Tuesday, February 20, 2007
fires of war keep some warm
When the fire was going out the other day, I was thinking of it as a metaphor for the current fighting going on in Iraq. Fires go out if you quit adding more wood. Those who are getting warm by the fire want to add more wood. So the question is, "Who is getting warm from this fire?"
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Haggert Rehab special, Associate Discount available
Dateline DC ... With todays groundbreaking psychiatric treatment reversing Pastor Ted Haggert's gender orientation, after only 3 weeks of counseling, anonymous Washington sources have suggested this remarkable descrambling technology might also be applied to other persistent political pyschosis instances. These White House staffers recommend that such treatments might also be used in peach mending fruitcakes, and gobbler warmings, both being leftovers from the holiday season. The FIB special alert notifies all prom lifers that such incidents should be put in the freezer as they don't digest well with Valentine candy.
The FIB warns Prom lifers that these psychosis are simply adolescent fantasies that have nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky, Chappequidick, virgins, and what to do when virgins make mistakes. But Associates are warned that such pyschosis may appear to be Blue Light Specials, and to maintain allegiance during confusing circumstances. Hence, the FIB today released a code red and white warning, in addition to further instructions as listed below.
Associates are warned that if such a symptom occurs, patriotic Associates will find the best prices in the Mallwart promotion aisle for the newest Fox News antenna patch updates. These patches feature easy-to-use-default settings of full blocking of all other media channels, plus the bonus free limited time offer of daily updates for Monica and Chappy tape output settings. These efficient update settings function on all Associate systems, with unmatched efficency,
considering the modest player capacities of this member technology.
With this technology installed, prom lifers will be protected on dangerous city streets, where free lifers are gathering in increasing lines for the release of the Seventh Installment in the 'Clueless and the Cons' adventure series. Unsubstantiated reports claim this series finale is set in Big G, a tropical resort, where the gang debates which outfits will get them through the day, orange or stripes. Such plot reports are based on an early movie trailer, which shows a cowboy bar, an empty whiskey bottle, empty glass, and Old Sure Shot strolling the yard of a seaside villa, looking to do a little bird hunting.
Any Prom Life Associate encountering such an alarming situation should first listen to directions on the default channel setting, as the future of our great country depends on such allegiance. If more resources are required, please find a safe place and download the special Ted Haggert rehab technique, which will be available at a special discount price to Associate members requiring such assitance.
The FIB warns Prom lifers that these psychosis are simply adolescent fantasies that have nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky, Chappequidick, virgins, and what to do when virgins make mistakes. But Associates are warned that such pyschosis may appear to be Blue Light Specials, and to maintain allegiance during confusing circumstances. Hence, the FIB today released a code red and white warning, in addition to further instructions as listed below.
Associates are warned that if such a symptom occurs, patriotic Associates will find the best prices in the Mallwart promotion aisle for the newest Fox News antenna patch updates. These patches feature easy-to-use-default settings of full blocking of all other media channels, plus the bonus free limited time offer of daily updates for Monica and Chappy tape output settings. These efficient update settings function on all Associate systems, with unmatched efficency,
considering the modest player capacities of this member technology.
With this technology installed, prom lifers will be protected on dangerous city streets, where free lifers are gathering in increasing lines for the release of the Seventh Installment in the 'Clueless and the Cons' adventure series. Unsubstantiated reports claim this series finale is set in Big G, a tropical resort, where the gang debates which outfits will get them through the day, orange or stripes. Such plot reports are based on an early movie trailer, which shows a cowboy bar, an empty whiskey bottle, empty glass, and Old Sure Shot strolling the yard of a seaside villa, looking to do a little bird hunting.
Any Prom Life Associate encountering such an alarming situation should first listen to directions on the default channel setting, as the future of our great country depends on such allegiance. If more resources are required, please find a safe place and download the special Ted Haggert rehab technique, which will be available at a special discount price to Associate members requiring such assitance.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Democracy exists only in exercise of democracy
We all think of democracy as government by the people and for the people. After that, the details get fuzzy. On the online "Wikipedia" page defining democracy, about 30 different types of democracy are listed. Further exploration of these is a bewildering journey into human tought and endeavor. But with all of these methods for respecting both the rights of people individually and in groups, democracy is apparently a goal for human behavior. Democracy exists in actions towards this goal. Without such action, it is only an idea.
Most would agree that democratic behavior exists in individual actions to stand for the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for all people. In order for them to exist for one, they must exist for all. To deny them to another will inevitably cause denial of them to oneself, to ones children, or to both.
Apparently, democracy depends upon eternal vigilance of individuals to uphold these core ideals. Those who do not stand for them are bound to lose them. To defer the understanding and daily renewal of democracy is to lose it. Democracy is not something that is arrived at and then left to others to maintain. Any system of government can become a vehicle of oppression by those who seek excessive power over others. Apparently we all need to be continually informed and active in improving on democratic ideals.
Obiviously, with the large numbers of ways that democracy is attempted, peoples are still working to improve its performance. Performance is the critical yardstick by which a democracy is measured.
In the face of the globalization of humanity, we are thus incumbent to examine the performance of democracies around the world. The U.S. democracy is the most well know, and perhaps the most enduring on a long scale. It is notable as much for its mistakes as it is for its successes. It is the one I am most familiar with, so I will discuss it here.
In current days, US democracy is once again in turmoil. As a representation government, it is often perceived as being eclipsed by international corporations which have allegiances to segements of society, and less so to society as a whole.
One perceived symptom of dysfuntion in current US demcracy is discussed here.
Representational plurality of elections has produced respresentation in the three branches of government accountable only to small segments of the public. Membership at the highest levels in these branches of government is not truly represented by class, gender, race, age, ethnic origin, religious belief, or philosophy.
Perplexing questions arises. At the highest levels of government, why do we not use a yardstick to measure true representation of these communities? Why is this question not an important ongoing issue in national discussion?
Although genuine efforts seem to want to reform the election process by changing the funding rules for elections, successes here may not arrive at significantly greater voter participation or representation.
Because of the lack of adequate representation inherent in plurality voting processes, voting is not seen by the majority as a viable vehicle for representation.
How can this be changed?
First, we all need to become better educated on both our existing constitution and the ways that other democracies either undeperform or outperform the US constitution. We need to objectively discuss what works and what doesn't .
Many view the American democracy at the turn of the millenium as more of a power struggle among politicians and economic interests than as a policy vehicle for enhancing adequate representation of people. This apparent disturbing development has percolated down through society, causing polarity and disillusionment. This trend may possibly be reversed, but first it must be recognized for what it is. Then efforts can begin to change it.
First, for those who agree with the previous assumptions, we all need again to re-evaluate and prioritize our ideals. As far as representation goes, we may decide we need to develop extensive improvements in out election and decision making processess.
As the highest levels of government are the most visible and most familiar to the people, possible ideas for changes should perhaps be directed there first.
One proposal would be to have each of the major offices in each of the major branches composed not of single individuals but of true representation of the voters. This would be akin to a parliamentary style election, with necessary changes to ideas here implemented by discussion and performance.
For instance, let us examine how truer representation might be implemented in the office of an elected official of about average power on a national level, that of a US Senator. For a moment consider this. In the home state elections for this senator, the voters could vote for perhaps 5 representatives out of any political constituency which wants to be on the ballot. Perhaps one vote would be mandantory to vote for one, which would be for one of the candidates actually running under the banner of representing one's own economic class. Other votes could be for the 4 other candidates that most prioritize ones wishes.
For example, an individual might vote for an individual who represents a specific issue stance on the environment, or immigration, or a workplace issue, or on agriculture, education, health care, reproductive rights, gender rights, transportation or whatever. Communities have many various interested parties, and the senate considers a wealth of issues.
Each voter would get 5 senator votes among all of the candidates representing this electorship.
When election tallies are made, each candidate would get that percentage of vote for election issues in Washington DC. The Washington DC office for the Senator for that state would not belong to an individual, but to the candidates from that senatorial region.
With the informational network of todays world, the various candidates would mostly continue to live in their states, but be able to vote on Senate issues through an encrypted network.
Their wages would come out of a fixed amount, reflecting the percentage of votes they got in the election. Their votes on issues would also reflect the percentages of their voter support.
By having a system like this, we would greatly increase particiaption and ownership of a more minformed citizenry in policymaking and implementation. We would also make public office a vehicle for serving the citizenry and not an individuals career ambitions.
In this way, every persons vote would have a variety of representation on Senatorial issues. To determine passage of issues before the senate, all of the individual senatorial votes would be weighted votes, according to the amount of support that individual has garnered in the elections.
Such process would have the outcome of actually showing both the spevtrum of ideas
on specific issues and their support for them. Resources of the national budget would reflect the accumulated vote totals for the voters wishes. National policy would arise from a national dialog and and personal appreciation of various citizens needs and wishes.
Some may perceive a process such as this unwieldy, difficult to understand and implement. But in today's complex world, the answers to complex problems humanity faces need to also be complex. The time for simplified solutions is past.
We need involvement of all sectors of humanity in resolving a wide range of complex issues.
To respond to terrorism, we need to understand it. We need for oppressed peoples to have voices and be part of the greater decision process.
To counter religous conflicts we need representation from all persuasions, investing all of us in both dialog and decision making, truly striving to arrive at solutions guaranteeing non-oppresive religous rights.
To counter global warming, we need truer representation of interested parties in the decision-making process of funding global responses on local and industrial levels.
These are only examples of some of the curreent issues we face. Certainly, ideas here can be improved on. They are only ideas and should only be considered for their resonance and worth.
The success of any institution is dependent upon its ablity to adapt to changing times. The incentive for this article is in response to what many perceive to be the apparent crumbling of some of the structural components of the American consitution.
In summary, these are initial attempts to assess if the constitutional processes are somewhat to lame for present divisions in American society, and if so,why this is happening. Finally, if one sees problems, it is incumbent to propose at least some kind of solution. With a wonderful structure to begin with, the American Constitution, perhaps it is time to replace some of the crumbling components with modern composite ideas. The founders expected nothing less than for those to follow to carry the torch of freedom to future generations.
Freedom of speech is the first amendment to the constitution. Criticism of current policies in ones time was not only allowed, but mandated by the founding fathers. I for one, have long admired the great amount of thought and dialog that went into the formation of the US constitution. I also recognize that many before that event and many since have furthered the great ideals to which humanity aspires.
I also know I am but one of myriad ephemeral voices in the pageant of life on this planet. All I can do is attempt to be true to myself, to attempt to further the ideals I believe in.
Democracy exists only in one's exercise of democracy.
Most would agree that democratic behavior exists in individual actions to stand for the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for all people. In order for them to exist for one, they must exist for all. To deny them to another will inevitably cause denial of them to oneself, to ones children, or to both.
Apparently, democracy depends upon eternal vigilance of individuals to uphold these core ideals. Those who do not stand for them are bound to lose them. To defer the understanding and daily renewal of democracy is to lose it. Democracy is not something that is arrived at and then left to others to maintain. Any system of government can become a vehicle of oppression by those who seek excessive power over others. Apparently we all need to be continually informed and active in improving on democratic ideals.
Obiviously, with the large numbers of ways that democracy is attempted, peoples are still working to improve its performance. Performance is the critical yardstick by which a democracy is measured.
In the face of the globalization of humanity, we are thus incumbent to examine the performance of democracies around the world. The U.S. democracy is the most well know, and perhaps the most enduring on a long scale. It is notable as much for its mistakes as it is for its successes. It is the one I am most familiar with, so I will discuss it here.
In current days, US democracy is once again in turmoil. As a representation government, it is often perceived as being eclipsed by international corporations which have allegiances to segements of society, and less so to society as a whole.
One perceived symptom of dysfuntion in current US demcracy is discussed here.
Representational plurality of elections has produced respresentation in the three branches of government accountable only to small segments of the public. Membership at the highest levels in these branches of government is not truly represented by class, gender, race, age, ethnic origin, religious belief, or philosophy.
Perplexing questions arises. At the highest levels of government, why do we not use a yardstick to measure true representation of these communities? Why is this question not an important ongoing issue in national discussion?
Although genuine efforts seem to want to reform the election process by changing the funding rules for elections, successes here may not arrive at significantly greater voter participation or representation.
Because of the lack of adequate representation inherent in plurality voting processes, voting is not seen by the majority as a viable vehicle for representation.
How can this be changed?
First, we all need to become better educated on both our existing constitution and the ways that other democracies either undeperform or outperform the US constitution. We need to objectively discuss what works and what doesn't .
Many view the American democracy at the turn of the millenium as more of a power struggle among politicians and economic interests than as a policy vehicle for enhancing adequate representation of people. This apparent disturbing development has percolated down through society, causing polarity and disillusionment. This trend may possibly be reversed, but first it must be recognized for what it is. Then efforts can begin to change it.
First, for those who agree with the previous assumptions, we all need again to re-evaluate and prioritize our ideals. As far as representation goes, we may decide we need to develop extensive improvements in out election and decision making processess.
As the highest levels of government are the most visible and most familiar to the people, possible ideas for changes should perhaps be directed there first.
One proposal would be to have each of the major offices in each of the major branches composed not of single individuals but of true representation of the voters. This would be akin to a parliamentary style election, with necessary changes to ideas here implemented by discussion and performance.
For instance, let us examine how truer representation might be implemented in the office of an elected official of about average power on a national level, that of a US Senator. For a moment consider this. In the home state elections for this senator, the voters could vote for perhaps 5 representatives out of any political constituency which wants to be on the ballot. Perhaps one vote would be mandantory to vote for one, which would be for one of the candidates actually running under the banner of representing one's own economic class. Other votes could be for the 4 other candidates that most prioritize ones wishes.
For example, an individual might vote for an individual who represents a specific issue stance on the environment, or immigration, or a workplace issue, or on agriculture, education, health care, reproductive rights, gender rights, transportation or whatever. Communities have many various interested parties, and the senate considers a wealth of issues.
Each voter would get 5 senator votes among all of the candidates representing this electorship.
When election tallies are made, each candidate would get that percentage of vote for election issues in Washington DC. The Washington DC office for the Senator for that state would not belong to an individual, but to the candidates from that senatorial region.
With the informational network of todays world, the various candidates would mostly continue to live in their states, but be able to vote on Senate issues through an encrypted network.
Their wages would come out of a fixed amount, reflecting the percentage of votes they got in the election. Their votes on issues would also reflect the percentages of their voter support.
By having a system like this, we would greatly increase particiaption and ownership of a more minformed citizenry in policymaking and implementation. We would also make public office a vehicle for serving the citizenry and not an individuals career ambitions.
In this way, every persons vote would have a variety of representation on Senatorial issues. To determine passage of issues before the senate, all of the individual senatorial votes would be weighted votes, according to the amount of support that individual has garnered in the elections.
Such process would have the outcome of actually showing both the spevtrum of ideas
on specific issues and their support for them. Resources of the national budget would reflect the accumulated vote totals for the voters wishes. National policy would arise from a national dialog and and personal appreciation of various citizens needs and wishes.
Some may perceive a process such as this unwieldy, difficult to understand and implement. But in today's complex world, the answers to complex problems humanity faces need to also be complex. The time for simplified solutions is past.
We need involvement of all sectors of humanity in resolving a wide range of complex issues.
To respond to terrorism, we need to understand it. We need for oppressed peoples to have voices and be part of the greater decision process.
To counter religous conflicts we need representation from all persuasions, investing all of us in both dialog and decision making, truly striving to arrive at solutions guaranteeing non-oppresive religous rights.
To counter global warming, we need truer representation of interested parties in the decision-making process of funding global responses on local and industrial levels.
These are only examples of some of the curreent issues we face. Certainly, ideas here can be improved on. They are only ideas and should only be considered for their resonance and worth.
The success of any institution is dependent upon its ablity to adapt to changing times. The incentive for this article is in response to what many perceive to be the apparent crumbling of some of the structural components of the American consitution.
In summary, these are initial attempts to assess if the constitutional processes are somewhat to lame for present divisions in American society, and if so,why this is happening. Finally, if one sees problems, it is incumbent to propose at least some kind of solution. With a wonderful structure to begin with, the American Constitution, perhaps it is time to replace some of the crumbling components with modern composite ideas. The founders expected nothing less than for those to follow to carry the torch of freedom to future generations.
Freedom of speech is the first amendment to the constitution. Criticism of current policies in ones time was not only allowed, but mandated by the founding fathers. I for one, have long admired the great amount of thought and dialog that went into the formation of the US constitution. I also recognize that many before that event and many since have furthered the great ideals to which humanity aspires.
I also know I am but one of myriad ephemeral voices in the pageant of life on this planet. All I can do is attempt to be true to myself, to attempt to further the ideals I believe in.
Democracy exists only in one's exercise of democracy.
Too many rabbits wearing elephant costumes
So how did we get so many elephants in the room? Everybody likes to talk about elephants when they show up at the party, but who really looks under the costumes to see whose wearing the costumes?
Ok, so can you guess what I am talking about?
I am using the symbol of rabbits, because they overproduce, in referring to overpopulation.
The elephant symbolism is a little more complicated. I am using it to refer to three things.
First, that overpopulation is the big elephant in the room that the media rarely discusses.
Second, that the Republican Party is the big elephant, its agenda greatly enabled and membership increased by both religous and economic beliefs that contribute to overpopulation.
Third, that the catastrophic decline of species is symbolized by the struggles of actual elephants to survive, in the face of habitat usurpation and poaching by humans.
First, let us define the causes of overpoplation, and then discuss its effects.
Some might say that money, or love of money, is the root of all evil. But money is a medium not avaialable to all. The saying should be "Greed is the root of all evil."
Greed is selfish desire and accumulation beyond what is needed. It is not confined to mateial aquisition. In the context of reporduction greed occurs when one person creates more than one person to replace themself. This is the cause of overpopulation.
Was this greed, this overpopulation always a significant problem? Perhaps not. Overpopulation of humanity was an asset up to a certain historical point. It helped humanity survive through huge epidemics, warfare, and regional natural disasters. Overpopulation helped respond to large percentages of infant mortatlity, short life-expectancy and takning cae of the young, old, sick and disadvantaged. It also created a critical mass of people allowing societys, and division of tasks and consequent innovations for the betterment of human society.
Times have changed. We as a species are at a point where we need to come together and take care of one another, cradle to grave. If we do this, inidividuals will not be as motivated to look out for selfish interests.
Surely all can see that overpopulation is a problem today. Scientists say the oceans will be barren in 50 years. Consumption of fossil fuels continues to rise, in the face of the headlines warning of the dire impacts of global warming. Housing costs have dramatically risen everywhere due to increased competition for limited availability. Homelessness has increased. Wages among middle and lower classes continue to deteriorate. Medical access is increasingly unavailable due to lower economical abilities for increasing numbers of people. Starvation is increasing worldwide. Deforestation increases worldwide, as does mining and oil drilling, under the banner of humanity needing both the resource and the jobs.
Almost every activist and every person is adversely affected by overpopulation, whether they want to admit it or not. It is a core problem for any issue we care about.
Ok, so much for the symbol of rabbits, of overpopulation. Now lets discuss the elephant in the room. Why is ovepopulation not a more prevalent topic of discussion in the media, in religion, and in conversations among individuals? Is it because it is asking individuals to refrain from sexual behavior, a core instinct? Is it because politicians are afraid it will alienate significant voting blocks? Is it because it smacks of restricting the rights of others, whether those others are ethnic citizens or aliens? Is it because overpopulation is in the interests of institutions who want to increase their membership? Overpopulation is the elephant in the room.
One relatively undiscussed aspect of overpopulation is its' frequent spiritual denial within the Elephant party, the Republicans.
A core voting block of the Republican party are pro-lifers, often single-issue voters who ignore all other issues because the republican party has been pro-life.Pro-lifers are motivated by a spiritual beliefs which I think is worthy of consideration. It is standing up for one who does not have a voice. For those pro-lifers who do not have more than 2 children, I applaud your conscientiousness towards a better world. For those pro-lifers who have more than 2 children, I certainly hope you have considered the repercussions of our deciding to have more children and how it affects overpopulation.
The decision for a woman to have an abortion is not easy. Women do not think, "Oh, it would be fun to get pregnant so I can go have an abortion." No, the choice to have an abortion is always a response to a difficult situation.
Bystanders can have ideas on solutions, and hopefully are always accorded the right to express their ideas. At the same time, we all need to respect the woman's choice on this profound difficult decision. Beyond this individual's choice, their difficult choice affects an issue which we all need to address more , overpopulation.
Economically, in the United States, apparently it is predominantly the Republican elite which cherishes overpopulation. Increased competition for jobs lowers wages, enhancing upper class profits. Union membership is undermined by job competition from excessive workforces, including illegal immigrants who have much lower demands. With lower and middle classes scrambling to survive, these non-union workers have less time and power to become educated, and to challenge for more rights. Overpopulation erodes worker rights.
Unfortunately, the cycle continues. As workers become desperate, they often turn to religion. Some religions proclaim against population control but not all. There are religious spokespeople who do want to be identified with more responsible parenthood behavior, but their voices are often unheard in mainstream media. Their voices are there, and some of us are listening, so hopefully they continue to speak up. The issue of overpopulation needs to be discussed everywhere, in order to avoid further community polarization.
Unfortunatel, workers from overpopulating communities outmigrate elsewhere, usually taking this behavior with them. Their own economies cannot keep up with them, so they compete in other economies.
Imagine that two neighbors have dogs in their backyard, with a simple fence between them. One neighbor has 2 dogs, fixed or spayed, two doghouses, a grassy yard and two full waterbowls and two full food bowls. The other neighbor has 6 dogs, and none of them are spayed or fixed, with two doghouses, a grassy yard, 2 full food bowls, and 2 full waterbowls.
Now think what will happen when the dogs in the second yard have litters, and in 2 years it is full of 117 dogs, all trying to live in 2 doghouses and eat out of 2 full foodbowls and 2 full waterbowls. The dogs can see over the fence to the neighbors yard, still with only 2 dogs, 2 houses, 2 food bowls and 2 dog bowls.
What do you think is going to happen in the next 2 years with these dogs, solely due to overpopulation?
Many are disappointed by any family in the 21st century which has more than 2 children under the age of 18, whatever their class, nationality, religion, or ethnic origin. Both knowledge and resources to avoid overpopulation should be available to all. Also, we should make strenuous efforts to lift all humanity out of poverty.
For those society members who are resitant to small family size, should these families pay an extra annual tax of perhaps, say, 10% of their income for each child, up to the age of 18, if they have over 2 children? This tax would not apply in cases of multiple births, adoption or foster parenting, or in cases of rape.
At the same time, should there also be more thorough enforcement for fathers payment of child support?
Should there be stricter U.S. immigrant quota restictions on countries that have a higher birth rate? Should immigrants from families of more than 2 children under 18 should be more thoroughly restricted, and citizenship contingent on such family not having more than 2 children in the following 10 years upon entry?
Answers to these questions are not easy, but public debate is overdue on this pressing issue. We need to find substantive ways to reward countries and individuals who are conscientious about overpopulation.
In closing, how do we view our species in the great picture? For those who think that humanity is great, is not that greatness diminshed with the loss of each species ?
If only one species is finally left, then greatness means nothing. It has nothing to compare itself to. It is the worst as much as it is the best.
Ok, so can you guess what I am talking about?
I am using the symbol of rabbits, because they overproduce, in referring to overpopulation.
The elephant symbolism is a little more complicated. I am using it to refer to three things.
First, that overpopulation is the big elephant in the room that the media rarely discusses.
Second, that the Republican Party is the big elephant, its agenda greatly enabled and membership increased by both religous and economic beliefs that contribute to overpopulation.
Third, that the catastrophic decline of species is symbolized by the struggles of actual elephants to survive, in the face of habitat usurpation and poaching by humans.
First, let us define the causes of overpoplation, and then discuss its effects.
Some might say that money, or love of money, is the root of all evil. But money is a medium not avaialable to all. The saying should be "Greed is the root of all evil."
Greed is selfish desire and accumulation beyond what is needed. It is not confined to mateial aquisition. In the context of reporduction greed occurs when one person creates more than one person to replace themself. This is the cause of overpopulation.
Was this greed, this overpopulation always a significant problem? Perhaps not. Overpopulation of humanity was an asset up to a certain historical point. It helped humanity survive through huge epidemics, warfare, and regional natural disasters. Overpopulation helped respond to large percentages of infant mortatlity, short life-expectancy and takning cae of the young, old, sick and disadvantaged. It also created a critical mass of people allowing societys, and division of tasks and consequent innovations for the betterment of human society.
Times have changed. We as a species are at a point where we need to come together and take care of one another, cradle to grave. If we do this, inidividuals will not be as motivated to look out for selfish interests.
Surely all can see that overpopulation is a problem today. Scientists say the oceans will be barren in 50 years. Consumption of fossil fuels continues to rise, in the face of the headlines warning of the dire impacts of global warming. Housing costs have dramatically risen everywhere due to increased competition for limited availability. Homelessness has increased. Wages among middle and lower classes continue to deteriorate. Medical access is increasingly unavailable due to lower economical abilities for increasing numbers of people. Starvation is increasing worldwide. Deforestation increases worldwide, as does mining and oil drilling, under the banner of humanity needing both the resource and the jobs.
Almost every activist and every person is adversely affected by overpopulation, whether they want to admit it or not. It is a core problem for any issue we care about.
Ok, so much for the symbol of rabbits, of overpopulation. Now lets discuss the elephant in the room. Why is ovepopulation not a more prevalent topic of discussion in the media, in religion, and in conversations among individuals? Is it because it is asking individuals to refrain from sexual behavior, a core instinct? Is it because politicians are afraid it will alienate significant voting blocks? Is it because it smacks of restricting the rights of others, whether those others are ethnic citizens or aliens? Is it because overpopulation is in the interests of institutions who want to increase their membership? Overpopulation is the elephant in the room.
One relatively undiscussed aspect of overpopulation is its' frequent spiritual denial within the Elephant party, the Republicans.
A core voting block of the Republican party are pro-lifers, often single-issue voters who ignore all other issues because the republican party has been pro-life.Pro-lifers are motivated by a spiritual beliefs which I think is worthy of consideration. It is standing up for one who does not have a voice. For those pro-lifers who do not have more than 2 children, I applaud your conscientiousness towards a better world. For those pro-lifers who have more than 2 children, I certainly hope you have considered the repercussions of our deciding to have more children and how it affects overpopulation.
The decision for a woman to have an abortion is not easy. Women do not think, "Oh, it would be fun to get pregnant so I can go have an abortion." No, the choice to have an abortion is always a response to a difficult situation.
Bystanders can have ideas on solutions, and hopefully are always accorded the right to express their ideas. At the same time, we all need to respect the woman's choice on this profound difficult decision. Beyond this individual's choice, their difficult choice affects an issue which we all need to address more , overpopulation.
Economically, in the United States, apparently it is predominantly the Republican elite which cherishes overpopulation. Increased competition for jobs lowers wages, enhancing upper class profits. Union membership is undermined by job competition from excessive workforces, including illegal immigrants who have much lower demands. With lower and middle classes scrambling to survive, these non-union workers have less time and power to become educated, and to challenge for more rights. Overpopulation erodes worker rights.
Unfortunately, the cycle continues. As workers become desperate, they often turn to religion. Some religions proclaim against population control but not all. There are religious spokespeople who do want to be identified with more responsible parenthood behavior, but their voices are often unheard in mainstream media. Their voices are there, and some of us are listening, so hopefully they continue to speak up. The issue of overpopulation needs to be discussed everywhere, in order to avoid further community polarization.
Unfortunatel, workers from overpopulating communities outmigrate elsewhere, usually taking this behavior with them. Their own economies cannot keep up with them, so they compete in other economies.
Imagine that two neighbors have dogs in their backyard, with a simple fence between them. One neighbor has 2 dogs, fixed or spayed, two doghouses, a grassy yard and two full waterbowls and two full food bowls. The other neighbor has 6 dogs, and none of them are spayed or fixed, with two doghouses, a grassy yard, 2 full food bowls, and 2 full waterbowls.
Now think what will happen when the dogs in the second yard have litters, and in 2 years it is full of 117 dogs, all trying to live in 2 doghouses and eat out of 2 full foodbowls and 2 full waterbowls. The dogs can see over the fence to the neighbors yard, still with only 2 dogs, 2 houses, 2 food bowls and 2 dog bowls.
What do you think is going to happen in the next 2 years with these dogs, solely due to overpopulation?
Many are disappointed by any family in the 21st century which has more than 2 children under the age of 18, whatever their class, nationality, religion, or ethnic origin. Both knowledge and resources to avoid overpopulation should be available to all. Also, we should make strenuous efforts to lift all humanity out of poverty.
For those society members who are resitant to small family size, should these families pay an extra annual tax of perhaps, say, 10% of their income for each child, up to the age of 18, if they have over 2 children? This tax would not apply in cases of multiple births, adoption or foster parenting, or in cases of rape.
At the same time, should there also be more thorough enforcement for fathers payment of child support?
Should there be stricter U.S. immigrant quota restictions on countries that have a higher birth rate? Should immigrants from families of more than 2 children under 18 should be more thoroughly restricted, and citizenship contingent on such family not having more than 2 children in the following 10 years upon entry?
Answers to these questions are not easy, but public debate is overdue on this pressing issue. We need to find substantive ways to reward countries and individuals who are conscientious about overpopulation.
In closing, how do we view our species in the great picture? For those who think that humanity is great, is not that greatness diminshed with the loss of each species ?
If only one species is finally left, then greatness means nothing. It has nothing to compare itself to. It is the worst as much as it is the best.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
more reasons why people don't vote
Today, although a bill was introduced into the California state legislature requiring voter registration as a pre-requisite before students receive a high school diploma, student reaction was mixed. Although many older people fervently believe in voting as a keystone of democracy, it is unlikely to show increased support among the young unless voting is viewed as more of an asset than a liability.
First, voting is more attractive in a representational democracy, not in a winner takes all lobbyship, flawed with corruption. Why vote when it makes no difference?
Second, with all of the current spying on American citizens going on, why would individuals want to participate in the political process, very possibly be persecuted if they were to voice their rights? especially when such rights are more often perceived as ideals than as practiced? Who wants to casually volunteer personal information these days, not knowing what will become of it?
Third, many low-income people cannot afford time and expense to serve in jury duty, which voter registration creates duty requirements for. Jury pay scale and other jury reimbursement costs are fractions of incurred costs, insults to citizens, no different than being an indentured servant.
Fourth, in jury duty, low-income people, such as high school grads and those olders who don't DC lobbyists, are often forced to enforce rules which have been created not by them, but by slick millionaires, who are the only ones currently elected to D.C. offices.
At least the jury system coud have the courtesy to pay jurors the average same wages for their time as the other courtroom participants recieive, like the judge and court personnel. In the present jury system, excessive payment only to courtroom personnel violates equality the moment a jury summons is sent out. The symbol of the justice system, the scales of equality, is a marketing gimmick.
If a judge disagrees with this assessment, let this judge commit to accepting only jury duty wages for his/hers term remaining, and with no more perks than allowed the prospective jurors. I have never encountered this phenomnea yet.
Although this government has been around for more than 200 years, it has become less representational instead of more. A student coming out of high school is thinking that if such simple things as fairness and equality haven't been worked out by now, what would signing a piece of paper, voter registration, do for, or to them personally? Many decline to sign. Instead, such students figure out its just better to keep to themselves, keep surviving, and take care of numero uno. Students figure thats the way it works for all of these politicians and judges. Hey, somebody's got to survive, right?
They sure don't want to volunteer to be a victim. To get more high school students to register to vote, first, get their trust. Fix the system.
Is this our America, politicians and judges? If so aren't you are supposed to represent our equality?
Or is this only your America, and equality only exists for your groups?
Before looking at low levels of voter registration, please look at yourselves.
First, voting is more attractive in a representational democracy, not in a winner takes all lobbyship, flawed with corruption. Why vote when it makes no difference?
Second, with all of the current spying on American citizens going on, why would individuals want to participate in the political process, very possibly be persecuted if they were to voice their rights? especially when such rights are more often perceived as ideals than as practiced? Who wants to casually volunteer personal information these days, not knowing what will become of it?
Third, many low-income people cannot afford time and expense to serve in jury duty, which voter registration creates duty requirements for. Jury pay scale and other jury reimbursement costs are fractions of incurred costs, insults to citizens, no different than being an indentured servant.
Fourth, in jury duty, low-income people, such as high school grads and those olders who don't DC lobbyists, are often forced to enforce rules which have been created not by them, but by slick millionaires, who are the only ones currently elected to D.C. offices.
At least the jury system coud have the courtesy to pay jurors the average same wages for their time as the other courtroom participants recieive, like the judge and court personnel. In the present jury system, excessive payment only to courtroom personnel violates equality the moment a jury summons is sent out. The symbol of the justice system, the scales of equality, is a marketing gimmick.
If a judge disagrees with this assessment, let this judge commit to accepting only jury duty wages for his/hers term remaining, and with no more perks than allowed the prospective jurors. I have never encountered this phenomnea yet.
Although this government has been around for more than 200 years, it has become less representational instead of more. A student coming out of high school is thinking that if such simple things as fairness and equality haven't been worked out by now, what would signing a piece of paper, voter registration, do for, or to them personally? Many decline to sign. Instead, such students figure out its just better to keep to themselves, keep surviving, and take care of numero uno. Students figure thats the way it works for all of these politicians and judges. Hey, somebody's got to survive, right?
They sure don't want to volunteer to be a victim. To get more high school students to register to vote, first, get their trust. Fix the system.
Is this our America, politicians and judges? If so aren't you are supposed to represent our equality?
Or is this only your America, and equality only exists for your groups?
Before looking at low levels of voter registration, please look at yourselves.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
In 10 years ahead, it looks like
Please fill in the blank at the end of the title.
What I see is bigger than the blank.
Here's what I see.
I see peace and prosperity.
I see the Mideast Council of States which has banished arms within their circle. I see one of the states to be a Sunni Iraq state which they have named themselves. I see a Kurdish state which they name themselves, and a Shiite Iraq state which they have named. I see a Palestinian State and an Israeli state. The light of truth illuminates the table of those who come with open eyes.
I see a World Bill of Rights guaranteeing every person freedom from oppression, healthy food, clean water, private warm shelter, and sufficient clean clothing changes for their weather and health. To deny these rights diminishes each of our own lives.
I see every person having both the means and ability to go everywhere, and to be welcome everywhere. How else can we define freedom?
I see all to be allowed to practice their religion freely wherever, as long as it does not diminsh anothers right to do the same. I see diversity treasured, as each of our own lives is enriched by it.
I see the unfortunate well cared for until transformed.
I see forgiveness and amnesty. I see peoples listening to those who believe they have been wronged, and then doing what they can to help the wronged out.
I see moneys and resources provided for all those who believe they have been wronged. I am not here to judge if they have been wronged. I am here to judge myself. Although their losses can never be replaced, let us honor all their sacrifices by finding the light in the darkness.
I see counseling, and medical care, and emergency relief available for all, for as long as needed.
A seed well cared for grows.
I see soldiers smile at the dust gathering on their weapons while they perform rewarding, paid work which helps out their families and communities.
I see widows having the money to live honorably and comfortably with their children and families. I see poverty and homelessness only a memory, and achievement and education attainable for all children.
I see greed and aquisition of material wealth abandoned, for greatness is found in benificence.
To be able to give and to give is to find the way.
We have all been given life, our single common gift.
To increase the breadth and scope of life is the path.
What I see is bigger than the blank.
Here's what I see.
I see peace and prosperity.
I see the Mideast Council of States which has banished arms within their circle. I see one of the states to be a Sunni Iraq state which they have named themselves. I see a Kurdish state which they name themselves, and a Shiite Iraq state which they have named. I see a Palestinian State and an Israeli state. The light of truth illuminates the table of those who come with open eyes.
I see a World Bill of Rights guaranteeing every person freedom from oppression, healthy food, clean water, private warm shelter, and sufficient clean clothing changes for their weather and health. To deny these rights diminishes each of our own lives.
I see every person having both the means and ability to go everywhere, and to be welcome everywhere. How else can we define freedom?
I see all to be allowed to practice their religion freely wherever, as long as it does not diminsh anothers right to do the same. I see diversity treasured, as each of our own lives is enriched by it.
I see the unfortunate well cared for until transformed.
I see forgiveness and amnesty. I see peoples listening to those who believe they have been wronged, and then doing what they can to help the wronged out.
I see moneys and resources provided for all those who believe they have been wronged. I am not here to judge if they have been wronged. I am here to judge myself. Although their losses can never be replaced, let us honor all their sacrifices by finding the light in the darkness.
I see counseling, and medical care, and emergency relief available for all, for as long as needed.
A seed well cared for grows.
I see soldiers smile at the dust gathering on their weapons while they perform rewarding, paid work which helps out their families and communities.
I see widows having the money to live honorably and comfortably with their children and families. I see poverty and homelessness only a memory, and achievement and education attainable for all children.
I see greed and aquisition of material wealth abandoned, for greatness is found in benificence.
To be able to give and to give is to find the way.
We have all been given life, our single common gift.
To increase the breadth and scope of life is the path.
Monday, January 29, 2007
.'Support our troops' means exactly... what?
Can someone help me out here?
I don't quite get this 'support our troops' thing.
On one side of the story, there's this decider guy saying "Go along with the program, to do otherwise undermines the troops."
And on the other side of the story, theres these criticizers responding, "Well, we don't really like the program, but the show has to go on, because we got our troops out there in it. ..Just to show you how much we don't like it...'Hey! Everybody who doesn't like it, please raise your hands!'
"Oops, sorry."
"Hold on, we can't count hands yet, some of the decider guy's people are saying we shouldn't raise our hands. That might be a sign to our enemies that our democracy isn't working right. 'Hold on, everyone! We have to look this one up beffore we can raise our hands. "
Anyway, as just a regular person rubbing my eyeballs at this thing, I just can't quite get this 'support' thing in focus. Golly, what am I missing here?
First off, please feel free to go ahead and call me stupid or whatever. I just do what I can, thats it. I know I'm not the smartest person who ever knew everything ebout everything, but if you are that person please let me learn from you.
Actually, I'm one of those people who hasn't figured out why war has to more complicated than the card game by that name, "War". You know that game right? That's the game where each player lays down a card, (or is it 3? I forget it's pretty complicated I told you) and the highest ranking card takes the oppposing player's card prisoner. Then the game goes on, until one time the players have the same card showing at each other, like each has an 'Ace', or an 'Eight' or some such. Then, each opposing player gets to have sort of a shootout by their underling patrols to see who wins, and the losing patrol gets taken prisoner by the winning patrol. Finally, the card game 'War' ends when everyone on one side has been taken prisoner by the other side.
Whew! Wow! Did I figure that out pretty good or what, huh?
You know, as kids, weren't we all figuring that the grownups would have been smart enough to not make the real war thing more complicated than the card game?
We all thought that, right?
So why am I missing something here? I think maybe some of the grown-ups got things goofed up.
It wouldn't be the first time I got this grow-up thing wrong. I just can't figure out this whole live shooting War thing and the 'support our troops' sideline activity thing. What I don't get is this:
All these people who get into this whole 'support our troops' thing, why don't they just pack up and join all those fighters on the front lines? I keep hearing they need fighters on the front lines. Seems like there's plenty of room at the moment.
Near as I can figure is that some kids got it wrong from the get go and never got it right. I'm seeing that all of these sideline encouragers are the same playground kids who got recess closed down. Remember them. Well, it worked then but now these playground instigators are all grown up, and they get packed together. They were the kids who liked starting fights for others to finish. They'd go around sicking the 'prove it' types on some 'not want to be called a coward' types. Once the fight got going, the instigators cheeered and cheated on the sidelines, making small talk and instigator alliances. They absolutely loved it when some 'bully' types jumped into the fray and then of course the 'protector' types popped in. Just like in the comic books these sideline goaders yelled as the various fighters bloodied themselves up.
Anyway, these 'support our troops' types seem like those sideline instigators. They don't fight themselves, but they sure like getting others to do it for them. And their biggest problem is that they don't even know they are acting like that.
Yeab, well, I never much liked this playground drama, which is why I tended to jump in to break up the fights. Whenever I woud get into a fight, I'd just grab the belligerent person and hold then down until everybody calmed down. I never wanted to hurt anyone and I didnt want to hurt anyone else either. I just figure, if my sense of self worth is dependent upon beating somebody else up, that isnt really saying much about me, is it?
I figure my life is always richer winning friends than it is in accumulating enemies. With friends, the whole world's your home, and with enemies, you can't go anywhere.
So, I really have more important things to do than trying to figure out all these peoples problems who can't get along. Its actually too bad they never got it worked out. Darn, even dogs can work it out. If a dog has even a lick of dogness in it, it can get in a fight with another dog without killing it, and once they have that worked out, the dog pack gets along ok.
But with these instigator people , until they solve their problems, they just look at other folks as sort of puppets who might work out their angst. Of course, that doesnt work worth heck. People got to work it out on their own.
Its pretty hard for these folks to accept but theres is only one way to work out their instigator trouble. These 'support our troops' types got to go to the front lines to work it out of their system, with others like them who got the same trouble.
Yeah,as you can see, this latest war thing going on these days, its just getting too complicated for me. Actaully a better word for it is boring. So here's what I propose. What I think it really needs is a big series finale. Call it something like the 'War Games Decade Championship'.
This could really be a big event. Bigger than the world series, bigger than the World Cup, even bigger than the Super Bowl. It could be something that just happened once a decade, as that would really add to the drama.
Every ten years, all the people who wanted to fight would go all at it, for a reasonable amount of time, like 3 weeks or such.
When I first got this idea, I was kind of hoping it could happen pretty soon, as you can't even listen to the radio for much worthwhile news anymore because of all the junk stuff about a stupid war going on for 5 years now. When are these instigator types going to get their troubles figured out, or are they going to make a career out of it?
Plus wanting to discover more worthwhile things about this planet and such, I wouldn't mind a quick war finale as it seems like its about time. Seems like a lot of folks are getting bored too. Seems like this thing should get done before spring really warms up.
Actually, theres also a couple impending doldrums in the annual sports calendar, that could use some livening up with a big media event.. The first blank spot is between the Super Bowl and March Madness. I know, most people are thinking thats too soon to get ready. Well, there's also a second blank spot between March Madness and the NBA Finals.
I suppose it would probaby be ok to wait a little bit longer for this time period, as it would be a big giant event. the reality is that an event this big would need time to line up all the big sponsors you need for these type of things. So,for that reason, I suppose it would be ok to wait just a little longer into spring for the 'War Games Decade Championship'.
Not too much though. After March Madness its a long time until the NBA Finals in June.
Ok, so heres the basic idea for the event. Every decade, we get all the people in the world who want to kill each other, and and let them all go at it in some big empty desolate place that isn't worth anything. Now, I know that some particular type readers might object to this, worried that all the warfare would damage some such place for a few eons or so, what with all the leftover war junk everywhere when the event is all over .
Well, this is just sort of an emergency solution I am flying off the seat of my pants. It just seems like somebody has to come up with something. I haven't really spoke up much before now. Like I say, I'm not too good at figuring why these things go on in the first place. I just can't figure out why this 'War' idea keeps cluttering up history. Its just so much trouble.
So , unfortunately, yes, this is a bit hurried idea, and I want to apologize in advance to those particular people who will be disturbed by all the war junk left around in some desolate place.
But look at it this way, there's a big upside to this, if you will permit me to explain. I, for one am willing to make this temporary sacrifice of some desolate spot, as I see this inaugural event as only a one time thing that willonly temporarily mess up our planet with more war junk. See, we wouldnt have war anywhere until ten years later. Then, the next generation of war attacker types could appear in the war championships in a new place where it wouldnt be so bad to have war junk laying around. That would be some place far out in space. Real far.
Of course, we' have to figure out the finances. Somebody has to pay eventually anyway, might as well get it out in the open.
First, the finances would actually cost way way way less than the continuous cost of war around this planet. If all the fighter type people had to wait for a whole ten years, you'd think there'd be some big big money in media licensing fees to air the various events for all the people who find this entertaining. Heck, for a lot of folks, I suppose it would be even bigger than the Olympics! And think of all the money all the governments would save by not having any wars for a decade, just saving it up for one big shootout with all interested parties!
After doing this initial event we could clean up this initial war junkyard sacrifice spot, and then open it up as a tourist memorial to help pay for ongoing clean-up costs, as a one-of-a-kind international monument to the last war on earth. See, we could take all the money we both saved in defence industries and made in event licensing taxes, and use that money to commence a great big world wide space program. When the next championships came up in a decade, then we'd be ready for that championship to be held somewhere far out in space where it wouldnt mess up anything on our planet!!!!
Yeah! Seeing as how there's so many people who are really into this 'support our troops' thing, there certainly would be a real turnout for such an event! All the various aggressive militaries around the world and all of the clandestine single-focused fighters and all the war voters from everywhere can all go participate in this event! It could even have a different name than I suggested, if anyone wants to come up with one. Maybe, The Inaugural War Championships? Heck, I don't know. I bet the media sponsors could cook up something,... and even license out the naming rights,... for a few billion too! Yeah, leave it up to them, we need all the money we can get to get all the world into space bigtime!
Boy, it should be really exciting for participants! Think of all the wierdo integration things going on, all of the communication difficulties with allied parties who couldnt understand each other fighting for their lives on the battlefield! They;d be thinking just like everyone huddled behind their flags, unfamiliar and scared to trust some strange foreingers. God forbid they try! Thats what they say anyway. Think of the drama! It could just be as confusing as possible!
Of course, it would have to set up so the first string players on the front lines would be the head honchos, like the commanders in chieves and generals. And of course we'd also have to let all the big cheeses in the war industry run plays in from the sidelines. Yeah, these darn millionaires and billionaires are surely going to demand to see firsthand how all their equipment performs. Oh well. Fortunately though, the media people will come through, keep the excitement up, and we shouldn't have to water down the front lines with a lot of lower level players right away. That would take away from the first weekend drama.
Yeah, that's the great thing about capitalism, the media really comes through for these big war events! They really know how to play it to get everyone all confused and misled so these type things can realy pick up steam, and keep going on so everyone keeps making sacrifices for some media programmed cause.
After the first weekend opening ceremonies, I suppose of course we will have to start plugging in replacement warriors. But hey, dont get too dicouraged, think of it as another revenue stream. Even though the first line fighters on opening weekend ceremonies got in free for getting it started, all of the replacement players would have to pay healthy replacement entry fees. Maybe something like 100 grand for the first week entry players, to keep it really interesting.
I suppose the front liners in the second week could get in for 50 grand or maybe even 25. It could be scaled down after that, so that fighter replacements in the third week could get in as for 5 grand, or in special admissions, or such. Actually there could be lots of gimmicky entry ways, like frequent flyer miles, and vacation specials, and industry junkets and such. And surely there would have to be some guided tours for all those voyeuristic instigator types who we were talking about earlier, as I am sure they dont want to miss a thing.
I suppose in the final week we'd have to spice up this war championship up by letting in everyone else. Yeah, so all those lower level players and the regular war commader voters would have to just stay in the back lines at first, and wait their turn. They may not have an opportunity to play for quite as long, but by the third week it should be really intense, so that should make up for it in quality instead of quantity. We have to all remember now, that this would be the third week, and everything has to get wrapped up.
Just like in the card game.
Ok, the main thing is to try and keep the rules more simple than the card game, so everyone can understand it somehow. I guess the basic rule would be that the championships would just go on until theres nobody left amongs the contestants who wants to go attack the other side anymore.
At that time the championships would be over.
Of course there woul be a winner.
Anybody who still wants to fight has to go do it with anyone else who wants to do it . When theres no one left like that, then that person is the winner.
We lock this person up, so that they can be safe until they can defend their title in the next championship in 10 years more.
Anyone else who wants to go attack people well, they have to wait for 10 years until we have the next championship out in space. Somewhere real, real, real far away.
By that time, maybe we all will have figured out what it means to 'support our troops'. It means getting on the frontlines. It means staying there until the war is done, or until one is incapable of fighting more.
For grownups, 'War' is not a game.
Make the decision.
I don't quite get this 'support our troops' thing.
On one side of the story, there's this decider guy saying "Go along with the program, to do otherwise undermines the troops."
And on the other side of the story, theres these criticizers responding, "Well, we don't really like the program, but the show has to go on, because we got our troops out there in it. ..Just to show you how much we don't like it...'Hey! Everybody who doesn't like it, please raise your hands!'
"Oops, sorry."
"Hold on, we can't count hands yet, some of the decider guy's people are saying we shouldn't raise our hands. That might be a sign to our enemies that our democracy isn't working right. 'Hold on, everyone! We have to look this one up beffore we can raise our hands. "
Anyway, as just a regular person rubbing my eyeballs at this thing, I just can't quite get this 'support' thing in focus. Golly, what am I missing here?
First off, please feel free to go ahead and call me stupid or whatever. I just do what I can, thats it. I know I'm not the smartest person who ever knew everything ebout everything, but if you are that person please let me learn from you.
Actually, I'm one of those people who hasn't figured out why war has to more complicated than the card game by that name, "War". You know that game right? That's the game where each player lays down a card, (or is it 3? I forget it's pretty complicated I told you) and the highest ranking card takes the oppposing player's card prisoner. Then the game goes on, until one time the players have the same card showing at each other, like each has an 'Ace', or an 'Eight' or some such. Then, each opposing player gets to have sort of a shootout by their underling patrols to see who wins, and the losing patrol gets taken prisoner by the winning patrol. Finally, the card game 'War' ends when everyone on one side has been taken prisoner by the other side.
Whew! Wow! Did I figure that out pretty good or what, huh?
You know, as kids, weren't we all figuring that the grownups would have been smart enough to not make the real war thing more complicated than the card game?
We all thought that, right?
So why am I missing something here? I think maybe some of the grown-ups got things goofed up.
It wouldn't be the first time I got this grow-up thing wrong. I just can't figure out this whole live shooting War thing and the 'support our troops' sideline activity thing. What I don't get is this:
All these people who get into this whole 'support our troops' thing, why don't they just pack up and join all those fighters on the front lines? I keep hearing they need fighters on the front lines. Seems like there's plenty of room at the moment.
Near as I can figure is that some kids got it wrong from the get go and never got it right. I'm seeing that all of these sideline encouragers are the same playground kids who got recess closed down. Remember them. Well, it worked then but now these playground instigators are all grown up, and they get packed together. They were the kids who liked starting fights for others to finish. They'd go around sicking the 'prove it' types on some 'not want to be called a coward' types. Once the fight got going, the instigators cheeered and cheated on the sidelines, making small talk and instigator alliances. They absolutely loved it when some 'bully' types jumped into the fray and then of course the 'protector' types popped in. Just like in the comic books these sideline goaders yelled as the various fighters bloodied themselves up.
Anyway, these 'support our troops' types seem like those sideline instigators. They don't fight themselves, but they sure like getting others to do it for them. And their biggest problem is that they don't even know they are acting like that.
Yeab, well, I never much liked this playground drama, which is why I tended to jump in to break up the fights. Whenever I woud get into a fight, I'd just grab the belligerent person and hold then down until everybody calmed down. I never wanted to hurt anyone and I didnt want to hurt anyone else either. I just figure, if my sense of self worth is dependent upon beating somebody else up, that isnt really saying much about me, is it?
I figure my life is always richer winning friends than it is in accumulating enemies. With friends, the whole world's your home, and with enemies, you can't go anywhere.
So, I really have more important things to do than trying to figure out all these peoples problems who can't get along. Its actually too bad they never got it worked out. Darn, even dogs can work it out. If a dog has even a lick of dogness in it, it can get in a fight with another dog without killing it, and once they have that worked out, the dog pack gets along ok.
But with these instigator people , until they solve their problems, they just look at other folks as sort of puppets who might work out their angst. Of course, that doesnt work worth heck. People got to work it out on their own.
Its pretty hard for these folks to accept but theres is only one way to work out their instigator trouble. These 'support our troops' types got to go to the front lines to work it out of their system, with others like them who got the same trouble.
Yeah,as you can see, this latest war thing going on these days, its just getting too complicated for me. Actaully a better word for it is boring. So here's what I propose. What I think it really needs is a big series finale. Call it something like the 'War Games Decade Championship'.
This could really be a big event. Bigger than the world series, bigger than the World Cup, even bigger than the Super Bowl. It could be something that just happened once a decade, as that would really add to the drama.
Every ten years, all the people who wanted to fight would go all at it, for a reasonable amount of time, like 3 weeks or such.
When I first got this idea, I was kind of hoping it could happen pretty soon, as you can't even listen to the radio for much worthwhile news anymore because of all the junk stuff about a stupid war going on for 5 years now. When are these instigator types going to get their troubles figured out, or are they going to make a career out of it?
Plus wanting to discover more worthwhile things about this planet and such, I wouldn't mind a quick war finale as it seems like its about time. Seems like a lot of folks are getting bored too. Seems like this thing should get done before spring really warms up.
Actually, theres also a couple impending doldrums in the annual sports calendar, that could use some livening up with a big media event.. The first blank spot is between the Super Bowl and March Madness. I know, most people are thinking thats too soon to get ready. Well, there's also a second blank spot between March Madness and the NBA Finals.
I suppose it would probaby be ok to wait a little bit longer for this time period, as it would be a big giant event. the reality is that an event this big would need time to line up all the big sponsors you need for these type of things. So,for that reason, I suppose it would be ok to wait just a little longer into spring for the 'War Games Decade Championship'.
Not too much though. After March Madness its a long time until the NBA Finals in June.
Ok, so heres the basic idea for the event. Every decade, we get all the people in the world who want to kill each other, and and let them all go at it in some big empty desolate place that isn't worth anything. Now, I know that some particular type readers might object to this, worried that all the warfare would damage some such place for a few eons or so, what with all the leftover war junk everywhere when the event is all over .
Well, this is just sort of an emergency solution I am flying off the seat of my pants. It just seems like somebody has to come up with something. I haven't really spoke up much before now. Like I say, I'm not too good at figuring why these things go on in the first place. I just can't figure out why this 'War' idea keeps cluttering up history. Its just so much trouble.
So , unfortunately, yes, this is a bit hurried idea, and I want to apologize in advance to those particular people who will be disturbed by all the war junk left around in some desolate place.
But look at it this way, there's a big upside to this, if you will permit me to explain. I, for one am willing to make this temporary sacrifice of some desolate spot, as I see this inaugural event as only a one time thing that willonly temporarily mess up our planet with more war junk. See, we wouldnt have war anywhere until ten years later. Then, the next generation of war attacker types could appear in the war championships in a new place where it wouldnt be so bad to have war junk laying around. That would be some place far out in space. Real far.
Of course, we' have to figure out the finances. Somebody has to pay eventually anyway, might as well get it out in the open.
First, the finances would actually cost way way way less than the continuous cost of war around this planet. If all the fighter type people had to wait for a whole ten years, you'd think there'd be some big big money in media licensing fees to air the various events for all the people who find this entertaining. Heck, for a lot of folks, I suppose it would be even bigger than the Olympics! And think of all the money all the governments would save by not having any wars for a decade, just saving it up for one big shootout with all interested parties!
After doing this initial event we could clean up this initial war junkyard sacrifice spot, and then open it up as a tourist memorial to help pay for ongoing clean-up costs, as a one-of-a-kind international monument to the last war on earth. See, we could take all the money we both saved in defence industries and made in event licensing taxes, and use that money to commence a great big world wide space program. When the next championships came up in a decade, then we'd be ready for that championship to be held somewhere far out in space where it wouldnt mess up anything on our planet!!!!
Yeah! Seeing as how there's so many people who are really into this 'support our troops' thing, there certainly would be a real turnout for such an event! All the various aggressive militaries around the world and all of the clandestine single-focused fighters and all the war voters from everywhere can all go participate in this event! It could even have a different name than I suggested, if anyone wants to come up with one. Maybe, The Inaugural War Championships? Heck, I don't know. I bet the media sponsors could cook up something,... and even license out the naming rights,... for a few billion too! Yeah, leave it up to them, we need all the money we can get to get all the world into space bigtime!
Boy, it should be really exciting for participants! Think of all the wierdo integration things going on, all of the communication difficulties with allied parties who couldnt understand each other fighting for their lives on the battlefield! They;d be thinking just like everyone huddled behind their flags, unfamiliar and scared to trust some strange foreingers. God forbid they try! Thats what they say anyway. Think of the drama! It could just be as confusing as possible!
Of course, it would have to set up so the first string players on the front lines would be the head honchos, like the commanders in chieves and generals. And of course we'd also have to let all the big cheeses in the war industry run plays in from the sidelines. Yeah, these darn millionaires and billionaires are surely going to demand to see firsthand how all their equipment performs. Oh well. Fortunately though, the media people will come through, keep the excitement up, and we shouldn't have to water down the front lines with a lot of lower level players right away. That would take away from the first weekend drama.
Yeah, that's the great thing about capitalism, the media really comes through for these big war events! They really know how to play it to get everyone all confused and misled so these type things can realy pick up steam, and keep going on so everyone keeps making sacrifices for some media programmed cause.
After the first weekend opening ceremonies, I suppose of course we will have to start plugging in replacement warriors. But hey, dont get too dicouraged, think of it as another revenue stream. Even though the first line fighters on opening weekend ceremonies got in free for getting it started, all of the replacement players would have to pay healthy replacement entry fees. Maybe something like 100 grand for the first week entry players, to keep it really interesting.
I suppose the front liners in the second week could get in for 50 grand or maybe even 25. It could be scaled down after that, so that fighter replacements in the third week could get in as for 5 grand, or in special admissions, or such. Actually there could be lots of gimmicky entry ways, like frequent flyer miles, and vacation specials, and industry junkets and such. And surely there would have to be some guided tours for all those voyeuristic instigator types who we were talking about earlier, as I am sure they dont want to miss a thing.
I suppose in the final week we'd have to spice up this war championship up by letting in everyone else. Yeah, so all those lower level players and the regular war commader voters would have to just stay in the back lines at first, and wait their turn. They may not have an opportunity to play for quite as long, but by the third week it should be really intense, so that should make up for it in quality instead of quantity. We have to all remember now, that this would be the third week, and everything has to get wrapped up.
Just like in the card game.
Ok, the main thing is to try and keep the rules more simple than the card game, so everyone can understand it somehow. I guess the basic rule would be that the championships would just go on until theres nobody left amongs the contestants who wants to go attack the other side anymore.
At that time the championships would be over.
Of course there woul be a winner.
Anybody who still wants to fight has to go do it with anyone else who wants to do it . When theres no one left like that, then that person is the winner.
We lock this person up, so that they can be safe until they can defend their title in the next championship in 10 years more.
Anyone else who wants to go attack people well, they have to wait for 10 years until we have the next championship out in space. Somewhere real, real, real far away.
By that time, maybe we all will have figured out what it means to 'support our troops'. It means getting on the frontlines. It means staying there until the war is done, or until one is incapable of fighting more.
For grownups, 'War' is not a game.
Make the decision.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Mentoring, the second best form of education
I woulnd't even be on this blog if it wasnt for the mentoring of an old friend of mine, W.W.
This friend guided me through the process of establishing this blog, so I think this blog should spring from a conversation that we had earlier in the day, an example of which has led me to the subject here, mentoring.
We have many ways of learning, and much to learn about how to learn. I am not going to delve into the huge variety of ways we learn, but specifically expand upon what I think to be the second most effective, mentoring. The most effective learning technique is experience, the second is mentoring, the third is directed self-education, and the fourth is up for grabs. It could be necessity, coercion, formal education, imprinting, modeling, peer pressure, belief-immersions, or many other learning techniques.
I believe that old saying, "experience is the best teacher". I don't think a valid argument can be made against this. For example, look how detached a general populace is from a far-away war, or from a homeless person on the street. But get that person shot on a battlefield, and they are going to learn about wounds. Or have an office manager one day recognize that the huddled person on the street corner is the beloved mother of a childhood friend, and watch the helping hand extend. In both cases, experience has made one care, made one learn about something, because it is personal.
Mentoring is also personal, but it is proactive, instead of reactive, as experience is. Mentoring is a personally guided tour into learning. Its effectiveness depends on an inborn concern for another to progress, and so is based on selflessness, more than personal gain. Students rely more on this than on expertise, as they cannot recognize expertise as easily as they can friendship or caring. For this reason, mentoring is often ephemeral, as mentors are rarely available for extensive learning situations, except occasionally in the rare combination of broad specific mentor expertise with strong bonds based on trust. In such cases, mentoring is not the primary relationship, friendship is. Mentoring is only an occasional, if at all, occurence in these instances. Friendship does not depend on it. It is a gift when mentoring occurs in friendship, it is not a required characteistic.
In summary, experience is the best teacher, and mentoring the second best. To discover a mentor, be a friend. Mentoring works both ways, and occurs because of benificence, not demand.
This friend guided me through the process of establishing this blog, so I think this blog should spring from a conversation that we had earlier in the day, an example of which has led me to the subject here, mentoring.
We have many ways of learning, and much to learn about how to learn. I am not going to delve into the huge variety of ways we learn, but specifically expand upon what I think to be the second most effective, mentoring. The most effective learning technique is experience, the second is mentoring, the third is directed self-education, and the fourth is up for grabs. It could be necessity, coercion, formal education, imprinting, modeling, peer pressure, belief-immersions, or many other learning techniques.
I believe that old saying, "experience is the best teacher". I don't think a valid argument can be made against this. For example, look how detached a general populace is from a far-away war, or from a homeless person on the street. But get that person shot on a battlefield, and they are going to learn about wounds. Or have an office manager one day recognize that the huddled person on the street corner is the beloved mother of a childhood friend, and watch the helping hand extend. In both cases, experience has made one care, made one learn about something, because it is personal.
Mentoring is also personal, but it is proactive, instead of reactive, as experience is. Mentoring is a personally guided tour into learning. Its effectiveness depends on an inborn concern for another to progress, and so is based on selflessness, more than personal gain. Students rely more on this than on expertise, as they cannot recognize expertise as easily as they can friendship or caring. For this reason, mentoring is often ephemeral, as mentors are rarely available for extensive learning situations, except occasionally in the rare combination of broad specific mentor expertise with strong bonds based on trust. In such cases, mentoring is not the primary relationship, friendship is. Mentoring is only an occasional, if at all, occurence in these instances. Friendship does not depend on it. It is a gift when mentoring occurs in friendship, it is not a required characteistic.
In summary, experience is the best teacher, and mentoring the second best. To discover a mentor, be a friend. Mentoring works both ways, and occurs because of benificence, not demand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)