wapo
If you didn't have to eat real food anymore, this problem might go away. Brave new world, indeed.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Things are not what they seem
This could be a corollary to the "truth is a slippery thing". An adjunct to that is that people do not think for themselves. It all comes down to mental laziness---the failure to think a thing through to its conclusion. It's best to remember that things aren't necessarily the way they appear to be. This is so because it may come back to haunt you if you don't remember it.
I started reading about Nixon this afternoon. About the Watergate scandal and so forth. Nixon did make a critical mistake that cost him the Presidency. It was on the "smoking gun" tape. Instead of ordering an investigation of the break-in, he agreed with the proposition that it should not be investigated. That's what nailed him, for it could be claimed that this was an obstruction of justice. But could that be seen differently? It's possible, I think. Maybe Nixon didn't know how deep the scandal went into his administration. Or maybe he did---but that wasn't proven. Those who are critical of Nixon probably believe he knew all about it. But to me, that doesn't make sense. If he had a vague sense of a rogue element in his administration, he probably thought that was necessary because it was a tough world out there. He felt he needed the rogue element. So, he looked for a way to protect the rogues and it cost him his Presidency.
At the time, I was a teenager, so I was pretty impressionable. I was influenced by the culture. I wanted Nixon's hide. In retrospect, that seems a youthful mistake. For Nixon made a mistake alright, but was it enough of one to result in impeachment and removal from office? Probably not, if it were based upon the evidence known at the time of the act in question. It seemed more serious at the time because more about the break-in was known at the time of the resignation than shortly after the break-in. That's the point in the previous paragraph. By the time Nixon resigned, the story had been in the news for two years non stop. Could Nixon had really known as much about it just a few days after the burglary as the investigation had dug up in two years? I think not. It seemed worse than it really was. What had started out as an error in judgment ( diverting an investigation) ended up as being a criminal act ( obstruction of justice). Partisanship would get Nixon's hide.
There's a lot of talk about how partisan politics is hurting this country. But the partisanship is more on the Democrat side. This pretty much proves it to me. Nixon was to be drawn and quartered. Clinton was to be forgiven---so saith the culture. Both were wrong, but the issues involved were not of the magnitude that was claimed. Yet it is interesting to note that Nixon was forced to leave, while Clinton was not. The cultural power lies with the Democrats.
The GOP knows this and so they don't fight it. I just wonder if that's the best idea. But if Nixon had folded up early, he may have suffered a political setback, but not a political Armageddon. Sometimes fighting may enhance the appetites for revenge. If you fight, you may win. But if you lose, you may lose big time.
Things get pretty crazy sometimes. It seemed so during the Clinton years. Reading about Nixon showed it to me again. Remembering the Bush years, the craziness seem to be super hyper. So, the reaction to Obama may be overdone. Not to go soft here, but history seems to indicate it. The GOP is more reasonable, I suspect. Is it a strength or weakness? A reasonable man doesn't hang out with the the crazy man, as Nixon did. I suspect that there are more crazies on the Democrat side. Yet, there may be an advantage to at least appearing irrational in order to check the opponent. It was said that Nixon employed this tactic successfully during the Vietnam War, but in the end, it may have come back to bite him. Protecting the rogues kept Nixon's crazy into play when he needed to appear reasonable and contrite.
How do you go against the grain and not have it bite you as it did Nixon? As long as the Democrats have this power, the GOP has to tread lightly. That's what Bill Whittle seemed to be getting at. Or so it seems to me now. Reagan was able to do it, which is what should be remembered. You can be successful even in this environment.
You can't change people. They don't necessarily think things through. But you can change your approach. That's what the GOP needs to do. We'd better hope that they can, or otherwise, we will have a one party dictatorship on our hands.
I started reading about Nixon this afternoon. About the Watergate scandal and so forth. Nixon did make a critical mistake that cost him the Presidency. It was on the "smoking gun" tape. Instead of ordering an investigation of the break-in, he agreed with the proposition that it should not be investigated. That's what nailed him, for it could be claimed that this was an obstruction of justice. But could that be seen differently? It's possible, I think. Maybe Nixon didn't know how deep the scandal went into his administration. Or maybe he did---but that wasn't proven. Those who are critical of Nixon probably believe he knew all about it. But to me, that doesn't make sense. If he had a vague sense of a rogue element in his administration, he probably thought that was necessary because it was a tough world out there. He felt he needed the rogue element. So, he looked for a way to protect the rogues and it cost him his Presidency.
At the time, I was a teenager, so I was pretty impressionable. I was influenced by the culture. I wanted Nixon's hide. In retrospect, that seems a youthful mistake. For Nixon made a mistake alright, but was it enough of one to result in impeachment and removal from office? Probably not, if it were based upon the evidence known at the time of the act in question. It seemed more serious at the time because more about the break-in was known at the time of the resignation than shortly after the break-in. That's the point in the previous paragraph. By the time Nixon resigned, the story had been in the news for two years non stop. Could Nixon had really known as much about it just a few days after the burglary as the investigation had dug up in two years? I think not. It seemed worse than it really was. What had started out as an error in judgment ( diverting an investigation) ended up as being a criminal act ( obstruction of justice). Partisanship would get Nixon's hide.
There's a lot of talk about how partisan politics is hurting this country. But the partisanship is more on the Democrat side. This pretty much proves it to me. Nixon was to be drawn and quartered. Clinton was to be forgiven---so saith the culture. Both were wrong, but the issues involved were not of the magnitude that was claimed. Yet it is interesting to note that Nixon was forced to leave, while Clinton was not. The cultural power lies with the Democrats.
The GOP knows this and so they don't fight it. I just wonder if that's the best idea. But if Nixon had folded up early, he may have suffered a political setback, but not a political Armageddon. Sometimes fighting may enhance the appetites for revenge. If you fight, you may win. But if you lose, you may lose big time.
Things get pretty crazy sometimes. It seemed so during the Clinton years. Reading about Nixon showed it to me again. Remembering the Bush years, the craziness seem to be super hyper. So, the reaction to Obama may be overdone. Not to go soft here, but history seems to indicate it. The GOP is more reasonable, I suspect. Is it a strength or weakness? A reasonable man doesn't hang out with the the crazy man, as Nixon did. I suspect that there are more crazies on the Democrat side. Yet, there may be an advantage to at least appearing irrational in order to check the opponent. It was said that Nixon employed this tactic successfully during the Vietnam War, but in the end, it may have come back to bite him. Protecting the rogues kept Nixon's crazy into play when he needed to appear reasonable and contrite.
How do you go against the grain and not have it bite you as it did Nixon? As long as the Democrats have this power, the GOP has to tread lightly. That's what Bill Whittle seemed to be getting at. Or so it seems to me now. Reagan was able to do it, which is what should be remembered. You can be successful even in this environment.
You can't change people. They don't necessarily think things through. But you can change your approach. That's what the GOP needs to do. We'd better hope that they can, or otherwise, we will have a one party dictatorship on our hands.
Ever heard of Soylent?
No, not Soylent Green, as in the movie. Somebody has made a product that you can "eat" which isn't food and will sustain you. Or so he claims.
The advantage is that it is easy to prepare, he says.
Anyway, he has his own blog, so if you're interested....
The advantage is that it is easy to prepare, he says.
Anyway, he has his own blog, so if you're interested....
21st Century Waves
Technology booms and human expansion into the cosmos
Question:
Could we be in a critical state right now? A critical state is defined as:
The website discussed another as we almost blundered into---- a war over Syria.
Another way of looking at the shut down drama. Perhaps it was for the best that it ended. The crisis is over for now, at least.
Notice in the quote above how it meshes perfectly with my theory that we hit a high water mark in 1968.
A war may spoil the opening of another Maslow Window which would consist of rapid advances in technology and living standards.
Question:
Could we be in a critical state right now? A critical state is defined as:
model of transformative, twice-per-century Maslow Windows that are triggered by “critical states” of the complex global economic system due to self-organization over decades. The last one was in the 1960s — which featured the Apollo Moon program — but Maslow Windows can be traced back 200+ years to Lewis and Clark.We just had a shut down drama which might have been evidence of such a state.
The website discussed another as we almost blundered into---- a war over Syria.
Another way of looking at the shut down drama. Perhaps it was for the best that it ended. The crisis is over for now, at least.
Notice in the quote above how it meshes perfectly with my theory that we hit a high water mark in 1968.
A war may spoil the opening of another Maslow Window which would consist of rapid advances in technology and living standards.
Kennedy assassination theories mask the real conspiracy
The 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination is quickly approaching, and there's the rush to capitalize upon it as a publishing opportunity.
You know, there's really not much there as far as the assassination goes.
It's pretty much open and shut, but the thing that grabs people is that Oswald was killed too. That raises the suspicions and opens the door for the conspiracy theorists.
But the theories go nowhere either, as Oswald cannot be connected to anybody. He was not the kind of guy to be connected. He was about the most disconnected man you could find.
But it is a great story to write about and make plenty of money off it.
I don't want to knock conspiracy theories, though. There are real conspiracies in the world. Who could doubt this? I just don't think this is one of them.
If you wanted to track down a conspiracy, just ask yourself why is it that this country is stuck ( in some categories ) about where it was 40 years ago? Why aren't there colonies on Mars? Why are we still driving cars with internal combustion engines?
The technology exists to change all that. So why doesn't that change? Hmm?
They are barking up the wrong tree with the Kennedy thing. There's bound to be an explanation for why this country is stuck in the sixties with its nuclear technology. There's got to be an explanation for why the country that sent a man to the moon can't get a man into orbit even after spending at the same rate that the money was spent to send men to the moon in the first place.
There's vast wealth in the solar system. Enough to make everybody rich beyond imagination. There's plenty of energy, no energy crisis needs to exist. We've got all we need to make all the energy that we can even imagine finding a use for. But we can't access it. Why not?
Could this conspiracy mongering of the Kennedy assassination really be an attempt to distract people from the real conspiracy to keep us all poor and stupid?
There's no such conspiracy? Well, ask yourself these questions: What if everybody was wealthy? What would it mean to be wealthy when everybody is already wealthy beyond measure?
You'll probably think I'm crazy, but I thought of this while watching Star Trek First Contact. You see, if you had all that type of technology, what would wealth mean? If you could fetch a meal from a device at will, travel through the galaxy at will, transport yourself from space to the Earth at will, what would wealth mean? It would cease to mean anything.
Could it be that the wealthy and powerful can see an end to that status in a future like that?
You know, there's really not much there as far as the assassination goes.
It's pretty much open and shut, but the thing that grabs people is that Oswald was killed too. That raises the suspicions and opens the door for the conspiracy theorists.
But the theories go nowhere either, as Oswald cannot be connected to anybody. He was not the kind of guy to be connected. He was about the most disconnected man you could find.
But it is a great story to write about and make plenty of money off it.
I don't want to knock conspiracy theories, though. There are real conspiracies in the world. Who could doubt this? I just don't think this is one of them.
If you wanted to track down a conspiracy, just ask yourself why is it that this country is stuck ( in some categories ) about where it was 40 years ago? Why aren't there colonies on Mars? Why are we still driving cars with internal combustion engines?
The technology exists to change all that. So why doesn't that change? Hmm?
They are barking up the wrong tree with the Kennedy thing. There's bound to be an explanation for why this country is stuck in the sixties with its nuclear technology. There's got to be an explanation for why the country that sent a man to the moon can't get a man into orbit even after spending at the same rate that the money was spent to send men to the moon in the first place.
There's vast wealth in the solar system. Enough to make everybody rich beyond imagination. There's plenty of energy, no energy crisis needs to exist. We've got all we need to make all the energy that we can even imagine finding a use for. But we can't access it. Why not?
Could this conspiracy mongering of the Kennedy assassination really be an attempt to distract people from the real conspiracy to keep us all poor and stupid?
There's no such conspiracy? Well, ask yourself these questions: What if everybody was wealthy? What would it mean to be wealthy when everybody is already wealthy beyond measure?
You'll probably think I'm crazy, but I thought of this while watching Star Trek First Contact. You see, if you had all that type of technology, what would wealth mean? If you could fetch a meal from a device at will, travel through the galaxy at will, transport yourself from space to the Earth at will, what would wealth mean? It would cease to mean anything.
Could it be that the wealthy and powerful can see an end to that status in a future like that?
Friday, October 25, 2013
Wright Brothers First Flight, 1903 - A Day That Shook The World [HD]
It is too often forgotten how far the human race has come in the last 100 years. Imagine a world without airplanes. This was the way it was just a little over a century ago. This was about the time of the introduction of the Model T Ford automobile, which popularized the "horseless carriage".
EGO OUT: A SEMINAL NEW PAPER ABOUT NEW ENERGY.
EGO OUT: A SEMINAL NEW PAPER ABOUT NEW ENERGY.: The ICCF-18 paper: "Theoretical Analysis and Reaction Mechanisms for Experimental Results of Hydrogen-Nickel Systems" by Yeong...
More on the BEC theory. I read the PDF, in which there's a link to it at the site above.
Could BEC explain the phenomenon which came to be known as cold fusion?
More on the BEC theory. I read the PDF, in which there's a link to it at the site above.
Could BEC explain the phenomenon which came to be known as cold fusion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)