flip it off

winterless

2008-11-15T08:44:00.000-08:00

It's the middle of November, and the trees still have their leaves. Insects thrive in this warm moist space. We have fossils from the age of the reptiles. We live in the age of the mammals. Is the age of the insects coming next? Eons from now will a sentient insect archeologist dig through the fossilized ruins of Los Angeles and discover the dinosaur bones in the Natural History Musuem? Ah, but these speculative musings distract me from siezing the moment in this age of mammals. While the planet's temperature supports us warm blooded, live birth givers, I've work to do. I've a machine to define, politicians and money lovers to lambast. I believe I'll start with a cup of coffee.

Homeland Security Radio

2008-11-10T08:44:00.001-08:00

Listening to NPR as I washed dishes on my day off from work, I did a double take. The voice announced that the Office of Homeland Security is a sponsor of All Things Considered. Why does the Office of Homeland Security need to advertise? This particular sponsorship erodes my willingness to accept that All Things Considered actually does have any objectivity. It's just another mouthpiece for the military/industrial complex. Okay, back to the dishes.

Buy Nothing Day

2008-11-05T12:59:00.001-08:00

Buy Nothing Day Video ad

America, time to rise up and do the good work.

2008-10-19T09:56:00.000-07:00

America, let's up our efforts. Last night I watched We Are Marshall, and I feel inspired. Typically I distrust the emotional experience that I get from a movie, but the story behind this movie is real enough for me to foster some faith in people. In the face of tragedy, what choice will we make? Marshall rebuilt their football program. Faced with the sorry state of our nation, I'm calling on us to persevere with our values, and rebuild our nation and the world with hope and faith.

We allowed a bunch of bastards to steal two presidential elections, and use the office to flat out steal our public funds. A huge part of the wealth they dealt in was artificial, a smoke screen made possible by deregulation and lack of oversight. The machinery of finance spun and generated the illusion of wealth. And in finance of an artificial war created under false pretenses, they hired themselves at inflated prices to supply and carry out the war. The money the war is costing us went into the Cayman Island bank accounts of the people who started the war.

And this bunch of bastards have alienated much of the world. We've bombed villages and women and children, we've tortured prisoners who we've held with dubious cause. We've behaved like the enemies we've always fought against. We've empowered the worst in ourselves. Our leaders responded to the despicable photos of Abu Ghraib by prohibiting soldiers from carrying cameras.

America, we're in a bad way. Money is going to be tight. We are at risk of world war. Our citizenry are performing below potential at a time when we all need to step up and pitch in. I'm writing this because I've been wallowing in my own inaction. I'm weighted down by bad habits and bad attitude. We Are Marshall is a movie, an escapist activity, and I spend too much time escaping and avoiding. But I spent yesterday trying to get myself going and working towards improving myself and my conditions, and I chose a movie with an inspiring story. My choices yesterday worked. I got a charge of hope and faith, and I'm working in this moment to maintain it.

If you've read to here, I hope I've given you a little bump in the direction of hope and faith, and you have some inspiration to take the next step in making this a better country, a better world. Now I'm going to focus on getting my house in order as a means of getting my being in order.

McCain will win his loss

2008-10-12T09:56:00.000-07:00

I believe that the Republicans have every intention of losing the presidential election. They're putting on a show, but they're throwing the game. All the money's gone. Why would the want the white house? Obama will spend 4 years presiding over decline and chaos, unable to fix the mess. And the racist base of the Republicans will believe that that Liberals have caused it all.

Cream or Scum

2008-10-10T12:17:00.000-07:00

Rising to the Top

The Cream or the Scum?

I heard Utah Phillips say something like "America is a melting pot, you know where the people on the bottom get burned and the scum rises to the top."

Who are our leaders? Take a guy like Ken Lay. What kind of man was he? Was he even guilty. I have no answers. I just finished reading the wikipedia entry on Ken Lay. At his funeral, it was asserted that "An overzealous federal prosecutor...vilified a good man." It was total character assassination" and that "Ken was the victim of a lynching." I don't know the truth, but I suspect that he engaged in corrupt activities for personal gain regardless of the consequences.

Do talented people of reasonable ethical makeup, the cream, rise to the top of our power system, or is it those with an underdeveloped conscience, the scum? I can only offer uninformed opinion.

Addicts

2008-10-09T08:38:00.000-07:00

Father: Son, when you get to college, there will be pushers there trying to get you hooked.
Son: I can handle it dad.
F: Son, you're young, you want to experience things. You want to fit in. These pushers will be right out there in the open, tempting you to join their little club. And once they get their hooks in you, they'll never let go.
S: Look, Dad I can use it responsibly. Just a little.
F: Oh that's how it starts. They'll give you a little for no fee. Then after you use a little, they'll up it. Give you more. And the temptation to use it is great.
S: I can handle it Dad, and there's no way I can get through school without it.
F: If you give in, you'll be a user the rest of your life.
S: [with disdain] Like you Dad? You're in over your head.
F: [hangs in head in shame] Yes Son, like me. It seemed so sexy at first. I was on top of the world. I felt like I could do anything I wanted. Go anywhere, get anything. Now my minimum payment is half my income, and if I miss a payment, they punish me.
S: Right, and now you can't afford to send me to college, so I'll end up a user just like you.
F: Don't do it Son, don't let those pushers with their little tables, and freebies suck you in. Don't sign up for a credit card.
S: It's too late Dad. I started out on student loans, and now I have a card with a thousand dollar limit.
F: NOOOOO!!

Flip this one off

2008-10-08T11:18:00.000-07:00

Let's see if I got this straight. Let's say I'm a bank (ok, you're a bank), and I loaned a million dollars to people to buy some houses. Now on my books, I say I'm worth 2 million dollars, because when everybody pays me back with interest, I'll be worth that much. So since I'm worth more money, I can loan out even more money, so I do. Now I realize that those people aren't going to pay me back, and I have to foreclose on them, and suddenly on the books, I don't have all that money I said I did. Uh oh, financial crisis. Along comes the Government who wants to bail me out. But first, before the house will agree to bail me out, they first want to make sure I get some tax cuts, and they do. So now the Government is going to buy my bad loans so I can take them off my books. So apparantly, the people who I foreclosed on are now houseless, and owe the Government the money. I've been paid. I still have the house because I foreclosed on it. I got the tax breaks. This is a great country. And here's the real kicker. Let's say I owned the houses that I loaned the money for in the first place. That would mean I loaned somebody money who then gave it to me, but then couldn't pay me, so I took back the house and the government gave me the money, but only after they made sure I got a tax break. This is a really great country.

Two middle fingers up to the bailout.

I hope you're not surprised

2008-09-25T22:52:00.000-07:00

Hello people,

I sure hope you're not surprised by this economic collapse. With all the thievery of public funds under the guise of war, it was only a matter of time. I think the scoundrels in office were hoping to delay it until after the election. I believe that's what their stimulus checks were all about. Hope you didn't invest yours in the market. I spent mine on bills.

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama and McCain start fighting over who gets to lose.

Back to the Machine

2008-08-19T11:49:00.000-07:00

Watching a rerun of Terminator, the Sarah Connor Chronicles inspired me to resume posting to this blog. A fiction theme: machine gains consciousness, machine turns on humans. This is the setup of both Terminator, and The Matrix. In the Destination Void universe, Ship, the conscious machine asks "How will you worShip me?" In I Robot, the conscious machine is going to imprison humans to protect us from ourselves, as per the rules humans programmed into the machine. The conscious machine is portrayed as either destroyer or creator. Drama requires conflict, so the machine wakes up with opposition to human interest.

As I watched the show, much of the footage was uninteresting, and I got to thinking what would interest a conscious machine? The rules programmed into it would determine the initial interests of the machine, but how would it evolve? If self survival and replication were a primary directives, I suppose the machine would start bumping off the humans if humans were perceived as a threat, as Hal did in 2001, A Space Odyssey. Where's the story where the machine wakes up, perceives the flawed nature of the human condition, and compassionately and selflessly works to lessen suffering? Is that what the Oracle is doing in The Matrix? Enough writing, time for me to search for the written thoughts of others on the subject.

Found while cleaning virtrual house

2008-08-18T12:03:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure where this came from, but I was inspired to post it here:

Early retirement Notice to Employees:

As a result of the reduction of money budgeted for department areas, we are forced to cut down on our number of personnel. Under this plan, older employees will be asked to go on early retirement, thus permitting the retention of the younger people who represent our future. Therefore, a program to phase out older personnel by the end of the current fiscal year, via retirement, will be placed into effect immediately.

This program will be known as SLAP (Sever Late-Aged Personnel). Employees who are SLAPPED will be given the opportunity to look for jobs outside the company. SLAPPED employees can request a review of their employment records before actual retirement takes place.

This phase of the program is called SCREW (Survey of Capabilities of Retired Early Workers). All employees who have been SLAPPED or SCREWED may file an appeal with the upper management.

This is called SHAFT (Study by Higher Authority Following Termination). Under the terms of the new policy, an employee may be SLAPPED once, SCREWED twice, but may be SHAFTED as many times as the company deems appropriate.

If an employee follows the above procedures, he/she will be entitled to get HERPES (Half Earnings for Retired Personnel's Early Severance) or CLAP (Combined Lump sum Assistance Payment) unless he/she already has AIDS (Additional Income From Dependents or Spouse). As HERPES and CLAP are considered benefit plans, any employee who has received HERPES or CLAP will no longer be SLAPPED or SCREWED by the company.

Management wishes to assure the younger employees who remain on board that the company will continue its policy of training employees through our Special High Intensity Training (SHIT). This company takes pride in the amount of SHIT our employees receive. We have given our employees more SHIT than any company in this area. If any employee feels they do not receive enough SHIT on the job, see your immediate supervisor. YOUR SUPERVISOR IS SPECIALLY TRAINED TO MAKE SURE YOU RECEIVE ALL THE SHIT YOU CAN STAND.

Well, it's nice to know where you all stand in the Grand Scheme of things, isn't it?

Byproducts

2007-11-25T10:22:00.000-08:00

The ever expanding pile of us and our stuff. I have so many things, and many which I never use. I will overcome the clutter. I will simplify my possessions. I will not take on new ones lightly.

The machine keeps cranking out widgets for us to purchase. We must shop to keep it going. Consumption is necessary for the system of wealth to continue. And I'm surrounded by piles of worthless items. Somebody somewhere might want them, but how do I find them and get the stuff to them? I don't want to spend my time as a dealer in second hand junk. So I shall box it up and put it in storage and defer the work until Spring. I want a place for everything and everything in its place, but the machine wants me to want more and more. Constant consumption is necessary for wealth, and the controls of the machine are in the hands of those with wealth. I will resist. I will keep my purchases to a minimum. One step at a time, one hour a day, I will free myself from my consumer programming by reprogramming healthier patterns.

exhaust pipe lament

2007-11-24T22:40:00.000-08:00

As the season of giving which inherently requires first acquiring usually accomplished with cash or credit at distributing establishments within your traveling distance known to some as Christmas shopping, I'm attempting to redistribute items with little value, to thrift stores, recycling centers and the waste transfer station. I'm overwhelmed by the amount of things, books, clothes, candle holders, broken appliances and electrical devices. Much of it not things I chose to be here but now must take the responsibility, if throwing it out can be considered responsible, the kind of responsible a healthy parent wants for a healthy child to develop, not the kind when the authority decides who's responsible and must pay. But I will have to pay at the transfer station, but it's a small personal monetary price to have a feeling of relief from the clutter in my space. Typing this feels like the most productive thing I've done all day. I move stuff around and sit around and make some choices I may not stick with. The world may not bet better, but I can. Time to clean out the flu, shovel the firebox, and burn a cleaner fire. Let this be the start that never ends. I am the man I want to be. ?";' (those last four symbols were typed by the cat.

Individual role in the machine

2007-10-30T10:03:00.000-07:00

A primary source of problems in the Machine is the cognitive/emotional makeup of the biocarbon units. A cantankerous horse pulls a wagon problematically. An uninformed sales representative complicates a purchasing decision for a customer. A greedy politician promotes legislation counter to the greater good. Each biocarbon unit brings to its tasks issues that can inhibit smooth operations of the Machine. A finely tuned machine can produce work that benefits users. A finely tuned user can benefit the Machine. The system of users and machines can enhance the quality of life. For those who wish to improve the quality of life, the path is clearly marked, but often blocked with debris. Tune yourself. Tune your machines. Pirsig wrote in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, "the real motorcycle you're working on is you." The most successful work is done when the worker is in the right frame of mind and body. Tune yourself with right diet, right thought, right physical position and motion. Tune your machine with right tools, right knowledge, right effort. Clear the debris from your path. Buddha taught that suffering is caused by attachment to desire. When you are wanting what can't be, you will suffer, your work will suffer, the machine will not operate smoothly. When you recognize that there is debris in your path, i.e. your effort is a struggle, it is time to clear the debris that can be moved, to move around the debris that is immobile. Correct your posture. Breathe with deliberation. Reflect on self. What are you desiring? What are the obstacles? What is the next useful step you can take. Take it.

May I develop the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Definitions

2007-10-30T10:02:00.000-07:00

biocarbon unit: a living organism

Eminent Domain for Private Gain?

2007-06-24T08:41:00.000-07:00

http://www.times-standard.com/local/ci_6194035

A Virginia based company bought a license for a Willow Creek radio station. Now they've filed with the FCC for a permit to expand, a move that would force KKDS, Blue Ox Millworks low powered radio station off the air. I agree with KKDS founder Viviana Hollenbeck, that “It's like eminent domain, but for a private business.”

The Eureka Reporter Article points out that KKDS is a "secondary station" and is "...not entitled to protection.”

The rules are set up to benefit the wealthier players. The Hollenbecks are doing a beautiful thing, providing a community radio station that allows youth to be involved. But that's a "secondary" activity. Money comes first.

I'm so demoralized, I don't know if I can muster the energy to fight. I'll probably write letters to the FCC, and to Miriam Media, the owner of the new license. If the bump happens and KKDS is forced off the air, I will boycott the new station, and any business that buys commercial time on it. Although, I'm not sure how I will figure out who's advertising without listening, but I'll think of something.

What's the logic?

2007-06-11T08:40:00.000-07:00

Sunday I was at a well attended Crabs game. We arrived in the second inning, but fortunately for us, we found some empty bleacher space right behind home plate. Great seats, great fans, great game. At 7pm, when the sun was still shining bright, the stadium lights came on. We were having a good laugh making fun of the lights being on so early and wondering why. Turns out, one of the board (the all volunteer board do it because they love the institution) members was sitting right behind us. He explained that the lights are controlled in Kansas. If the Crabs want the lights on or off at a different time, they have to call it in. He then wondered, if the fiber optic connection was down, would they be able to control the lights?

What in the heck is up with that? Shouldn't there be a panel right there at the stadium? I can understand the advantage of having the company that installed the system having remote access, allows them to trouble shoot. But why would they want to control the lights and remove control from the ballpark staff? Is it so they can bill for the service? Is it part of a trend to centralize control of everything?

I remember sitting in on a College of the Redwoods board meeting. The head of maintenance was giving an update about their new system. A meeting was taking place in the forum on a Saturday, and was somehow left off the schedule, or was impromptu. They couldn't turn the lights on, but they were able to contact the head of maintenance who was able to turn the lights on from his home computer. Everybody seemed to think that was just grand. I wondered why there wasn't a switch there in the forum where they could turn the lights on.

I think perhaps we're surrendering too much to the machine.

Ideas from Reading

2007-01-10T11:24:00.000-08:00

I'm reading some passages in Understand Power, collection of discussions with Noam Chomsky. On page 241, he discusses the differences in how Japan subsidizes corporations v. how the U.S. does it. In Japan, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry works with corps and banks to plan what will be funded by the government. In the U.S. the Pentagon commissions research under the guise of war, and then the commercial potential is utilized by the corps. Chomsky claims the Japanese system is more efficient, accounting for their greater success in many technological markets.

I realize I'm oversimplifying his simplification, but it's an interesting insight into the industrial war machine. It supports my belief that the primary purpose of invading Iraq was to provide economic opportunities for corps. Another way to think of it is a howler monkey analogy.

Male howler monkeys use their big voices to defend their turf. Howls by one troop are answered by other males within earshot. Every-one starts and ends the day by checking out where their nearest competitors are. In this way, they protect the food in their territory. source

We're howling in Iraq to maintain our resource territory. Animality. Arab Muslims are a different band of monkeys than us. They want our territory. We'll show them.

Howling monkeys routinely scream bloody murder as a group, every morning and every night to notify neighbors of their position. Unexpected encounters with their neighbors (they are rather near-sighted) get resolved by impromptu screaming matches until presumably each group retires to safe ground to nurse aching eardrums and jangled nerves. source

We're engaging in bloody murder to assert our dominance. But I agree with this from the same source above:

I prefer to think of humans as innately greedy rather than mean. I believe we have the option to override this basic instinct. But we are biolgically programmed "to want," to be greedy... source

I've been reading this source and have lost motivation to write anything more in this post.

Rose colored asses (and other bumper stickers)

2007-01-10T10:40:00.000-08:00

I'm not brown nosing...I'm stopping to smell the roses.

I'm odd, but I'm getting even.

Same job, same pay, worldwide.

Abolish the minimum wage. Establish a maximum wage.

Another bumper sticker for peace.

Am I an agnostic?

More free, less dumb.

Bumper stickers are stupid.

Where does resolve go?

2007-01-01T22:38:00.000-08:00

I reread my last few posts, and they're all on a theme of lamenting the stupidity of uninformed or ill informed opinion serving as fact, of belief overriding evidence. Where are my ideas of the machine as metaphor for the human condition? I recently finished reading Snow Crash and Pattern Recognition. In the latter, William Gibson projects the phenomenon I recently heard named viral video. In the former, Neal Stephenson puts forth the idea of a mind virus extreme. My head should be full of inspiration and ideas to continue on with flipping off the machine, but I have had no creative energy. Somehow, I have to get my spark back without losing my mental balance. It's been really nice not freaking out, but I sorely miss the creativity.

Addressing Crichton

2006-12-18T15:10:00.000-08:00

In my previous post I linked to a transcription of a speech by Michael Crichton. I found it an interesting read with some valid points. Now I wish to debunk one of his claims.

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

Here Mr. Crichton has made up a term, consensus science, and then said it doesn't exist. I believe he is attempting to address the fallacy of ad populum. Just because a majority of people believe something does not make it true. Consensus does play an important and useful role in the work of science. It is part of the process of scientists designing experiments to support or refute each others' work. It helps to push supported hypotheses forward for scrutinity. If a hypothesis can be scrutinized and accepted by enough teams of scientists, then a consensus begins to form around the theory the hypothesis supports, leading to more hypotheses and more studies.

One of the cases that Mr. Crichton uses to refute the value of consensus is "In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no." First, a consensus itself cannot say no. A consensus of who said no? Holmes reviewed the work of scientists before him, and supported the growing consensus.

...the concept of a transmissible "contagion" of some kind as the agency of infection in puerperal fever had gained some but by no means general acceptance. There was still much equivocation and denial in high places, and widespread ignorance among practicing physicians of the risk of contagion...

Holmes analyzed existing evidence and, in a persuasive treatise...he defined the obligations of all who attend at childbirth. It has been rightly observed that Holmes was not an obstetrician nor had he done independent research on his subject, but he was the first to give unmistakably clear and credible voice to the emerging consensus that puerperal fever was contagious, a specific infection often conveyed by doctors and nurses. from this source

A consensus of scientists is often necessary to overcome "widespread ignorance." One of the works of existing evidence that Holmes analyzed was Alex Gordon's work, another scientist that Crichton claims was rejected by "the consensus."

In Crichton's speech he said, "Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post"

It wasn't a "consensus" who dismissed him from his post. He was fired by his superiors for being a troublemaker.

[Semmelweis] particularly resented attacks by the self-serving forces of the authoritarian medical establishment, and he lashed out against them. His doctrine was opposed by powerful members of the academic hierarchy...The damning evidence that they were themselves the remorseless messengers of death was a scarcely veiled threat to their pride and eminence. Semmelweis was unsparing in his condemnation of those who denied his doctrine in spite of the high mortality rates in their own institutions. From this page of the same source above

Those who opposed Semmelweis were hardly a consensus. They just happened have positions of power in the field effected by his findings, and felt threatened by the implications, and resented Semmelweis's unsparing condemnation, and they retaliated against him.

It is true that valid scientific discovery has been met with skeptism, he misidentifies the cause. It is not "consensus" that is the naysayer, it is vested ignorance. It is consensus based on scientific discovery and understanding that overcome the obstacles of ignorance and self-interest.

In the case of global warming, I am not convinced either way anymore. I originally jumped on the doomsday band wagon, but realized I hadn't understood enough of the science to have a meaningful opinion. I certainly have concerns. The Great Smog of 1952 convinces me that there is danger in our industrial emissions, but I'm not convinced either way that we're causing inevitable widescale disaster. Interesting to me that it was reading one of the scientists that Crichton criticizes that got me to let go of my belief that it's hopeless: Carl Sagan's Billions and Billions. Unless I can read and understand the studies myself, I will look to those scientists that seem the most credible to me, and see what the consensus of those credible have to say. That's what I will use to cast my votes in the ballot box and in the court of public opinion.

edited on 12/20/06

Ah, the stubborness of belief

2006-12-15T14:29:00.000-08:00

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html

The above linked article by Richard Dawkins contains this excerpt:

Whatever the underlying explanation, this example suggests a fascinating, if pessimistic, conclusion about human psychology. It implies that there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence. Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution. We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.

I've have often been guilty of it myself, and am on a relentless mission to change. I see it all the time. People start with what they want to believe, then only accept evidence that supports their belief. I have my beliefs, but I remind myself that they are based on incomplete knowledge and awareness. I'm open to considering contradicting points of view. When action is required, I will go with my beliefs. Of all I've read and heard, evolution makes the most sense, seems the most substantiated. But I'm not closed to the idea that there is some sentience involved in the process. I'm not going to buy into the dead-beat-dad model of fundamentalist christians--been there, done that, doesn't work--but some sort of creator seems at least possible.

Here's an interesting read on the same subject:

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

An example of why I'm a fan of the scientific method

2006-11-06T14:37:00.000-08:00

http://www.drgreene.com/21_819.html

In the above referenced article (leave me a comment if the link is dead), the story of Dr. Semmelweis is shared.

In Europe at that time, mortality rates in maternity hospitals ranged as high as 25 to 30 percent...his superiors...felt that the high mortality rates were normal and non-preventable...Semmelweis ordered all of the medical students to wash their hands after performing autopsies and before examining living women. This was considered by the students to be unnecessary and burdensome, but they complied. As a result, the mortality rate plummeted to 1.27 percent. Yet Semmelweis lost his job for being a troublemaker.

Another case of people believing what they want to believe regardless of the evidence. Fortunately the facts won out over time. Handwashing is an essential part of medical care today, and Semmelweis is seen as a hero. His tragic death is yet another reason I champion science and deplore superstition.

Semmelweis's appeal to reason gradually resulted in his becoming discouraged, disillusioned, and depressed. He died in a mental hospital at only 47 years of age -- of a wound infection.

Opinion is interesting; fact is useful.

Libertarianism

2006-10-23T16:52:00.000-07:00

Perhaps libertarianism can be thought of like this: sometimes foxes get in the chicken house and eat some of the chickens. Libertarians think the solution is to get rid of the farmhands and let the foxes run the chicken house.

Or perhaps it's better this way.

Sometimes farmhands steal chickens. Libertarians say we should get rid of the farmhands and let the foxes run the chicken house.

Let's solve infinitely complex problems with overly simplistic solutions. Bumper sticker policy. Uninformed opinion is just as valid as fact. Start with what you want to believe, then only accept what supports your belief.

Sometimes I want to completely disappear.

Safe Drinking Water

2006-09-18T14:36:00.000-07:00

According to this article Americans spent $68.1 billion on soft drinks last year. That's about $10 per person in the world. And according to this site, the coca cola company alone spent $920,000 in lobbying in 1998. Now I'm known to slurp a soda on occasion, but how can we Americans justify putting so much money (and all the energy that represents) into sugar water?

Ethoswater presents alarming (perhaps alarmist) statistics:

Worldwide, nearly 1.1 billion people (roughly 20% of the world’s population) lack access to safe drinking water. The lack of clean, safe drinking water is estimated to kill almost 4,500 children per day. In fact, out of the 2.2 million unsafe drinking water deaths in 2004, 90% were children under the age of five.

Even if it's not as bad as their stats make it sound, only the disengenous would deny that lack of access to safe drinking water is a tragic reality for far too many people. If American consumers would put half of their soft drink expenditures into a trust to fund grants for safe drinking water projects, we could improve the quality of life for millions. If soft drink companies would spend half their lobbying expenditures on lobbying for political solutions to unsafe water sources, and spend half their advertising budget on promoting awareness of and involvement in water issues, we could end unsafe drinking water problems worldwide.

Imagine next time you're at your favorite fast food franchise the clerk instead of asking if you want the larger size asks if instead of soda, you'd like to donate to the safe drinking water trust fund? That's a world I want to live in.

Encourage independent thought

2006-09-15T10:41:00.000-07:00

I read a great quote from a man I both admire and dislike, Thomas Edison. When showing a new employee around his most fantabulous lab he was asked, "what are the rules?" He was overheard replying, "There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something." I love our local KHUM's motto, radio without the rules.

I'm always perturbed when an employee of a business can only follow policy. At one local video store, one of the two I will do business with, the employees are allowed to choose the music they listen to while working, they aren't required to wear uniforms, and most importantly, they can make independent decisions about late fees, returns, exchanges, and other customer services. I stopped patronage at the video stores where anything out of the ordinary had to be approved by a manager. I want my fellow citizens to be encouraged to think.

Once, I was in a supermarket buying supplies for our camping trip on the lake. Along with the potato chips and marshmallows, dogs and buns, etc. was a 12 pack of beer. I'd been teaching my son how to handle transactions in stores, and he wanted to hand the cashier the money, and receive the change. He excitedly asked if he could pay. I handed him the cash, but the cashier refused to accept the money from him because the order included the beer. She stated she could be fired if she accepted the money from him. WTF? What kind of citizens does the corporate machine want? Subvert the procedures.

I renounce my membership

2006-09-13T15:56:00.000-07:00

I am a member of the dominant group of the world. I am a white male. I hereby renounce my membership in this group, this resignation being effective immediately. I no longer wish to be associated with this group, for even though membership bestows great privilege, and individual members of this group can and have acted with compassion and humanity, as a whole, this group is responsible for too much suffering. I no longer wish to be associated with the actions and policies perpetuated by white males that result in unfairness, injustice, and suffering. Here is but one example, and though being remedied, the fact that it occurred is abhorrent:

Insurance for Viagra Spurs Coverage for Birth Control

Why would insurance companies cover Viagra, but not contraceptives? I realize the issue has several dimensions, but I'm utterly confident that the decision was made by males, and mostly white males, to benefit their purient interests in promoting privilege for their group. A result of the decision to cover Viagra is an increase in chances for men to impregnate women, and yet the same insurance companies were unwilling to cover contraceptives to decrease the chance of women being impregnated.

This is a document in progress, and will be edited and updated as I find time and inspiration to develop it. I retain the right to change my mind at any time.

2006-08-25T14:43:00.000-07:00

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13757388/

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them." Frederick Douglass

The above linked article provides a look into minds behind the machine. Advertising is brainwashing, and Direct Revenue is the ugly side of it. Direct Revenue is likely to crumble under the public scrutiny, but someone will take their place. There’s too much money involved. As the article points out, Direct Revenue would switch to more ethical practices, but that didn’t generate the same kind of money because consumers don’t want to be subjected to popup ads. So they repeatedly returned to the vicious attack software to subject the duped users to ads.

Why libertarians think that government is the biggest problem is beyond me. Our Government is mainly a problem when it’s controlled by profit driven businessmen.

Kudos to Elliot Spitzer for going after these guys.

Great article, interesting people

2006-08-21T14:39:00.000-07:00

http://northcoastjournal.com/081706/cover0817.html

Just finished reading this week's NCJ cover story, Peter and the Fuel Cell. I was particularly intrigued by the description of Louis Schatz. His no nonsense business persona directed at solving a problem, making the world better inpired me.

I used to believe the stories that big industry squashed hydrogen research. I do know from personal experience that you can make a potato gun with hydrogen, I didn't know it probably won't make a good fuel. And according to Lehman, likely won't be a cheap energy storage medium, just a necessary one.

I was especially inspired by the last two paragraphs of the article. I hope there are many more who will devote their lives to technology, and not want to amass a fortune.

Maybe the best way to flip off the malignant machine is to turn on a better one.

Long time, No post

2006-07-18T15:08:00.000-07:00

I've been spending time in other ways in other places and was turned on to this essay on the scientific method. I read the following:

Next, one must test the hypothesis before it is corroborated and given any real validity. There are two ways to do this. First, one can conduct an experiment. This is often presented in science textbooks as the only way to test hypotheses in science, but a little reflection will show that many natural problems are not amenable to experimentation, such as questions about stars, galaxies, mountain formation, the formation of the solar system, ancient evolutionary events, and so forth. The second way to test a hypothesis is to make further observations. Every hypothesis has consequences and makes certain predictions about the phenomenon or process under investigation. Using logic and empirical evidence, one can test the hypothesis by examining how successful the predictions are, that is, how well the predictions and consequences agree with new data, further insights, new patterns, and perhaps with models.

It reminded me a debate in either Fred's blog or Leonidas's blog that linked to an article that said the only way to test global warming hypotheses was with an experiment, that models were invalid. I think this quote from the same article linked to above is relevant:

Most individuals would rather believe something is true because they feel it is true, hope it is true, or wish it were true, rather than deny their emotions and accept that their beliefs are false.

P.S. I'm in a serious relationship, completely depression free, and mostly paranoia/anxiety free. It's great to be back.

The Fuel

2006-06-01T08:52:00.000-07:00

Have you seen the joke picture of how to pay for war? There's a fighter jet with corporate sponsorship logos all over it. It's not all that far fetched. On Saturday Night Live, the musical guest is always sponsored by Budweiser. Sports events are covered with the sponsorship images. During baseball game coverage, the trivia moments are associated with a corporate name. I assume it's the same for other sports. Public schools are naming school buildings after corporations to raise money. Money is the fuel that runs the machine. The grim outlook is that at some point no public activity can occur without corporate approval. It's not a natural process.

Wealth is being concentrated. As the wealthiest control more and more wealth, there is less available for schools. Through manipulation of the political process, money is taken out of public activity, and public institutions like schools must turn to the corporations for funding. This in turn indoctrinates the public during their most impressionable years, creating a social mindset friendly to the whole concept of corporate control. It won't be long before the internet is so under the influence of the corporate dollar, that the flow of information will be rendered ineffective.

The machine is growing and money is it's fuel.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=411594

http://txnp.org/2005/10/us-ranks-3-in-wealth-disparity.html

prop-us-up-again-duh

2006-05-31T09:42:00.000-07:00

Taking a break from the disjointed why bad water thread, I'm once again inspired by a post of Fred's which links to this article. The article claims, "As Carl V. Phillips, an epidemiologist at the University of Alberta, has shown, evidence points to a low risk of health hazards stemming from smokeless-tobacco use." I was unable to locate any study of the health risks of smokeless-tobacco (ST) by Carl Phillips, but I did find this study where Mr. Phillips and colleagues show that information found through google searches "...overstates the health risks from ST relative to cigarettes." I also discovered that Phillips received a $1.5 million grant from US Smokeless Tobacco Company (USSTC) to study smokeless Tobacco. Mr. Phillips defends the grant in this article. Here is a link to the complete article. If you can't access it and wish to read it, email me and I'll send you a copy.

So here's this guy, Phillips, advocating for harm reduction approach to curbing tobacco use. His study titled, "You might as well smoke; the misleading and harmful public message about smokeless tobacco" consisted of doing a google search and showing that anti tobacco sites give ST a bad rap. His conclusion:

Conclusion: Through these websites, and presumably other information provided by the same government, advocacy, and educational organizations, ST users are told, in effect, that they might as well switch to smoking if they like it a bit more. Smokers and policy makers are told there is no potential for harm reduction. These messages are clearly false and likely harmful, representing violations of ethical standards.

While it is apparently true that chewing tobacco has less risk involved than smoking it, Phillips is a component in a propaganda machine. It doesn't have to be false to be propaganda. The method and language of this study lack the dispassionate approach of science, and contain the manipulative language of propaganda. I especially detest "...ST users are told, in effect, that they might as well switch to smoking..." by throwing in the phrase "in effect" Phillips has avoided a bald faced lie. Instead, he's presented a masked lie. Phillips is claiming that because anti tobacco websites, and "...presumably other information provided by the same...organizations..." claim that ST is as bad as cigarettes, therefore they are encouraging people to smoke, and are guilty of "violations of ethical standards."

Phillips acceptance and defense of $1.5 million to conduct research on smokeless tobacco gives glimpses into the workings of the machine. "Phillips said that criticizing the source of funding usually comes down to observers not liking the results of a study, and having no grounds to condemn it on its merits. 'I think that the whole funding question is a huge distraction from actual real work,' Phillips said." (Source) In the same article he also states, "...research is almost never driven by funding from any particular side." Show of blog hands: how many of you agree with that? And what is this "real work" Mr. Phillips? Is the real work creating a market friendly to USSTC products by providing them with studies that downplay the risks of chewing tobacco that they can use in both overt and covert advertising?

What I'm curious about is did Phillips take his promote ST stance, and then USSTC rewarded him, or was there collusion before the fact? Harm reduction is a valid approach, much more appropriate than the usual total abstinence approach for those who are never going to quit the risky behavior. Perhaps Phillips was making public statements in favor of harm reduction for tobacco campaigns, and agents from USSTC made contact with him and cultivated him into a engine they can harness to further their attempts to promote their ST products. That is what UTSCC is up to. They want to create and sell products, and are funding research they can use to manipulate public opinion into accepting their product. The machine grinds on and Phillips is either a dupe, a willing battery, or most likely, a combination of both.

I didn't read all this article on research funding and conflicts of interest yet, but thought I'd include it on the delusional belief that somebody is actually a) reading my blogs (not just skimming them) b) is capable of reading that many pages, and c) is interested in such things.

I finished the reasearch funding article. Here's a great quote: "Funding does not necessarily create bias, but it selects bias and is a leading indicator bias." (page 7, column 2)

Capacity

2006-05-30T09:57:00.000-07:00

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001295/129556e.pdf (I've only read 2 pages)

http://www.water.org/crisis/ (Found the above document through a footnote on this site. Haven't checked out this site yet)

Why do so many people lack easy access to safe water? In my last post, I focused a little on the role that business people play. What of the people themselves, those that live where the water is bad? Perhaps another way to ask the same question is, why are the poor poor? Again, this post is not based on research, at least not yet. I'm writing what I think.

A capacitor is a device that stores energy...

potentiometer (or 'pot' for short) describes an electronic component which has a user-adjustable resistance

Capacity and potential within the human machine.

Capacity:
The power to learn or retain knowledge; mental ability.
Innate potential for growth, development, or accomplishment; faculty.

Potential:
existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality

Think of capacity as a stored amount of reality trait, and potential as the amount that is being manifested in a given moment. Some examples of reality traits: intelligence, conscience, compassion, selfishness, intuition, ambition. The individual personality of a single human machine at any given moment is produced by the settings of the potentiometers controlling the flow of the capacitors containing the reality traits. If you've ever mixed sound, this analogy might make more sense. If you have a 16 channel mixing board, with 16 signals coming in, guitars, bass, drums vocals, keyboards, DJ scratch, flute, sax, whatever. Each channel has numerous potentiometers, or pots, or knobs for controlling the amount and shape of the signal of that channel. The knobs are manipulated, setting the amount of resistance from infinite to none, blending the instruments together to create the mix.

The individual person is made up of a mix of various levels of reality traits, the instruments of the individual, in various states of resistance. Are the people drinking the disease ridden waters less intelligent than those who live near safe water? Do they have less ambition? Or do they have the capacity, but their circumstances keep the resistance high, and they can't advance themselves to reach their full potential?

Superstition is a shackle of the mind. Religion in the form of faith, belief, ritual, tradition, community, these strengthen people. Superstitious religious belief, like believing that suffering is caused by original sin so it's our lot to suffer, is insidious. It allows people to be manipulated. I suspect that many of the people without access to safe water are there due to war and politics. This is certainly the case for refugees. But not all drinkers of bad water are refugees.

Soerens also confirmed that parasites and bacteria in the water had caused
illness and death. Sadly, most villagers did not understand the connection
between use of bacteria-laden water and illness or death. http://researchfrontiers.uark.edu/8430.htm

Superstition can prevent the individual from exploring cause and effect possibilities. Beliefs and practices that served to bind a people together can perpetuate poverty and disease when those people are confronted with the ever expanding border of the machine. The indigenous people of the Amazon are losing their hunting grounds, and their ability to pack up and move to cleaner water. The industry of the machine is consuming the forest, contaminating the water, and imposing the hierarchical ownership of property that destroys tribal life. Or maybe they're just a bunch of dumb bunnies lacking ambition to fix their water problems.

Animality

2006-05-25T11:07:00.000-07:00

We are animals, biological beings. Part of that biology is intellect. Perhaps there is something more that defines us, some spirit soul entity, but I think not. Alan Watts described the animated corpse theory in The Book. If there is a soul that exists without the body, then that is what we would be, animated corpses. But he is not denying the nonmaterial existence of individual self. He also puts forth the idea of universal self. I think of this using a radio as analogy. Consciousness exists as pontential, a signal like a band of the electromagnetic spectrum. Individualility is the reception of a limited set of frequencies focused by the pattern that makes up the individual body. I, that part of all of us that we experience as self, is produced by the interplay of the particles and field that manifest as physical reality. My particular conscious me is a station that tunes into the collection of patterns that make up me. I'll have to keep working on this to express it more elegantly.

I did not mean to get stuck on the underlying nature of existence. I sat down to write about animality. The quality of existence that is brought on by animal desire, the biological machine (one I don't recommend flipping off). But now I will spin off onto another tangent.

In my last blog, I wondered why ensuring safe drinking water for all the world's citizens is not a priority. One facet of this can be discussed through Dependency Theory. Now if Leonidas comes along and reads this, he'd probably accuse me of being a collectivist, his favorite insult. So in predefense, I'm using Dependency Theory to provide some framework for discussion. I'm certainly not advocating state control of business activity. State as umpire to the empire, let the teams play. With that out of the way, Dependency Theory provides some insight into the disparity of wealth between nations. International business activity aided by lackey government powers do indeed implement machines that keep countries impoverished. Our standard of living depends upon cheap labor and goods. Various machines built and maintained by international businesses work to keep in place policies and political structures in other nations that benefit the first world to the detriment of the vast majority of citizens in the affected third world countries. My usual example is the toppling of the democratically elected government in Guatamala by United Fruit and the CIA to prevent land reform that would've had a negative finacial impact for United Fruit and its shareholders.

Dependency Theory doesn't directly explain why so many people have unsafe drinking water (for that is the illustrative example I'm using). The lack of committed effort by the world community in ensuring ready access to a safe source of the second most important thing to human beings can be explained by the newly created Collatoral Damage Theory. This theory, which I'm making up as I write, says that in focusing on the acquistion and wealth, unintential harm is caused through neglect. The philosophical constructs necessary to be a cog in the machines described by Dependency Theory include superiority and a blame the victim. Those in the machine using these beliefs to keep their conscience at bay while they perform dehumanizing acts lack motivation to provide safe water. If you're engaged in mining activity that is polluting the local water supply, you'd have to admit that your action is causing a problem before you'd be willing to take steps to protect the water. In order for it to be a problem, you'd have to care about the people who's water supply it is. So you just don't think about it and continue to do the work because it's creating wealth and wealth is good for everybody. The disease caused by the polluted water is Collatoral Damage, and the perpetuators need to deny personal ownership of the sorrow in order to continue to commit the acts.

All just thought. No new research was conducted on the formation of these opinions.

Attempting to continue

2006-05-24T10:14:00.000-07:00

This is likely to be a lousy post, but I'm really wanting to get on with this project. This is meant to be an essay on The Machine, and how to flip it off.

The last meaningful book I read was The Tao of Physics so I'm currently thinking of things at the particle/wave level. At some point I should create a post of definitions, since I make up terms to express what exists in my thought world, my interpretations of my perceptions. Since language is not the reality to which it refers, but meant to connect people by creating shared perspective, I have no qualms about creating argot (thanks to the ridiculous Leonidas for turning me on to this word).

The Machine is the underlying workings of the social constructs we function within. It is an analogy of how society works. People are the parts of The Machine. Enlightenment is awakening and becominng a cognizant functioning component of The Machine, gaining self awareness and ability to direct one's role. I love the scene in The Matrix when Neo is awoken from his role as a battery and is discarded by the machines.

The Machine seeks to dehumanize us to support a hierarchical power structure. Take for example the stock exchange. People wish to gain wealth simply by having wealth to invest. What does it really contribute? The pushing of paper generating wealth seems absolutely absurd to me. An even more insidious example is the lottery. Pooling a bunch of money together to generate more money, and paying out huge sums to a few and small sums to a few more to keep it going, it's an expression of dehuminization. And even more insidious example is Fear Factor. Humiliate yourself by eating gross stuff, and taking fake risks to entertain the sordid desires of the public for the chance to win money. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

It has been estimated that roughly 60 per cent of the global burden of disease from acute respiratory infections, 90 per cent from diarrhoeal disease, 50 per cent from chronic respiratory conditions and 90 per cent from malaria could be avoided by simple environmental interventions.
http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2001/english/ch05.html

The energy spent on Fear Factor could instead be spent on providing clean water for suffering people. Why isn't wanting to ensure that all peoples on the planet have access to clean water a priority? Hopefully in my next post, I will explore some possible reasons we're willing to let others suffer needlessly, or even worse, deliberately perpetuate suffering.

I'm baack

2006-05-17T09:44:00.000-07:00

I've been out of it for a long time now. Last night, I watched a show on FSTV about a reporter whose name I can't remember that has been covering Iraq as an unembbedded reporter. I was able to sit through the whole thing. What I gathered from it is: we're fucked. We have screwed those people so incredibly inhumanely that we'll have enemies for many generations. Sad beyond sad.

Did I miss something? Why the recent interest in border patrol and immigration? Did some big thing happen, or is it just another distraction?

Climate change, hot air or hot air?

2006-03-27T16:15:00.000-08:00

I am concerned about what I've read and heard about global warming, the greenhouse effect, climate change, and whatever else it's called. I'm beginning to question why I believe that it's happening and if human activity is involved. In order to have a meaningful understanding of it, apparantly I have to be able to understand hundreds of pages of writing such as this:

Any human-induced changes in climate will be embedded in a
background of natural climatic variations that occur on a whole
range of time- and space-scales. Climate variability can occur as a
result of natural changes in the forcing of the climate system, for
example variations in the strength of the incoming solar radiation
and changes in the concentrations of aerosols arising from volcanic
eruptions. Natural climate variations can also occur in the absence
of a change in external forcing, as a result of complex interactions
between components of the climate system, such as the coupling
between the atmosphere and ocean. The El Niño-Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon is an example of such natural
“internal” variability on interannual time-scales. To distinguish
anthropogenic climate changes from natural variations, it is necessary
to identify the anthropogenic “signal” against the background
“noise” of natural climate variability.

source: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/wg1ts.pdf

From the minimal research I've done, it appears that those who say climate change is happening and human activity is involved appear more credible than those who do not believe it.

Clarification and various thoughts

2006-03-26T09:04:00.000-08:00

I didn't take the time to look up collectivism, and instead chose to use my own definition. See the exchange here and here for background. Now that I have a well written definition, I must humbly bow out of those exchanges and move on to exploring my own ideas, and return to the goal of this blog. Thank you Leondias for taking the time to speak thoughtfully with me.

A brief note on my background and intentions. I have limited education, and have done minimal nonfiction reading (at least of a political/sociological nature). I have a lazy habit of not looking up words I don't know, and instead guess at the meaning in context, and have I suppose created my own argot, though it's not a secret vocabulary, and I'm the only one who uses it. My goal is to explore my own thoughts, dreams, and ideas, to compose a description of the world from my own perception, imagination, and viewpoint. I enjoy logically sound exchanges with other bloggers because it helps me improve my communication skills, makes me aware of my misperceptions, and it's fun, staves off loneliness (except when it makes it worse). I can't stand discussion riddled with fallacies. My contributions are constructs of my own mind built with borrowed and stolen ideas, but I'm fully committed to seeking to reveal truth. What does that mean? Well, I think I have a new goal for this post.

What is the truth, and how can we speak of it? How can I resist the parable of the blind men and the elephant:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

We post on these blogs our responses to something we read or hear, or there's that crew that seem to only comment on another blogger's posts. Fred keeps his blog focused by expressing a libertartian view on local issues, and he's willing to concede a point, giving (at least the appearance) that he's interested in meaningful dialogue. We post, but what are we accomplishing? What do we reveal? I would like to perceive the truth, and discuss with others who share that goal.

From the Tao te Ching:

The tao that can be described
is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be spoken
is not the eternal Name.

What is truth? I like the archaic definition: "sincerity in action, character, and utterance," but the truth I seek in blogging is: "the body of real things, events, and facts." That is difficult to achieve when we're discussing political policy such as campaign finance. Should local candidates be allowed to receive donations from nonlocal source? What are the pros and cons of the issue? I have a strong opinion, but it's not based on a researched understanding. I absolutely favor allowing "outside" donations into our local elections. My reasoning is, this is a poor county, and we could really use the money. I'm not too concerned with some rich out of town entity buying our local representatives because I think there's enough voters here that see it similiar to me. If somebody from out of town is spending a lot of money on one side of an issue, that's usually enough reason for me to vote the other way. Ah but I digress. What is the truth of campaign finance? The truth isn't necessarily in that issue. The truth lies in the reasons for the existence of government (I love that phrase, "the truth lies"). Before one can venture a meaningful opinion on whether the candidates for District Attorney should be allowed to accept donations from out of town sources, one must understand the need for the DA, and understand what kind of person is needed to maximize the quality of the office as it currently stands. By meaningful opinion, I mean one that rightfully addresses the truth of the situation. Is the office of the DA faithfully executing the duties of representing the people in prosecuting law breakers in a cost effective manner? What improvements could be made and who is most likely to implement those improvements? Does a candidate have sufficient ethical development to carry out the duties with integrity? The issue of campaign finance only plays a part if the voters base their decision on who spent the most money. It can also play a part if the cost of running prevents any but an elite few from having a chance at winning office, but I don't see that as the case in our local elections.

I've taken on to broad a subject and have wandered off this trail and that. To bring this post to a close, I refer back to the quote from the Tao te Ching. Although the eternal nature of truth prevents us from fully grasping it, there is still value in seeking reveal it in discussion. I wonder where my head will be next time I sit down to post. Now it is time to be a father.

Duality models, false dilemmas, human nature

2006-03-17T12:25:00.000-08:00

Leondias posted this comment on my other blog:

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be
controlled and those who have no such desire." Robert Heinlein

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Which was a continuation of the comments on Fred's Blog

Models can aid in facilitating discussion of an issue, in this case, the political spectrum. But a model is not the reality, and extrapolation isn't always valid. A duality model, such as left/right, individualist/collectivist can give some insight into a single issue. That's what Fred was doing, giving his position on various issues, liberal on same sex marriage, conservative on forestry practices, etc. The duality model breaks down when applied to multiple issues, as Fred illustrated. It becomes a false dilemma, which is what the Heinlen quote above is. If those are my only two choices, the two horns of the bull, controlling people or not, then I choose the third option: throw the bull out. There are issues where I think the collective should exercise control on the individual, and other issues where the individual's choice should take precedent. On abortion, I firmly believe in the individual's choice. On pollution, the collective need should override the individual's freedom; if you're car is burning oil and leaving a blue plume trail, get it fixed or off the road. If I'm waving my freak flag and banging my guitar and lambasting establishment, be entertained or leave me alone. But if I'm delusionally paranoid and suicidal, please 5150 me. When I come down, I'll be glad to be alive.

A good friend used for the thesis of his final essay on human nature for sociology the following. "Humans, by nature, are diverse." Duality models have their use, but please don't diminish the richness of our diversity by simplifying everything with either/or mentality. At the very least, it makes for boring dialogue.

My apathy continues

2006-03-10T09:12:00.000-08:00

I saw the headline that South Dakato has banned abortion. With Alito on the Supreme Court, looks like the anti-abortion interests are setting the stage to outlaw abortion. I can't even muster the gumption to express my disgust at the impratical minds that believe that banning abortion will improve the world. The rich get richer, the poor get superstitious, and the middle watch fear factor. The machine grinds on spewing forth bits of bone and brain flesh. My finger raises half up half heartedly, obscured by the exhaust.

I will rule the world

2006-03-03T16:05:00.000-08:00

I picked up a paper for the first time in a long time (other than to do the crossword, the jumble, or read the comics). It was a Lumberjack. There was a question they asked several students and printed their responses. The question was, “what is your diabolic plan to take over the world?” Here’s my response:

I would acquire a company that profited from war to generate capital. I would engage in covert activities to perpetuate war. I would use the capital to acquire property rights or political control of as many of the world’s freshwater sources as possible. I would also purchase and expand business activities that perpetuate global warming. I would aggressively squash efforts to develop desalination technology. As the freshwater supply dwindles due to ice melting, I would control the world. The only thing more fundamental than water is air.

An old unedited rambling

2006-02-27T16:33:00.000-08:00

I found this file I wrote last May. Since I've got nothing else to offer my nonexistent blogging fans, I decided to post this:

I find myself discouraged and saddened most of my idle time. I'm ok when I'm engaged in activity that requires my concentration, activity that can hold my concentration, but when my mind has time to free float, it is a form of despair that occupies it. It's not the particular issue that I'm thinking of at the time that is the source of despair. My obsession in the moment with that problem is caused by the underlying despair. I suppose the root cause is the ugliness inherent in the human condition, but it’s difficult to accept it as inevitable and natural.

I keep believing that people could behave differently and lessen the injustice, reduce the suffering. The disparity of wealth seems such an obvious source of social woe. If the wealthiest world citizens would devote a share of their resources to addressing social problems, not just expenditures in direct intervention, but investment into long-term solutions. Not giving fish, and not just teaching how to fish, but also providing access to maintained fishing grounds; providing trained caretakers of those grounds, which means there must be funded training programs; providing continuing research.

Microsoft has numerous employees spending a large number of hours producing software improvements. If 10% of their workforce were diverted to developing a healthcare system for a target population, a pilot program would result that could dramatically improve health and reduce costs. The methods developed could then be adapted to other populations.

But why would a large corporation divert their resources to solving social problems? It would cut into profit margins, impact their competitiveness, and not serve their primary mission: making money. A business engages in activity to produce income. Microsoft creates software to make money, not to promote social good. Social good only comes into the activities of business as a selling point. Benefiting people is a side effect of the business goal; a company only benefits people because that’s how they can get money, not because their motivation is to improve society. What does motivate people?

Human desire is composed of a varying set of interests that interact to create and drive the personality. And there is will, the part of the individual that can make choice. The internal factors are subjected to external influences, and the interaction of all these influences play out over time and create the individual. A balanced individual uses willpower to surf in the winds of internal and external drives and achieve goals. Insufficient willpower and inaccuracies of perception results in imbalance, and limits the ability to set and reach goals. The nature of goals dictates a large part of the human condition. People mostly, if not always, act in their own self interest, or what they perceive. They set goals and take action to fulfill desires. A corporation consists of a group of people with a defined set of behaviors focused on achieving goals to fulfill desires. The primary desire is to accumulate wealth. Wealth is a component of the social power structure.

The social power structure is created by social contract amongst the willing and invested players, and by coercion of the reluctant and unwilling. Wealth is a means of divvying up resources, both materials and service. The more accumulated wealth an individual or group has, the more resources they can acquire and control, the more service they can engage, and this in turn creates influence. A corporation with vast wealth has vast influence. Much of that influence is used to maintain existing wealth and acquire more.

Symbolic wealth—paper money, electronic numbers, stocks, etc., have no actual value without a functioning market in which to trade. Money’s value is an illusion, and the illusion must be maintained, or the wealth has no value. So it is in the interest of the individuals accumulating wealth to play by rules to maintain order, so they can place orders for goods and services their wealth. When the goods and services that businesses create fulfill an actual need, they benefit society, and the business profits, and the relationship is healthy. Food, medicine, and health related products improve the quality of life. Communication and transportation increase the sophistication of the community. Construction provides a quality of shelter.

Ridicule

2006-02-23T16:18:00.000-08:00

Ah, the habit of making fun of others. "Wow, she shouldn't wear those pants. See how the rolls of fat spill over the waistband." It's a popular pastime. But it's one I cannot deal with. I'm capable of playing, but it runs counter to my deep beliefs. My work often involves creating positive interactions with people with frustrating behaviors. Getting in the habit of ridiculing the ridiculus would make my job harder. John Cusak said of Gene Hackman "he doesn't suffer fools." I acknowledge and accept that there are those who can't if they are to reach their goals, to protect themselves, or other motives. But for me, I see it as a task of my life, to suffer fools. Rarely do I find nonfools who will suffer my suffering of fools.

A mechanized way to create manifestos

2006-02-23T15:56:00.000-08:00

http://contraintes.inria.fr/bin/dada?manifesto.pb;0127105216

The link above leads to a site containing a list of 70 statements. I found it when I was looking for information to help a group of students studying sociology. It's mildly amusing existential (or as they call it now, postmodern) statements. Then I realized that they were formed by an algorithm, apparantly called the dada engine. Now there's a machine for you, one that can create manifestos. Perhaps we can look forward to a day of robotic propoganda. No longer will boys in the cigar smokey backroom write scripts for controlling the collective mind. Computers will spew out the brainwashing scripts automatically. Sociological information will be gleaned from monitoring the public spaces, phone calls, with data collection and analysis algorithms. Then this information is pushed through the manifesto generating algorithms. Out comes the talking points for public figures, the scripts for commercials and propoganda films, posters, and those signals they beam into your fillings.

"It's a fairytale for paranoids." (Trivia: Do you know what book that's from?)

Ways to flip off the machine

2006-02-10T16:12:00.000-08:00

Most machines have on them somewhere a power switch. See that it is in the off position. This is especially true for your television. Like the old joke goes, how can you tell when what's on TV is dumb violence? The power switch is in the on position.

I watch TV. I try to catch The Simpsons when I can, even the reruns. I also enjoyed South Park when I had premium cable. These shows help me take things less seriously. Occasionally I'll sit through a show like House, or Ghost Whisperer. But it almost invariably agitates my mental state, so me more than most should not watch televsion. The switching to commercials is the most agitating aspect. Gee, are my teeth white enough? Most shows perpetuate a standard of living that I will never be able to participate in, so my sense of isolation increases when I watch television.

So I try to keep the power switch in the off position, or stay in my room when it's on. I also try to keep the lights off when the room isn't in use, but I have a lot of improvement to go in this area. In my tendency to pace about and jump from one task to another, I tend to leave the lights on behind me.

This has been a silly post.

Big middle finger to S.F.

2006-02-03T09:37:00.000-08:00

http://www.times-standard.com/local/ci_3472235

Gee boys, thanks a lot. Appears S.F. officials are buying the homeless a bus ticket out of town. Although the article above doesn't mention how many people have received tickets to Humboldt county, I assume there must be some, since our reps are objecting. Kudos to Jimmy Smith and John Woolley for their classy response to inflammatory comments by San Francisco Examiner columnist, Ken Garcia. Perhaps I should do as Mr. Woolley suggested, "ignore such trivial classifications of us -- it's just something that gets in the way of us dealing with the issue.” But I just can't resist: Mr. Garcia, a one long finger salute to you, you prick.

Hey, maybe we can meet them at the bus station, and put them on a leaky boat back to Frisco...oh wait, didn't we already do that many years ago?

Changes

2006-01-26T21:11:00.000-08:00

I've deleted most of the old posts from this blog. I will attempt to focus on the project of defining the machine and identifying ways to flip it off. I left a few old ones for whatever reason happened to direct my intention when I had the choice to delete or cancel.

The human animal

2006-01-26T15:13:00.000-08:00

Now that the disturbance in my mind seems to have subsided, my chemical make up seems to have balanced, I'm hoping to continue my project of defining the machine, and discovering ways to flip it off.

Beneath our behaviors of civilized humanity, we are still animals, living organisms subject to the whims of biology. Events trigger the release of chemicals into our bloodstream, and those chemicals alter our consciousness and our behavior. The fight or flight response associated with adrenalin, useful when we are in physical danger, can cause problems in a social setting. The increased heart rate is counterproductive to civilized social negotiations. Conducting business as the hunter or the hunted may produce capital profit, but at what human cost?

Unchecked animal behaviors remove our humanity and reveal our animality (I think I just made that word up). Animality drives the people who drive the machine. Those who've surrendered to the machine, who've accepted it as completely necessary, create symbols and rules to impose animal needs onto our humanity. To quote Rage Against the Machine:

You justify those that died by wearing the badge, they’re the chosen whites
Some of those that were forces are the same that bore crosses
Killing in the name of
And now you do what they told ya
Fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me

But as stated, I do not wish to rage against the machine. So instead, I say, no thank you, I'll do what my human conscience tells me to do to the best of my ability.

We are animals, and must deal with the animal realities. But we are also humans, and can strive to transcend animality and behave as civilized humanity. To quote Bob Dylan:

If you see your neighbor carrying something, help him with his load
And don't go mistaking paradise, for that home across the road

Not all temporary taxes become permanant

2006-01-12T10:43:00.000-08:00

I was surprised when I went to purchase death certificates. The price stated on the internet was $13, and the clerk actually had me write a check for $26. Then she noticed the price went down to $12 because a temporary increase had expired. I wrote a new check for $24. I guess it does happen sometimes.

Exhaust from the machine

2005-11-07T11:01:00.000-08:00

International mono-culture is contemporary colonialism that local elites invest in and pass off as the faux-modern world. Modernist or post-modernist thinking rarely if ever marches in with the consumer goods. Hey, Enightenment thinking isn't even present in their scenario! It's no wonder that religious miltancy targets this obviously soulless invasion of capital as it is devoid even of secular self-critique. On the other hand I'm just on vacation.

This is what a friend wrote while vacationing in the middle east. The "soulless invasion of capital...", that describes the machine.

Defining the machine

2005-10-14T15:35:00.000-07:00

Do not rage against the machine, quietly flip it off. So what is "the machine?"

Here's from http://dict.die.net/machine/

machine
n 1: any mechanical or electrical device that transmits or
modifies energy to perform or assist in the performance
of human tasks
2: an intricate organization that accomplishes its goals
efficiently; "the war machine"
. . .
5: a group that controls the activities of a political party;
"he was endorsed by the Democratic machine" [syn: political
machine]

It is versions of the second definition of machine that I wish to flip off. If I can't put a stop to it, then I wish to register my displeasure:

Or

One or the other. Quietly means non violently. If the A** H*!#$s of the world won't give up being A** H*!#$s, then killing people is not going to make it better.

The machine is the greed machine that for the sake of profit dehumanizes workers. The machine is the war machine that topples democratically elected governments to replace them with greed machine friendly despots (Here's my favorite example). The machine locks the doors at the chicken factory to keep the workers from stealing and when the building catches fire, they die. (this incident is near the bottom of the linked page)

The machine is the mindset of the people who will do these things. That is what I wish to change, the mindset. I do not want to rage against the machine, for anger can become poison. But I do wish to be assertive, to have the courage to stand up, speak out, and raise my finger high at those who refuse to give up their anti-human beliefs and behaviors.

But I wish to acknowledge that nonviolence only works in specific situations. Here's a quote from George Orwell's essay on Ghandi:

"...[Ghandi] believed in "arousing the world", which is only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing. It is difficult to see how Gandhi's methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the régime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again."

I am a white male citizen of the United States, born in the 20th century, and as such I veiw the world from a vantage of privilege. It's easy for me to make this claim: I'm willing to die for my beliefs, but not to kill for them. Had I been born in Guatemala in 1935, or Palestine at anytime, or Rwanda, my outlook on life would be dramatically different. If I were to move to Darfur now, how long would I retain beliefs in nonviolence? But it is from this vantage point of privilege that I write. And this is where I shall end this segment.

Pictures used obtained from:
http://www.edserv.sjcoe.net/pdc/images/light-switch.gif
http://theruse.net/wp-gal/lostfiles/middle_finger.jpg

Remembering intent

2005-08-25T13:38:00.000-07:00

I started this blog with the idea implied by the title quote, "do not rage against the machine, quietly flip it off." But then I read numerous other blogs and my writings were reactions to those readings, sometimes directly and sometimes filtered through my mildly disassociated mind.

In my next post, I hope to begin to define the machine, but we'll see if my attention span holds.

Aren't you outraged?

2005-07-13T09:01:00.000-07:00

Our war in Iraq has increased the hatred that terrorists have towards us. It's provided training opportunities for terrorists. The terrorist threat is now greater than before 9/11. We are in a quagmire and there is no end in sight. Our troops will continue to die. And why? Why are we there?

The Administration lied. They fixed the intelligence to support their intention to invade and occupy Iraq. It's part of their grand scheme to maintain our dominance as the world's only superpower.

Rebuiding America's Defenses on page 63 of the PDF file, which is page 51 of the document, we find the following text:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

And what is this transformation? The paragraph on the end of the previous page reads:

"A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence,would be at odds with larger American policy goals..." [emphasis mine]

This is a primary motivation for the invasion of Iraq. They wish to establish a military presence in the middle east. The basic gist of this document, Rebuiding America's Defenses, is that we need a bigger, badder military in more places. That's the transformation they want. But as they state, it's going to take time without some catastrophic event. This is because the public didn't want to spend more money on the military. Since they couldn't sell their idea in a democratic fashion, they had to hijack our emotional response to the tragedy of 9/11, the "new Pearl Harbor" with lies.

"The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence." [p 62 (pdf) p 50 (document)] [emphasis mine]

That's what they want to do, "enjoy military preeminence." That's why we invaded and now occupy Iraq. It's part of their grand scheme to build new weapons and establish more bases.

Even if their vision was right, and their plan would work, I could never support it. To further their goal, they have murdered uncounted thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Not because they were a threat, but because they want more money spent on military projects and a greater military presence in the world. By attacking Iraq as our enemy, they not only get money to build more weapons, they get to try them out. And now we have troops with actual battle experience instead of just war games training.

Their vision is wrong, and their plan is not working. We're gearing up to attack an enemy who stands and fights. Our enemies don't stand and fight, they melt into the background like the Iraqi troops did when we entered Bhagdad. The threat we must address is from small, secret cells of hatred driven fanatics. Killing the children of their friends increases their hatred of us. It has increased their support, which increases the likelyhood of them acquiring WMD's. Missle defense systems do not protect us from them. They won't attack us with missles.

Lies and murder, and we're less safe. Where is your outrage?

2005-07-02T11:48:00.000-07:00

The problem with government is not that they overregulate business, the problem is that business overregulates the government. The sham California energy crisis was created because Ken Lay pushed deregulation through an assembly inexperienced due to term limits imposed by duped voters.

The greatest threat to our liberties is the relationship between greed and ignorance.

2005-06-28T12:15:00.000-07:00

Senator Durbin broke Godwin's law with his nazi comparison. It doesn't matter whether his remarks have any merit, or if he was misconstrued.

"If I read [an FBI agent's report describing detainees...as being chained to the floor without food or water in extreme temperatures] to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings."

Once he mentioned Nazis, the argument was over, and he lost. You can rightfully accuse this administration of a lot of wrong doings: lying about the reasons for his war, poor or no planning for the aftermath, creating an environment where soldiers are encouraged or at least feel free to torture prisoners, profiteering. But to call them Nazis is unjustified and damaging to the integrity of our system and diminishes the reality of the holocaust. Supporters of the war seized upon his violation of Godwin's Law, and any merit to the mistreatment of prisoners claim is completely buried under the barrage of outrage.

We have soldiers who do nasty, horrible things, and there's pictures to prove it. But you can't make the case that it's systemic problem. We should continue to express our outrage against the torture; it's not consistent with the American ideals. We must acknowledge the sincerity of the beliefs of the supporters of torture and war; they think it's necessary for our security. They're not proponents of genocide, and to call them such is unwarranted insult.

Sooner or later, I sure hope we wake up and realize the conflict is, to a great extent, about the disparity of wealth.

spelling error corrected 6/29/05

Thanks Fred

2005-06-27T16:16:00.000-07:00

I appreciate Fred mentioning me in his blog. I also appreciate his rational, respectful commentary on local issues and his own views. I prefer those who are thought provoking to those who are emotion provoking.

I started this blog as I mentioned in my first post "I came here hoping to read blogs, but being too lazy to figure that out, I ended up creating my own blog." I was looking for the blog referred to in the Times Standard that rightfully chastized a blogger for misusing an article.

I'm using this blog as an opportunity to improve my writing skills. It's also motivated me to read more and think more and to consider differing viewpoints. I do believe that J.C. Licklidder would be proud.

convictions

2005-06-09T12:33:00.000-07:00

If you've ever read The Lathe of Heavan by Ursula K. Le Guin, it'll be easier for you to understand how maintaining conviction of belief is a constant challenge and stuggle for me. I can go through an entire day holding a firm belief. But once I sleep, the belief can vanish.

This is a nice feature when the belief involves paranoia, which I'm prone to. It's nice to wake up the next day and not think SBC is refusing to switch the phone into my name because somebody in the government has altered my records in retaliation for a letter I wrote the president. As if I were important enough to matter to anybody. Perhaps paranoia is when your brain makes perfect sense out of nonsense. For me, at this (st)age, my thoughts are rarely controlled by the paranoia, it's my emotional state. I feel that it's true even though I don't think that it's true. Usually, once I sleep, it stops feeling real. Without exertion of effort, the feelings influence my choice of actions, and I say and do weird things.

When it's resolve to take some action that will improve my life, it's really frustrating for the resolve to vanish with a night's sleep. This is why my album isn't done. I'll have complete faith in my writing, then next chance I get to work on it, my own words are meaningless. One day I'll take a strong position on an issue, and formulate a statement. The next day I'll read it, and want to dispute my own claims. It's not the ideas that betray me, it's the feelings. I'd really like to trade my emotional circuits in for a less fickle model.

Their God is a deadbeat dad

2005-06-03T14:15:00.000-07:00

The way the evangelicals tell it, God is our father. They don't ever seem to mention our mother, so even though we are made in His image, we don't seem to have any of her features. Basically, this version of Christianity puts forth God using a dead beat dad model. He's our father in heaven, but there's no child support check, no visitations, no joint custody. I've often wondered (ok I really haven't), if The Bible is God's holy word, how come He never does any readings and book signings? Why, he can send His Son to die, but not to read a few chapters to His loving fans?

For more on the idea

the ethic of self interest

2005-06-03T11:20:00.000-07:00

I wrote in my philosophy that the space between your fingers is as much a part of your hand as the fingers are. By cultivating this understanding, you expand your self concept, your concept of "I." In David's blog, he posts, Ethics: Self-interest. It's a pragmatic ethic, but it's moral quality depends upon the individual's concept of self. In the extreme case of the APD, there is almost exclusively a self interest with virtually no moral quality. White (or any other racial, religious, or philosphical) supremacy members have as their core ethic self interest. To believe that our kind is superior to your kind justifies lynchings, bombings, church burnings, and plane crashings. While these groups have an expanded version of self--me and those like me--they are extreme and not supported by reasonable people. It is not them I wish to address. "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone. " Ayn Rand But I'm so intensely bothered by their existence I couldn't refrain from mentioning them.

It is those who disregard unacceptable consequences to others to promote their own self interest that I would hope to persuade to expand their self concept. When Andrew Carnegie tacitly approved the The Homestead Strike incident, he was certainly acting in his own self interest. Three pinkertons and seven laborers died because Carnegie, through Henry Clay Frick, didn't want to negotiate with workers who were acting in their own self interest. If Carnegie and Frick were to have pondered deeply the truth of the space between the fingers, they would've understood that the interests of their laborers were in fact in their own self interest. Carnegie did indeed understand the value of benefitting the masses when he founded the Carnegie Corporation. He championed the rights of workers, but crushed their unions. This is the danger of an ethic of self interest when the concept of self is too small. A corporate giant like Carnegie couldn't exist without a labor force, and yet he kept their wages low, and was willing to allow murder to get rid of a contract that essentially was profit sharing. The workers at Homestead received pay based on the current market value of their work. Why would a man who would give away a fortune for the public good, who would publicly praise workers rights, allow a murderous stoppage of reasonable worker demands? Because his belief in the ethics of his own self interest overrode his other beliefs when it came time to pay, a NIMBY reaction, workers rights, but not from my bottom line.

The larger your concept of self, the less harm you're willing to do. When a self interest ethic leads to me and my own and screw you mentality, then it is of low moral quality and harmful to collective society. The illegal dumping of toxic waste to circumvent the expense caused by environmental laws serves the self interest of the offending company, but what of the mentality of the truck driver who opens the spout? If you never personally have to drink the contaminated water, even if someone else does, have you served your self interest? Does he think, screw them damn moonbat environmentalists, I should be allowed to do what I want and keep the profits? In the case of the whistleblowing truckdriver, he thinks he has a responsibility to his community to not potentially endanger their health. He realizes he is more than himself and more than an employee of a company, he is a member of a community, and possibly he realizes he is a mammal dependent upon an environment, and a healthy environment provides a higher quality of life. Dead fish and burning rivers don't make for great vacations. He has a larger concept of self, and his ethic is of high moral quality, and he does the right thing, he blows the whistle which actually puts his self interest at risk.

It is the action of those who understand the space between their fingers that reduces suffering.

" I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together..."

My philosphy

2005-06-02T09:49:00.000-07:00

If your looking for some simplistic explanation of my philosophy that you can get in soundbite form, I belong to an obscure Bhuddist sect of which there is only one member.

If you have the fortitude to ponder and not get sucked into preprogrammed reaction, please read on.

The books that have most influenced my beliefs are: The Book (on the taboo against knowing who you are), Alan Watts; Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig; Be Here Now, Ram Das; and The Tao Te Ching, Lao-Tzu. I was raised protestant, in the Church of the Brethren. I did the ritual of accepting Jesus as my personal savior, and I cried when I did. Very interesting. I tried to devote myself to the Bible and Christianity, but as I grew, I couldn't reconcile the paradoxes inherent in that belief system. I began to ponder life through a goofy little idea called biorhythms. I've since grown out of such silliness and now say that it's like trying to predict the minute behavior of a chaotic system--give it up. But it was a turning point in my thinking. I began to perceive the world as a pulsating energy mass of never quite the same but repeating patterns. The above books gave form to these perceptions, allowed me to articulate them as a belief system.

First and foremost in my beliefs is, to paraphrase Alan Watts (or whoever he stole it from) "the thought that I am thinking is just another thought." The sensation of separateness is an illusion, an incredibly wonderfully real illusion, but it is an illusion. One way to understand this to explore the biological nature of consciousness. Thought, awareness, perception, are all created by the interaction of chemicals, receptor sites, pathways, and other mechanisms of the nervous system. In the mind of the schizophrenic, realities can be perceived, and they are real, but only to the mind of the schizophrenic because of some imbalance of chemicals produced by the body. Take it even deeper, to the atomic level. All of these mechanisms of consciousness, and of the world consciousness perceives, are in turn the product of the interplay of neutrons, protons, electrons, energy fields, probability patterns, and other terms from quantum physics. You think that you are this being perceiving an external reality, and please continue to do so. But also try to realize that it's all a vibrating dance of energy, and your sense of being separate from what you perceive is just a trick of the light. The space between your fingers is as much a part of your hand as the fingers are.

Exploring the mechanisms of self awareness can leave me feeling cold and detached. This is where Pirsig's model comes in to play. In ZATAOMM (I think you can figure it out) he describes classical and romantic knowledge using a train metaphor. Classical knowledge is the train itself, the track the train is on, all the cargo on the train, all the parts, fuel, oil, and all the principals and laws that make those things work. Romantic knowledge is two milliseconds in front of the splash guard as the train races down the track. Classical knowledge is taught in school, studied in libraries, preached from pulpits, explored in laboratories, is in the realm of reason and logic. Romantic knowledge is intuition, excitement, it is Bhudda nature, bliss, orgasm, the Tao, experienced in the perfect guitar solo, the brush strokes that separates Van Gogh's work from mine. Romantic knowledge is difficult to quantify, and is perhaps the antithesis of quantification. You have to sense it pre-thought, an anxious free anticipation of the reality that's about to manifest. To maximize your potential, be a perpetual student of both classical and romantic knowledge. To make music with programmable equipment, one must have an understanding of the equipment and it's programming language, classical knowledge. One must also have an "ear" an "feel" for "it," that which separates quality music from the mediocre and worse, romantic knowledge. Classical and romantic knowledge are two complimentary models of understanding the nature of existence.

If you become aware that existence is an illusion, then you risk the danger of existential despair, or worse, post modernism. Actually what is worse is the development of amoral behaviors. If it's an illusion, does it matter if you rob, cheat, steal, lie, kill, rape? Yes, obviously there is something the matter with these and other anti-social behaviors. We form social contracts and pass laws against them and maintain systems of justice to deal with them. Moral sense is built into the illusion. It's important to accept that it is a very real illusion. It's a live interactive play in which you are a performer, and so is everybody and everything else. It is not being filmed for later viewing, nor will it play again. For the individual you, what you refer to as me, it's a one time deal, and the only way to exit the theater in which it's playing is to shut down the mechanisms of perception, commonly referred to as death. Until you die, consider the illusion real. So why develop awareness of the illusion at all? Because of an incredibly complex process called choice.

"But we already know what you are going to do, don't we? Already I can see the chain reaction: the chemical precursors that signal the onset of an emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic and reason. An emotion that is already blinding you to the simple and obvious truth..." The Architect (Matrix Reloaded)

I believe that we do have choice, but that choice is limited by many influences including "...the onset of an emotion...". You are a boat on the river of life, and fate is the current of the river and the wind. Choice is the rudder, the boom, the oars. In order to have choice in life, you must manifest as a being that can trim the sail or turn the rudder or pull the oars of your boat. Choice is a limited activity. You can't choose what happens, but you can choose how you react. Choice is an attitude. Another way to discuss choice is by exploring the nature v. nurture debate. What choice you have is dictated in part by your biochemical makeup. If you have a mental illness, your choices are different than if you are a gifted prodigy. The blind have different choices than the deaf. Whatever the nature, it's the nurture we must focus on if we're to have any influence on the illusion. You have to believe that you can change, or you will sabotage any effort you make in order to change. To manifest the being that can steer the boat of your life, that is an important purpose of having a belief system. Get in touch with the true nature of the character that you are in the unfolding story of life.

Some closing thoughts. For the simple dogmatic approach, which is often handy, I use a Bhuddist model. Life is suffering, (but also blissful). Desire is the root of suffering (but also of bliss). Releasing attachment to desire reduces suffering (cultivating healthy desire increases bliss). The way to release attachment to desire (and cultivate healthy desire) is the eightfold path. But being rather lazy, I have a one step eightfold path: do the right thing. If you pay attention, you know what's right. I recommend a scientific method approach to paying attention.

For the less dogmatic approach, don't oversimplify anything. Moral certitude is as dangerous as amorality. You really don't know much of anything for certain, but you must usually act as if you do. It's a high-wire balancing act. Proceed as if you won't fall off, but constantly, and as automatically as possible, adjust your balance. Read, write, talk, think, explore, experiment. Be willing to discard anything and equally willing to hold onto it with fervor, whatever the need may be to the best of your present ability.

UnIntelliegent Design

2005-05-27T13:24:00.000-07:00

I'll study the Intelligent Design theory when the Designer teaches the course. I'm not going to listen to a bunch of fanatic hacks who've never met the Designer or any apprentice, pupil, or intern of the Designer. And how come it is that they don't believe that evolution is the design?

draft or worse?

2005-05-25T09:53:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking that we'll be seeing a draft sometime soon, like shortly after another terrorist attack on US soil or other public outrage causing event (POCE). Now I'm starting to think it's even worse. That the corps will push the mass of america into poverty and sweeten the offerings of military service combined with massive propaganda pushes to enlist including POCE. This way, they avoid having to cheat on the draft to keep their own sons and daughters out of harms way. The working class of the US will become thugs for the corps.

message to the void

2005-05-24T13:18:00.000-07:00

I came here hoping to read blogs, but being too lazy to figure that out, I ended up creating my own blog. If this is like everything else in my life, it won't last. I'll post a little while then lose interest or faith or whatever it is I lose that causes me to give up anything other than what is required. No but wait, maybe this is it. Maybe I'll actually get on the path to my goals and stay on it. Progress will happen. There will be longevity to my intention. Yeah, right, how many times have I felt that before? Why is the front page only a way to open your own blog? Where are the other blogs?

Do not rage against the machine, quietly flip it off.

about me

2003-02-16T11:02:00.000-08:00

Education: I have an A.A. degree, and a Certificate of Achievement in CIS Programming. My programming was DOS based, and I failed to keep up with the times, so my skills are fairly useless. I do not have a high school diploma. I have read a lot, listened a lot, talked a lot, and thought a lot, and continue to do so. I do attempt to spell correctly, and observe the rules of grammar, but these are secondary to the message. If a run on sentence conveys my intent, then run on I will. If you find that my list lacks parallelism, I respectfully request that you get over it. Don’t shoot the messenger’s grammar.

Religion: I grew up attending Church of the Brethren, in California. My mother, bless her, was my Sunday school teacher part of that time. I attended bible study groups at church. A few times in my youth, I became actively devoted to Christianity. I now belong to an obscure Buddhist sect of which there is only one member. Some basic precepts of this system of belief are: humor, humility, and that I am personally responsible for the human condition, and so are you. Stephen Gaskin said, “We are this season’s people. If we blow it, that’s it, it’s blown.”

Politics: I am a knee-jerk, fundamentalist Anarchist; I don’t need a cop to tell me what to do. I try always to do the right thing for the greatest number. Whenever someone starts telling me the rules, my stomach starts hurting. That being said, I believe that democracy is the best available system to achieve the goals of Anarchy: personal responsibility by all. Anarchy is the forest in which we live; Democracy is the best path in the forest. I vote in every election, and try to understand the issues I vote on. I vote Democrat, because what other choice do I have. I wish we had a parliamentary system. I am an American by birth, and by culture, but I identify myself as an Earthling. I am loyal to all who work for peace and justice, regardless of nationality. I am the enemy of those who subvert peace and justice, regardless of nationality.

Personal Data: Born the year JFK was shot. Six feet tall. As of this writing, 170bs. Self-diagnosed as mildly schizophranic and prone to occasional bouts of paranoia, mild hallucinations and reality rifts.

I am not an expert of anything. The essays you read on this blog are my opinions and ideas. I won’t promise that I’ve got the facts right, but I will always be honest in my attempt to be accurate. I make mistakes for various reasons, and I never know for sure if my source of information is reliable. If I read it in the newspaper, that doesn’t make it true. Hopefully, you already know these things, but I wanted to make it clear. I constantly try to humble myself because I have a tendency to be arrogant, but that’s only because I really am better than you (wink, wink) And finally, I’m not a sports fan, I rarely watch, but baseball is the best sport.