and it's role in society and our existence, is being redefined as we speak. This means our needs are having to come to terms with these changes too.

And if you are wrapping those needs, those intrinsic and primal needs, within the scope of what dusty wisdom from dusty books written thousands of years ago had to say on the subject, you are going to reliably fail at achieving your place in this world, and happiness within it. FAIL! It's so obvious when you really look at it outside of your "training" by the world.

Needs, when acted on with poor information, almost always end up with bad results. We all need to eat don't we? But look at western culture today. Runaway obesity and metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes in children, and even gout has become commonplace. Our modern diet, based on old (and bad) evidence and advice...is reliably killing us. But we don't question it all that much, because eating is a fundamental need. Fundamental needs can become deadly and bad for you, both physically and psychologically if you fail to understand them.

Understanding needs, really grasping their purpose and their place, transitions them into wants. And wanting is more within our sphere of intellectual grasp I feel.

If we can begin to see the logic of this with something as fundamental to our existence as our food, our very physical health....why can't we do the same things with our needs for intimacy?

Value

It seems as we go through life we pick up all sorts of "hints" and shorthand. Little cultural nods so to speak, that help us know seemingly at a glance what we are dealing with.

At work I'm the guy in a white dress shirt and tie, so everyone knows I'm in charge because everyone else at work dresses differently. A couple comes in my store dressed very formally on a Sunday afternoon. They've been to church. The polite and formalized discourse we have with acquaintances or people we have to deal with but don't know. Please and thank you and all that...etc

We pick up other sorts of shorthand too. We tend to be tribal in our thinking. It's a trait actually endemic to our species, so we tend to notice in-group and out-group characteristics. People that talk differently or look differently we tend to be more cautious around, and vice versa.

The thing to keep in mind is that many of these social hints we rely on make us feel certain ways, and as such we should never fully put our trust in them. To do so is to potentially make the mistake of valuing and devaluing people based on things that do not matter.

Someone recently asked me about race, insofar as it relates to dating and relationships. Now, apart from the fact that race, at least in the context it is usually presented, is a myth it is also not a personal choice. The woman that asked me this didn't get to choose to be of african descent. That choice was made by her parents. Likewise the english, french, dutch, german, cherokee, pirate, manatee, goat (I only include manatee and goat because of the pirate ancestry...you know pirates, they'll screw anything) ancestry I possess in my genetic structure was a series of choices made by all sorts of ancestors. And most of them are dead. :P

Value people for their choices and for the positive efforts they make. Do this simple thing and you'll find more value around you than you can shake a stick at.

In answer to a question....

Someone I was having a discussion with earlier today asked me why I work in a Grocery store? Why am I not teaching...or in politics?

A few years ago I had dinner with a nice young lady who worked in city government, and she had asked me more or less the same question. I wrote her a lengthy reply (on an older blog) that I will repost below.

------------------------------------------------

At this stage in our nations history I represent one of the most unelectable types of people imaginable. Or at least that is how it seems. And a quick glance at our history would show how arbitrary this exclusionary process is.

I am...

- Not college educated. I dropped out to foster a career in retail which offered promises of a better income and lifestyle immediately to me. Growing up relatively poor this appealed to me at such a young age, and yet it's a decision I've regretted since. Still, we've had non scholars involved with every aspect of our nation including some of the very framers of our Constitution and a few of our Presidents. Now? Prestigious university (and the implied money needed) is often mandatory

- An atheist. Though I dislike the word (given that people believe it means something when it means very little to anyone who grasps english) it is how I am classified. I find myself in good company however, given that many great men behind our own Constitution were also of a similar philosophy. Thomas Payne would be saddened by the unelectable nature of someone like me.

- Ardently committed to the separation of Church and State. There are many on the political right (and apologists on the political left) who have big problems with this. And yet the Constitution itself was decried at the time of its creation by many as being entirely too unreligious. Any glance at a history book with a keen eye to the european theocracies of the day would remind one why this was both a necessary and correct decision. Then...and now. Religious freedom is in essence freedom of thought, and though I consider organized religion personally to be a dead train-wreck of a philosophy, I would rather everyone have the right to believe as they deem fit than have the current pseudo-conservative judeo-christian ideological mandate that currently is all but indoctrinated into our modern government. 

- Ardently committed to a morality based on the evaluation of the well being and suffering of individuals, instead of one based on taboo's, idolatry, and sexism. One easy example of where we've gone horribly wrong. We teach sex in schools by telling teenagers with raging hormones not to have it, and imply that there is some modern moral evil in contraception despite the fact we've had it for thousands of years. Ever wonder if there's a causal connection between this and the fact that the United States has higher teen pregnancy  HPV (and thus cervical cancer), AIDS, and abortion rates (in some cases by orders of magnitude) than all other modern economies (and higher than many countries we still incorrectly deem as 3rd world)? Does it take genius to see this is the horrific outcome of one of our many idiotic social taboos? No.

...Some additional personal details to round out my entire unelectable argument...

- I'm divorced. You've either got to have that proper "mom-wife" figure behind you (as a male being elected), or the proper uber-achiever wife. I have neither of those. I have an extremely off-balance ex-wife however, but that's a story for another day. Not only are these "negatives" pointlessly judgemental of me they are equally (and offensively) judgemental of what a spousal relationship is, of females in general, and me for making the choice to not remarry in a huge hurry. But I did mention how the process has devolved into one of "celebrity", so this shouldn't be a surprise perhaps. 

- I am not financially well off or economically successful. When people encounter me, they often find my wit and intellect to be a bit of a surprise considering I'm fairly poor (in only the economic sense however). People tend to equate success with such things.  Still I consider myself quite enriched by the fact I came through four corporate downsizes (since 1996) with three separate companies, a divorce that occurred during a period of long unemployment, and the accrual of quite a bit of debt. These things taught me, if nothing else, the uselessness of socio-economic status when it comes to being happy, living a good and moral life, and grasping what it is to live well. Still, not living within the necessary socio-economic circles to even begin playing in the political arena is a near insurmountable barrier. Both a grossly unfair one, and an entirely unnecessary one as well.