In the past few years (2005-2008) we have seen the price of gas skyrocket to $4+ a gallon as the oil companies were taking record profits and giving billion dollar bonuses to there executives. By itself a company making a profit is not such a strange thing. But when one looks at the economy now and see the federal government bailing out "private" industry, one must ask how long has this economic disaster been known about by those economist that work for these corporate leviathans and the federal government.
It would appear they have known for several years that this global fiat financial system was collapsing, but could do nothing to effect a better outcome. Instead the oil companies just started to take profits. The unfortunate side effect was the auto industry going out of business... without another GOV bailout that is.
It seems to me a bit strange that the oil companies would put there good friends in Detroit out of business. After all they have a semi-symbiotic relationship. The auto industry and oil companies have always been partners why would they destroy such a relationship?
The answer seems to be that these economists have known of the collapse for some time and planned the profit taking of the gas industry at the expense of thier good friends in the auto industry. The auto industry is too big to fail due to the amount of Americans it employs and so they would be able to get a bailout.
If one makes the argument that the car companies went out of business due to they were making gas guzzling SUVs. I have to point out we were preparing for war with Iraq since the Clinton administration (1998 via a Team B report. Team B was founded in the 70s and included such 'luminaries' as Daniel Pearl, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and several others.)
This war prep was going to have to include making some heavy vehicles to wage war in, and a small car factory would be hard to retool into a Hummer factory. So they were only making these vehicles to assure Gov. contracts for war vehicles.
So will the bailout happen? Yes.
But I do not believe it matter very much. I see the above as an indicator of the state of the American economy. After all I don't see these corporations purposefully burning down the house they live in unless it is a last resort.
So do the oil companies, and large corporations, see the end of American economic strength? Are they just doing what they can to amass wealth before it is all worth less... or nothing? Are we going the way of Mexico?
Monday, January 5, 2009
Thursday, April 17, 2008
American Revolution 2008
April 17, 2008: revision of "election prediction" blog
Now that I see the following will likely never come to be I can see another worse outcome. Last night in the Pennsylvania debate between Obama and Clinton, the moderator asked Clinton "When Bill Richardson called you to tell you he was endorsing Obama you told him 'Obama cant win'. Mrs Clinton what did you mean ..." Her response was to question Obamas patriotism and past relations which he has already over-justified... repeatedly.
At the time of this phone call she was, and still is, nearly mathematically impossible to win the nomination. Further Obama is polling better than Mrs Clinton against their Republican opponent. Why would she say this if she knows the facts?
Maybe she 'knows' something we dont. Like he will not be allowed to win. That is if she does not get the nomination and it looks like he will beat the Republican, he will be killed. Bush would postpone the election and continue to wage his Iran/q war and may even declare martial law. He has spent 7 years preparing for it.
He has created are over 600 fully staffed, mostly under FEMA jurisdiction, holding facilities for 'evacuation.' They are estimated to be capable of holding between 8 to 12 million citizens in total. But from what I have seen, at least some are for keeping folks in and they appear to be prisons, by design. At the risk of sounding like Nazi Germany... they also seem to be isolated in geography and linked to the railroads.
The bright side is... at least the troops would start to come home. After all they will need to use their new skills learned in the Iraq occupation to fight the American revolution that may happen when we the people get fed up. But history shows the mass of Americans will roll over to whatever Bush does.
The rest can be easily put away as 'security risks' due to the brand new "homegrown terrorist prevention act".
I also suspect the tax rebates are a means to acquire names and addresses of as many tax avoiders as possible. Many of which know the constitution (a document that is liken to kriptonite to the Bush administration) and their rights and thus, dont pay taxes. These citizens could be the leaders of anti-fascist rebellion.
I got this suspicion when I saw Bush say " ...even if you have not filed in years, just write your name and address on a tax form and we will send you your rebate."
I guess I am truly suspicious of everything this man says... my fault.
But what we the people need is a president that makes politics a daily concern of the common man. A man thats words inspire us to action and participation in our governing. Obama could potentially change the face of America for ever, and this can not be allowed by those in power.
They rely on the masses not participating and not educating themselves on issues. They thrive on dividing us on countless pointless issues that effect nothing globally while they take control of the world.
Obama would put the 30+ years of of Regan created economy (borrowing rather than taxing) into doubt. For thisI think he has a bullseye on his head. This is why Clinton said "He cant win."
This is not a prediction like the below 'election blog'. But is just a notice that all the dominoes are in place for the United States to put down a rebellion of its own citizens or declare a state of martial law. And Bush and Cheney are scary people that may do this.
Now that I see the following will likely never come to be I can see another worse outcome. Last night in the Pennsylvania debate between Obama and Clinton, the moderator asked Clinton "When Bill Richardson called you to tell you he was endorsing Obama you told him 'Obama cant win'. Mrs Clinton what did you mean ..." Her response was to question Obamas patriotism and past relations which he has already over-justified... repeatedly.
At the time of this phone call she was, and still is, nearly mathematically impossible to win the nomination. Further Obama is polling better than Mrs Clinton against their Republican opponent. Why would she say this if she knows the facts?
Maybe she 'knows' something we dont. Like he will not be allowed to win. That is if she does not get the nomination and it looks like he will beat the Republican, he will be killed. Bush would postpone the election and continue to wage his Iran/q war and may even declare martial law. He has spent 7 years preparing for it.
He has created are over 600 fully staffed, mostly under FEMA jurisdiction, holding facilities for 'evacuation.' They are estimated to be capable of holding between 8 to 12 million citizens in total. But from what I have seen, at least some are for keeping folks in and they appear to be prisons, by design. At the risk of sounding like Nazi Germany... they also seem to be isolated in geography and linked to the railroads.
The bright side is... at least the troops would start to come home. After all they will need to use their new skills learned in the Iraq occupation to fight the American revolution that may happen when we the people get fed up. But history shows the mass of Americans will roll over to whatever Bush does.
The rest can be easily put away as 'security risks' due to the brand new "homegrown terrorist prevention act".
I also suspect the tax rebates are a means to acquire names and addresses of as many tax avoiders as possible. Many of which know the constitution (a document that is liken to kriptonite to the Bush administration) and their rights and thus, dont pay taxes. These citizens could be the leaders of anti-fascist rebellion.
I got this suspicion when I saw Bush say " ...even if you have not filed in years, just write your name and address on a tax form and we will send you your rebate."
I guess I am truly suspicious of everything this man says... my fault.
But what we the people need is a president that makes politics a daily concern of the common man. A man thats words inspire us to action and participation in our governing. Obama could potentially change the face of America for ever, and this can not be allowed by those in power.
They rely on the masses not participating and not educating themselves on issues. They thrive on dividing us on countless pointless issues that effect nothing globally while they take control of the world.
Obama would put the 30+ years of of Regan created economy (borrowing rather than taxing) into doubt. For thisI think he has a bullseye on his head. This is why Clinton said "He cant win."
This is not a prediction like the below 'election blog'. But is just a notice that all the dominoes are in place for the United States to put down a rebellion of its own citizens or declare a state of martial law. And Bush and Cheney are scary people that may do this.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Balance of Power
I dont claim to be anything more than self educated on the US Constitution. But by reading it, and the history of the folks that wrote it, I came to realize its 'spirit' and the myriad of law it has spawned have little to do with one another. The simple fact that the entire document is absolutely dependent on all of its parts.
For example, the right to bear arms is only needed if we dont have an army but for 2 year stints when needed and approved by congress, as the constitution states. The powers of the branches balancing each others. And perhaps the most important part, the 10th amendment:
...
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...
The reason it is not a complex document that has voluminous explanations for each article is clear if you dont look at each article as a separate entity, but an interconnected web of perfect balance. But there was a fundamental flaw in the logic of the founding fathers.
They wrote it assuming the states and individuals in the different branches would fight tooth and nail not to loose any of their powers derived from the constitution. They did not count on the current trend of humanity of safe absolution reflected in the consolidation of states powers to the Federal Government and the federal branches yielding powers to the Executive branch. Modern political figures are more concerned with their position and not the powers of governing it infers.
In recent decades we have seen the power to declare wars, regulate the presidents appointments and executive power acquisition and even stop a/any war being given away by the congress, the power to regulate our own economy by giving it to the Federal Reserve Bank, the power to investigate any member of the executive branch and the judicial branch is unchecked by the Attorney General (presidential appointment, congress approves... because they fear the alternatives and dont wanna stay in session to prevent the president from appointing one in their absence) are just a few of the easier to grasp and more recent constitutional "over-sites".
But maybe the most important problem we have is this standing, volunteer, professional army that mitigates the effect of war on the populace. The constitution states in article I, section 8:
...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
...
If you think this would leave the whole of America open to invasion you would be correct, if you dont observer the second amendment: The Right to Bear Arms.
...
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Rome had a professional army and a vast nation to spread it into. The cost became prohibited and ultimately left them militarily and economically weak and helped in no small way in its destruction. The US has a far greater empire. We use this standing army to occupy bases in over 130 nations and wage wars while insulating the public at home to the severity of the event by acting without a draft (mandated by the constitution to raise an army).
If we needed to have a draft to have a war we would not have attacked Iraq and we would not be getting ready for Iran now (I say we attack before July 10, 2008.) The congress would have a reason to insist on voting for or against a declaration of war issued by the executive branch. This power is fundamental to balancing the branches of the government.
Unfortunately it has become painfully apparent to me that congress is not acting on our behalf but on their own desire to maintain position. Given at this time the congress is split too closely to get anything done, this should not have stopped Democrats from stopping all the financing of the Bush, Cheney plan of empire.
Here is what it comes down to in my view. The Democrats and the Republicans are different faces to the same monster. They dont want to give us more freedoms or liberties. They dont have any real goals except feeding us the illusion of choice. They work together to consolidate power into a bigger government. The Republicans claim "small government" is their goal... but this leads to monopolies and then often price gouging.
When you throw Insurance companies into the mix, then the services they cover quickly become unavailable to any without the insurance due to the amount the insured industries can get from the insurance companies. Then we elect a Democrat and they tend to take over or regulate (bad for small business) the insured and/or over-costly private industry and call them 'the commons'.
The escalating cost of security and military budgets are quickly overshadowing all industries they come in contact with. But the government is right there to bail out airlines and banks and thus gain regulatory powers over them.
But now cost is no object to us due to our Federal Reserve Bank. When this private bank makes a loan to our government (charging interest) it doesnt just devalue the dollar in your pocket, but changes the balance of wealth from the citizens to the government and/or military. This is not sustainable. But in an effort to sustain our economic viability, our government gave regulatory powers over our economy to the Federal Reserve... once again A PRIVATE BANK.
I feel kinda off while writing this (scatterbraind) so I will edit and finish it!
For example, the right to bear arms is only needed if we dont have an army but for 2 year stints when needed and approved by congress, as the constitution states. The powers of the branches balancing each others. And perhaps the most important part, the 10th amendment:
...
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...
The reason it is not a complex document that has voluminous explanations for each article is clear if you dont look at each article as a separate entity, but an interconnected web of perfect balance. But there was a fundamental flaw in the logic of the founding fathers.
They wrote it assuming the states and individuals in the different branches would fight tooth and nail not to loose any of their powers derived from the constitution. They did not count on the current trend of humanity of safe absolution reflected in the consolidation of states powers to the Federal Government and the federal branches yielding powers to the Executive branch. Modern political figures are more concerned with their position and not the powers of governing it infers.
In recent decades we have seen the power to declare wars, regulate the presidents appointments and executive power acquisition and even stop a/any war being given away by the congress, the power to regulate our own economy by giving it to the Federal Reserve Bank, the power to investigate any member of the executive branch and the judicial branch is unchecked by the Attorney General (presidential appointment, congress approves... because they fear the alternatives and dont wanna stay in session to prevent the president from appointing one in their absence) are just a few of the easier to grasp and more recent constitutional "over-sites".
But maybe the most important problem we have is this standing, volunteer, professional army that mitigates the effect of war on the populace. The constitution states in article I, section 8:
...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
...
If you think this would leave the whole of America open to invasion you would be correct, if you dont observer the second amendment: The Right to Bear Arms.
...
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
...
Rome had a professional army and a vast nation to spread it into. The cost became prohibited and ultimately left them militarily and economically weak and helped in no small way in its destruction. The US has a far greater empire. We use this standing army to occupy bases in over 130 nations and wage wars while insulating the public at home to the severity of the event by acting without a draft (mandated by the constitution to raise an army).
If we needed to have a draft to have a war we would not have attacked Iraq and we would not be getting ready for Iran now (I say we attack before July 10, 2008.) The congress would have a reason to insist on voting for or against a declaration of war issued by the executive branch. This power is fundamental to balancing the branches of the government.
Unfortunately it has become painfully apparent to me that congress is not acting on our behalf but on their own desire to maintain position. Given at this time the congress is split too closely to get anything done, this should not have stopped Democrats from stopping all the financing of the Bush, Cheney plan of empire.
Here is what it comes down to in my view. The Democrats and the Republicans are different faces to the same monster. They dont want to give us more freedoms or liberties. They dont have any real goals except feeding us the illusion of choice. They work together to consolidate power into a bigger government. The Republicans claim "small government" is their goal... but this leads to monopolies and then often price gouging.
When you throw Insurance companies into the mix, then the services they cover quickly become unavailable to any without the insurance due to the amount the insured industries can get from the insurance companies. Then we elect a Democrat and they tend to take over or regulate (bad for small business) the insured and/or over-costly private industry and call them 'the commons'.
The escalating cost of security and military budgets are quickly overshadowing all industries they come in contact with. But the government is right there to bail out airlines and banks and thus gain regulatory powers over them.
But now cost is no object to us due to our Federal Reserve Bank. When this private bank makes a loan to our government (charging interest) it doesnt just devalue the dollar in your pocket, but changes the balance of wealth from the citizens to the government and/or military. This is not sustainable. But in an effort to sustain our economic viability, our government gave regulatory powers over our economy to the Federal Reserve... once again A PRIVATE BANK.
I feel kinda off while writing this (scatterbraind) so I will edit and finish it!
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Worlds Smallest Political Quiz
Here is a link to the website that will ask you ten simple questions and score your political stance on a 2D graph style view as opposed to a single line, left being (liberals) and right (conservatives).
This distorted, 1D, view of our political options is part of a framing attempt by politicians to keep us, as a nation, believing in a two party system. In reality I believe a three or four party system would be very healthy.
The problem as I see it... the Democrats and the Republicans both want to marginalize the Libertarians due to they benefit from a large and or authoritarian government more than they would from the Libertarian views of a constitutional government.
Worlds Smallest Political Quiz <==(off-site link)
Please leave comments to tell me what you think and how you score.
I got a 80% & 80% (in the middle of Libertarian)
The first time I took the quiz (a year ago) I got a 90% & 100%.
This distorted, 1D, view of our political options is part of a framing attempt by politicians to keep us, as a nation, believing in a two party system. In reality I believe a three or four party system would be very healthy.
The problem as I see it... the Democrats and the Republicans both want to marginalize the Libertarians due to they benefit from a large and or authoritarian government more than they would from the Libertarian views of a constitutional government.
Worlds Smallest Political Quiz <==(off-site link)
Please leave comments to tell me what you think and how you score.
I got a 80% & 80% (in the middle of Libertarian)
The first time I took the quiz (a year ago) I got a 90% & 100%.
Monday, July 23, 2007
2008 Election Strategy Warning
As an American I feel misrepresented by my government at current. It is not that I am a democrat or independent and the executive is neo-con/republican-ish, but that I feel the last two elections were literally stolen from the American people.
The current administration are masters of election year spin politics. They also have computerised our voting process and thus ended the chance of a recount changing an election outcome due to no paper trail and no proof of votes.
At this time it looks as if the republicans (not neo-cons like Giuliani) will not win the 2008 election. Or will they?
The democratic candidates for president are basing their campaigns, for the most part, on the war in Iraq. I believe the republicans are playing election politics with our sons and daughters lives. That is that after the democratic candidate is chosen, in the middle of 2008 Bush will "end the war in Iraq" and "bring the boys back home" just in time for one ticker tape parade (in NY) just before the presidential election. Effectively cutting the campaign out from under the democrats.
If our democratic candidates run a campaign based on the war... this will hurt them bad. More so it will allow a bit of doubt in the American mind that "maybe a republicans can win" and that is all they need to avoid an 'election fraud' investigation. (Like in the last 2 presidential elections)
Further I see this election (2008) as being the first in a long time where an independent candidate will have a major roll. Not due to the public, but due to the profiteers of the current administration stand to gain by supporting not only the neo-cons/republicans, but by hamstringing the democratic vote by promoting the independent candidate.
This leads to a 'more of the same,' corporate owned, government.
As citizens of the most powerful military on Earth we need to take more responsibility for what our government does. We must get informed and vote. If not, as current events prove, we can harm people around the world. It isn't wholly Bush or Cheney it is YOU and ME that started a global conflict that we are powerless to end.
AS AMERICANS... WE MUST GET MORE INVOLVED IN OUR GOVERNMENTS POLICIES.
If we don't do this soon our nations position in the world will be compromised and in 100 years it wont matter what we want due to we will be isolated and economically weak.
The current administration are masters of election year spin politics. They also have computerised our voting process and thus ended the chance of a recount changing an election outcome due to no paper trail and no proof of votes.
At this time it looks as if the republicans (not neo-cons like Giuliani) will not win the 2008 election. Or will they?
The democratic candidates for president are basing their campaigns, for the most part, on the war in Iraq. I believe the republicans are playing election politics with our sons and daughters lives. That is that after the democratic candidate is chosen, in the middle of 2008 Bush will "end the war in Iraq" and "bring the boys back home" just in time for one ticker tape parade (in NY) just before the presidential election. Effectively cutting the campaign out from under the democrats.
If our democratic candidates run a campaign based on the war... this will hurt them bad. More so it will allow a bit of doubt in the American mind that "maybe a republicans can win" and that is all they need to avoid an 'election fraud' investigation. (Like in the last 2 presidential elections)
Further I see this election (2008) as being the first in a long time where an independent candidate will have a major roll. Not due to the public, but due to the profiteers of the current administration stand to gain by supporting not only the neo-cons/republicans, but by hamstringing the democratic vote by promoting the independent candidate.
This leads to a 'more of the same,' corporate owned, government.
As citizens of the most powerful military on Earth we need to take more responsibility for what our government does. We must get informed and vote. If not, as current events prove, we can harm people around the world. It isn't wholly Bush or Cheney it is YOU and ME that started a global conflict that we are powerless to end.
AS AMERICANS... WE MUST GET MORE INVOLVED IN OUR GOVERNMENTS POLICIES.
If we don't do this soon our nations position in the world will be compromised and in 100 years it wont matter what we want due to we will be isolated and economically weak.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Climate Change is of no Concern to US Government
Today the US Government dropped the funding for its weather observation program. The decision was made due to "...skyrocketing costs." It seems that the very program that worked so hard at predicting our weather and giving the data to science to "prove" climate change and the potential end of current civilization... just costs too much.
As you may know, from my other blog writings, I don't believe in human caused climate change. ("Human Extinction Through Ignorance" is my blog on climate change, its causes and our alternatives.) I do know the climate is changing and do not dispute that. But we cause hundreds of times less greenhouse gasses per year than the ocean makes not the mention the decomposition of vegetation that makes more than the oceans. The humans make just a little more carbon dioxide per year than the natural gassing of Earths core via volcanic activity.
The reasons why I believe we are being lied to about the cause of global warming is covered in my blog "Climate Change and Globalization are Linked" I will not cover them again here.
Back to the point... the current administration is cutting the information gathering network that has the most hope of being able to untangle the "global warming debate." It seems that now the "science is in" they wanna dismantle the tools that brought us that science to prevent it from being used against them. It seems so typical for this administration.
They have cut funding to, or fired/forced resignation of, every form of opposition to their broader goals. At this point it seems that the oil companies are going to profit from "climate change." I will explain.
In order to change the country from gas to electric all we must do is get rid of gas powered automobiles. That is all. Then all oil will be good for is creating power. The oil companies are invested in refineries and pipelines and cant just change this overnight. They don't build any more refineries, and haven't for years, because they know the future of energy and see it would be a waste of money. They need to build combination oil well-power plants that store all the toxic emissions in the very wells the oil is coming out of. The export from these is pure energy.
To do this costs lots of money in R&D (research and development) that the oil companies have... but would rather not spend. Not if they can convince the American public that the planet is heating up and going to kill us all if we don't start forcing our government to find alternatives. Thus most, to all, of the R&D will be paid for by the government along with the conversion costs from refinery to power plant. These oil companies just stand to gain from the fear generated from the absolute trite of 'human caused climate change.'
Don't get me wrong, I would love a quieter world without mini-explosions happening countless times each minute all around me. The air would be cleaner and just a better life in general.
But let us not forget what facilitates our world pollution. The companies that have caused it should not be rewarded with government money for R&D or any other reason due to they are knowingly irresponsible, willing facilitators, without regard for the effects of their product on our planet and our lives, and have been for years.
We should hold them responsible for the reversing of any damage their product has caused.
What will happen is they will ride the 'climate change' fear until the people force the government to fund the "Global Power Grid" transition. It seems that the powers-that-be are dismantling any way to analyse the climate and draw new, more accurate, or any other conclusions than the one permeating the public mind.
My guess is that the program that was shut down today was beginning to show evidence that could be used to prove that humans are not a cause of climate change and that the planet we live on is on a natural sway in temperature, much like the repeated ice-ages.
My point is: If climate change is a human caused problem, why is the US government not willing to pay any amount of money to study, and possibly prevent, the end of civilization?
My answer is the cause is a deception based on weather data of less than 100 years, and discounts all the geological data in opposition. The oil companies know they are the only ones that can meet our future energy needs. That we cant hold them accountable for the product they pedal without bankrupting them and thus ruining the global economy. They need the public fear to force our government to "give" them billions of more dollars to make them ecologically safe, instead of fining them billions for the destruction of our ecosystem.
When the public gets word that the climate is way beyond human control or ability to effect in any way, the profiteers of the climate change solution can simply state "better safe than sorry!" and "there was no way to prove we weren't causing it." (example: WMDs in Iraq!) But there would be proof, perhaps, if we were not currently covering our tracks by destroying our climate observation programs.
As you may know, from my other blog writings, I don't believe in human caused climate change. ("Human Extinction Through Ignorance" is my blog on climate change, its causes and our alternatives.) I do know the climate is changing and do not dispute that. But we cause hundreds of times less greenhouse gasses per year than the ocean makes not the mention the decomposition of vegetation that makes more than the oceans. The humans make just a little more carbon dioxide per year than the natural gassing of Earths core via volcanic activity.
The reasons why I believe we are being lied to about the cause of global warming is covered in my blog "Climate Change and Globalization are Linked" I will not cover them again here.
Back to the point... the current administration is cutting the information gathering network that has the most hope of being able to untangle the "global warming debate." It seems that now the "science is in" they wanna dismantle the tools that brought us that science to prevent it from being used against them. It seems so typical for this administration.
They have cut funding to, or fired/forced resignation of, every form of opposition to their broader goals. At this point it seems that the oil companies are going to profit from "climate change." I will explain.
In order to change the country from gas to electric all we must do is get rid of gas powered automobiles. That is all. Then all oil will be good for is creating power. The oil companies are invested in refineries and pipelines and cant just change this overnight. They don't build any more refineries, and haven't for years, because they know the future of energy and see it would be a waste of money. They need to build combination oil well-power plants that store all the toxic emissions in the very wells the oil is coming out of. The export from these is pure energy.
To do this costs lots of money in R&D (research and development) that the oil companies have... but would rather not spend. Not if they can convince the American public that the planet is heating up and going to kill us all if we don't start forcing our government to find alternatives. Thus most, to all, of the R&D will be paid for by the government along with the conversion costs from refinery to power plant. These oil companies just stand to gain from the fear generated from the absolute trite of 'human caused climate change.'
Don't get me wrong, I would love a quieter world without mini-explosions happening countless times each minute all around me. The air would be cleaner and just a better life in general.
But let us not forget what facilitates our world pollution. The companies that have caused it should not be rewarded with government money for R&D or any other reason due to they are knowingly irresponsible, willing facilitators, without regard for the effects of their product on our planet and our lives, and have been for years.
We should hold them responsible for the reversing of any damage their product has caused.
What will happen is they will ride the 'climate change' fear until the people force the government to fund the "Global Power Grid" transition. It seems that the powers-that-be are dismantling any way to analyse the climate and draw new, more accurate, or any other conclusions than the one permeating the public mind.
My guess is that the program that was shut down today was beginning to show evidence that could be used to prove that humans are not a cause of climate change and that the planet we live on is on a natural sway in temperature, much like the repeated ice-ages.
My point is: If climate change is a human caused problem, why is the US government not willing to pay any amount of money to study, and possibly prevent, the end of civilization?
My answer is the cause is a deception based on weather data of less than 100 years, and discounts all the geological data in opposition. The oil companies know they are the only ones that can meet our future energy needs. That we cant hold them accountable for the product they pedal without bankrupting them and thus ruining the global economy. They need the public fear to force our government to "give" them billions of more dollars to make them ecologically safe, instead of fining them billions for the destruction of our ecosystem.
When the public gets word that the climate is way beyond human control or ability to effect in any way, the profiteers of the climate change solution can simply state "better safe than sorry!" and "there was no way to prove we weren't causing it." (example: WMDs in Iraq!) But there would be proof, perhaps, if we were not currently covering our tracks by destroying our climate observation programs.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Off World Motivations (Intergalactic Law)
The modern belief is if we get contacted by another species it is likely no good will come of it for us humans. Which leads me to think there is some sort of order or guidelines that space fairing races follow. It has to be open and general to avoid conflicts that could destroy potentially hundreds of worlds and trillions of beings.
Like: The Universe is a free will zone.
Different species would have different specific rule-sets to deal with individual events and needs. The beings with like rule-sets and thus generally similar moral direction, would further guide themselves with more restrictive rules. Like: Star Treks' Prime Directive
This would be trumped by survival needs. That is if a race were to potentially reveal themselves by landing here, they would be expected, by other species of like mind, to have extreme need. Like survival.
Any hostile species would not get far in a galactic community. War could be a total loss no matter who is involved due to the potential destructive powers these folks wield. We would be easy prey... even in a hundred years we will likely be of no galactic treat.
The words used in the posed question are important though, "if we get contacted we are in trouble." Meaning that if you see an alien, they are desperate and should be feared... like any desperate, injured animal. The reason that brought them here far outweighs one human life to keep it secret. I guess that means we should fear them.
So why have they not contacted us and only contacted individuals in a clandestine manner that leads me to think it either us they want to misinform, or maybe there are others they want to hide their actions from. The only reason to hide themselves from us is they have rules to prevent this or fear us. I dont think it is fear. And the rule to prevent the open contact must be to prevent "potentially harmful" species from reaching this community. Either that or we are so much as 'lab rats' to them... or "God-seed."
So what are they waiting for us to do before the "Galactic Community" becomes open to us? It isn't get into space or land on another planet or we would be contacted already.
I think as long as we push away from the planet by consuming its natural resources we are an extreme danger to life as we DON'T know it. We must work to free ourselves from the finite resources on Earth so we are not a danger to any other species. Due to we will need to mine/destroy most every potential ecosystem within our grasp in order to get its resources. If we prove our freedom from the resources available in this system and on this planet, we will "find them."
The reason I stress the resource thing, in an infinitely huge universe, is that our current sun can only generate Fe (iron) through the fusion it maintains. The heavier elements than iron were created by the star that preceded the current sun. It was much larger and its super-nova collapsed down to form not only the Sun but all the other planets and matter in this solar system. Thus this solar system has a unique profile of elements that it is comprised of. Any dependence on these may hinder our reach to the boundaries of the Sol system.
Further this explains why the aliens are in our system. They are likely taking solar and rocky planet samples and creating "computer models" of what types of life should have formed here due to the unique elemental profile and the Suns current solar radiation. Then comparing them to the actual life found. In essence... the aliens are here looking for God.
That is, any anomalous life forms that "should not be in this system" must have a source. If an anomaly has been found to have 'no logical source' then perhaps gets duplicated far and wide across the universe, this would spur on science on a scale fitting to explain the extremely advanced technologies needed to travel, and study, the stars. Tracing this source of the 'anomalous life,' could be the ultimate motivation to an alien "a quest of spiritual wholeness," or just to make logical sense of the Universe.
The "Key" to becoming a species of galactic concern is likely to be somthing on-the-lines-of: we need to go from ground to the moon, for instance, and back in a vehicle that needs no refueling and no boosters. Until then we will be stuck in this corporate insanity, where profit is from consumption and thus fuel is needed. I say this is completely unneeded.
Even if we had a source of free energy (Piezoelectricity: crystal energy or similar) we would likely never see it. Only because there is too much money to be made from consumption and nothing from humanitarianism. In fact I can fathom that if we were thrust into a galactic community, most of us would take "off-world" work. The wealthy would not have station or power relative to the alien folks that have the REAL power. So upturned would our system be, that we would need to redefine wealth and power altogether.
Thus no push to become part of a greater community from off-world or on-world sources. And here we sit... as slaves.
Like: The Universe is a free will zone.
Different species would have different specific rule-sets to deal with individual events and needs. The beings with like rule-sets and thus generally similar moral direction, would further guide themselves with more restrictive rules. Like: Star Treks' Prime Directive
This would be trumped by survival needs. That is if a race were to potentially reveal themselves by landing here, they would be expected, by other species of like mind, to have extreme need. Like survival.
Any hostile species would not get far in a galactic community. War could be a total loss no matter who is involved due to the potential destructive powers these folks wield. We would be easy prey... even in a hundred years we will likely be of no galactic treat.
The words used in the posed question are important though, "if we get contacted we are in trouble." Meaning that if you see an alien, they are desperate and should be feared... like any desperate, injured animal. The reason that brought them here far outweighs one human life to keep it secret. I guess that means we should fear them.
So why have they not contacted us and only contacted individuals in a clandestine manner that leads me to think it either us they want to misinform, or maybe there are others they want to hide their actions from. The only reason to hide themselves from us is they have rules to prevent this or fear us. I dont think it is fear. And the rule to prevent the open contact must be to prevent "potentially harmful" species from reaching this community. Either that or we are so much as 'lab rats' to them... or "God-seed."
So what are they waiting for us to do before the "Galactic Community" becomes open to us? It isn't get into space or land on another planet or we would be contacted already.
I think as long as we push away from the planet by consuming its natural resources we are an extreme danger to life as we DON'T know it. We must work to free ourselves from the finite resources on Earth so we are not a danger to any other species. Due to we will need to mine/destroy most every potential ecosystem within our grasp in order to get its resources. If we prove our freedom from the resources available in this system and on this planet, we will "find them."
The reason I stress the resource thing, in an infinitely huge universe, is that our current sun can only generate Fe (iron) through the fusion it maintains. The heavier elements than iron were created by the star that preceded the current sun. It was much larger and its super-nova collapsed down to form not only the Sun but all the other planets and matter in this solar system. Thus this solar system has a unique profile of elements that it is comprised of. Any dependence on these may hinder our reach to the boundaries of the Sol system.
Further this explains why the aliens are in our system. They are likely taking solar and rocky planet samples and creating "computer models" of what types of life should have formed here due to the unique elemental profile and the Suns current solar radiation. Then comparing them to the actual life found. In essence... the aliens are here looking for God.
That is, any anomalous life forms that "should not be in this system" must have a source. If an anomaly has been found to have 'no logical source' then perhaps gets duplicated far and wide across the universe, this would spur on science on a scale fitting to explain the extremely advanced technologies needed to travel, and study, the stars. Tracing this source of the 'anomalous life,' could be the ultimate motivation to an alien "a quest of spiritual wholeness," or just to make logical sense of the Universe.
The "Key" to becoming a species of galactic concern is likely to be somthing on-the-lines-of: we need to go from ground to the moon, for instance, and back in a vehicle that needs no refueling and no boosters. Until then we will be stuck in this corporate insanity, where profit is from consumption and thus fuel is needed. I say this is completely unneeded.
Even if we had a source of free energy (Piezoelectricity: crystal energy or similar) we would likely never see it. Only because there is too much money to be made from consumption and nothing from humanitarianism. In fact I can fathom that if we were thrust into a galactic community, most of us would take "off-world" work. The wealthy would not have station or power relative to the alien folks that have the REAL power. So upturned would our system be, that we would need to redefine wealth and power altogether.
Thus no push to become part of a greater community from off-world or on-world sources. And here we sit... as slaves.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Insane Thinking
I realised a long time ago that true knowledge can only be achieved via controlled insanity. That is if we don't allow insane or 'way out there' theories any investigation and honest contemplation, we cant hope to understand them and thus better our understanding of the unimaginable complexity of what forms our reality. This requires one to redefine what "insane" thinking is, in order to accommodate an unfamiliar reality.
The key is being able to know what our "normal" state of mind is, and adjusting back towards that while letting any new helpful "insane" thoughts enrich us in the process
The key is being able to know what our "normal" state of mind is, and adjusting back towards that while letting any new helpful "insane" thoughts enrich us in the process
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Spelling Matters Less Than Letters
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Nothing to say. Just an OLD cut and paste from public domain.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
What is Real Magic?
During my college years I was watching a friend of my girlfriends parents house for a week. The owner was normal in appearance and just seemed a bit distant. Like, I felt he was more 'dissimilar' than most people I have met. I could find nothing 'normal' about what he talked about and how he viewed the world. He seemed to be "tripping" all the time (like LSD or shrooms). He wasn't.
Before he left for vacation he showed me a room draped in blood red cloth from floor to roof. A 3 foot rise in the middle was the "alter," and was also draped in red cloth. Strangely the room was illuminated evenly throughout, even though the only light was from the door I stood in. At the time I made no note of the illumination thing... now that I am a student of enochian (angelic) magic, so understand the 'mechanics' of the system this man practiced. He said "Do not go in this room while I am gone."
I didn't.
When he got back I went to get paid and he said he "knew" we didn't go into the room. And I asked him why he even had it. He didn't seem to be able to reach down to my level verbally and so just asked "Would you like to see something?" I agreed and was placed outside the room with my back to the door. He went in for a few minutes and when he came out he blindfolded me and led me into the room. It smelled of incense and felt kinda disoriented. I could hear him move around me and talk in a foreign tongue. I can only guess it was five minutes before he took my blindfold off.
The alter was 'set' with an oil lamp which was the only light. But before I could take note of the other items on the alter I noticed pieces of floating pinpoints of light. A stream of ebb and flow of these lights flowing from the roof to the floor and flowing right through everything, I looked at my hand and they were flowing right through it. The alter and I "disrupted" the flow of the little particles ever so slightly as they passed languidly through, or around, it and me. When I looked up at ...the owner... They were literally swirling around him and much more energetic (moving faster, not brighter). I had several minutes in the room to observe the phenomenon. Enough time to change my mind and life forever.
Once I saw and felt this I had a different view of everything. What he told me about the what and why and how of what I saw I must leave for you to discover. Spoon fed, any 'magical' practice is doomed to fail.
And that is the reason most don't understand what magic is or the "true nature" of its workings. It deeper workings are complex. It is a dedication that few can make. It IS NOT a hobby. It is prayer... if done correctly (the Bible shows you how). it is not D&D. But more like profound understanding of the nature and value of the abstract things that effect our lives. It is NOT evil. OHH but it can be. It is about imagination and perfecting its true powers. It is NOT about power over others (although it is a side effect, NOT a goal). It is more properly used for a better world and more livable emotional state of those around you. It is NOT for the manipulation of your personal circumstances or those in your life. It is about the use and control of ego. It is NOT fueled by or assisted by an unhindered, untrained or large ego.
Most seekers seek for the reasons I list in the "IS NOT ..." section and fail to get any value. True magic is about growing the subtle hints of the magic around you into a distorted, fully operable but imaginary reality. The workings of which fluctuate through continual experimentation and conceptualizing of the potential of what "magic" consists of. This can last for years, if not a lifetime.. Most folks lack the patience, imagination, confidence, introspection and life dedication to bring about an operable/working psychosis (ya that is how I view it).
It is my belief that at any point in human history, there are a few people that literally posses the power to shake the mountains, cloud the skies and yes bring us together as a people.
Note: If a person tells you of a spell it is no longer of any more use than you allow it. The only true magic comes from profound mental exaltation's and not circle drawing and charm/hex making. These work as much as your own emotions can push them. There is no 'synergy' in these castings. Synergy is what one should look for to be stayed on the path.
Before he left for vacation he showed me a room draped in blood red cloth from floor to roof. A 3 foot rise in the middle was the "alter," and was also draped in red cloth. Strangely the room was illuminated evenly throughout, even though the only light was from the door I stood in. At the time I made no note of the illumination thing... now that I am a student of enochian (angelic) magic, so understand the 'mechanics' of the system this man practiced. He said "Do not go in this room while I am gone."
I didn't.
When he got back I went to get paid and he said he "knew" we didn't go into the room. And I asked him why he even had it. He didn't seem to be able to reach down to my level verbally and so just asked "Would you like to see something?" I agreed and was placed outside the room with my back to the door. He went in for a few minutes and when he came out he blindfolded me and led me into the room. It smelled of incense and felt kinda disoriented. I could hear him move around me and talk in a foreign tongue. I can only guess it was five minutes before he took my blindfold off.
The alter was 'set' with an oil lamp which was the only light. But before I could take note of the other items on the alter I noticed pieces of floating pinpoints of light. A stream of ebb and flow of these lights flowing from the roof to the floor and flowing right through everything, I looked at my hand and they were flowing right through it. The alter and I "disrupted" the flow of the little particles ever so slightly as they passed languidly through, or around, it and me. When I looked up at ...the owner... They were literally swirling around him and much more energetic (moving faster, not brighter). I had several minutes in the room to observe the phenomenon. Enough time to change my mind and life forever.
Once I saw and felt this I had a different view of everything. What he told me about the what and why and how of what I saw I must leave for you to discover. Spoon fed, any 'magical' practice is doomed to fail.
And that is the reason most don't understand what magic is or the "true nature" of its workings. It deeper workings are complex. It is a dedication that few can make. It IS NOT a hobby. It is prayer... if done correctly (the Bible shows you how). it is not D&D. But more like profound understanding of the nature and value of the abstract things that effect our lives. It is NOT evil. OHH but it can be. It is about imagination and perfecting its true powers. It is NOT about power over others (although it is a side effect, NOT a goal). It is more properly used for a better world and more livable emotional state of those around you. It is NOT for the manipulation of your personal circumstances or those in your life. It is about the use and control of ego. It is NOT fueled by or assisted by an unhindered, untrained or large ego.
Most seekers seek for the reasons I list in the "IS NOT ..." section and fail to get any value. True magic is about growing the subtle hints of the magic around you into a distorted, fully operable but imaginary reality. The workings of which fluctuate through continual experimentation and conceptualizing of the potential of what "magic" consists of. This can last for years, if not a lifetime.. Most folks lack the patience, imagination, confidence, introspection and life dedication to bring about an operable/working psychosis (ya that is how I view it).
It is my belief that at any point in human history, there are a few people that literally posses the power to shake the mountains, cloud the skies and yes bring us together as a people.
Note: If a person tells you of a spell it is no longer of any more use than you allow it. The only true magic comes from profound mental exaltation's and not circle drawing and charm/hex making. These work as much as your own emotions can push them. There is no 'synergy' in these castings. Synergy is what one should look for to be stayed on the path.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Please God... Tell us What You Told Mr Bush
George W. Bush
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..."--Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect
"I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."--George W. Bush commenting to Texas evangelist James Robinson in the run-up to his presidential campaign
"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."--Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen quoting Bush when they met in Aqaba; reported in The Haaretz Reporter by Arnon Regular
"I'm the Commander, see ... I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President ... [I] don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."--Speaking to the National Security Council
Please God... could you explain to the rest of us, that dont hear your voice in our heads telling us what to do, what exactally you said to Mr. Bush.
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..."--Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect
"I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."--George W. Bush commenting to Texas evangelist James Robinson in the run-up to his presidential campaign
"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."--Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen quoting Bush when they met in Aqaba; reported in The Haaretz Reporter by Arnon Regular
"I'm the Commander, see ... I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President ... [I] don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."--Speaking to the National Security Council
Please God... could you explain to the rest of us, that dont hear your voice in our heads telling us what to do, what exactally you said to Mr. Bush.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Climate Change and Globalization are Linked
If the blame for the causes of climate change are purposefully being misrepresented to the people of the world (video link to "Global Warming Swindle" is in video section on right side of this page), to what end? By whom? Who would stand to gain from the restriction of industrialization of third world nations and the stagnation of the first worlds. The very people that own the oil.
Why would the corporations that make billions and billions of dollars want to cut global use of their product? Easy, Globalization. This G-20 (G-8 plus 12) think tank thing has a plan. Right now they are stirring up fear and change so that our R&D will go into developing electric vehicles that satisfy human needs. Because the future of energy IS oil (turned cleanly into "power")...and they are getting it all while devaluing it.
You see the future of energy trade will not involve the ridiculous pipelines and the shipping of tankers full of this stuff half way around the world. That is just plain expensive and it is way too dangerous for our environment. I see the future global energy supply consisting of the export and import of raw electricity/power.
Oil will be pumped to a local processing plant where it will be made into electric (or alternative) power and exported via a world wide power grid. This is why Halliburton is setting up shop in Dubai. It explains our propping up of Egypt's corrupt government and Israel, all these areas we need to put "The Grid" through to Africa.
We are stagnating smaller nations from industrialising so as to have better costumers when it comes time to let them have what we will not allow them to build or mine in their "sovereign" nations right now. This is part of the G-20 "rule set" to help usher in globalization. They need us to demand cheaper cleaner energy for all, and for the sake of the environment, stop shipping it all over and process it at the source into a clean export. Thus these lesser industrial nations will be forced to pay for something they could make on their own.
This "Global Power Grid" is why we find mega-corporations positioning themselves now so they will control the flow of juice to Europe, Africa and Asia out of the Middle-East. Our nation will uncap its wells and be a player in this hemispheres power grid to Canada and Mexico. We will use this new creation to put pressure on any nation attempting independence from "The Grid."
To be clear... I see life in nations that are a part of the Global Grid will be tremendously better than the lives of those without. The pressure for nations to join The Grid will be internal and irresistible.
I also see Globalization, as a whole, as a violent path to peace on Earth. As America we have a leading roll in facilitating the connectivity, and destruction, needed for success. But Globalization is run by unimaginably huge business that the US and its military are just pawns to be used in order to achieve a degree of control over nations via energy policy/"rule sets". After all our future is global security. It really is all the USA can offer to a global economy.
Why would the corporations that make billions and billions of dollars want to cut global use of their product? Easy, Globalization. This G-20 (G-8 plus 12) think tank thing has a plan. Right now they are stirring up fear and change so that our R&D will go into developing electric vehicles that satisfy human needs. Because the future of energy IS oil (turned cleanly into "power")...and they are getting it all while devaluing it.
You see the future of energy trade will not involve the ridiculous pipelines and the shipping of tankers full of this stuff half way around the world. That is just plain expensive and it is way too dangerous for our environment. I see the future global energy supply consisting of the export and import of raw electricity/power.
Oil will be pumped to a local processing plant where it will be made into electric (or alternative) power and exported via a world wide power grid. This is why Halliburton is setting up shop in Dubai. It explains our propping up of Egypt's corrupt government and Israel, all these areas we need to put "The Grid" through to Africa.
We are stagnating smaller nations from industrialising so as to have better costumers when it comes time to let them have what we will not allow them to build or mine in their "sovereign" nations right now. This is part of the G-20 "rule set" to help usher in globalization. They need us to demand cheaper cleaner energy for all, and for the sake of the environment, stop shipping it all over and process it at the source into a clean export. Thus these lesser industrial nations will be forced to pay for something they could make on their own.
This "Global Power Grid" is why we find mega-corporations positioning themselves now so they will control the flow of juice to Europe, Africa and Asia out of the Middle-East. Our nation will uncap its wells and be a player in this hemispheres power grid to Canada and Mexico. We will use this new creation to put pressure on any nation attempting independence from "The Grid."
To be clear... I see life in nations that are a part of the Global Grid will be tremendously better than the lives of those without. The pressure for nations to join The Grid will be internal and irresistible.
I also see Globalization, as a whole, as a violent path to peace on Earth. As America we have a leading roll in facilitating the connectivity, and destruction, needed for success. But Globalization is run by unimaginably huge business that the US and its military are just pawns to be used in order to achieve a degree of control over nations via energy policy/"rule sets". After all our future is global security. It really is all the USA can offer to a global economy.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Male Birth Rate Down and De-evolution of Humans
I KNOW this will come real close to offending "true believers." I am not against any religion. I explain myself in my blog about beliefs. So if you are interested in spirituality or before you guys smear me PLEASE read my BELIEFS blog. At least you will know where I am coming from if you do (way out there in left field).
(In response to a comment on the intelligent design of birds and their ability to fly, to a Jesus Crispy)
(In response to a comment on the intelligent design of birds and their ability to fly, to a Jesus Crispy)
I don't have a traditional view of god. But I must point out the eye as one of those things that "is too complex to evolve" but did. Or "if an eye doesn't work exactly correctly the first time, it is an evolutionary defect and thus it will never get a chance to genetically improve itself." Eyes should not exist...but do. Thus we must not understand how a simple photon sensor became a fully operating eye. Given enough time it will happen. The amount of time that things have been adjusting to better fit the environment around them, is immensely large. The kind of 'large' amount of time that the human mind cant fathom. Enough time that the diversity of life on earth in and before the Jurassic period has had a chance to die down to the world we know now. Billions of specialised plants and creatures in a veritable circus of different species roamed far and wide, taking full advantage of every nook life could take hold in. Even the most advanced biological organs and internal sensors have their roots in these eras.
Feathers, in their original form, were used on most all dinosaurs like mammals use fur, for camo. and temp control. They had a very simple structure when compared to hair, fur and flight feathers. (in fact the word 'feathers' is deceiving, but that is what most people see when they look at them.) "Feathers" are used for more than flying now and use to be used for everything but flying.. The Pterosaurs was/is a flying dino., it had dino. feathers that did not help it to fly, like bats of modern day. It also seems the only land dinosaurs that survived whatever killed most of them off, are the flying ones (modern birds). That leaves plenty of time for feathers to change into what we see now... flight feathers.
What gets me is some of the evolutionary changes seem to happen in one season (like finch beaks changing seasonally from generation to generation in accordance with the current weather, and thus the future food supply.) To me this does not prove "intelligent design" but instead proves we don't have a clue how fast things can change. Or you can say alien intervention (liken to Gods intervention...but more plausible) may have been the source of any unusual advances we have made. It just seems it makes more sense to say we humans don't know for sure. But a logical approach is paramount to finding out. And we may not realize the importance of the knowledge until we understand it.
We too may have the capacity locked away in our own DNA to change ourselves in one generation. But science states that these finches had already had both beak types at one time or another, thus the latent DNA info was there and just needed to be 'keyed in' by environmental influences. (These quick changes are de-evolution. Evolution is a long process.) The finches of long past had all the genetic info locked in their DNA, but if it wasn't linked to the environmental 'key in', they would be less able to survive than the finches that had 'key ins' unlock their latent DNA (thus de-evolving their children). (Protein differences in the food eaten would be the most likely things to cause a 'key in', thus linked to making it active. Not willpower, worldly or not.)
Today studies are showing a near 30% drop in male birth rates. Is this a process of de-evolution in humans brought on by something in our environment 'keying in' a latent program to make more women, thus children? Or it may be natural for organisms to increase birth rates in the face of certain radiological/geological changes that may have resulted in mass extinctions in the past. Could we be pumping up our numbers to survive a future our DNA detects and we can not? Or is it that the more children the stressed species have, the more chance of some random genetic mutation that will allow the species to survive the upcoming upheaval?
Is it in the air, water or the food we eat? Is it the sun or the rapidly crumbling magnetic fields around our planet?
Mostly, it is either an already 'keyed in' DNA code expressing itself and de-evolving us to survive a future that has been mirrored in our past...or it is a desperate genetic attempt to save a race that, on a genetic level, knows it is doomed and must mutate to survive. (Both very positive survival mechanisms I assume must be in place for life to even still exist on Earth).
The Yeti Dook from SubGenius.com
The Yeti Dook
The Yeti Dook RantOpus IX - by LesLucid
A Yeti Dook did smartly ride
Where crosswinds blow and drifts collide.
Through time and luck he gave and took,
Wringing dong and banging nook.
A golden seam where Yeti stood
Illuminating anglehood
-He basked in his omnipotence
And shone in his magnificence.
Through then and now this Dook did go
Past Jew and Christian rodeo
Tween red and white, mixed to pink
With blue, a monumental stink.
Now is then in Yeti terms
Except for all the recent germs
Which slink and brew and fester long
Where Normals play and creech their song.
Loudly gnaw the normal dorks
And stoutly bite upon their forks.
The forks with shit are piled high
from digging in the bullshit pie.
On gray device the Normals go
Talking of Michaelangelo.
A slackless fool, the normal dork,
With girth abundant, pink, like pork.
O fateful crux where linchpin holds
The luck plane's time-location folds,
Where focused vortex points the way,
Why Dook and dork will fight some day.
He gleams an eye, this elder Yeti,
Radiating slack a-plenty
Like dolphins brow, not leopard's feet,
Like cockatoo and parakeet.
Those who cross this Yeti's path
Might come to know his fearsome wrath,
Those who sponsored so much fear
Like tempest twat's, Ar and Mir.
Those who cross the Yeti's will
Are soon to be forever still,
Still until forever's call
When timeless futures pass us all.
From The SubGenius tunnels.
The Yeti Dook RantOpus IX - by LesLucid
A Yeti Dook did smartly ride
Where crosswinds blow and drifts collide.
Through time and luck he gave and took,
Wringing dong and banging nook.
A golden seam where Yeti stood
Illuminating anglehood
-He basked in his omnipotence
And shone in his magnificence.
Through then and now this Dook did go
Past Jew and Christian rodeo
Tween red and white, mixed to pink
With blue, a monumental stink.
Now is then in Yeti terms
Except for all the recent germs
Which slink and brew and fester long
Where Normals play and creech their song.
Loudly gnaw the normal dorks
And stoutly bite upon their forks.
The forks with shit are piled high
from digging in the bullshit pie.
On gray device the Normals go
Talking of Michaelangelo.
A slackless fool, the normal dork,
With girth abundant, pink, like pork.
O fateful crux where linchpin holds
The luck plane's time-location folds,
Where focused vortex points the way,
Why Dook and dork will fight some day.
He gleams an eye, this elder Yeti,
Radiating slack a-plenty
Like dolphins brow, not leopard's feet,
Like cockatoo and parakeet.
Those who cross this Yeti's path
Might come to know his fearsome wrath,
Those who sponsored so much fear
Like tempest twat's, Ar and Mir.
Those who cross the Yeti's will
Are soon to be forever still,
Still until forever's call
When timeless futures pass us all.
From The SubGenius tunnels.
If The Bees All Die So Will Everthing Else, Including You
Just got done watchin' "Real Time: with Bill Maher". At the very end of every episode he rants about something that is needed to be ranted on. This week was about bees. The following is just what I recall of what he said.
____________________________
Einstein once said that "If the bees disappear than the humans have 4 years left to live." The reason is that most of the food we eat can only be pollinated by bees. Our attempts to do it on our own have all failed. And the Bees are going away.
The reason for the bee deaths is colony collapse disorder (CCD). We don't know why this is happening to them. What we do know is that bees don't fly near cellphones due to it screws up their internal navigation and can knock them out of the sky. Thus his main point:
Would you give up your cellphone to save the bees?
___________________________
What a great rant, in its true full glory, which I am just highlighting here. Wouldn't it be strange if we found out cellphones are causing the end of human life.
"Real Time: with Bill Maher" PODCASTS his entire HBO show plus extra internet content. This rant will be out in podcast form on or after the 28th April 2007.
The rant is also in a YouTube video box on this page.
I personally think cellphones are causing a inter-dependence in our culture that is not healthy. The EM fields and radio waves aside, 16 year 'olds' and younger should learn self reliance and personal responsibility. Maybe even some ingenuity and real world skills like fixing a flat, or having to be prepared for a worst case scenario, in isolation. I don't have a cellphone because I don't want to be reachable when I am not at home.
I realise this is an archaic way of thinking...that the real world is leaving me behind. I agree. But cellphone users don't understand that they are being desensitized to "Big Brother" over their shoulder. It may not be happening now, that we are tracking people through their cellphones, but we can do it and it will happen. Besides if all the new towers and users are causing environmental damage... well I just don't think they are a good idea on the scale we have. I do think that some people need cellphones, for big business and government officials an instant decision can be very important. But come on.
Your child does NOT need a cellphone. It is not healthy for them and may be destroying our ecosystems ability to maintain itself. The parenting fears you are using connectivity to overcome can be solved by more attentive and informative parenting in general. Without the "cellphone safety net" and illusion of security via said connectivity, your children would be a bit more contemplative in their actions. Not to mention they would pay attention to what they are doing in the space they occupy instead of walk through life with there crooked arm stuck to the side of their heads and day-dreaming about the conversation they are having with some other soul obliviously moving through their world.
It is a mental illness I tell ya!! Now it appears to also be an environmental hazard. More than that.. cellphones' EM fields could trigger a catastrophic collapse of our ecosystem and: WE ALL DIE... "and you little dog too." Wicked Witch (of the west?)
____________________________
Einstein once said that "If the bees disappear than the humans have 4 years left to live." The reason is that most of the food we eat can only be pollinated by bees. Our attempts to do it on our own have all failed. And the Bees are going away.
The reason for the bee deaths is colony collapse disorder (CCD). We don't know why this is happening to them. What we do know is that bees don't fly near cellphones due to it screws up their internal navigation and can knock them out of the sky. Thus his main point:
Would you give up your cellphone to save the bees?
___________________________
What a great rant, in its true full glory, which I am just highlighting here. Wouldn't it be strange if we found out cellphones are causing the end of human life.
"Real Time: with Bill Maher" PODCASTS his entire HBO show plus extra internet content. This rant will be out in podcast form on or after the 28th April 2007.
The rant is also in a YouTube video box on this page.
I personally think cellphones are causing a inter-dependence in our culture that is not healthy. The EM fields and radio waves aside, 16 year 'olds' and younger should learn self reliance and personal responsibility. Maybe even some ingenuity and real world skills like fixing a flat, or having to be prepared for a worst case scenario, in isolation. I don't have a cellphone because I don't want to be reachable when I am not at home.
I realise this is an archaic way of thinking...that the real world is leaving me behind. I agree. But cellphone users don't understand that they are being desensitized to "Big Brother" over their shoulder. It may not be happening now, that we are tracking people through their cellphones, but we can do it and it will happen. Besides if all the new towers and users are causing environmental damage... well I just don't think they are a good idea on the scale we have. I do think that some people need cellphones, for big business and government officials an instant decision can be very important. But come on.
Your child does NOT need a cellphone. It is not healthy for them and may be destroying our ecosystems ability to maintain itself. The parenting fears you are using connectivity to overcome can be solved by more attentive and informative parenting in general. Without the "cellphone safety net" and illusion of security via said connectivity, your children would be a bit more contemplative in their actions. Not to mention they would pay attention to what they are doing in the space they occupy instead of walk through life with there crooked arm stuck to the side of their heads and day-dreaming about the conversation they are having with some other soul obliviously moving through their world.
It is a mental illness I tell ya!! Now it appears to also be an environmental hazard. More than that.. cellphones' EM fields could trigger a catastrophic collapse of our ecosystem and: WE ALL DIE... "and you little dog too." Wicked Witch (of the west?)
Globalization: It Aint Like What Your Daddy Told Ya
Mr Thomas P.M. Barnett give a seminar, based on his book, that WILL change your view on our position in the world. Why we are in this war. How we need to behave as a superpower and how to reorder our country into a mechanism of global peace.
Mostly it is the single most important thing I have watched in my life when it comes to understanding US foreign policy.
If you are in the military, or know someone that is, this seminar outlines our new security responsibilities in the new world unfolding.
I have Put a YouTube video box on this blog so you can view the videos there if you would like.
Goto C-SPAN Then you must do a video search (found in the middle of the page a little down from the top) on "Globalization" and then watch "The Pentagon's New Map", about 90 minutes then questions. Sometimes that doesnt work KEEP TRYING it is there.
Small snippets can also be found on YouTube. <-link I CAN NOT stress how important I feel watching this is for everyone. Even if you think it will bore you, please try.
Mostly it is the single most important thing I have watched in my life when it comes to understanding US foreign policy.
If you are in the military, or know someone that is, this seminar outlines our new security responsibilities in the new world unfolding.
I have Put a YouTube video box on this blog so you can view the videos there if you would like.
Goto C-SPAN Then you must do a video search (found in the middle of the page a little down from the top) on "Globalization" and then watch "The Pentagon's New Map", about 90 minutes then questions. Sometimes that doesnt work KEEP TRYING it is there.
Small snippets can also be found on YouTube. <-link I CAN NOT stress how important I feel watching this is for everyone. Even if you think it will bore you, please try.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Human Extinction Through Ignorance
Geologic history proves climate change happens. The only dispute is how long the swings take once they have begun and why they are triggered. The 'how long' seems to be between 1 and 1000 years most events seem to be closer to the low end.
For instance an asteroid strike or a massive volcanic eruption (super volcano), like that in Yellowstone and 9 other locations worldwide, would result in immediate changes. The changes have lasted for up to a century in the previous worst case scenarios. Then there is the natural ice ages that occur.
These take much longer to unfold. The geological records show that a slow change in global temperatures leads to a snap and drastic changes in global climate. This is why all the theories that involve the disruption of the oceanic conveyor are being studied currently. It is in an attempt to understand how the snap from global warming to ice age happens.
That is what the whole hoo haa is about. Not that the globe will warm up and kill us. But geology would hint that the temperature will rise for a while and then drop off until an ice age is achieved. Why does the planet leave an ice age? The slow buildup of greenhouse gasses and the desalination of the ocean (would be very salty in an ice age)? Seems logical. If I stretch my imagination I can see an Ice age would cool earths outer crust and thus shrink it enough to constrict the core of the planet. This would result in a more compressed and thus hotter core. To release the pressure... volcanic activity and therefore more greenhouse gasses.
Back to volcanic events and pollution. Even though pollution has taken some 100 years to collect and a volcano is an instant effect, in geological terms they are almost the same. A hundred years in the 4 billion year history of things is small indeed. Yet Earth recovers from huge volcanoes within a several decades of their eruption.
Humans can not even hope to pollute as much as a volcano... even if we tried. The cows we breed are apparently putting out more greenhouse gasses than all of human industry is. Apparently the Earth fixes itself very quickly if it is out of balance, quick enough to repair anything we do.
I think we arrogant humans give ourselves to much credit. We think that we can change this planet by our actions. But lets put our egos in check for a moment and look at the raw powers that are running the living planet EARTH.
First, most all life on earth is fueled by the sun (directly or indirectly). But the sun is a long long LONG way away. We are but a speck of sand a half football field away from a basketball (maybe baseball... cant recall) sized sun. Yet enough light hits this little ball of dust to make the surface team with life. Think of all the space Earth does not occupy in space...and how much energy the sun is REALLY putting out. It is inconceivable. But lets turn inward.
Earth has a molten core. Heavier liquids settle to the bottom/center of gravity. Keep this in mind. In order to cause a nuclear reaction all one must do is put enough uranium in a pile and it happens. That is right, if you can find enough of this pure stuff and gather it together it WILL happen, no catalysts, just a chain reaction resulting in a meltdown. Back to the heavier liquids thing.
The molten core of earth acts as a giant filter. The heavier Uranium molecules will continually gather into areas of equilibrium until a nuclear reaction happens. This is happening all the time in earths core (A. Einsteins' theories say this is how space-time/gravity work.) if gravity does not peeter out as you get closer to the core...which it may (gravity is a push not a pull. Like a ball under water, not like Einstein theorised. In fact E=MC^2 is not mathematically sound and is likely just a publicity stunt. [A Blog I will soon do]) In that case the earth spin and chaos theory would say that uranium would be centrifuged into layers and spread evenly. What I am trying to say is that there is so much going on in the center of our planet that we don't know for sure if it is undergoing a continual nuclear reaction or not. In fact its, once again, an inconcievable uncalculable amount of energy.
As you can see the amount of energy that effects our planet from within, dwarfs the amount of sunlight energy that falls on it (responsible for the weather and all life), and even more so the human effects. This gives us some idea of the power of the current we may be fighting.
If we are to fall into a natural ice age, as it is time to, there is nothing we can do to change it. It has nothing to do with the atmosphere, due to our atmosphere is just a faint reflection of, and derived from, the internal workings of this planet. An ice age is a natural internal fluctuation of earth, and, like a heartbeat, to stop it could be devastating. Besides the amount of energy in a large volcanic eruption is so much more devastating that we humans are, yet, it is just a tiny pinhole vent, into the true power and forces at work within our planet. So the climate change is derived from an internal change in earths core and is a symptom of a far more unavoidable problem.
We are using the FEAR generated by the Global Warming scare, to fight greenhouse gasses, thus gambling the human race on the hope we can fix something that may not even be broke. And if it isn't broke, and is a natural cycle of the planet... we have no power to stop it. Our most powerful creation is a nuke. A nuke is, once again, just a few rocks from the planet we are trying to change. Shouldn't we be concentrating on getting off this planet? The history of the Earth shows one mass extinction after another.
We know for a fact that this planet changes. That it WILL change again. That our only real hope is to colonize the sea and space. And that if we stop its natural cycles, we are indeed asking for trouble. We don't know enough to know what to do. But one thing is for sure:
WE MUST LEAVE OUR PLANET OR WE WILL EVENTUALLY BE EXTINCT...ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
(please forward to Al Gore) :-)
Comment thread for this blog at Mysterious Universe Forum.
For instance an asteroid strike or a massive volcanic eruption (super volcano), like that in Yellowstone and 9 other locations worldwide, would result in immediate changes. The changes have lasted for up to a century in the previous worst case scenarios. Then there is the natural ice ages that occur.
These take much longer to unfold. The geological records show that a slow change in global temperatures leads to a snap and drastic changes in global climate. This is why all the theories that involve the disruption of the oceanic conveyor are being studied currently. It is in an attempt to understand how the snap from global warming to ice age happens.
That is what the whole hoo haa is about. Not that the globe will warm up and kill us. But geology would hint that the temperature will rise for a while and then drop off until an ice age is achieved. Why does the planet leave an ice age? The slow buildup of greenhouse gasses and the desalination of the ocean (would be very salty in an ice age)? Seems logical. If I stretch my imagination I can see an Ice age would cool earths outer crust and thus shrink it enough to constrict the core of the planet. This would result in a more compressed and thus hotter core. To release the pressure... volcanic activity and therefore more greenhouse gasses.
Back to volcanic events and pollution. Even though pollution has taken some 100 years to collect and a volcano is an instant effect, in geological terms they are almost the same. A hundred years in the 4 billion year history of things is small indeed. Yet Earth recovers from huge volcanoes within a several decades of their eruption.
Humans can not even hope to pollute as much as a volcano... even if we tried. The cows we breed are apparently putting out more greenhouse gasses than all of human industry is. Apparently the Earth fixes itself very quickly if it is out of balance, quick enough to repair anything we do.
I think we arrogant humans give ourselves to much credit. We think that we can change this planet by our actions. But lets put our egos in check for a moment and look at the raw powers that are running the living planet EARTH.
First, most all life on earth is fueled by the sun (directly or indirectly). But the sun is a long long LONG way away. We are but a speck of sand a half football field away from a basketball (maybe baseball... cant recall) sized sun. Yet enough light hits this little ball of dust to make the surface team with life. Think of all the space Earth does not occupy in space...and how much energy the sun is REALLY putting out. It is inconceivable. But lets turn inward.
Earth has a molten core. Heavier liquids settle to the bottom/center of gravity. Keep this in mind. In order to cause a nuclear reaction all one must do is put enough uranium in a pile and it happens. That is right, if you can find enough of this pure stuff and gather it together it WILL happen, no catalysts, just a chain reaction resulting in a meltdown. Back to the heavier liquids thing.
The molten core of earth acts as a giant filter. The heavier Uranium molecules will continually gather into areas of equilibrium until a nuclear reaction happens. This is happening all the time in earths core (A. Einsteins' theories say this is how space-time/gravity work.) if gravity does not peeter out as you get closer to the core...which it may (gravity is a push not a pull. Like a ball under water, not like Einstein theorised. In fact E=MC^2 is not mathematically sound and is likely just a publicity stunt. [A Blog I will soon do]) In that case the earth spin and chaos theory would say that uranium would be centrifuged into layers and spread evenly. What I am trying to say is that there is so much going on in the center of our planet that we don't know for sure if it is undergoing a continual nuclear reaction or not. In fact its, once again, an inconcievable uncalculable amount of energy.
As you can see the amount of energy that effects our planet from within, dwarfs the amount of sunlight energy that falls on it (responsible for the weather and all life), and even more so the human effects. This gives us some idea of the power of the current we may be fighting.
If we are to fall into a natural ice age, as it is time to, there is nothing we can do to change it. It has nothing to do with the atmosphere, due to our atmosphere is just a faint reflection of, and derived from, the internal workings of this planet. An ice age is a natural internal fluctuation of earth, and, like a heartbeat, to stop it could be devastating. Besides the amount of energy in a large volcanic eruption is so much more devastating that we humans are, yet, it is just a tiny pinhole vent, into the true power and forces at work within our planet. So the climate change is derived from an internal change in earths core and is a symptom of a far more unavoidable problem.
We are using the FEAR generated by the Global Warming scare, to fight greenhouse gasses, thus gambling the human race on the hope we can fix something that may not even be broke. And if it isn't broke, and is a natural cycle of the planet... we have no power to stop it. Our most powerful creation is a nuke. A nuke is, once again, just a few rocks from the planet we are trying to change. Shouldn't we be concentrating on getting off this planet? The history of the Earth shows one mass extinction after another.
We know for a fact that this planet changes. That it WILL change again. That our only real hope is to colonize the sea and space. And that if we stop its natural cycles, we are indeed asking for trouble. We don't know enough to know what to do. But one thing is for sure:
WE MUST LEAVE OUR PLANET OR WE WILL EVENTUALLY BE EXTINCT...ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
(please forward to Al Gore) :-)
Comment thread for this blog at Mysterious Universe Forum.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Question Beliefs: Our Lives Might Depend on It
I am not intending to challenge any one religion... but all of their followers. I am more familiar (and less afraid of) the beliefs of the Christian Church but know that these theories apply Universally. (universe=one song. Beliefs are disharmonious.)
Belief is a touchy subject. So much so that it is a social taboo to question ones beliefs. But as I see it beliefs are what separate us from one another. Two folks believe differently and, due to the nature of beliefs, they can prove neither thus an em pass.
Belief, by definition, takes faith to support. A belief founded in logic becomes a theory. So in reality we are dealing in matters of faith. Indeed to question ones faith is not going to get results. Those of faith start going in a circular argument about belief and faith and break down into "if you don't have faith, you cant understand my beliefs." Likely it is they who misunderstand the source of their own convictions.
In order to understand said source, I must go back to evolution... intelligent design (in case you are a 'true believer'). The empty feeling that most humans feel and fill with their belief system, is a positive evolutionary trait. The reason is simple. Peoples that felt this way were more curious and inventive in an attempt to get psychologically contented. They were less apt to just be happy and exist in bliss, in other word, they left the Garden of Eden. Perhaps they even found more pleasure in the more mundane things in nature due to a satisfaction of filling the void within, whereas if there is no void to fill there would be no artificial satisfaction, no curiosity, wonder or invention. This psychological edge would be enough to dominate those without. Further, the development of a distinct spiritual system both attracted and pacified larger groups of people than had been possible any time before. Another reason it is a dominant trait in modern man.
But alas I must try and approach faith without sounding godless. In order to do so first I have to explain why anyone would want to disrupt someone elses life structure by attempting to undermine their beliefs. History is ripe with wars of faith. And we are not insulated from that now.
In the USA around a quarter of our populace BELIEVE that Armageddon is coming. That YHVH will rescue them from this Earth and take them into the sky. These people don't view Earth as anything more than a disposable temporary living space. The climate change problem don't effect them because they wont be here in the 'end of days'. This is a reflection of what religion is for, absolution.
Humans go to church and pay to be told what they think. Most don't bother to read the bible much less take the time to learn a new language to read the original texts. But are contented to listen to one mans interpretation of an already overly transcribed, and hand copied, Roman interpretation, of 200 year old texts written 50 years after the actual life of Jesus.
I am not saying it is of no worth. But the life of Jesus is being misused by the church as an example of behavior that will grant access to heaven. By putting Jesus between us and God the church has undermined Jesus main teachings about our personal connection with the all mighty.
Jesus' death has been used against us also. Are we not suppose to worship any false idols. Just worship the one God directly. Moses said this. Then came Jesus, and 250 years later (when Rome created modern Christianity... NOT JESUS or his followers) we are using a cross (a torture/execution device) as a crutch to remind us of the sacrifice. And our acceptance of Jesus dying for our sins grants us an eternal seat in the presence of a omnipotent omnipresent being that, I assume, must have billions of other worlds to monitor and grant miracles on. This seems a bit pride full, the original sin. Yet the cross is a sin, a false idol that serves only to put distance between you and God.
God, as it is, must be understood individually. There are NO SHORTCUTS. Churches are profitable organization that allow their followers to absolve themselves from personal responsibility by substituting our logical mental processes for unfounded beliefs and unneeded submission rituals along with rules of how to be civilized... in ages long past. Likely, the actions of the believer and the conscientious non-believer, will be the same in most every circumstance. Simply because a spiritual person will finds the truth...for free.
I am not sure how to challenge someones beliefs without getting anger as a response. But its got to be done. We cant allow the planet to be run by a bunch of people that believe God is a man in the sky with a white beard and big muscles and the Earth is just a place to wait for death or for "the man in the sky" to rescue them. This is the only planet we have got, and the faithful can't be logical about this. We must have logical reasons for what we do to effect the population and environment, not beliefs, and hopes, and absolution from sound reasoning due to 'its what the Bible said.'
But alas, stained glass windows, golden trinkets and bejeweled crosses (all needed to impress God?) cant be acquired through faith alone. If we could all find for ourselves what the spirit urns for, the churches would be nothing more than a strange cult.
We should wield the Bible as a weapon of peace and not an excuse to exclude other people of differing beliefs (or none at all). Nor to wage war or gather money. The words of God should connect us to mother Earth and let us know we are dependant on the rock we live on. That the true nature of God can not be found in a church but between the sky and rivers. That the path to your salvation is yours alone to travel, and no one can guide or follow you. My proof lies in the lives of the great prophets. They followed no one.
Thier unique experiences in life formulated their reality. So no man can ever hope to get to a higher place unless they are willing to throw away conventional ways and find their own truth. In doing so, you will be more liken to any one of the most revered humans in our history than those that are just faithful.
At least that was my theory... and is now my way of life. :-)
Belief is a touchy subject. So much so that it is a social taboo to question ones beliefs. But as I see it beliefs are what separate us from one another. Two folks believe differently and, due to the nature of beliefs, they can prove neither thus an em pass.
Belief, by definition, takes faith to support. A belief founded in logic becomes a theory. So in reality we are dealing in matters of faith. Indeed to question ones faith is not going to get results. Those of faith start going in a circular argument about belief and faith and break down into "if you don't have faith, you cant understand my beliefs." Likely it is they who misunderstand the source of their own convictions.
In order to understand said source, I must go back to evolution... intelligent design (in case you are a 'true believer'). The empty feeling that most humans feel and fill with their belief system, is a positive evolutionary trait. The reason is simple. Peoples that felt this way were more curious and inventive in an attempt to get psychologically contented. They were less apt to just be happy and exist in bliss, in other word, they left the Garden of Eden. Perhaps they even found more pleasure in the more mundane things in nature due to a satisfaction of filling the void within, whereas if there is no void to fill there would be no artificial satisfaction, no curiosity, wonder or invention. This psychological edge would be enough to dominate those without. Further, the development of a distinct spiritual system both attracted and pacified larger groups of people than had been possible any time before. Another reason it is a dominant trait in modern man.
But alas I must try and approach faith without sounding godless. In order to do so first I have to explain why anyone would want to disrupt someone elses life structure by attempting to undermine their beliefs. History is ripe with wars of faith. And we are not insulated from that now.
In the USA around a quarter of our populace BELIEVE that Armageddon is coming. That YHVH will rescue them from this Earth and take them into the sky. These people don't view Earth as anything more than a disposable temporary living space. The climate change problem don't effect them because they wont be here in the 'end of days'. This is a reflection of what religion is for, absolution.
Humans go to church and pay to be told what they think. Most don't bother to read the bible much less take the time to learn a new language to read the original texts. But are contented to listen to one mans interpretation of an already overly transcribed, and hand copied, Roman interpretation, of 200 year old texts written 50 years after the actual life of Jesus.
I am not saying it is of no worth. But the life of Jesus is being misused by the church as an example of behavior that will grant access to heaven. By putting Jesus between us and God the church has undermined Jesus main teachings about our personal connection with the all mighty.
Jesus' death has been used against us also. Are we not suppose to worship any false idols. Just worship the one God directly. Moses said this. Then came Jesus, and 250 years later (when Rome created modern Christianity... NOT JESUS or his followers) we are using a cross (a torture/execution device) as a crutch to remind us of the sacrifice. And our acceptance of Jesus dying for our sins grants us an eternal seat in the presence of a omnipotent omnipresent being that, I assume, must have billions of other worlds to monitor and grant miracles on. This seems a bit pride full, the original sin. Yet the cross is a sin, a false idol that serves only to put distance between you and God.
God, as it is, must be understood individually. There are NO SHORTCUTS. Churches are profitable organization that allow their followers to absolve themselves from personal responsibility by substituting our logical mental processes for unfounded beliefs and unneeded submission rituals along with rules of how to be civilized... in ages long past. Likely, the actions of the believer and the conscientious non-believer, will be the same in most every circumstance. Simply because a spiritual person will finds the truth...for free.
I am not sure how to challenge someones beliefs without getting anger as a response. But its got to be done. We cant allow the planet to be run by a bunch of people that believe God is a man in the sky with a white beard and big muscles and the Earth is just a place to wait for death or for "the man in the sky" to rescue them. This is the only planet we have got, and the faithful can't be logical about this. We must have logical reasons for what we do to effect the population and environment, not beliefs, and hopes, and absolution from sound reasoning due to 'its what the Bible said.'
But alas, stained glass windows, golden trinkets and bejeweled crosses (all needed to impress God?) cant be acquired through faith alone. If we could all find for ourselves what the spirit urns for, the churches would be nothing more than a strange cult.
We should wield the Bible as a weapon of peace and not an excuse to exclude other people of differing beliefs (or none at all). Nor to wage war or gather money. The words of God should connect us to mother Earth and let us know we are dependant on the rock we live on. That the true nature of God can not be found in a church but between the sky and rivers. That the path to your salvation is yours alone to travel, and no one can guide or follow you. My proof lies in the lives of the great prophets. They followed no one.
Thier unique experiences in life formulated their reality. So no man can ever hope to get to a higher place unless they are willing to throw away conventional ways and find their own truth. In doing so, you will be more liken to any one of the most revered humans in our history than those that are just faithful.
At least that was my theory... and is now my way of life. :-)
Democracy American Style
Supposing that Democracy is the most humanitarian form of government currently in practice, I must pose that the manner by which democracy works in the USA is antiquated and must change. As the emergent world military power we must impart stability and consistency in the use of our power. But America is built on a four year plan (8 at max). This is not good for global security.
Under Bush the US developed the "first strike doctrine" (Bush Doctrine), which states that the USA can attack anyone for any future plans to harm the USA. This is why Iraq happened. There was no reason to go to war with a nation that at current does nothing to effect the USA proper, just our economy.
Bush, and most of the USA populace, believe that a nations potential to destroy our economy is a matter of national security. That seems to make perfect sense. The question is, why have we put ourselves in a position where our national security is based on our economy, which is foreign controlled?
It is Greed.
We elect people to office that have no long term investment into the betterment of the United States. They don't have enough time to enact any complicated social changes before they get forced out of office. The most they can hope for is to not need to work anymore after they are out of office. Folks like the current admin. show the grossest side of what capitalism has become. The top officials in our government all stand to profit from the "War on Terror," which is a conflict of interests...or it should be. They have a finite amount of time in office, our military dominance, an apathetic public and greed.
Other nations cant depend on us because the potential that we will change the planets diplomatic structure with the election of a new president. One man, with so much power. Nobody can disagree with him or they are labeled unpatriotic or slandered for not supporting our troops. Indeed the public at large is being insulated from the global effects of this war by our nationalism (state approved bigotry), and media. And the people of America have no power except for a single day in Nov. every 4 years. Diplomatically speaking this is an impossible situation to allow any long term relations...unless economic.
Countries like China have a stable reactive government. We have a proactive government and a belligerent foreign policy of first strike. Instead of having the luxury of "wait and see" our officials are more apt, due to time constraints, to "go and get." This is why we are better allies with other democracies.
Any nation with a form of government based on having a lifetime leader has a hard relationship with the USA. They see the inconsistency of such a global power as a threat. I must agree. We could turn on any nation and justify it through well told lies.
What can we do? Isolation? Or just not be so casual about waging a war? We need to make some changes that is all I can see.
Under Bush the US developed the "first strike doctrine" (Bush Doctrine), which states that the USA can attack anyone for any future plans to harm the USA. This is why Iraq happened. There was no reason to go to war with a nation that at current does nothing to effect the USA proper, just our economy.
Bush, and most of the USA populace, believe that a nations potential to destroy our economy is a matter of national security. That seems to make perfect sense. The question is, why have we put ourselves in a position where our national security is based on our economy, which is foreign controlled?
It is Greed.
We elect people to office that have no long term investment into the betterment of the United States. They don't have enough time to enact any complicated social changes before they get forced out of office. The most they can hope for is to not need to work anymore after they are out of office. Folks like the current admin. show the grossest side of what capitalism has become. The top officials in our government all stand to profit from the "War on Terror," which is a conflict of interests...or it should be. They have a finite amount of time in office, our military dominance, an apathetic public and greed.
Other nations cant depend on us because the potential that we will change the planets diplomatic structure with the election of a new president. One man, with so much power. Nobody can disagree with him or they are labeled unpatriotic or slandered for not supporting our troops. Indeed the public at large is being insulated from the global effects of this war by our nationalism (state approved bigotry), and media. And the people of America have no power except for a single day in Nov. every 4 years. Diplomatically speaking this is an impossible situation to allow any long term relations...unless economic.
Countries like China have a stable reactive government. We have a proactive government and a belligerent foreign policy of first strike. Instead of having the luxury of "wait and see" our officials are more apt, due to time constraints, to "go and get." This is why we are better allies with other democracies.
Any nation with a form of government based on having a lifetime leader has a hard relationship with the USA. They see the inconsistency of such a global power as a threat. I must agree. We could turn on any nation and justify it through well told lies.
What can we do? Isolation? Or just not be so casual about waging a war? We need to make some changes that is all I can see.
Is Bush Giving Billions to Terrorists?
I would like to first express that I am not familiar with the topic of Arabic life and structure. Thus if you happen to read this and find errors or have answers please comment.
The Muslim religion is divided into sects, much like the christian church. The two sects of current concern are the Sunni, the majority, and the Shiite, the minority. The Shiite have been ruled by the Sunni in Iraq and Iran....everywhere?
Al-Qaeda is a Sunni organisation that may or may not be actively supported by pro-American Sunni Governments. But I must think most nations in the extended middle east region, (pro-American Gov. or not) are attempting to secure their position in the future that does not include western influence. That means keeping Al-Qaeda off their backs through concession or outright bribery. At current the region is starting to polarise further than ever before.
This may be the plan, seems empirical nations are served by creating conflict and instability in areas they desire control over. We force instability through our promotion of nationalism while creating new divisions amongst those we subjugate. We seem to force historic enemies into conflict through our redistribution of their power structures and indeed their nations borders.
Now Shiites are ruled by Sunnis and a civil war in Iraq threatens to spread throughout the region. This would upset the power structure in the mid-east. While in the short term this would be tragic, nations in chaos, rioting in the streets, sectarian violence and the like. In the long term it would leave a middle east free from the west. The US wants to avoid this.
To this end the Bush administration has begun to pump BILLIONS of dollars into Sunni countries in order to fight the growing Shiite uprisings. We are asking for no accounting of this money and how it is spent because we are asking them to use it for a counter-insurgency effort. Therefore no records will be kept. But wait... isn't Al-Qaeda Sunni?
So the USA gets caught up in a 'War on Terror' against Al-Qaeda (Sunni). Then Bush causes a civil war (Sunni vs Shiite) by attacking Iraq. To stop the unrest from spreading Bush gives billions to the Sunni, asking them to give it to organisations like Al-Qaeda.
HUH?
The Muslim religion is divided into sects, much like the christian church. The two sects of current concern are the Sunni, the majority, and the Shiite, the minority. The Shiite have been ruled by the Sunni in Iraq and Iran....everywhere?
Al-Qaeda is a Sunni organisation that may or may not be actively supported by pro-American Sunni Governments. But I must think most nations in the extended middle east region, (pro-American Gov. or not) are attempting to secure their position in the future that does not include western influence. That means keeping Al-Qaeda off their backs through concession or outright bribery. At current the region is starting to polarise further than ever before.
This may be the plan, seems empirical nations are served by creating conflict and instability in areas they desire control over. We force instability through our promotion of nationalism while creating new divisions amongst those we subjugate. We seem to force historic enemies into conflict through our redistribution of their power structures and indeed their nations borders.
Now Shiites are ruled by Sunnis and a civil war in Iraq threatens to spread throughout the region. This would upset the power structure in the mid-east. While in the short term this would be tragic, nations in chaos, rioting in the streets, sectarian violence and the like. In the long term it would leave a middle east free from the west. The US wants to avoid this.
To this end the Bush administration has begun to pump BILLIONS of dollars into Sunni countries in order to fight the growing Shiite uprisings. We are asking for no accounting of this money and how it is spent because we are asking them to use it for a counter-insurgency effort. Therefore no records will be kept. But wait... isn't Al-Qaeda Sunni?
So the USA gets caught up in a 'War on Terror' against Al-Qaeda (Sunni). Then Bush causes a civil war (Sunni vs Shiite) by attacking Iraq. To stop the unrest from spreading Bush gives billions to the Sunni, asking them to give it to organisations like Al-Qaeda.
HUH?
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Time and the Control of Time
This is not a sci-fi/future tech blog her I am going to get into. I am using 'time control' in the real world way. For instance a boss delegates his employees activities thus their time at work is controlled by another.
We currently live in a very structured world. So structured that the mere notion of returning to some more natural and simple manner of seeing things seems loony at best. Bear with me here...
Humans originally came to understand day, being light, and night, being dark, were different from one another and that are behavior was naturally adapted to these two periods. Eventually we came to understand the winter and summer and their cycles. You may be saying "Everyone knows this. We weren't that dumb." But if you look at the evolution of man, it may have taken til just before the "Henge" period for us to understand the significance of the solstices and equinoxes. That is, after all, the alignment of the famous Stone Henge (solstice) if not the entire purpose of the structure (I think it was a meeting hall of the pre-English tribes.)
So we humans had day and night, winter and summer. Further divisions for planting and harvesting times came about much later (agriculture is relatively new.) Then why, do you imagine, humans had the need to name the days. The first need is a cave person wanting to tell someone else to do something later. Being able to do so means the ability to divide labor. More precisely it was our first real attempt to control another beings life by controlling their time on earth absolutely.
Original humans lived from moment to moment with little to no account for their actions (Garden of Eden). Social groups were small and it is supposed we only worked 3-5 hours a day for food in our early homo sapien days. In these first few social groups a need for the ability to communicate the ideas of 'later', 'tomorrow' and even 'tonight', would facilitate the creation of some distinct terms (verbal or somatic).
When these groups got larger, a need for leadership and division of labor to sustain them, became needed. A simple way of dividing up the blur of days flowing by, is into a short cyclical "work week." Without this, a leader could not communicate to the workers when they would get to rest. How many days the original 'work week' was has never been looked at. In fact NONE of this has ever been looked at by serious science. I'd imagine the first 'work weeks' were tribe specific in their duration.
All I am saying is this: The days of the week, months of the year and hours of the days, are UN-NATURAL and only here for our original enslavement by the civilization we chose to create. We should understand that these things are needed in order to exist in our world, but we need to view them as control mechanisms. We should feel our time is blissfully ours... not live each day doing things we would otherwise not do, simply because we have the weekend or vacation to look forward to. Take back your time.
Letting our division of time become so integrated into our lives has lead to an unnatural mental state for human beings. The civilisation it facilitated has left us numb and we would never survive in nature (no Wal-Mart). The very mother of our creation (nature) can NOT support its own children, and I say it is due to division of labor. Thus ability to overpopulate.
Without days divided against one another labor and civilized society could not exist. The structures that hold up society often will hold down its populace. It appears that we have made our choice as humans to give over control of our time on Earth to the society that we live in and ignore our nature...our mother.
We currently live in a very structured world. So structured that the mere notion of returning to some more natural and simple manner of seeing things seems loony at best. Bear with me here...
Humans originally came to understand day, being light, and night, being dark, were different from one another and that are behavior was naturally adapted to these two periods. Eventually we came to understand the winter and summer and their cycles. You may be saying "Everyone knows this. We weren't that dumb." But if you look at the evolution of man, it may have taken til just before the "Henge" period for us to understand the significance of the solstices and equinoxes. That is, after all, the alignment of the famous Stone Henge (solstice) if not the entire purpose of the structure (I think it was a meeting hall of the pre-English tribes.)
So we humans had day and night, winter and summer. Further divisions for planting and harvesting times came about much later (agriculture is relatively new.) Then why, do you imagine, humans had the need to name the days. The first need is a cave person wanting to tell someone else to do something later. Being able to do so means the ability to divide labor. More precisely it was our first real attempt to control another beings life by controlling their time on earth absolutely.
Original humans lived from moment to moment with little to no account for their actions (Garden of Eden). Social groups were small and it is supposed we only worked 3-5 hours a day for food in our early homo sapien days. In these first few social groups a need for the ability to communicate the ideas of 'later', 'tomorrow' and even 'tonight', would facilitate the creation of some distinct terms (verbal or somatic).
When these groups got larger, a need for leadership and division of labor to sustain them, became needed. A simple way of dividing up the blur of days flowing by, is into a short cyclical "work week." Without this, a leader could not communicate to the workers when they would get to rest. How many days the original 'work week' was has never been looked at. In fact NONE of this has ever been looked at by serious science. I'd imagine the first 'work weeks' were tribe specific in their duration.
All I am saying is this: The days of the week, months of the year and hours of the days, are UN-NATURAL and only here for our original enslavement by the civilization we chose to create. We should understand that these things are needed in order to exist in our world, but we need to view them as control mechanisms. We should feel our time is blissfully ours... not live each day doing things we would otherwise not do, simply because we have the weekend or vacation to look forward to. Take back your time.
Letting our division of time become so integrated into our lives has lead to an unnatural mental state for human beings. The civilisation it facilitated has left us numb and we would never survive in nature (no Wal-Mart). The very mother of our creation (nature) can NOT support its own children, and I say it is due to division of labor. Thus ability to overpopulate.
Without days divided against one another labor and civilized society could not exist. The structures that hold up society often will hold down its populace. It appears that we have made our choice as humans to give over control of our time on Earth to the society that we live in and ignore our nature...our mother.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Chocolate Jesus
Anatomically correct is the big problem right? Showing nude humans is only obscene due to cultural programing. The only thing one may find offensive about the penis is its varying sizes and shapes are subconsciously linked to power and domination.
But "a penis is as a penis does" and excretion and reproduction is all it does. No reflection of a mans true nature can be divined from looking at his 'manhood'. The true issue is with people that are self conscious over their own penis relative to others. They have been troubled by their relative shortcomings for their entire lives. While as a teen a boy will obsess over a small tool, a man becomes comfortable with his insecurity as part of life.
These are the folks making trouble for an artists depiction of "Gods greatest creation." (man or Jesus, if you are a "true believer.") I am sure if Jesus was given a massive penis people would have complained about as much, but then would not be a true depiction of how a Jewish genitalia look.
Given it is a generalization to say that black men have larger penises than white men, unfortunately it is generally true (I am white). Evolutionarily humans have the largest penis vs body size of all primates. An ape may appear impressive but vs their body size it shrivels down to a relative two and a quarter inches, if they were man sized. Same for breasts. This is due to walking erect.
When we stood up we changed the way and ease of choosing mates with stronger reproductive organs. Man and woman alike stood up and exposed sexual organs to full view and the process of survival of the fittest took over. White people have been wearing clothes and using different ways of choosing mates for longer than Africans.
While desirable female traits are still very similar to the first days, men have managed to change the playing field. Physical strength and a powerful sexual partner became second to finance (the equivalent to strength of old.) Modern security cant be achieved though force alone so those traits are waining.
Jesus was a Jew. I have known many Jews. If this artist depicted Jesus AS A JEW, then I would say the Jewish community might throw a fit. But why christian? Jews can take a joke and may even feel complimented if the artist used a non-Jew as a model. I find no offence in the human body and must assume any person that understands the MEANING of what the bible is trying to say, should take no offence.
The Bible is written to control a civilization 2000 years gone. The underlying meaning of the text and the ideas in it still ring true today. But the antiquated way of interpreting what happened two thousand years ago will always be a source of conflict and truly DOES NOT MATTER. The ideas are what is important. NOT THE MESSENGER! ie)The cross is a false idol; a 'sin' to use it to talk to/worship GOD. You can see, by the way we use the cross, why it is dangerous to interpret the "words of God."
The Chocolate Jesus is a deep and contemplative piece of art to me. I see the that the properties of chocolate and Jesus have many similarities. More to the point, I hope we all restrain our prejudgement and beliefs and really take a good look at Chocolate Jesus and the christian church built around him they both are sweet and melt away if exposed to the light of day.
But "a penis is as a penis does" and excretion and reproduction is all it does. No reflection of a mans true nature can be divined from looking at his 'manhood'. The true issue is with people that are self conscious over their own penis relative to others. They have been troubled by their relative shortcomings for their entire lives. While as a teen a boy will obsess over a small tool, a man becomes comfortable with his insecurity as part of life.
These are the folks making trouble for an artists depiction of "Gods greatest creation." (man or Jesus, if you are a "true believer.") I am sure if Jesus was given a massive penis people would have complained about as much, but then would not be a true depiction of how a Jewish genitalia look.
Given it is a generalization to say that black men have larger penises than white men, unfortunately it is generally true (I am white). Evolutionarily humans have the largest penis vs body size of all primates. An ape may appear impressive but vs their body size it shrivels down to a relative two and a quarter inches, if they were man sized. Same for breasts. This is due to walking erect.
When we stood up we changed the way and ease of choosing mates with stronger reproductive organs. Man and woman alike stood up and exposed sexual organs to full view and the process of survival of the fittest took over. White people have been wearing clothes and using different ways of choosing mates for longer than Africans.
While desirable female traits are still very similar to the first days, men have managed to change the playing field. Physical strength and a powerful sexual partner became second to finance (the equivalent to strength of old.) Modern security cant be achieved though force alone so those traits are waining.
Jesus was a Jew. I have known many Jews. If this artist depicted Jesus AS A JEW, then I would say the Jewish community might throw a fit. But why christian? Jews can take a joke and may even feel complimented if the artist used a non-Jew as a model. I find no offence in the human body and must assume any person that understands the MEANING of what the bible is trying to say, should take no offence.
The Bible is written to control a civilization 2000 years gone. The underlying meaning of the text and the ideas in it still ring true today. But the antiquated way of interpreting what happened two thousand years ago will always be a source of conflict and truly DOES NOT MATTER. The ideas are what is important. NOT THE MESSENGER! ie)The cross is a false idol; a 'sin' to use it to talk to/worship GOD. You can see, by the way we use the cross, why it is dangerous to interpret the "words of God."
The Chocolate Jesus is a deep and contemplative piece of art to me. I see the that the properties of chocolate and Jesus have many similarities. More to the point, I hope we all restrain our prejudgement and beliefs and really take a good look at Chocolate Jesus and the christian church built around him they both are sweet and melt away if exposed to the light of day.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Arrogance of Humans
It is common to give ourselves more importance than we deserve. To give our common everyday problems an undue weight on our consciousness and therefore an unreasonable sense of self-gratification upon accomplishment or alleviation of said problems. Further we value our own existence more than others. The only exception is when our conscious mind overrides our instinct. If it were any other way, and it likely was for pre-historic man, those species lacked a 'survival mechanism' and thus were eventually integrated or fell by the wayside of evolution. It can be argued that the very same can be said about those that did or dint posses a feeling of emptiness and curiosity (likely artifacts let over from our primate ancestry), the two things that lead to invention and spirituality. Maybe even lead the first apes from the trees and left their brethren behind.
There I go, using 'behind' to state that man now is in some way superior. Are we humans better than the apes because we have made more changes to our DNA? That just makes us more fortunate, but not better. We humans seem to think that because we are the only history keepers on the planet that we can destroy parts of it. From an off worlder point of view, that seems illogical at best... verging on insane.
The recent climate change issue has awoke many to the fact that we are a part of a living system, not the lords of it, not the reapers of Gods bounty. Seems a shame that our religious systems don't do much to connect us to earth but instead to God and heaven. Thus earthly existence is more tolerable. Good for the last 1800 years but we are big boys now and are able to wear big boy pants. With these new clothes comes new responsibilities.
- Understand that a human life is equal no matter the age, race, religion, nationality, ect...
- Know that, due to our destructive nature, a human life is worth less than most other creatures on earth
This belief in our own self-importance is the root of our personal and global problems. In our personal lives we often overlook others needs, both inadvertently and purposefully, while dwelling in our own issues. Seems that those that like drama spread it through all means at hand. In fact this all boils down to.. many humans thrive on drama, which is simply a distorted view of their own self-worth.
We find self-importance when someone else is dominated by thoughts of us, good or bad. It makes one feel like they have worth. Like they have the ability to effect the people and things around them. And we do. But it is a human fallacy to behave like this. And it draws our attention away from the true issues of our time.
On a global scale, we disconnect with the ecosystem that birthed us in order to spread its pollen (plants came first and thus, are our ancestors, and likely those original animals that evolved so as to help the plants to flourish, thrived with them), to a point where, until recently, it was taboo to say we weren't just plopped here a few thousand years ago by a big man in the sky with a white beard and big muscles. Christians have believed for ever that this planet was theirs to use up. That God gave it to them/us to use as we see fit. And that they have no future here.
The Rapture will take them away and leave all of the rest of us to deal with an empty shell of an ecosystem. I got news for you Christian fundamentalists... God is caught up in a galactic confrontation and will be a bit late. So make due till he gets here. But he assures you that each insignificant human soul on this speck of dust in a blizzard of stars called the milky way, flying around a giant black hole with billions of other galaxies, ARE HIS FIRST PRIORITY. And further each one of us, through deeds and thought alone shall be granted eternal bliss in his ever glowing presence. Yup, we allow ourselves to believe we are that important to Mr Omnipotent.
Put your ego in check. Question beliefs. Be logical. Be spiritual. Get to "know" lesser life forms. Run from drama you cant avoid. Most of all the next time you crush out a roach or fly, think about life and death and how precious and amazing that creature must be to do so much that you can't do. Because with all we can do with all the advantages we have, all we have done is destroy and abuse the source of our evolution and existence. Then measure your worth on earth vs. the roach. Uh... be honest (its an ego thing).
A Black Hole in History
In the past couple of decades computers have become the main source of data storage. Not only for person information, but also our general ideas and thoughts get blogged instead of put into some notebook that may have some use to a future generation. The most valuable ancient texts we have today were written on sheep skins and have held up admirably against the years. These texts were so important not because they answered any questions but instead gave great insight into the way in which folks lived back in their time.
This 'information age' we all live in is based on non-independent technology. What I mean by that is ink, parchment and language/symbols are independent technologies. Once created they will last (if stored properly) virtually forever. Further, even if the "language" it was written originally dies out, future peoples can relearn it from just small portions of texts. Electronic data storage is dependant on electricity and sub-systems of proper circuitry and programing to access it. And even then, as we all know, data storage is at best shaky at this time. By no means are CD and DVD designed to last more than 20 years.
For instance I was listening to a podcast (Mysterious Universe, Mind Shots episode 15) it spoke of a University that had stored data on laser disks back in the 70's because they seemed to be the future of data storage. Twenty years later when the University needed to review some of this data there was no laser disk player to be found. They eventually solved their problem but that is just 20 years.
When the future looks back on this time there may be little to find out about how the individual lived their lives, what we thought about things and how we lived day to day in general.
Information storage is the only reason we are progressing as a civilization. Whether it is stories handed down around the camp fire teaching lessons of survival, or texts on how molecules react to different outside effects, it is all designed to help each individual assimilate information rapidly so we don't waste our lives doing what has been done before, but build on the already existing knowledge base.
I guess all I got here is this... Why don't we ask for more from our corporate masters. Some solid state data storage. Something that is permanent and independent of codes and computer language. Something on skins maybe...I could think of a few skins right off the top of my head that I would love to write history on. :-)
This 'information age' we all live in is based on non-independent technology. What I mean by that is ink, parchment and language/symbols are independent technologies. Once created they will last (if stored properly) virtually forever. Further, even if the "language" it was written originally dies out, future peoples can relearn it from just small portions of texts. Electronic data storage is dependant on electricity and sub-systems of proper circuitry and programing to access it. And even then, as we all know, data storage is at best shaky at this time. By no means are CD and DVD designed to last more than 20 years.
For instance I was listening to a podcast (Mysterious Universe, Mind Shots episode 15) it spoke of a University that had stored data on laser disks back in the 70's because they seemed to be the future of data storage. Twenty years later when the University needed to review some of this data there was no laser disk player to be found. They eventually solved their problem but that is just 20 years.
When the future looks back on this time there may be little to find out about how the individual lived their lives, what we thought about things and how we lived day to day in general.
Information storage is the only reason we are progressing as a civilization. Whether it is stories handed down around the camp fire teaching lessons of survival, or texts on how molecules react to different outside effects, it is all designed to help each individual assimilate information rapidly so we don't waste our lives doing what has been done before, but build on the already existing knowledge base.
I guess all I got here is this... Why don't we ask for more from our corporate masters. Some solid state data storage. Something that is permanent and independent of codes and computer language. Something on skins maybe...I could think of a few skins right off the top of my head that I would love to write history on. :-)
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
How UFOs Will End War on Terror
During the second world war the technology of war increased from biplanes to nukes in 5 years. We used a few nukes at the end of the conflict (they didn't win the war... Japan was likely surrendering soon in any case. Our terror bombing of what is now Tokyo was more devastating than the nukes.) All that aside; those nukes scared the crap out of everyone on earth. In fact 60 years of peace... not open conflict... ensued. In that time our government has made no public advancement in tech.
Stealth design was tabled in WWII, but the RAM (radar absorbent material) was not invented yet along with the computer tech to fly such an unstable design. What are we not being told?
Well I don't know, but, I have seen:
Stealth design was tabled in WWII, but the RAM (radar absorbent material) was not invented yet along with the computer tech to fly such an unstable design. What are we not being told?
Well I don't know, but, I have seen:
The following occurred on Oct. 18, 2006, in Albuquerque, NM at 12:40AM. Seven small car sized objects in a wedge formation flew across the sky, under the low hanging clouds, silently. They took about 5 seconds to traverse from northern horizon to southern horizon. Shape of a hand garden spade and illuminated underside the same color as the orange clouds. Directly above the west side middle object broke formation and fell back and east to the rear of the center object in the wedge. Then returned to formation. This maneuver took less than a second. The formation quivered with the maneuver and was solid and unwavering before and after.
I feel they are ours, remote control and saying "Hi" to Kirtland AFB with the little fly over of over half the population of New Mexico.
(I only quote myself here because I wrote the above minutes after the event.)
Could our Military be in possession of some fantastic weapon? When one looks at how our president positioned us in a tumultuous region and then continually makes unrealistic demands of other nations and our troops, leads me to think he has an "ace up his sleeve." I know this is where I will part with anyone that may have accidentally started reading this...but I must write what I feel.
If one takes into account ALL the UFO reports from the beginning of recorded history, and does not think one single report is true, they are truly fooling themselves. Earth has assumedly been visited and crashed on. Humans have been backward engineering things successfully, as long as our technology can create the materials needed.
If we have found and taken apart an alien craft do you think we could backward engineer all materials needed to rebuild it for our own purposes in 60 years? I have no doubt (5 year from biplanes to nukes).
Further, is this future-tech so awesome that it will end war for another 50 years? Forever?
Are we using some of the "lost" money, earmarked for the war on terror, on a black project to use off world propulsion tech to create a massive ship (space or terrestrial). I pray it isn't a weapons platform, but one of exploration.
I digress...I will BLOG on Intergalactic Law at a different time. :-)
Outsourcing the War on Terror
So Vice President Cheney's' old company, Halliburton, is moving its HQ to Dubai. Aren't we all happy Dubai does not control our ports? But why would a mega multinational company working with our Government (LOGCAP) need to leave the USA? Doesn't our country have the best economy in the world for large corporations? To avoid prosecution by the next admin.? Leave the USA to protect our military? Or is it to prosecute the war on terrorism in a manner that is against US and international law, but does not apply to private organisations?
In 2001-2 Halliburton signed the LOGCAP deal with the US government. This contract gave them a supporting roll to all military operations, globally. Halliburtons ability to have prepositioned resources in all of its 120+ countries it works in made this a possibility. By 2004 over a quarter of our military support in Iraq was Halliburton. This contract also set a percentage of profit based on the expense of the job (the more they spend, the more the percent profit.) In the past few years we have seen the mercenary force in Iraq become the most well equipped and well trained (mostly ex-military) army in theater. What does it add up to?
To me it seems that this company has 'raped' our economy, from the inside, for the past 7 years and from lobbyist far longer. No company has profited greater or will profit more from the proliferation of the war on terror. And now they are moving to Dubai. This is very suspicious indeed.
Is Halliburton trying to avoid investigations that could destroy key members of our government? Or just getting closer to the "action"?
Halliburton is two companies now. It has a branch that deals primarily with mining (oil, natural gas, water, ect...) the other with infrastructure issues on a global scale. Prisons, schools, stadiums, pipelines anything real big or small...they can build. This second part of the company has the LOGCAP contract and the largest merc. force on earth.
It sounds to me that the USA is preparing to 'Outsource the War on Terror'. At the very least it is sending Dubai a company that the US has invested the future welfare and ability of our troops to wage war and come home safe. The roll of American Troop Support should not ever be in the hands of a foreign based organisation that we cannot prosecute or oversee in any way!
For the last few years the USA has become a "front" for the Hilliburton mega-corporation. This company embodies all the things that fuel global hate towards America and our policies of political manipulation through food and/or investments. The Terrorists war on American ideas is more precisely a war on Halliburtons policies of economic control of key locations that will be key to the proposed global power grid. (In the future moving the resources to make energy will cease. Instead resources will be processed into energy at the location of extraction and just the energy byproduct will be exported) The middle east will be a HUGE player in this market...standing on bunches of oil and between Africa and Europe, china and Russia. And Halliburton building and owning all the necessary infrastructure, would be a global economic power capable of controlling nations though economic manipulation.
Cheney has no progeny to leave his fortune to (gay daughter is not a source of great pride for him I'm sure). He isn't working for world peace or any other 'noble' causes. Seems he is working for Halliburton. He has been sick and wont be long on earth so don't think it is greed. I think Cheney was just the man with the vision for his Halliburton realizing the true power of a corporation. A company that has much more global power than most countries, and in fact, controls the infrastructure of many nations. But has no country. No laws to abide by. No way to destroy it.
Halliburton and Blackwater is a Global Economic Terror Organization. It has its own military (in Blackwater), has distanced itself from over site and more importantly has a plan. It was able to hijack the Republican party and the Pentagon and perpetuate fear to 300+ million people over the tragic death of 2500 on Sep. 11. (Not to belittle the 4 million less HUMANS in Iraq and Afghanistan than there would be if we never attacked, [from an episode of Real Time: whith Bill Maher...march 2007-ish])
To be short the ONLY groups benefiting from the war on terror are Halliburton...and certainly Al-Qaeda. Although, if our government can outsource the war on terror it sure would cut down on public anger. But what happens when the USA leaves and the most powerful force in region is a corporate mercenary organization?
Our troops should be supported by a company that must abide by American laws and over site. To allow Halliburton to maintain its LOGCAP contract and move to Dubai is irresponsible and unforgivable!
A matter of National Security!
commentary on similar causes of Halliburtons move... check out this BLOG by James Fish
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
