Technogenesis by Syne Mitchell (2002)

Our imaginings of the future are often bleak. Everyone's got their own idea of who the bad-guy is who will enslave the future population to drudgery and stupidity, sucking the creativity out of their neurons.

Syne Mitchell's idea seems to be the iPhone.

One of the most impressive things about her theory is that she wrote the book in January, 2002, five years before the first iToys (iPod and iPhone). All that was sucking people into computerized connectivity were laptops, early blackberries, and regular ol' cellphones.

It makes for an interesting and depressing novel topic. Throughout the first half of the book, my interest was growing and growing.

Sadly, she did not have great follow-through. Technogenesis devolves into almost super-hero antics and increasing fishy fantasy.

The idea that we could create a 'metamind' by the parallel connections of person to person to person is fascinating. I can believe it. I can wonder if it's really happening right now... However, that metamind would not necessarily have a psychology which is so understandable to the human neurons which make up it's brain. And if it did, it would not necessarily be so smart.

These were only my musings so I couldn't really hold it against her... at first. But the plot got more and more bizarre as she tried to keep it going. Without going into detail outlining the whole book, so y'all don't have to put yourselves through the experience, I'll say the plot was strung along with coincidences and rationalizations. Why are we being kidnapped? Because! Why the hell not? We think it's a good way to make friends!

The ending is written like a poor soap opera. This book was written by three or four different personalities which didn't consult each other on project's goals. It makes for a somewhat unpredictable tale, which is good. But a poorly woven one. Which is bad.

But what the hell do I know? Most other reviewers seem to really like it! (how else do you sell books?) If you like speculative Sci-Fi, give it a chance.

Teaching students to value food in school lunch-rooms and reclaiming lost value

I would like clarification on the following issue:

A Jeffco Board Policy, effective 6/16/09, states, "All menus, recipe cards and books, food, equipment and supplies are the property of the Jeffco Public Schools. Under no circumstances is an employee to take or give away any school district property. It is against District policy to take food from any school for personal reasons. Food being transferred between sites must be approved by a Food Service facilitator before the food is transferred. Leftover food may not be given to other staff members as a "free" lunch or any other person for any reason. The Kitchen Manager will make every effort to use leftover food as a choice the following day. All leftovers which are not reusable must be thrown away into the proper refuse containers."

This policy seems aimed at preventing thievery and loss of school resources to purposes it was not intended for. I know that around '09, cafeterias became more stringent with teacher lunches and provided the same portions for adults as kids and this policy seems to govern this. It does not seem to bar the possibility of redistributing food that has been bought, and therefor no longer the property of Jefferson County Public Schools.

At my school, like others in Jeffco, we throw away massive amounts of good food. Food that is still in sealed containers. It has all been bought by a student, who then decides they are not hungry and throw it away. However, it should be possible to reclaim some of this value.

There is no argument from the USDA or the Federal Government that this food can be reclaimed. It is even encouraged and they provide some resources for getting started. 

According to the USDA, "The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Western Region Office and the Nutrition Services Division of the California Department of Education have determined that leftover foods may be donated to charitable feeding programs rather than be discarded." ... "A majority of what students throw away include packaged food or fresh whole fruits and vegetables. These foods can be placed on a donation table, a reuse box or "sharing tables." Sharing tables are carts and/or tables where children can place unconsumed food and beverage items (pre-packaged food and beverages, unopened wrapped food and beverages, or food items with a peel) that they choose not to eat/drink. These tables provide an opportunity for other children to take additional helpings of food or beverages at no cost to them. In many instances, food and beverage items, especially unopened milk, have been reused by child nutrition operations as part of a reimbursable meal, served a la carte, and/or used in cooking." (source: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/reducewaste/schools/food/Donation.htm.)

President Clinton issued a memorandum asking the Federal Government to do more to promote food recovery activities to help reduce hunger in America. This food could be donated, or it could be collected by the cafeteria and re-sold, or given to staff, or distributed to students. If the owner (purchaser) relinquishes it, it would be thrown to the landfill, or it could be donated back the school to do with as we see fit.

I do not see any problem with that.

If I am right, please let me know. If there is more to discuss, I would like to continue the conversation.

Thanks,

Edward Morrison

Resource:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/gleaning/gleanman.pdf

The Casual Vacancy

The best use for JK Rowling's newest books is to hand it to twats you may know and have them read it for any character they might, themselves, resemble. And if there are, they should change themselves accordingly.

First, you should do it to yourself, of course, because you are being a judgemental prick.

It is obvious Rowling has a hard spot for humanity. And does not judge us (as a whole) very nicely. She is not alone, of course. There are a lot of little sins among our species which does little to recommend us, but I choose to be less pessimistic in our prospects. In contrast to Rowling, I don't believe most people are purposely bastards... they are just stupid and ignorant to their follies. ....mmm perhaps I am more pessimistic.

British culture does not seem to be any better than American culture about being open and honest with others. We never tell anyone our troubles, rarely are we given a chance to listen. So we blistfully bumble along being twats. Some people are truly sociopathic (like Fats Walls), and I know a Howard Mollison in my own community (though I truly hope he is not quite such an arse), but I don't think there are so many Shirleys and Samanthas and Maureens around.

Maybe I am just naive.

Anyway the book is written alright. A little jarring how quick and often it bounces perspective. It'll fit right in with the TV generation. I liked her style of extended (parentheses sections). It is very readable and devourable to book-lovers. All the same, it is absolutely Miserable. Appropriate for our societies in declining democracies parading popularity contests as a stable form of government, but Miserable all the same. There is not a positive note in the whole thing. It has a little flat humor, but it is really just a recommendation to any alien visitors to vaporize humanity before it can do itself anymore harm.

Oh, and stop Tar Sands, too, if you're there, aliens...

BeefStuff

Professor Post's famously expensive hamburger is supposed to help feed the world. There are many in favour of this (and other) solutions to our food problems. There are others who are more sceptical.

Dissenters to Professor Post's hamburger generally fall into three categories I am told by my local paper. People who think it's just plain gross to make food in a chemistry lab, people who think it is immoral to play with genetics, and some people are worried about corporate monopoly on our supply of food. Down and dirty descriptions which cannot begin to express the complications of reality. So people who disagree can quickly and easily formulate their arguments against these three points.

I agree with all of them to a certain extent. However, there is a fourth point I find more important than any of them.

We do not need more food.

Adding food to the system* isn't going to help anything, really, and might hurt long term.

Suppose that we increase the amount of available food for human consumption in the world by 2-fold. What would that truly mean? That we would be able to feed twice as many people? Well, break out those Algebra skills**, we've got a few equations we could run. How many people could that support? Twice as many as now? 14 billion? If you think that's an OK number of human beings to be running around, you obviously do not understand what a billion means. Sorry to be condescending. Image twice as many people on your roads. Or twice as many cities. Twice the people in your neighbourhood and in your schools. Twice as many people trying desperately to flee their dangerous country for more prosperous climes. Twice the competition for resources and twice the war.

And then, in 40 short years (our doubling rate. that's 2053, by the way), when we have finally reached 14 billion and the synthetic hamburger cannot feed everyone, we all start starving again. We still have starvation, but now twice as many people cannot get enough to eat.

I think it is more likely we would end up wasting twice as much food. Right now, we probably manufacture enough food to feed everyone. We just throw it all away. I, for example, work at a 'small' elementary school (K-6, approximately 300 kids) in Jefferson County in Colorado, in the US of A. Every day, we throw away enough food to amply feed a village of about 25 people. They'd have to find something else in the summer, maybe a day care, but for 3/4 of the year, we got it covered. We don't even compost it. It's just shipped to the landfill. If we didn't supply the over-wealthy with a thousand percent of what they needed, perhaps there'd be a little left over for everyone else.

We do not show many signs of changing this greedy behavior. The rich in the world do not, as a rule, share. Private schools apparently do not have kindergarten. Distribution is a challenge. Even if this does solve some distribution problems (and doesn't get monopolized by a corporation), it will only create a worse situation.

Right now, all over the world, there is the illusion that we don't have a serious problem. That there is enough food. That we can go ahead and reproduce alls we want. If even more food is supplied, it will reinforce that illusion, but not change the fact that it is an illusion. Then the population will grow again. Now it is a balloon about to pop. So we re-enforce the balloon and pump it up until it is about to pop again. That isn't a solution. It is not long term.

What we really have to do is stop pumping up the balloon. There isn't enough space for other parts of our system. We could grow test-tube burgers until we don't have any real cows left, that'll save a lot of land (space for those 14 billion) and get rid of a profession. Perhaps we can do it with milk and eggs and chickens too. Create burgers out of grasshoppers and eggplant and soy beans.

And then we will have 30, maybe 40 billion people...

Who we will not be able to feed. And we will need a new solution.

It is called "Shifting the burden to an Intervenor" and it is not a stable solution. It does not fix the system. It requires figuring out more and more intense solutions.

*A System:

The universe is a system. It is essentially closed, and infinitely complex. With in the entirety of the universe there are a trillions, quintillions, of other inter-related systems. Like your own body. It is a system complicated enough that we cannot describe the whole equation. Within that, there is your circulatory system, skeletal system, etcetera. Systems are beautiful things. When one thing is changed, that effect ripples through the entire aparatus, eventually affecting other systems around it, which will ripple back. Nothing exists in isolation so that, yes, even the minute beating of a butterflies wings might have astronomical implications in enough time.
 

**Algebra Skillz:

If population continues to grow the way it is now, based on:
Supposing that there is about 1.5 × 10⁸ km² (150 million km²) of land space on earth, 14 billion (1.4 × 10¹⁰ or 140 × 10⁸) people would average out to be 140 people per 1.5 km² (or about half (0.56) square miles). Or would we just double our waste? Fill up our landfills with rotting food faster. Would we still have the disparity in distribution?

or:

N=(N0)e^rt    where:
(N0)=initial population=(N2013)=7E9 (or 7 billion)

e = 2.71828 (the special log number)

r = a rate of 1.7% (or 0.017)

t = 987 years between now and the next millennium

Then by the year 3000, we will have about 1.36E17 people. Or 136 Quadrillion people.

This right here is why we need better mathematics education.

***External Links:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/scientists-serve-up-burger-grown-in-lab-from-cow-stem-cells-for-the-first-time-monday

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d82b9398-fde3-11e2-8785-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2cAygr8If

****PS:

Thinking about population is inherently and enormously depressing. But it is very important to understand.

I'm going to go do something happy. And promise never to have children of my own.

Outside the Box Thought of the Month: the Dozenal System

Counting by dozens is a lot of fun. If only because you aren't used to it. It makes me just laugh as the foundations of my thinking are shaken.

So, in Dozens, what is 9*6? Hmm?

Here is the answer: And many more:

0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  X  E  10

0  2  4  6  8  X  10 12 14 16 18 1X 20

0  3  6  9  10 13 16 19 20 23 26 29 30
0  4  8  10 14 18 20 24 28 30 34 38 40

0  5  X  13 18 21 26 2E 34 39 42 47 50

0  6  10 16 20 26 30 36 40 46 50 56 60

0  7  12 19 24 2E 36 41 48 53 5X 65 70

0  8  14 20 28 34 40 48 54 60 68 74 80
0  9  16 23 30 39 46 53 60 69 76 83 90

0  X  18 26 34 42 50 5X 68 76 84 92 X0

0  E  1X 29 38 47 56 65 74 83 92 X1 E0

0  10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 X0 E0 100

There are a few dozen people around the world who think we should all count like this. Because it is easier. We could teach children elementary math quicker. Even thought it would blow the minds out of the heads of all our adult population. We do not have the teacher to teach this math to elementary students.

No one actually seems to be in earnest about this. They have made a clock, but not a temperature scale. Or an available calculator. Or replacement formulae for important equations easily and publicly available.

The Descent of Google

I pay more attention to technology then I should. It sits in front of me most all the day and I look at the edges of my screen. I notice and "huh" about various things that I see.

When I was in Middle School, I was one of the first kids to start using Google. Because on old computers, around the time of the 56k modem, Google loaded fast. There was no crap all over their home screen, so it was a lot easier to use.

Now, most search engines do this. Google has since moved on to web services. They provide an impressive array of completely free features. Making all their money by selling ads. Well, now they make their money selling phones and operating systems too, but they are still known for ads.

About four years ago, I made the switch to Gmail from Yahoo. Because Yahoo was glitchy and Google could do anything. Yahoo wouldn't let me export my mail. Google had no problem going in and copying it all over for me anyway. I switched to Chrome because I liked how simple it was set up. I like the "omnibox".

But now, Google is getting cumbersome. They can't make mail filters for contact groups, but they do make useless extra groups no one wants to use. You can't make calls with your Google phone number (...except inside Gmail... and only if you don't upgrade; or with someone else's software). Blogger sucks compared to Tumbler, unless you like writing for an audience of none. And Chrome, their favourite little project is slipping compared to Firefox.

At least on my computer.

There's just so many glitches in Google. They have two redundant header-bars. Chrome is slower and slower, especially with Google services like Plus and Blogger. In the 'new compose' in Gmail, I cannot add hyperlinks. Well, I can in Firefox. Firefox rarely fails me. There are a lot of pages that finish loading completely blank in Chrome. Firefox has no trouble. And Firefox is faster, too. Is is possible that my Flash Block and Ad Block are slowing it down that much?

All my bookmarks and crap are over there, though... I might be switching back to what's been the stand-by for over ten years. Good Ol' Reliable Firefox.

The Graduate (1967) and Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

Those who like dry humor, to the point of stale humor, should watch The Graduate. It is somewhat uncomfortable, subtle, strange. A lot of this movie happens in between the lines. My favorite joke were the songs they chose to play and when. They certainly give a sense of foreshadowing. When it was over, I was left saying, "...huh. Well that was weird."

It has a great ending. Which summarizes the entire feel of the movie.

Silver Linings Playbook is a lot more accessible and modern. The production is more easy to watch. I did not laugh out loud nearly as much, but it has a more dramatic feel to it.

The Graduate involves some pretty complex and common themes. Graduating from college and then discovering you have absolutely no idea what to do with yourself being a prime one. It deals with poor decisions in a fun and frank way such as: if you make bad decisions you might not come out on top of them in the end. A bad decision, if it is a doozy, can have some pretty lasting effects on your outlook. Don't fuck around on your family friends.

These are not themes in Silver Linings. It is fun, but it is not particularly complex. It does not really deal with the drama it covers. It mentions them and then glides on by. Its plot is exactly (spoiler!) what a modern Hollywood flick requires, it proceeds just how you would expect and winds up all hunky dory in the end. It is not a vapid movie, however. Here the characters and the family dynamics are what make the movie. Their life exceeds that of the satirical personas of The Graduate.

One of these films is about crazy people. Consequently lively characters. One of these films is about upper-middle to lower-upper wealth people who are far more crazy than the crazy people. Suggesting, to me, that graduating from college does not necessarily mean that you are a good and upstanding person. It reminds me of a study I was told of long ago.

The study (which I was not able to find specifically, but there are some along the same lines) suggested that the standards and the practices in some venerated universities created a criminal mentality in their students. By only passing a certain percentage and failing the rest, no matter how bright, students had to aggressively compete against each other. Willfully putting aside their compassion for their fellow students to make sure that they were the one who passed.

And then, by extension, you have a society that isn't so worried about the pain and frustration of their fellow man, or of their future man, as long as things seem to be going their own way now.

The ending of The Graduate makes the film for me. I love a good ending, one that's a little ambiguous, doesn't imply an ending (because real life never ends), but does close the story appropriately. I was supplied.

#The Graduate #Silver Linings Playbook #movie #movies #film #comparison #1967 #2012 #Dustin Hoffman #William Daniels #Chris Tucker #Bradly Cooper #Jennifer Lawrence

Long Live Pope Francis!

In a world where most of all I do is complain, I would like to take a short moment to say,

Pope Francis, you are a true pope. I appreciate you like I have appreciated no other pope during my cognitive lifetime. Thank you.

I call him a true pope because if the story in Rio. He welcomed people. Talks with them. rather than hide in an armored car. What would Jesus do? Certainly not exalt himself over anyone else. He was supposed to set the example. Which was implied as possible for anyone because he was human. That is the way the story is told to me. He did not live in fear, he did not guard himself. He did not exalt himself. He went and talked to lepers.

The Washington Post advises that we all take a moment to wonder if he really will change anything. Hesitancy is not always a sin, but worrying doesn't accomplish anything. And negativity breeds contept. I am positive there are things about Pope Francis I am not going to like. No one is perfect; there's stuff I don't like about me. Lots of stuff. But I am also a fan of giving people a little benefit until they lose it. And even then, it is good to remember that we are all only human. Francis has so far given a good example. I appreciate it. (By the way, Jon, the catholic church was much more concerned with Galileo's assertion that we revolved around the sun rather than the sun revolving around us. A lot of people understood that the earth was not flat.)

However, I am very sad to learn that Francis is not more supportive of contraception. I would not have expected him to be in favor of abortion, but not endorsing contraception is the same thing in my mind. If people can't protect against a pregnancy, then they will end their pregnancies. Which would you rather have?

Or would we all rather just go to war....?

To be sure, I am not really involved with catholicism. I like religion and study it a bit (read The Religions of Man by Huston Smith. It is a wonderful book) but it's not my house. Still, I was happy to hear he doesn't judge homosexuality (even if he still sees it as a sin), and he wants to allow more opportunities for women in the church (even if its not clergy).

I would agree with Jon O'Brien that this isn't the change I would really like to see. But nothing happens overnight. At least we still have Mrs Melinda Gates giving out catholic birth control. Too bad she can't be pope.

#Pope Francis #Catholicism #catholics #earth #religion #faith #reform #change

Running Barefoot.

After wearing thin, minimal sandals almost everywhere, running and walking, work and play, inside, outside, safe or not, I feel qualified to make a few quick, perfunctory statements.

1. They work pretty well. At least if your feet aren't already falling apart on you. if your legs and joints aren't suffering a bit. They take a bit of getting used to and new muscle development, so don't take it as an advert and always think for yourself. But they work well. Our feet and legs were designed to walk barefoot.
2. But not on rock. They don't work on rock. Our legs do not work on rock. And by rock I mean sidewalk. Concrete. 

I have not worn these thin sandles running every time. Today, I ran down some city streets. When I can, I go into yards and dirt and grass.

Where my stride truly becomes natural. On the rock, I'm tiptoeing. it's not working very well. On soil, it's fine.

Course, sidewalk isn't good for anyone. No matter what footwear you have on. It's hard to avoid. We are always provided with ample access to everything we shouldn't have.

An Edible Gardeners Reference

It's hard to find a straight forward reference to use in the garden. I like things being on one page. All the information utterly accessible.

For anyone in Denver, the Southwest, Midwest, or Rocky Mountains, this might be useful:

Edward Morrison's Late July Gardening Reference for Denver, Midwest, Southwest, and Rocky Mountains

A few notes on the symbology:

• Xs are good things
• capital X are pairings that are frequently referenced, especially good.
• x are companions
• /   that's half an x. They are probably good, but aren't as specifically beneficial
• P is for "Pest Prevention"
• P  Denotes a Pest Preventor! This plant either attracts the good or scars the bad.
• p  little p is also a pest prevention marker. That is what this pairing will do for you.
• q  that's a backward p. Like the half x, it implies some pest help, but not so clearly.
• Some specialty marks: they explain the benefit you will likely have.
• 3/  used once. In this reference, plant 3 basil's per tomato for pest prevention.
• n  plant nearby. Or in "alternate rows"
• s  the benefit this plant provides is shade.
• 0s are bad things.
• 0  these plants are enemies. Plant none of them nearby.
• )   That's a half circle. It implies some animosity.

Beans? What Beans?

For a beginning gardener, the term "bean" is an evil, awful, no good, very bad word.

It's just too vague.

What kind of bean? A green bean? A dry bean? A bean bush? A pole bean? A legume? Black beans or pinto beans or string bean?

Sure most of these probably have more in common than not. The dry beans probably have a lot in common with each other. But when the word is "beans", with no further explanation, I get stuck. Trying to figure out what different sources mean by "beans", especially when they have different conclusions, sucks.

Here's a wish that people think about being a little more clear.

Edible Forests

Laura Pottorff of the Colorado State University's extension office is apparently convinced that "companion planting" is a load of crock. Perhaps she is really just trying to discourage people from fretting and worrying over-much about the negative effects of one plant on another.

Companion Planting does have a good history around it. And good logic. Some attributes of one plant can really help out another.

• Double-up production by:
• Tall plants can act as shade for smaller plants
• Deep roots don't compete with shallow roots so much
• Vines that crawl across the ground might could be planted under tall stalky plants.
• Keep our neighbors healthy:
• Onions and Marigolds can repel some pests. They are not the only living repellants
• Some plants can be sacrificial and lure garden pests away
• Other plants can attract good insects like spiders and ladybugs

This just makes a certain amount of sense.

I am beginning experiments on Edible Forests. I will be creating some circle gardens at a farm I volunteer with to see how well they do. Currently, we are over-run with weeds. They are choking out the plants we want to grow. Doing basically what weeds do.

My hypothesis is that with good companion planting, I can create some "edible forests" in which the weeds have a hard time competing with what we want.

So: in theory:

1. I need deep-rooting plants
2. Shallow rooting plants
3. Tall plants
4. Perhaps some ground-cover like plants
5. And all of them can be started in late July... In a high desert.... a Dry Denver hill.
6. Plants that like each other fairly well.

Second tier problem is to worry about pests. But there are quite a few lady bugs out on the land already. Bugs do not seem to be too much of a problem. It is the Buffalo Burr and the bloody Bindweed which are our chief problems.

Arvada Square: A Better Plan

Arvada Plaza Walmart

Arvada wishes to gift-wrap $5.8 million to a company which makes $17 billion in yearly profits. To put $17 Billion in perspective, that is enough money cover this bailout 2931 times*.

Such favoritism by government is not something I can endorse, and I am surprised that anyone can. Especially for a project I have doubt will truly improve the area. I hear about Walmart improving neighborhoods or economies just about as often as I hear about them wrecking it. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between. The Walmart which took over a field and small outdoor mall at 72nd and Sheridan in Westminster Colorado did less havoc to the surrounding neighborhoods than I imagined (it did kill the mall up the road, as everyone knew), but I haven't seen it excel as a wonderful place to be, either. It certainly isn't as nice as the old mall. When the first Walmart comes to an area, I am sure it shows a bunch of boon for a local economy because we measure them so divided. In Alamosa, the super-store is the only thing like it for miles around and people drive from as far as Creed to get cheaper napkins. Yet... Alamosa is still poor itself. I wonder where all that imported money is going?

But I have a better idea. Launching of of Indianapolis' Cultural Trail project. This project targeted community, sustainable transportation, exercise, people and citizens, interaction, beauty, art.... It bolstered many aspects of the city. It is a wholeistic project and it was funded almost entirely by philanthropy. It didn't use tax dollars and certainly didn't raise rates.

This isn't Indianapolis. And I don't mean to insinuate that Arvada can raise $63 million dollars for one street corner. But perhaps there are some people out there who would love to see Arvada more beautiful. We might be able to raise 5.8 million to help improve the frankly ugly Arvada Plaza, some of it as a fine on the negligent land owner.

This is a perfect time to act. Commuter Rail is going through the area. If we are prepared with nice places to be, then passengers might make Arvada as much of a destination as Downtown Denver. If, instead, there is a Walmart draining the business out of Olde Town, then we could be a very forgettable stop. Old Town Arvada has made itself into an amazing center of commerce and fun. It would be much more of a shame to kill that than it was to kill the Westminster Mall.

The primary things to consider to improve the area are:

• Having space for people. Animals. Plants. Life. So that people will stay, have fun, enjoy themselves, and use the space. Maybe just buy a second croissant.
• Connect and interact with other local features. Like parks, trails, Olde Town, the coming Commuter Rail. Support options for travel, especially ones involving outside and exercise.
• Open up the soil. Reduce paving. Allow things to live. Pavement is good only for wheeled creatures. Sidewalks are as hard on the human knee and feet as it is for our CO2 footprints. Soil, however, is good for everything.
• Community. Local production and value rather than imported and exported value. Walmart would employ a few people, hundreds of jobs they claim, but how many jobs are lost? And how well do they treat their employees. Walmart is pretty hard on the economy at large.
• Work with local talent to beautify Arvada. There are artists and craftsmen would would love the opportunity to put their work in public.
• Make it a pleasant place to be.

There is a lot more information on Walmart. Is this really what we want for our communities? Or just push it on other people? Generally, people seem to want the latter, forgetting entirely the Golden Rule of morality. Only do to others what you would like done to you. Would you like one in your backyard?

http://yourhub.denverpost.com/arvada/arvada-government-favoritism-walmart/7RnvhpTk93ZFDvt1mDCNWI-ugc?hl
http://www.qualityarvada.info/
http://stoparvadawalmart.com/
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/09/15/biz_biz1amart.html
http://landscapevoice.com/indianapolis-cultural-trail/
http://www.businessinsider.com/16-walmart-facts?op=1
http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores2.html
http://www.now.org/issues/wfw/wm-facts.html



*Less impressive analogies: Walmart has enough profit to give every person on the planet $2.43, or every person in America (308.7 million people, 2010 census) $55. Or every person below poverty (estimated 15% - 50%) $367 - $110. Just from this year.

Good use of a Fillibuster!

State Senator Wendy Davis of Fort-Worth, Texas, was able to stop an abortion banning bill by a long-winded Filibuster just about now. Quite an impressive display of fortitude for her cause and helping our little country from slipping further into the dark ages of misogyny and self-administered 'family planning tactics'...

And Proposition 8 is failing again.

These stories are going to come faster and faster. At least I hope my generation has some wisdom lying around inside their heads. Though... the sodomy acts in Colorado give me a little pause, it seems obvious that, soon, gender identity issues will fade. Maybe it's just because everyone I know doesn't care what gender anyone IDs as.

But I think gay and lesbian (at least) are beginning to be aided by, ironically, a behavior which has damaged them in the past: people think about relationships a lot. They love it. Gay and Lesbian relationships just give match-makers one more thing to oohhh over, and we all like that.

Supercomputing a Paradigm Shift?

Recently the Chinese built the world's fastest supercomputer.

In the United States, we turned green with envy and purple with fear and red-faced with embarrassment. Isn't the United States duty to remain the greatest innovator and power house in computers? We have Google! No! It is the United State's duty to remain the greatest innovator, thinker, and holder of all the worlds greatest assets! If we don't, it's a matter of National Security.

Even though there are between 193 and 250 countries in the world and it's not a 'National Security' issue for all of 'em.

This computer could, apparently, do some pretty cool things. Like track all of it's citizens.... or collect terabytes of data. Help soldiers in the field and evaluate trends. It shows us what the consumer will be able to buy for their home computer in 2078.

But no one has mentioned helping a paradigm shift. So it's probably not all that useful. That's what we really need. Part of that Paradigm shift is probably realizing that a 33.860 petaflops computer is not quite so useful to the self-sustenance of a society as a hectare of local vegetables and fruits grown with a mind toward soil perseverance.

National Security? The issues are at home.

What to do...

How to make the world a better place. Step one:

Do it.

Plan, of course, but do it. Gardening, local food, self-sustenance is what could lead to our future salvation. Or, if nothing else, our immediate happiness.

Realize that not all jobs are really necessary. I applaud people for wanting a job. Most people want to give their society something. Otherwise we just all feel like a mooch. A laze. A bum. No one wants to feel like that. Some people get used to it, some people can't seem to get away from it. But no sane person wants to be a bum.

So we get jobs. But not all of them are actually needed. Some of them un-needed, but we are still convinced they should be there. Jobs such as mining (sorry miners), and a good half of our construction projects. Some jobs exist for no other reason than to fight with someone else, like marketers. Fighting fist over fist for whatever scraps they can find for their company and so, in an ever deeper trench, they dig for the same gold they once had for little work. Once, I lived in a city where we had 3 phone books. Three. Tres. Trois. Now what's the point of that? Competition? How about they all co-operate and make one bad-ass phone book rather than spending all the resources to print three copies of the same thing and deliver them (...for free...) to everyone in town. A phone book is paid for by ads. So everyone in the entire town needs to pay three times over for the same advertisement value.

Where's the sense in this? Is this a functioning market? It's asinine and a waste of human work.

I may sound bitter, but I don't want to be. This is an educational opportunity. Let's think of what could be done better. Where could all this work and time go instead?

If we shared and re-distributed our resources a little more efficiently, perhaps everyone could work for the one phone-book manufacturer. And work a third as much. Leaving so much time for doing whatever else their hearts desired. Think about who needs a job and why? Activity does not mean stability. Sometimes, it means the opposite, but sometimes it is appropriate. Yet, if one has all they need, why would they need more?

Why re-buy an iPhone just because it's there? The newest car model? Is it really that necessary?

Why use Skype or Google Hangouts or FaceTime when we all can have one universal phone numbering system. Which of these are more efficient. Call anyone, or "Oh, I don't have FaceTime. Guess I can't call you." Which makes me wonder why there are three proprietary networks. Wouldn't it be nicer if they worked together? When the telephone network was first put up, there were many companies providing phones that could use it. Now, computers can call and chat to each other and they have the ability to use the phone system. It is just not supported, and so we are not allowed.

Buddah preached peace in the moment. Even still, we are talking about the Power of Now.

And yet... Eckhart Tolle still sells his book for the root of all evil: money. The man must keep himself alive, I suppose.

What is Confucianism? Trying to Understand

The Religions of Man, by Houston Smith, is a remarkable book. I recommend it to everyone. It is filled with the wisdom of ancient Hinduism, the Buddha Siddhartha Gautama, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Jesus, the Jews... China, Japan, the Middle East, and India. All of it has a purpose and a point. None of it is vain, idle thought. There are lessons in here we could all listen to more often.

In the section on Confucianism in this remarkable book, there is a little history about dark-age China. It started earlier than 500 BC, a time of mutual and long term warfare It ravaged the people, tore up the country, made a general nuisance of itself. The usual states of war. They probably manufactured toy weapons and games for children to get practice at a good, young age.

What created such a state of destruction and violence? Vile human nature? A breakdown of traditional wisdom? A flux in social order? Perhaps a ballooning of the population like today's world? Smith describes a time of rising individualism. Permeating the old social cohesion, filling in cracks and wedging it apart. Old traditions are analyzed by thousands of individual point of view who either accept or reject it. Their immediate ancestors didn't even think about asking questions. They simply accepted their fate.

Of course, this is a little simplified. Smith believes that the pull of tradition in some cultures is so pervasive that the alternative is unthinkable. It drives daily life. There is no theft (as an example) because from birth no one is given an example of theft. No one steals. It doesn't exist and so it continues to not exist. It is beyond the mindset of the people to comprehend, let alone commit. Yet... in reality, people are different. Surprisingly stupid for being so unbelievable intelligent. There are people in our culture, our 'traditionless culture', who listen to their parents; there are people who listen to no one. There are sociopaths born everywhere. There are people who obey laws; there are those who flaunt laws. Even in cultures heavily led by culture, there are going to be those individuals who think of other ways. Most of them will not follow other ways. Even sociopaths will follow the will of a society when they know the alternative is rather enjoyable. Small bands of people deal with sociopaths easily. There are no laws or anything, but everyone knows everyone else. If there is an asshole, they'll deal with you.

But when there are too many people to keep track of one's neighbors.... those who think, suddenly have avenues to act. The old system (know everyone so you know the assholes and can banish them from the land) ceases to work and something else must be discovered. What are the answers? What are the ways to keep people enjoying each others company?

We could just all love each other. That's a simple enough answer, preached by really every true religion. Then we will treat each other right. But... how do we get everyone to love each other? Pervasive tradition where the alternative never comes to mind? How about an extensive Draconian legal system? But... there are places even the most extensive legal system cannot reach. There are extenuating circumstance which will not be imagined by the writers of the code, no matter how creative they may be. And then, the code gets unmanageably huge and, eventually, the highly educated figure out ways to manipulate it to whatever design they want it to be. Like in America, where the legal code is for all purposes written in its own language and includes so many strange and hard to identify loopholes that it's hard for a sane person to decipher the intent. Or we could educate people to be rational.... but expecting a human being to be rational is just about the least rational expectation one could have.

I have this expectation. It's frustrating.

Confucius was a little like a blend of all these points of view. He proposed education and deliberate tradition infused into that educational system. He realized that loving thy neighbor was a little unrealistic to expect from a million individualized souls. But it would go a long way to covering the gaps left in a legal code. 

Human Nature - quick thought

I do not believe that people are inherently evil. Most of the time when someone cites 'human nature' as a reason for human behavior, I scoff it down a bit. What is human nature? To be social, sure. We tend to like each other even if we don't want to and even if we don't deserve it. We... walk upright. We... uh, hold things. We smile. We laugh. Outside of this, I am not sure. Are people mostly made of 'nurture', are our beings how we are raised and the societies influences? Or are we 'nature'? Ourselves? Individuals? Free Will... Sometimes I think it's 50/50; other times I am sure we are mostly nurture; sometimes I am sure we are more nature than anyone gives us credit for. But whatever that nature may be, it is almost impossible to distinguish from our nurturing. What goes into the recipe after it comes out of the oven.

American Traditions

Is America really devoid of tradition? Huston Smith thinks so.

Contemporary Western life has moved so far from the tradition-dominated life of early man as to make it difficult for us to imagine how completely it is possible for human life to be controlled by mores. In one area only does custom continue to reach into our lives to control the switches, the area of dress and attire. If in dressing a businessman were to overlook his tie he could not get through the day. The predicament has nothing to do with indecent exposure; it is purely a matter of convention.

Huston Smith, The Religions of Man, 1964. 

Granted, this was written in 1964. I doubt that it was ever true. The only arean? Smith is a very intelligent person, and was educated partially outside the western cultural system. Yet, these words ring with an emic perspective: Modern, western, Homo sapiens is different from other Homo sapiens; we are more rational, we are more wise, we are more educated. We are more evolved from Primitive people.

We are not. We are basically the same thing as we have always been, we just have a different culture. Culture controls a huge part of what a person is, but it is not everything. There are still smart people and stupid people, as there have always been; there are creative people and logical people; there are leaders and followers. Some people follow every tradition. Some fight back against tradition.

My perspective is that of one who has a hard time following the traditions of American life. I can attest that there are far more areas of tradition than just wearing a tie (a traditional habit that has largely disintegrated since 1964). The one that got me thinking about it is healthcare.

In the US, we have a public fire-department. Set up not for any one person's profit, not for one person's gain, but for the safety of the general public. Which, when we are talking about fire prevention, is important to people. This has existed for a while and, by tradition, is accepted. We also have a public police system, much the same way. It is not for someone's gain, but for all our gain. Our educational system strives for this; our postal system hopes to keep everyone informed and connected. Time and bloat have worked into each of them, and a certain amount of re-thinking is often a good idea, but they are here likely to stay for a while.

We do not have public health. If people get sick, that is an opportunity for the wealthy to get a little bit more wealthy. Wondering if this could be for the benefit of our population instead of the wealthy few creates aneurysms for a lot of people. Why? Well, they aren't used to the idea. It sounds like socialism.

Maybe it is a stretch to call this 'tradition', but in the minds of many people, it is. It isn't a tradition for everyone, but it is for someone. Tradition in America is splintered. Traditions in one family will seem odd to their next door neighbor. But they are in place. The traditions of one family will encourage conservatism, the traditions of another will encourage liberalism.

Many of our traditions -- our non-legal habits -- are what Smith would call 'deliberate'. They are taught in school, as Confucius would have done. They are taught through our media, sometimes on purpose. Sometimes by accident. Usually, without good foresight. Our advertising systems create a lot of tradition. Our movies and video games. Confucius understood that entertainment and media helped mould the mind, especially at a young age. They become vehicles of cultural tradition.

Other rather pervasive American traditions I can identify are:

• Worship a striped and starred flag, along with the words "United States of America".
• If it has touched the floor or ground, it is instantly rendered inedible.
• Hosts are positive that guests never do dishes; guests are sure that guests should. 
• Shower at least once a day, whether you need to or not.
• Cleaning with poison is the only way to make something truly clean.
• Without a thank you card, how would anyone know their gift was appreciated?
• Safety is more important than knowledge, freedom, or sanity.
• Television is an acceptable pastime, even if it's not productive; videogames are not.
• Chips are food.
• ....W.. W-walk? What's that mean?
• Texting is an equivalent to socializing.
• If you don't own a firearm, you obviously don't care about your family.
• Singing is for professionals only.
• Bicker! Especially if you can do so anonymously.
• Privacy is next to Divinity
• Math is hard.
• When you can't think of anything else to say, complain.
• It's not interesting if it's not negative.

I'll stop because I have become aware that I'm mostly following that last one, which I don't like so much. There are plenty more good traditions people follow unconsciously, I simply can't think of many.

Bing vs Google

I took Bing's little challenge: Bing It On. Where they attack Google, assuming that they have a better set up.

I did like Bing more when I searched for "Terantula", but the challenge didn't really answer the question I had. I use search engines as a spell check, for it is the best spell check I have ever seen. The challenge doesn't show that part: that would give it all away.

I appreciate the way the study was set up, attempting as well as it could to be non-biased. But I repeated the test afterward, searching for all the same things through each search engine and I discovered something:

It is impossible to be non-biased. An important detail is aesthetics and setup. Bing's results are fine. There are little differences, but for the most part the big searches give pretty comparable results. Trying each search on Bing proper and Google proper I much prefer the latter. Perhaps because it is what I am used to, but I didn't like the floating Facebook thing.

Biggest constructive criticism I have: image search. Bing's image search bothers the hell out of me. It's a general Microsoft like thing. Hover and some helpful thing pops up under your mouse. Spiffy idea, I suppose, but it is obnoxious. I am sure opinions differ, as this is a true opinion. But I do not like hovering little boxes showing a bigger version of the same picture. It's annoying and in the way. 

The Peculiar Sadness of Lemon Cake by Aimee Bender (2010)

Aimee likes geeks. Smart sciency types are definitely her type, between The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake and An Invisible Sign of My Own, I draw this conclusion. And so, if you like smart sciency types, you might really like this book. If you like Literature, as a genre, then you might like this book. If you like drama drama drama, angst angst angst, sadness sadness sadness! then you will probably like this book.

It is not all about sadness. Angst or drama; and it's not snooty. But sadness is in the title and features pretty prominently. If you are having trouble, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I found the second half of the book to be a lot more fun than the first. But it is a book that generates very mixed reviews. In my own immediate circle it scored a love, a like, an ok, a meh and a hate. I like that type of feedback. It suggests to me a level of quality even if I did not perceive it. It has an ability to mean very different things to very slightly different people; who knows what it could mean to you.

In other words, disregard the rest of this review. If ya wanna read it, the best thing to do is read it. Otherwise, don't.

I found the characters in the book to be a little flat and too adult. Eight year olds talk like they are 30. The world's people tend to be governed by one emotion: angry people are angry, annoyed people are annoyed, boring people boring, distant people distant. Everyone seems to have a communication problem, even the empathetic people (who are always perceptive)... and no one is happy. No one. In the entire world. None. Maybe because they don't know how to talk to each other. Only a little bit of an exaggeration. In the second half of the book, characters are revealed to have more depth than I first thought and it is revealed that, surprise!, there are some people who are fairly content and maybe even happy. There are some curious people. Some people who love. It takes some waiting to find these non-depressed folks.

The Peculiar Sadness of Lemon Cake is nothing if not bizarre, for that is Aimye's aim. Her style of shooting. And the target she is aiming for is unutterable allegory. Like a Zen Buddhist, Aimee doesn't seem to have much faith that standard verbal fare can project her myriad messages to the audience. Nor does she seem to feel like a realistic story is her game. She goes for a fantastical reality which you must interpret for yourself. This is my favorite aspect of her story. But I don't know what messages Aimee is going for. I am certain that I didn't get them all. I see something about people choosing to become furniture in their own houses--becoming lost in their own private pursuits, not interested in living. I have met these people and I don't understand them in reality any more than in this story.

For me, this story feels very small. But it has a good chance to mean more to you. So disregard all of this drivel. Read a synopsis. If it sounds good, then try it for a while.

Scientific Analysis (spoilers comin'):

Nothing changes. No one communicates. They only commiserate inside themselves in a lonely monologue. Rose is 12 years old and can count 2 conversations with her father. There is no life outside this story besides what you read. The characters don't know each other any better than you do, despite living decades within the same household as each other. Every discovery she has about her father is told in a 200 page book. Likewise with her brother. And her mother. And George. Everything she knows, you have seen her discover. It is so small.

That is my main problem with it. It is too much just a story. It exists only within itself more dependently than epic fantasy. She can only taste emotions when it is palpable for the story. She doesn't taste her mother's affair until it starts. Why is there no lead up? Her mother is bringing snacks to some guy for years and it doesn't come off in her baking emotions? Why not?

I Pledge Allegiance to My Family

I wonder about people

People don't make a lot of sense. Expecting people to be rational is akin to expecting pigs to fly, expecting caterpillars to recite poetry. Yet still, I find myself expecting it. How can you happily spend $500 a month on marijuana and be upset that your grand-daughter likes it too? It doesn't make sense.

Yesterday I saw another sign declaring "More Freedom, Less Government." It is a nice sound-bite. More of one, means less of another. Simple relationship. Causational. Easy to understand. Straightforward. There are no other factors. Believe me! this sticker shouts. And many people obey. I encounter this attitude frequently. If we have less government, we become more free. Period. Exclamation Point.

At the same time, there is a ubiquitous attitude that the United States in God's design for human nations. ...which are governments... And usually when I encounter the former attitude, I find the latter in abundance as well. How can a person hate their government, and want it down played further and further and further; and yet love their country? Without realizing a government and a country are rather the same thing?

Then I started working in the public school system. Where we teach our children to recite a hollow rite beyond their vocabulary in front of a flag that they do not understand every morning. Despite a complete inability to understand what they are doing, or why, or even which hand is their right so they can place it over their "heart", which is invisibly located somewhere on their left breast.... this habit is instilled with greater rigor that any mathematical operation or grammatical nuance they may be learning.

I don't say the pledge every morning with the kids. I am not particularly patriotic. The idea of a 'nation' is too esoteric for me to pretend to pledge allegiance to. I don't see the point in trying to brainwash myself to it. Reality, as I understand, does not have borders. There are deserts in the mountains, and wetlands in the deserts, and oceans inland. The United States is a very loosely held together congregation of people who won't see eye-to-eye. We fight amongst ourselves, fight amongst our own states, and find as many little details to divide each other as we can. Denver isn't Colorado to the people who live in the mountains.

This is what I hear when the Pledge is recited:

I pledge allegiance

to some fabric

which represents America.

Not to the plutocracy

for which it stands

Fifty-some states,

fighting God,

heavily divided,

with liberty and justice

for celebrities. (and rich people)

Stay Strong.

Evil Prevails when good people do Nothing.

I may not be a "great soul", like Mahatma Gandhi, but I try in earnest to live by his idea: Be The Change You Want To See In The World.

I believe in this.

Even though it may cost me a job. Pittance, really. It cost Gandhi and India more than that for several decades. But eventually, the world was made a slightly better place.

Be the change.

Be a good person.

Even when you are told you Can't! (we say that a lot).

Even when it is illegal.

Fire and Ice (movie, 1983)

This is a great example of an Awfully Wonderful movie. A great flick to watch with a few friends who don't get too intent on hearing every word of dialog, even if there are only a few dozen the whole movie long.

This is an example of a the "fairy tale" phenomenon. Grimm stories are so devoid of character that that anyone can re-imagine the entire thing, straying back to the plot only once in a while, and make a great new story. This was Disney's career. Harry Potter is so great partially because of a premise so unrealistic that it invites readers to make up extensions for the characters. Reasons things might go the way they do. Fire and Ice lacks so much that it is a great conversation piece. And you'll be thinking about it, and laughing At it for hours to come.

Jefferson County School Cafeterias

In elementary school cafeterias in the Jefferson County Public School system, there are a plethora of problems.

It is hard to figure out where to begin. I fear that there are a lot more cafeterias like this around the country than just in Jefferson County, for the regulations that have straight-jacketed us into many of the woeful decisions we are making on a daily basis have been handed down by the USDA and are, I am told, Federation wide.

1. We throw away a copious amount of food. And, because this is a school, are teaching our children to to respect food. And that throwing it away is just an OK thing to do.
2. Students are required to pick up 3 different foods in the line. Whether or not they can eat that much. Then we try to force them to eat it all.
3. When they have their food, they are encouraged just shy of the point of force to eat everything they have. Regardless if they like it, regardless if they want it, regardless if they are full.
4. But they cannot. So they end up throwing it away.
5. There is no where for this food waste to go. No composting; no collection. No chance to recoup this lost value. Even though New York has been able to figure it out, Jefferson County is unwilling to try..

Then there are a lot of people lamenting the quality of the food presented to our youngsters. The quantity of sugar (which is really, really bad for everyone) and the dirth of vegetables. But, if you spend time in a school cafeteria, it becomes apparent that this has more systemic problems. The food choice is a symptom of underlying issues. Children have vegetables they could choose. But they will not choose them.

There are so many problems with this model. Most of all that it teaches (perpetuates) these awful practices.

1. The throw-away culture is an ending stream. Eventually, it will run out. Of everything. This mentality is directly responsible (in part) for nearly everything that is wrong in the world today (citation needed, find a few hundred at your disposal).
2. By requiring students to have mandated choices, it does not teach them to make their own decisions and live with the outcome of that decision. It assumes that a system can make better choices than a 6 year old, which it cannot. Some children can (and need to) eat a lot; some do not.
3. Forcing children to eat can create just as damaging a relationship with food as rewarding with candy (which our schools also do). It can make a person hate a particular food because it is associate with battle. Battle that they always loose. It also assumes that the child has no understanding of their own digestion and cannot decipher when they are hungry or full. What if the kid really can't eat much more? Are we, by force, undermining their own digestion? Could they survive with less food. I don't know, but perhaps if I didn't eat so copiously in my youth, I would not have such an incredibly inefficient digestion now and it wouldn't cost me so much just to feet myself.
4. Even under such force, they throw their food away anyway. Going back to point one, "oh, well, since I don't like it/can't eat it, there's nothing else to do but put it in this magical plastic can..."
5. We spend a lot feeding children what they will not eat. Enough that I could survive a month on our leftovers. As an employee of the schools, I can't afford to feed myself... we can afford to feed the landfill... And instead of reusing all of this very valuable material, it is shunted to the end of the chute. Never to see daylight again. We could grow more food; we could teach gardening (a very useful skill); hell, we could give it away. Instead, it is lost completely. What a waste of tax-payer money, eh? 

I have been stalled for a long time. I don't know what to do. There is too much to do. I have contacted our representative, I have emailed the USDA... I still need to make a petition or two, and I have asked about composting but the only (unsatisfactory) answer I have gotten is, "it can't change, it's federal; it's the USDA; it's a sanitation issue."

Which is all crap. If we all thought this way, Europeans would still be eating off tables covered in filth, women would never have gone to work, black people would be slaves, and murder of the Irish would hardly be a crime. I have a hard time seeing this as any less important.

Besides which, it'll change by necessity as it must. Nothing lasts forever. Especially when we keep Throwing It All Away!

I think it's probably a good idea to be proactive and change before nature forces us to. Nature, when she gets around to it, is utterly unforgiving.

We Want Rail

The United States is so far behind the rest of the world in transportation it will take some amazing effort to even catch up. When our petroleum resources and outrageously consumptive attitudes collide, we will be left with basically nothing. While Mexico and China and Japan and Taiwan and Korea and everywhere in Europe and many other places will have all the high-speed rail they need to get where they are going. Which can be adopted to use whatever fuel is actually available much more easily than exchanging everyone's car.

Stop Tar Sands!

There is growing momentum in Canada to oppose Tar Sands. From First Nations (also see Huffington Post's take), to committed activists, and even politicians (wow). The diversity and breadth of opposition to tar sands is remarkable. Which means that economic development on a pipeline in the US might just be a waste of money.

I hope. There is little worse I can imagine than Tar Sands.

This also means that stopping Keystone XL will indeed be a big step against the tar sands development. Which is a bolstering thought. And make it all the more commendable for our leaders now to oppose this most dirty, most destructive, most short-sighted energy with all their might.

I demand leadership from this administration. Demand rejection of Keystone XL. If we do not get it.... well, then what the hell is the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans anyway? Certainly not enough to matter. Don't think I'll be able to throw away one more vote on either one. And I hope no one else will either. Decisions like this might, finally, find a tipping point for our beleaguered 3rd parties. I also request that this comment on the draft SEIS and the pipeline, and all other comments, be made public in the interest of transparency and accountability.

Last month a pipeline in Mayflower, AK spilled 10,000 barrels of tar sands oil into a residential neighborhood. This spill is yet one more indication that we are not prepared to transport or clean up this dirty, heavy, toxic oil. As if we ever should have tried. The Arkansas spill also highlighted numerous unanswered questions that must be addressed before we allow a tar sands pipeline nearly 10 times the size of the Pegasus line to bisect our country and run through one of our most important aquifers.

I will repeat that: one of our most important aquifers.

You know, we will be fighting for water next time; not oil.

It is impossible to fight climate change while simultaneously investing in the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive fossil fuels on the planet. Many of the administration's bold advances in clean energy and vehicle efficiency have been critical, but much of that progress -- and the credit that comes with it -- will be erased if we develop the tar sands.

Please stand up against this. I will beg. I am begging. For the sake of forests, for the sake of our climate, for the sake of the millions of lives which will be directly snuffed out as the forest is leveled and the billions which will follow.

For the love of everything good.

I encourage everyone to go to the hearing in Grand Island Nebraska. Show how devastating this will be for us all.

http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageServer?pagename=event_NAT_OIL_KXL_NebraskaHearing2013&autologin=true&s_src=213DBOEC03

Open Source

If there is one drawback to the proletariat, it is their aimless inability to work together and solve their problems. They have all the power and innovation in the world, but no cohesion. Once cohesion is accomplished, they cease being the proletariat, and start being a club.

Clubs can get things done.

In the world of open source computing there are, approximately 345,986 different clubs. about 100,000 of them are making operating systems (which is almost a complete waste of time because you can only use one at a time, really, and if you're using more you are really just dicking around), the rest are devoted to making various programs one might actually use.

All of these half a million operating systems, I might add, have basically the same objective. They want to be useful. They want to be pretty. They want to have style and form and application. Some of them even have the audacious goal of being more practical and aesthetic than the mainstream systems. (This job, by the way, is getting easier and easier and easier.)

Just putting in my two cents to the two souls who will read it: why not pool resources to these programs that will actually be used? The normal person is only gonna use their computer for a purpose, not spend hours beautifying it and researching which of the 8,987,969 distributions of Linux is right for them. Remember, choice is paralyzing and debilitating. And a huge waste of time.

I want a superior office software suite. LibreOffice is alright.... I suppose it is getting better. I have not been able to get version 4 because of another hiccup with the system: it is hard to download and install. There: two problems which need a better solution.

Keystone

Please, for the love of all that is sacred, holy, and good in our world, do not let the Tar Sands be extracted. This is my short public prayer. Nothing good will come from this extraction; it will only be the loss of lives innocent and deserving.

Please do not let it happen. To all people everywhere.

REmove REduce REuse REcycle REpurpose

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

They are in order for a reason.

First, we reduce what we take.

Then we reuse what we have.

Last, we recycle what we cannot use anymore.

But there are really more steps.

First, we remove. More than reducing what we use, we simply use none. Don't buy from what you don't need. Just don't have. The mentality really is a return to a neolithic era. Some are rather against. Some are for. I am not asking everyone give up their cars and pills and computers and junk. Just the junk that you do not need or do not use and this is different for everyone.

Reduce: get high-efficiency bulbs and appliances. Use natural light and heat. Put on a sweater. All that jazz. Print double sided. Steam instead of boil. Walk instead of drive (although this could be upgraded to Remove for the strong-willed).

Reuse what you can. drink out of food containers and use them as Tupperware. Be creative. Everything has a different way to be reused.

Recycling. The most popular. Throw all that stuff that you cannot reuse anymore into a bin for someone to make into something use-able again. Plastic melted back down into plastic.

Repurpose. When the quality of a material is so depleted that it cannot be recycled into what it once was, re-purpose it into something else. It may not be that useful. It may not be reusable again afterward. A great example is glass being used to layer landfills. It is being used. This stuff that would otherwise be utter waste. But: it still has a job. In the landfill it may be, but it has a job there. It's better than nothing.

Regift. This could be added. Giving to the Goodwill or what-have-you. It is, as far as environmental stewardship goes, not as good as using it yourself. Because it might just be thrown away. The store might have to because they are over-flowing, or its new owner might because they just don't care. But it is better than you throwing it away now.

North Korea Nukes: why not?

How can we, with a straight face, demand that North Korea have no nuclear weapons when we do? The UN has decreed that they have no right... but until the US and others disarm themselves, how can we demand such a thing? Nuclear Weapons are not a defensive thing. Having them provides nothing but a sense of danger in others.

We must disarm to get nukes out of their hands too.

Writing and Sign Language

The Celtic people live in our culture and minds very romantically. I see them as big, brave, red-bearded folk who could eat and drink and party and beat up Roman's in their spare time. People who weren't afraid of death, who weren't afraid of life, generally rambunctious. The music we have that we call "Celtic" is some of my favorite music. The spiraling art featured in the Book of Kells is magnificent. I think, perhaps, that these iron-mining people are our cultural reference for Dwarves in a post-Tolkienian fantasy sense.

I've been reading about them recently. They are no less remarkable the more I learn. One great thing I admire about the Celts were slow to adopt written language. Consequently, they were awesomely eloquent. Champions of rhetoric. They had stupendous memory, being less dependent on writing down the things that came into their heads to remember later, they simply remembered it.

According to legend, anyway.

In our modern world, we have an incredible reverence (therefore dependence...) upon the written word. We teach it in our schools as if it is the most important thing in all the world. I am not immune to these symptoms. I like writing more than speaking, really, if I was forced to choose, but I am slow to say that this is an advantage for me. I would also say I admire speakers more, and I believe that this is fairly common. I respect speaking more for the simple reason that it is more social; I find more and more places in our world where society is eroding in favor of distance. Writing could have been the first step toward this. Why talk directly when you can just send a letter. Call instead. Send an email, just text... Devolving all the way down to a Facebook poke. Also, if the Celts could attribute their magnificent memories on their lack of literacy, then I might attribute my poor memory on my own dependence and reverence. Understanding that this is not a thing to boast about, rather a thing to fix. To work on. Right now, it is my reality and I am moderately comfortable with it. I really love writing. I am not so strong a speaker, I am not a quick thinker, I am a fond writer. I like being able to revise. I went to what was easier for me.

But is it better?

I think it's more vague than we often treat it. Writing is important, but not intrinsically. It in only so important because we have made it thus. And now, that we have deemed it indispensable, we cannot dispense with it. It is here to stay.

Sign Language doesn't really have a standard written language.

Not that people haven't been trying. There are at least two systems being heralded onto the stage. I think the results are mixed right now. There is SignWriting, which is a very computer-graphic system. It is pretty quick to understand, but does not look friendly to the pen. All of the graphics look like they were made on an Commodore 64. It has the support of Wikipedia behind it, however. They wish to transpose the encyclopedia into the language. Then there is the ASLwrite Dictionary done in "si5s". Which is something I could actually imagine writing old-school. I am excited about this one, and would like to learn it, thinking that it will help my real signing as well. (I am unsure how the creators expect it to be the vehicle they want it to be when the information isn't available: it is all proprietary and for sale. If it is to be the "official" writing system, it needs to be learn-able. Money may be needed, but the message must be out, too...)

But is digressing down this road really wise? I got to thinking about this as I started constructing my own writing system for ASL. For my own amusement, really. It wasn't very good and was never very complete. I din't know that anyone had already made one. I just wondered how I could do it at first. But soon I got to thinking about the extenuating effects. A written language could be divisive. For a people who are a minority, creating one less incentive for learning the language of the macro-culture could be inhibiting for individuals. It can also be internally divisive: direct communication is less necessary. Just send a letter. And there are all of those incredible mental strengths which come from being illiterate. Independence from paper.

But, on the other hand, and it is a strong hand, writing will go a long way toward preserving this endangered language. With advances in medical science, deafness is not what it once was. We can construct more and more precise artificial ears. When they eclipse the quality of our God-given ears, we might give 'em to everyone. And, like so many other things, a culture, the culture of the Deaf, may be quietly crushed. Along with the beautiful, immediate, and expressive language that is ASL and BSL and et cetera.

It is a discussion worth having. Since it is here, I will probably be learning si5s. ... Sigh.

Two Cent: Guns

Alright. I feel compelled. I'll add to the media barrage.

Armaments. Let's take a quick and logical look at it.

If arming good people was the best thing we could do to thwart the armed bad people, if that would make us safer, than the frontier of the Wild West must have been really safe -- Everyone had guns.

Let's ignore that for the moment. Because it's too complicated.

If arming good people was the best thing we could do to thwart the armed bad people, how do we make sure we can at once arm those good people, and not make arms all the more accessible to the bad people.

Or is a fire-fight between two heavily armed sides what is safer?

World War II must have been really, really safe.

How do we make arms accessible to "good people" and not to "bad people"? Background checks? Psychological profiles? A system as complicated as car-insurance algorithms which make sure that everyone is charged as much as they will likely cost?

Should we abstain from all weapons? ...outside hunting of course... We've tried abstinence with drugs, and it's worked smashingly.

That is to say: not at all. Many people use this as an argument that we should not abstain from firearms.

But most drugs can be grown in a house-pot and under a florescent light.

Making a gun means mining minerals. And smelting ore. And precision. And technique. And gunpowder... Really, quite a degree of skill and material. I wouldn't know where to start.

Not that I actually care all that much about this issue. Cars piss me off more. Weapons just aren't my thing anymore. I'm more interested in saving lives. Which is different than protecting them. It's just on the radar. I don't own a gun, I never will, and maybe I'll be shot crossing the street someday. I hope not, it wouldn't be my choice.

But I know I wouldn't shoot back. It's not my reaction. For myself, possessing a gun would be more hazardous to my health than not. It would be more likely to be used against me.

Which is just another little seed to contemplate.

Your Birthright!

The Economist released an article about the Best Places to be Born. Unsurprisingly, the US (arrogant as we are) were not on the top of the list. It was an interesting little piece, entertaining. Besides the wealth of idiotic comments the article generated in about 4 minutes, I take umbridge with one thing they said:

"Being rich helps more than anything else"

Bullshit.

You're just The Economist. That's what you would believe. In these rankings, there is a bit of a correlation: richer countries being higher ranked than poorer countries. Yet I wonder if that was pre-determined by the factors used for the analysis. Remember when you read something like this that it has a bias. Even though there are numbers, those numbers came from an equation built by a person who favored some type of information and ignored other information. So is the reason richness matters because it was a factor in the equation?

In my limited experience, the correlation is almost the opposite. The poor I know seem quite a bit happier than the rich I know. And, according to documentaries such as Happy, that is not all that uncommon on a global scale.

Money doesn't really matter. It only matters in how it can affect the things that matter.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Have to admit: I enjoyed The Hobbit. Much (much, much) more than I expected I would. Though I began expecting I would.

I went into it knowing a lot of what to expect. I was told Pete Jackson was "indulging himself", and I knew what he likes. Pete's an 'Epic Guy'. He likes big world-saving, end of the line, larger-than-life, fate in the balance, overblown stuff. And this all features heavily in The Hobbit. It is not quite so heavy as in The Lord of the Rings. In its stead is a little more humor, which fits this story aptly.

And probably a good portion of the reason I still like The Hobbit more than The Lord of the Rings. I like humor. Even if it made the overall feeling of the movie a little... Strange. Made the battle scenes a little awkward. Even if the movie had this strange deja-vuie feel to it. Augmented by cameo appearance scenes put in just for the sake of having cameo appearance scenes put in and by re-hashed scenes so similar to their parent, they really didn't have to re-shoot them. Even if some details like hobbit feet weren't done quite so well. Even if Bilbo mentioned his plumbing... And the elves had electricity... I still liked it.

A lot of that has to do with Howard Shore's work. I loved the Dwarve's song in Bilbo's home and I am not alone. It did very well. It could be a theme on the same song from the ol' Hobbit movie, which creates a nice little link. But it is better. Beyond that, it is just the right style to match the point and power the song is supposed to have. My greatest disappointment with the movie is just that they didn't sing the whole thing and finish the song during the movie. (I also would have liked more of Tolkien's poems made into as good of  songs, like Fifteen Birds.)

It was a good story. I liked the dwarves, and how the movie was able to make them feel. It was a little undermined by Thorin's age (he should have been older, I think) and human look, but these are small detail. The adventure was captured well. The artists who worked on all of these middle earth movies are very good. I suspect that many of them have been inspired by Middle earth for a long time. I think the weakest link, was probably Pete Jackson himself.

But that's just a supposition.