Two things. One: Simply disgusting.
That's about
Two: Really?
There are no acorns in the American Northeast.
About the second, again, nobody knows what's happening. It'd be nice if we could go back to a place where we weren't just waiting to see what would happen as a result of fudging around with the environment. (See my post titled "unintended consequences.") Of course, we can't and things are pretty weird. Did we do it? NOBODY KNOWS.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Somewhat troubling
A report in the Washington Post today.
A little troubling. If you can answer the following question in a different fashion, I'd be very happy: why military, if not for population control / martial law?
Oh, come on you far--out paranoid, if there were a terrorist attack on the country, wouldn't we need twenty thousand (at least) soldiers to help out?
No, not soldiers. A terrorist attack would NOT be an invasion. I can't see a reason, beyond population control, that you couldn't do what the military is here to do with a corps of trained citizen volunteers, like volunteer firemen. Logistically, yes, it might be a little more difficult. But it avoids having the military active in the country (in large numbers,) which is just an open invitation for trouble. I guarantee that if they are ever used (why are they there if not to be used) there will be abuses times a billion. Perhaps (but only perhaps) it is better than, say, using Blackwater, at least it's out in the open.
I'm not saying it's going to happen, but it could.
And that's more troubling to me than a terrorist attack. Terrorists do not win when they attack. But they'd win if we deployed the military in response to one.
A little troubling. If you can answer the following question in a different fashion, I'd be very happy: why military, if not for population control / martial law?
Oh, come on you far--out paranoid, if there were a terrorist attack on the country, wouldn't we need twenty thousand (at least) soldiers to help out?
No, not soldiers. A terrorist attack would NOT be an invasion. I can't see a reason, beyond population control, that you couldn't do what the military is here to do with a corps of trained citizen volunteers, like volunteer firemen. Logistically, yes, it might be a little more difficult. But it avoids having the military active in the country (in large numbers,) which is just an open invitation for trouble. I guarantee that if they are ever used (why are they there if not to be used) there will be abuses times a billion. Perhaps (but only perhaps) it is better than, say, using Blackwater, at least it's out in the open.
I'm not saying it's going to happen, but it could.
And that's more troubling to me than a terrorist attack. Terrorists do not win when they attack. But they'd win if we deployed the military in response to one.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Myths about Liberals
Here's a wonderful list of liberal talking points for the Thanksgiving table, a re-branding of the word, if you will.
It's odd why you need the political trade winds to shift so much before any of these come to light. Three years ago, you'd have heard few people on any sort of mainstream media defending what it is and means to be liberal, but since 2006, and then crescendoing after the liberal's wet dream, Barack Obama, was elected president of the united states, you've heard a lot more of this.
Happy Thanksgiving!
It's odd why you need the political trade winds to shift so much before any of these come to light. Three years ago, you'd have heard few people on any sort of mainstream media defending what it is and means to be liberal, but since 2006, and then crescendoing after the liberal's wet dream, Barack Obama, was elected president of the united states, you've heard a lot more of this.
Happy Thanksgiving!
The Meaning of Life.
From Wikipedia.
I just like how it says, "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject."
Whoever that is, I'd like to meet them.
I just like how it says, "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject."
Whoever that is, I'd like to meet them.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Peter Fenner, Radiant Mind
Peter Fenner gives about as good, simple and natural an explanation to the space of consciousness as just about anyone I've come across.
A short dialogue, here.
A short dialogue, here.
More on the "End of America."
If you don't have time to watch the video, here's a nice synopsis of Naomi Wolf's 10 steps to closing a society.
The main thing I want to say, connected with yesterday's post about unintended consequences, is that the powers that Bush put into play during his presidency are still valid.
Obama may restrain himself from using some of them, (say, signing statements) but to truly ensure the survival of American democracy, we have to expressly remove certain of these powers, like the ability to declare anyone an enemy combatant, or to use the national guard as a police force, things any president would love to have in an emergency, and keep afterwards.
The question to be determined in Obama's first year or so is, what is he working for? If it is for the good of American democracy, we should see an unequivocal reversal of many of the president's arbitrary and un-american war powers. If it is for the capitalist class, expect no rescinding of these powers, instead some soft words and talk of how it's unecessary to change anything at this point, for whatever concocted reason.
We're in some shit.
The main thing I want to say, connected with yesterday's post about unintended consequences, is that the powers that Bush put into play during his presidency are still valid.
Obama may restrain himself from using some of them, (say, signing statements) but to truly ensure the survival of American democracy, we have to expressly remove certain of these powers, like the ability to declare anyone an enemy combatant, or to use the national guard as a police force, things any president would love to have in an emergency, and keep afterwards.
The question to be determined in Obama's first year or so is, what is he working for? If it is for the good of American democracy, we should see an unequivocal reversal of many of the president's arbitrary and un-american war powers. If it is for the capitalist class, expect no rescinding of these powers, instead some soft words and talk of how it's unecessary to change anything at this point, for whatever concocted reason.
We're in some shit.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Unintended Consequences
An article on National Geographic.
Real quick: unintended consequences. Any system is in a constant state of cyclical flux, (feedback loops, if you will) that is in balance at any point in time. The more complicated the system, the less obvious the connections between individual constituents of the system. For example, the dynamic of a two-child family is more complex than the heating system of their house, and the operation of their society is infinitely more complex than the family.
The more complex the system, the less likely it is that consequences of changing one element can be predicted.
We're seeing this across the board when it comes to climate change, which is why certain pundits now prefer the phrase "global weirding" to "global warming."
Again: 1- the earth's ecosystems are about as complex as they come.
2- We are seriously screwing with them.
3- Anybody who does not take this uncertainty (or, looking at historical examples of assuredness in the face of complete unknowability, the relative certainty of disaster) as the number one most important thing in any talks about climate change has the race handicapped poorly.
Of course, we're not just fudging with one or two things at a time here. We are fudging with everything in the global ecosystem, upon which humanity is precariously balanced. Who knows what's going to happen? Nobody. But, rather than write it off and say, "well, whatever happens isn't likely to be that big," we should be saying, "we're in a balance that has suited us well for thousands and thousands of years, and the likelihood of a new balance being in our favor is probably small."
It's ironic that this conservative value is so outside the mindset of the majority of today's political conservatives.
And, though this is an environmental example, it relates to almost every human choice. At the outset, options may appear clear, but one can never correctly judge what the consequence of the first choice will be. Instead of blindly trudging forward through ever changing circumstances, we need a much more flexible way of operating, one that makes a choice, looks at what happens, and only then moves on. Kaizen: my favorite Japanese word.
Real quick: unintended consequences. Any system is in a constant state of cyclical flux, (feedback loops, if you will) that is in balance at any point in time. The more complicated the system, the less obvious the connections between individual constituents of the system. For example, the dynamic of a two-child family is more complex than the heating system of their house, and the operation of their society is infinitely more complex than the family.
The more complex the system, the less likely it is that consequences of changing one element can be predicted.
We're seeing this across the board when it comes to climate change, which is why certain pundits now prefer the phrase "global weirding" to "global warming."
Again: 1- the earth's ecosystems are about as complex as they come.
2- We are seriously screwing with them.
3- Anybody who does not take this uncertainty (or, looking at historical examples of assuredness in the face of complete unknowability, the relative certainty of disaster) as the number one most important thing in any talks about climate change has the race handicapped poorly.
Of course, we're not just fudging with one or two things at a time here. We are fudging with everything in the global ecosystem, upon which humanity is precariously balanced. Who knows what's going to happen? Nobody. But, rather than write it off and say, "well, whatever happens isn't likely to be that big," we should be saying, "we're in a balance that has suited us well for thousands and thousands of years, and the likelihood of a new balance being in our favor is probably small."
It's ironic that this conservative value is so outside the mindset of the majority of today's political conservatives.
And, though this is an environmental example, it relates to almost every human choice. At the outset, options may appear clear, but one can never correctly judge what the consequence of the first choice will be. Instead of blindly trudging forward through ever changing circumstances, we need a much more flexible way of operating, one that makes a choice, looks at what happens, and only then moves on. Kaizen: my favorite Japanese word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
