My thoughts on Oscar Wilde:
His quotes are to me like the tinkering of bells, making much noise about every passing wind, but hollow in reason, evidence, and inspiration. The voice of warning is useless when the terrain is not well-lit.His life only exemplifies to me a man angry at society's ills, but ignorant on the proper course of action. Like an animal, upon seeing one trap in front, backs into two traps to the rear and falls victim to a worse fate, so is the life and tragedy of this man, Oscar Wilde.
It is by the life of a man that his philosophies are best judged, for if his reasoning is sound then so will be his life, but if not, then his life will fail, as an example to all who would follow afterward.
“A sarcastic person has a superiority complex that can be cured only by the honesty of humility.” Lawrence G. Lovasik
"Neither irony or sarcasm is argument." Samuel Butler, Rufus Choate
"A sneer is the weapon of the weak." James Russell Lowell
"Edged tools are dangerous things to handle, and not infrequently do much hurt. " Agnes Repplier
“What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.” Don Williams, Jr.
For those who would censor these thoughts or others, I say that it is better to learn wisdom than to complain about ideas that needlessly bother you. I hear your censorship, and freely and openly refuse you.
"Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and others. Their fear is only their inability to face what is real. Somewhere in their upbringing they were shielded against the total facts of our experience. They were only taught to look one way when many ways exist."Charles Bukowski
"The books that the world calls immoral are the books that show the world its own shame."Oscar Wilde"Fear of ideas makes us impotent and ineffective."William O. Douglas
"All despotisms should be considered problems of mental hygiene, and all support of censorship should be considered as problems of abnormal psychology."Theodore Schroeder
"All censorships exist to prevent any one from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions."George Bernard Shaw
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Police imposters
Message from Andrea, wife of a policeman. Yahoo Answers screen name: Nationalist
Any type of impersonation is a pathological crime. The most common scenerio involving police impersonation are men who abduct & rape women broken down on deserted roads. Most of the imposters do this for reasons of masculine inadequacy. Both putting on the uniform & the act of rape supplement their lack of virile feeling & they typically form a pathologic attachment to fantasies of being powerful. Police wannabes are usually too obsessed to obtain police jobs according to criminologists & psychiatrists who have studied & treated imposters.
Also important to note is that the largest percentage of these crimes are on stretches of deserted highway. While it may seem a smart or easy crime it infact is very hard. Police officers personally know every officer they work with. Upon sight of someone dressed as an officer they would issue an arrest, as that is a crime itself. If one is using impersonation as a means to commit other crimes it quadruples their change of incarceration. They also must have thousands of dollars worth of equipment to even vaguely pass as an officer including a city or county marked vehicle. Even harder yet would be to dupe the victim into believing they are a cop. Police have a certain demeanor & though you may not think you know how a cop acts, you would notice how one doesn't.Officers are squeamish on the subject due to the pathological & personal nature. It's creepy and they also may wonder your motives for asking.
Hope this helps!
Andrea
Any type of impersonation is a pathological crime. The most common scenerio involving police impersonation are men who abduct & rape women broken down on deserted roads. Most of the imposters do this for reasons of masculine inadequacy. Both putting on the uniform & the act of rape supplement their lack of virile feeling & they typically form a pathologic attachment to fantasies of being powerful. Police wannabes are usually too obsessed to obtain police jobs according to criminologists & psychiatrists who have studied & treated imposters.
Also important to note is that the largest percentage of these crimes are on stretches of deserted highway. While it may seem a smart or easy crime it infact is very hard. Police officers personally know every officer they work with. Upon sight of someone dressed as an officer they would issue an arrest, as that is a crime itself. If one is using impersonation as a means to commit other crimes it quadruples their change of incarceration. They also must have thousands of dollars worth of equipment to even vaguely pass as an officer including a city or county marked vehicle. Even harder yet would be to dupe the victim into believing they are a cop. Police have a certain demeanor & though you may not think you know how a cop acts, you would notice how one doesn't.Officers are squeamish on the subject due to the pathological & personal nature. It's creepy and they also may wonder your motives for asking.
Hope this helps!
Andrea
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Gaining speed for a car collision
It is said that if a (non-frontal) collision with another car appears imminent and unavoidable, then the wisest course of action is to "put the petal to the metal" for maximum speed. The myth mostly concerns collisions at intersections typically at angles of 90 degrees.
The idea is that while the increased speed does in fact cause more damage, it also increases your inertia (resistance to a change in velocity) and thus yields the smallest accelerations and decelerations from an impact with a car of a constant mass and velocity. As we all know, survivability is a strong factor of acceleration/deceleration.
Would you test this myth to determine if faster collision speeds in non-frontal collisions with automobiles are actually safer for those in the faster car? It is obviously more dangerous for those people in the slower car, but then again, the myth only concerns the safety of the occupants of the primary vehicle.
Momentum (p = m*v) is a function of velocity too, but faster speeds may not mean more collisions, because the path will be less prone to deflection. The scenario of most interest is that you are traveling through an intersection and you see a car coming at you from the side (perhaps running a red light) like from a side street at an intersection (seemingly out of nowhere).
This happened to me once when a car (facing me and in the intersection) made a left turn on my green and hit the driver's door. Stopped him cold and spun his car 90 degrees counter-clockwise, but my car (about 45 mph) hardly deflected at all and I retained complete control as I braked to a full stop. I think that this myth might be true. In general, the fast you are going the better it is for you.
BTW, on the damage from the kinetic energy, your car will absorb the damage and spread it out over a larger area with higher speeds. Additionally, with more momentum, there is less deceleration, thus the faster vehicle incurs a smaller change in velocity. It thus absorbs less kinetic energy damage than it might otherwise be expected to absorb in any given high speed collision (assuming no collisions with immovable objects or flights off of very high cliffs, etc.).
The idea is that while the increased speed does in fact cause more damage, it also increases your inertia (resistance to a change in velocity) and thus yields the smallest accelerations and decelerations from an impact with a car of a constant mass and velocity. As we all know, survivability is a strong factor of acceleration/deceleration.
Would you test this myth to determine if faster collision speeds in non-frontal collisions with automobiles are actually safer for those in the faster car? It is obviously more dangerous for those people in the slower car, but then again, the myth only concerns the safety of the occupants of the primary vehicle.
Momentum (p = m*v) is a function of velocity too, but faster speeds may not mean more collisions, because the path will be less prone to deflection. The scenario of most interest is that you are traveling through an intersection and you see a car coming at you from the side (perhaps running a red light) like from a side street at an intersection (seemingly out of nowhere).
This happened to me once when a car (facing me and in the intersection) made a left turn on my green and hit the driver's door. Stopped him cold and spun his car 90 degrees counter-clockwise, but my car (about 45 mph) hardly deflected at all and I retained complete control as I braked to a full stop. I think that this myth might be true. In general, the fast you are going the better it is for you.
BTW, on the damage from the kinetic energy, your car will absorb the damage and spread it out over a larger area with higher speeds. Additionally, with more momentum, there is less deceleration, thus the faster vehicle incurs a smaller change in velocity. It thus absorbs less kinetic energy damage than it might otherwise be expected to absorb in any given high speed collision (assuming no collisions with immovable objects or flights off of very high cliffs, etc.).
Minimizing water absorption while traveling in the rain
I just did some very simple physics calculations (at the end of this message) and it appears that the simple movement of the bodies clearly yields let's water absorption with increased horizontal velocity. I believe that your results and "busting" of this myth are explained by 1) puddle splashing, 2) large lateral motions of arms, legs and head, and 3) the curving of the body w.r.t. the vertical.
1) Splashing water brings fallen water up onto the bottoms of the clothing,
2) Large lateral motions introduces a big surface area for catching more water.
3) A bent head and curved/slanted body greatly increases the area for the rain to fall on without substantial decreasing the forward surface area of the body.
My equations show that for speeds slower than the terminal velocity of water, the area on top should be minimized with the smallest vertical profile, while speeds in excess of this yield less water absorption as the body is tilted to increase the top surface area and thus minimize the frontal surface area.
This myth is not busted, and should be repeated with these three points addressed. I suggest that you conduct the run portion by:
1) Minimizing/eliminating the splashing, 2) Minimizing the movement of arms, head, and legs (range walk as they say in the Army, or in other words a very fast walk lacking the wild characteristics of running), and 3) Keeping the body straight vertically. I personally run through the rain with a mind to minimize splashes, minimize exposing extra surface area, and keeping my body fairly vertical.
The equations are as follows:
Q = rho * v, rho is the water density in air (constant), Q is the rate of absorption per unit of surface area, v is velocity
t = D / vx, t is the time for the trip, D is the fixed distance of the route, vx is the velocity of the subject in the direction of travel
m = Qy*Ay*t + Qx*Ax*t, m is the total mass absorbed, x and y subscripts refer to the directions of horizontal and vertical, respectively. The first term is the mass of water absorbed from the falling rain, while the second term reveals the mass absorbed from running into it.
m = (rho*vy) * Ay * (D/vx) + (rho*vx) * Ax * (D/vx) with substitutions from above equations
m = rho*D * (vy*Ay/vx + vx*Ax/vx) = rho*D * (vy*Ay/vx + Ax), thus small vx (walking slow increases the left term and gets you wet, while walking fast minimizes it and leaves you drier).
1) Splashing water brings fallen water up onto the bottoms of the clothing,
2) Large lateral motions introduces a big surface area for catching more water.
3) A bent head and curved/slanted body greatly increases the area for the rain to fall on without substantial decreasing the forward surface area of the body.
My equations show that for speeds slower than the terminal velocity of water, the area on top should be minimized with the smallest vertical profile, while speeds in excess of this yield less water absorption as the body is tilted to increase the top surface area and thus minimize the frontal surface area.
This myth is not busted, and should be repeated with these three points addressed. I suggest that you conduct the run portion by:
1) Minimizing/eliminating the splashing, 2) Minimizing the movement of arms, head, and legs (range walk as they say in the Army, or in other words a very fast walk lacking the wild characteristics of running), and 3) Keeping the body straight vertically. I personally run through the rain with a mind to minimize splashes, minimize exposing extra surface area, and keeping my body fairly vertical.
The equations are as follows:
Q = rho * v, rho is the water density in air (constant), Q is the rate of absorption per unit of surface area, v is velocity
t = D / vx, t is the time for the trip, D is the fixed distance of the route, vx is the velocity of the subject in the direction of travel
m = Qy*Ay*t + Qx*Ax*t, m is the total mass absorbed, x and y subscripts refer to the directions of horizontal and vertical, respectively. The first term is the mass of water absorbed from the falling rain, while the second term reveals the mass absorbed from running into it.
m = (rho*vy) * Ay * (D/vx) + (rho*vx) * Ax * (D/vx) with substitutions from above equations
m = rho*D * (vy*Ay/vx + vx*Ax/vx) = rho*D * (vy*Ay/vx + Ax), thus small vx (walking slow increases the left term and gets you wet, while walking fast minimizes it and leaves you drier).
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Current energy issues
Concerning fission, there exists Helium-4, but Helium-3, having only one neutron, would be *extremely* unstable and any discussion of it would seem impractical; such a nuclear core would deteriorate in femtoseconds or faster. I have commonly heard of Hydrogen-3, also called Tritium, in discussions of fussion, so my guess is that this is the correct reference. Now, Tritium, also called heavy water, because it is usually harvested in that form, has enough mass to assist the process in slamming the nuleii together for fusion. The increased mass provides more momentum which resists the nuclear deflecting forces. Now continuous fusion has been around for at least a decade, but the duration of fusion has always been far too short to net positive returns on power. The reason for the brevity of the fusion process is that the incredible energy release quickly overpowers our ability to maintain the required pressures and temperatures. BTW, scientists have always projected fusion to be 50 years from the point in time at which they are asked the question about its viability. I just chalk it up to them saying that they don't know but they are seeing very slow progress.
On the oil issue, most of the world has been mapped with crude images (pun intended) and most of the significant, easy oil reserves are known. Now deep sea (past the continental shelves) has not been imaged or drilled very well and much of the land has also been practically ignored. It is kind of like taking large pictures of the whole sky and then looking deep into the sky at all of the places where you expect to see life (based upon rough theories of the development of life), and then (incorrectly) saying that you've found most of the life in the universe. Whenever someone talks about oil reservoirs, ask how their sizes and capabilities have been assessed for their numbers/claims. Do they include the proprietary data held secret by the oil companies as they implement their strategic business goals? I should think not. Do they include shale oil, oil sands, or oil on protected lands (say thank you to the environmentalists)? Protections on Alaska, and the entire region around Utah are being lifted as we speak. Do they include more difficult oil reservoirs, where 100 wells are required for the same production that one well used to generate? This is the situation for the new oilfields in northern Canada.
Now as far as shale oil, the method of extraction is mainly heat, but also pressure. The crude is brought to such a high temperature that it exits the pores of the fractured rock in a gaseous form, not necessarily as natural gas alone, including diesel, kerosine, gasoline, hexane, butane, and methane. All of these forms are easily separated and processed, according to the current petroleum needs. It is all a matter of chemically combining or splitting the carbon chains via organic chemistry, or of stripping off the hydrogen from the chains to generate hydrogen gas. Natural gas may be converted into gasoline or diesel (at a small expense) and vice versa, with the option to convert most of any of the forms into hydrogen gas for a hydrogen economy (see the hydrogen car or fuel cell). So the petroleum is extracted as a gas, but not necessarily "natural gas" and with a small expense, the desired form of "crude oil" may be synthesized from the purified shale oil extracts; the technology and methods have existed since the 1980's (when fuel prices went "through the roof" for a time) and are in use today. The only element of development these days is efficiency.
BTW, according to a recent article, the US shale oil reservoirs are estimated at around 97% (or higher) of the world shale oil reserves, and 7 times the crude oil estimates for Saudi Arabia, but again some knowledge affecting those numbers is guarded and additional knowledge from better and expanded geological imaging and interpretation both increase those numbers on a daily basis.
The question isn't when we run out of oil, but when the price of oil becomes uncompetitive with other energy sources (hydrogen not being a source, but a storage mechanism). My question is when are we going to start (safely) recycling our nuclear fissile fuel and thus slow our nuclear waste generation, which typically contains between 97% purity (military) and 99% purity (civilian) reactor fuel minimum requirement?
On the oil issue, most of the world has been mapped with crude images (pun intended) and most of the significant, easy oil reserves are known. Now deep sea (past the continental shelves) has not been imaged or drilled very well and much of the land has also been practically ignored. It is kind of like taking large pictures of the whole sky and then looking deep into the sky at all of the places where you expect to see life (based upon rough theories of the development of life), and then (incorrectly) saying that you've found most of the life in the universe. Whenever someone talks about oil reservoirs, ask how their sizes and capabilities have been assessed for their numbers/claims. Do they include the proprietary data held secret by the oil companies as they implement their strategic business goals? I should think not. Do they include shale oil, oil sands, or oil on protected lands (say thank you to the environmentalists)? Protections on Alaska, and the entire region around Utah are being lifted as we speak. Do they include more difficult oil reservoirs, where 100 wells are required for the same production that one well used to generate? This is the situation for the new oilfields in northern Canada.
Now as far as shale oil, the method of extraction is mainly heat, but also pressure. The crude is brought to such a high temperature that it exits the pores of the fractured rock in a gaseous form, not necessarily as natural gas alone, including diesel, kerosine, gasoline, hexane, butane, and methane. All of these forms are easily separated and processed, according to the current petroleum needs. It is all a matter of chemically combining or splitting the carbon chains via organic chemistry, or of stripping off the hydrogen from the chains to generate hydrogen gas. Natural gas may be converted into gasoline or diesel (at a small expense) and vice versa, with the option to convert most of any of the forms into hydrogen gas for a hydrogen economy (see the hydrogen car or fuel cell). So the petroleum is extracted as a gas, but not necessarily "natural gas" and with a small expense, the desired form of "crude oil" may be synthesized from the purified shale oil extracts; the technology and methods have existed since the 1980's (when fuel prices went "through the roof" for a time) and are in use today. The only element of development these days is efficiency.
BTW, according to a recent article, the US shale oil reservoirs are estimated at around 97% (or higher) of the world shale oil reserves, and 7 times the crude oil estimates for Saudi Arabia, but again some knowledge affecting those numbers is guarded and additional knowledge from better and expanded geological imaging and interpretation both increase those numbers on a daily basis.
The question isn't when we run out of oil, but when the price of oil becomes uncompetitive with other energy sources (hydrogen not being a source, but a storage mechanism). My question is when are we going to start (safely) recycling our nuclear fissile fuel and thus slow our nuclear waste generation, which typically contains between 97% purity (military) and 99% purity (civilian) reactor fuel minimum requirement?
Correcting the calendar and time conventions
Noting the odd convention of the leap year, multi-base (non-decimal) definitions of time units with seemingly arbitrary multiples which aren't always integers, and discrepancies between the conventional time for the average year of 31,557,600 seconds per year and the correct time per year of 31,556,925 seconds per year, one might resolve these very small temporal discrepancies in the time conventions by restructuring the standards of time so that one year measures the period of revolution of the earth around the sun with little need for corrections (every four years) and that each unit, like the metric system is a multiple of ten as opposed to the 60s per minute, 60 minutes per hour, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 4.4 weeks (constantly varying, but never an integer number, between 4-5) per month, 12 months per year, 52 weeks per year, etc.
With 31,556,925 seconds per year (365.25 days) in 2000 and 31,556,981 seconds per year (365.25 days) in 2100, the latter standard will be good for the next 200 years as an average to the year 2200. With 365 days per year, an extra 57.48 seconds is added to every day, yielding an average day of 86,458 seconds (86,400 currently). A new second can be defined as 0.86458 old seconds to yield 100,000 seconds in a day, which can be divided into new decimal based time units of 10 hours per day, 100 minutes per hour and 100 seconds per hour.
Given 365 days, we could follow the lunar cycle, with 13 months in the year, where each of the first twelve months has 28 days and the thirteenth month has 29 days. Or if we have an aversion to the number thirteen or to changing the number of months in a year, then we could define 5 days per week would yield 73 weeks, thus 12 months per year would allow 6 weeks per month for 11 of those months, with 7 weeks in the 12th month. These considerations have been made with the restrictions that the length of the day must remain relatively the same and that the year must extended to maintain itself from year to year without any need for leap year corrections, and that all units of time should been even multiples of each other with the preference of base ten numbers and a secondary preference of numbers similar to standard conventions when the primary preference is not ideally applicable.
With 31,556,925 seconds per year (365.25 days) in 2000 and 31,556,981 seconds per year (365.25 days) in 2100, the latter standard will be good for the next 200 years as an average to the year 2200. With 365 days per year, an extra 57.48 seconds is added to every day, yielding an average day of 86,458 seconds (86,400 currently). A new second can be defined as 0.86458 old seconds to yield 100,000 seconds in a day, which can be divided into new decimal based time units of 10 hours per day, 100 minutes per hour and 100 seconds per hour.
Given 365 days, we could follow the lunar cycle, with 13 months in the year, where each of the first twelve months has 28 days and the thirteenth month has 29 days. Or if we have an aversion to the number thirteen or to changing the number of months in a year, then we could define 5 days per week would yield 73 weeks, thus 12 months per year would allow 6 weeks per month for 11 of those months, with 7 weeks in the 12th month. These considerations have been made with the restrictions that the length of the day must remain relatively the same and that the year must extended to maintain itself from year to year without any need for leap year corrections, and that all units of time should been even multiples of each other with the preference of base ten numbers and a secondary preference of numbers similar to standard conventions when the primary preference is not ideally applicable.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Inner Peace
If only more people were interested in the question, "How does one find peace?" That path begins with finding inner peace. There is a saying in the scriptures (New Testament) which helped me understand it: "Thy will (God's will), not mine, be done." Our desire to defy reality places us in conflict with nature (God), and disturbs our peace. I recommend the book, "Loving What Is [Real]," by Byron Katie, a virtual masterpiece. It is the best I have seen on the subject, though I would advise that you exercise some caution of her very brief, but frequent treatments of Relativism and Knowledge; contrary to her assertions, you do know two subjects for sure 1) The exact natures of yourself, your desires, and feelings, 2) Your observations and experiences (which are not usually completely accurate).
Many people turn to religion to find peace, but instead typically find hate and division, or hopelessness and despair. Peace is the Holy Grail of Beauty and Life. Your beauty will rise to the surface and literally change your physical appearance as you find peace. There will exist no fear or doubt, no regret or anger, no problems or suffering only challenges and opportunities.
It is hard to find peace, especially with oneself, and here is why: Because you want things to be different than they are. In short, you must desire and expect that everyone and everything act according to their natures, regardless of your own personal wishes. The only way that your peace may be violated is when you expect differently.
The key to peace is this (and this is worth more than all the gold in the world): Decide to love and accept every real thing, but focus on the positive and inspirational aspects. See happiness in pain, but here is the hardest part: Accept that it is the nature of others (though not always) to violate their own peace, to disturb the peace of others, and even to sometimes try to disturb your own peace, if they ever get reason to believe that this is possible. Now loving pain is not to say that you desire more pain, but simply that you are deciding to respect and appreciate it while it is with you. As you heal by this process, the pain will and must leave you, but only when it is ready to do so, only when it is the right time.
While in jail, you must love those opportunities to find, embrace, and share peace: to serve, to inspire, and to live a happy life. . When others think poorly of you, there is only one peaceful reply, "I agree that your unrealistic expectations of me are negative, I accept that, and I am at peace with that." This reply is usually best said only to oneself, as other people tend to disturb their own peace even more when the truth of their negative dissonance is established. Disturbing the peace of others is obviously not the peaceful path. Never do it, even when others request it. Instead, find a peaceful and inspiring reply on the subject. If I have said anything which interests you, feel free to let me know.
--
Andy Landen
Houston, TX
When there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.- Plato
Many people turn to religion to find peace, but instead typically find hate and division, or hopelessness and despair. Peace is the Holy Grail of Beauty and Life. Your beauty will rise to the surface and literally change your physical appearance as you find peace. There will exist no fear or doubt, no regret or anger, no problems or suffering only challenges and opportunities.
It is hard to find peace, especially with oneself, and here is why: Because you want things to be different than they are. In short, you must desire and expect that everyone and everything act according to their natures, regardless of your own personal wishes. The only way that your peace may be violated is when you expect differently.
The key to peace is this (and this is worth more than all the gold in the world): Decide to love and accept every real thing, but focus on the positive and inspirational aspects. See happiness in pain, but here is the hardest part: Accept that it is the nature of others (though not always) to violate their own peace, to disturb the peace of others, and even to sometimes try to disturb your own peace, if they ever get reason to believe that this is possible. Now loving pain is not to say that you desire more pain, but simply that you are deciding to respect and appreciate it while it is with you. As you heal by this process, the pain will and must leave you, but only when it is ready to do so, only when it is the right time.
While in jail, you must love those opportunities to find, embrace, and share peace: to serve, to inspire, and to live a happy life. . When others think poorly of you, there is only one peaceful reply, "I agree that your unrealistic expectations of me are negative, I accept that, and I am at peace with that." This reply is usually best said only to oneself, as other people tend to disturb their own peace even more when the truth of their negative dissonance is established. Disturbing the peace of others is obviously not the peaceful path. Never do it, even when others request it. Instead, find a peaceful and inspiring reply on the subject. If I have said anything which interests you, feel free to let me know.
--
Andy Landen
Houston, TX
When there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.- Plato
Friday, December 15, 2006
The FairTax, Term limits, and Majority Rule
Many people introduce the idea of term limits in hopes of strengthening the voice of the people and thus enabling the FairTax to be passed into law. My response is that this won't work, it just changes the dynamic, that's all. Currently, I am convinced that mere numbers is insufficient for political reform because representatives exist ONLY to execute their own agendas and make the people think that they are "the lesser of the evils." If you contribute enough money, they will try to work you into the pork barrel spending politics of Washington.
Remember the effect of the massive anti-war demonstrations? To no avail whatsoever. Consider the effects of local protests against school district policies. With sufficient numbers, the board will pretend to listen by inviting the concerned parties to attend a *regular* school district board meeting. The board hears the group for a time without reaction, and then spells out their policies and justifications. They continue with the same plan, perhaps with small token adjustments to appease the protesters and the public into thinking that they had some effect.
I have seen government ignore very large numbers of people with very legitimate concerns, even using the judicial branch to undermine their initiatives (in Washington State). While number are important in some respects, the FairTax cannot succeed without a more strategic operations. Writing letters makes us feel good, and in fact appeases our anger on short term basis, but that appeasement only undermines the will to create a more effective campaign. Ultimately, the FairTax WILL PREVAIL when our government is reformed to *represent* the will of an equal and *complete* majority, otherwise any victories will be small and short-lived.
Which brings me to address the true (complete and equal) majority. The founders of this country imagined factional tyranny acting in the name of the people, as is found most extensively in George Washington's writings which includes warnings about foreign entanglements with alliances and mutual defensive pacts. They never imagined a complete and equal majority sovereign in government.
The concept of blind justice revealed the path of fairness and equality to me many years ago. The idea is that a person can only be partial if they can differentiate between several options, and that inequality requires the invasion of privacy which departs from "blindness." So given the existence of two wolves and one sheep voting on who to have for dinner, the sheep is only in danger if the wolves can discern or judge 1) that they are wolves and 2) that the victim is a sheep. With blindfolds (and nose pins, etc.), they are unable to target (vote) any specific group for dinner. Thus equality and fairness may be preserved only through the defense of privacy which blinds "justice" (i.e. the government). Concerning the FairTax, every measure taken to defend privacy in the FairTax strengthens its fairness, equality, and power; measures of privacy enacted throughout government strengthen its legal resistance to factional corruption and forces other laws to submit to the fairness of "blind justice."
Is blind justice, i.e. equality, relevant to the subject of the FairTax? Of course. The FairTax is attempting restore fairness, equality, simplicity, transparency, and responsibility into the revenue side of government, but the government must be aligned with those principles in order to accept any legislation founded in the same (without a SERIOUS fight). These principles must be incorporated into every other aspect of government, else "traditional politics" will both fight the enactment of the FairTax bitterly, and effectively and utterly corrupt it (as it has the income tax) once we win the needlessly costly fight.
The FairTax has begun as a grassroots organization, but noble goal of fiscal fairness must develop into a much more comprehensive and strategic operation in order to prevail in the current political establishment; brute force of numbers is insufficient, as very clever politicians are quite practiced in the art of "side-stepping" the brute will of the masses. Leadership will listen to the people when they are legally bound to the people's will, and that requires a constitutional ammendment. The only way to give the people (and thus the grassroots) sufficient power to advance fair initiatives like the FairTax is to fill government with leaders who would release their own power in favor of Democracy (and I have yet to ever see that happen). The FairTax binds government to the will of an equal people, removing the manipulative power of inequality which many politicians so cherish and thrive upon, so their strong opposition is natural and expected. What begins as a movement from the people, must "snowball" into an effective, multi-pronged, multi-tiered, strategic government reformation process, or else it must smolder forever as a good intention continually undermined and dismissed by the politics of the day.
-- Andy Landen
Houston, TX
When there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.- Plato
Remember the effect of the massive anti-war demonstrations? To no avail whatsoever. Consider the effects of local protests against school district policies. With sufficient numbers, the board will pretend to listen by inviting the concerned parties to attend a *regular* school district board meeting. The board hears the group for a time without reaction, and then spells out their policies and justifications. They continue with the same plan, perhaps with small token adjustments to appease the protesters and the public into thinking that they had some effect.
I have seen government ignore very large numbers of people with very legitimate concerns, even using the judicial branch to undermine their initiatives (in Washington State). While number are important in some respects, the FairTax cannot succeed without a more strategic operations. Writing letters makes us feel good, and in fact appeases our anger on short term basis, but that appeasement only undermines the will to create a more effective campaign. Ultimately, the FairTax WILL PREVAIL when our government is reformed to *represent* the will of an equal and *complete* majority, otherwise any victories will be small and short-lived.
Which brings me to address the true (complete and equal) majority. The founders of this country imagined factional tyranny acting in the name of the people, as is found most extensively in George Washington's writings which includes warnings about foreign entanglements with alliances and mutual defensive pacts. They never imagined a complete and equal majority sovereign in government.
The concept of blind justice revealed the path of fairness and equality to me many years ago. The idea is that a person can only be partial if they can differentiate between several options, and that inequality requires the invasion of privacy which departs from "blindness." So given the existence of two wolves and one sheep voting on who to have for dinner, the sheep is only in danger if the wolves can discern or judge 1) that they are wolves and 2) that the victim is a sheep. With blindfolds (and nose pins, etc.), they are unable to target (vote) any specific group for dinner. Thus equality and fairness may be preserved only through the defense of privacy which blinds "justice" (i.e. the government). Concerning the FairTax, every measure taken to defend privacy in the FairTax strengthens its fairness, equality, and power; measures of privacy enacted throughout government strengthen its legal resistance to factional corruption and forces other laws to submit to the fairness of "blind justice."
Is blind justice, i.e. equality, relevant to the subject of the FairTax? Of course. The FairTax is attempting restore fairness, equality, simplicity, transparency, and responsibility into the revenue side of government, but the government must be aligned with those principles in order to accept any legislation founded in the same (without a SERIOUS fight). These principles must be incorporated into every other aspect of government, else "traditional politics" will both fight the enactment of the FairTax bitterly, and effectively and utterly corrupt it (as it has the income tax) once we win the needlessly costly fight.
The FairTax has begun as a grassroots organization, but noble goal of fiscal fairness must develop into a much more comprehensive and strategic operation in order to prevail in the current political establishment; brute force of numbers is insufficient, as very clever politicians are quite practiced in the art of "side-stepping" the brute will of the masses. Leadership will listen to the people when they are legally bound to the people's will, and that requires a constitutional ammendment. The only way to give the people (and thus the grassroots) sufficient power to advance fair initiatives like the FairTax is to fill government with leaders who would release their own power in favor of Democracy (and I have yet to ever see that happen). The FairTax binds government to the will of an equal people, removing the manipulative power of inequality which many politicians so cherish and thrive upon, so their strong opposition is natural and expected. What begins as a movement from the people, must "snowball" into an effective, multi-pronged, multi-tiered, strategic government reformation process, or else it must smolder forever as a good intention continually undermined and dismissed by the politics of the day.
-- Andy Landen
Houston, TX
When there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.- Plato
Thursday, December 07, 2006
DNA Mapping Revolution
Understanding the language of life will empower those who "speak it" to program whatever kind of life he desires. It is the power of the Gods, and far more significant than a nuclear arsenal or advanced medicine, when completely understood.The DNA is a complete instruction set for each life. It chemically dictates the biological construction, functioning, and processing of all organs within it. Any language, to be understood, must be first mapped. Usually, the "bad" words (or diseases) are the first words learned, because they hold the greatest interest of the student/researcher.
The first benefit and the primary course of study in this effort is the identification of troublesome "codes," or diseases, but that just barely begins to scratch the surface. We will begin to recognize patterns between the code and the operations until we start to build DNA-compilers which translate human instructions into DNA-code, and attempt to reverse-engineer interesting segments to understand what they are saying specifically.
Ultimately, humans will be able to design viruses which attack certain diseases, or races, and they will move to designing better organs and even useful life forms to meet specific needs. As with all great powers, much potential for harm from side-effects exists with amateur experimentation unless great care is taken, much potential for good and evil will arise from developed/mature technologies and experience. Given the complexity and size of DNA, this process could take substantial time and resources, until the emergence of quantum computing.
Before we design viruses and other life forms, we will find it necessary to design "DNA workshops" consisting of "DNA construction machines," and stores of "DNA building materials," such as amino acids, vitamins, minerals, etc. Eventually, we will be building our own amino acids with specialized DNA/organisms. At last, a long and complex assembly line of Life will be designed and put into motion for each desired biological creation.
The science fiction names given to humans of "Carbon unit," and "Carbon machine" will be very easily accepted, and we will find ourselves with the difficulty of trying to define a new morality with the blurring of the lines between life and machine.
The first benefit and the primary course of study in this effort is the identification of troublesome "codes," or diseases, but that just barely begins to scratch the surface. We will begin to recognize patterns between the code and the operations until we start to build DNA-compilers which translate human instructions into DNA-code, and attempt to reverse-engineer interesting segments to understand what they are saying specifically.
Ultimately, humans will be able to design viruses which attack certain diseases, or races, and they will move to designing better organs and even useful life forms to meet specific needs. As with all great powers, much potential for harm from side-effects exists with amateur experimentation unless great care is taken, much potential for good and evil will arise from developed/mature technologies and experience. Given the complexity and size of DNA, this process could take substantial time and resources, until the emergence of quantum computing.
Before we design viruses and other life forms, we will find it necessary to design "DNA workshops" consisting of "DNA construction machines," and stores of "DNA building materials," such as amino acids, vitamins, minerals, etc. Eventually, we will be building our own amino acids with specialized DNA/organisms. At last, a long and complex assembly line of Life will be designed and put into motion for each desired biological creation.
The science fiction names given to humans of "Carbon unit," and "Carbon machine" will be very easily accepted, and we will find ourselves with the difficulty of trying to define a new morality with the blurring of the lines between life and machine.
Monday, November 13, 2006
The Third Party
My fellow Americans, I hear you. Grassroots and constituents hate their own parties and groups. Republicans jumping ship back and forth. Democrats keeping on their own ship mostly, but feeling betrayed. AFT trying to get the grassroots power (their own power base).
AFT is a party, it just hasn't been recognized as one, and hasn't accepted itself as one. AFT does not belong in any of the current parties today. It's true. Republicans are the strongest supporters, but with their majority did nothing for it. Many Democrats like it but with the party *dead* against it, they are frozen and mute on the subject. The constituents of both parties are quite similar in their desire for the FairTax, but the parties are more interested in themselves. Yet the Democrat constituency stands out with amazing patience and loyalty.
Most people already want the FairTax, they just don't know it yet. When we get the support of the masses (the question is only how soon), my experience shows that the politicians will manipulate, deceive, and divide them in every possible way to advance their own agendas and the power of their parties, respectively. AND IF somehow we manage to ram the popular rampart through the castle gates, storm the congress, and put the FairTax bill before our leaders, I promise you that they will pervert it in every way possible so that the bill which is passed is only vaguely similar to the original, and over time the people will see the FairTax defiled by corruption comparable to the current Income Tax. To me, this is a very ugly picture on the backs of tremendous will and sacrifice by AFT leaders and grassroots.
Try a different picture now. Fine, charismatic, honest, amiable, open leaders are taken from within the FairTax ranks as candidates for a new FairTax party. Wealthy individuals such as Ross Perot and Bill Gates are persuaded to back us. Our party is cleansed from all politics, including desires for reduced government (that will happen in time when the people are empowered to rule in fairness and sovereignty), and our platform becomes only fairness, honesty, and integrity. These leaders will inspire a nation which already want the FairTax deep in their hearts. These leaders will protect the FairTax from corruption, and fairness from politics.
DO NOT entertain the idea of creating a third political party in terms of the traditional partison lines, or it CANNOT energize the populous. We need a party for the people, protecting fairness in every aspect of government while ready to advance the will of the people IN ANY FAIR AND RESPONSIBLE WAY WHATSOEVER.
Let the people increase government spending by 10% every year (or reduce it). Let them UNSECURE the borders if they wish (however unlikely that might be). Let them deteriorate our military readiness (that hasn't been the American way yet, but hey, people may change with good representation, no? :) Let the people abandon social security (its was built upon an unstable foundation and is due to collapse of its own accord quite soon anyway) and replace it with something which is fair to all. Last, but most important, let the people "abandon" the Constitution (according to its own provisions for ammendment of course)! It is THAT document which established the system which empowers two parties, both of which have done injustice to the people since the beginning. Let the people reform the constitution to create a system of nonpartisan popular sovereignty in equality, instead of the highly partisan system which fights, controls, subdues, and manipulates the people at every turn.
I accept that AFT wants a strong popular base, and though I see much wasted effort and disappointment at the end of that road, please recognize that any party and any person is at risk to the corrupting influence of power unless they stand on the sure platform of democracy, equality, and freedom, where each candidate is not an agent of popular power, but a powerful agent of the people, a true representative.
Andy Landen
Houston, TX
AFT is a party, it just hasn't been recognized as one, and hasn't accepted itself as one. AFT does not belong in any of the current parties today. It's true. Republicans are the strongest supporters, but with their majority did nothing for it. Many Democrats like it but with the party *dead* against it, they are frozen and mute on the subject. The constituents of both parties are quite similar in their desire for the FairTax, but the parties are more interested in themselves. Yet the Democrat constituency stands out with amazing patience and loyalty.
Most people already want the FairTax, they just don't know it yet. When we get the support of the masses (the question is only how soon), my experience shows that the politicians will manipulate, deceive, and divide them in every possible way to advance their own agendas and the power of their parties, respectively. AND IF somehow we manage to ram the popular rampart through the castle gates, storm the congress, and put the FairTax bill before our leaders, I promise you that they will pervert it in every way possible so that the bill which is passed is only vaguely similar to the original, and over time the people will see the FairTax defiled by corruption comparable to the current Income Tax. To me, this is a very ugly picture on the backs of tremendous will and sacrifice by AFT leaders and grassroots.
Try a different picture now. Fine, charismatic, honest, amiable, open leaders are taken from within the FairTax ranks as candidates for a new FairTax party. Wealthy individuals such as Ross Perot and Bill Gates are persuaded to back us. Our party is cleansed from all politics, including desires for reduced government (that will happen in time when the people are empowered to rule in fairness and sovereignty), and our platform becomes only fairness, honesty, and integrity. These leaders will inspire a nation which already want the FairTax deep in their hearts. These leaders will protect the FairTax from corruption, and fairness from politics.
DO NOT entertain the idea of creating a third political party in terms of the traditional partison lines, or it CANNOT energize the populous. We need a party for the people, protecting fairness in every aspect of government while ready to advance the will of the people IN ANY FAIR AND RESPONSIBLE WAY WHATSOEVER.
Let the people increase government spending by 10% every year (or reduce it). Let them UNSECURE the borders if they wish (however unlikely that might be). Let them deteriorate our military readiness (that hasn't been the American way yet, but hey, people may change with good representation, no? :) Let the people abandon social security (its was built upon an unstable foundation and is due to collapse of its own accord quite soon anyway) and replace it with something which is fair to all. Last, but most important, let the people "abandon" the Constitution (according to its own provisions for ammendment of course)! It is THAT document which established the system which empowers two parties, both of which have done injustice to the people since the beginning. Let the people reform the constitution to create a system of nonpartisan popular sovereignty in equality, instead of the highly partisan system which fights, controls, subdues, and manipulates the people at every turn.
I accept that AFT wants a strong popular base, and though I see much wasted effort and disappointment at the end of that road, please recognize that any party and any person is at risk to the corrupting influence of power unless they stand on the sure platform of democracy, equality, and freedom, where each candidate is not an agent of popular power, but a powerful agent of the people, a true representative.
Andy Landen
Houston, TX
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
The Mind
It is clear to me that most people are scared of the little understood Mind, but that they are all troubled by its operations.
The Mind seems to be the spiritual part of the person which governs our perception of, interaction with, and effect on the universe. The spirit seems to be the psychological control center of the brain, especially the conscious part. It seems almost synonymous with God and definitely somewhat removed from our consciousness. It seems as if there are three parts to the life of the person: the body, the spirit, and the mind. The mind seems to observe and react to the situation of the body and the spirit so as to advance one's interests while protect oneself from harm, both bodily and spiritually.
By faith, the mind hears the suggestions of the spirit and works to establish peace and security for the individual. At times, this work appears to be real and miraculous, while at other times, it appears to be unreal and deceptive. The former appears to operate on the principle of industry and respect and peace, while the latter seems to be driven by anger, fear, doubt, idleness, and disrespect for nature.
The Mind seems to be the spiritual part of the person which governs our perception of, interaction with, and effect on the universe. The spirit seems to be the psychological control center of the brain, especially the conscious part. It seems almost synonymous with God and definitely somewhat removed from our consciousness. It seems as if there are three parts to the life of the person: the body, the spirit, and the mind. The mind seems to observe and react to the situation of the body and the spirit so as to advance one's interests while protect oneself from harm, both bodily and spiritually.
By faith, the mind hears the suggestions of the spirit and works to establish peace and security for the individual. At times, this work appears to be real and miraculous, while at other times, it appears to be unreal and deceptive. The former appears to operate on the principle of industry and respect and peace, while the latter seems to be driven by anger, fear, doubt, idleness, and disrespect for nature.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Republican Failures and Government Shortcomings of 2006
Republicans appear to be unable to deliver on key promises and American expectations when it comes to:
- Fiscal Responsibility with a Balanced Budget Ammendment, Tax Reform/Simplification/Fairness (FairTax) and Elimination of Debt
- Social Responsibility with Welfare Reform/Privatization (especially Social Security)
- Civil Respect and Freedoms with Protections on civil liberties, privacy, justice, and legal and government transparency
- Stronger Democracy with measures which increase voter turnout and increased government dependence on the same
- Foreign Strength with Respectful Alliances and Clear, unilateral advancement of American interests; disable threats and respect foreign peoples
- American Independence with solely American command of American troops
- Military Superiority in space and especially against ICBM (long range missile) threats (work is just beginning in those areas
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Increasing the Population
A recent article commemorated the US population 300 million mark, and I salute her for it; though I believe that she should open her borders to much more legal immigration having only the requirements of English proficiency and lawful intent (free English courses offered and police background checks required). She should also reject criminals (after reparations) to their home countries (transfered to their home government's jurisdiction).
Some argue that an increase in population is bad, but I say that nothing could be farther from the truth, unless of course you are trying to make slaves of the existing population to your will. It is true that resources are finite, but we can hardly tap into them all, for nature is far greater than us and we keep getting smarter everyday. The important point is that every person earns at least as much as they spend (no subsidies or grants). True, every person adds their own set of needs and wants, but at the same time they must also offer services to meet the needs and wants of others, which in value exceeds their own consumption. Therefore the net result is that there is more of an increase in resources and services than there is a demand on the same concerning each individual, thus leaving a net increase for every addition to the population.
A study revealed that there is enough land in Texas alone for every American family to live on a 2 acre plot of real estate. Obviously, land is not an issue, for we are very good at building up even if the population rose to such heights that ownership of a quarter acre was not possible for every single American family (a population increase of 800%, assuming we are only limited to living in Texas, never mind California and Alaska, and the other 47 states for that matter).
An increased population brings increased competition, increased specialization and talent, increased culture, and more diverse ideas and communication. It brings a stronger country when the population is raised for success. The increase in demand for food with increased populations certainly raises the costs of food (which is good for the agricultural sector), thus revealing the insanity of our subsidized destruction of crops. Larger populations increase the potential for social and economic circulation (much like the life blood of the body). In conclusion, there exists no negative argument against an increased population which isn't immediately countered with a larger positive argument for it.
If there exists any problems associated with larger populations they are erroneously confused with the root problems of poor family, social, or governmental systems. Problems must be expected from children who are raised to fight goodness, and love evil. Societies which rejected children or foreigners border on the evils of isolationism and racism, and create selfish, foolish policies which quickly undermine the foundation of their strengths and successes. Governments undermine their economies and the freedoms of their citizens when they establish masters and slaves by creating inequality, as in the current partial, progressive tax system which allows no privacy or impartiality and by redistributing wealth by grants/subsidies, and by targeted, free services. All of these problems are independent of population and completely based on politics and inequality. So America, open your borders to good people interested in integrating into our english-speaking societies and remove your ïllegal' laws which establish inequality and injustice.
Some argue that an increase in population is bad, but I say that nothing could be farther from the truth, unless of course you are trying to make slaves of the existing population to your will. It is true that resources are finite, but we can hardly tap into them all, for nature is far greater than us and we keep getting smarter everyday. The important point is that every person earns at least as much as they spend (no subsidies or grants). True, every person adds their own set of needs and wants, but at the same time they must also offer services to meet the needs and wants of others, which in value exceeds their own consumption. Therefore the net result is that there is more of an increase in resources and services than there is a demand on the same concerning each individual, thus leaving a net increase for every addition to the population.
A study revealed that there is enough land in Texas alone for every American family to live on a 2 acre plot of real estate. Obviously, land is not an issue, for we are very good at building up even if the population rose to such heights that ownership of a quarter acre was not possible for every single American family (a population increase of 800%, assuming we are only limited to living in Texas, never mind California and Alaska, and the other 47 states for that matter).
An increased population brings increased competition, increased specialization and talent, increased culture, and more diverse ideas and communication. It brings a stronger country when the population is raised for success. The increase in demand for food with increased populations certainly raises the costs of food (which is good for the agricultural sector), thus revealing the insanity of our subsidized destruction of crops. Larger populations increase the potential for social and economic circulation (much like the life blood of the body). In conclusion, there exists no negative argument against an increased population which isn't immediately countered with a larger positive argument for it.
If there exists any problems associated with larger populations they are erroneously confused with the root problems of poor family, social, or governmental systems. Problems must be expected from children who are raised to fight goodness, and love evil. Societies which rejected children or foreigners border on the evils of isolationism and racism, and create selfish, foolish policies which quickly undermine the foundation of their strengths and successes. Governments undermine their economies and the freedoms of their citizens when they establish masters and slaves by creating inequality, as in the current partial, progressive tax system which allows no privacy or impartiality and by redistributing wealth by grants/subsidies, and by targeted, free services. All of these problems are independent of population and completely based on politics and inequality. So America, open your borders to good people interested in integrating into our english-speaking societies and remove your ïllegal' laws which establish inequality and injustice.
The Threat of North Korea
North Korea poses a grave threat to all and differs little from Iraq, except that she has no resources of value. Her dictator is killing her own people for the military power to fight America. The world strongly resisted the US invasion of Iraq against a ruthless dictator bent on the destruction of Israel and America. Similar resistance is found with this equally ruthless dictator. North Korea stole our nuclear secrets, secretly implemented a nuclear program based on them, took our money as funding for the very weapons they intend to use against us, openly broadcast their desire for war with us by a nuclear dud. We've put up with them long enough and now it is time to move our military assets to bear on the situation, as they leave no other option.
Secure all weapons of mass destruction. Leave a small force in Iraq to train the Iraqi forces to maintain security, and threaten the nuclear option for the next 8 years (on condition that Iraqi forces and operations remain inside her own borders) on any country, especially Iran, who attempts to violate her borders or fund any group which violates her borders or control any city within her borders. Posture all military units on the borders of North Korea, declare a DMZ on the country's borders, and tell them to stand down for a military invasion using strategies which expose us to minimum risk. Prepare the use of non-conventional weapons where needed/appropriate. Secure and destroy all weapons, and their systems, plans, technologies, and facilities, conventional and unconventional. North Korea will be united with South Korea under South Korean government. The nuclear option will be put on the table for any country which attempts to invade South Korea for the next 8 years (similar to the Iraqi deal). American forces will then leave. Post-war humanitarian aid will be limited to food and water donations from and by third party Red Cross and other neutral, non-military organizations (at their own risk). Ask Iran to consider her own fate in light of Iraq and North Korea.
US forces must leave Iraq quickly (9 months from now, June of 2007) with a native, trained security force in place, lest there be devastating results from nuclear attacks by North Korea and Iran and their militant, terrorist allies.
Secure all weapons of mass destruction. Leave a small force in Iraq to train the Iraqi forces to maintain security, and threaten the nuclear option for the next 8 years (on condition that Iraqi forces and operations remain inside her own borders) on any country, especially Iran, who attempts to violate her borders or fund any group which violates her borders or control any city within her borders. Posture all military units on the borders of North Korea, declare a DMZ on the country's borders, and tell them to stand down for a military invasion using strategies which expose us to minimum risk. Prepare the use of non-conventional weapons where needed/appropriate. Secure and destroy all weapons, and their systems, plans, technologies, and facilities, conventional and unconventional. North Korea will be united with South Korea under South Korean government. The nuclear option will be put on the table for any country which attempts to invade South Korea for the next 8 years (similar to the Iraqi deal). American forces will then leave. Post-war humanitarian aid will be limited to food and water donations from and by third party Red Cross and other neutral, non-military organizations (at their own risk). Ask Iran to consider her own fate in light of Iraq and North Korea.
US forces must leave Iraq quickly (9 months from now, June of 2007) with a native, trained security force in place, lest there be devastating results from nuclear attacks by North Korea and Iran and their militant, terrorist allies.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Telling the Truth
It has been said that "truth is the greatest virtue," and also that one should "learn the truth and the truth shall set you free," and some people even teach that one should always tell the truth. But is it true that to lie or to withold the truth is always bad?
I have long held that deceipt is a form of force in that it causes people to act against their rational will or self-interest contrary to their just desires. Is it ever proper to use force, or deceipt, and if so when and why?
Knowledge of the truth can be quite stressful, especially when you want things to be different than they are. Telling the "truth" forces others to confront ideas with which they may find conflict.
Typically, we do not possess the truth, but instead we know only our version of the truth, or our perspective tainted by our desires and philosophies. When we believe that a person is mean, we tend to only see those things which justify that view. When we are dishonest, we tend to superimpose that character upon all others, believing that other people are generally dishonest.
In general, we can only have two effects on others: positive (empowering) or negative (harmful). The only rational course of action is to influence our friends positively and our enemies negatively. Contrary to the well-known saying: Knowledge is not always power. Knowledge may destroy desire, morale, and even oneself, if one is unprepared to receive it, understand it, and accept it.
While it is no person's duty to empower their enemies, you are always much better off winning friends from enemies when possible (assuming the risk of betrayal is managed appropriately). Conversely, it is your duty to empower your friends, that your alliances may stand stronger in the face of adversity.
Therefore care must be taken to ensure that you always empower your friends to the degree of power with which they may be safely trusted, for no person may be assumed to hold an infinitely strong bond of friendship, except perhaps God Himself, Who is already infinitely powerful (perhaps for that very reason). Care must also be taken that your enemies are fought in such a way as to miminize one's own loss of power by the consumption of resources in the war, and to lower the overall threat to oneself consisting of the summation of all of the individual threats from each of one's enemies. Again, the authentic transformation of enemies to friends is of vital importance in that it simultaneously saves the expenditure of resources in confrontation and adds strength to your alliance.
In conclusion, the only truth which should be said is that which empowers and inspires your friends according to the respective degrees of trust, and which harms or discourages your enemies according to the threats they pose to your alliance. Insufficient inspiration and empowerment limits the potential to increase trust with one's friends, and strengthen one's alliance. Excessive harm costs excessive sacrifice in the conflict and reduces the opportunities for winning friends of your enemies. The optimal balance requires great wisdom and rational consideration.
-by Andy Landen
I have long held that deceipt is a form of force in that it causes people to act against their rational will or self-interest contrary to their just desires. Is it ever proper to use force, or deceipt, and if so when and why?
Knowledge of the truth can be quite stressful, especially when you want things to be different than they are. Telling the "truth" forces others to confront ideas with which they may find conflict.
Typically, we do not possess the truth, but instead we know only our version of the truth, or our perspective tainted by our desires and philosophies. When we believe that a person is mean, we tend to only see those things which justify that view. When we are dishonest, we tend to superimpose that character upon all others, believing that other people are generally dishonest.
In general, we can only have two effects on others: positive (empowering) or negative (harmful). The only rational course of action is to influence our friends positively and our enemies negatively. Contrary to the well-known saying: Knowledge is not always power. Knowledge may destroy desire, morale, and even oneself, if one is unprepared to receive it, understand it, and accept it.
While it is no person's duty to empower their enemies, you are always much better off winning friends from enemies when possible (assuming the risk of betrayal is managed appropriately). Conversely, it is your duty to empower your friends, that your alliances may stand stronger in the face of adversity.
Therefore care must be taken to ensure that you always empower your friends to the degree of power with which they may be safely trusted, for no person may be assumed to hold an infinitely strong bond of friendship, except perhaps God Himself, Who is already infinitely powerful (perhaps for that very reason). Care must also be taken that your enemies are fought in such a way as to miminize one's own loss of power by the consumption of resources in the war, and to lower the overall threat to oneself consisting of the summation of all of the individual threats from each of one's enemies. Again, the authentic transformation of enemies to friends is of vital importance in that it simultaneously saves the expenditure of resources in confrontation and adds strength to your alliance.
In conclusion, the only truth which should be said is that which empowers and inspires your friends according to the respective degrees of trust, and which harms or discourages your enemies according to the threats they pose to your alliance. Insufficient inspiration and empowerment limits the potential to increase trust with one's friends, and strengthen one's alliance. Excessive harm costs excessive sacrifice in the conflict and reduces the opportunities for winning friends of your enemies. The optimal balance requires great wisdom and rational consideration.
-by Andy Landen
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
The Physician
The world needs physicians, not doctors, and counselors, not psychiatrists. Physicians heal the root problem, while doctors merely bandage the symptoms. Counselors resolve the mind, while psychiatrists simply numb its pain. Now pain killers are valuable in many ways, but they themselves are not the solutions to our problems. To many people trying to escape reality, only to realize that the fight only complicates and creates further problems.
The foundation of healing is identifying root causes and resolving them and ultimately, each individual solely holds that responsibility for oneself. Just as the body is the best physician for its physical wounds, the mind is the best physician for its mental/spiritual wounds. But unlike the body, the mind must choose whether to live or to die, to hope or to fear, to love or to hate, to be at peace or at anger. Thus the physician of choice is self, and salvation comes through this embrace of life: hope, love, and peace.
The foundation of healing is identifying root causes and resolving them and ultimately, each individual solely holds that responsibility for oneself. Just as the body is the best physician for its physical wounds, the mind is the best physician for its mental/spiritual wounds. But unlike the body, the mind must choose whether to live or to die, to hope or to fear, to love or to hate, to be at peace or at anger. Thus the physician of choice is self, and salvation comes through this embrace of life: hope, love, and peace.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Thermodynamic crimes
Heating with electricity is as much a thermodynamic crime as turning a motor with combustion.
Homes and food should be heated by natural gas. Motors should be turned by electricity.
When gas burns (combustion) it's most natural and plentiful product is heat, therefore it is best suited for heating. Electricity is a much higher and more precious form of energy required by motors. Unfortunately, portable needs for energy have not developed the most natural conversion of chemical energy into electricity, electrochemistry using fuel cells.
The consequence of committing a thermodynamic crime is wasted energy, which comes at a price both physically and psychologically. Wasted resources harm the "bottom line" and disrespect the laws of nature.
Homes and food should be heated by natural gas. Motors should be turned by electricity.
When gas burns (combustion) it's most natural and plentiful product is heat, therefore it is best suited for heating. Electricity is a much higher and more precious form of energy required by motors. Unfortunately, portable needs for energy have not developed the most natural conversion of chemical energy into electricity, electrochemistry using fuel cells.
The consequence of committing a thermodynamic crime is wasted energy, which comes at a price both physically and psychologically. Wasted resources harm the "bottom line" and disrespect the laws of nature.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Utopian commute
The ideal commuter solution to congested roadways would be free (the savings in road construction would more than pay for it) shuttle services, where respectful, safe drivers in nice vans shuttle residents from their front doorsteps to main transfer points (off the road for minimal/no disruption of traffic) along main road arteries where larger buses take them into the city (always remaining on main roadways, especially freeways (for a speedy and quick commute). These buses drop commuters off at main transfer points (minimizing the number of stops on the route for a quick commute) where similar vans shuttle commuters to the front entrances at the workplaces. All city transport services are concentrated on these services so that buses leave and arrive at main transfer points very frequently (at least every 30s to 1 minute), and vans arrive at commuters homes within minutes of the "ready call," where commuters signal their desire and preparation for pick-up. In this way, the main transfer points do not require large parking lots because the only method of transfer is by drop-off via the city-funded vans, or via drop-off by a spouse. People are paid to advertise the presence of the commuter shuttle service with door-to-door flyers to areas of viable commuter populations.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Al Qaida, Hezbollah, and Iran
Everyone knows that Al Qaida's mission is the forceful spread of Islam, and I think that this reason underscores the threat which Americans have successfully assaulted with much sacrifice both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I think that their words are not hollow, but their brains are, so it has been easy to thwart their mission. Such religious devotion blinds them from common sense and forces them to attack in strategically foolish ways, especially when we manipulate them with our words. Right now, Al Qaida doesn't have much power at all, thanks to the damage that we have inflicted on them for four years now, despite world protests against it. Of all of the excuses used to justify our invasion of Iraq for political purposes, I believe that the fight against Al Qaida is the primary reason and perhaps the only reason which we really care about.
This same war against terrorism has justified America's support of the recent Israeli offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon. They are not lunatics, they are murderers, thieves, and disillusioned, power-hungry zealots. But their power is quickly diminishing and their words are becoming quite hollow. But notice Iran in the coming years and her support of Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. Her words are not hollow, and we may likely suffer much in the near future if the world does not unite in the American war on Terror, namely France, Russia, and China.
Some people say (source protected): "Iran is fomenting trouble and the sooner it is brought under control the better....but we need to be careful and use non-violent methods first. Only if they fails do we need to use force. We can't be like them and use indiscriminate force..and bring tragic loss of human life."
In response to the concerns for the destruction of war, I recognize the tremendous sacrifice and harm inherent in armed conflict, but the refusal to meet one's enemies with force when self-preservation is of the essence risks much worse. Only two questions needs to be asked of Iran: 1) Does she desire peace with America and her allies (including Israel)? and 2) If she does not desire peace, then what threats to our security does she pose now and may she develop in the future? For your, the 1st question would naturally be modified to: 1) Does she desire peace with India and her allies? A third question is probably required for the sake of consistency: 3) Do all of one's allies desire peace and security for one's homeland? Those who do not must be re-classified as enemies.
Now, while it is much easier and wiser to make friends out of former enemies, this must never come at the expense of the peace and security of one's country, and the risk of betrayal must be always accurately considered. Furthermore, the condition of conversion to the religion of Islam, or any other religion for that matter, is an unacceptable violation of human freedom and a re-affirmation of nonpeaceful (forceful) intentions. Any country which desires to control another country as a condition for peace is not an ally at all (America included); I know that we have done our "fair share" of controlling other countries without the justifications of either peace or security.
FYI: It seems clear to me that the American people are preparing to wage war on Iran as we waged war with Iraq.
Personally, if I were President of America, I would immediately classify Iran as an enemy. As an enemy, I would extend the olive branch of peace and also, after a short period of consideration of our peace offering, exercise wisely chosen military opportunities to safeguard our peace and security. Until she accepted our offer of peace completely, I would simply cut off all trade and aid to Iran and all her allies (including those who trade with her), and exercise a balanced strategic and economic military campaign to minimize the threat.
This same war against terrorism has justified America's support of the recent Israeli offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon. They are not lunatics, they are murderers, thieves, and disillusioned, power-hungry zealots. But their power is quickly diminishing and their words are becoming quite hollow. But notice Iran in the coming years and her support of Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. Her words are not hollow, and we may likely suffer much in the near future if the world does not unite in the American war on Terror, namely France, Russia, and China.
Some people say (source protected): "Iran is fomenting trouble and the sooner it is brought under control the better....but we need to be careful and use non-violent methods first. Only if they fails do we need to use force. We can't be like them and use indiscriminate force..and bring tragic loss of human life."
In response to the concerns for the destruction of war, I recognize the tremendous sacrifice and harm inherent in armed conflict, but the refusal to meet one's enemies with force when self-preservation is of the essence risks much worse. Only two questions needs to be asked of Iran: 1) Does she desire peace with America and her allies (including Israel)? and 2) If she does not desire peace, then what threats to our security does she pose now and may she develop in the future? For your, the 1st question would naturally be modified to: 1) Does she desire peace with India and her allies? A third question is probably required for the sake of consistency: 3) Do all of one's allies desire peace and security for one's homeland? Those who do not must be re-classified as enemies.
Now, while it is much easier and wiser to make friends out of former enemies, this must never come at the expense of the peace and security of one's country, and the risk of betrayal must be always accurately considered. Furthermore, the condition of conversion to the religion of Islam, or any other religion for that matter, is an unacceptable violation of human freedom and a re-affirmation of nonpeaceful (forceful) intentions. Any country which desires to control another country as a condition for peace is not an ally at all (America included); I know that we have done our "fair share" of controlling other countries without the justifications of either peace or security.
FYI: It seems clear to me that the American people are preparing to wage war on Iran as we waged war with Iraq.
Personally, if I were President of America, I would immediately classify Iran as an enemy. As an enemy, I would extend the olive branch of peace and also, after a short period of consideration of our peace offering, exercise wisely chosen military opportunities to safeguard our peace and security. Until she accepted our offer of peace completely, I would simply cut off all trade and aid to Iran and all her allies (including those who trade with her), and exercise a balanced strategic and economic military campaign to minimize the threat.
Representation in government
Representatives represent the people as individuals, Senators represent the people as a state. It seems to me like the job of a representative is to represent, and the best qualifications are those of doing the best discovering, and advancing the will of the people, in order of their priorities.
The representative must know the views of all of one's constituents and must honor the freedoms and equalities upon which this country was founded. The representative is bound to solicit the views his constituency, and act only with the support of a full majority.
To that end, technology proves a very crucial tool in its ability to move and organize information. One should establish an electronic system for authenticating identity for the purposes of verifying constituents, for receiving and organizing viewpoints, and for modifying those views either on an individual level, or on an organizational level by majority vote of those who support the respective view.
The representative must know the views of all of one's constituents and must honor the freedoms and equalities upon which this country was founded. The representative is bound to solicit the views his constituency, and act only with the support of a full majority.
To that end, technology proves a very crucial tool in its ability to move and organize information. One should establish an electronic system for authenticating identity for the purposes of verifying constituents, for receiving and organizing viewpoints, and for modifying those views either on an individual level, or on an organizational level by majority vote of those who support the respective view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)