Does it really matter if the wealthy are wealthy, as long as the rest of us have a job, enough to eat, and a roof over our heads? One might think not. After all, money is paper, and can be manufactured and circulated endlessly, so long as it retains its value, at least to some degree. And besides, money isnt even paper, now its electronic signals. Money, in the abstract, is not a zero sum game.
But money won't, it can't, retain its value, if it is manufactured and circulated endlessly, and that's the point.This results in drastic inflation.
By economic definition, the amount of money in circulation is equal to the amount of goods and services extant.
It matters whether individuals own huge amounts of land, because there is only a limited amount of land.
It matters whether individuals own huge amounts of material wealth, because the resources required to produce matrerial wealth are finite, and utilization of said resources produces negative environmental impact,at least to some extent, if only in that said resources involve land use and human labor, both of which are limited.
Since material resources are inherently limited, so must the money supply be limited, in order to avoid drastic inflation. Money thus becomes a zero sum game, in that there can never be artifically large amounts of it circulated. It matters whether individuals are incredibly wealthy, because it places resources off limits to the rest of us, and it cheapens the money supply.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Socrates and Buddha
Socrates sat in his jail cell, condemned to die. He overheard the prisoner next door reciting a poem. Socrates, impressed with the beauty of the recitation, asked the other prisoner to teach it to him.
"You only have a few hours to live, replied the man. Why do you wish to learn a new poem?"
"Before I die, replied Socrates, I want to learn one more thing."
-----------------
Siddhartha Gautama was seeking enlightenment. The quest seemed never ending. His followers lost patience, and abandoned him. Shortly thereafter, seated beneath a Bodi tree, enlightenment came to the newly enlightened one, the Buddha.
He realized that his former followers deserved to know of his success. He found them, and said "you left one day too soon."
He began to speak, and taught them what had been revealed to him. They were amazed at what he said.
A follower asked: "Are you a God?" To which he replied "no".
"Then are you an angel?" Again he replied, "no, I am neither a god nor an angel."
The follower persisted. "Then what are you?'
To which the newly enlightened one replied "I am awake".
"You only have a few hours to live, replied the man. Why do you wish to learn a new poem?"
"Before I die, replied Socrates, I want to learn one more thing."
-----------------
Siddhartha Gautama was seeking enlightenment. The quest seemed never ending. His followers lost patience, and abandoned him. Shortly thereafter, seated beneath a Bodi tree, enlightenment came to the newly enlightened one, the Buddha.
He realized that his former followers deserved to know of his success. He found them, and said "you left one day too soon."
He began to speak, and taught them what had been revealed to him. They were amazed at what he said.
A follower asked: "Are you a God?" To which he replied "no".
"Then are you an angel?" Again he replied, "no, I am neither a god nor an angel."
The follower persisted. "Then what are you?'
To which the newly enlightened one replied "I am awake".
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Think Again
Now we hear that the United States intends to increase its military presence in the Persian Gulf after the American military, for the most part, leaves Iraq by the end of this year. How utterly surprising.
The new arrangement is being called a "bilateral milatary relationship" with the gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, and four other nations. What this means is that the American imperial forces of occupation are simply being moved from land to sea, and from one defeated country to other American dominated countries. The term "bilateral" means that the United States imposes its will on the region, and the region is incapable of offering opposition to the American empire.
The term "new security architecture" is in vogue, which means a slight adjustment to the forces of empire.
Thus, Obama fulfills his campaign promise of ending the war in Iraq, but since he never mentioned anything about ending American addiction to oil, or American determination to control world politics, he can present himself as the president who made good on his campaign promises.
Anyone who thought that Obama would be any different from Bush, or Clinton, or any other corporate spokesperson, think again.
The new arrangement is being called a "bilateral milatary relationship" with the gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, and four other nations. What this means is that the American imperial forces of occupation are simply being moved from land to sea, and from one defeated country to other American dominated countries. The term "bilateral" means that the United States imposes its will on the region, and the region is incapable of offering opposition to the American empire.
The term "new security architecture" is in vogue, which means a slight adjustment to the forces of empire.
Thus, Obama fulfills his campaign promise of ending the war in Iraq, but since he never mentioned anything about ending American addiction to oil, or American determination to control world politics, he can present himself as the president who made good on his campaign promises.
Anyone who thought that Obama would be any different from Bush, or Clinton, or any other corporate spokesperson, think again.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Justice, where?
In America, to be a celebrity is to be an entitled citizen, with privileges the rest of us do not enjoy. Being a celebrity means that you can abuse yourself and other people seemingly endlessly, and get yet another chance. To be extremely wealthy is, in essence, to be a celebrity, because wealth puts you above the crowd, and often, above the law. We the poor ordinary masses seem to put the wealthy on a level above ourselves. People of a certain age will never forget, for instance, that Senator Edward M. Kennedy got drunk and drove his car into a pond, which resulted in the death of a young attractive woman to whom he claimed he was innocently giving a ride home. After this incident he went straight ahead with his senatorial career, without missing a beat, and only eleven years later made an impressive run at the white house, even though his own democratic party already controlled it.
Guilt and innocence are strange things in America. If you are black, and deal drugs, and get caught, you go to prison. If you are white, you get probation. If you are white and wealthy, you get even less punishment, or none at all.
If you are a wealthy executive for a major financial institution, and have defrauded customers of billions of dollars, and your corporation is facing bankruptcy through mismanagement, you might get billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money without ever having to pay it back.
But heaven help you if you are black, live in an inner city ghetto, and resort to selling marijuana because there are no jobs available and you have a family to support. In that case, you go to jail, often for a very long time. It has been pointed out by more than one writer that the United States locks up young African-American males at an astonishing rate, in what almost appears to be a modern form of enslavement. Bernie Madoff made one huge mistake: he defrauded the very wealthy. Had he confined himself to stealing from the poor, he might very well be out and around today. The lesson: if you're gonna cheat people, cheat the poor, for they have nobody to represent them.
Guilt and innocence are strange things in America. If you are black, and deal drugs, and get caught, you go to prison. If you are white, you get probation. If you are white and wealthy, you get even less punishment, or none at all.
If you are a wealthy executive for a major financial institution, and have defrauded customers of billions of dollars, and your corporation is facing bankruptcy through mismanagement, you might get billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money without ever having to pay it back.
But heaven help you if you are black, live in an inner city ghetto, and resort to selling marijuana because there are no jobs available and you have a family to support. In that case, you go to jail, often for a very long time. It has been pointed out by more than one writer that the United States locks up young African-American males at an astonishing rate, in what almost appears to be a modern form of enslavement. Bernie Madoff made one huge mistake: he defrauded the very wealthy. Had he confined himself to stealing from the poor, he might very well be out and around today. The lesson: if you're gonna cheat people, cheat the poor, for they have nobody to represent them.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Celebrity Insanity
Recent posts on this blog have dealt with our celebrity culture, and its origins. The point is, celebrity culture is not only an amusing diversion for we the consumers of it; it is a deliberatly encouraged and nurtured corporate gimmick to distract us from our corporate enslavement, and to make more money for the already wealthy.We Americans create celebrities, partly because we want to, and partly because we are told to so so by our corporate masters.
A case in point is Michael Jackson, whose life, death, and doctor's murder trial were/are all exploited to the fullest by the corporate media which spoon feeds us the garbage we lap up like the lapdogs we are.
Jackson was deprived of his childhood by a father who worshipped at the alter of the almighty dollar. To compensate for this, he lived his adult life childishly, seeking to capture what he never had; a childhood. When he should have been going to grade school and playing after school with other kids, he was rehearsing and performing, endlessly.
Jackson was surrounded by vultures who encouraged him to feel that no matter what he did, he must do more. Evidenly he despised himself, instead of despising the despicable world that drove him to change his face into that of a white man, to work himself to death, and to escape his trap through excessive drug use.
American culture created Michael Jackson, and American corporate manufactured consumer celebrity culture destroyed him, with him as a willing accomplice. Now we sit in rapt attention to the murder trial of his doctor, as we are spoon fed its lurid details. We should have ingored Michael, just as we should ignore all the people we instead turn into bizarre godlike celebrities.
If American culture were a racehorse, it would be shot. We should put ourselves on trial for cultural insanity, and sit beside Jackson's doctor in the courtroom. But instead, we crave ever more, and are fed ever more, banality. Like Davy Crockett said: "that don't make good sense. Hell, that don't even make good nonsense".
A case in point is Michael Jackson, whose life, death, and doctor's murder trial were/are all exploited to the fullest by the corporate media which spoon feeds us the garbage we lap up like the lapdogs we are.
Jackson was deprived of his childhood by a father who worshipped at the alter of the almighty dollar. To compensate for this, he lived his adult life childishly, seeking to capture what he never had; a childhood. When he should have been going to grade school and playing after school with other kids, he was rehearsing and performing, endlessly.
Jackson was surrounded by vultures who encouraged him to feel that no matter what he did, he must do more. Evidenly he despised himself, instead of despising the despicable world that drove him to change his face into that of a white man, to work himself to death, and to escape his trap through excessive drug use.
American culture created Michael Jackson, and American corporate manufactured consumer celebrity culture destroyed him, with him as a willing accomplice. Now we sit in rapt attention to the murder trial of his doctor, as we are spoon fed its lurid details. We should have ingored Michael, just as we should ignore all the people we instead turn into bizarre godlike celebrities.
If American culture were a racehorse, it would be shot. We should put ourselves on trial for cultural insanity, and sit beside Jackson's doctor in the courtroom. But instead, we crave ever more, and are fed ever more, banality. Like Davy Crockett said: "that don't make good sense. Hell, that don't even make good nonsense".
Let's Do Both
The hourly compensation for fortune 500 board members averages $934. Many board members serve more than one corporation, in what can be considered an incestuous plutocratic oligarchy.Meanwhile, American conservatives, who seem to have cast their lot with the 1%, insist that the Occupy Wall Street movement should direct its ire at the American federal government for thwarting economic prosperity through excessive regulation.
Without regulation, one can scarcely imagine the extent to which our corporate masters would go to enhance their own wealth and power, and eliminate the ability of the working masses to oragnize into self protecting groups, called "labor unions".
Conservatives complain that labor unions require payment of dues, then use the money to support political candidates which union members might not necessarily support.
Perish the thought that this conservative concern for the welfare for labor union members is insincere. Doubtless, the compassionate conservatives truly believe that when workers organize to gain bargaining power they are in reality harming their own interests. A single worker, acting alone, would doubtless fare better when dealing with billionaire owners.
Perhaps a compromise is in order. Perhaps the disempowered and unemployed should protest BOTH the corporate oligarchy AND the federal government; after all, they are the same thing.
Without regulation, one can scarcely imagine the extent to which our corporate masters would go to enhance their own wealth and power, and eliminate the ability of the working masses to oragnize into self protecting groups, called "labor unions".
Conservatives complain that labor unions require payment of dues, then use the money to support political candidates which union members might not necessarily support.
Perish the thought that this conservative concern for the welfare for labor union members is insincere. Doubtless, the compassionate conservatives truly believe that when workers organize to gain bargaining power they are in reality harming their own interests. A single worker, acting alone, would doubtless fare better when dealing with billionaire owners.
Perhaps a compromise is in order. Perhaps the disempowered and unemployed should protest BOTH the corporate oligarchy AND the federal government; after all, they are the same thing.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Quick Question
OK, I get the point. Capitalism is freedom, socialism is government, and the free market should determine everything, because the free market is inherently all wise. So it turns out that during the past several decades wealth has been concentrating, steadily, to the current extent that the top one percent own more than the bottom 20%, or something like that. And because it is the free market, that is the way it should be.
Quick question: To what extent will the wealth ultimately concentrate? Will the trend ever stop, or even reverse a bit? And if the concentration of wealth continues, will the top 1% eventually own 99% of the wealth? And if that eventuates, will that be beneficial to the world? Will it be beneficial to the wealthy?
Quick question: To what extent will the wealth ultimately concentrate? Will the trend ever stop, or even reverse a bit? And if the concentration of wealth continues, will the top 1% eventually own 99% of the wealth? And if that eventuates, will that be beneficial to the world? Will it be beneficial to the wealthy?
Exploitation
Free enterprise is exploitation, exploitation of opportunity, resources, capital, and people. The word "exploitation" has assumed a negative connatation, but it needn't always be negative.
The lower the fruit, we know, the more readily exploited.
Young people are the most easily exploited, for they tend to have less power to resist it. Thus it is the young who are forced to die in our wars, and to do the jobs the more senior members of society reject.
There was a time when children were paid pennies to deliver newspapers.
Young adult athletes are given free tuition, room and board, and in return for this they earn universities millions of dollars. Meanwhile they walk around campus flat broke.
A football player at a major university is worth as much as one hundred thousand dollars a year to the institution, and a male basketball player as much as two hundred thousand.
Often, people are voluntarily exploited.
The lower the fruit, we know, the more readily exploited.
Young people are the most easily exploited, for they tend to have less power to resist it. Thus it is the young who are forced to die in our wars, and to do the jobs the more senior members of society reject.
There was a time when children were paid pennies to deliver newspapers.
Young adult athletes are given free tuition, room and board, and in return for this they earn universities millions of dollars. Meanwhile they walk around campus flat broke.
A football player at a major university is worth as much as one hundred thousand dollars a year to the institution, and a male basketball player as much as two hundred thousand.
Often, people are voluntarily exploited.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Celebrity
In America there is a thing called "celebrity", which is endlessly fascinating, psychologically and sociologically. Everywhere and always there are people who are known far and wide, but the Americans take it to a new level. Rather than making people famous who are powerful, wealthy, or great achievers, Americans celebrate folks just for the fun of it. The most notable current example is, of course, Paris Hilton, who is famous... for being famous.
In America celebrities make a living be being...celebrities. Perhaps the first American to do this was the legendary Davy Crockett, who was a celeb during his life, and an even greater one afterward.
Crockett first became widely known in Tennessee as a great pioneer, bear hunter, and Indian fighter, then his fame spread to the east coast when he was sent to congress, and entertained eastern society with his homespun humor and personality. In 1831 a broadway play opened called "The Lion of the West", whose central character, Nimrod P. Wildfire, was modeled after Crockett. Davy attended the play as a special guest, and when Nimrod bowed to him from the stage, Davy rose from his seat in the front row and bowed right back, to the great delight of the audience. Crockett had no idea why he was famous, but he ended up liking it, and encouraged it, Parisian Hiltonesque. We understand now that his iconic death at the Alamo was his own trap; he simply had to live up to his heroic image.
In the 1870s a play opened on Broadway about Buffalo Bill Cody. Bill decided to audition to play the part of himself, he got the part, and made a great deal more money ($500/week) portraying himself on stage than he ever had out west just being himself. That inspired him to create his "wild west show", which was enormously successful, and lasted well into the twentieth century.
Wild Bill Hickock lacked Crockett's sense of irony, and Buffalo Bill's business sense. When he saw himself being portrayed on stage, he jumped out of his seat and beat up the actor in mid play.
Why do we Americans do this? One possibility is that, since we lack any hereditary royalty or aristocracy, we create celebrities in their place, fulfilling our need for heros and gods.
A word of caution to Paris Hilton: never beat up anyone who is helping to make you famous.
In America celebrities make a living be being...celebrities. Perhaps the first American to do this was the legendary Davy Crockett, who was a celeb during his life, and an even greater one afterward.
Crockett first became widely known in Tennessee as a great pioneer, bear hunter, and Indian fighter, then his fame spread to the east coast when he was sent to congress, and entertained eastern society with his homespun humor and personality. In 1831 a broadway play opened called "The Lion of the West", whose central character, Nimrod P. Wildfire, was modeled after Crockett. Davy attended the play as a special guest, and when Nimrod bowed to him from the stage, Davy rose from his seat in the front row and bowed right back, to the great delight of the audience. Crockett had no idea why he was famous, but he ended up liking it, and encouraged it, Parisian Hiltonesque. We understand now that his iconic death at the Alamo was his own trap; he simply had to live up to his heroic image.
In the 1870s a play opened on Broadway about Buffalo Bill Cody. Bill decided to audition to play the part of himself, he got the part, and made a great deal more money ($500/week) portraying himself on stage than he ever had out west just being himself. That inspired him to create his "wild west show", which was enormously successful, and lasted well into the twentieth century.
Wild Bill Hickock lacked Crockett's sense of irony, and Buffalo Bill's business sense. When he saw himself being portrayed on stage, he jumped out of his seat and beat up the actor in mid play.
Why do we Americans do this? One possibility is that, since we lack any hereditary royalty or aristocracy, we create celebrities in their place, fulfilling our need for heros and gods.
A word of caution to Paris Hilton: never beat up anyone who is helping to make you famous.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Big Government
Rick Perry, governor of Texas and republican presidential candidate, does not like abortions. Neither does anyone else. The global population is now 7 billion, and soon enough abortions might become preferrable to the alternative, but for now, nobody likes abortions.
Those who believe that abortons should remain legal in the United States are often called "pro-abortion", which is ridiculous. Those who oppose legal abortions are often called "pro-life", which is meaningless, since everyone is pro life.
Perry called the pro life pro choice position a "liberal canard". Thus, the conservative canard becomes "pro life anti freedom."
These pro life anti freedom people therefore favor big government.
Those who believe that abortons should remain legal in the United States are often called "pro-abortion", which is ridiculous. Those who oppose legal abortions are often called "pro-life", which is meaningless, since everyone is pro life.
Perry called the pro life pro choice position a "liberal canard". Thus, the conservative canard becomes "pro life anti freedom."
These pro life anti freedom people therefore favor big government.
Lonely internet
In the year 2000, at the age of 45, I got my first computer. My excitement was tremendous. It was, what, a 15 gig hard drive, 64 megs of ram. I thought I had it all. I was on top of the world. In 1992, Bill Clinton referred to a coming "information superhighway", and I didn't know what he meant. Now, I was becoming part of it.
I ended up on aol, and jumped into the chat room scene, which was booming. Within a short time I had more friends and girlfriends than I had ever dreamed possible. I was excited.
But just how "real" was it? We traded pictures and conversation, with people all over the country.
Groups of people congregated in chatrooms, familiar people in familiar chatrooms, forming online cliques. At one point I was part of a chatroom group which called itself "the family."
Several women from the internet came to visit me, usually resulting in awkward, often truncated visits. Eleven years later, I can still vaguely remember some of the screen names and other things about a few of the people involved, but for the most part its all just a blurry memory. I understand that chatrooms ar a dying breed, as is aol. What happened? Did the comsumers simple get tired of it, and walk away, like I did?
I will always kinda wonder whatever happened to those folks. They probably went ahead with their lives, and eventually lost interest in the online social life. Many of them were looking for mates; I hope and trust they found what they were looking for.
Now, it seems to me that the internet is no less lonely than America in real space and time. Like being alone in a crowd. Could it be that the only answer to loneliness is small, stable communites which change little over time? Perhaps our ancestors had it right all along.
I ended up on aol, and jumped into the chat room scene, which was booming. Within a short time I had more friends and girlfriends than I had ever dreamed possible. I was excited.
But just how "real" was it? We traded pictures and conversation, with people all over the country.
Groups of people congregated in chatrooms, familiar people in familiar chatrooms, forming online cliques. At one point I was part of a chatroom group which called itself "the family."
Several women from the internet came to visit me, usually resulting in awkward, often truncated visits. Eleven years later, I can still vaguely remember some of the screen names and other things about a few of the people involved, but for the most part its all just a blurry memory. I understand that chatrooms ar a dying breed, as is aol. What happened? Did the comsumers simple get tired of it, and walk away, like I did?
I will always kinda wonder whatever happened to those folks. They probably went ahead with their lives, and eventually lost interest in the online social life. Many of them were looking for mates; I hope and trust they found what they were looking for.
Now, it seems to me that the internet is no less lonely than America in real space and time. Like being alone in a crowd. Could it be that the only answer to loneliness is small, stable communites which change little over time? Perhaps our ancestors had it right all along.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Lonely American
I met a man from Shanghai, China, we began talking, and became friends. One day he said to me: "you Americans are the loneliest people in the world. You care more about your dogs and cats than you do about each other."
I thought "you got that right."
My Chinese friend went on to explain that in China, people were always in groups, and lonliness was essentially unknown. They eat together, drink together, they do everything together. IN America, he was obviously quite lonely, and he ended up in Chicago, hoping to capture the feeling of community he had known in his home town of 15 million people.
It didn't work. In Chicago he was just as lonely as he had been in Fayetteville, Arkansas, where he had first settled. The problem was not the lack of people, it was the American lifestyle.
The American lifestyle is lonely, by world standards. Many of us live alone, in big houses. We Americans all have our own agendas, we go our own way, and when we get together its is usually for some purpose other than comradship, some purpose which has nothing whatever to do with building community. Individualistic, atomized. Its what makes us great; individual initiative.
I'm a loner by nature. I have heard many of my countrymen say the same thing. I live all alone in a big house, with my hundreds of TV channels, and the internet and cell phone, and I love to stay home, alone, screening my phone calls. Thats the way I want it. I have many friends, but they live all over the country, and the contact we maintain is...minimal. I keep thinking about getting a dog.
On surveys one out of ten Americans claims to like dogs more than other humans. Count me in.
I sit at my computer, talking briefly to strangers who will never become my friends. Across town, my friends are doing....I know not what. Perhaps they do what I do. I'll never know.
I have no complaints. I love being a lonely American. Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to live in a country where people put peole first, and their dogs second. But I know, deep down, that I would never want to live in such a country.
I thought "you got that right."
My Chinese friend went on to explain that in China, people were always in groups, and lonliness was essentially unknown. They eat together, drink together, they do everything together. IN America, he was obviously quite lonely, and he ended up in Chicago, hoping to capture the feeling of community he had known in his home town of 15 million people.
It didn't work. In Chicago he was just as lonely as he had been in Fayetteville, Arkansas, where he had first settled. The problem was not the lack of people, it was the American lifestyle.
The American lifestyle is lonely, by world standards. Many of us live alone, in big houses. We Americans all have our own agendas, we go our own way, and when we get together its is usually for some purpose other than comradship, some purpose which has nothing whatever to do with building community. Individualistic, atomized. Its what makes us great; individual initiative.
I'm a loner by nature. I have heard many of my countrymen say the same thing. I live all alone in a big house, with my hundreds of TV channels, and the internet and cell phone, and I love to stay home, alone, screening my phone calls. Thats the way I want it. I have many friends, but they live all over the country, and the contact we maintain is...minimal. I keep thinking about getting a dog.
On surveys one out of ten Americans claims to like dogs more than other humans. Count me in.
I sit at my computer, talking briefly to strangers who will never become my friends. Across town, my friends are doing....I know not what. Perhaps they do what I do. I'll never know.
I have no complaints. I love being a lonely American. Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to live in a country where people put peole first, and their dogs second. But I know, deep down, that I would never want to live in such a country.
Future Dreams
As a child growing up in the 1960s I, along with many others, was excited by the American space program, eager to get to the moon, enthralled by what I thought was a science fiction future in a high tech, high excitement world. I expected to have an opportunity to visit the moon myself, or even Mars, by the early twenty first century. And, like everyone else, I imagined that I would be driving a flying car. I could vaguely foresee personal computers, but cell phones and portable computers lay beyond my imagination...not even the top science fiction writers predicted cell phones and portable computers. In many science fiction novels written during the fifties and sixties, characters were flying around in spaceships and cars; but they still had to go find a telephone or computer installation, and all the computers did was cough up information, with no real communications applications.
The future vison that so animated my childhood never happened; instead a far different, yet interesting world emerged.
What sort of future to the children of 2011 imagine? Do they ever think of space exploration? Do they cling to the hope of flying cars? They have no idea what the world was like without personal computers, and for them, cell phones, still somewhat of a miracle to my generation, are commomplace and ho hum.
Do today's children see a bleak future of catastrophic climate change, and dreadful high tech terrorism? Are their hopeful visions high tech? Or are they jaded and complacent about technology?
After all the fuss, nobody has ever accurately predicted the future, and really, nobody has ever even roughly predicted it, verifiably. We are left to make guesses, and confront an unknown world.
Let us hope that today's children can find cause to dream of a happy future for humanity...
The future vison that so animated my childhood never happened; instead a far different, yet interesting world emerged.
What sort of future to the children of 2011 imagine? Do they ever think of space exploration? Do they cling to the hope of flying cars? They have no idea what the world was like without personal computers, and for them, cell phones, still somewhat of a miracle to my generation, are commomplace and ho hum.
Do today's children see a bleak future of catastrophic climate change, and dreadful high tech terrorism? Are their hopeful visions high tech? Or are they jaded and complacent about technology?
After all the fuss, nobody has ever accurately predicted the future, and really, nobody has ever even roughly predicted it, verifiably. We are left to make guesses, and confront an unknown world.
Let us hope that today's children can find cause to dream of a happy future for humanity...
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Openmindedness
The basic message that The Truthless Recociler wants to convey is: ideas which seem contradictory are in fact complimentary, because ultimate truth is far greater than all human ideas combined.
There are at least eleven thousand human religions. Does anyone really believe that any of them, or all of them together, reveals ultimate truth? What about extreaterrestrial religions?
Christianity, Islam, socialism, capitalism, demcracy, dictatorship - there's really room for all of it.
The human tendency is of course to choose a few basic ideas and beliefs, and and cling to them tenaciously, no matter what. The cosmos seems safer that way, simpler, more stable and easier to understand. WE narrow our minds to confort ourselves.
A reporter walked into the office of the great scientist, Neils Bohr, to interview the eminent inventor of quantum mechanics. On the wall was a horseshoe, dutifully pointed heavenward. Dumbfounded, the reporter said to Mr. Bohr: "you are the most respected scientist in the world, and you have a good luck charm hanging on your wall. Do you really believe in that?" "Of course not", said Bohr, "but that doesn't mean it isn't true".
Now that, dear friends, is OPENMINDEDNESS.
May we all be more like Neils Bohr
There are at least eleven thousand human religions. Does anyone really believe that any of them, or all of them together, reveals ultimate truth? What about extreaterrestrial religions?
Christianity, Islam, socialism, capitalism, demcracy, dictatorship - there's really room for all of it.
The human tendency is of course to choose a few basic ideas and beliefs, and and cling to them tenaciously, no matter what. The cosmos seems safer that way, simpler, more stable and easier to understand. WE narrow our minds to confort ourselves.
A reporter walked into the office of the great scientist, Neils Bohr, to interview the eminent inventor of quantum mechanics. On the wall was a horseshoe, dutifully pointed heavenward. Dumbfounded, the reporter said to Mr. Bohr: "you are the most respected scientist in the world, and you have a good luck charm hanging on your wall. Do you really believe in that?" "Of course not", said Bohr, "but that doesn't mean it isn't true".
Now that, dear friends, is OPENMINDEDNESS.
May we all be more like Neils Bohr
Consistency
A friend of mine made the following complaint: "Everytime a republican president takes military action against one of our enemies, the liberals all cry foul, but when Obama does it, you don't hear any complaining."
To which I replied: "would you be happier if all the liberals complained about Obama?"
His reply: "I just expect people to be consistent."
He does? Is that what he "expects?" Does he actually think people WILL be consistent, or does he simply hope they are?
I can assure my friend that whereas he is prefectly free to "expect" whatever he wants, he aint gonna get what he expects. People are not consistent, and will not so become an account of anyone's "expectations."
I for one have no interest or desire to be consistent. May I always have integrity, but not consistency.
Didn't someone once say "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds?" (maybe i dreamt that)
Is it possibe that a liberal might think a republican war is unjust, but that a democrat war is just, not because of bias, but because of the circumstances of the respective wars?
Anyone who judges a war based on the political party of the warrior is not really being inconsistent, so much as unreasonable.
To which I replied: "would you be happier if all the liberals complained about Obama?"
His reply: "I just expect people to be consistent."
He does? Is that what he "expects?" Does he actually think people WILL be consistent, or does he simply hope they are?
I can assure my friend that whereas he is prefectly free to "expect" whatever he wants, he aint gonna get what he expects. People are not consistent, and will not so become an account of anyone's "expectations."
I for one have no interest or desire to be consistent. May I always have integrity, but not consistency.
Didn't someone once say "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds?" (maybe i dreamt that)
Is it possibe that a liberal might think a republican war is unjust, but that a democrat war is just, not because of bias, but because of the circumstances of the respective wars?
Anyone who judges a war based on the political party of the warrior is not really being inconsistent, so much as unreasonable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)