THE ONE THING the world, all you foreigners, should know about the united states of america is that, and I feel confident that many if not most americans would agree: it is as divided against itself as it has been for a very long time, maybe even since the civil war, one hundred and fifty years ago.
America is divided, and angry. Quite angry. Usually, a good war or two provides an outlet for pent up national anger, but not this time. Iraq and afghanistan seem to've fueled the anger, perhaps out of sheer frustration. That, and economic decline doesn't help a nation's mood, either.
The same thing happened during the late nineteen sixties and early nineteen seventies, because of the viet nam war. But this is worse. Its deeper, more broad based, somehow. It is an anger of fundamental ideology against fundamental ideology. Plus, the late nineteen sixties and early nineteen seventies was a time of prosperity.
Now of course we know that the united states can have a civil war, north against south, because it had one. What we all need to understand is that war can assume many appearances; in america, in short, a war of the rich versus the poor is not only possible, but, the way things are going, likely.
And the tragedy of it is; we all want the same things. We all want the same damned things!
American liberals and conservatives presently regard eachother as bitter enemies simply because they have chosen to do so, chosen to contrast and divide rather than compliment and unite. WE want conflict in america, and sure enough, we have it.
But we all know one thing, we all agree on one thing: there's gotta be a better way..
Bb
Please scroll down for more new articles, and
Please tell your friends about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER! THANKS!
Friday, August 31, 2012
Real Choices
THE UPCOMING PRESIDENTIAL election in america is the single most important event in american history, unlike and more important than any previous election, and the outcome willl determine the entire future course of american history.
That is the line of hogwash we the american people are being fed by not only our so called "political parties", but by the media, which enriches itself through intense drama.
If one candidate prevails, the nation has a glorious, prosperous future awaiting. If the other candidate wins, disaster looms. The fact that nobody knows which is which notwithstanding.
Both Obama and Romeny predict cataclysmic consequences should the other be elected, and the media, always up for anything shocking and sensational, turns politics into an ongoing reality TV melodrama.
More realistically, it probably doesn't much matter who wins. Either way, the fundamental facts of american life remain; most of the wealth and will be in the hands of the few, american military power will remain supreme, the nation will be bankrupt, and the mass corporate culture of sedation will prevail over art.
We actually have one big political party in this country, call it the "party of property", the defender of the corporate dominated status quo, conservative wing, and ultra conservative wing.
The winner will have purchased the presidency for about a billion dollars, and will carefully avoid angering those from whom the moncy came.
The rest of the world has never been able to tell the difference between our democrats and our republicans, and it never will, so it might as well quit trying.
We can have real change and progress in america, but it will have to start at the bottom, as always. Those at the top don't want change.
As long as the people at large are excluded from the real political process in america, there will be two choices; tweedle dee, and tweedle dum.
Bb
PLEASE scroll down for more new articles, and
PLEASE tell your friends about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER! THANKS!
That is the line of hogwash we the american people are being fed by not only our so called "political parties", but by the media, which enriches itself through intense drama.
If one candidate prevails, the nation has a glorious, prosperous future awaiting. If the other candidate wins, disaster looms. The fact that nobody knows which is which notwithstanding.
Both Obama and Romeny predict cataclysmic consequences should the other be elected, and the media, always up for anything shocking and sensational, turns politics into an ongoing reality TV melodrama.
More realistically, it probably doesn't much matter who wins. Either way, the fundamental facts of american life remain; most of the wealth and will be in the hands of the few, american military power will remain supreme, the nation will be bankrupt, and the mass corporate culture of sedation will prevail over art.
We actually have one big political party in this country, call it the "party of property", the defender of the corporate dominated status quo, conservative wing, and ultra conservative wing.
The winner will have purchased the presidency for about a billion dollars, and will carefully avoid angering those from whom the moncy came.
The rest of the world has never been able to tell the difference between our democrats and our republicans, and it never will, so it might as well quit trying.
We can have real change and progress in america, but it will have to start at the bottom, as always. Those at the top don't want change.
As long as the people at large are excluded from the real political process in america, there will be two choices; tweedle dee, and tweedle dum.
Bb
PLEASE scroll down for more new articles, and
PLEASE tell your friends about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER! THANKS!
Genuine Concern
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING his platitude ridden, highly rhetorical speech, fmr gov of mass mitt romney proceeded to hang tight, and continue his campaign in the great dem leaning sunshine swing state of florida, oh so crucial for his electoral success.
Then, he got a call and invitation from young up and coming G.O.P. louisiana governor bobby jindal, and mitt, thinkg it a good idea, redirected himself westward, lickity split.
His tour of the hurricane devastation will undoubtedly make everything immensely better for the flood victims, standing in three feert of water in your kitchen, you can tread water, and cling to the comfort that mitt is on his way.
Romney's never done this before. When, in the spring of 2011 Joplin, Missouri and Tuscaloosa, Alabama were blown off the map, mitt was nowhere to be found. All this happened in may. Mitt declared his candidacy for the presidency in june.
How unfortunate. Had mitt but declared a bit earlier, or the horrific tornados of 2011 rorcrastinated a mere two weeks or so, mitt mighta made the same enormous contribution last year that he is this year; whatever precisely that might be.
If you're an ordinary private citizen, all you can do is show up, and start bailing water, or digging through rubble, which physically and emotionally exhausting work. As a candidate for the american presidency? Why, one can work wonders.
Maybe the president should call mitt, and assign him a job within the existing federal (FEMA) rescue operation, such as, oh, what.....bailing water? Mitt would doubtless jump at it.
Can't you just see mitt phoning obama, and asking, "how can I help?".... Don't hold your breath. Or maybe mitt'll roll up his expensive sleeves and get to work, magnanimously heedless of cameras and media coverage.
It sure is great to know that our politicians care so deeply, and so sincerely, about us all.
Bb
Please scroll down for more new articles, and
PLEASE tell your friends about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER! THANKS!
Then, he got a call and invitation from young up and coming G.O.P. louisiana governor bobby jindal, and mitt, thinkg it a good idea, redirected himself westward, lickity split.
His tour of the hurricane devastation will undoubtedly make everything immensely better for the flood victims, standing in three feert of water in your kitchen, you can tread water, and cling to the comfort that mitt is on his way.
Romney's never done this before. When, in the spring of 2011 Joplin, Missouri and Tuscaloosa, Alabama were blown off the map, mitt was nowhere to be found. All this happened in may. Mitt declared his candidacy for the presidency in june.
How unfortunate. Had mitt but declared a bit earlier, or the horrific tornados of 2011 rorcrastinated a mere two weeks or so, mitt mighta made the same enormous contribution last year that he is this year; whatever precisely that might be.
If you're an ordinary private citizen, all you can do is show up, and start bailing water, or digging through rubble, which physically and emotionally exhausting work. As a candidate for the american presidency? Why, one can work wonders.
Maybe the president should call mitt, and assign him a job within the existing federal (FEMA) rescue operation, such as, oh, what.....bailing water? Mitt would doubtless jump at it.
Can't you just see mitt phoning obama, and asking, "how can I help?".... Don't hold your breath. Or maybe mitt'll roll up his expensive sleeves and get to work, magnanimously heedless of cameras and media coverage.
It sure is great to know that our politicians care so deeply, and so sincerely, about us all.
Bb
Please scroll down for more new articles, and
PLEASE tell your friends about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER! THANKS!
Image Repair
AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES brag about their stated belief that america can do no wrong. "America is the solution, not the problem. liberals feel differently." they intone. "America is a force for good in the world, always has been, and nobody should think otherwise." they bleat. The republican national convention hammered that theme, as if it were gospel, as if it were honest, as if it were patriotic.
The fact that the united states, with five percent of the world's population, consumes twenty five percent of the world's wealth (but doesn't produce that much)....the world wide american military empire, the huge gap between the rich and the poor..these things simply do not seem to bother conservatives as much,or at least do not evoke expressons of disgruntlement.
It actually seems as if american conservative consider this state of affairs normal, natural, and desirable. And therein lies the essential difference between liberalsim and conservatism, anytime, anyplace; attitude towards the status quo. Liberals attack it, conservatives embrace it. Hence liberals are often, quite properly, regarded as "complainers".
And partly because of this, liberals run the risk of being widely viewed as negative, anti american, argumentative, and ungrateful. The republicans never fail to present this dubious argument.
Conservativism can never accept liberalism: how can you simultaneously defend the status quo and promote change? Li8berals have a different situation, and opportunity. In order to advocate change, one need not believe that the status quo is rotten through and through, nor entirely unworthy of preservation. One need only believe that it needs to be reformed, to an extent, tweaked a bit. "When one respects nothing", said Goethe, "it is no trick to be brilliant."
Liberals sometimes seem just a bit too brillliant. The fact that they tend to congragate within institutions of higher learning contributes to this perception. For a fact, most liberals embrace free enterprise, religiosity, and respect for tradition, but not to the exclusion of change and progress.
The first thing every liberal should do in the morning is rise, sing the national anthem vigorously, and with equal vigor proclaim love for jesus, (even though that wasn't his name) guns, and money.
A tip of the hat to the magnanimity and purity of american history, and current forgien policy, while grotesquely dishonest, might serve to snugly secure a conservative foundation for the crusading, reform minded american liberal.
Bb
Please tell your friends about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER!
scroll down for more new articles..
The fact that the united states, with five percent of the world's population, consumes twenty five percent of the world's wealth (but doesn't produce that much)....the world wide american military empire, the huge gap between the rich and the poor..these things simply do not seem to bother conservatives as much,or at least do not evoke expressons of disgruntlement.
It actually seems as if american conservative consider this state of affairs normal, natural, and desirable. And therein lies the essential difference between liberalsim and conservatism, anytime, anyplace; attitude towards the status quo. Liberals attack it, conservatives embrace it. Hence liberals are often, quite properly, regarded as "complainers".
And partly because of this, liberals run the risk of being widely viewed as negative, anti american, argumentative, and ungrateful. The republicans never fail to present this dubious argument.
Conservativism can never accept liberalism: how can you simultaneously defend the status quo and promote change? Li8berals have a different situation, and opportunity. In order to advocate change, one need not believe that the status quo is rotten through and through, nor entirely unworthy of preservation. One need only believe that it needs to be reformed, to an extent, tweaked a bit. "When one respects nothing", said Goethe, "it is no trick to be brilliant."
Liberals sometimes seem just a bit too brillliant. The fact that they tend to congragate within institutions of higher learning contributes to this perception. For a fact, most liberals embrace free enterprise, religiosity, and respect for tradition, but not to the exclusion of change and progress.
The first thing every liberal should do in the morning is rise, sing the national anthem vigorously, and with equal vigor proclaim love for jesus, (even though that wasn't his name) guns, and money.
A tip of the hat to the magnanimity and purity of american history, and current forgien policy, while grotesquely dishonest, might serve to snugly secure a conservative foundation for the crusading, reform minded american liberal.
Bb
Please tell your friends about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER!
scroll down for more new articles..
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Conflicting Cultural Forces, part II
NOW THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED that verily capitalism and christianity are the twin towers of american cultural determination, and that they conflict, in terms of attitudes towards sex, money, and competition, among other things; we might wish to further our inquiry by trying to find out whether this conflict, which obviously does not preclude the joining in america of two ostensibly opposing forces, helps or hinders american society.
In america, the people who believe most strongly in christianity tend to believe most strongly in capitalism.
The effect of capitalism on american sexual behavior is that capitalism influences americans, entices americans, or tries to, into having as great a desire for sex as possible. A cursory glance at any television channel quickly reveals this. Television in america is the means by which the corporate oligarchy seeks to shock, seduce, sadate the american people into nothing less than complete compliance with the corporate oligarchy.
The bad news is that they have succeeded, long since, and there is no sense in denying it. We americans are, overwhelmingly, the property of our corporate masters. Simply consider to whom you owe money, and under what terms.
The thing to do , of course, is to refuse to pay for television, satellite or cable - then we'd end up getting it for free, and be back where we started, sedated - but how many americans are willing to do it (go without television)?
The american corporate marketing advertising media entertainment comples sells violenc and sex to the american people like an opiate, and we lap it up like puppy dogs. Meanwhile, christianity in america continues the insanity of telling its adherents that ses under nearly al lcircumstances is a sin, and so, what do people do? They practice their in strictest secrecy, creating a culture of guilt, retribution, and violence.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, capitalism is selling sex like a street drug, an irrestiable one, don't forget... wev'e gotten ourselves into quite a mess, haven't we..
Bb
PLEASE tell your friends about The Truthless Reconciler, and...
please scroll down for eleven other new articles...THANKS!
In america, the people who believe most strongly in christianity tend to believe most strongly in capitalism.
The effect of capitalism on american sexual behavior is that capitalism influences americans, entices americans, or tries to, into having as great a desire for sex as possible. A cursory glance at any television channel quickly reveals this. Television in america is the means by which the corporate oligarchy seeks to shock, seduce, sadate the american people into nothing less than complete compliance with the corporate oligarchy.
The bad news is that they have succeeded, long since, and there is no sense in denying it. We americans are, overwhelmingly, the property of our corporate masters. Simply consider to whom you owe money, and under what terms.
The thing to do , of course, is to refuse to pay for television, satellite or cable - then we'd end up getting it for free, and be back where we started, sedated - but how many americans are willing to do it (go without television)?
The american corporate marketing advertising media entertainment comples sells violenc and sex to the american people like an opiate, and we lap it up like puppy dogs. Meanwhile, christianity in america continues the insanity of telling its adherents that ses under nearly al lcircumstances is a sin, and so, what do people do? They practice their in strictest secrecy, creating a culture of guilt, retribution, and violence.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, capitalism is selling sex like a street drug, an irrestiable one, don't forget... wev'e gotten ourselves into quite a mess, haven't we..
Bb
PLEASE tell your friends about The Truthless Reconciler, and...
please scroll down for eleven other new articles...THANKS!
Conflicting Cultural Forces
VISIT ANY TOWN in the united states of more than, say, twenty thousand people, watch the local news on television for a few nights, maybe read the local newspaper for a few days, and tune in to a couple of local radio stations, paying particular attention to the local news.
You will not go very long, most probably no more than twenty four hours, without hearing about some horrible outrageous local sex crime, like, sixty six year old man accused of making child pornography videos, ten year old girl found raped repeatedly by neighbor, local high school physical education coach charged in having sex with a minor, and on, and on...
You get the impression that sex crimes are common in america, that jerry sandusky might have been the tip of a titanic ice berg. And, naturally, you wonder why.
One place to start is by asking the question: what are the most powerful, culture shaping influences in our society? What attitudes, institutions, habits, patterns of behavior are preeminent?
If your answer to this question doesn't include capitalism and christianity, you're living in a fantasy world. Because of the dominant influence of traditional christianity in america, america is among the most "prudish" sexually suppressed countries in the world. Sex is a sin, in the bible, to be practiced only upon special, rare occasion.
People in europe and throughout the world ridicule americans for their sexual hangups.
On the other hand, because of the strength of the free market, and the free market's exploitation of human nature, sex is the most common commodity in america. Sex sells more in the united states than every other good, product, or service, combined, times ten.
That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but the central fact remains; sex sells big in america. So we have a highly anti - sex culture in which sex is a primary theme of mainstream culture. We have clashing, contradictory cultures, both thriving.
Do we have, by some remote chance, a bit of a, shall we say, "schizophrenic" culture at work here?
In europe, the battle has long since been waged, christianity is on the way out, and sex reigns supreme. The smart money says the same thing will eventuate, eventually, in america.
Bb
Please tell your friends about The Truthless Reconciler.
Please scroll down for eleven other articles. THANKS!
You will not go very long, most probably no more than twenty four hours, without hearing about some horrible outrageous local sex crime, like, sixty six year old man accused of making child pornography videos, ten year old girl found raped repeatedly by neighbor, local high school physical education coach charged in having sex with a minor, and on, and on...
You get the impression that sex crimes are common in america, that jerry sandusky might have been the tip of a titanic ice berg. And, naturally, you wonder why.
One place to start is by asking the question: what are the most powerful, culture shaping influences in our society? What attitudes, institutions, habits, patterns of behavior are preeminent?
If your answer to this question doesn't include capitalism and christianity, you're living in a fantasy world. Because of the dominant influence of traditional christianity in america, america is among the most "prudish" sexually suppressed countries in the world. Sex is a sin, in the bible, to be practiced only upon special, rare occasion.
People in europe and throughout the world ridicule americans for their sexual hangups.
On the other hand, because of the strength of the free market, and the free market's exploitation of human nature, sex is the most common commodity in america. Sex sells more in the united states than every other good, product, or service, combined, times ten.
That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but the central fact remains; sex sells big in america. So we have a highly anti - sex culture in which sex is a primary theme of mainstream culture. We have clashing, contradictory cultures, both thriving.
Do we have, by some remote chance, a bit of a, shall we say, "schizophrenic" culture at work here?
In europe, the battle has long since been waged, christianity is on the way out, and sex reigns supreme. The smart money says the same thing will eventuate, eventually, in america.
Bb
Please tell your friends about The Truthless Reconciler.
Please scroll down for eleven other articles. THANKS!
Coming Around
GOOD NEWS AT LAST! It turns out that republican conservatives, even the most extremely conservative republicans, are, after all, staunch defenders of medicare, that oft maligned socialized government-run health care insurance program for senior citizens.
And to think, all this time, conservative republicans have been portrayed as died in the wool heartless free enterprisers whose philosophy is "you're on your own."
Few events in modern history have evoked as much wrath as has obama's transfer of seven hundred billion dollars out of medicare and into obamacare, and the wrath is all being registered by, you guessed it, conservative republicans, those staunch defenders of entrenched socialism!
You might suppose that they would be exclaiming something to the effect "obamacare is a complete disaster, but at least it is draining that other socialistic nightmare, medicare, and, if the country is fortunate, medicare AND medicaid both will be sufficiencly drained by obamacare to bring about the destruction, or privatization, of all three!"
But no, that aint what you're hearing. You're hearing outrage by conservatives about decreased funding for socialism... When social security, medicare, and medicaid were introduced, every conservative in america was in an uproar; but over the decades the uproar has subsided, as likely it will in the case of obamacare.
Conservatives always come around; sometimes they simply take awhile..
Bb
please scroll down for the articles you missed, and please tell your friends about The Truthless Reconciler....THANKS!
And to think, all this time, conservative republicans have been portrayed as died in the wool heartless free enterprisers whose philosophy is "you're on your own."
Few events in modern history have evoked as much wrath as has obama's transfer of seven hundred billion dollars out of medicare and into obamacare, and the wrath is all being registered by, you guessed it, conservative republicans, those staunch defenders of entrenched socialism!
You might suppose that they would be exclaiming something to the effect "obamacare is a complete disaster, but at least it is draining that other socialistic nightmare, medicare, and, if the country is fortunate, medicare AND medicaid both will be sufficiencly drained by obamacare to bring about the destruction, or privatization, of all three!"
But no, that aint what you're hearing. You're hearing outrage by conservatives about decreased funding for socialism... When social security, medicare, and medicaid were introduced, every conservative in america was in an uproar; but over the decades the uproar has subsided, as likely it will in the case of obamacare.
Conservatives always come around; sometimes they simply take awhile..
Bb
please scroll down for the articles you missed, and please tell your friends about The Truthless Reconciler....THANKS!
Mowing Harmoniously, Keeping Anger at Bay
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS own large lovely homes with large lovely green lawns, and lawn mowing is a national pasttime. What is remarkable is how seldom it all ever creates any problems, for anyone. In fact, it works out great. People get work as lawn caretakers, and or home owners get good exercise, and nobody ever complains, hardly. Nobody seems to have problems with the money, the noise, or the work.
Considering how many things americans get mad at each other about, this is truly noteworthy. Oh, well, yes, undoubtedly there are times when some eccentric citizen cuts grass at midnight, and arouses a bit of neighborly wrath. But all in all, we endure each other's noisy lawnmowers with equanimity, and you know damned good and well that there is nothing more annoying thant being in the middle of a favorite movie or CD or video game, when suddenly, the lawn mower next door kicks in. We just all accept it, put up with it, for good reason.
We don't want our neighbors showing any anger towards us when WE mow our lawn, tomorrow.
But woe be to whomever drives too slowly in front of an american motorist in a hurry. There, we can all show our anger, (and our asses) without fear of certain retribution. So its off to the races, tailgate city, honkin' 'n starin' with a 'tude. There, out on the open road, we needn't bury our anger, hiding and disguising it, as we do on mowing day.
For a long time now we have been told that whatever is inside one must come out, it is unhealthy and stressful to conceal anger without any expression of it. So, we express it. Boy, do we express it!
And maybe, just maybe, the self expressionism movement has gone a bit too far, along with the road rage. Emotional freedom, coupled with arrognace and sense of enormous personal entitlement can be a powerful intoxicant.
If we don't get upset with our neighbors, at least outwardly, for cutting grass, should we really ever get upset, outwardly, with anyone for anything? Or might it be better to regard the actions of other people like we do earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, and volcanos, as natural forces utterly beyond our control, and thus, unworthy of resistance, escept personal survival.
Bb
please scroll down for articles you missed, and please tell your friends aobut The Truthless Reconciler. Together, we can agree, and together, we can act.THANKS!
Considering how many things americans get mad at each other about, this is truly noteworthy. Oh, well, yes, undoubtedly there are times when some eccentric citizen cuts grass at midnight, and arouses a bit of neighborly wrath. But all in all, we endure each other's noisy lawnmowers with equanimity, and you know damned good and well that there is nothing more annoying thant being in the middle of a favorite movie or CD or video game, when suddenly, the lawn mower next door kicks in. We just all accept it, put up with it, for good reason.
We don't want our neighbors showing any anger towards us when WE mow our lawn, tomorrow.
But woe be to whomever drives too slowly in front of an american motorist in a hurry. There, we can all show our anger, (and our asses) without fear of certain retribution. So its off to the races, tailgate city, honkin' 'n starin' with a 'tude. There, out on the open road, we needn't bury our anger, hiding and disguising it, as we do on mowing day.
For a long time now we have been told that whatever is inside one must come out, it is unhealthy and stressful to conceal anger without any expression of it. So, we express it. Boy, do we express it!
And maybe, just maybe, the self expressionism movement has gone a bit too far, along with the road rage. Emotional freedom, coupled with arrognace and sense of enormous personal entitlement can be a powerful intoxicant.
If we don't get upset with our neighbors, at least outwardly, for cutting grass, should we really ever get upset, outwardly, with anyone for anything? Or might it be better to regard the actions of other people like we do earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, and volcanos, as natural forces utterly beyond our control, and thus, unworthy of resistance, escept personal survival.
Bb
please scroll down for articles you missed, and please tell your friends aobut The Truthless Reconciler. Together, we can agree, and together, we can act.THANKS!
Symptoms
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, on "alternative" talk radio (as opposed to "mainstream" radio), a man with many metaphysical credentials enumerated three behavorial trends allegedly currently afflicting humanity. It seems that people in general now perceive the passage of time at a rate greater than ever, anger is even more widespread than usual, and short term memory loss, and memory loss in general, is increasing.
Almost everyone would agree with the first assertion. Of course we all percieve a more rapid passage of time as we age, but even young people,who traditionally think time passes oh, so slow, often talk nowadays about how fast the days and weeks are flying by. Anger and memory loss issues might be a bit more questionable, and hard to verify, one way or the other.
For a fact, though, throughout american society, at least, there seems to be a lot of anger. The rest of the world hasn't yet reported in. The recent upsurge in random and non random gun violence appears to indicate rising anger levels generally. ON a recent weekend in chicago, from firday to monday night, forty eight hours, nine people were killed by gunfire, and twenty eight wounded.
Throw in a few foreign wars here and there, almost constant road rage, and near road rage, with almost all american drivers following five feet behind the car in front going fifty five, the extreme popularity of a violent rite formerly called "football", and you may have something. It sorta seems to add up to a culture of angry aggression. A five year recession, along with a collapsing currency and declining standard of living might be to blame.
Our radio metaphysicist suggested that the approach of this planet to the galactic equator, enhanced solar activity, or even constant inundation in artificial electromagnetic radiation as possible contributing factors. Did we ever figure out exactly what cell phones do to our brains?
I keep forgetting to ask about it.
Bb
please scroll down for the articles you missed, and please tell your friends about The Truthless Reconciler.....together, we can agree, together, we can act....THANKS!
Almost everyone would agree with the first assertion. Of course we all percieve a more rapid passage of time as we age, but even young people,who traditionally think time passes oh, so slow, often talk nowadays about how fast the days and weeks are flying by. Anger and memory loss issues might be a bit more questionable, and hard to verify, one way or the other.
For a fact, though, throughout american society, at least, there seems to be a lot of anger. The rest of the world hasn't yet reported in. The recent upsurge in random and non random gun violence appears to indicate rising anger levels generally. ON a recent weekend in chicago, from firday to monday night, forty eight hours, nine people were killed by gunfire, and twenty eight wounded.
Throw in a few foreign wars here and there, almost constant road rage, and near road rage, with almost all american drivers following five feet behind the car in front going fifty five, the extreme popularity of a violent rite formerly called "football", and you may have something. It sorta seems to add up to a culture of angry aggression. A five year recession, along with a collapsing currency and declining standard of living might be to blame.
Our radio metaphysicist suggested that the approach of this planet to the galactic equator, enhanced solar activity, or even constant inundation in artificial electromagnetic radiation as possible contributing factors. Did we ever figure out exactly what cell phones do to our brains?
I keep forgetting to ask about it.
Bb
please scroll down for the articles you missed, and please tell your friends about The Truthless Reconciler.....together, we can agree, together, we can act....THANKS!
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Progress
NOT LONG AFTER CORPORATIONS started becoming big, say, over a hundred years ago, it became fairly obvious that a sinlge low ranking employee, trying to talk to, negotiate with, explain to corporate ownership his concerns and requests, was doomed to failure. The balance of power was just too lopsided. Thus, labor unions emerged.
Thus liberalism made another step forward, and conservatives have been irate ever since, at least american conservatives. The fact that labor unions are, and have been declining for some time in america does not mean that they are no longer needed, but that they are needed more than ever, because corporate ownesrhip-management has unbalanced the balance of power between labor, and capital.
By and large labor unions have brought great benefits to the world, because, without them and before them, labor was brutally exploited, by anyone's standards, throughout history. Millions of hard working people, living in poverty. Yesterday, and today.
We all know that without the labor movement of the past one hundred years the situation would be worse then ever.
American conservatives have a point when they say that labor unions can, at times, obtain too much power, get out of control, and cause harm to society. this is true, but very, very rare. American conservatives are very very quick to point to abuses of organized labor - long before they actually happen, if and when they happen at all, which is, again, quite rare.
Consider closely the situation of laborers all over the world even as we speak, and you will find that nowhere is organized laobr running rampant, controlling society for its own ill gotten gains, but that almost everywhere it is still exploited- though not a badly as before.
Throught the world wealth is concentrating, the middle class is dsappearing, and labor is fightingan uphill battle for decency. Only in american major league baseball, where the owners can't even get players to wear their baseball uniforms properly, has the organized labor gotten too powerful. No other examples currently come to mind.
There'll come a time when our descendants regard us with pity, as barbarians. But at least we're making progress, kinda..
Bb
pease scroll down for new articles you missed! THANKS!
Thus liberalism made another step forward, and conservatives have been irate ever since, at least american conservatives. The fact that labor unions are, and have been declining for some time in america does not mean that they are no longer needed, but that they are needed more than ever, because corporate ownesrhip-management has unbalanced the balance of power between labor, and capital.
By and large labor unions have brought great benefits to the world, because, without them and before them, labor was brutally exploited, by anyone's standards, throughout history. Millions of hard working people, living in poverty. Yesterday, and today.
We all know that without the labor movement of the past one hundred years the situation would be worse then ever.
American conservatives have a point when they say that labor unions can, at times, obtain too much power, get out of control, and cause harm to society. this is true, but very, very rare. American conservatives are very very quick to point to abuses of organized labor - long before they actually happen, if and when they happen at all, which is, again, quite rare.
Consider closely the situation of laborers all over the world even as we speak, and you will find that nowhere is organized laobr running rampant, controlling society for its own ill gotten gains, but that almost everywhere it is still exploited- though not a badly as before.
Throught the world wealth is concentrating, the middle class is dsappearing, and labor is fightingan uphill battle for decency. Only in american major league baseball, where the owners can't even get players to wear their baseball uniforms properly, has the organized labor gotten too powerful. No other examples currently come to mind.
There'll come a time when our descendants regard us with pity, as barbarians. But at least we're making progress, kinda..
Bb
pease scroll down for new articles you missed! THANKS!
Seeking An Answer
SOME FORGOTTEN SAVVY AND astute economics philosopher recently made an interesting remark: if you want to become wealthy, start producing some product that people want, something that can be manufactured on an assembly line.
By that may be meant; manufacture a product that people want, something real, something tangible, not a blog, nor a rock album, nor career counseling. Interesting thought. Worth considering, certainly.
IN america we don't make enough tangible, desirable forms of material wealth. We make no television sets, we make no radios, nor chose, nor clothing, and we barely make any motorcycles. Cell phones and computers may well fall into the same category; things which all americans want, need, buy, and use, but which are generally manufactured outside america.
All this, in order simply ot increase corporate profit margins, by driving down the price of labor, and thus keeping price points a bit lower, to increase sales, and, ultimately, and most importantly, to greatly increase the wealth of the wealthy.
Surely you can see that if only the few of the items listed above were made in america at anything approaching a reasonable level of production, there would be no unemployment in the united states, and most probably, no economic problems of any sort.
The key ingredient is profit margin. Verily it would be possible to set up factories in america to manufacture shoes, clothing, televisions set, and all the rest, pay the factory workers good but not exorbitant wages, keep the prices reasonably down, and sell enough to make a corporate profit.
But how much profit? Aye, there's the rub. It aint enough simply for a corporation, particularly a publicly owned one, to do a bit better than break even, after all the bills are paid. No, businesses want to do much better than that, and because big profit margins are in high demand, labor must be exploited, no matter where, and prices must be low enough to attract mass customers, but not too low, to ensure high profit margin, big salaries for the board members, and dividends for the shareholders.
Again, all this can be done in america - but just not as much. How to find a way to use free enterprise in such a way as to satisfy the profit motive, and still work for everybody, including workers? That is the question.
A nobel prize awaits whoever satisfactorily answers it.
Bb
please scroll down the articles you haven't read...THANKS!
By that may be meant; manufacture a product that people want, something real, something tangible, not a blog, nor a rock album, nor career counseling. Interesting thought. Worth considering, certainly.
IN america we don't make enough tangible, desirable forms of material wealth. We make no television sets, we make no radios, nor chose, nor clothing, and we barely make any motorcycles. Cell phones and computers may well fall into the same category; things which all americans want, need, buy, and use, but which are generally manufactured outside america.
All this, in order simply ot increase corporate profit margins, by driving down the price of labor, and thus keeping price points a bit lower, to increase sales, and, ultimately, and most importantly, to greatly increase the wealth of the wealthy.
Surely you can see that if only the few of the items listed above were made in america at anything approaching a reasonable level of production, there would be no unemployment in the united states, and most probably, no economic problems of any sort.
The key ingredient is profit margin. Verily it would be possible to set up factories in america to manufacture shoes, clothing, televisions set, and all the rest, pay the factory workers good but not exorbitant wages, keep the prices reasonably down, and sell enough to make a corporate profit.
But how much profit? Aye, there's the rub. It aint enough simply for a corporation, particularly a publicly owned one, to do a bit better than break even, after all the bills are paid. No, businesses want to do much better than that, and because big profit margins are in high demand, labor must be exploited, no matter where, and prices must be low enough to attract mass customers, but not too low, to ensure high profit margin, big salaries for the board members, and dividends for the shareholders.
Again, all this can be done in america - but just not as much. How to find a way to use free enterprise in such a way as to satisfy the profit motive, and still work for everybody, including workers? That is the question.
A nobel prize awaits whoever satisfactorily answers it.
Bb
please scroll down the articles you haven't read...THANKS!
Credit and Blame
"No One among us is fortunate enough to escape either praise or blame." (Johann wolfgang von Goethe 1749-1832)
boy, howdy.....
"NO EASY DAY", the new book by navy seal mark owen, which is a phony name, tells us that osama bin laden committed suicide just before the special forces members entered his room, and that there was no forty minute fire fight outside the compound before they entered, contrary to previous reports.
And this is supposed to be a big deal. Not really. Its just primary source history, conveniently coming out, and replacing initial speculation. After all the participants have given their version, the secondary source professional historians will take over, and heaven only knows what will become of the story.
But its all good. Interestingly enough, the author of the book, whoever it is - FOX News says they know - seems to have a bit of a cynical attitude towards the whole affair, in particular, accusing president obama of taking credit for it, making political hay out of the grand event. He resents obama for it, evidently, though praises the president for giving the go ahead for the mission.
Obama approved it, and would have taken the blame had the mission failed, just as president carter did in 1980 when his hair brained idea backfired, and that in itself is reason enough for him to "take credit" for it.
But really, he doesn't take credit, and never has. Repeatedly the president has praised and credited the special forces navy seal heros. But just the fact that obama talked about it, which really he had to, at some point, gives the misleading impression that he is trying to take credit.
Obama's campaign says "Bin laden is dead, and General Motors is alive", and, hell, what's wrong with that? Just ordinary american self promotion for political purposes, right?
"Mark Owen", a navy seal who was there when bin laden died, wrote a book about it - using a fake name. So how much credit does he really want for it anyway? Perhaps he is simply resentful that he is not allowed to take credit, while obama is. after all, all the seals agreed beforehand, were told beforehand, that their true identities would be kept secret. They were told not to talk about it.
They (the seals team members) knew going in they would never "get credit", or at least widespread fame, for a long time. And hell, obama is already famous, with or without this particular military operation, so all blame, responsibility, and credit, might as well go to him.
Let's face it. Blame and credit are usually moots points, and are definitely such in this case. We're all smart enough to understand who did what, and why. Any first grader is gonna understand that president obama did not indeed go barging into bin laden's house with an M16 in his hands, blazing away.
Any picture of abraham lincoln should be sufficient to illuminate us as to what burdens the president bears, what responsibility he has, and for what he should be given praise, and blame.
Bb
please scroll down for the articles you missed...THANKS!
boy, howdy.....
"NO EASY DAY", the new book by navy seal mark owen, which is a phony name, tells us that osama bin laden committed suicide just before the special forces members entered his room, and that there was no forty minute fire fight outside the compound before they entered, contrary to previous reports.
And this is supposed to be a big deal. Not really. Its just primary source history, conveniently coming out, and replacing initial speculation. After all the participants have given their version, the secondary source professional historians will take over, and heaven only knows what will become of the story.
But its all good. Interestingly enough, the author of the book, whoever it is - FOX News says they know - seems to have a bit of a cynical attitude towards the whole affair, in particular, accusing president obama of taking credit for it, making political hay out of the grand event. He resents obama for it, evidently, though praises the president for giving the go ahead for the mission.
Obama approved it, and would have taken the blame had the mission failed, just as president carter did in 1980 when his hair brained idea backfired, and that in itself is reason enough for him to "take credit" for it.
But really, he doesn't take credit, and never has. Repeatedly the president has praised and credited the special forces navy seal heros. But just the fact that obama talked about it, which really he had to, at some point, gives the misleading impression that he is trying to take credit.
Obama's campaign says "Bin laden is dead, and General Motors is alive", and, hell, what's wrong with that? Just ordinary american self promotion for political purposes, right?
"Mark Owen", a navy seal who was there when bin laden died, wrote a book about it - using a fake name. So how much credit does he really want for it anyway? Perhaps he is simply resentful that he is not allowed to take credit, while obama is. after all, all the seals agreed beforehand, were told beforehand, that their true identities would be kept secret. They were told not to talk about it.
They (the seals team members) knew going in they would never "get credit", or at least widespread fame, for a long time. And hell, obama is already famous, with or without this particular military operation, so all blame, responsibility, and credit, might as well go to him.
Let's face it. Blame and credit are usually moots points, and are definitely such in this case. We're all smart enough to understand who did what, and why. Any first grader is gonna understand that president obama did not indeed go barging into bin laden's house with an M16 in his hands, blazing away.
Any picture of abraham lincoln should be sufficient to illuminate us as to what burdens the president bears, what responsibility he has, and for what he should be given praise, and blame.
Bb
please scroll down for the articles you missed...THANKS!
Achem's Razor and Climate Change
MOST OF THE EDUCATED world agrees that global warming is real, with climate change, is caused by human activity, and that humanity ought properly to develop a plan to first mitigate, then, if all goes well, reverse it. Just the other day new satellite photos showed that the north pole has less ice right now than ever before. Its decreasing every year; within twenty years there will be no freezing water at the north pole, and all that liquid water will be flowing into the ocean. Even now, ocean levels are rising, measurably.
Unsurprisingly, there is no shortage of plans, proposals, and solutions being presented. Roger Angel is a seventy year old astronomer who has long been known for innovative, creative thinking. His plan to fight climate change calls for assembling in outer space a huge mirror which, when positioned properly, will intercept sunlight on its way to earth, and reflect it harmlessly back into space, away from our one hundred degree cities and towns.
Perhaps Angel has probably even noticed that his thought experiment even has the added potential of turning the deflected sunlight into solar energy, and sending it to earth as electricity, still removing it from the ecosystem, but not entirely "wasting it".
But is this the right answer? Is the problem really that we get too much sunlight, and need to reduce it at the source, or that we get just the right amount, and shouldn't tamper with it, but use it improparly (as fossil fuels) long after its arrival? By stopping sunlight before it reaches earth, it almost seems as if we would be blaming the sun for our difficulties, when we should be blaming ourselves.
Are se so sure that our space mirror could be built and operated cost efficiently, and that we could block off enough sunlight, the "right" amount, without unintended consequences? Perish the thought that we should reduce incoming light, and halt global warming, only to bring about our own extinction because of some subtle lack precipitated by the altered lighting arrangement!
Might it not be a better solution to reduce human population, consumption, use of fossil fuels, and greatly increase vegetation growth?
Acham's Razor might mandate the space mirror. But is this the simplest solution? Yes, simplicity and success are oft intertwineed, but perhaps not always. We might do well to consider all options very thoroughly, because, for a fact, we'll soon have to choose from among them.
Bb
please scroll down for articles you missed...THANKS!
Unsurprisingly, there is no shortage of plans, proposals, and solutions being presented. Roger Angel is a seventy year old astronomer who has long been known for innovative, creative thinking. His plan to fight climate change calls for assembling in outer space a huge mirror which, when positioned properly, will intercept sunlight on its way to earth, and reflect it harmlessly back into space, away from our one hundred degree cities and towns.
Perhaps Angel has probably even noticed that his thought experiment even has the added potential of turning the deflected sunlight into solar energy, and sending it to earth as electricity, still removing it from the ecosystem, but not entirely "wasting it".
But is this the right answer? Is the problem really that we get too much sunlight, and need to reduce it at the source, or that we get just the right amount, and shouldn't tamper with it, but use it improparly (as fossil fuels) long after its arrival? By stopping sunlight before it reaches earth, it almost seems as if we would be blaming the sun for our difficulties, when we should be blaming ourselves.
Are se so sure that our space mirror could be built and operated cost efficiently, and that we could block off enough sunlight, the "right" amount, without unintended consequences? Perish the thought that we should reduce incoming light, and halt global warming, only to bring about our own extinction because of some subtle lack precipitated by the altered lighting arrangement!
Might it not be a better solution to reduce human population, consumption, use of fossil fuels, and greatly increase vegetation growth?
Acham's Razor might mandate the space mirror. But is this the simplest solution? Yes, simplicity and success are oft intertwineed, but perhaps not always. We might do well to consider all options very thoroughly, because, for a fact, we'll soon have to choose from among them.
Bb
please scroll down for articles you missed...THANKS!
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Extremism vs Moderation
VERY CONSERVATIVE republicans, the folks on the far right, are unhappy with the direction of the overall republican party, thinking it is not sufficiently conservative. The RNC, (republican national committee), it seems, has decided to present the viewpoint that barrack obama is a nice guy, only imcompetent.
Mainstream, sensible, moderate republicans understand that america has only so much tolerance for attack politics, and they want mitt romney to present a positive program of conservative policies.
The more conservative republicans seem to genuinely feel that barrack obama has a hidden, evil agenda, and is deliberately downsizing, ruining, destroying america. Just why he would do this is a mystery, but nonetheless the conservatives either believe it, or want to believe it.
If all liberals suddenly vanished, the conservatives would sort themselves into conservative conservatives, and liberal conservatives, and liberalism would thus be reborn.
A plurality of americas are moderate, middle of the road, independent. They get tired of the divisiveness they see in extreme liberalism and conservatism, and are willing to vote for whichever candidate provides the clearest, most hopeful plan.
Actually, of cousre,liberalism and conservatism in america are frequently hard to tell apart. Its almost like we have only one political party; the party of private property, let us call it. A little extremism now and again at least gives us a greater variety to from which to choose. It must be admitted, though, that oftentimes the folks in the middle seem more stable, and reasonable, than the rest of us.
In most european countries ther are multiple political parties ranging from extreme left wing socialism, to extreme right wing traditionalism. It might do the united states well to come up with a couple more political parties at least, with new ideas. It might give us more to choose from.
Bb
please scroll down for articles you missed...THANKS!
Mainstream, sensible, moderate republicans understand that america has only so much tolerance for attack politics, and they want mitt romney to present a positive program of conservative policies.
The more conservative republicans seem to genuinely feel that barrack obama has a hidden, evil agenda, and is deliberately downsizing, ruining, destroying america. Just why he would do this is a mystery, but nonetheless the conservatives either believe it, or want to believe it.
If all liberals suddenly vanished, the conservatives would sort themselves into conservative conservatives, and liberal conservatives, and liberalism would thus be reborn.
A plurality of americas are moderate, middle of the road, independent. They get tired of the divisiveness they see in extreme liberalism and conservatism, and are willing to vote for whichever candidate provides the clearest, most hopeful plan.
Actually, of cousre,liberalism and conservatism in america are frequently hard to tell apart. Its almost like we have only one political party; the party of private property, let us call it. A little extremism now and again at least gives us a greater variety to from which to choose. It must be admitted, though, that oftentimes the folks in the middle seem more stable, and reasonable, than the rest of us.
In most european countries ther are multiple political parties ranging from extreme left wing socialism, to extreme right wing traditionalism. It might do the united states well to come up with a couple more political parties at least, with new ideas. It might give us more to choose from.
Bb
please scroll down for articles you missed...THANKS!
When rising stars must move to the middle
NIKKI HALEY, YOUNG ATTRACTIVE FEMALE governor of south carolina, is regarded widely as a future star of the republican party, for five reasons. She is 1) young 2)attractive 3) female 4) a minority 5) very conservative.
Never let it be said that the grand ole party doesn't try to out democrat the democrts concerning young attractive minority female inclusion. Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal; the republicans have a whole stable of young attractive super conservative minority politicians, waiting in the wings, ready to become president.
Not all of them can do it, of course. At one time or another, all these hot young conservative political achievers will have to square off against each other, in the mad scramble for the white house. Rubio, Haley, and Jindal are not the only ones by, far. Don't VP nominee Ryan. Indeed, the G.O.P. is stocking up.
Another thing all these young hot shots will have to do eventually, other than sort themselves out, is realize and accept the fact that nobody who is too extreme, liberal or consrvative, is gonna get elected president in america.
Nikki Haley seems to be very proud of her conservatism. So do the rest of them. They wear it like a badge of honor, as if it is the highest qualification for holding office. Nikki brags about her antipathy for labor unions, the ACLU, government regulation of the economy, and so forth.
You don't hear mitt romney talking like that, do you? Nooooo..mitt, who is now really in the big time, no longer just some rising hip young political star - mitt knows where his bread is buttered; he aint sayin' nuthin negative about the ACLU or labor unions, AARP, or any other liberal organization with membership in the millions.
Rubio...Jindal...Haley...Ryan....they can talk as consrvative as they like - right now. After all, they want to impress the G.O.P. stalwarts and their own little conservative voter base. but jsut wait'll they run for president, and start trying to please all of us...middle of the road, here we come...
Bb
please scroll down for the articles you missed...THANKS!
Never let it be said that the grand ole party doesn't try to out democrat the democrts concerning young attractive minority female inclusion. Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal; the republicans have a whole stable of young attractive super conservative minority politicians, waiting in the wings, ready to become president.
Not all of them can do it, of course. At one time or another, all these hot young conservative political achievers will have to square off against each other, in the mad scramble for the white house. Rubio, Haley, and Jindal are not the only ones by, far. Don't VP nominee Ryan. Indeed, the G.O.P. is stocking up.
Another thing all these young hot shots will have to do eventually, other than sort themselves out, is realize and accept the fact that nobody who is too extreme, liberal or consrvative, is gonna get elected president in america.
Nikki Haley seems to be very proud of her conservatism. So do the rest of them. They wear it like a badge of honor, as if it is the highest qualification for holding office. Nikki brags about her antipathy for labor unions, the ACLU, government regulation of the economy, and so forth.
You don't hear mitt romney talking like that, do you? Nooooo..mitt, who is now really in the big time, no longer just some rising hip young political star - mitt knows where his bread is buttered; he aint sayin' nuthin negative about the ACLU or labor unions, AARP, or any other liberal organization with membership in the millions.
Rubio...Jindal...Haley...Ryan....they can talk as consrvative as they like - right now. After all, they want to impress the G.O.P. stalwarts and their own little conservative voter base. but jsut wait'll they run for president, and start trying to please all of us...middle of the road, here we come...
Bb
please scroll down for the articles you missed...THANKS!
Priorities
AS HURRICANE ISAAC comes busting through the gulf of mexico on its way to new orleans and the gulf coast, a couple of quick points. The hurricanes and tornados are going to keep coming, most likely, and in the future thousands of houses, cars, cities, and people will be damaged or destroyed. Particluraly since there are billions of people now, with billions of houses.
We all like our high standard of living, our cities, levies, dams and dykes. All over the world, in every country, people are striving to get these things, to raise their living standard, to produce and maintain more material wealth (houses, cars, etc, see above).
Shocking few humans, nations, or cultures seem to be renouncing materialism, in favor of voluntary poverty and the contemplative, simple life, living in caves. And so be it. All well and good.
But there is a price, and a high one, to be paid for all this. Namely, it all has to be repaired, replaced, and/or maintainted, constantly. (remember the hurricane)
This is gonna require a lot of work, effort, resources. By the time we get through reparing all the roads and bridges, growing all the food, and rebuilding all the blown away houses, do we really want to go to the trouble of building dozens of F22 fighter jets and trillion dollar aircraft carriers?Can we really afford to? Fair question.
What we seem to be doing now, as a nation, (the U.S.A.), as well as globally, is, building the fighter jets and aircraft carriers first, then, getting around to the roads and houses and food, and, for a fact, taking our sweet time about it. We are so fearful, we think so much with our brain stem rather than our cerebral cortex, that we sucrry to defend ourselves first and foremost, thinking we can find something to eat when we feel more secure.
Meanwhile, we don't have enough to eat, or enough cars, or houses.
If we the people of the planet earth could work up enough courage to feel well defended, we could slow down a bit on the jets and bombs, and focus a bit more on rebuilding cities whipped by wind.
Bb
please scroll down for the articles you missed...THANKS!
We all like our high standard of living, our cities, levies, dams and dykes. All over the world, in every country, people are striving to get these things, to raise their living standard, to produce and maintain more material wealth (houses, cars, etc, see above).
Shocking few humans, nations, or cultures seem to be renouncing materialism, in favor of voluntary poverty and the contemplative, simple life, living in caves. And so be it. All well and good.
But there is a price, and a high one, to be paid for all this. Namely, it all has to be repaired, replaced, and/or maintainted, constantly. (remember the hurricane)
This is gonna require a lot of work, effort, resources. By the time we get through reparing all the roads and bridges, growing all the food, and rebuilding all the blown away houses, do we really want to go to the trouble of building dozens of F22 fighter jets and trillion dollar aircraft carriers?Can we really afford to? Fair question.
What we seem to be doing now, as a nation, (the U.S.A.), as well as globally, is, building the fighter jets and aircraft carriers first, then, getting around to the roads and houses and food, and, for a fact, taking our sweet time about it. We are so fearful, we think so much with our brain stem rather than our cerebral cortex, that we sucrry to defend ourselves first and foremost, thinking we can find something to eat when we feel more secure.
Meanwhile, we don't have enough to eat, or enough cars, or houses.
If we the people of the planet earth could work up enough courage to feel well defended, we could slow down a bit on the jets and bombs, and focus a bit more on rebuilding cities whipped by wind.
Bb
please scroll down for the articles you missed...THANKS!
Inclusive Reconciliation
ON THE ONE HAND, there is a small but concerted effort within the scientific community, physicists, astronomers, to search for extraterrestrial life. On the other hand, there are several million people, or at least several hundred thousand, (in the united states alone) who insist that not only do extraterrestrial beings exist, but that they are here among us even now, observing, interacting, transmitting messages to a select few.
Among this latter group are many scientists, somewhat surprisingly.
But either way, the two groups tend to be unfriendly with each other, because they seem, on the surface, to be irrevocably irreconcilable. And, like politicians, they tend to spend their time finding ways to attack each other, rather than understanding each other.
The S.E.T.I. (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) project, now fifty years old and privately funded, is as grand and important as anything humanity has ever done. Ditto the mars rover "Curiosity", which is this very moment showing out our human cleverness.
But if you are absolutely convinced that beings from Sirius are telepathically communicating with you every day, giving you the recipe for human salvation, SETI and the Mars rover aren't all that exciting. Which is too bad. Your loss, oh channeler of Sirius.
Similarly, our skeptical, empirical scientifically methodized scientitific community, so valuable to human progress, discounts out of hand any idea at its own peril. Remember the gorilla. (it wasn't supposed to exist). Now we are on the verge of accepting the empirical reality of ghosts, after centuries of hysterical nonsense.
Why? Because we finally decided to calm down long enough to take a close, honest look - and we are amazed at what we are finding. Namely, ghosts. The question is, what are they? That, we still do not know. But, god willing and the creek don't rise, someday soon we might.
So let's all chip in and do what we can to support the telescopers, and the mars rover, as well as the good folks channeling folks from the star Sirius. They all have something to offer.
Bb
please scroll down for the articles you missed...THANKS!
Among this latter group are many scientists, somewhat surprisingly.
But either way, the two groups tend to be unfriendly with each other, because they seem, on the surface, to be irrevocably irreconcilable. And, like politicians, they tend to spend their time finding ways to attack each other, rather than understanding each other.
The S.E.T.I. (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) project, now fifty years old and privately funded, is as grand and important as anything humanity has ever done. Ditto the mars rover "Curiosity", which is this very moment showing out our human cleverness.
But if you are absolutely convinced that beings from Sirius are telepathically communicating with you every day, giving you the recipe for human salvation, SETI and the Mars rover aren't all that exciting. Which is too bad. Your loss, oh channeler of Sirius.
Similarly, our skeptical, empirical scientifically methodized scientitific community, so valuable to human progress, discounts out of hand any idea at its own peril. Remember the gorilla. (it wasn't supposed to exist). Now we are on the verge of accepting the empirical reality of ghosts, after centuries of hysterical nonsense.
Why? Because we finally decided to calm down long enough to take a close, honest look - and we are amazed at what we are finding. Namely, ghosts. The question is, what are they? That, we still do not know. But, god willing and the creek don't rise, someday soon we might.
So let's all chip in and do what we can to support the telescopers, and the mars rover, as well as the good folks channeling folks from the star Sirius. They all have something to offer.
Bb
please scroll down for the articles you missed...THANKS!
Monday, August 27, 2012
Down With Divisiveness
IS IT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE that rush limbaugh is the most divisive, and thus evil, person in america? Well, just maybe. And to think, rush himself sometimes complains about divisive behavior.
Rush Limbaugh talks like there are two distinct types of people, who are inherently enemies: liberals, and conservatives. One is bad, liberals, and the other is good, conservatives. It is the duty and destiny of conservatives to eliminate all liberals, and to permit merely a handful to exist, as examples and reminders to conservatives of what not to be or become.
Is this crazy, or what? To go on the radio, for three hours a day, day after day, constantly saying the most horrible things about a huge portion of the american people, liberals. Crazy. By doing this, rush maintains the rapt attention and loyalty of his followers; america's right wing. At least, most of it. But millions more find him disgusting.
By trying to talk people into believing that one political philosophy is all good, and this other one is all good, rush is exerting a negative influence on people, acting as a negative role model, urging narrow mindedness.
Instread we need to encourage evryone to form a personal political and religious viewpoint, then proceed immediatly to recognize and respect all others, and indeed, to see the truth in all others.
Rush seems not to realize that if all liberals either vanished or converted to conservatism, then the consrvatives would soon discover differences among themselves, and separate...into.....conservatives.....and....you guessed it, liberals.
what else could you call it?
IN america, we need to focus on what we have in common, as well as what separartes us, and we need to do the same with the rest of the world, that we might one day all work together, truly, for a better world.
Bb
please scroll down for articles you missed..THANKS!
Rush Limbaugh talks like there are two distinct types of people, who are inherently enemies: liberals, and conservatives. One is bad, liberals, and the other is good, conservatives. It is the duty and destiny of conservatives to eliminate all liberals, and to permit merely a handful to exist, as examples and reminders to conservatives of what not to be or become.
Is this crazy, or what? To go on the radio, for three hours a day, day after day, constantly saying the most horrible things about a huge portion of the american people, liberals. Crazy. By doing this, rush maintains the rapt attention and loyalty of his followers; america's right wing. At least, most of it. But millions more find him disgusting.
By trying to talk people into believing that one political philosophy is all good, and this other one is all good, rush is exerting a negative influence on people, acting as a negative role model, urging narrow mindedness.
Instread we need to encourage evryone to form a personal political and religious viewpoint, then proceed immediatly to recognize and respect all others, and indeed, to see the truth in all others.
Rush seems not to realize that if all liberals either vanished or converted to conservatism, then the consrvatives would soon discover differences among themselves, and separate...into.....conservatives.....and....you guessed it, liberals.
what else could you call it?
IN america, we need to focus on what we have in common, as well as what separartes us, and we need to do the same with the rest of the world, that we might one day all work together, truly, for a better world.
Bb
please scroll down for articles you missed..THANKS!
Legacy of a Hero
THE DEATH OF neil armstrong is being ignored nearly as much as was his later life, which is exactly what he wanted, and would have wanted. Armstrong, as great a hero as you're ever gonna find, deliberately led a low key life, beginning the moment he returned from the moon. And indeed he did go to and return from the moon, notwhthstanding current new age doctrine. He said he did, and that's good enough for anyone.
He abviously could have made a fortune off his achievement, movies, books, speeches, convention appearances and autographs, etc. He categorically refused to profit from his fame. Instead he discouraged it. When he found out that people were selling his autographs, he stopped giving them. Can you imagine anyone acting like that today?
When obama announced his cutting out the manned moon return and mars programs a couple of years ago, armstrong worte a letter to the president, vehemently expressing disagreement. But he didn't go on the internet, or the jerry springer show, attracting publicity for his cause of resuming the manned space program.
Somebody else oughta do it, right now. armstrong is right, obama is wrong, it says here.
rush limbaugh was talking, (as usual) about his excitement at the landing on the moon in 1969, when rush was eighteen. He was unable, however, to remember whether armstrong and aldrin had a rover to ride around in. That's OK rush, it was a long time ago. Incidentally, they didn't, nor did any of the others, and wouldn't it be great if we could go back, and do it up right?
Rush praised armstrong for refusing to profit from the moon landing. Shouldn't rush be chastising him for having missed opportunites for profiting from the free enterprise system?
Apolla eleven had the computer power of a pocket calculator, and every chance that the mission would fail, and result in the deaths of three astronauts. They were incredibly brave.
May the future of human space travel be a tribute to their legacy.
Bb
please scroll down for articles you missed...THANKS!
He abviously could have made a fortune off his achievement, movies, books, speeches, convention appearances and autographs, etc. He categorically refused to profit from his fame. Instead he discouraged it. When he found out that people were selling his autographs, he stopped giving them. Can you imagine anyone acting like that today?
When obama announced his cutting out the manned moon return and mars programs a couple of years ago, armstrong worte a letter to the president, vehemently expressing disagreement. But he didn't go on the internet, or the jerry springer show, attracting publicity for his cause of resuming the manned space program.
Somebody else oughta do it, right now. armstrong is right, obama is wrong, it says here.
rush limbaugh was talking, (as usual) about his excitement at the landing on the moon in 1969, when rush was eighteen. He was unable, however, to remember whether armstrong and aldrin had a rover to ride around in. That's OK rush, it was a long time ago. Incidentally, they didn't, nor did any of the others, and wouldn't it be great if we could go back, and do it up right?
Rush praised armstrong for refusing to profit from the moon landing. Shouldn't rush be chastising him for having missed opportunites for profiting from the free enterprise system?
Apolla eleven had the computer power of a pocket calculator, and every chance that the mission would fail, and result in the deaths of three astronauts. They were incredibly brave.
May the future of human space travel be a tribute to their legacy.
Bb
please scroll down for articles you missed...THANKS!
Agreeing ON Something
THE MOST UNPOPULAR thing that obama has done is "obamacare", we might agree. It is also the most unrepublican , liberal, and cooperative. Therefore, one would expect romney and the republicans to place great emphasis on bashing and trashing it during the current presidential campaign.
But of course, they can't. They can't because der mittster did the same thing in massachusetts, and in fact obama care is patterned after romney care. Romney promulgated socialized health care because he saw that it could save a lot of money, if properly implemented, and because he needed to do something to increase his popularity among the voters. And that is precisely the basis upon which obamo care is predicated, or should be.
Our current divisive nation is a choice, a mass choice. We all seem to think that the more stridently and dramatically we oppose the plans of others, the more effectively we propound our own proposals. Oh, how shallow and vain we are. Shame on us, oh generation of arrogant fools.
Most of us in america are far far too unwilling to even consider the possibility that our personal opinions are subject to improvement, not absolute, not irrefutable. We are far too unwilling to give serious consideration to those with whom we currently disagree, far too unwilling to change.
Perish the thought that obama and romney should ever agree with each other - on anything. To do so would be to concede not only that one's own views are not exclusively irrefutable, but that those of others are worthy of being assigned even a modicum of merit.
Perhaps we the people should consider forcing mitt and barrack to spend, say, thirty minutes together on television, listing those things they agree on. Then, give each of them one hundred mil for advertising, or mayber a mere ten mil, and give each limited TV and personal appearance time.
How much time do americans want their president spending running around the country giving campaign speeches - after all, isn't there work to be done back in washington?
Just as there is a national "rat day"in south korea, during which everyone spends the entire day killing rats, competing for most bagged, maybe in america we need a national "conflict Abatement and Agreement Day" (C.A.D.)..a day during which to incinerate our contrived differences of opinion, and to recall all that we agree on, including such seemingly forgotton facts as how lovely it is to be an american, and how grateful we all are for the lives we have.
Bb
please scroll down for more..THANKS!
But of course, they can't. They can't because der mittster did the same thing in massachusetts, and in fact obama care is patterned after romney care. Romney promulgated socialized health care because he saw that it could save a lot of money, if properly implemented, and because he needed to do something to increase his popularity among the voters. And that is precisely the basis upon which obamo care is predicated, or should be.
Our current divisive nation is a choice, a mass choice. We all seem to think that the more stridently and dramatically we oppose the plans of others, the more effectively we propound our own proposals. Oh, how shallow and vain we are. Shame on us, oh generation of arrogant fools.
Most of us in america are far far too unwilling to even consider the possibility that our personal opinions are subject to improvement, not absolute, not irrefutable. We are far too unwilling to give serious consideration to those with whom we currently disagree, far too unwilling to change.
Perish the thought that obama and romney should ever agree with each other - on anything. To do so would be to concede not only that one's own views are not exclusively irrefutable, but that those of others are worthy of being assigned even a modicum of merit.
Perhaps we the people should consider forcing mitt and barrack to spend, say, thirty minutes together on television, listing those things they agree on. Then, give each of them one hundred mil for advertising, or mayber a mere ten mil, and give each limited TV and personal appearance time.
How much time do americans want their president spending running around the country giving campaign speeches - after all, isn't there work to be done back in washington?
Just as there is a national "rat day"in south korea, during which everyone spends the entire day killing rats, competing for most bagged, maybe in america we need a national "conflict Abatement and Agreement Day" (C.A.D.)..a day during which to incinerate our contrived differences of opinion, and to recall all that we agree on, including such seemingly forgotton facts as how lovely it is to be an american, and how grateful we all are for the lives we have.
Bb
please scroll down for more..THANKS!
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Glass Houses
EVERY NATION ON EARTH of course keeps track of every other nation, collecting information, sizing up other potential friends and enemies. So the chinese know a lot about america. And of course, they are more than eager to share with the world the most unsavory fgacts about the good ole U.S.A.
and so what? in the first place, much of what they say is blatantly false, and, whatever they find unpleasant about america we americans already know about, and are taking steps to repair, right?
the chinese government, in their report to the world concering their perecptions, which they wrongly claim to be facts about america, emphasizes america's unemployment problen, the gun violence, percentage of population in prison, hunger rate, and on, and on, and on....
its really depressing...but the point is, we americans already know about all this, and are rock solid determined to fix it all. The problem is, its hard to do...
Now, the chinese know all this, they know also about america's beauty, nautral and human, and they know that america embodies many great and desirable traits. But, they for some reason fail to emphasize the positive about america. Its almost as if the chinese government had decided to cast america in the worst possible light. One wonders why. Or, does one?
Also relevant is the fact that of all the problems the chinese government describes in america, those same problems are much, much worse in china...
Yes, we americans know, damned good and well, that we have faults, problems, shortcomings, limitation. We openly admit as much. The government of china does not represent the will of the chinese people. of course, the same is true in america.
America's analysis of china is no more flattering, but more honest and accurate. And in america, china's viewpoint is presented, and the american government is vulnerable, at least to some degree, to the will of the people.
IN america, the average "citizen" feels a bit less like a puppet than in china...
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
and so what? in the first place, much of what they say is blatantly false, and, whatever they find unpleasant about america we americans already know about, and are taking steps to repair, right?
the chinese government, in their report to the world concering their perecptions, which they wrongly claim to be facts about america, emphasizes america's unemployment problen, the gun violence, percentage of population in prison, hunger rate, and on, and on, and on....
its really depressing...but the point is, we americans already know about all this, and are rock solid determined to fix it all. The problem is, its hard to do...
Now, the chinese know all this, they know also about america's beauty, nautral and human, and they know that america embodies many great and desirable traits. But, they for some reason fail to emphasize the positive about america. Its almost as if the chinese government had decided to cast america in the worst possible light. One wonders why. Or, does one?
Also relevant is the fact that of all the problems the chinese government describes in america, those same problems are much, much worse in china...
Yes, we americans know, damned good and well, that we have faults, problems, shortcomings, limitation. We openly admit as much. The government of china does not represent the will of the chinese people. of course, the same is true in america.
America's analysis of china is no more flattering, but more honest and accurate. And in america, china's viewpoint is presented, and the american government is vulnerable, at least to some degree, to the will of the people.
IN america, the average "citizen" feels a bit less like a puppet than in china...
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
Regrettable Remarks
A REPUBLICAN hispanic political analyst, of which there are few, recently criticized the democratic party for "divisive" politics. The democrats, so it seems, are always organizing themselves according to ethnicity, "women for obama", "african-americans for obama", "gays and lesbians for obama", and so forth. Evidently, this is divisive.
The analyst neglected to mention that these various types of democrats are not each other's enemies,
but indeed, comrads - arms, so to speak. In actuality, they are often seen lunching together, attending churh and other social functions together, even occasionaly getting a game of tennis; all without apparent incident.
Meanwhile, surveys consitantly indicate that obama and his allegedly divisive democrats are widely perceived to be more compassionate, more caring, more tolerant and understanding towards all the various groups listed above than the non divisive republicans.
Mitt Romney might not have added much to the republican image when he remarked, several months ago, something to the effect that he isn't concerned about the very wealthy or the very poor, because the former take care of themselves, while the latter are provided for by america's welfare system.
He might want to take that one back. On the other hand, he might not.
Along comes representative akin from missouri, assuring us that women who are raped legitimately, (as opposed to those who are raped illegitimately) are incapable of becoming pregnant thereby, owing to a miraculous capacity of the female body to selectively fail to achieve pregnancy under such adverse conditions.
We can assume he regrets the remark.
If republicans continue along these lines, they will be forced to scrounge up extra wealthy white males, in order to overcome at the polls the cumulative effect of the various divisivve democratic groups.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
The analyst neglected to mention that these various types of democrats are not each other's enemies,
but indeed, comrads - arms, so to speak. In actuality, they are often seen lunching together, attending churh and other social functions together, even occasionaly getting a game of tennis; all without apparent incident.
Meanwhile, surveys consitantly indicate that obama and his allegedly divisive democrats are widely perceived to be more compassionate, more caring, more tolerant and understanding towards all the various groups listed above than the non divisive republicans.
Mitt Romney might not have added much to the republican image when he remarked, several months ago, something to the effect that he isn't concerned about the very wealthy or the very poor, because the former take care of themselves, while the latter are provided for by america's welfare system.
He might want to take that one back. On the other hand, he might not.
Along comes representative akin from missouri, assuring us that women who are raped legitimately, (as opposed to those who are raped illegitimately) are incapable of becoming pregnant thereby, owing to a miraculous capacity of the female body to selectively fail to achieve pregnancy under such adverse conditions.
We can assume he regrets the remark.
If republicans continue along these lines, they will be forced to scrounge up extra wealthy white males, in order to overcome at the polls the cumulative effect of the various divisivve democratic groups.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Truthless Reconciling
POLITICAL CONSERVATISM AND CHRISTIAN RELIGIOSITY are joined at the hip in america, twin ideological towers of long established thinking. Conservatism embraces the world as it is, resisting change, the more conservative, the less change.
What better companion than a religion which stresses that everything was figured out long ago, and needs neither alteration nor mild amendment? The older the doctrine, the more immutable the precepts, the better.
But alas there is a bit of a chink in the armor. For alas, there are conservatives who are also atheists. In particular, the conservative icon, at least economically, ayn rand, was an atheist. In her book "Atlas Shrugged", rand demonstrates convincingly, at least to those who already worship at the alter of the free market, that even the slightest taint of economic cooperation is sufficient to derail society by allowing those who ought not survive, who are not strong enough to sustain themselves, to survive, and thus become a burden to us all.
Most americans who adore ayn rand attend church every sunday, and when they refer to rand, they conveniently omit mention of the fact that she regarded all religion as superstitious nonsense.
Rand was born in russia, hence her disdain for socialism, which she considered to be the ruin of her impoverished homeland. But at least the commies had the good sense to abolish all manner of superstition, including the russian orthodox church.
Who knows? had she been born in america, she might well have found a way, as american conservatives inevitably do, to reconcile the arguably contradictory doctrines of capitalism and the teachings of christ, who, after all, said "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven."
Jesus taught that the accumulation of wealth prevents one from achieving eternal salvation. But that's quite beside the point in america, isn't it? maybe if ayn rand had been born in the united states she would have been a devout christian, and a socialist. She abhorred inconsistancy.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
What better companion than a religion which stresses that everything was figured out long ago, and needs neither alteration nor mild amendment? The older the doctrine, the more immutable the precepts, the better.
But alas there is a bit of a chink in the armor. For alas, there are conservatives who are also atheists. In particular, the conservative icon, at least economically, ayn rand, was an atheist. In her book "Atlas Shrugged", rand demonstrates convincingly, at least to those who already worship at the alter of the free market, that even the slightest taint of economic cooperation is sufficient to derail society by allowing those who ought not survive, who are not strong enough to sustain themselves, to survive, and thus become a burden to us all.
Most americans who adore ayn rand attend church every sunday, and when they refer to rand, they conveniently omit mention of the fact that she regarded all religion as superstitious nonsense.
Rand was born in russia, hence her disdain for socialism, which she considered to be the ruin of her impoverished homeland. But at least the commies had the good sense to abolish all manner of superstition, including the russian orthodox church.
Who knows? had she been born in america, she might well have found a way, as american conservatives inevitably do, to reconcile the arguably contradictory doctrines of capitalism and the teachings of christ, who, after all, said "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven."
Jesus taught that the accumulation of wealth prevents one from achieving eternal salvation. But that's quite beside the point in america, isn't it? maybe if ayn rand had been born in the united states she would have been a devout christian, and a socialist. She abhorred inconsistancy.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
Friday, August 24, 2012
Predators
LIKE TWO HUGE lumbering pugilists, samsung and apple, the world's wealthiest corporation, are, as is widely known, squaring off in a legal battle of gigantic proportions, arguing over who stole what from whom. Each accuses the other.
The contest is world wide. Already, in south korea, the courts have found both at fault, and has fined each something in the neighborhood of twenty to thiry thousand dollars, which, in the face of it, seems laughable. Evidently, the south korean civil court system has a deep appreciation for ironic, humorous symbolism.
And who knows how the verdict will play out in nations across the world. It might be that in some countries both are deemed guilty, while in others neither is, and in still others one or the other takes the blame.
So much for the enduring myth that there exists a single, huge international corporate financial complex, oppressing the rest of us. If anything, there is a global corporate culture in which large businesses incessantly tear at each other's throats, to the delight of the legal profession, and the entertainment and detriment of everyone else.
Thomas Jefferson, himself a lawyer, described lawyers as "perpetrators of quarrels."
Meanwhile, in america, the mass murder killing spree continues. This time right outside the empire state building. Could it be that there is a connection between the epidemic of violence and corporate conflict? Very possibly.
It is possible that there simply is insufficient material prosperity to satisfy the masses, and that what there is is quite heavily concentrated within the corporate community, creating a divided, angry, and violent global culture.
For now such questions will have to await clarification. Suffice to say that, in america all is as it always has been, only more so. A future can be seen in which whatever wealth the human race produces is concentrated among the very few, while the rest of us beg for table scraps.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
The contest is world wide. Already, in south korea, the courts have found both at fault, and has fined each something in the neighborhood of twenty to thiry thousand dollars, which, in the face of it, seems laughable. Evidently, the south korean civil court system has a deep appreciation for ironic, humorous symbolism.
And who knows how the verdict will play out in nations across the world. It might be that in some countries both are deemed guilty, while in others neither is, and in still others one or the other takes the blame.
So much for the enduring myth that there exists a single, huge international corporate financial complex, oppressing the rest of us. If anything, there is a global corporate culture in which large businesses incessantly tear at each other's throats, to the delight of the legal profession, and the entertainment and detriment of everyone else.
Thomas Jefferson, himself a lawyer, described lawyers as "perpetrators of quarrels."
Meanwhile, in america, the mass murder killing spree continues. This time right outside the empire state building. Could it be that there is a connection between the epidemic of violence and corporate conflict? Very possibly.
It is possible that there simply is insufficient material prosperity to satisfy the masses, and that what there is is quite heavily concentrated within the corporate community, creating a divided, angry, and violent global culture.
For now such questions will have to await clarification. Suffice to say that, in america all is as it always has been, only more so. A future can be seen in which whatever wealth the human race produces is concentrated among the very few, while the rest of us beg for table scraps.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Disqualification
LANCE ARMSTRONG, who rides bicycles extremely rapidly, has as of now never won a bicycle race in france. His ostensible victories in seven consecutive tour around france races has been declared "illusory" and "hallucinatory" by the anti doping agency of america (ADAM).
Although armstrong has never actually failed a drug test, and has actually passed trillions of them,
Adam insisted that Everything Verified Extremely (EVE).
Bud "whizzer" McClean, chairperson of ADAM, said, to wit, "there aint no way in hell that some skinny american kid who wasn't even competitive enough to lick cancer without medical attention could possibly have defeated premier bikers from such robust romantic nations as france, italy, and spain, over, and over again.
As a result, armstrong will not only be stripped of his many titles, but also of his spandex riding outfit. Further, he will no longer be allowed to ride a bicycle on the streets of america, and ADAM wished to emphasize that this decision has nothing to do whatsoever with the fact that most of america's roads have fallen into such a condition of extreme disrepair that bike riders are generally unwilling to set their slender tires thereupon.
Anyone who possesses a lance armstrong "livestrong" yellow wristband is respectfully requested to return it to the Society to Eliminate Destructive Unwanted Cancerous Traitors In Only Nanoseconds (SEDUCTION), or, to gather them together, tie them all into a chain, and wrap them around the tires of any bicycle that armstrong attempts to ride.
Armstrong's name will now be added to the lengthening list of NCAA division one football teams which won football games in previous years, only didn't.
The international Olympic Committee is reportedly considering punishing the united states of america for ever having allowed armstrong to represent it in europe by stripping it of its victories in world war two, iraq, and afghanistan, due to allegations that many members of its military were under the influence of alcohol and other undesirable substances while on the field of battle. Under this arrangement, germany, japan, saddam hussein, and the taliban would be awarded first place trophies, retroactively.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
Although armstrong has never actually failed a drug test, and has actually passed trillions of them,
Adam insisted that Everything Verified Extremely (EVE).
Bud "whizzer" McClean, chairperson of ADAM, said, to wit, "there aint no way in hell that some skinny american kid who wasn't even competitive enough to lick cancer without medical attention could possibly have defeated premier bikers from such robust romantic nations as france, italy, and spain, over, and over again.
As a result, armstrong will not only be stripped of his many titles, but also of his spandex riding outfit. Further, he will no longer be allowed to ride a bicycle on the streets of america, and ADAM wished to emphasize that this decision has nothing to do whatsoever with the fact that most of america's roads have fallen into such a condition of extreme disrepair that bike riders are generally unwilling to set their slender tires thereupon.
Anyone who possesses a lance armstrong "livestrong" yellow wristband is respectfully requested to return it to the Society to Eliminate Destructive Unwanted Cancerous Traitors In Only Nanoseconds (SEDUCTION), or, to gather them together, tie them all into a chain, and wrap them around the tires of any bicycle that armstrong attempts to ride.
Armstrong's name will now be added to the lengthening list of NCAA division one football teams which won football games in previous years, only didn't.
The international Olympic Committee is reportedly considering punishing the united states of america for ever having allowed armstrong to represent it in europe by stripping it of its victories in world war two, iraq, and afghanistan, due to allegations that many members of its military were under the influence of alcohol and other undesirable substances while on the field of battle. Under this arrangement, germany, japan, saddam hussein, and the taliban would be awarded first place trophies, retroactively.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
Heroic Corporate Lime Light
THE BANK OF AMERICA is giving away houses. Yes, you heard right; giving away houses. But only after repossessing them. There are twenty five hundred houses which have been re - pode,(out of millions) which for the most part are being donated to military veterans, especially those wounded.
And this is a beautiful thing. What better way to treat america's returning heros than to present them with a house, gratis? Of course, when one is given a free house, one is still saddled with the burden of paying property taxes each year, and maintaining the property, which, as everyone who owns a house knows, can be a complete hassle.
The B o A aint gonna help out there....but it makes one wonder; if they are giving away houses, would it not possibly have been even better, instead of repossessing them, to simply allow the original mortgage holder to stay in them, and work something out?
The people who lose their house, after all, have already invested a considerable amount of life in getting them and staying in them, however briefly. That might be even more compassionate; to stop foreclosing on mortgages in general, and allow for some means by which accomodation might be made.
But that would just be too easy, and besides, it wouldn't generate nearly the dramatic, positive P R that the big bank gains by behaving in such an altruistic manner. Bad cop, good cop. Bleed 'em dry, throw 'em out the door, then, melodramatically save some other poor soul.
Never accuse the Bank of America of failing to understand the value of good advertising, particularly at a time when the banking industry is less popular than it has been since the great depression.
And remember, this is the company which handed out debit cards to illegal immigrants, loaned michael jackson two hundred million dollars, and went belly up, only to be saved by....you.
Buy a house, live in it for seven years, make all payments on time, and then try to get the B o A to refinance you. Good luck. But what is the public relations value of that?
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
And this is a beautiful thing. What better way to treat america's returning heros than to present them with a house, gratis? Of course, when one is given a free house, one is still saddled with the burden of paying property taxes each year, and maintaining the property, which, as everyone who owns a house knows, can be a complete hassle.
The B o A aint gonna help out there....but it makes one wonder; if they are giving away houses, would it not possibly have been even better, instead of repossessing them, to simply allow the original mortgage holder to stay in them, and work something out?
The people who lose their house, after all, have already invested a considerable amount of life in getting them and staying in them, however briefly. That might be even more compassionate; to stop foreclosing on mortgages in general, and allow for some means by which accomodation might be made.
But that would just be too easy, and besides, it wouldn't generate nearly the dramatic, positive P R that the big bank gains by behaving in such an altruistic manner. Bad cop, good cop. Bleed 'em dry, throw 'em out the door, then, melodramatically save some other poor soul.
Never accuse the Bank of America of failing to understand the value of good advertising, particularly at a time when the banking industry is less popular than it has been since the great depression.
And remember, this is the company which handed out debit cards to illegal immigrants, loaned michael jackson two hundred million dollars, and went belly up, only to be saved by....you.
Buy a house, live in it for seven years, make all payments on time, and then try to get the B o A to refinance you. Good luck. But what is the public relations value of that?
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
Only fools..
CONFUCIUS SAID "only fools predict the future." Thus must we all be fools, for verily predicting the future is as innately human as remembering the past. We seem incapable of living contentedly only in the present moment.
Science fiction writers are among the most entertaining, and often illuminating prognosticators. Jules Verne, in the eighteen nineties, predicted under the sea and up in the air travel. H.G. Wells, also late in the nineteenth century, predicted space travel. Arthur C. Clarke predicted orbiting satellites. Isaac Asimov predicted computers.
Sometimes their misses are as revealing as their hits. Most science fiction writers of the middle twentieth century predicted that by the second decade of the twenty first century humans would be travelling regularly back and forth between earth and colonies on the moon and mars. Oh well.
Nobody got personal computers right. Writers foresaw powerful computers, but not in personal houses. Always they were located in science laboratories, or government instututions. They missed out on cell phones too. IN many a riveting sci fi novel, someone lands in a space ship, hops into a flying automoblie which is self driven, and goes looking for a phone booth.
One of the most widely read science fiction writers going today, Ben Bova, has fallen victim. His books written in the early nineteen nineties talk about the "soviet union" in the twenty first century, and he has astronauts exploring the surface of mars, and taking pictures - and running out of film.
Still on the surface on mars in the mid twenty first century, Bova's explorers rush back to their spaceship, log onto their computer, and insert a floppy disk.
So maybe we're not fools for trying to predict the future and write about it, as long as we keep our feet on the ground long enough to remember that what we predict is almost certain to be wrong.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
Science fiction writers are among the most entertaining, and often illuminating prognosticators. Jules Verne, in the eighteen nineties, predicted under the sea and up in the air travel. H.G. Wells, also late in the nineteenth century, predicted space travel. Arthur C. Clarke predicted orbiting satellites. Isaac Asimov predicted computers.
Sometimes their misses are as revealing as their hits. Most science fiction writers of the middle twentieth century predicted that by the second decade of the twenty first century humans would be travelling regularly back and forth between earth and colonies on the moon and mars. Oh well.
Nobody got personal computers right. Writers foresaw powerful computers, but not in personal houses. Always they were located in science laboratories, or government instututions. They missed out on cell phones too. IN many a riveting sci fi novel, someone lands in a space ship, hops into a flying automoblie which is self driven, and goes looking for a phone booth.
One of the most widely read science fiction writers going today, Ben Bova, has fallen victim. His books written in the early nineteen nineties talk about the "soviet union" in the twenty first century, and he has astronauts exploring the surface of mars, and taking pictures - and running out of film.
Still on the surface on mars in the mid twenty first century, Bova's explorers rush back to their spaceship, log onto their computer, and insert a floppy disk.
So maybe we're not fools for trying to predict the future and write about it, as long as we keep our feet on the ground long enough to remember that what we predict is almost certain to be wrong.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Butting In
IT STARTED about a year and a half ago, first in egypt, then spread to much of the rest of the arab world, the "arab spring", which resulted in a new government in egypt, oppression in the arab emirates, and protests in syria.
The protests grew, became riots, then turned into a civil war, which is ongoing, though you would never know it in america, where the media has lost interest. The syrian civil war will doubtless regain popularity in the united states when it inspires a new video game.
Americans should always be interested in civil wars, after all, the world paid close attention to ours. Of course, ours was particularly interesting and violent. The american civil war can be viewed as the second american revolutionary war, or, conversely, the american revolutionary war may be viewed as a civil war; take your pick.
President obama recently stated that although the U. S. currently has no intention of intervening in syria, all bets are off if assad (syria's beleaguered dictator) starts using chemical or biological weapons against his enemies, the "free syrian army".
Obama has drawn his "red line"; if assad crosses it, he's doomed to suffer at the hands of the american war machine. And let us give credit where credit is due; the united states may be hypocritical, self righteous, poorly guided, and aggressive, but, we know how to kill.
The largest collection of chemical and biological weapons in the world is owned by, you guessed it, the good ole U. S. of A. Likewise every other sort of weapon. During the american civil war, the english, hoping for a confederate victory to ensure cotton imports, kept sending material help to the confederacy, though obviously not enough. The union had a reasonably effective naval blockade in place.
Abraham Lincoln was urged by some of his advisors to declare war on england due to the trouble on the high seas, but mr lincoln, ever the pragmatist, famously replied "one war at a time, boys".
Can you imagine the indignation of the americans had any foreign power become actively involed in our civil war, or even seriously threatened to? But no matter, if the united states chooses to get directly involved in syria, it will be, obviously, the right thing to do.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
The protests grew, became riots, then turned into a civil war, which is ongoing, though you would never know it in america, where the media has lost interest. The syrian civil war will doubtless regain popularity in the united states when it inspires a new video game.
Americans should always be interested in civil wars, after all, the world paid close attention to ours. Of course, ours was particularly interesting and violent. The american civil war can be viewed as the second american revolutionary war, or, conversely, the american revolutionary war may be viewed as a civil war; take your pick.
President obama recently stated that although the U. S. currently has no intention of intervening in syria, all bets are off if assad (syria's beleaguered dictator) starts using chemical or biological weapons against his enemies, the "free syrian army".
Obama has drawn his "red line"; if assad crosses it, he's doomed to suffer at the hands of the american war machine. And let us give credit where credit is due; the united states may be hypocritical, self righteous, poorly guided, and aggressive, but, we know how to kill.
The largest collection of chemical and biological weapons in the world is owned by, you guessed it, the good ole U. S. of A. Likewise every other sort of weapon. During the american civil war, the english, hoping for a confederate victory to ensure cotton imports, kept sending material help to the confederacy, though obviously not enough. The union had a reasonably effective naval blockade in place.
Abraham Lincoln was urged by some of his advisors to declare war on england due to the trouble on the high seas, but mr lincoln, ever the pragmatist, famously replied "one war at a time, boys".
Can you imagine the indignation of the americans had any foreign power become actively involed in our civil war, or even seriously threatened to? But no matter, if the united states chooses to get directly involved in syria, it will be, obviously, the right thing to do.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
Our next move?
THE QUESTION is still being asked: what did mitt romney do for a living other than inherit money and run for political office? He started and ran a company which sometimes invested in new companies, and sometimes tried to save old, sick ones. Sometimes such companies survived, sometimes they didn't.
But we can all agree on at least one thing: mitt romney's chief concern was his own personal success, not whether companies succeeded or failed, and we can agree that really there is nothing wrong with that. Isn't it true that we must help ourselves before we can help others?
Isn't self service normal and natural? If mitt made a big profit leading this or that business into bankruptcy or liquidation, nobody has to like it, or voluntarily participate in it.
We the people of the united states of america could easily force our government to enact laws limiting all manner of economic activity, from personal income and wealth, to corporate raiding. In fact, we already have. Ours is an economy regulated by the government, on bahalf of we the people.
We agree, genarally, that we want as little government as possible, but as much as is necessary. Such choices can either be made by a powerful elite few, or by the people in general. However, a vast majority of americans have no interest in public affairs, politics, economic policy, or government.
Thus in america political power is voluntarily given to the few by the many, by default. And the wealthy powerful few, unimpeded by any popular political force of will, have transformed the american republic into the american corporate empire.
What will they do next? Their empire is showing signs of weakening and decaying.
What will we, the careless, indolent many, do next?
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
But we can all agree on at least one thing: mitt romney's chief concern was his own personal success, not whether companies succeeded or failed, and we can agree that really there is nothing wrong with that. Isn't it true that we must help ourselves before we can help others?
Isn't self service normal and natural? If mitt made a big profit leading this or that business into bankruptcy or liquidation, nobody has to like it, or voluntarily participate in it.
We the people of the united states of america could easily force our government to enact laws limiting all manner of economic activity, from personal income and wealth, to corporate raiding. In fact, we already have. Ours is an economy regulated by the government, on bahalf of we the people.
We agree, genarally, that we want as little government as possible, but as much as is necessary. Such choices can either be made by a powerful elite few, or by the people in general. However, a vast majority of americans have no interest in public affairs, politics, economic policy, or government.
Thus in america political power is voluntarily given to the few by the many, by default. And the wealthy powerful few, unimpeded by any popular political force of will, have transformed the american republic into the american corporate empire.
What will they do next? Their empire is showing signs of weakening and decaying.
What will we, the careless, indolent many, do next?
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Heat in the Kitchen
IN THE MAINSTREAM AMERICAN MEDIA lately there has been a lot of talk about the presidential campaign, and its alleged low level of discourse. It has even been asserted that by engaging in personal attacks, instead of sticking to the issues, the candidates have taken the low road, have poisoned american politics.
All this because the obama campaign claims that romney is nothing but a high rolling wheeler dealer who knows and cares little about the poor, while the romney campaign warns us of impending doom if obama's disastrous policies are continued.
and we call this "poison"? We call this style of campaigning dreadful, reprehensible, unacceptable, and whatever else comes to mind? Have we become so soft, and forgetful?
This aint nuthin'. When Thomas Jefferson ran for president in 1800, his federalist party enemies called him a fornicator, an unkempt slob, and worse, all of which was true, if a tad irrelevant.
Andrew Jackson was called a polygomist and a tyrant by his political enemies, again true, technically, but again, irrelevent.
Abraham Lincoln endured countless such verbal slings and arrows, most notably being compared to an ape, simply because he was tall, hairy, and homely. Lincoln was also called a tyrant, which he most certainly was; but, hey, he was OUR tyrant.
In 1964 the democrats said that if the republican was elected president, he would probably start a nuclear war. We never had a chance to find out. In 1968, the democrat ( hubert humphrey) launched such a vitriolic attack against the republican (nixon) that the american people seemed to tire of it; but really, deep down, enjoyed it.
Americans always like a good political scrape. Our current version is, by previous standards, quite tame - so far. Maybe it'll kick in good here pretty soon, and give us more entertainment. After all, entertainment is what we truly want in america.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
All this because the obama campaign claims that romney is nothing but a high rolling wheeler dealer who knows and cares little about the poor, while the romney campaign warns us of impending doom if obama's disastrous policies are continued.
and we call this "poison"? We call this style of campaigning dreadful, reprehensible, unacceptable, and whatever else comes to mind? Have we become so soft, and forgetful?
This aint nuthin'. When Thomas Jefferson ran for president in 1800, his federalist party enemies called him a fornicator, an unkempt slob, and worse, all of which was true, if a tad irrelevant.
Andrew Jackson was called a polygomist and a tyrant by his political enemies, again true, technically, but again, irrelevent.
Abraham Lincoln endured countless such verbal slings and arrows, most notably being compared to an ape, simply because he was tall, hairy, and homely. Lincoln was also called a tyrant, which he most certainly was; but, hey, he was OUR tyrant.
In 1964 the democrats said that if the republican was elected president, he would probably start a nuclear war. We never had a chance to find out. In 1968, the democrat ( hubert humphrey) launched such a vitriolic attack against the republican (nixon) that the american people seemed to tire of it; but really, deep down, enjoyed it.
Americans always like a good political scrape. Our current version is, by previous standards, quite tame - so far. Maybe it'll kick in good here pretty soon, and give us more entertainment. After all, entertainment is what we truly want in america.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
More, more, more...
WHAT HAS long been suspected has now been confirmed; less affluent people tend to be more generous in giving to charity than the wealthy. In absolute terms the wealthy undoubtedly give more, but on a percentage basis low income folks give more.
What america needs is more capitalism, more socialism, more everything, more economics, particularly more free enterprise, and it needs to be trickled down steadily. Does the american economic system deliberately maintain a surplus of labor to reduce demand for labor and therefore its costs? The jury is apparently still out on that one.
Let's have some real capitalism, good old fashioned competitive free enterprise, instead of our current system of monopolized industries.
The fuel industry, usually mistakenly called the "oil" industry, consists of a handful of huge corporations working in unison to keep fuel prices high. The same is true of the insurance industry.
Do we want free market health care? fine! Double the number of doctors, and instigate real competition. We'll have 'em advertising before you know it! And shouldn't a country the size of the united states have more than three auto manufacturers?
Television sets, radios, clothing, and shoes are no longer manufacturds in america. What's wrong with this picture?
A perfect role model for american free enterprise is the food services industry. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a good restaurant in america,and everybody is happy. Restauranteers compete like mad digs with each other, and all turns out well.
In america, more capitalism is needed, badly.
Bb
please scroll down for more..
What america needs is more capitalism, more socialism, more everything, more economics, particularly more free enterprise, and it needs to be trickled down steadily. Does the american economic system deliberately maintain a surplus of labor to reduce demand for labor and therefore its costs? The jury is apparently still out on that one.
Let's have some real capitalism, good old fashioned competitive free enterprise, instead of our current system of monopolized industries.
The fuel industry, usually mistakenly called the "oil" industry, consists of a handful of huge corporations working in unison to keep fuel prices high. The same is true of the insurance industry.
Do we want free market health care? fine! Double the number of doctors, and instigate real competition. We'll have 'em advertising before you know it! And shouldn't a country the size of the united states have more than three auto manufacturers?
Television sets, radios, clothing, and shoes are no longer manufacturds in america. What's wrong with this picture?
A perfect role model for american free enterprise is the food services industry. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a good restaurant in america,and everybody is happy. Restauranteers compete like mad digs with each other, and all turns out well.
In america, more capitalism is needed, badly.
Bb
please scroll down for more..
Monday, August 20, 2012
Foot IN Mouth
WHO AMONG US has not put foot in mouth? The most recent self inflicted victim is the conservative republican senatorial candidate from missouri, todd aiken. he was actually ahead in the polls, challenging the democrat incumbant, until...
...he said that when women are legitimately raped, raped for real, nothing phony, their bodies shut down the reproductive process, and they don't get pregnant. the unsurprising uproar centered around the fact that this assertion is simply not true.
the republican conservative christian political gentleman is displaying a human tendency, to defend and assert his beliefs at all costs, even at the cost of truth, in order to perpetuate those strongly held beliefs, instead of being at all willing to change beliefs, even slightly.
We defend to the death our errors, rather than correct them. We are greatly reluctant to even mildly alter or amend our cherished beliefs, even when confronted with compelling reasons to do so.
aiken hates abortion so much that he wanted to believe that there is never any reason for it, because if a woman gets pregnant by being raped, she wasn't raped, because real rape cannot possibly result in pregnancy thus no rape which results in a pregnancy was a real rape, it was phony.
by this clever, but not clever enough, distortion of reason a political candidate has badly shot himself in the foot.
romney and the repubs are running away from this guy like he has leprosy, and you can't blame 'em. This is a particularly serious foot in mouth because it was no slip of the tonuge, like gerald ford claiming that the russians didn't control eastern earupe, instead of western europe, or governor perry being unable to remember a government agency.
this slip of the tonue reveals a deeply held belief; if aiken and his ilk ever come to power, any woman who is brutally raped and becomes pregnant would not be allowed to legally have an abortion, because of unreasonable religious extremism.
america might not be ready for that. at least, you hope not.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
...he said that when women are legitimately raped, raped for real, nothing phony, their bodies shut down the reproductive process, and they don't get pregnant. the unsurprising uproar centered around the fact that this assertion is simply not true.
the republican conservative christian political gentleman is displaying a human tendency, to defend and assert his beliefs at all costs, even at the cost of truth, in order to perpetuate those strongly held beliefs, instead of being at all willing to change beliefs, even slightly.
We defend to the death our errors, rather than correct them. We are greatly reluctant to even mildly alter or amend our cherished beliefs, even when confronted with compelling reasons to do so.
aiken hates abortion so much that he wanted to believe that there is never any reason for it, because if a woman gets pregnant by being raped, she wasn't raped, because real rape cannot possibly result in pregnancy thus no rape which results in a pregnancy was a real rape, it was phony.
by this clever, but not clever enough, distortion of reason a political candidate has badly shot himself in the foot.
romney and the repubs are running away from this guy like he has leprosy, and you can't blame 'em. This is a particularly serious foot in mouth because it was no slip of the tonuge, like gerald ford claiming that the russians didn't control eastern earupe, instead of western europe, or governor perry being unable to remember a government agency.
this slip of the tonue reveals a deeply held belief; if aiken and his ilk ever come to power, any woman who is brutally raped and becomes pregnant would not be allowed to legally have an abortion, because of unreasonable religious extremism.
america might not be ready for that. at least, you hope not.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
Lusty Legacy
HELEN GURLEY BROWN (1922 - 2012) was quite a character, an arkansas girl who made it big in the big city. Like many women born circa nineteen twenty, helen was considerably different, more liberal, in her attitudes concerning sex, and the role of women in society, than the women of her mother's generation.
Helen's mother, like all other american women born around eighteen ninety, would have never been seen in anything other than a full length dress; helen could be seen in anything, or nothing. A paragon of women's sexual liberation, she was.
Her book "sex and the single girl" was one of the shocking blockbusting myth busters of nineteen sixty two, along with rachel carson's "silent spring", which helped engender the environmental movement. Helen similarly helped endenger the women's lib movement.
There is a strong cultural tendency in america, largely because of puritanical christianity, to pretend that sex doesn't exist. Helen Gurley Brown illuminated for us the fact that it does exist, and can be used as a tool for advancement. She succeeded because, in america, capitalism trumps christianity.
At one point she recommened that women, when their man is in the midst of an orgasm, scream out loudly whatever they most coveted - money, material objects, whatever - that orgasming man will form a mental association between exquisite pleasure for himself with fulfilling woman's wishes.
This sounds a bit dubious, doesn't it? Really? One wonders whether it has ever been tried, and whether it has ever demonstrably worked. And, one wonders whether we all want to live in a world where such tactics are employed, where people think in such terms.
Like other great women's rights advocates, people like gloria steinam, Helen was not bashful about advocating stridency and manipulation to even the gender playing field. "sex and the single girl" is the ultimate manual of how to have everything you want in life if you are an attractive single woman, by taking advantage directly of being - single, female, and attractive.
Women have always had control of sex, and man have always resorted to other means, money, mandated gender inequality, political pwer, to gain some measure of control over it. Helen's goal was to lessen the potency of those "other means". She seems to have succeeded admirably.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
Helen's mother, like all other american women born around eighteen ninety, would have never been seen in anything other than a full length dress; helen could be seen in anything, or nothing. A paragon of women's sexual liberation, she was.
Her book "sex and the single girl" was one of the shocking blockbusting myth busters of nineteen sixty two, along with rachel carson's "silent spring", which helped engender the environmental movement. Helen similarly helped endenger the women's lib movement.
There is a strong cultural tendency in america, largely because of puritanical christianity, to pretend that sex doesn't exist. Helen Gurley Brown illuminated for us the fact that it does exist, and can be used as a tool for advancement. She succeeded because, in america, capitalism trumps christianity.
At one point she recommened that women, when their man is in the midst of an orgasm, scream out loudly whatever they most coveted - money, material objects, whatever - that orgasming man will form a mental association between exquisite pleasure for himself with fulfilling woman's wishes.
This sounds a bit dubious, doesn't it? Really? One wonders whether it has ever been tried, and whether it has ever demonstrably worked. And, one wonders whether we all want to live in a world where such tactics are employed, where people think in such terms.
Like other great women's rights advocates, people like gloria steinam, Helen was not bashful about advocating stridency and manipulation to even the gender playing field. "sex and the single girl" is the ultimate manual of how to have everything you want in life if you are an attractive single woman, by taking advantage directly of being - single, female, and attractive.
Women have always had control of sex, and man have always resorted to other means, money, mandated gender inequality, political pwer, to gain some measure of control over it. Helen's goal was to lessen the potency of those "other means". She seems to have succeeded admirably.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Cold War Redux
ABOUT HALF the readers of The Truthless Reconciler are russians, so this may get a bit sticky. the united states and russia don't seem to be getting along too well right now. first and foremost, the great american icon madonna gave a concert recently in st petersburg at which she criticized the city of st petersburg, formerly known as leningrad, for banning gay pride day.
then something bizarre happened. Some group in russia, some group of activists, decided to file a ten million dollar lawsuit against madonna for insulting the motherland, or something like that. Fortunately, this happened after madonna had left the country; if madonna had ended up in a russian jail, diplomatic tensions would have been high.
we americans love us some madonna, in fact we love all our sweet lil girlie celebs, and we wouldn't take kindly to madonna being locked up in some foul smelling, stinking, filthy, dreary, putrid, wretched russian jail!
on the surface it seems that the lawsuit is entirely irrelevant; how could a court in russwia possibly extract any sort of penalty, like ten million dollars, from madonna? all she has to do is stay out of russia, da?
but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Russia is, rumor has it, trying to talk viet nam and cuba into allowing russian naval bases on their territory. cuban missile crisis, here we go again? Not, we pray.
the american navy is moving into the asian pacific, and so is the russina navy, and cuba to boot.
will the rusians and the chinese soon join the americans with global military empires of their own?
Chances are that the masses of ordinary people of america, china, and russia do not have any interest in nor desire to pay for thes empires, but they'll have to let their ruling elites know this in no uncertain terms in order to even have a chance to avoid a highly militarized future.
masses of the world unite,and bring peace to this crazy world - since our leaders won't, under any circumstances.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
then something bizarre happened. Some group in russia, some group of activists, decided to file a ten million dollar lawsuit against madonna for insulting the motherland, or something like that. Fortunately, this happened after madonna had left the country; if madonna had ended up in a russian jail, diplomatic tensions would have been high.
we americans love us some madonna, in fact we love all our sweet lil girlie celebs, and we wouldn't take kindly to madonna being locked up in some foul smelling, stinking, filthy, dreary, putrid, wretched russian jail!
on the surface it seems that the lawsuit is entirely irrelevant; how could a court in russwia possibly extract any sort of penalty, like ten million dollars, from madonna? all she has to do is stay out of russia, da?
but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Russia is, rumor has it, trying to talk viet nam and cuba into allowing russian naval bases on their territory. cuban missile crisis, here we go again? Not, we pray.
the american navy is moving into the asian pacific, and so is the russina navy, and cuba to boot.
will the rusians and the chinese soon join the americans with global military empires of their own?
Chances are that the masses of ordinary people of america, china, and russia do not have any interest in nor desire to pay for thes empires, but they'll have to let their ruling elites know this in no uncertain terms in order to even have a chance to avoid a highly militarized future.
masses of the world unite,and bring peace to this crazy world - since our leaders won't, under any circumstances.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
Eclectisicm
THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT FACTS about taxation in america are that taxes in general are lower than in other similar countries, that is, wealthy, highly industrialized countries with a hig standard of living.
Taxation in america tends to be less progressive than in other countries similar to america, even though there is a certain progressivity to american taxation, in the income taxes.
Trickle down, supply side economics, wherein flatter taxes are supposed to stimulate the ecoomy for everyone by freeing the wealthy to invest more in private enterprise, has never been shown, according to empirical data, to have the desired effect.
Just what is the "desired effect" of supply side trickle down reagan economics? To truly create wealth for all, or to protect the wealth of the wealthy? Oftentimes there is a distinct difference between stated desires, and actual desires
The private, free market, capitalistic insurance industry in america seems alive and well, particularly the private free market health insurance business. And if socialistic, government based health insurace should ever drive the free market folks outta business, what of it? If you cain't keep up, cain't compete, throw in the towel, and try something else. Right, conservatives?
Obama care includes the free market insurance companies, using them as middle men, actually strengthening them. So its kinda hard to figure out what the conservative capitalistic folks are all hot and bothered about. Hell, what america needs is real socialized health care, like germany, and may the free market take the hindmost.
the romney plan of vouchers replacing medicaid is, of course, privatization in disguise.
fine. so be it. let's privatize all. but let's at least have enough doctors, and insurance companies, to have a little free market competition, instead of the medical monopoly we now have.
america needs leaders who are neither dogmatically, rigidly conservative or liberal, but sufficiently open minded to understand the value of diverse ideals.
socialism and capitalism both work, together, if you give 'em a chance.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
Taxation in america tends to be less progressive than in other countries similar to america, even though there is a certain progressivity to american taxation, in the income taxes.
Trickle down, supply side economics, wherein flatter taxes are supposed to stimulate the ecoomy for everyone by freeing the wealthy to invest more in private enterprise, has never been shown, according to empirical data, to have the desired effect.
Just what is the "desired effect" of supply side trickle down reagan economics? To truly create wealth for all, or to protect the wealth of the wealthy? Oftentimes there is a distinct difference between stated desires, and actual desires
The private, free market, capitalistic insurance industry in america seems alive and well, particularly the private free market health insurance business. And if socialistic, government based health insurace should ever drive the free market folks outta business, what of it? If you cain't keep up, cain't compete, throw in the towel, and try something else. Right, conservatives?
Obama care includes the free market insurance companies, using them as middle men, actually strengthening them. So its kinda hard to figure out what the conservative capitalistic folks are all hot and bothered about. Hell, what america needs is real socialized health care, like germany, and may the free market take the hindmost.
the romney plan of vouchers replacing medicaid is, of course, privatization in disguise.
fine. so be it. let's privatize all. but let's at least have enough doctors, and insurance companies, to have a little free market competition, instead of the medical monopoly we now have.
america needs leaders who are neither dogmatically, rigidly conservative or liberal, but sufficiently open minded to understand the value of diverse ideals.
socialism and capitalism both work, together, if you give 'em a chance.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Enhancing Performance
ATHLETICISM has played an imortant role in human culture ever since our ancestors stopped hunting and gathering, settled down, and started farming. It could be that our modern interest in athletics, which is tremendous, is a substitute for hunting and gathering, which, at some deep level of our subconscious, we remember and miss.
The olympics is an attempt to promote world harmony, peace, cooperation in every aspect of life other than the actual competitive athletic events of the olympics, which are brutally, cut throat competitive. Seemingly, contradictory.
The influence of mony in athletics is so strong that amateurism seems to have lost any real meaning; the olympics, originally amateuristic, are now corporate sponsored and controlled, with professional athletes.
Steroids, performance enhancing drugs are the inevitable combination of technology, and the pressure to improve athletic performance for money. IN the nineteen eighties and nineteen nineties american baseball players became muscle bound behemoths, until steroids were finally outlawed.
But they still haven't altogether disappeared from sports; quite the contrary, it seems. An american baseball player, who is sudenly performing at a much mcuh higher level than he ever had before, arousing suspicion, was tested for drugs, which found testosterone. He was banned from playing the next fifty games.
It is incredible, absolutely incredible, how much his performance improved while using testosterone. So was the hormone the cause? It looks that way.
What is humanity accepted the proposition that every person has the right to ingest whatever he or she chooses, the sacred right to completely control one's body? Currently, we don't have this right. Should we?
maybe if all athletes used performance enhancing drugs the overall quality of athletic performance would drastically increase.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
The olympics is an attempt to promote world harmony, peace, cooperation in every aspect of life other than the actual competitive athletic events of the olympics, which are brutally, cut throat competitive. Seemingly, contradictory.
The influence of mony in athletics is so strong that amateurism seems to have lost any real meaning; the olympics, originally amateuristic, are now corporate sponsored and controlled, with professional athletes.
Steroids, performance enhancing drugs are the inevitable combination of technology, and the pressure to improve athletic performance for money. IN the nineteen eighties and nineteen nineties american baseball players became muscle bound behemoths, until steroids were finally outlawed.
But they still haven't altogether disappeared from sports; quite the contrary, it seems. An american baseball player, who is sudenly performing at a much mcuh higher level than he ever had before, arousing suspicion, was tested for drugs, which found testosterone. He was banned from playing the next fifty games.
It is incredible, absolutely incredible, how much his performance improved while using testosterone. So was the hormone the cause? It looks that way.
What is humanity accepted the proposition that every person has the right to ingest whatever he or she chooses, the sacred right to completely control one's body? Currently, we don't have this right. Should we?
maybe if all athletes used performance enhancing drugs the overall quality of athletic performance would drastically increase.
Bb
please scroll down for more...THANKS!
Forecasting Lawsuits
IN BELGIUM recently a tourism company announced that it intends to file a lawsuit against weather forecasters, meteorologists. it seems that inclement weather was predicted, tourism dropped dramatically, and then the forecast turned out to be wrong, and the weather was beautiful.
If you were to hear this true story without being told that it happened in europe, you would assume that it happened in america, which never met a lawsuit it didn't like. The good money says that the lawsuit will go nowhere.
You would think that by now it would happen nowhere, that legal precedent would long ago have established the principle that weather forecasters cannot be sued for being wrong. Otherwise, why would anyone pursue a career in meteorology? The science of forecasting the weather, which has improved tremendously over the past few decades, and is so valuable to almost everyone, would vanish.
There will quite likely come a time when the weather is predictable down to the last rain drop. Its a matter of accumulating enough data and having enough computer power to process it.
and when that day comes, maybe the law suits will stop, and weathermen can stop paying exorbitant retainers to high priced lawyers.
Bb
pleaase scroll down for more...THANKS!
If you were to hear this true story without being told that it happened in europe, you would assume that it happened in america, which never met a lawsuit it didn't like. The good money says that the lawsuit will go nowhere.
You would think that by now it would happen nowhere, that legal precedent would long ago have established the principle that weather forecasters cannot be sued for being wrong. Otherwise, why would anyone pursue a career in meteorology? The science of forecasting the weather, which has improved tremendously over the past few decades, and is so valuable to almost everyone, would vanish.
There will quite likely come a time when the weather is predictable down to the last rain drop. Its a matter of accumulating enough data and having enough computer power to process it.
and when that day comes, maybe the law suits will stop, and weathermen can stop paying exorbitant retainers to high priced lawyers.
Bb
pleaase scroll down for more...THANKS!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)