http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19423147
Even Darwin admitted that
there was a lack of fossil (and now, genetic) evidence to support his
theory of natural selection and the consequential piece of evolution and
adaptation that followed from it.
But some are more likely to
cling to the abstractions that simplify the world beyond measure, such
that they continue to remain ignorant about about the basic
functionality of the universe that, actually is, around them.
There are some aspects of religion that have to do with functionality
for the sake of humans and for the sake of the world that is around us.
Respect for nature is one of them.
Likewise respect and love for others is another.
However, religion in my own mind remains only an abstraction that was
produced to explain and control the world around it, without actually
having evidence to support the claims and the doctrines.
All of the major religions were founded before the concept of the scientific method.
Therefore, it is reasonable to rework and re-question the concepts that
are at the core of it, to see what is still valid as far as our current
(emphasize current), understanding of the world that is around us and
beyond our brain's mistakes, for our own sakes, as well as for the sakes
of others.
Because, without this kind of constant and
continuous knowledge production, we would be making life harder for
ourselves and for others, regardless of what we may think or experience
to the contrary.
Mistakes can be made.
But that doesn't mean that progress can be stopped, in spite of what conservative minded individuals think or believe.
The world is a tumult.
And you've got to learn how to ride it, rather than "control" it.
"It's not the strongest of the species that survives, but the ones most responsive to change." - C. Darwin.
Think about it.
Cause you're apt to get left behind if you don't.
Think about it.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Mitt's Speech and the American Dream
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19431050
You know what, I'll give him credit.
I'll accept his premise that he really wants to succeed.
Problem is, his means of doing so concentrates all efforts on the one in a gagillion chance that people make it BIG, and then, leaves nothing for them when it doesn't work out like that.
It's an unstable tower phenomenon.
Imagine building the biggest jenga tower you can with the blocks that you have.
It can be incredibly tall.
But it's inherently unstable at the core, and is more likely to fall down, more than anything.
Building lower, yet using more bricks to support the structure is what makes it stable and lasting (even though it should be understood, that that stability is only there until a hand comes by to knock it all down anyway).
I'm half hoping that you'd get elected, Mr. Romney, even though I would never vote for you in an eternity.
Cause your own dreams are going to get dashed, when you implement them in the present reality.
And you'll see exactly how wrong your philosophies are when they are applied to the real world that is around you.
Think about it.
If that's what you're really doing with it.
Think about it.
You know what, I'll give him credit.
I'll accept his premise that he really wants to succeed.
Problem is, his means of doing so concentrates all efforts on the one in a gagillion chance that people make it BIG, and then, leaves nothing for them when it doesn't work out like that.
It's an unstable tower phenomenon.
Imagine building the biggest jenga tower you can with the blocks that you have.
It can be incredibly tall.
But it's inherently unstable at the core, and is more likely to fall down, more than anything.
Building lower, yet using more bricks to support the structure is what makes it stable and lasting (even though it should be understood, that that stability is only there until a hand comes by to knock it all down anyway).
I'm half hoping that you'd get elected, Mr. Romney, even though I would never vote for you in an eternity.
Cause your own dreams are going to get dashed, when you implement them in the present reality.
And you'll see exactly how wrong your philosophies are when they are applied to the real world that is around you.
Think about it.
If that's what you're really doing with it.
Think about it.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
The World's Big Problem
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/101east/2012/08/201282294320474807.html
This is dangerous.
And, the Chinese elites are getting the hint, and are moving out of the country in droves.
Honestly, I'm shocked that the American elites aren't following suit. But I've never pegged them high on awareness points when
This is dangerous.
And, the Chinese elites are getting the hint, and are moving out of the country in droves.
Honestly, I'm shocked that the American elites aren't following suit. But I've never pegged them high on awareness points when
it comes to how they interact with others.
It's coming to be that time that we pick our next batch of leaders for this country, and the Chinese are going to be having a changing of the guards themselves.
We'll see how the new leadership handle themselves.
And we'll see how things actually work out on the ground, depending upon which way that they chose to go.
Think about it.
Cause it's all happening on this plane of existence.
And we can test to see how effective it actually is, when push comes to shove, in the lived world that is around us.
Think about it.
Cause it is only a matter of time before things explode at this point.
And the only way to head it off is to change.
Sincerely and honestly.
Think about it.
It's coming to be that time that we pick our next batch of leaders for this country, and the Chinese are going to be having a changing of the guards themselves.
We'll see how the new leadership handle themselves.
And we'll see how things actually work out on the ground, depending upon which way that they chose to go.
Think about it.
Cause it's all happening on this plane of existence.
And we can test to see how effective it actually is, when push comes to shove, in the lived world that is around us.
Think about it.
Cause it is only a matter of time before things explode at this point.
And the only way to head it off is to change.
Sincerely and honestly.
Think about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/
It seems that China is founded on similar principles as our own.
Those principles are being trashed upon left right and center by the elites.
And that the code of human ethics is universal, and the empirically best way for the leadership to go, in spite of difficulties and relative losses that they will suffer as a result of it.
We don't remember the names of those who were only mighty. Or those that were only rich.
We remember those who touched us, and who helped us more than anything.
You don't see people walking around with little figures of Alexander the Great.
You see Jesus and Buddha.
You don't see people talking about Genghis Khan in the same light as Mother Teresa.
We remember George Washington, or Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Paine.
We scarcely see Bush anymore.
And he was only in power 4 years ago.
This is the way that the world works beyond our brains.
And it's a crying shame that there are so many that are so deluded by one thing or another, that they can't see that simple truth about the world that is around them.
Silly brains.
Think about it.
Silly brains indeed.
It seems that China is founded on similar principles as our own.
Those principles are being trashed upon left right and center by the elites.
And that the code of human ethics is universal, and the empirically best way for the leadership to go, in spite of difficulties and relative losses that they will suffer as a result of it.
We don't remember the names of those who were only mighty. Or those that were only rich.
We remember those who touched us, and who helped us more than anything.
You don't see people walking around with little figures of Alexander the Great.
You see Jesus and Buddha.
You don't see people talking about Genghis Khan in the same light as Mother Teresa.
We remember George Washington, or Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Paine.
We scarcely see Bush anymore.
And he was only in power 4 years ago.
This is the way that the world works beyond our brains.
And it's a crying shame that there are so many that are so deluded by one thing or another, that they can't see that simple truth about the world that is around them.
Silly brains.
Think about it.
Silly brains indeed.
The Imagined Ideal and the Way Forward
You can never go back to the imagined ideal. The imagined ideal is, just that. An imagined ideal. It is only a smattering of what was. It is never something that truly is. And it never will be anything beyond something that you brain imagined. Therefore, why bother spending so much time trying to get back to an imagined ideal, when you can live in the present moment and work your way forward from there?
It's not going to be utopia. Problems are still going to occur and suffering will be the defining feature of this world. Such is the nature of life and existence. The best we can do is make do with the problems that we have, and continue forward as best as we can with the empirical knowledge that we have about what causes what to happen, when push comes to shove.
It's about making policy less of a question of opinion or ideological belief, and more of a science where we can test the effects of our actions and our government's actions relative to the rest of the social, environmental, economical and cosmological world that's around us.
It's about leadership understanding its place relative to the rest of the world that actually is around it, and understanding the connection between its own effectiveness and its ability to stay in positions of power, authority, responsibility and consequence.
It's about the world that's around us.
And not what comes out of your brain.
Think about it.
Cause you're the ones who lose out when you don't.
And you don't need to believe me, in order for it to happen.
Think about it.
It's not going to be utopia. Problems are still going to occur and suffering will be the defining feature of this world. Such is the nature of life and existence. The best we can do is make do with the problems that we have, and continue forward as best as we can with the empirical knowledge that we have about what causes what to happen, when push comes to shove.
It's about making policy less of a question of opinion or ideological belief, and more of a science where we can test the effects of our actions and our government's actions relative to the rest of the social, environmental, economical and cosmological world that's around us.
It's about leadership understanding its place relative to the rest of the world that actually is around it, and understanding the connection between its own effectiveness and its ability to stay in positions of power, authority, responsibility and consequence.
It's about the world that's around us.
And not what comes out of your brain.
Think about it.
Cause you're the ones who lose out when you don't.
And you don't need to believe me, in order for it to happen.
Think about it.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
The Weakness of Propoganda
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201282395629967441.html
If propoganda-esque stuff worked, it would never have led to the uprisings that we've seen across the Middle East. People are not all infinitely malleable beings that can be made submissive simply by droning them with television messages that, ultimately, lead them to accept the regimes in question. There is an awareness about what's going on with the neighbors and the family, and an independence of thought that comes with the territory.
Just ask any hypnotist, and they'll tell you that it only works if the subject buys into the hypnosis in the first place and accepts the suggestions. You can't make people do whatever you want them to, just because you're pulling their mental wires (although, in television, you are pulling their wires to elicit emotions and responses which help impart the story that the director is trying to tell. Same could be said for any kind of story telling, really. But it does not mean that the individual necessarily is losing control of themselves or their actions as a result of your insidiousness.)
You only give up control if you allow the control to be given up. And, quite frankly, most human beings don't do that on a regular basis, particularly to those whom they don't trust, don't have strong feelings for or are otherwise opposed to or one reason and another.
You can't MAKE someone do something they wouldn't ordinarily do.
And that is the lesson that the Arab Spring, and other uprisings can teach us.
If propaganda worked, Germany would have risen up in revolt against the occupiers rather than surrender to them at the end of World War II, as per the order by Hitler and Goebbels.
You could keep people ignorant, back in the day.
And, to a certain extent, you can keep them ignorant in the present.
But it does not change the human paradigm that is interpersonal communication and interpersonal news spreading.
Else, how could you account for the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/
Or the French Revolution?
Or the Protestant Reformation?
Or Wat Tyler's Revolution in England?
Or, even more, the Baron's revolt in England in 1215 that led to the creation of Magna Carta?
All of these instances were of people banding together by word of mouth to deal with a government and a group of people in government who's regime had become oppressive, intolerable and unacceptable in these countries. And that's just Western history!
They've each shaped the countries and societies where they happened, permanently, depending upon what happened in each of these instances.
And it boggles my brain to see that people so casually disregard these lessons from history, which is indeed, the lessons that we all share in common from the world beyond our own brain's conceptions and our own brain's perceptions.
And yet, here we are.
Circling the drain once again, because of the careless thinking of a minority few, getting in the way of the majority many.
Think about it.
Cause I know that the lords and ladies of Capitalism are not.
Else they wouldn't be making these kinds of choices and these kinds of decisions.
And they'd really step aside to let more capable hands take over the government and the society, peaceably.
Without a war.
And without violence.
Think about it.
Cause the lords and ladies aren't listening. Or thinking.
And that is how they're going to fail.
One way or another.
That is how they're going to fail.
Think about it.
If propoganda-esque stuff worked, it would never have led to the uprisings that we've seen across the Middle East. People are not all infinitely malleable beings that can be made submissive simply by droning them with television messages that, ultimately, lead them to accept the regimes in question. There is an awareness about what's going on with the neighbors and the family, and an independence of thought that comes with the territory.
Just ask any hypnotist, and they'll tell you that it only works if the subject buys into the hypnosis in the first place and accepts the suggestions. You can't make people do whatever you want them to, just because you're pulling their mental wires (although, in television, you are pulling their wires to elicit emotions and responses which help impart the story that the director is trying to tell. Same could be said for any kind of story telling, really. But it does not mean that the individual necessarily is losing control of themselves or their actions as a result of your insidiousness.)
You only give up control if you allow the control to be given up. And, quite frankly, most human beings don't do that on a regular basis, particularly to those whom they don't trust, don't have strong feelings for or are otherwise opposed to or one reason and another.
You can't MAKE someone do something they wouldn't ordinarily do.
And that is the lesson that the Arab Spring, and other uprisings can teach us.
If propaganda worked, Germany would have risen up in revolt against the occupiers rather than surrender to them at the end of World War II, as per the order by Hitler and Goebbels.
You could keep people ignorant, back in the day.
And, to a certain extent, you can keep them ignorant in the present.
But it does not change the human paradigm that is interpersonal communication and interpersonal news spreading.
Else, how could you account for the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/
Or the French Revolution?
Or the Protestant Reformation?
Or Wat Tyler's Revolution in England?
Or, even more, the Baron's revolt in England in 1215 that led to the creation of Magna Carta?
All of these instances were of people banding together by word of mouth to deal with a government and a group of people in government who's regime had become oppressive, intolerable and unacceptable in these countries. And that's just Western history!
They've each shaped the countries and societies where they happened, permanently, depending upon what happened in each of these instances.
And it boggles my brain to see that people so casually disregard these lessons from history, which is indeed, the lessons that we all share in common from the world beyond our own brain's conceptions and our own brain's perceptions.
And yet, here we are.
Circling the drain once again, because of the careless thinking of a minority few, getting in the way of the majority many.
Think about it.
Cause I know that the lords and ladies of Capitalism are not.
Else they wouldn't be making these kinds of choices and these kinds of decisions.
And they'd really step aside to let more capable hands take over the government and the society, peaceably.
Without a war.
And without violence.
Think about it.
Cause the lords and ladies aren't listening. Or thinking.
And that is how they're going to fail.
One way or another.
That is how they're going to fail.
Think about it.
China's Political Future
http://thediplomat.com/china-power/chinas-forgotten-non-communist-parties/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+the-diplomat+%28The+Diplomat+RSS%29
You know, it's questionable that China's one party system is unpopular in China. If that's the case, then they need a system that really is more responsive to the needs of people while being much more effective at tackling corruption and poor government practice.
To that end, I'm honestly not sure if a Western democracy is what China really needs or will want to have, when push comes to actual shove.
That being said though; the Communists are going to have to come up with something different and then enact it quickly, such that they can avoid the tumult that will likely come should they lose the "Mandate of Heaven" as it is said in the old Chinese way of being.
Or is it more like the "Mandate of People" that holds people in power?
After all, it's harder to overthrow a popular regime, which takes care of the smaller detailed aspects of governing, while it is much more stably rooted within the society when the regime is responsive and effective at meeting the needs and desires of the people. It's more work and you don't get to play uber lord/lady as much. But it is, I think, the secret to political longevity.
And you don't need to take my word for it.
You can test it.
Tweak it.
And experiment with it, until you get it right for your own selves and your own sakes.
Like a doctor titrating you onto a specific medicine regimen.
Think about it.
Cause the ones in power are the ones who lose when they don't.
And that is the biggest joke of it all that's played on them, when you look back at history and how it's actually worked out for them.
Think about it.
You know, it's questionable that China's one party system is unpopular in China. If that's the case, then they need a system that really is more responsive to the needs of people while being much more effective at tackling corruption and poor government practice.
To that end, I'm honestly not sure if a Western democracy is what China really needs or will want to have, when push comes to actual shove.
That being said though; the Communists are going to have to come up with something different and then enact it quickly, such that they can avoid the tumult that will likely come should they lose the "Mandate of Heaven" as it is said in the old Chinese way of being.
Or is it more like the "Mandate of People" that holds people in power?
After all, it's harder to overthrow a popular regime, which takes care of the smaller detailed aspects of governing, while it is much more stably rooted within the society when the regime is responsive and effective at meeting the needs and desires of the people. It's more work and you don't get to play uber lord/lady as much. But it is, I think, the secret to political longevity.
And you don't need to take my word for it.
You can test it.
Tweak it.
And experiment with it, until you get it right for your own selves and your own sakes.
Like a doctor titrating you onto a specific medicine regimen.
Think about it.
Cause the ones in power are the ones who lose when they don't.
And that is the biggest joke of it all that's played on them, when you look back at history and how it's actually worked out for them.
Think about it.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
The Lonmin Protests and Percolate Up Economics
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/08/2012822135041901731.html
See.
Personally, I would be willing to pay the wages and improve the conditions, if I were management.
It would most likely just get spent again back into the system.
Or else, invested in these projects.
Or saved as a means of buffering against difficult times (which also is good for the banks as well).
Wealth can't be enabled to be stagnant like this.
It has to recycle in the economy in order to encourage growth in the economy.
Else you're just pocketing the difference and having it go into accounts where it does nothing in particular for anyone, including for the people who own it, past a certain point.
How much money does an individual need in order to be well?
How much do they need to live a high life?
And what's the point of fussing about it when it gets past that point where it becomes, essentially, useless to you?
Think about it.
See.
Personally, I would be willing to pay the wages and improve the conditions, if I were management.
It would most likely just get spent again back into the system.
Or else, invested in these projects.
Or saved as a means of buffering against difficult times (which also is good for the banks as well).
Wealth can't be enabled to be stagnant like this.
It has to recycle in the economy in order to encourage growth in the economy.
Else you're just pocketing the difference and having it go into accounts where it does nothing in particular for anyone, including for the people who own it, past a certain point.
How much money does an individual need in order to be well?
How much do they need to live a high life?
And what's the point of fussing about it when it gets past that point where it becomes, essentially, useless to you?
Think about it.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Zuma's Mines
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/08/2012820113031733291.html
Ah...Zuma.
This could cost yourself and your ANC votes in the next election cycle.
Oh well.
Good riddance to bad rubbish?
Got stuck up on your shorter term, smaller interests, rather than focusing on the bigger interests of your country, society and people.
And just wait to see where it will get you and yours, in the end.
Think about it.
Silly brains.
Think about it.
Personally, I'm not a big union guy. I think that, if a union takes over, it's more of a sign of bad management than anything else. I personally like the German model of unions best; where union leaders sit on the Board of Directors for a company and thus represent labor in the big decision making room. It ties the union to the well being of the company, and it inserts labor's voice amongst the management circles, such that workers aren't disabused and are getting fair compensation from the management.
It ties unions and management together under the same organizational infrastructure, instead of letting them be divided along these silly little Anglo lines.
And look how profitable/wealthy the Germans are as a result of this.
It's all in the science of it.
Think about it.
It's all in the science.
Ah...Zuma.
This could cost yourself and your ANC votes in the next election cycle.
Oh well.
Good riddance to bad rubbish?
Got stuck up on your shorter term, smaller interests, rather than focusing on the bigger interests of your country, society and people.
And just wait to see where it will get you and yours, in the end.
Think about it.
Silly brains.
Think about it.
Personally, I'm not a big union guy. I think that, if a union takes over, it's more of a sign of bad management than anything else. I personally like the German model of unions best; where union leaders sit on the Board of Directors for a company and thus represent labor in the big decision making room. It ties the union to the well being of the company, and it inserts labor's voice amongst the management circles, such that workers aren't disabused and are getting fair compensation from the management.
It ties unions and management together under the same organizational infrastructure, instead of letting them be divided along these silly little Anglo lines.
And look how profitable/wealthy the Germans are as a result of this.
It's all in the science of it.
Think about it.
It's all in the science.
The Right Ethic of Government
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19289230
That's the ethic. Both for governing and for medicine.
And we shouldn't accept anything less from our doctors or our elected officials.
When you don't like someone, you go and vote them out, and replace them with another volunteer.
When you don't like them, you go and vote them out.
When you don't like the replacement, you go and vote them out, until you get someone who is actually interested in doing the job that they were elected to do, for their own sake at the very least, for others at the very most.
Think about it.
Cause we end up with a stubborn and ignorant leadership when we don't.
Think about it.
Notice how long his practice has been in business.
And imagine that being your Congressional seat.
The keys to reliable political longevity.
Think about it.
https://docs.google.com/
That's the ethic. Both for governing and for medicine.
And we shouldn't accept anything less from our doctors or our elected officials.
When you don't like someone, you go and vote them out, and replace them with another volunteer.
When you don't like them, you go and vote them out.
When you don't like the replacement, you go and vote them out, until you get someone who is actually interested in doing the job that they were elected to do, for their own sake at the very least, for others at the very most.
Think about it.
Cause we end up with a stubborn and ignorant leadership when we don't.
Think about it.
Notice how long his practice has been in business.
And imagine that being your Congressional seat.
The keys to reliable political longevity.
Think about it.
https://docs.google.com/
Percolate Up Economcis Explained Pt 2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19312378
You know, this is one type of spending that actually does, filter down into the people such that the wealth percolates up throughout the rest of society. Same could be said about food stamps, universal healthcare, education, etc.
Anything that increases the purchasing, investing and saving power of the individual in question.
I just wish we had the sense to not point these weapons at each other, and to instead direct them at a potential common threat from outer space.
Why bother fighting amongst ourselves as a species?
Especially when there could be far scarier and more dangerous things that we likely could encounter along the way.
Are we so arrogant as to think that we're the only life in this cosmos?
Let alone, the only sentient life in the cosmos?
Think about it.
Cause I would really like to know.
Think about it.
You know, this is one type of spending that actually does, filter down into the people such that the wealth percolates up throughout the rest of society. Same could be said about food stamps, universal healthcare, education, etc.
Anything that increases the purchasing, investing and saving power of the individual in question.
I just wish we had the sense to not point these weapons at each other, and to instead direct them at a potential common threat from outer space.
Why bother fighting amongst ourselves as a species?
Especially when there could be far scarier and more dangerous things that we likely could encounter along the way.
Are we so arrogant as to think that we're the only life in this cosmos?
Let alone, the only sentient life in the cosmos?
Think about it.
Cause I would really like to know.
Think about it.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Percolate Up Economics Explained
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19310907
Ok.
So not only is this a nice guy, decent human being thing to actually do, but it's also what saves Leno from having a reasonably bad economic/social time.
Those jobs fuel the economy. No economy, no people buying TV subscriptions, no ratings for Leno. They'll find cheaper alternatives, such as, piracy to get the shows. But that doesn't translate into advertising dollars for Jay.
How much would Mr. Leno's life be effected by this pay cut? Nil. What's the honest difference between $25 million and $20 million for an individual.
Granted, it does mean less taxes overall for Mr. Leno, which means less money available for re-investment. But such is what happens when you a) rely on stagnant wealth, rather than relay it back into the economy and b) maintain the current infrastructure of the economy without letting the inefficient and ineffective (not aimed at you, Jay) fall under the waves and be reborn with something else.
It's a much more dynamic take on the economy.
And it's one that, I hypothesize, is much more in line with a functional/functioning economy than opposed to, say, neoliberalism which is aimed at functionally creating more wealth for the individuals who already have, rather than factoring in everything else that makes an economy safe, stable, and functional.
The ethical is also the practicable.
And we can test for it all in the world around us, rather than rely on just my own words that say "this is correct". We can even tweak it to produce maximum effect and adjust it according to times and conditions that may be different than our own.
Think about it.
That's the beauty of science.
Think about it.
Ok.
So not only is this a nice guy, decent human being thing to actually do, but it's also what saves Leno from having a reasonably bad economic/social time.
Those jobs fuel the economy. No economy, no people buying TV subscriptions, no ratings for Leno. They'll find cheaper alternatives, such as, piracy to get the shows. But that doesn't translate into advertising dollars for Jay.
How much would Mr. Leno's life be effected by this pay cut? Nil. What's the honest difference between $25 million and $20 million for an individual.
Granted, it does mean less taxes overall for Mr. Leno, which means less money available for re-investment. But such is what happens when you a) rely on stagnant wealth, rather than relay it back into the economy and b) maintain the current infrastructure of the economy without letting the inefficient and ineffective (not aimed at you, Jay) fall under the waves and be reborn with something else.
It's a much more dynamic take on the economy.
And it's one that, I hypothesize, is much more in line with a functional/functioning economy than opposed to, say, neoliberalism which is aimed at functionally creating more wealth for the individuals who already have, rather than factoring in everything else that makes an economy safe, stable, and functional.
The ethical is also the practicable.
And we can test for it all in the world around us, rather than rely on just my own words that say "this is correct". We can even tweak it to produce maximum effect and adjust it according to times and conditions that may be different than our own.
Think about it.
That's the beauty of science.
Think about it.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
On Anger Itself
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/08/201281816173789836.html
I say again, in the words of a very wise person.
Anger is just a primitive response to an attack or injury inflicted upon oneself or those/that which is close to them. The object of the anger is to make the hurting stop and to ensure that it doesn't happen again, by making the pain that you experience feel more intense.
While this might have solved some cases in primitive times, it does not actually dissuade others from hurting you again. It, literally, is only a bio-chemical reaction of your inner brain that's beyond consciousness. And it can be very difficult to overcome.
That said, in practical terms, not responding with violence or violent action has two effects. 1, it actually ends the cycle of violence. 2, it really ends the conflict more in your own favor, rather than for the other you're dealing with. Better to smile, and say "ok then", then to start another slew of violence.
And, I am talking in the coldest of most calculated terms, beyond that of morals, emotions and all that other fuzzy stuff.
It, literally, is only in your brain that it works differently.
And, we can see from the millenia of human conflict, that that is, actually, the case in the world beyond your brain, repeatably and demonstrably, despite what you'd think and despite what you do to make the effects of your actions be different.
Please.
Do not take my word for it.
Examine it yourself.
Consciously.
And, think about it.
Try it.
It's not easy.
And, think about it, all the same.
Think about it.
I say again, in the words of a very wise person.
Anger is just a primitive response to an attack or injury inflicted upon oneself or those/that which is close to them. The object of the anger is to make the hurting stop and to ensure that it doesn't happen again, by making the pain that you experience feel more intense.
While this might have solved some cases in primitive times, it does not actually dissuade others from hurting you again. It, literally, is only a bio-chemical reaction of your inner brain that's beyond consciousness. And it can be very difficult to overcome.
That said, in practical terms, not responding with violence or violent action has two effects. 1, it actually ends the cycle of violence. 2, it really ends the conflict more in your own favor, rather than for the other you're dealing with. Better to smile, and say "ok then", then to start another slew of violence.
And, I am talking in the coldest of most calculated terms, beyond that of morals, emotions and all that other fuzzy stuff.
It, literally, is only in your brain that it works differently.
And, we can see from the millenia of human conflict, that that is, actually, the case in the world beyond your brain, repeatably and demonstrably, despite what you'd think and despite what you do to make the effects of your actions be different.
Please.
Do not take my word for it.
Examine it yourself.
Consciously.
And, think about it.
Try it.
It's not easy.
And, think about it, all the same.
Think about it.
On the Yakuza, Crime and Organized Crime
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/101east/2012/08/201281355545671696.html
Short answer...
"meh."
There will always be crime.
And while it should not be accepted or tolerated.
It's going to be one of those things that's going to stick around.
The question then becomes how do we effectively deal with it, at the roots of its causes?
Because the gangs and organized crime are, I think, usually just symptoms of bigger problems within a given society, especially regarding education and social conditions.
And, to treat the problem, you should go after the viruses that are causing the disease, rather than going after the cough that comes from it.
Such is how policy becomes like medicine for the world.
Think about it.
Short answer...
"meh."
There will always be crime.
And while it should not be accepted or tolerated.
It's going to be one of those things that's going to stick around.
The question then becomes how do we effectively deal with it, at the roots of its causes?
Because the gangs and organized crime are, I think, usually just symptoms of bigger problems within a given society, especially regarding education and social conditions.
And, to treat the problem, you should go after the viruses that are causing the disease, rather than going after the cough that comes from it.
Such is how policy becomes like medicine for the world.
Think about it.
The Game Changes
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/08/2012818182526548301.html
And Israel wants to fight....
I think we really should tell our cocky little friend to simmer down. We may not be able to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, if they are so determined. Not without a major cost to ourselves, our reputation, our ability to function in the world, our finances and troops.
Best solution would be honest and leveled diplomacy.
And, unfortunately, that isn't what it seems that the US is trying to do.
And we may be too late to change that diplomatic trend.
This is what happens when you attempt to strong arm and under-cut others.
You end up failing most, if not all the time, in the short term and the long term as well (which, btw, becomes the short term eventually).
You've got to level, be honest and make REASONED consolations as you go along.
Else you're going to sour the negotiations, and make it turn out not so good for you, in spite of the short term stuff that you MAY accomplish.
I don't know what to say beyond this point.
Either you got it, or you don't.
And, apparently, the people who are in power don't got it.
And it shows in their day to day actions, as well as when they're playing the game.
Iran.
I'm very sorry for our leadership.
They're stupid.
They're ignorant.
And they don't know how to work with others.
Given past statements, that YOU have made, we're a little concerned about the instance of you having nuclear weapons.
And, we would like to discuss honestly and openly the possibility of you giving up those ambitions, if you're actually working towards them in the first place.
I'm sorry for the past and for the people who have risen up through our ranks.
But we can make the future better.
Think about it.
And Israel wants to fight....
I think we really should tell our cocky little friend to simmer down. We may not be able to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, if they are so determined. Not without a major cost to ourselves, our reputation, our ability to function in the world, our finances and troops.
Best solution would be honest and leveled diplomacy.
And, unfortunately, that isn't what it seems that the US is trying to do.
And we may be too late to change that diplomatic trend.
This is what happens when you attempt to strong arm and under-cut others.
You end up failing most, if not all the time, in the short term and the long term as well (which, btw, becomes the short term eventually).
You've got to level, be honest and make REASONED consolations as you go along.
Else you're going to sour the negotiations, and make it turn out not so good for you, in spite of the short term stuff that you MAY accomplish.
I don't know what to say beyond this point.
Either you got it, or you don't.
And, apparently, the people who are in power don't got it.
And it shows in their day to day actions, as well as when they're playing the game.
Iran.
I'm very sorry for our leadership.
They're stupid.
They're ignorant.
And they don't know how to work with others.
Given past statements, that YOU have made, we're a little concerned about the instance of you having nuclear weapons.
And, we would like to discuss honestly and openly the possibility of you giving up those ambitions, if you're actually working towards them in the first place.
I'm sorry for the past and for the people who have risen up through our ranks.
But we can make the future better.
Think about it.
The Bill of Rights for the 1%
Due
to the nature of the conflict between the top 1% of Americans and the
rest of the 99% of Americans, I think it is necessary to outline basic
principles by which the 1% ought to live their lives as well as basic
principles that ought to be social norms that they will be held to by
physical force if necessary. The following are the basic rights and
privilege that the 1% elite have in relation to the rest of the world
that is around them such that they do not live a life of persecution and
suppression:
1. The right to live free from physical harm or injury. Just because physical force is being used to enforce these principles, doesn’t mean that they will be carried out in a rough or violent manner.
2. The right to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
3. The right to equitable protection under the law.
4. The privilege to govern the world to the best of their abilities, with the understanding that failing to do so adequately would result in their removal via electoral polls or by physical force.
These are the basic terms that would be granted to the 1% elite, pending the majority consensus of the rest of society.
They do not have the following rights, which should be adhered to for their own sake and benefit:
1. The right to undemocratically take over and rule the society and the world in which they’re in.
2. The right to preferred and unequal treatment under the law within our society that would increase the public ire leveled against them.
3. The right to destroy the environment and the supplies of natural resources that we all depend on for our survival.
4. The right to degrade the conditions within the societies they live in.
I find these basic principles to be just and acceptable terms by which any human being can live out their lives. This is, like everything else that I produce, offered up to the eye that is our society for its judgement and consideration. If this is not a just system with just terms for the 1% elite, may it be rejected by the society in question by majority consensus, and never again heard from.
Friday, August 17, 2012
What Needs to be Said to Iran
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2012/07/2012731174748631481.html
Notice how even the opposition is denying that US and EU sanctions are working, publicly. What if this nuclear program is a unifying factor amongst the disparate parties within Iranian society? What do the people candidly think about these sanctions and the nuclear project?
I think that there is, without a doubt, that Iran is looking to build a nuclear weapon. However, saber rattling from the United States and Israel, especially, isn't going to deter them from building one. Matter of fact, it's more likely to give them the incentive to build one out of a desire for self-defense.
Our track record is such that, they honestly can't take our word out of good faith that they won't be another country that gets messed with. Matter of fact, they already were a country that was messed with, by the United States and Great Britain. How can we expect to talk them down from building a nuclear device if WE don't CHANGE our actions, attitudes and behaviors with regards to other people?
Sadly, I don't think this is going to be the case anytime soon. So I will just say this.
Iran.
I apologize for the LEADERSHIP of the United States, Israel and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are a bunch of dimwitted morons who couldn't tell a social interaction from a round of executions. I do not apologize for my country's existence, nor do I apologize for the State of Israel in and of itself. I apologize for the people who operate these countries, both defacto and de jur because THEY are the problems, not the countries themselves.
I'm VERY sorry for their actions, attitudes and behaviors.
Hopefully we'll take care of them in short time, so that we can, hopefully, normalize relations and get back to a reasonable level of peaceful co-existence.
Thank you.
And, good luck.
Thank you.
Notice how even the opposition is denying that US and EU sanctions are working, publicly. What if this nuclear program is a unifying factor amongst the disparate parties within Iranian society? What do the people candidly think about these sanctions and the nuclear project?
I think that there is, without a doubt, that Iran is looking to build a nuclear weapon. However, saber rattling from the United States and Israel, especially, isn't going to deter them from building one. Matter of fact, it's more likely to give them the incentive to build one out of a desire for self-defense.
Our track record is such that, they honestly can't take our word out of good faith that they won't be another country that gets messed with. Matter of fact, they already were a country that was messed with, by the United States and Great Britain. How can we expect to talk them down from building a nuclear device if WE don't CHANGE our actions, attitudes and behaviors with regards to other people?
Sadly, I don't think this is going to be the case anytime soon. So I will just say this.
Iran.
I apologize for the LEADERSHIP of the United States, Israel and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are a bunch of dimwitted morons who couldn't tell a social interaction from a round of executions. I do not apologize for my country's existence, nor do I apologize for the State of Israel in and of itself. I apologize for the people who operate these countries, both defacto and de jur because THEY are the problems, not the countries themselves.
I'm VERY sorry for their actions, attitudes and behaviors.
Hopefully we'll take care of them in short time, so that we can, hopefully, normalize relations and get back to a reasonable level of peaceful co-existence.
Thank you.
And, good luck.
Thank you.
The Long Term Becomes the Short Term
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/long-term-unemployment-is-much-worse-than-you-think/261279/
As I've pointed out before: wealth percolates up from the bottom and middle of society to bloom into the wealth that is realized by the upper crust.
The upper crust than needs to funnel the money that the make back down into the society, such that they can maintain and grow the wealth that they realize as a result of the economic activity of hundreds of millions, if not billions of people.
Keynes wrote several volumes on this subject, without touching on the point of investment and the fact that wages do, in fact have a positive effect on economic growth.
And I summed it up better in only so many words.
We can test these principles and tweak their practice in the world that is around us.
It does not say that there won't be moments of slow growth or even recession.
It is only the hypothesized principle that when individuals have money to spend and invest freely and securely, they do so. And that these activities happen in much greater volume and in much greater wealth value than it does in just the upper class.
Henry Ford observed this same phenomenon when he was selling his Model T's to the common American.
And it is that same common American/human being that should be the focus of our economic policies and priorities. Not the big companies that only produce stagnant wealth that does nothing for no one, including for the people who possess it, because they won't/can't spend it all fast enough.
It's a cycle of wealth.
Not a stagnation of it.
And it's only dumb ideology and misplaced greed that's holding it back from being a reality.
It's that delusional sense that money is actually worth something to an individual past a certain point. That misappropriation of priorities from the individual, social and ecological needs of the individual organism.
And we experience/see the effects of this ignorance in the world that is around us.
It doesn't do us any good.
And it doesn't do them any good.
For many reasons, socially and environmentally.
Think about it.
Cause I doubt they are.
And that's how we're going to be led to the brink of civil war in this world.
And I doubt very much that anything positive will come out of it.
Think about it.
As I've pointed out before: wealth percolates up from the bottom and middle of society to bloom into the wealth that is realized by the upper crust.
The upper crust than needs to funnel the money that the make back down into the society, such that they can maintain and grow the wealth that they realize as a result of the economic activity of hundreds of millions, if not billions of people.
Keynes wrote several volumes on this subject, without touching on the point of investment and the fact that wages do, in fact have a positive effect on economic growth.
And I summed it up better in only so many words.
We can test these principles and tweak their practice in the world that is around us.
It does not say that there won't be moments of slow growth or even recession.
It is only the hypothesized principle that when individuals have money to spend and invest freely and securely, they do so. And that these activities happen in much greater volume and in much greater wealth value than it does in just the upper class.
Henry Ford observed this same phenomenon when he was selling his Model T's to the common American.
And it is that same common American/human being that should be the focus of our economic policies and priorities. Not the big companies that only produce stagnant wealth that does nothing for no one, including for the people who possess it, because they won't/can't spend it all fast enough.
It's a cycle of wealth.
Not a stagnation of it.
And it's only dumb ideology and misplaced greed that's holding it back from being a reality.
It's that delusional sense that money is actually worth something to an individual past a certain point. That misappropriation of priorities from the individual, social and ecological needs of the individual organism.
And we experience/see the effects of this ignorance in the world that is around us.
It doesn't do us any good.
And it doesn't do them any good.
For many reasons, socially and environmentally.
Think about it.
Cause I doubt they are.
And that's how we're going to be led to the brink of civil war in this world.
And I doubt very much that anything positive will come out of it.
Think about it.
Israel's Goofiness
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19274866
Wow.
This is silly.
I don't think that a war with Iran is going to last "30 days".
Nor do I think that it would be wise to rattle the saber in this fashion, seeing as how it's unlikely to last 30 days.
Honestly, I think it's time we had a little intervention on Israel's behalf.
They're falling into the classic pattern of being overly cocky in spite of the fact that they almost lost the Yom Kippur War, and will now, likely, be facing a more unified and coordinated Islamic front.
They're not dealing with the petty "Republican" tyrants of the 20th century.
They're now confronting an international organization on one side, and religious cousins on the other side who are showing signs of reconciliation after centuries of conflict in their own right.
http://www.aljazeera.com/
I would not be this sure of themselves, if I were them, coming from a self-preservationist standpoint. And, if they're having such a difficulty handling these kinds of things on their own, perhaps it would be best for the United States to intervene on Israel's behalf, and diffuse this conflict by threatening to withhold Israel's billion plus dollar allowance that they get from us.
We can also bring about peace with such a tactic by having the Israeli government get rid of settlers and treat the Palestinians more equitably and with dignity.
That would probably go a long way towards smoothing things over with the Muslim world, if they haven't already botched it so badly that they can't use those peace building methods anymore.
It's only a thought.
And we'll see what Israel gets with this puffed up sense of self.
A silly little government. Filled with silly little people.
And you can just bite me for saying that publicly on the interwebs.
Think about it.
Silly brains.
Think about it.
Wow.
This is silly.
I don't think that a war with Iran is going to last "30 days".
Nor do I think that it would be wise to rattle the saber in this fashion, seeing as how it's unlikely to last 30 days.
Honestly, I think it's time we had a little intervention on Israel's behalf.
They're falling into the classic pattern of being overly cocky in spite of the fact that they almost lost the Yom Kippur War, and will now, likely, be facing a more unified and coordinated Islamic front.
They're not dealing with the petty "Republican" tyrants of the 20th century.
They're now confronting an international organization on one side, and religious cousins on the other side who are showing signs of reconciliation after centuries of conflict in their own right.
http://www.aljazeera.com/
I would not be this sure of themselves, if I were them, coming from a self-preservationist standpoint. And, if they're having such a difficulty handling these kinds of things on their own, perhaps it would be best for the United States to intervene on Israel's behalf, and diffuse this conflict by threatening to withhold Israel's billion plus dollar allowance that they get from us.
We can also bring about peace with such a tactic by having the Israeli government get rid of settlers and treat the Palestinians more equitably and with dignity.
That would probably go a long way towards smoothing things over with the Muslim world, if they haven't already botched it so badly that they can't use those peace building methods anymore.
It's only a thought.
And we'll see what Israel gets with this puffed up sense of self.
A silly little government. Filled with silly little people.
And you can just bite me for saying that publicly on the interwebs.
Think about it.
Silly brains.
Think about it.
On the Politics of Afghanistan
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/08/201281765122731439.html
Still think we're winning?
Honestly, we never did learn the lesson of the UK and the IRA. The weak is always more effective and more powerful, in spite of the superior weapons and forces that are deployed against them, particularly when they have the home team advantage, and have the support from the population itself.
I don't think that the Taliban are going to be able to take over Afghanistan, to be honest. I don't think they're very popular, and there are enough weapons around for people to do something about it. That being said though, we're not winning any hearts and minds either with this abject failure to protect people, the implementation of an artificial system of government for Afghanistan, and the drone strikes that we've escalated under Obama to deal with the Taliban threat.
This is just me, speaking frankly.
And it's precisely this kind of stuff that our leadership won't listen to, doesn't want to listen to, and will do everything to keep it quiet and down, in spite of the stupidity of their own actions and their own choices.
This is how I know the elites are going to fail, ultimately.
Because they are so disconnected from reality as we live it that they will never make a good choice.
And when elections prove to be ineffective at bringing about the change that is needed.
People take to other methods to bring about the change themselves.
It's all happened before.
And it's all going to happen again.
And it's only in your brain that it's going to work out otherwise, if we keep it on the current course and current set of actions and policies.
Think about it.
Cause I know they're not really thinking effectively.
And it shows in the ways that they act, behave and make choices with regards to the rest of the world that's around them.
Silly.
Small.
Little brains.
Think about it.
Still think we're winning?
Honestly, we never did learn the lesson of the UK and the IRA. The weak is always more effective and more powerful, in spite of the superior weapons and forces that are deployed against them, particularly when they have the home team advantage, and have the support from the population itself.
I don't think that the Taliban are going to be able to take over Afghanistan, to be honest. I don't think they're very popular, and there are enough weapons around for people to do something about it. That being said though, we're not winning any hearts and minds either with this abject failure to protect people, the implementation of an artificial system of government for Afghanistan, and the drone strikes that we've escalated under Obama to deal with the Taliban threat.
This is just me, speaking frankly.
And it's precisely this kind of stuff that our leadership won't listen to, doesn't want to listen to, and will do everything to keep it quiet and down, in spite of the stupidity of their own actions and their own choices.
This is how I know the elites are going to fail, ultimately.
Because they are so disconnected from reality as we live it that they will never make a good choice.
And when elections prove to be ineffective at bringing about the change that is needed.
People take to other methods to bring about the change themselves.
It's all happened before.
And it's all going to happen again.
And it's only in your brain that it's going to work out otherwise, if we keep it on the current course and current set of actions and policies.
Think about it.
Cause I know they're not really thinking effectively.
And it shows in the ways that they act, behave and make choices with regards to the rest of the world that's around them.
Silly.
Small.
Little brains.
Think about it.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
The Military's Part in This Equation
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/2012813114351987126.html
Quite frankly, I don't know if I'd agree with this article's characterization of the military, judging by the 3 years that I was with them. Who knows how it has changed since then, what with the economic collapse of the United States and the world as a whole.
Suffice it to say that I don't really know what the pulse is amongst the troops.
And I doubt anyone really does, chiefly because of the culture of not talking that's so engrained in the mentality of those who serve our country.
I can't say it's a necessarily bad thing to have this level of discipline amongst our troops.
However, it does create problems of its own when it's put into practice.
I remember hearing a lecture from a Dutch general, who had served in Afghanistan while I was in Maastricht. Apparently, it's always the responsibility of the Dutch Army for its officers to know what's up when, and to report issues and violations to their superiors.
That's not the case in the American Army, as he pointed out.
Which is probably part of the reason how we get all of the cock ups that we do amongst the ranks.
I believe that the military should remain independent of and subordinate to the civilian government. Otherwise, you just have a military led government that wouldn't necessarily work best for the civilian population, and would be counter productive towards democracy.
However, it would be interesting to see what the precedent of being involved in political action would be, should the military either side (which means, take orders) from the government, the Tea Party or the Occupy Movement. Would they chose to fire on their own civilians? Which way would they side? How would they position themselves?
These are questions that are only going to be answered when the time is ripe for answering.
And, I personally hope that that time never comes, so that we can avoid that initial precedent of military involvement in politics.
But, if things don't change.
These questions are going to be put on the table.
With all the long term and unforeseen consequences that will will be there.
Quiet honestly, the change is far less scary, to me at least, than everything that's going to/can happen if the change does not go through peaceably and immediately. And that's probably because no one on the other side has thought further than their own purse strings, if that's even a relevant thing to be worried about for them anyway.
Think about it.
Cause I doubt that the Conservatives or the conservatives really have.
And that's how we're all going to go over the cliff, in practical and demonstrable senses on this plane of existence and no other.
And, I think it's only in your brain that it's going to work out otherwise.
But, that's just a hypothesis.
Silly brains.
Think about it.
Silly brains.
Quite frankly, I don't know if I'd agree with this article's characterization of the military, judging by the 3 years that I was with them. Who knows how it has changed since then, what with the economic collapse of the United States and the world as a whole.
Suffice it to say that I don't really know what the pulse is amongst the troops.
And I doubt anyone really does, chiefly because of the culture of not talking that's so engrained in the mentality of those who serve our country.
I can't say it's a necessarily bad thing to have this level of discipline amongst our troops.
However, it does create problems of its own when it's put into practice.
I remember hearing a lecture from a Dutch general, who had served in Afghanistan while I was in Maastricht. Apparently, it's always the responsibility of the Dutch Army for its officers to know what's up when, and to report issues and violations to their superiors.
That's not the case in the American Army, as he pointed out.
Which is probably part of the reason how we get all of the cock ups that we do amongst the ranks.
I believe that the military should remain independent of and subordinate to the civilian government. Otherwise, you just have a military led government that wouldn't necessarily work best for the civilian population, and would be counter productive towards democracy.
However, it would be interesting to see what the precedent of being involved in political action would be, should the military either side (which means, take orders) from the government, the Tea Party or the Occupy Movement. Would they chose to fire on their own civilians? Which way would they side? How would they position themselves?
These are questions that are only going to be answered when the time is ripe for answering.
And, I personally hope that that time never comes, so that we can avoid that initial precedent of military involvement in politics.
But, if things don't change.
These questions are going to be put on the table.
With all the long term and unforeseen consequences that will will be there.
Quiet honestly, the change is far less scary, to me at least, than everything that's going to/can happen if the change does not go through peaceably and immediately. And that's probably because no one on the other side has thought further than their own purse strings, if that's even a relevant thing to be worried about for them anyway.
Think about it.
Cause I doubt that the Conservatives or the conservatives really have.
And that's how we're all going to go over the cliff, in practical and demonstrable senses on this plane of existence and no other.
And, I think it's only in your brain that it's going to work out otherwise.
But, that's just a hypothesis.
Silly brains.
Think about it.
Silly brains.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
On the Drought
http://ivn.us/2012/08/15/the-presidents-response-to-the-drought-corn-at-the-center/
It's not just farmers that need support. It's the people who still need to eat that need the help and can do the most potential damage if their needs are left unmet.
This is what happens when you let "interest" dictate policy rather than sound practical science based on what's best for the general public.
And I know that the Republicans in the House and the Senate will do what they can to block any measure that could, possibly, work from the Democrats and the Obama administration.
Let them squabble.
It does not matter.
The effects of this drought are already being felt in the general public, as one side continues to hold onto its small minded, ideological grip of its own virtual "reality", while the other side continues to be woefully out of touch, in practice to the needs of human beings, let alone Americans in general.
Think about it.
Cause it's going to be a long winter coming up if something effective and sincerely aimed at helping people over businesses isn't done.
And you don't have to believe me in order to see these effects.
Just watch.
And think.
Think about it.
Must it come down to this?
Must it become a full blown war between the classes, with the rich backed by their idiot patsies on one side, with the rest of the world on the other, ready to divide again as soon as the battle is over? What's the big freaking deal about letting the change come as it is? Peaceful. Non-violent. And only concerning the excessive amounts of control (that they do not know how to operate anyway) and cloth rags of a few individuals (which they do not need in actuality)?
Must this become a full blown civil war before we get anywhere positive, IF we actually get anywhere positive?
Think about it.
Cause I highly doubt that the people in charge really are.
And we're all going to pay the price of it.
ALL of us.
Think about it.
Silly brains.
Think about it.
It's not just farmers that need support. It's the people who still need to eat that need the help and can do the most potential damage if their needs are left unmet.
This is what happens when you let "interest" dictate policy rather than sound practical science based on what's best for the general public.
And I know that the Republicans in the House and the Senate will do what they can to block any measure that could, possibly, work from the Democrats and the Obama administration.
Let them squabble.
It does not matter.
The effects of this drought are already being felt in the general public, as one side continues to hold onto its small minded, ideological grip of its own virtual "reality", while the other side continues to be woefully out of touch, in practice to the needs of human beings, let alone Americans in general.
Think about it.
Cause it's going to be a long winter coming up if something effective and sincerely aimed at helping people over businesses isn't done.
And you don't have to believe me in order to see these effects.
Just watch.
And think.
Think about it.
Must it come down to this?
Must it become a full blown war between the classes, with the rich backed by their idiot patsies on one side, with the rest of the world on the other, ready to divide again as soon as the battle is over? What's the big freaking deal about letting the change come as it is? Peaceful. Non-violent. And only concerning the excessive amounts of control (that they do not know how to operate anyway) and cloth rags of a few individuals (which they do not need in actuality)?
Must this become a full blown civil war before we get anywhere positive, IF we actually get anywhere positive?
Think about it.
Cause I highly doubt that the people in charge really are.
And we're all going to pay the price of it.
ALL of us.
Think about it.
Silly brains.
Think about it.
Air, Sea, Cyber and Space
http://thediplomat.com/the-naval-diplomat/2012/08/15/air-power-meets-alfred-thayer-mahan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+the-diplomat+%28The+Diplomat+RSS%29
You can also add cyber warfare to the equation now.
But seriously, I think there are much greater threats for us to be concentrating on than our neighbors around the world. We've got gigantic universe out there, filled with unknown stuff that we possibly haven't even began to imagine.
And we're arguing over who's king of the hill, like some cheap kid's game on the park.
Silly species.
Sillier brains.
Silly species.
Think about it.
I would propose that we join together with the other major powers of the world and begin preparing for a possible alien encounter, rather than spend our time arguing amongst ourselves as a species. I say this with both seriousness and candor, for our own individual sakes as a species.
I would also propose that we work to make peace with those alien species that we encounter, if they'd be so willing, and treat them with benevolence and kindness in practice, first. Let them be the ones to start the conflicts.
Make a bigger sense of yourself.
Extend it to all the species and, yes, even beyond the species, to "new" life that could be out there.
Evolve.
And enjoy the benefits that you realize from this evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/
You may laugh.
But that's what they said about automatic doors as well.
And look where we are now.
Think about it.
You can also add cyber warfare to the equation now.
But seriously, I think there are much greater threats for us to be concentrating on than our neighbors around the world. We've got gigantic universe out there, filled with unknown stuff that we possibly haven't even began to imagine.
And we're arguing over who's king of the hill, like some cheap kid's game on the park.
Silly species.
Sillier brains.
Silly species.
Think about it.
I would propose that we join together with the other major powers of the world and begin preparing for a possible alien encounter, rather than spend our time arguing amongst ourselves as a species. I say this with both seriousness and candor, for our own individual sakes as a species.
I would also propose that we work to make peace with those alien species that we encounter, if they'd be so willing, and treat them with benevolence and kindness in practice, first. Let them be the ones to start the conflicts.
Make a bigger sense of yourself.
Extend it to all the species and, yes, even beyond the species, to "new" life that could be out there.
Evolve.
And enjoy the benefits that you realize from this evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/
You may laugh.
But that's what they said about automatic doors as well.
And look where we are now.
Think about it.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Percolate Up Economics
Percolate Up Economics: A new theory of functional economics where wealth is generated through the collective wealth of many individuals interacting within the economy as a whole. Wealth percolates up from the activity of the bottom and middle portions of society to the wealthy, which then invests the wealth back down to the bottom and middle of the society in order to generate more wealth. The process creates cyclical wealth that bounces back and forth between the upper and lower classes, as opposed to stagnant wealth which only sits in the upper portions of the society.
Based in Keynesian thought (albeit more specifically targeted than Keynes's model) and "Prime the Pump" Economics (albeit more systematized than this concept), Perk Up Economics is a hypothesis that can be implemented, tested and tweaked to fit real world occurrences in order to achieve the maximum potential for everyone, including the elites who govern the economy, through monetary and non-monetary considerations (such as the environment and the social order that is, in fact, around them).
Based in Keynesian thought (albeit more specifically targeted than Keynes's model) and "Prime the Pump" Economics (albeit more systematized than this concept), Perk Up Economics is a hypothesis that can be implemented, tested and tweaked to fit real world occurrences in order to achieve the maximum potential for everyone, including the elites who govern the economy, through monetary and non-monetary considerations (such as the environment and the social order that is, in fact, around them).
Europe Shrinks and We All Move Closer to the Edge
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19252724
How is that austerity working out?
Enjoying yourselves, Europe?
Looks like Germany and France are the only ones doing decently. And that's with the banks being stingy about lending practices.
All caught up in their own little personal worlds.
And not an inkling had about the larger economic picture that's around them and dependent upon them.
http://rt.com/business/news/germany-banks-lending-cut-410/
Think about it.
You've got to give to people in order for them to grow.
Not without strings attached.
But they've got to be able to pay back the money that they receive from the loans.
And it's got to be about the larger economy as a whole and not just the banks' profits.
If Europe goes under because the banks were too stingy to do what was needed to get the whole economy back on track, it's only going to trigger a world of problems for them, and for everyone else, as we sink back into a state of depression, while food prices continue to rise.
Think about it.
Cause I doubt anyone else in power really is thinking about it in these kinds of terms.
And that is how their regimes are going to ultimately fail, when push come to shove, due to their own negligence and prioritization of marginal amounts of cloth rags that they don't need, never needed, and will never need.
Silly brains.
Silly.
Shortsighted.
Unenlightened brains.
Enjoy.
Think about it.
Enjoy.
How is that austerity working out?
Enjoying yourselves, Europe?
Looks like Germany and France are the only ones doing decently. And that's with the banks being stingy about lending practices.
All caught up in their own little personal worlds.
And not an inkling had about the larger economic picture that's around them and dependent upon them.
http://rt.com/business/news/germany-banks-lending-cut-410/
Think about it.
You've got to give to people in order for them to grow.
Not without strings attached.
But they've got to be able to pay back the money that they receive from the loans.
And it's got to be about the larger economy as a whole and not just the banks' profits.
If Europe goes under because the banks were too stingy to do what was needed to get the whole economy back on track, it's only going to trigger a world of problems for them, and for everyone else, as we sink back into a state of depression, while food prices continue to rise.
Think about it.
Cause I doubt anyone else in power really is thinking about it in these kinds of terms.
And that is how their regimes are going to ultimately fail, when push come to shove, due to their own negligence and prioritization of marginal amounts of cloth rags that they don't need, never needed, and will never need.
Silly brains.
Silly.
Shortsighted.
Unenlightened brains.
Enjoy.
Think about it.
Enjoy.
Monday, August 13, 2012
At the Heart of It, Is the Media
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/guess-whos-profiting-most-from-super-pacs-20120806
And if the media is the one that's profiting the most from this arrangement, it's going to be a very difficult thing indeed to undo it, thanks to the power of the presses.
Silly shortsighted money grubbing brains.
Unenlightened.
And uncaring about their own position in the rest of the cosmos, let alone the positions of everyone and everything else that's in the cosmos with them.
https://docs.google.com/
Think about it.
http://www.youtube.com/
And if the media is the one that's profiting the most from this arrangement, it's going to be a very difficult thing indeed to undo it, thanks to the power of the presses.
Silly shortsighted money grubbing brains.
Unenlightened.
And uncaring about their own position in the rest of the cosmos, let alone the positions of everyone and everything else that's in the cosmos with them.
https://docs.google.com/
Think about it.
http://www.youtube.com/
On Debt and Economic Recovery
http://ivn.us/2012/08/12/student-loan-forgiveness-and-economic-stimulation/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ivn+%28IVN+-+Independent+Voter+Network%29
It would be good economic sense to help re-stimulate the economy. And I'm not just speaking as a graduated student who has debts of his own to pay off.
It's a question about how much money is available for people to use to consume within the economy. If they're hampered with rents, debts, healthcare costs, taxes on the lower and middle end, etc, they have less money to spend in the economy and produce growth that benefits everyone, including the well to do, which gets protected by ineffective policies such as austerity.
You can tax people when they are making a lot of money, because they'll have a lot left over to spend (see the 80% tax on $5 million example, leaving $1 million for the whole year). Money at this point only gets used in investments which make more money that is, ultimately, not used in the larger economy, and is simply squirreled away in tax havens and bank accounts around the world.
Again, what good is money past a certain point for an individual or a family? How much really is needed to live the high life? And, remember, what non-monetary benefits come from having a sound social and environmental worlds for the individual that money can't actually provide?
I've presented this argumentation to members of the Tea Party itself. And all I got in return was cat-calls, which suggests that they have no reasoned argumentation against it.
What could be wrong with this?
Please.
Think about it.
And answer.
Think about it.
It would be good economic sense to help re-stimulate the economy. And I'm not just speaking as a graduated student who has debts of his own to pay off.
It's a question about how much money is available for people to use to consume within the economy. If they're hampered with rents, debts, healthcare costs, taxes on the lower and middle end, etc, they have less money to spend in the economy and produce growth that benefits everyone, including the well to do, which gets protected by ineffective policies such as austerity.
You can tax people when they are making a lot of money, because they'll have a lot left over to spend (see the 80% tax on $5 million example, leaving $1 million for the whole year). Money at this point only gets used in investments which make more money that is, ultimately, not used in the larger economy, and is simply squirreled away in tax havens and bank accounts around the world.
Again, what good is money past a certain point for an individual or a family? How much really is needed to live the high life? And, remember, what non-monetary benefits come from having a sound social and environmental worlds for the individual that money can't actually provide?
I've presented this argumentation to members of the Tea Party itself. And all I got in return was cat-calls, which suggests that they have no reasoned argumentation against it.
What could be wrong with this?
Please.
Think about it.
And answer.
Think about it.
Industrial Policy for America?
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/07/31/Americans-Face-Stark-Choice-on-Industrial-Policy.aspx#page1
I like the quote from Alexander Hamilton very much.
I see the government having a very positive role for businesses and business's sake, even though some in the business world would balk at such a notion.
I think it is a question of national security to have a domestic manufacturing base, and to have a population that can actually afford to have it. We can make it possible through the use of government to have a clean and fair compensating industrial base in this country, even if our business folks would rather have the quick buck from environmentally destabilizing industrialization and unfair worker treatment.
I don't think this should be centrally planned, as was the disastrous case in the Soviet Union or Maoist China. Only guided gently through the use of subsidies, regulation (which can include deregulation as well) and other measures to set the conditions in which the free market may emerge. Otherwise, you're just going on the personal whims of the business folks. And, as we saw in the Bush/Republican years, the results of this are frequently detrimental to the rest of society, and therefore, detrimental to the individuals in question who are perpetuating it.
It's a nice ideal from Mr. Jefferson.
But it doesn't work like that in practice. Even government deregulation is only a choice made by the government.
QED, the free market as we know it does not exist when it actually comes down to the wire. Deregulation is just another set of conditions set by government policy. And the effects of this deregulation, as defined by the Republican Party, are frequently counteractive to supportable and sustainable economic growth, environmental well being and individual prosperity for everybody (not just for the elites), which then translates into prosperity for the elites as a result of the increased economic activity of the lower and middle classes.
This bifurcated system that our leaders have produced for us is unsustainable, especially in the context of the American political system and the American political culture.
And, it's only a matter of time before it collapses around itself, as all small minded minority governments have done throughout time and space.
Don't believe me?
https://docs.google.com/
Think about it.
I like the quote from Alexander Hamilton very much.
I see the government having a very positive role for businesses and business's sake, even though some in the business world would balk at such a notion.
I think it is a question of national security to have a domestic manufacturing base, and to have a population that can actually afford to have it. We can make it possible through the use of government to have a clean and fair compensating industrial base in this country, even if our business folks would rather have the quick buck from environmentally destabilizing industrialization and unfair worker treatment.
I don't think this should be centrally planned, as was the disastrous case in the Soviet Union or Maoist China. Only guided gently through the use of subsidies, regulation (which can include deregulation as well) and other measures to set the conditions in which the free market may emerge. Otherwise, you're just going on the personal whims of the business folks. And, as we saw in the Bush/Republican years, the results of this are frequently detrimental to the rest of society, and therefore, detrimental to the individuals in question who are perpetuating it.
It's a nice ideal from Mr. Jefferson.
But it doesn't work like that in practice. Even government deregulation is only a choice made by the government.
QED, the free market as we know it does not exist when it actually comes down to the wire. Deregulation is just another set of conditions set by government policy. And the effects of this deregulation, as defined by the Republican Party, are frequently counteractive to supportable and sustainable economic growth, environmental well being and individual prosperity for everybody (not just for the elites), which then translates into prosperity for the elites as a result of the increased economic activity of the lower and middle classes.
This bifurcated system that our leaders have produced for us is unsustainable, especially in the context of the American political system and the American political culture.
And, it's only a matter of time before it collapses around itself, as all small minded minority governments have done throughout time and space.
Don't believe me?
https://docs.google.com/
Think about it.
Morsi's Move
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/08/201281215511142445.html
Morsi should bear in mind, that there is a large amount of the population that does not necessarily support him, even though they may also oppose the military rulers.
And it is that element that he's going to have to think about, if he wants to get re-elected/avoid a possible civil war from within his population that could bring the might of the military square in on the side against him.
Very delicate situation this.
And we'll see how well he plays it, in time.
Again, this is the art of politics, not necessarily the science of governing.
Unfortunately, both are needed in order to govern effectively in any case.
But the effects of these actions are going to ripple throughout Egyptian society and world society, making them studiable through a systematic method of examination and observation. And that, is where the science even bleeds into the art of politics; making actions consequential in the demonstrable and tangible sense of it.
Think about it.
Cause I doubt many who do this really do think about these kinds of things.
And it's a pity that they're not more aware of their own selves and their own actions as a result of this understanding.
Think about it.
Morsi should bear in mind, that there is a large amount of the population that does not necessarily support him, even though they may also oppose the military rulers.
And it is that element that he's going to have to think about, if he wants to get re-elected/avoid a possible civil war from within his population that could bring the might of the military square in on the side against him.
Very delicate situation this.
And we'll see how well he plays it, in time.
Again, this is the art of politics, not necessarily the science of governing.
Unfortunately, both are needed in order to govern effectively in any case.
But the effects of these actions are going to ripple throughout Egyptian society and world society, making them studiable through a systematic method of examination and observation. And that, is where the science even bleeds into the art of politics; making actions consequential in the demonstrable and tangible sense of it.
Think about it.
Cause I doubt many who do this really do think about these kinds of things.
And it's a pity that they're not more aware of their own selves and their own actions as a result of this understanding.
Think about it.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
On a Romney Win
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/mitt-romney-would-pay-082-percent-in-taxes-under-paul-ryans-plan/261027/
Personally, I'm half hoping for a Romney win.
That way, we can get all of this nastiness over with, theoretically, assuming that it doesn't kill the country and ourselves in the process.
We've done this before with the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Iranian Revolution and others.
And yet none of the elites seem to really get or care about the impending doom that's about to draw the curtains on their current regime in the United States and around the world.
Especially considering the drought that's coming down upon us, and the fact that they would shift the tax burden onto the lower and middle classes while cutting services that enable them to spend freely in the economy.
All for the sake of a marginally bigger pile of cloth rag that they'll never be able to spend anyway.
Think about it.
Cause I highly doubt if they are.
Or are even able to.
Think about it.
Personally, I'm half hoping for a Romney win.
That way, we can get all of this nastiness over with, theoretically, assuming that it doesn't kill the country and ourselves in the process.
We've done this before with the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Iranian Revolution and others.
And yet none of the elites seem to really get or care about the impending doom that's about to draw the curtains on their current regime in the United States and around the world.
Especially considering the drought that's coming down upon us, and the fact that they would shift the tax burden onto the lower and middle classes while cutting services that enable them to spend freely in the economy.
All for the sake of a marginally bigger pile of cloth rag that they'll never be able to spend anyway.
Think about it.
Cause I highly doubt if they are.
Or are even able to.
Think about it.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Turkey and the Problems of Empire
http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/trending-against-kurds-turkey-0022311
What I really don't get, is why would you want to govern a people you have no love for?
Nothing short of genocide and forced removal will get the Kurds out of that territorial space within Turkey. And that will come at a heavy price for
What I really don't get, is why would you want to govern a people you have no love for?
Nothing short of genocide and forced removal will get the Kurds out of that territorial space within Turkey. And that will come at a heavy price for
the Turks as people would join the PKK to fight against the attempted removal of the Kurds.
Which is how I really don't understand empires or people who make them.
Either include people within your system and govern them through consent, dialogue and mutual respect.
Or don't bother governing over them at all.
It's just land and people that you don't really have then.
And, this is coming from the first country that came out of the European empires.
Why build them when all they do is collapse in the end?
Shouldn't you be more focused on issues at home?
In the metropole?
Where you actually do have legitimacy and authority?
http://en.wikipedia.org/
Think about it.
Cause I highly doubt that many people really do.
At their own expense.
Think about it.
Which is how I really don't understand empires or people who make them.
Either include people within your system and govern them through consent, dialogue and mutual respect.
Or don't bother governing over them at all.
It's just land and people that you don't really have then.
And, this is coming from the first country that came out of the European empires.
Why build them when all they do is collapse in the end?
Shouldn't you be more focused on issues at home?
In the metropole?
Where you actually do have legitimacy and authority?
http://en.wikipedia.org/
Think about it.
Cause I highly doubt that many people really do.
At their own expense.
Think about it.
The Aral Sea and Global Climate Change
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/aljazeeraworld/2012/08/2012857324531428.html
Still think that global climate change is a farce?
Still think that it's not man-made?
Still think we should do nothing to compensate for it?
We're talking a massive project that's going to require sincere and honest cooperation from every human society living on Earth.
And, for our own sakes, I wouldn't care too much about the dollar value of this kind of stuff, simply because, we're talking about life and well being above and beyond dollars and cents, that's relevant to our individual physical and psychological health.
And it's only the hang up of an abstraction that we've created, that's preventing us from doing something sincere and solidly effective about it.
Think about it.
Cause I doubt that those who are in charge really are thinking about it.
If they were.
We'd see something different in the world in which we're living.
And there would be no real debate on the basic matter of it at all.
Think about it.
Still think that global climate change is a farce?
Still think that it's not man-made?
Still think we should do nothing to compensate for it?
We're talking a massive project that's going to require sincere and honest cooperation from every human society living on Earth.
And, for our own sakes, I wouldn't care too much about the dollar value of this kind of stuff, simply because, we're talking about life and well being above and beyond dollars and cents, that's relevant to our individual physical and psychological health.
And it's only the hang up of an abstraction that we've created, that's preventing us from doing something sincere and solidly effective about it.
Think about it.
Cause I doubt that those who are in charge really are thinking about it.
If they were.
We'd see something different in the world in which we're living.
And there would be no real debate on the basic matter of it at all.
Think about it.
Friday, August 10, 2012
On Politics and Governance
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/eric-fehrnstrom-romney-_n_1754252.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief%3Futm_source%3DDailyBrief&utm_campaign=081012&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily+Brief
You see, this is the difference between politics and governance.
One is just the petty human interaction stuff that becomes more than it really is.
The other, is the science of solving problems and testing solutions.
And it's gotten to the point where I don't think that politicos and policy-makers can really tell the difference anymore, if they could really tell the difference in the first place.
Think about it.
Cause I doubt they really are.
And we see it in the way the world works around us, in demonstrable and tangible effects that we can experience and test, regardless of what our brains think and do to the contrary.
Think about it.
Silly brains.
Think about it.
How much longer can this thing last, before it all crumbles up into smoke?
And that, is the real question that I would like to have answered.
Think about it.
You see, this is the difference between politics and governance.
One is just the petty human interaction stuff that becomes more than it really is.
The other, is the science of solving problems and testing solutions.
And it's gotten to the point where I don't think that politicos and policy-makers can really tell the difference anymore, if they could really tell the difference in the first place.
Think about it.
Cause I doubt they really are.
And we see it in the way the world works around us, in demonstrable and tangible effects that we can experience and test, regardless of what our brains think and do to the contrary.
Think about it.
Silly brains.
Think about it.
How much longer can this thing last, before it all crumbles up into smoke?
And that, is the real question that I would like to have answered.
Think about it.
The Chinese Problem and the Issue of the Worldwide Elites
- http://thediplomat.com/2012/08/10/why-a-u-s-china-grand-bargain-in-asia-would-fail/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+the-diplomat+%28The+Diplomat+RSS%29As I've said before, I think it's a very poor choice for us to be spending our time focusing on the Chinese issue. They've got a lot of internal problems of their own, and we could be focusing on more productive and more associative problems that are pressing our species, such as the potential encounter of alien life.
We spend all our time squabbling down here on Earth without ever recognizing our own oneness down here, the possibility that there is another out there, and that the two, together again, form a oneness that is indicative of this cosmos that is beyond our brains.
Call me crazy if you'd like.
But I see more of an opportunity for partnership with China than anything else.
And that includes over contentious issues such as security and military development.
But, I go unrecognized and unthought of in the universe.
At best I come off as awkward and unvaluable for everything except free work, even though I do all of my work in an awesome manner.
Such is the state of the species, I suppose.
And there's nothing I can do about it.
Think about it.
Even the greatest geniuses of our ages, only became geniuses through the recognition of others.
And that, is precisely what I seem to be lacking at the present moment.
And I've got no reason to believe that it will be anything but this in the future, given past experience.
Think about it.
Cause I'm sure that the people on top are not.
And that's how the world has ended up being the way that it is for so many billions of other people living in this cosmos.
A reflection of the people who are in charge of it.
Cruel.
Mean.
Pathetic.
And sad.
Above all.
Sad, I think.
Because no happy being would make the world be as such.
And that's the solid truth of the matter.
Think about it.
And, good luck.
Think about it.March them out in straight jackets, not handcuffs.
And don't place them in front of a firing squad either.
Instead, get them the psychiatric help that they're so obviously crying out for.
And try to help them as best as possible.
While removing them from the places and positions that are toxic to them and to us.
That's what I've got to say about the matter.
And that's the only stance that I would accept when going forward.
Think about it.
And, good luck.
Think about it.Who am I kidding.
It's not like anyone's listened to me before.Why should they start now?
Star Trek and Dealing With Others
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19205577
It's funny how people typically take action against those that are causing a disturbance in their lives. I'd still like to know who these militants are, what they want, and what they're hoping to achieve. Probably if you captured some of them....
But anyway.
That's just my "Star Trek" approach to handling these kinds of things.
And, notice how much it could save on military deployments and operations, as well as with lives lost.
Think about it.
Cause I really wonder if others really do.
Think about.
http://www.aljazeera.com//news/middleeast/2012/08/201289232920835255.html
Again, I would wait until you've actually spoken with them before you begin labeling them.
But, that's just me.
Think about it.
It's funny how people typically take action against those that are causing a disturbance in their lives. I'd still like to know who these militants are, what they want, and what they're hoping to achieve. Probably if you captured some of them....
But anyway.
That's just my "Star Trek" approach to handling these kinds of things.
And, notice how much it could save on military deployments and operations, as well as with lives lost.
Think about it.
Cause I really wonder if others really do.
Think about.
http://www.aljazeera.com//news/middleeast/2012/08/201289232920835255.html
Again, I would wait until you've actually spoken with them before you begin labeling them.
But, that's just me.
Think about it.
On the Rich
http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/betting-public-good-0022310
Seems like an ok idea.
Bearing in mind, that this stuff, when done properly, isn't designed to make a profit. And, you're still with the phenomenon of people starving on a rich person's charity.
Again, if the rich were genuinely so charitable as a collective whole (individuals such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet aside), we wouldn't be in the social/economic messes that we're in right now.
And, while this may be an alternative to supplement tax payer dollars.
It still is not a replacement for the actual thing.
And that is, controlled, targeted and specified social investment through a collaborative effort between policy makers and individuals on the ground; the idea being that the two communicate with each other, such that things are taken care of in a timely and effective manner for the benefit of everyone, including, and not limited to, the people who would be making the largest sacrifices in this kind of scheme of things.
It's not healthy, I think, to have/focus on money past a certain point.
It does stuff to your psychology that, I think, degrades yourself in the grand scheme of things.
And you can see it in the lives of the well to do, as they exist on their own, away from the public's eyes.
Think about it.
Cause they really are a screwy bunch.
Take it from someone who knows.
Think about it.
The real joke of the matter, is that they don't need their money past a certain point, even in order to live the lives that they do.
Most of the stuff they buy is over-priced anyway, and is just part of the fleecing scheme that is retail sales.
So what would really be the difference in their lives, if they had to pay a decent share of their money into the public coffers?
Think about it.
Cause I doubt very much that they are, really.
Think about it.
Seems like an ok idea.
Bearing in mind, that this stuff, when done properly, isn't designed to make a profit. And, you're still with the phenomenon of people starving on a rich person's charity.
Again, if the rich were genuinely so charitable as a collective whole (individuals such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet aside), we wouldn't be in the social/economic messes that we're in right now.
And, while this may be an alternative to supplement tax payer dollars.
It still is not a replacement for the actual thing.
And that is, controlled, targeted and specified social investment through a collaborative effort between policy makers and individuals on the ground; the idea being that the two communicate with each other, such that things are taken care of in a timely and effective manner for the benefit of everyone, including, and not limited to, the people who would be making the largest sacrifices in this kind of scheme of things.
It's not healthy, I think, to have/focus on money past a certain point.
It does stuff to your psychology that, I think, degrades yourself in the grand scheme of things.
And you can see it in the lives of the well to do, as they exist on their own, away from the public's eyes.
Think about it.
Cause they really are a screwy bunch.
Take it from someone who knows.
Think about it.
The real joke of the matter, is that they don't need their money past a certain point, even in order to live the lives that they do.
Most of the stuff they buy is over-priced anyway, and is just part of the fleecing scheme that is retail sales.
So what would really be the difference in their lives, if they had to pay a decent share of their money into the public coffers?
Think about it.
Cause I doubt very much that they are, really.
Think about it.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
China's "Ascent"? Or America's Decline
http://thediplomat.com/2012/08/09/superpower-denied-why-chinas-rise-may-have-already-peaked/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+the-diplomat+%28The+Diplomat+RSS%29
I've said it once, and I'll say it again.
I don't see the Chinese as being the real threat in the world that will challenge American strength and power.
It will be the American's own incompetence and ineffectiveness that will bring about their demise as a superpower, for the time being.
We have a leadership in this country that appears wholly focused on image and small self interest; ideology and relative supplies of money.
They can barely handle themselves and their own people, let alone, be able to handle our government.
And so far, the chief opposition to all of this appears lost in the haze of a Phish concert or a trip with Jerry.
And, that's the saddest part of this whole thing, I think, when you actually look at it, when push comes to shove.
Think about it.
Cause I very much doubt that anyone else effectively is.
Think about it.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again.
I don't see the Chinese as being the real threat in the world that will challenge American strength and power.
It will be the American's own incompetence and ineffectiveness that will bring about their demise as a superpower, for the time being.
We have a leadership in this country that appears wholly focused on image and small self interest; ideology and relative supplies of money.
They can barely handle themselves and their own people, let alone, be able to handle our government.
And so far, the chief opposition to all of this appears lost in the haze of a Phish concert or a trip with Jerry.
And, that's the saddest part of this whole thing, I think, when you actually look at it, when push comes to shove.
Think about it.
Cause I very much doubt that anyone else effectively is.
Think about it.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Africa Rising
http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/africa/1063-from-global-prey-to-global-player
Times change, and you've got to keep up with the changes as they come in the present, lest you be left behind contemplating the past, as we are, in the United States of America.
For the record, this was made possible by the international community's charitable support and economic investment, not through any kind of neo-classical Capitalist experiment that, when placed into practice in Africa, did more harm than good for the continent's health and well being, socially, environmentally and economically.
Would that we would invest in Africa as well, instead of giving them charity that they don't necessarily need. Still, that's not my call, unfortunately.
And, I don't think we have the money to do so at this point, given our obligations here and abroad.
It's just something to think about.
A change in purpose at the World Bank and a change in function at USAID might be in order.
But again, that's jut me.
Think about it.
Times change, and you've got to keep up with the changes as they come in the present, lest you be left behind contemplating the past, as we are, in the United States of America.
For the record, this was made possible by the international community's charitable support and economic investment, not through any kind of neo-classical Capitalist experiment that, when placed into practice in Africa, did more harm than good for the continent's health and well being, socially, environmentally and economically.
Would that we would invest in Africa as well, instead of giving them charity that they don't necessarily need. Still, that's not my call, unfortunately.
And, I don't think we have the money to do so at this point, given our obligations here and abroad.
It's just something to think about.
A change in purpose at the World Bank and a change in function at USAID might be in order.
But again, that's jut me.
Think about it.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
On the Ecology of the Planet, and the Real Status of Money
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19161799
I can't believe some members of this species.
They'd rather have a marginally bigger pile of cloth rag than a safe, stable and sound ecology.
This suggests that something is wrong in their brains, as individual members of the species, because what organism would take something that's entirely useless to survival beyond a certain point (and only in the human world at that) and make it such a priority that all other considerations, social, economic and environmental, fall by the wayside at their own absolute expense and their own absolute detriment.
They live on this planet too, after all.
And will be impacted by this as much as the rest of us.
Think about it.
Cause you're only losing out when you don't.
Think about it.
I can't believe some members of this species.
They'd rather have a marginally bigger pile of cloth rag than a safe, stable and sound ecology.
This suggests that something is wrong in their brains, as individual members of the species, because what organism would take something that's entirely useless to survival beyond a certain point (and only in the human world at that) and make it such a priority that all other considerations, social, economic and environmental, fall by the wayside at their own absolute expense and their own absolute detriment.
They live on this planet too, after all.
And will be impacted by this as much as the rest of us.
Think about it.
Cause you're only losing out when you don't.
Think about it.
Monday, August 6, 2012
On Power and the Human Brain
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/08/201281141339576130.html
Ya, it's funny how a thing called power "changes" a person's brain patterns and activities.
Frankly, I wish the phenomenon was more understood so that we can avoid this kind of stuff. But I think that the disposition to take and hold onto power is something that lurks deeper in the subconscious mind, and is something that's more omni-present within the individual than you think.
On one hand of the spectrum, you have someone like Bashar al-Assad who is willing to ruthlessly kill his own people so that he can stay in power, such that he doesn't have a country left to govern.
On the other hand, you have someone like George Washington who had all the power, and yet willingly gave it all up after serving only 2, 4 year terms as President of the United States.
I think that the primary difference between these two individuals is in their brain chemistry and their brain structure/function; genetically and memetically.
And, these are the clues that will, hopefully, lead us to unlocking the scientific secrets behind good and effective leadership.
Think about it.
Cause you're the only one who's losing out when you don't.
Think about it.
Ya, it's funny how a thing called power "changes" a person's brain patterns and activities.
Frankly, I wish the phenomenon was more understood so that we can avoid this kind of stuff. But I think that the disposition to take and hold onto power is something that lurks deeper in the subconscious mind, and is something that's more omni-present within the individual than you think.
On one hand of the spectrum, you have someone like Bashar al-Assad who is willing to ruthlessly kill his own people so that he can stay in power, such that he doesn't have a country left to govern.
On the other hand, you have someone like George Washington who had all the power, and yet willingly gave it all up after serving only 2, 4 year terms as President of the United States.
I think that the primary difference between these two individuals is in their brain chemistry and their brain structure/function; genetically and memetically.
And, these are the clues that will, hopefully, lead us to unlocking the scientific secrets behind good and effective leadership.
Think about it.
Cause you're the only one who's losing out when you don't.
Think about it.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
New Occupy
We
had a successful run with the Old Occupy Movement. It refocused the
press onto the issues that are pressing for Americans (albeit with
resistance from them) and it set a precedent in this country for
democratic, grassroots action.
That said though, it still faced massive amounts of organizational dysfunction, ineffective leadership, vital to the success of any organization, and an incoherent presence that earned it the mockery of the press and the established political institutions of Washington and the world, rather than deliver it’s very serious message that the social, economic and environmental injustices of the Capitalist dominated world and, indeed, of the world that the current elites occupy is unacceptable and needs to stop immediately.
What this paper aims to do is outline a proposal for advancing the case of the Occupy Movement to the next level of organizational presence, effectiveness and efficiency, in order to further its long term interests and ensure a better future for ourselves and our fellow human beings, living on this singular planet in the context of the larger universe.
The first step, is to clearly articulate the policy priorities and stances of the New Occupy Movement for its members, and for the rest of the world. This will be done by a relatively small group of individuals of between 50 to 100 people who will meet via video conference and face to face contact. I’m afraid that anymore will cause dysfunction from within the group as a whole, and prevent a clear and coherent statement from being made. That said though, representation is important, and the membership would ideally be drawn from the leadership the Old Occupy Movement, as well as their friends and close associates who are interested, familiar with the issues and generally talented in the arts of articulation and sensing the world around them. Is it perfect? No. But it will make the organization act in a more effective and focused manner, such that a clearer picture can be presented to the world that is around it for acceptance, rejection or revision as time goes on.
From inside and outside this core group of individuals, a network will be established around the world consisting of Local Leadership Councils. These Leadership Councils will consist of a relatively small group of individuals (size unspecified) who will then organize and assemble their local community for strategic action, such as demonstrations, voter registration and electoral participation, to name a few of the possibilities. Actions will be coordinated by a loosely linked International Leadership Council (which will articulate the official policy stances of the global international community) with leadership delegated to the respective national levels for articulating domestic policy concerns. Each nation-state will determine its own way of organizing itself within its territorial boundaries, in order to better match with social realities on the ground. The Local Leadership Council model being the proposed way of the United States of America specifically.
The Local Leadership Council will have the power to set its own agenda with regards to local community issues, with the possibility of these local policy stances and actions being endorsed and adopted by the National Leadership Council of the United States. The Local Leadership Councils will also have the power to determine their own state and local actions with the possibility of them being endorsed by the National and International Leadership Council. The options are open, in order to accommodate as many views and issues that are present, with the exception that non-violent action being the only endorsed course of action within the auspices of the New Occupy Movement, nationally and internationally.
From this stand-point, the decentralized power of the Local Leadership Councils will have centralized cohesion within the auspices of the National and International Leadership Councils.
I realize that hierarchy is a problem for a lot of the people who are currently involved in the Occupy Movement. Unfortunately, it’s not something that’s going to disappear within the species, especially when there’s a goal in mind. All beings are equal in spirit. However, they’re not all equal in temperament, skill, disposition and all the qualities that lead to effective action. There is variety within the species, as there is in all species and, that is what partially makes the world as wonderful as it is. The question then, I think, becomes how do those in leadership positions relate to everyone and everything else that’s around them? Do they disregard everyone and everything else that’s around them? Do they overlord? Do they segregate? Do they exploit? Do they make bad choices for themselves and for others? These are the things that you’ve got to look out for.
But positive leadership; people who inspire, motivate, encourage and make good decisions, can have a powerful effect on the world that’s around it by providing the guidance and insight necessary to advancing and sustaining the species on this long voyage that we’re on through space and time.
In short, there will likely always end up being an elite element in our world. The question then is what do the elites do when they receive that kind of power, influence and control. Do they exploit it, and generally produce the same ill effects that we’re experiencing in the world today, thus eliminating their own power in the process? Or do they seek to sustain and grow the world that is around them, such that we can all live better together as a species, and thus better ensure not only their own positions as leaders, but as living beings trying to make their living in the world that is around them?
The effects are all there in the world that is around us.
And anyone can test for them with a functioning array of biological and neurological sense equipment.
So.
Will you be apart of this new movement? If so, please forward this on to your friends, your family and anyone else who would possibly be interested.
If not, I hope that we can still collaborate and cooperate on what are mutually effecting problems in our world.
Thus ends the proposal for New Occupy.
Judge it as you’d like.
And I look forward to hearing the criticism.
Thank you.
That said though, it still faced massive amounts of organizational dysfunction, ineffective leadership, vital to the success of any organization, and an incoherent presence that earned it the mockery of the press and the established political institutions of Washington and the world, rather than deliver it’s very serious message that the social, economic and environmental injustices of the Capitalist dominated world and, indeed, of the world that the current elites occupy is unacceptable and needs to stop immediately.
What this paper aims to do is outline a proposal for advancing the case of the Occupy Movement to the next level of organizational presence, effectiveness and efficiency, in order to further its long term interests and ensure a better future for ourselves and our fellow human beings, living on this singular planet in the context of the larger universe.
The first step, is to clearly articulate the policy priorities and stances of the New Occupy Movement for its members, and for the rest of the world. This will be done by a relatively small group of individuals of between 50 to 100 people who will meet via video conference and face to face contact. I’m afraid that anymore will cause dysfunction from within the group as a whole, and prevent a clear and coherent statement from being made. That said though, representation is important, and the membership would ideally be drawn from the leadership the Old Occupy Movement, as well as their friends and close associates who are interested, familiar with the issues and generally talented in the arts of articulation and sensing the world around them. Is it perfect? No. But it will make the organization act in a more effective and focused manner, such that a clearer picture can be presented to the world that is around it for acceptance, rejection or revision as time goes on.
From inside and outside this core group of individuals, a network will be established around the world consisting of Local Leadership Councils. These Leadership Councils will consist of a relatively small group of individuals (size unspecified) who will then organize and assemble their local community for strategic action, such as demonstrations, voter registration and electoral participation, to name a few of the possibilities. Actions will be coordinated by a loosely linked International Leadership Council (which will articulate the official policy stances of the global international community) with leadership delegated to the respective national levels for articulating domestic policy concerns. Each nation-state will determine its own way of organizing itself within its territorial boundaries, in order to better match with social realities on the ground. The Local Leadership Council model being the proposed way of the United States of America specifically.
The Local Leadership Council will have the power to set its own agenda with regards to local community issues, with the possibility of these local policy stances and actions being endorsed and adopted by the National Leadership Council of the United States. The Local Leadership Councils will also have the power to determine their own state and local actions with the possibility of them being endorsed by the National and International Leadership Council. The options are open, in order to accommodate as many views and issues that are present, with the exception that non-violent action being the only endorsed course of action within the auspices of the New Occupy Movement, nationally and internationally.
From this stand-point, the decentralized power of the Local Leadership Councils will have centralized cohesion within the auspices of the National and International Leadership Councils.
I realize that hierarchy is a problem for a lot of the people who are currently involved in the Occupy Movement. Unfortunately, it’s not something that’s going to disappear within the species, especially when there’s a goal in mind. All beings are equal in spirit. However, they’re not all equal in temperament, skill, disposition and all the qualities that lead to effective action. There is variety within the species, as there is in all species and, that is what partially makes the world as wonderful as it is. The question then, I think, becomes how do those in leadership positions relate to everyone and everything else that’s around them? Do they disregard everyone and everything else that’s around them? Do they overlord? Do they segregate? Do they exploit? Do they make bad choices for themselves and for others? These are the things that you’ve got to look out for.
But positive leadership; people who inspire, motivate, encourage and make good decisions, can have a powerful effect on the world that’s around it by providing the guidance and insight necessary to advancing and sustaining the species on this long voyage that we’re on through space and time.
In short, there will likely always end up being an elite element in our world. The question then is what do the elites do when they receive that kind of power, influence and control. Do they exploit it, and generally produce the same ill effects that we’re experiencing in the world today, thus eliminating their own power in the process? Or do they seek to sustain and grow the world that is around them, such that we can all live better together as a species, and thus better ensure not only their own positions as leaders, but as living beings trying to make their living in the world that is around them?
The effects are all there in the world that is around us.
And anyone can test for them with a functioning array of biological and neurological sense equipment.
So.
Will you be apart of this new movement? If so, please forward this on to your friends, your family and anyone else who would possibly be interested.
If not, I hope that we can still collaborate and cooperate on what are mutually effecting problems in our world.
Thus ends the proposal for New Occupy.
Judge it as you’d like.
And I look forward to hearing the criticism.
Thank you.
Wow....
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/08/201285112432709886.html
...
Wow....
This is interesting.
Saudi and Iran are traditional enemies of each other; one being Sunni, the other being Shi'a, and both interested in bigger aims beyond their borders.
Could Islam be coming together once again, of sorts?
And, will Israel and the United States be smart enough to adjust course when dealing with them and, indeed, the rest of the world from now on.
I don't see the potential for war necessarily springing up (although, I do say we keep on our guard as always).
However, this is a most interesting development in the entire case of the world, the human species and the world order. Yes, there is a world order, it's just the current situation at any given time.
And, we would do well to pay attention to the winds as they come and alter our own course and sail accordingly, such that we can still achieve our own deep and non-malevolent interests as a people.
This is really cool and really terrifying at the same time.
Think about it.
This is really cool.
Think about it.
...
Wow....
This is interesting.
Saudi and Iran are traditional enemies of each other; one being Sunni, the other being Shi'a, and both interested in bigger aims beyond their borders.
Could Islam be coming together once again, of sorts?
And, will Israel and the United States be smart enough to adjust course when dealing with them and, indeed, the rest of the world from now on.
I don't see the potential for war necessarily springing up (although, I do say we keep on our guard as always).
However, this is a most interesting development in the entire case of the world, the human species and the world order. Yes, there is a world order, it's just the current situation at any given time.
And, we would do well to pay attention to the winds as they come and alter our own course and sail accordingly, such that we can still achieve our own deep and non-malevolent interests as a people.
This is really cool and really terrifying at the same time.
Think about it.
This is really cool.
Think about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)