Wow, highly doubtful, but mildly interesting speculation.
http://www.physorg.com/news148193433.html
Thursday, December 11, 2008
EMOONING
EMOONING!!
| ||||||||||
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
"Crowd Control"
Yes, Sports Fans, it was my 54th birthday today. b.1954, am now 54, unclear significance of that, but it only happens once!
Found this little tidbit, tucked far-away on the web.
Brings together my pre-occupation with too many people on the planet, and the role of religion ("sorcery" in this case) in making the world oh so wondrous, and my background as an Anthropologist and fascination with a place (New Guinea) that has more languages per square area than anywhere else on the planet.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4778748a12.html
"The future of city living" - to quote a line from a Divine movie.
Thanks for well wishes all!
Ever more glad I'm child-free and always advocate peace through non-violence.
Found this little tidbit, tucked far-away on the web.
Brings together my pre-occupation with too many people on the planet, and the role of religion ("sorcery" in this case) in making the world oh so wondrous, and my background as an Anthropologist and fascination with a place (New Guinea) that has more languages per square area than anywhere else on the planet.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4778748a12.html
"The future of city living" - to quote a line from a Divine movie.
Thanks for well wishes all!
Ever more glad I'm child-free and always advocate peace through non-violence.
Friday, November 21, 2008
21st Century Climate Tipping Points
Hi VHEMTers and other camp followers.
I left a comment, have fun!
--
Cheers,
Frish
--
Cheers,
Frish
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Restoration of Service Announcement, WorldWide Release
Dear World:
The United States of America, a quality supplier of ideals of liberty and democracy, would like to apologize for its 2001-2008 service outage.
The technical fault that led to this eight-year service interruption has been located, and the parts responsible were replaced Tuesday night, November 4. Early tests of the new install indicate that it is functioning correctly, and we expect it to be fully functional by mid-January.
We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the outage, and we look forward to resuming full service --- and hopefully even to improving it in years to come.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
The USA
The United States of America, a quality supplier of ideals of liberty and democracy, would like to apologize for its 2001-2008 service outage.
The technical fault that led to this eight-year service interruption has been located, and the parts responsible were replaced Tuesday night, November 4. Early tests of the new install indicate that it is functioning correctly, and we expect it to be fully functional by mid-January.
We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the outage, and we look forward to resuming full service --- and hopefully even to improving it in years to come.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
The USA
Monday, November 17, 2008
Re: [atheists-614] Five Physics Lessons for Obama (sorry couldn't resist reacting...apologies in advance!)
I have some expertise in the first of the five and understand way too much about the others.
My company, www.cliffsidesoftware.com created a software application Plan AHEAD (all hazard exercise administration and development) that scripts any disaster training exercise (like the quake exercise last week in California, only for Nuclear plants, or violence in the workplace, or bio-terrorists, or whatever you wish to consider a disaster...turns out that a tornado is a disaster to a city, but, every "management plan" has a set of disasters associated with it...Consider, a competitive price decrease could be a disaster to a marketing plan. My product can improve the performance of ANY MANAGEMENT PLAN. You'd think that someone might actually want a product that could improve managment plans...but, while it is a fact that my product could save the world we discovered the world doesn't want to be saved!)
1. Terrorism
Conventional wisdom: A nuclear attack is the biggest terrorist threat we face.
But even if a nuclear bomb fizzles, can't it spread deadly radioactivity? And what about a "dirty bomb," a smaller weapon specifically designed to do just that?
A dirty bomb has NOTHING to do with a nuclear weapon. Just strap some uranium around some dynamite, and set it off in NYC anywhere. That's a dirty bomb. Has nothing to do with killing people, but the terror of radiation experienced by the average Joe and Jane Schmoe will render NYC uninhabitable for years to come.
I sat with dozens of NBC experts (nuclear, biological and chemical is what they used to call it) and listened to them spell out this very scenario 10 years ago. Nothing has changed, it's an ugly one, and while Mr Muller may feel comfortable wandering around the deserted city of NY after the dirty bomb, believe it, not many others will for a very long time afterwards...duck and cover every one, even if it isn't necessary, it's what we've all been taught.
Cleaning up after it will cost billions, regardless of how small it was to begin with, and the psychological damage will wreak havoc.
What we MUST do about terror is return to the Pre-BUSHCO definition:
"Terrorism - criminal acts in pursuit of political goals" period. Emphasis on CRIMINAL acts is the key.
This would allow a POLICE, not a MILITARY, response...and would be far more effective.
Coordination of POLICE in various countries is far more appealing to all the populace in all those countries. Our "unmanned-predator" incursions into Pakistan is going to do nothing but bad things. If the police in Pakistan were given tools to deal with terrorists, they could actually make headway and the population would thank us!
The "war on terror" was a sham to begin with. It was ALWAYS about oil and oil alone.
You cannot go to war on a tactic first of all. And no amount of military response will ever quash terrorists...
Secondly, if we're at war, to whom ought we surrender? Kinda difficult since we aren't at war in the first place y'all. Wars are fought against and between countries. Terrorists are state-free entities.
Police them out of existence, share their fingerprints, give them no where to hide, that will erase them...instead of making them into local heros in Swat (that's a real place).
2. Energy While I agree with the author that energy not used is the most effective thing we could do (better insulation, no more "fast on" TVs and PCs, no more led clocks in every appliance, turning off PCs at night, turning up thermostats in summer and down in winter, more sweaters!) it isn't going to help, until the world recognizes there are too many people on the planet, and that's the real culprit.
Of course the author makes no statement about this elephant in the room...what does his "physics" have to say about overpopulation?
You can "save energy" to the nth degree, and simply go out of business.
The author makes no statement about where energy ought to come from...(although I read a really cool (literally) idea about how the liquid hydrogen we'll need for cars could be transported around in pipes and thereby provide for supercooled and superconducting electrical lines to make them far more efficient (no loss during transmission from hydro/nuclear/solar/whatever generation!). So we solve the availability of hydrogen as an energy source while providing far greater efficiency of the electrical grid at the same time....possibly producing enough additional electricity (that is currently lost in tranmission) to crack the water needed to make the hydrogen...but oh well...
3. Nuclear Energy
Full of crap.
How has the US cut back on CO2 emissions? What are we doing about the warming arctic and the methane bubbling up from the depths and the permafrost? What about the glaciers that are disappearing, and thereby destoying the watersheds downstream? What about the agricultural excess fertilizers that create over 400 dead zones in what were the most productive ocean estuaries and their offshore fish nurseries and the bleaching coral reefs?
The world is doomed for human life. Period. but hey, I said that already!
By the way, just to really add some truth, burning coal releases TONS of uranium into the atmosphere every year. No one seems to know or know what to do about that little tidit...
How are we to "ensure new coal plants are capable of sequestering carbon dioxide"? That's insanity, there is no such thing as "clean coal" unless we found a way to build a space elevator (not totally impossible, stable platform at 26,000 miles up, with a long buckyfibre rope or two to allow for the transport of all kinds of nasty stuff into space (radioactive stuff, carbon stuff, etc.)
Carbon sequestration is a chimera of the coal industry, no demonstration plant even yet.
And no sense that it will stay down in the shafts we shove it, or not migrate to spoil aquifers, etc. etc. etc. Pure Unadulterated "prayer" and equally effective without any basis in physics or reality.
Richard Muller, he's a true dick!
--
Dear President Obama:
The market will sort out the energy stuff, the energy companies don't like the idea of not having any consumers around to buy it, so they'll wake up soon.
Similarly, the market will sort out the pollution and dying fisheries and agricultural runoff etc.
What you can do is promote freedom from children, world wide, through education of women (and men), freely available contraception to all, and let people have a true choice in the matter.
They always choose smaller families, given a choice.
Erase any and all laws that encourage larger families, like child tax credits, any benefits to marriage in relation to children, etc.
That's how you can help save the planet President Obama.
Cheers,
Frish
See: www.vhemt.org for the only answer that provides for the future of life on Earth.
Can't wait to read the reactions, thanks Gary for the opportunity to rant!
My company, www.cliffsidesoftware.com created a software application Plan AHEAD (all hazard exercise administration and development) that scripts any disaster training exercise (like the quake exercise last week in California, only for Nuclear plants, or violence in the workplace, or bio-terrorists, or whatever you wish to consider a disaster...turns out that a tornado is a disaster to a city, but, every "management plan" has a set of disasters associated with it...Consider, a competitive price decrease could be a disaster to a marketing plan. My product can improve the performance of ANY MANAGEMENT PLAN. You'd think that someone might actually want a product that could improve managment plans...but, while it is a fact that my product could save the world we discovered the world doesn't want to be saved!)
1. Terrorism
Conventional wisdom: A nuclear attack is the biggest terrorist threat we face.
But even if a nuclear bomb fizzles, can't it spread deadly radioactivity? And what about a "dirty bomb," a smaller weapon specifically designed to do just that?
A dirty bomb has NOTHING to do with a nuclear weapon. Just strap some uranium around some dynamite, and set it off in NYC anywhere. That's a dirty bomb. Has nothing to do with killing people, but the terror of radiation experienced by the average Joe and Jane Schmoe will render NYC uninhabitable for years to come.
I sat with dozens of NBC experts (nuclear, biological and chemical is what they used to call it) and listened to them spell out this very scenario 10 years ago. Nothing has changed, it's an ugly one, and while Mr Muller may feel comfortable wandering around the deserted city of NY after the dirty bomb, believe it, not many others will for a very long time afterwards...duck and cover every one, even if it isn't necessary, it's what we've all been taught.
Cleaning up after it will cost billions, regardless of how small it was to begin with, and the psychological damage will wreak havoc.
What we MUST do about terror is return to the Pre-BUSHCO definition:
"Terrorism - criminal acts in pursuit of political goals" period. Emphasis on CRIMINAL acts is the key.
This would allow a POLICE, not a MILITARY, response...and would be far more effective.
Coordination of POLICE in various countries is far more appealing to all the populace in all those countries. Our "unmanned-predator" incursions into Pakistan is going to do nothing but bad things. If the police in Pakistan were given tools to deal with terrorists, they could actually make headway and the population would thank us!
The "war on terror" was a sham to begin with. It was ALWAYS about oil and oil alone.
You cannot go to war on a tactic first of all. And no amount of military response will ever quash terrorists...
Secondly, if we're at war, to whom ought we surrender? Kinda difficult since we aren't at war in the first place y'all. Wars are fought against and between countries. Terrorists are state-free entities.
Police them out of existence, share their fingerprints, give them no where to hide, that will erase them...instead of making them into local heros in Swat (that's a real place).
2. Energy While I agree with the author that energy not used is the most effective thing we could do (better insulation, no more "fast on" TVs and PCs, no more led clocks in every appliance, turning off PCs at night, turning up thermostats in summer and down in winter, more sweaters!) it isn't going to help, until the world recognizes there are too many people on the planet, and that's the real culprit.
Of course the author makes no statement about this elephant in the room...what does his "physics" have to say about overpopulation?
You can "save energy" to the nth degree, and simply go out of business.
The author makes no statement about where energy ought to come from...(although I read a really cool (literally) idea about how the liquid hydrogen we'll need for cars could be transported around in pipes and thereby provide for supercooled and superconducting electrical lines to make them far more efficient (no loss during transmission from hydro/nuclear/solar/whatever generation!). So we solve the availability of hydrogen as an energy source while providing far greater efficiency of the electrical grid at the same time....possibly producing enough additional electricity (that is currently lost in tranmission) to crack the water needed to make the hydrogen...but oh well...
3. Nuclear Energy
Conventional wisdom: Nuclear power would be great if only we could figure out how to get rid of the horrific waste. Plutonium lasts 24,000 years. There is absolutely no way we can keep that waste safe for such a ridiculously long time.
He just said it all. No consideration of those 10,000 years from now, who won't be around anyway since there are far too many of us destroying the entire ecosystem of the planet currently to sustain human life in any form for that long regardless.
4. Space
4. Space
All of our greatest space science has come from robots.
Fine, so what? Space spending is a true nit in the budget. While many wonderful things have come of it (like Tang)...who cares about manned versus unmanned. We have a world we're killing right here, and space ain't going to provide shelter anytime soon.
5. Global Warming
5. Global Warming
Conventional wisdom: Because the United States is responsible for about one fourth of the excess carbon dioxide that drives the greenhouse effect, the key to solving the problem is for America to go green.
This guy is a jingoist nut. We've not paid for our excesses, the world is now got our inheritance, and, sure, while we not growing our footprint as fast as China and India, what does that have to do with anything?
We're certainly not shrinking our footprint in the SLIGHTEST, unless you consider the recent gasoline prices and recession to have slowed our carbon outputs...
We're certainly not shrinking our footprint in the SLIGHTEST, unless you consider the recent gasoline prices and recession to have slowed our carbon outputs...
Some say the United States needs to set an example. But it already has: Once a country is wealthy, it can afford to cut back on carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, by the time China is as wealthy as the United States, the world will very likely be 5 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer.
Full of crap.
How has the US cut back on CO2 emissions? What are we doing about the warming arctic and the methane bubbling up from the depths and the permafrost? What about the glaciers that are disappearing, and thereby destoying the watersheds downstream? What about the agricultural excess fertilizers that create over 400 dead zones in what were the most productive ocean estuaries and their offshore fish nurseries and the bleaching coral reefs?
The world is doomed for human life. Period. but hey, I said that already!
By the way, just to really add some truth, burning coal releases TONS of uranium into the atmosphere every year. No one seems to know or know what to do about that little tidit...
Message for Obama: If we want to stop global warming, then our focus must be on the developing world. Wealthy countries could start by financing clean coal in China. For $50 billion per year, we could at least make sure that new coal plants in China are capable of sequestering carbon dioxide. Sending that kind of money to China would have been a tough sell during the election, but now that the campaign is over, it is time to come clean—about getting clean—to the American people.
How are we to "ensure new coal plants are capable of sequestering carbon dioxide"? That's insanity, there is no such thing as "clean coal" unless we found a way to build a space elevator (not totally impossible, stable platform at 26,000 miles up, with a long buckyfibre rope or two to allow for the transport of all kinds of nasty stuff into space (radioactive stuff, carbon stuff, etc.)
Carbon sequestration is a chimera of the coal industry, no demonstration plant even yet.
And no sense that it will stay down in the shafts we shove it, or not migrate to spoil aquifers, etc. etc. etc. Pure Unadulterated "prayer" and equally effective without any basis in physics or reality.
Richard Muller, he's a true dick!
Richard Muller, a MacArthur Prize winner, is the author of Physics for Future Presidents (New York: W.W. Norton, 2008) and a physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
--
Dear President Obama:
The market will sort out the energy stuff, the energy companies don't like the idea of not having any consumers around to buy it, so they'll wake up soon.
Similarly, the market will sort out the pollution and dying fisheries and agricultural runoff etc.
What you can do is promote freedom from children, world wide, through education of women (and men), freely available contraception to all, and let people have a true choice in the matter.
They always choose smaller families, given a choice.
Erase any and all laws that encourage larger families, like child tax credits, any benefits to marriage in relation to children, etc.
That's how you can help save the planet President Obama.
Cheers,
Frish
See: www.vhemt.org for the only answer that provides for the future of life on Earth.
Can't wait to read the reactions, thanks Gary for the opportunity to rant!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
I am not sure I even get it...but you will!
Just thinking of you
can you explain the attached?
Hoping you are well
can you explain the attached?
Hoping you are well
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Yes, the election came out pretty well...
However, to all of you who sent me congratulatory or happy messages today, on the event of Obama, try not to forget that these folk didn't "go away" just because they lost an election...
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/469.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/469.html
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Results of ad hoc committee on Frish's Exploding Eyeball design
The design team speaks:
"They lack something...maybe some yellow-green goo oozing out from the middle."
"You need more oozing out of them, running down your cheeks, etc…"
"There should be some disgusting goop dripping down onto your face (splatter pattern)."
Your words, my command, thanks for helping!
-- Cheers,
Frish
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The eyes have it, design team convened...
Your comments/disgust will be duly registered.
Improvements needed?
Impact? Are they too subtle?
--
Cheers,
Frish
Sunday, October 26, 2008
A secular Religion - some thoughts
Can we build a self replicating intelligence so that at least learning can continue, even if not in a biological being.
Our challenge, as the World shuts down, is to create an intelligence within an electronic cloud, so that management structures could be implemented and whatever "success" was asked for it can be achieved.
Humans need a "universe solving problem".
USP - Can "intellingence" as we call it, outlive humanity, as humanities end is near.
Our challenge, as the World shuts down, is to create an intelligence within an electronic cloud, so that management structures could be implemented and whatever "success" was asked for it can be achieved.
Humans need a "universe solving problem".
USP - Can "intellingence" as we call it, outlive humanity, as humanities end is near.
The two haiku here; reflection - introspection; seem to work for me!**
Movies are Boring
Best Friends For LIFE (and, just fwos!)
You sure catch my drift
Satisfied my itch!
"Absence makes hearts grow fonder"
Can't wait for bowling!
In relaxation, Frish
With his tongue firmly in cheek
just not anywhen
**These 'ku make me proud.
I am only the author...
So, you be the judge!
The part I like best
Is reading the first - last lines
1st 2 ku above!
You stand on your mark
Let gravity take control
ball goes for the pins
Friday, October 24, 2008
Having kids means lots of responsibilities!
Choosy Moms Choose Jif, But What About Responsible Dads? -- powered by Cracked.com
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
New Acronym Alert - FWOS - Friends With Occasional Sex
FWOS - AS ELMER FUDD PRONOUNCES FLOSS!
(Found only 8 web references so far...but heard it today for the first time...I think it is a modern form of relationship!)
(Found only 8 web references so far...but heard it today for the first time...I think it is a modern form of relationship!)
Human Caused Climate Chaos and environmental degradation WHAT WE MUST DO
(THIS IS STILL A DRAFT, I HAVE A NICE LIST TO SEND IT TO...PLEASE REACT AND LET ME KNOW WHERE I'M ALL WET, AND/OR, ADD AS YOU SEE FIT.)
(working from home, have a lunch date, took care of the oil for the car this am, it's nice being free from my desk at work once in a while!)
My friend Bryan and I were motivated to discuss the state of human affairs, thanks to the Frontline feature tonight (HEAT - October 21, 2008) featuring some of the issues surrounding our very human folly.
We agree it requires Real Leadership.
But, in what direction?
As HEAT pointed out:
1. Corporations are beholden to their shareholders and therefore will not change their environmentally unsound practices eagerly, or, perhaps, without government mandates.
2. Governments are greatly influenced by economics, which includes both corporations and the welfare of the citizenry.
3. We face a situation unique in human experience. Destruction of the Planet's biosphere due to unsustainable practices - energy production, transportation, development worldwide to a "western standard", over fishing, deforestation, unsustainable agricultural activities - is literally about to kill us, even while we reproduce without limit!
4. Both the citizenry, and the shareholders, will shortly no longer exist! Where will corporations be without a market and without capital?
So, the question is, will Shareholders Force Corporations to do the right things in time to save THEMSELVES?
Human Self Interest being myopic, can we leave it to Shareholders to do the right thing?
I propose the following, as a non-exhaustive and off the cuff partial answer to "What can we do?"
A. Reproductive freedom must be made available worldwide, as quickly as possible. The means and the education to have contraception be a choice, freely available and without impedance of long held religious or cultural more has to be obtained.
Experience shows, when couples have choices to reproduce or not reproduce, they choose smaller family sizes, regardless of economics or social mores. This is KEY.
Fewer people going forward has to be fostered with tax regimes realigned to represent this new reality. A simple example is to have zero tax benefit for children become a policy that would foster correct outcomes. I believe there is in the US Tax Code, thanks to Detroit and other lobbying interests, tax benefits for large family purchases of very large passenger vans...all such benefits must cease immediately.
It is not in the Government's interest as it is not in the people's interest, to foster the growth of population in any manner!
B. In the U.S., we have government By the People, For the People, Of the People. The founding fathers could not have foreseen what Corporations have become.
Corporations, as they developed, became Persons under the law. They are without a conscious or moral compass of any sort, they answer to stockholders and market forces, and laws but only when they can't get away without, and have an unlimited lifetime! Quite an unnatural "person" to be sure.
Therefore, they can influence elections, by financing campaigns, which has been shown to be their Freedom of Speech right to do.
Therefore, they can influence legislation, by financing lobbyists, who are expressly committed to fostering friendly laws, and thwarting attempts to counteract any profligacy on a corporation's part!
Corporations can no longer be persons under the law.
They therefore cannot be taxed, they'll like that, as that would be taxation without representation...but since they simply pass along any taxes in their pricing, it will have a net zero effect on their bottom lines.
However, they can no longer have freedom of speech, and cannot influence the People's Government with their self serving schemes.
And, while not taxable entities any longer, they can certainly be subject to fines, and legal restrictions on their activities.
For example, before they can introduce a new process, chemical, compound, product, service or anything else, they must show exactly what the environmental impacts will be.
C. The primacy of Good Science must come to direct and influence any legislation that can bring things under control, for example by setting limits on what a new product's impact can be on the environment, including how that new product interacts with existing products and the environment...
D. Cooperation of all the world will be required, since even Chinese air pollution affects the air quality on the West Coast of North America...
E. Products must support the goal of energy conservation. No more LED clocks on Refrigerators, for example...or "instant on" television sets, products where constant trickle power causes incredible energy consumption.
F. Costs for things must reflect the TRUE COSTS for things. Gasoline costs are not simply extraction, refining, distribution costs, but the environmental costs and the future OPPORTUNITY costs of no longer having such an incredibly useful feedstock for better and higher uses.
That's some of what we MUST do.
What are we likely to do?
Not enough.
What we are witnessing, writ large, is the very essence of Human Nature.
From the time of the earliest humans until today, we have been hunters and gatherers, camping in a spot, consuming what's easily available, and then, having "spoiled our nest", moved on to greener pastures.
That worked for a time, but we now have reach a point where the Entire Nest has been spoiled, and there is nothing greener anywhere...as our Human Culture we created to overcome natural limits has now overwhelmed natural limits.
So, our very underlying human nature will probably preclude us from doing what is necessary to save ourselves from ourselves.
How utterly ironic, especially since nothing left on the planet after our passing can even come close to appreciating what we've done to ourselves.
--
Cheers,
Frish
(working from home, have a lunch date, took care of the oil for the car this am, it's nice being free from my desk at work once in a while!)
My friend Bryan and I were motivated to discuss the state of human affairs, thanks to the Frontline feature tonight (HEAT - October 21, 2008) featuring some of the issues surrounding our very human folly.
We agree it requires Real Leadership.
But, in what direction?
As HEAT pointed out:
1. Corporations are beholden to their shareholders and therefore will not change their environmentally unsound practices eagerly, or, perhaps, without government mandates.
2. Governments are greatly influenced by economics, which includes both corporations and the welfare of the citizenry.
3. We face a situation unique in human experience. Destruction of the Planet's biosphere due to unsustainable practices - energy production, transportation, development worldwide to a "western standard", over fishing, deforestation, unsustainable agricultural activities - is literally about to kill us, even while we reproduce without limit!
4. Both the citizenry, and the shareholders, will shortly no longer exist! Where will corporations be without a market and without capital?
So, the question is, will Shareholders Force Corporations to do the right things in time to save THEMSELVES?
Human Self Interest being myopic, can we leave it to Shareholders to do the right thing?
I propose the following, as a non-exhaustive and off the cuff partial answer to "What can we do?"
A. Reproductive freedom must be made available worldwide, as quickly as possible. The means and the education to have contraception be a choice, freely available and without impedance of long held religious or cultural more has to be obtained.
Experience shows, when couples have choices to reproduce or not reproduce, they choose smaller family sizes, regardless of economics or social mores. This is KEY.
Fewer people going forward has to be fostered with tax regimes realigned to represent this new reality. A simple example is to have zero tax benefit for children become a policy that would foster correct outcomes. I believe there is in the US Tax Code, thanks to Detroit and other lobbying interests, tax benefits for large family purchases of very large passenger vans...all such benefits must cease immediately.
It is not in the Government's interest as it is not in the people's interest, to foster the growth of population in any manner!
B. In the U.S., we have government By the People, For the People, Of the People. The founding fathers could not have foreseen what Corporations have become.
Corporations, as they developed, became Persons under the law. They are without a conscious or moral compass of any sort, they answer to stockholders and market forces, and laws but only when they can't get away without, and have an unlimited lifetime! Quite an unnatural "person" to be sure.
Therefore, they can influence elections, by financing campaigns, which has been shown to be their Freedom of Speech right to do.
Therefore, they can influence legislation, by financing lobbyists, who are expressly committed to fostering friendly laws, and thwarting attempts to counteract any profligacy on a corporation's part!
Corporations can no longer be persons under the law.
They therefore cannot be taxed, they'll like that, as that would be taxation without representation...but since they simply pass along any taxes in their pricing, it will have a net zero effect on their bottom lines.
However, they can no longer have freedom of speech, and cannot influence the People's Government with their self serving schemes.
And, while not taxable entities any longer, they can certainly be subject to fines, and legal restrictions on their activities.
For example, before they can introduce a new process, chemical, compound, product, service or anything else, they must show exactly what the environmental impacts will be.
C. The primacy of Good Science must come to direct and influence any legislation that can bring things under control, for example by setting limits on what a new product's impact can be on the environment, including how that new product interacts with existing products and the environment...
D. Cooperation of all the world will be required, since even Chinese air pollution affects the air quality on the West Coast of North America...
E. Products must support the goal of energy conservation. No more LED clocks on Refrigerators, for example...or "instant on" television sets, products where constant trickle power causes incredible energy consumption.
F. Costs for things must reflect the TRUE COSTS for things. Gasoline costs are not simply extraction, refining, distribution costs, but the environmental costs and the future OPPORTUNITY costs of no longer having such an incredibly useful feedstock for better and higher uses.
That's some of what we MUST do.
What are we likely to do?
Not enough.
What we are witnessing, writ large, is the very essence of Human Nature.
From the time of the earliest humans until today, we have been hunters and gatherers, camping in a spot, consuming what's easily available, and then, having "spoiled our nest", moved on to greener pastures.
That worked for a time, but we now have reach a point where the Entire Nest has been spoiled, and there is nothing greener anywhere...as our Human Culture we created to overcome natural limits has now overwhelmed natural limits.
So, our very underlying human nature will probably preclude us from doing what is necessary to save ourselves from ourselves.
How utterly ironic, especially since nothing left on the planet after our passing can even come close to appreciating what we've done to ourselves.
--
Cheers,
Frish
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Haitians Eat Mud To Survive...
My computer at work has no sound card. Just viewing this piece of video made me ill, so I'm just as happy I can't listen to it.
Once upon a time, there was a movie ("Pink Flamingos") with Divine (notorious transvestite),
when she was asked what she was up to, she answered:
"It's the future of city living"...
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=10232546&ch=4226714&src=news
Haiti, already the western hemisphere's poorest economy, was hit by several hurricanes this season.
The US subsidizes sugar farmers...just sayin'...
http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/27/florida-sugar-crist-biz-beltway-cx_jz_0630sugar.html
"Sugar crops are a small proportion of the U.S. agricultural output. For the 2006-2007 crop year, sugarcane receipts totaled around $897 million and sugar beets $1.53 billion--a mere 1% of cash receipts for U.S. farmers. While legislation calls for the program to be operated on a no-cost basis, a 2007 USDA estimate of the current system (before the support levels were increased by the 2008 Farm Bill) estimated that the sugar programs would cost $1.4 billion between 2008 and 2017."
Wonder how many Haitians wouldn't be starving if the US bought Haitian Sugar Cane, instead of subsidizing corn and sugar growers in inefficient locations such as Florida?
Guess I'll keep wondering...
Once upon a time, there was a movie ("Pink Flamingos") with Divine (notorious transvestite),
when she was asked what she was up to, she answered:
"It's the future of city living"...
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=10232546&ch=4226714&src=news
Haiti, already the western hemisphere's poorest economy, was hit by several hurricanes this season.
The US subsidizes sugar farmers...just sayin'...
http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/27/florida-sugar-crist-biz-beltway-cx_jz_0630sugar.html
"Sugar crops are a small proportion of the U.S. agricultural output. For the 2006-2007 crop year, sugarcane receipts totaled around $897 million and sugar beets $1.53 billion--a mere 1% of cash receipts for U.S. farmers. While legislation calls for the program to be operated on a no-cost basis, a 2007 USDA estimate of the current system (before the support levels were increased by the 2008 Farm Bill) estimated that the sugar programs would cost $1.4 billion between 2008 and 2017."
Wonder how many Haitians wouldn't be starving if the US bought Haitian Sugar Cane, instead of subsidizing corn and sugar growers in inefficient locations such as Florida?
Guess I'll keep wondering...
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
If you think American politics are "dirty" or "mean spirited" or full of non-sequiturs, take a peek at Czech Republic Politics!
My friends, Howard and Yael, are considering a move to Prague...so I did a little research to assist them with their decision, and found the following gem...good luck my friends, the "silly season" definitely extends to the Czech Republic!
For context, here's a Wiki note:
The Civic Democratic Party (Czech: Občanská demokratická strana - abbreviation: ODS) is the largest right-wing political party in the Czech Republic. In its public statements, it typically mixes eurosceptic and market liberal rhetoric, although it is often viewed as more moderate on both issues in actual policies.
This is the news I found interesting:
An ODS member revealed that he commissioned compromising photographs of himself and gave them to TV Nova, a broadcaster, to ascertain which politicians would be willing to use them for purposes of blackmail.
(There is way more than one punch line here, but it is almost too easy...actually, he's too easy and doesn't care who knows!)
For context, here's a Wiki note:
The Civic Democratic Party (Czech: Občanská demokratická strana - abbreviation: ODS) is the largest right-wing political party in the Czech Republic. In its public statements, it typically mixes eurosceptic and market liberal rhetoric, although it is often viewed as more moderate on both issues in actual policies.
This is the news I found interesting:
An ODS member revealed that he commissioned compromising photographs of himself and gave them to TV Nova, a broadcaster, to ascertain which politicians would be willing to use them for purposes of blackmail.
(There is way more than one punch line here, but it is almost too easy...actually, he's too easy and doesn't care who knows!)
Ostensibly, people are depressed due to the financial situation!
But, they should be grateful they don't have this job!
Defining Marriage - which sex are you?
Here in California we have a terrific chance to protect our civil rights, by voting against Proposition 8.
My niece, a student at UCal Berkeley, was approached by a Mormon Facebook Friend to vote for this heinous attempt to limit freedom in an obviously coordinated attempt to confuse and lie about this proposition!
Here's a fascinating look at defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.
The legal issues that could result are far and away worse than anything than having "same-sex" stand as a legal right under current law!
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Essays/marriage.html
FROM THE ARTICLE:
"To sum up, "marriage protection" statutes are already a debacle from the standpoint of their own advocates: Those laws spectacularly fail to advance their objectives — and are in fact a powerful tool for social conservatives' political and social enemies to create same sex marriages that were impossible without them. That effect can only get worse, over time. The only thing they're particularly good for is breaking up real, existing marriages of those unlucky enough to fail an inevitably arbitrary and unrealistic legal test of one's sexual identity: None of those "Which sex are you?" tests proposed, tried, or likely to emerge fixes the problem."
We must thwart all attempts by religious fanatics to destroy our Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights, unless we'd rather live in a theocracy...
--
Cheers,
Frish
My niece, a student at UCal Berkeley, was approached by a Mormon Facebook Friend to vote for this heinous attempt to limit freedom in an obviously coordinated attempt to confuse and lie about this proposition!
Here's a fascinating look at defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.
The legal issues that could result are far and away worse than anything than having "same-sex" stand as a legal right under current law!
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Essays/marriage.html
FROM THE ARTICLE:
"To sum up, "marriage protection" statutes are already a debacle from the standpoint of their own advocates: Those laws spectacularly fail to advance their objectives — and are in fact a powerful tool for social conservatives' political and social enemies to create same sex marriages that were impossible without them. That effect can only get worse, over time. The only thing they're particularly good for is breaking up real, existing marriages of those unlucky enough to fail an inevitably arbitrary and unrealistic legal test of one's sexual identity: None of those "Which sex are you?" tests proposed, tried, or likely to emerge fixes the problem."
We must thwart all attempts by religious fanatics to destroy our Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights, unless we'd rather live in a theocracy...
--
Cheers,
Frish
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
A short investigation of "shy"
Coy? Unforthcoming?
Bashful? Cautious? Circumspect?
Well, I've not seen it!
Can be considered...
Restrained? Reticent? Sheepish?
But no, not so much!
Undemonstrative?
Lacking, meek, modest, reserved...
Not by any means!!!
Bashful? Cautious? Circumspect?
Well, I've not seen it!
Can be considered...
Restrained? Reticent? Sheepish?
But no, not so much!
Undemonstrative?
Lacking, meek, modest, reserved...
Not by any means!!!
Definitions of shy include the following...perhaps this is what is meant...
Shy
Shy\, n. 1. A sudden start aside, as by a horse.
2. A side throw; a throw; a fling. --Thackeray.
If Lord Brougham gets a stone in his hand, he must, it seems, have a shy at somebody. --Punch.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.Monday, October 6, 2008
Embryos
Dear VHEMTers:
Enjoy the LA Times article (see link below) and my letter to the editor...didn't mention VHEMT on purpose, sometimes spreading the meme isn't about recruiting!
Perhaps some of you will also be prompted to write...
To: letters@latimes.com
Enjoy the LA Times article (see link below) and my letter to the editor...didn't mention VHEMT on purpose, sometimes spreading the meme isn't about recruiting!
Perhaps some of you will also be prompted to write...
To: letters@latimes.com
Editor, LA Times:
In reaction to: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-embryos6-2008oct06,0,4090965.story
"Embryo factories" are just one demonstration of our uniquely human rejection of natural limits.
Without question, it is sad when a couple can't have children if they want them. We must recognize that sex is fun, evolution did not provide an innate drive to procreate. Our unsustainable economic practices, along with human overpopulation, is literally killing the biosphere's ability to sustain human life. Life began billions of years ago, each of us are simply another expression of that continuation.
Elsewhere in the Times today we see an article on innovation in health care http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-svorny6-2008oct06,0,7360789.story. Universal Health Care ought not include infertility treatments as it is cosmetic, not vital.
--
Cheers,
Frish
In reaction to: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-embryos6-2008oct06,0,4090965.story
"Embryo factories" are just one demonstration of our uniquely human rejection of natural limits.
Without question, it is sad when a couple can't have children if they want them. We must recognize that sex is fun, evolution did not provide an innate drive to procreate. Our unsustainable economic practices, along with human overpopulation, is literally killing the biosphere's ability to sustain human life. Life began billions of years ago, each of us are simply another expression of that continuation.
Elsewhere in the Times today we see an article on innovation in health care http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-svorny6-2008oct06,0,7360789.story. Universal Health Care ought not include infertility treatments as it is cosmetic, not vital.
--
Cheers,
Frish
Sunday, October 5, 2008
O.J. Simpson conviction...what's astrology say? The numerologists are also concerned...
Here's the beginning of an OJ article that I found amusing...I asked my astrologer friend to comment, see her answer below...
==================
LAS VEGAS - In a city where luck means everything, O.J. Simpson came out the big loser — and his unlucky number in a case full of bizarre twists was 13.
He was convicted of an armed robbery that happened on Sept. 13 and was found guilty on the 13th anniversary of his Los Angeles murder acquittal. The Las Vegas jury deliberated for 13 hours after a 13-day trial.
=================
How did the stars line up?
I've definitely seen it in my life, but of course that's only subjective evidence. There's are several discussions going on at the astro.com forum. I can only find one right now;
http://forum.astro.com/cgi/forum.cgi?num=1222140716/187#187
but I'm sure that if you do a search you could find more.
YES, A BIT SUPERSTITIOUS INDEEDY!
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Great Advice About Fellow Church Goers!
BABY SITTER GETS SCARE OF HER LIFE IN LATE-NIGHT DRIVE HOME
Sat Oct 4, 7:58 PM ET
DEAR ABBY: Please print this as a warning to other teenagers.
A couple from church asked me to baby-sit their three kids from 7:30 until 11 p.m. last weekend. My problems began when they didn't pick me up until 9.
When they didn't return at the time they had promised, I began to worry. When they finally showed up at 1 a.m., they dropped a measly $6 in my hand. Then the husband drove me home. He reeked of booze and swerved all over the road. It was the most terrifying ride of my life. I was shaking all over by the time we arrived.
The next day my dad called the police and told them the man had driven me home drunk. They said that if he had called the previous night, they'd have gone over and taken a Breathalyzer test, but they could do nothing after the fact.
My mom then called the woman, who swore her husband hadn't been drunk. When Mom asked her for my going rate ($3 an hour, plus double time after midnight, which would have been $15 or $19.50, if you count the time I was booked for), the woman hung up on her.
Some important lessons I learned that night:
1. Agree on the wage beforehand.
2. If the driver appears drunk (or stoned), call your parent, a friend or a taxi even if it costs you your wages to get home. NEVER get into a car with someone you think is impaired just to be polite.
3. Don't automatically trust someone because you go to the same church. Always get references and baby-sit only for people you know well. -- WISER NOW IN CANADA
DEAR WISER NOW: That's excellent advice, and I hope my younger readers will take it to heart. Watching children is a heavy responsibility that requires maturity and judgment. It should be planned so that it's fun, fair and safe for everyone concerned.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Palin Debate Flowchart
This is obviously a "timed stamped" thing, since she'll (hopefully) never again be in a VP or other nationally televised debate...but it sure is both poignant, funny and right on at this point.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Soldiers who hand prisoners to US could face legal action
WHEELS OF JUSTICE GRIND SLOWLY, BUT, INEXORABLY, WE CAN ONLY HOPE!
Soldiers who hand prisoners to US could face legal action, MPs warned
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/29/military.law
British troops who hand over prisoners in Iraq to US military personnel could find themselves facing prosecution, according to a legal opinion compiled for parliament. The finding has led to calls for the British government to rethink its current policy and investigate how the US treats its prisoners, and whether torture is employed against them.
Earlier this year the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition sought legal opinion from Michael Fordham QC on whether a human rights violation would arise under the European convention on human rights (ECHR) and the 1998 Human Rights Act (HRA) if an individual in British detention in Iraq were handed over to US military personnel, "despite substantial grounds for considering that there is a real risk of that person being subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment".
The conclusion reached by Fordham and his colleague Tom Hickman is that an offence would definitely have been committed. If acted on, the opinion could mean that UK troops would not be allowed to "render" detainees to the US military until it was clear that they would no longer face the possibility of torture or ill-treatment.
What prompted the inquiry was a statement made in February this year by Ben Griffin, a former SAS soldier who was on active service in Iraq. In his statement, Griffin said that he was "in no doubt" that individuals handed over to the US military "would be tortured". He cited what had happened to those detained at Guantánamo Bay, Bagram airbase and Abu Ghraib prison.
The opinion adds: "UK forces operating in Iraq are potentially also subject to UK criminal law, tort law and Iraqi law. Notably, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it a criminal offence for a public official, whatever his nationality and wherever located, to commit an act of torture."
Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative MP who chairs the committee which commissioned the report, said there had been a number of allegations that UK forces had been capturing people and handing them over to US authorities, knowing that these detainees were at risk of being tortured or mistreated.
"I commissioned a legal opinion to establish whether the UK acted unlawfully when they were handed over," said Tyrie. "I now have the answer. The UK remains legally responsible for the subsequent treatment of anybody who has been detained by the UK. It is likely that British policy on this area is not only ethically questionable but is also unlawful. The government now needs to radically rethink its policy on this issue."
Clive Stafford Smith, director of the legal action charity Reprieve, also welcomed the findings. "We are delighted that the all-party parliamentary group has recognised the illegality of British troops handing over prisoners to US custody in Iraq, " he said. "These prisoners promptly disappear into an unaccountable prison network in which over 20,000 prisoners are held for illegal interrogation and torture. If it is confirmed that this has been happening, the British government must immediately reveal how many people have been handed over, where they are now, and what has been done to them."
Paul Marsh, president of the Law Society, called on the government to investigate what happens to prisoners rendered from British custody. "Extraordinary rendition has been used by some states as a means of bypassing the formal justice system," said Marsh. "To do so is a breach of the rule of law and puts individuals at risk of ill-treatment. The Law Society calls on the UK government to look beyond assurances from other countries and positively investigate and monitor whether individuals rendered from British custody are receiving equivalent standards of due process. It is time we returned to our values in the rule of law."
I WANT MY AMERICA BACK.
Soldiers who hand prisoners to US could face legal action, MPs warned
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/29/military.law
British troops who hand over prisoners in Iraq to US military personnel could find themselves facing prosecution, according to a legal opinion compiled for parliament. The finding has led to calls for the British government to rethink its current policy and investigate how the US treats its prisoners, and whether torture is employed against them.
Earlier this year the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition sought legal opinion from Michael Fordham QC on whether a human rights violation would arise under the European convention on human rights (ECHR) and the 1998 Human Rights Act (HRA) if an individual in British detention in Iraq were handed over to US military personnel, "despite substantial grounds for considering that there is a real risk of that person being subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment".
The conclusion reached by Fordham and his colleague Tom Hickman is that an offence would definitely have been committed. If acted on, the opinion could mean that UK troops would not be allowed to "render" detainees to the US military until it was clear that they would no longer face the possibility of torture or ill-treatment.
What prompted the inquiry was a statement made in February this year by Ben Griffin, a former SAS soldier who was on active service in Iraq. In his statement, Griffin said that he was "in no doubt" that individuals handed over to the US military "would be tortured". He cited what had happened to those detained at Guantánamo Bay, Bagram airbase and Abu Ghraib prison.
The opinion adds: "UK forces operating in Iraq are potentially also subject to UK criminal law, tort law and Iraqi law. Notably, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it a criminal offence for a public official, whatever his nationality and wherever located, to commit an act of torture."
Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative MP who chairs the committee which commissioned the report, said there had been a number of allegations that UK forces had been capturing people and handing them over to US authorities, knowing that these detainees were at risk of being tortured or mistreated.
"I commissioned a legal opinion to establish whether the UK acted unlawfully when they were handed over," said Tyrie. "I now have the answer. The UK remains legally responsible for the subsequent treatment of anybody who has been detained by the UK. It is likely that British policy on this area is not only ethically questionable but is also unlawful. The government now needs to radically rethink its policy on this issue."
Clive Stafford Smith, director of the legal action charity Reprieve, also welcomed the findings. "We are delighted that the all-party parliamentary group has recognised the illegality of British troops handing over prisoners to US custody in Iraq, " he said. "These prisoners promptly disappear into an unaccountable prison network in which over 20,000 prisoners are held for illegal interrogation and torture. If it is confirmed that this has been happening, the British government must immediately reveal how many people have been handed over, where they are now, and what has been done to them."
Paul Marsh, president of the Law Society, called on the government to investigate what happens to prisoners rendered from British custody. "Extraordinary rendition has been used by some states as a means of bypassing the formal justice system," said Marsh. "To do so is a breach of the rule of law and puts individuals at risk of ill-treatment. The Law Society calls on the UK government to look beyond assurances from other countries and positively investigate and monitor whether individuals rendered from British custody are receiving equivalent standards of due process. It is time we returned to our values in the rule of law."
Palin as Caribou Barbie
Sarah Palin as "Caribou Barbie"
Comes with everything you see here:
- Dead Caribou
- M-16
- Snowmobile
- Sexy Librarian Glasses
She even talks with such fun phrases like:
- "I'm a pitbull with lipstick!"
- "My family is off-limits!"
- "What is it the Vice President actually does?"
Coming soon: Bristol Palin with inflatable baby bump and John McCain with portable green screen background!
- Breast Pump for Little Trig's meal sold separately...
Monday, September 29, 2008
Thanks for Submitting a Haiku!
People for the American Way (PFAW) is asking for Haiku!
They have to be themed on how McCain/Palin:
A. will affect (infect?) the supreme court
B. are tied to the Right Wing
I like writing Haiku, so here's one (of the three) I wrote.
If you do or if you don't like to write haiku enjoy!
| Winners will be announced on October 27th. If you've got poetic friends who might be interested in submitting a haiku — with the chance to get published in The Nation! — send them the link to the submission form (http://site.PFAW.org/haiku) or e-mail them about the contest using our Tell-A-Friend tool. Thanks again, |
Frish
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Michael Shermer Responds to Frish: Forgiveness sought by both!
Michael:
I accept your apology/explanation and hope you can forgive me, I copied those I copied before, and your response is included below (almost) in it's entirety.While your initial reaction to VHEMT is one of the most frequent responses of people upon hearing of the movement, I'm a salesman and quite tuned into people and their body language, voice inflection etc. I must admit I missed any humor/sarcasm/facetiousness expressed in your response. That doesn't happen often, hence my reaction and expressed disappointment!
On another note:
You said: "The Earth could easily support 12 billion people at 'our level of life'".
2 Internal combustion engine cars in every garage? McDonalds on every corner in the world?
I can't accept that as true, but, very short time will tell.
The Earth can't support the 6.X billion we have now!
Yes, I understand your Libertarian bent, you mentioned it during your presentation. So, I can see how you could blame corrupt dictators for the mishandling of resources (Zimbabwe, a country my parents lived in for a time, being the current poster child for mismanagement by government), I'd submit governments aren't very much of the REAL problem at all.
Capitalism - Each Corporation maximizing their respective shareholder interests without regard to minimizing their environmental impacts (or coordinating with other corporations to minimize impacts) are far more of the problem.
Greed, not just by investors, but by consumers - the Third World saw Dallas, now they want to live like Dallas! Globalization of Western Civilization, our way of life is enviable and has been put forth as the way people ought to live...it is comfortable, I certainly enjoy it!
But, the environmental impacts of the way of life we're enjoying here are simply unsustainable.
If U.S. corporations weren't "persons" under the law that would go a hell of a long way to making things better. (No free speech rights, hence no lobbyists!)
If corporations had to guarantee that new chemicals and products they introduced were not harmful BEFORE letting them out into the world, that would help too.
However, while not many agree with me YET, I'm convinced...we've ALREADY broken the biosphere, the fix will come from Gaia herself, and we ought to minimize our numbers, hence voluntary human extinction.
When the evidence becomes even more clear, and the effects of our deprecations are more prevalent, within a decade or less, corporations and their boards may well get it into their charters to attempt to save the planet, since without customers they won't have much reason for being!
Being almost 54, I won't be around for the real deal at the end (I hope!), and, my kids (having none) can't blame me.
Happier everyday I'm child-free!
Again, my apologies for not "getting" your intent...I do write a powerful note though, eh?
Appreciate your response.
Frish
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Michael Shermer <mshermer@skeptic.com> wrote:
(A redacted expletive deleted), Michael, I was JOKING!!!! I don't think you should commit suicide. I must be the millionth person to say that to you in response to first hearing about the "voluntary extinction movement." Why would you send out such a message to everyone without asking me first?! Who in their right mind would SERIOUSLY suggest that someone commit suicide. Not me anyway.By the way, that aside, I do disagree with you on overpopulation. I think Julian Simon was right: more people means more brains, more ideas, more innovation, etc. I'm pro-people. The earth could easily support 12 billion people at our level of life, if all the corrupt dictators and governments would get out of the way and allow their people to flourish.Michael Shermer
Michael Shermer's reaction to VHEMT!
Dear Mr. Shermer, Volunteers, Supporters, Brights, Atheists, and other correspondents:
As Fearless Leader of the LA Brights I attended the Atheists Alliance International Convention on the Queen Mary this weekend.
I found the convention wonderful for many reasons!
I had an opportunity to introduce myself to Mr. Shermer, as I'm certain he'll recall.
Atheism is an important truth, no doubt about it.
However, it also loses some of its importance when compared to the risks facing the future of humankind.
Technology has always been used to overcome nature's limits.
However, our technology has now totally overwhelmed nature and any of nature's means to cope with the toxic (to us) changes we're introducing.
These two things (atheism and human caused climate chaos) are actually closely related, as those who "believe"
(the SUPER-MAJORITY OF HUMANITY (Brights, get the pun?!)) may derail the very efforts necessary to save the biosphere from human technology's effects, since "god will provide" so not to worry, eh?!
Therefore, I felt it important to introduce Michael to the concept of Voluntary Human Extinction.
My predisposition was that a Skeptic would also be inquisitive, at least! Seemed a low bar, but...
His reaction to VHEMT www.vhemt.org was that I ought to lead the way and commit suicide.
He wasn't kidding, although I'm hopeful that upon reflection his curiosity might override his gut reaction.
I was surprised at the naked hostility...and greatly saddened that someone who I hold up as heroic for his Skepticism and tremendous ability to confront superstitious nonsense wasn't at least more thoughtful before dismissing the concept altogether.
And wishing me dead to boot, lucky I'm a Bright and dismiss witchcraft in any form! ROFLMAO
I learned a lot, and thank him for the experience.
Human Extinction is inevitable, no one can argue that.
Many VHEMTers hold the extinction will be quite soon.
That is currently debatable, but the ability of the biosphere to continue to sustain human life erodes every day, and our technology only provides more velocity and momentum to it's failure in the near term.
Perhaps Shermer is simply skeptical about Human Caused Climate Chaos.
Perhaps he's got "faith" in technology's ability to get us out of the hole that technology is digging, ever faster...
Having no children is the only moral choice, by anyone, anywhere, anywhen. That is the best means to reduce the numbers of humans who will be suffering when the world discontinues it's ability to support human life.
Obviously, not everyone is on board with the "inevitability" part yet, but soon more will be and child-less-ness will become "fashionable".
VHEMTers are sensible enough to know we cannot stop procreation by all, everywhere, forever, that's just the goal.
If you don't aim high you'll be sure to miss!
Peace. Live long and die out.
--
Frish
Frish
VHEMT Volunteer
Fearless Leader, LA Brights
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
The Pastor responds to Frish and Frish's response.
David:
The very definition of faith (the religious kind, faith has several definitions) is belief that is not based on proof...you need no reason for faith, only the capability to "hope" something is true.
Does that make faith and reason mutually exclusive? Well, certainly on matters of belief in god it does, your belief in omni-god requires no reason whatsoever!
there are 11 different definitions of the word faith however, and you are mixing them up in your note back to me!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
Interesting that you know what "god intends"...just by reading a book written by men...
What about all the "other" gods that are historic or being worshiped around the planet? Odin, Zeus, Krishna? Why aren't they the god(s) you ought be listening to?
Do I "operate" out of a "scientific materialist worldview"?
You and I both operate thanks to our chemistry. When our chemistry ceases to operate, so do we. We die.
I am a Bright. As a Bright I reject the supernatural and superstitious and mystical and base my ethics and actions on a naturalistic worldview.
That's what we see around us. That's what we can prove via scientific method, a means to test hypothesis and gain knowledge.
"Saying god exists is as rational as saying other people have minds"? NOT!
We share reality, I accept the fact you have a mind (sure, "I take the fact you have a mind on faith" but that's not the same definition of the word faith as your faith in god...) and can demonstrate I have one, that's how I'm typing and reading. I cannot read your mind, nor does your consciousness exhibit any impact upon the world that is not associated with your physicality (that is, you cannot "will something to happen at a distance" (i.e. prayer doesn't do anything for example). You must make things happen by touching them for example, you cannot move the pencil across the desk by thinking about it!
Please explain what you mean that all pre-suppositions begin with faith.
I suggest you are speaking of a different definition of the word faith than you use when describing your faith in god. (Just like I said in the prior paragraph!)
We share reality. I have "faith" that your reality and mine are similar, for the most part, even if you choose to include supernatural elements that are not provable as being in existence, and that I proved cannot exist in the universe we share (you didn't say anything to respond to my disproof of omni-god by the way, hummm, wonder why! My guess is that no one has prepped you for this argument, and that's not surprising, since it is my argument, and not one generally known in the philosophical world...so you have no one to fall back on to deny what I stated, sorry about that! I'm original, and my argument regards "what particle holds the thoughts of god" is also unassailable...).
We exhibit this shared reality through words.
That's how our brains/minds connect/understand each other.
No faith involved so far, eh, except faith that our defintions of words mean similar things.
If you wish to re-define god to be everything we don't already know, then yes, I could agree with that definition of god. By that definition, god is diminished a little bit everyday, as we learn more about reality that surrounds us. So what?
The Omni-god is not real, cannot exist in this universe, and is not necessary for any function whatsoever!
Is it possible that god exists? I could wave a wand and stop all war, but, you'd pretty much discount that as so improbable as to be impossible. Same as my knowledge of what you call god, so improbable it is essentially impossible.
Have you read and understood the Old Testament, and god's first commandment?
"Have no other gods before me."
First, god admits that there are other gods, so much for monotheism altogether!
Second, he commands us to have none, before having him.
I take him literally, and will continue to have none before having him.
Yes, I get the joke, hope you do too, the point being that the bible is so fraught with examples of things that can be ambiguously interpreted that it is unstable at best, misleading for certain, and a really bad means to determine truth. Why are there 20,000+ Christian Sects? They all interpret the "infallible word of god" differently!
Does your church "stone" people for biblical infractions as is stated in the bible?
How many of the 10 commandments are actually law today? They were all stoning offenses in their time, guess what, culture/society moved on, and now murder, theft and perjury are the only ones left!
Frish
The very definition of faith (the religious kind, faith has several definitions) is belief that is not based on proof...you need no reason for faith, only the capability to "hope" something is true.
Does that make faith and reason mutually exclusive? Well, certainly on matters of belief in god it does, your belief in omni-god requires no reason whatsoever!
there are 11 different definitions of the word faith however, and you are mixing them up in your note back to me!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
Interesting that you know what "god intends"...just by reading a book written by men...
What about all the "other" gods that are historic or being worshiped around the planet? Odin, Zeus, Krishna? Why aren't they the god(s) you ought be listening to?
Do I "operate" out of a "scientific materialist worldview"?
You and I both operate thanks to our chemistry. When our chemistry ceases to operate, so do we. We die.
I am a Bright. As a Bright I reject the supernatural and superstitious and mystical and base my ethics and actions on a naturalistic worldview.
That's what we see around us. That's what we can prove via scientific method, a means to test hypothesis and gain knowledge.
"Saying god exists is as rational as saying other people have minds"? NOT!
We share reality, I accept the fact you have a mind (sure, "I take the fact you have a mind on faith" but that's not the same definition of the word faith as your faith in god...) and can demonstrate I have one, that's how I'm typing and reading. I cannot read your mind, nor does your consciousness exhibit any impact upon the world that is not associated with your physicality (that is, you cannot "will something to happen at a distance" (i.e. prayer doesn't do anything for example). You must make things happen by touching them for example, you cannot move the pencil across the desk by thinking about it!
Please explain what you mean that all pre-suppositions begin with faith.
I suggest you are speaking of a different definition of the word faith than you use when describing your faith in god. (Just like I said in the prior paragraph!)
We share reality. I have "faith" that your reality and mine are similar, for the most part, even if you choose to include supernatural elements that are not provable as being in existence, and that I proved cannot exist in the universe we share (you didn't say anything to respond to my disproof of omni-god by the way, hummm, wonder why! My guess is that no one has prepped you for this argument, and that's not surprising, since it is my argument, and not one generally known in the philosophical world...so you have no one to fall back on to deny what I stated, sorry about that! I'm original, and my argument regards "what particle holds the thoughts of god" is also unassailable...).
We exhibit this shared reality through words.
That's how our brains/minds connect/understand each other.
No faith involved so far, eh, except faith that our defintions of words mean similar things.
If you wish to re-define god to be everything we don't already know, then yes, I could agree with that definition of god. By that definition, god is diminished a little bit everyday, as we learn more about reality that surrounds us. So what?
The Omni-god is not real, cannot exist in this universe, and is not necessary for any function whatsoever!
Is it possible that god exists? I could wave a wand and stop all war, but, you'd pretty much discount that as so improbable as to be impossible. Same as my knowledge of what you call god, so improbable it is essentially impossible.
Have you read and understood the Old Testament, and god's first commandment?
"Have no other gods before me."
First, god admits that there are other gods, so much for monotheism altogether!
Second, he commands us to have none, before having him.
I take him literally, and will continue to have none before having him.
Yes, I get the joke, hope you do too, the point being that the bible is so fraught with examples of things that can be ambiguously interpreted that it is unstable at best, misleading for certain, and a really bad means to determine truth. Why are there 20,000+ Christian Sects? They all interpret the "infallible word of god" differently!
Does your church "stone" people for biblical infractions as is stated in the bible?
How many of the 10 commandments are actually law today? They were all stoning offenses in their time, guess what, culture/society moved on, and now murder, theft and perjury are the only ones left!
Frish
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Burke Community Bible Church <bcbc@directus.net> wrote:
Dear Michael,Thank you for responding to the article. You are suggesting that reason and faith are mutually exclusive. I would suggest to you that God intends for us to fully employ our intellects alongside of our faith. The great commandment encourages Christians to love the Lord with all their heart, mind, soul and strength.
Do you operate out of a scientific materialist worldview?
If you only believe in physical phenomenon and a material universe, then may I ask you this,Do you believe that other people have minds? Is this rational? Scholar Alvin Plantinga argues that saying God exists is as rational as saying other people have minds. Both philosophical conclusions are logical in the same way. Since all presuppositions begin with faith, God is as rational as any other first premise.
One other question. Do you claim to possess all knowledge? If you are intellectually honest you would have say no. So is it possible that in the realm of which you have no knowledge that God could exist?David----- Original Message -----Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 9:24 PMSubject: a response to your "Atheist....really!" article, from a real atheist!To David Doster, Pastor:
I responded to your article http://www2.morganton.com/content/2008/sep/25/atheist-really/#comments
because I'm Fearless Leader of the LA Brights, and part of our mandate is to respond to articles such as yours.
My response follows:
1. The definition of faith - belief without reason.
Therefore, the "faithful" and atheists can agree: "No reason for god(s)"2. Disproving the idea of an omni-present, omni-potent, omni-temporal, omni-xxx god is simple.
To do what that god is said to be able to do is to defy the laws of the known universe. That "god" must be able to operate at greater than light speed.
"He" is also supposed to have purpose. Therefore, "he" must think and be "an entity".
For information to exist, the information that makes up this "entity", it must have a physical substrate upon which to exist.
Since no particle exists that operates faster than light in our universe, what holds the thoughts of god?
God cannot exist.
Easy to prove, although it does depend on what YOUR definition of god is.
I'd ask the preacher, and Mr. Colson, how they can prove god does exist, since they claim "he" does...
They cannot.
If you synthesize all the best philosophy and theological work on what god is and how "he" operates, you are left with "God works in mysterious ways".
Now, I know that nothing like god(s) can or even need exist.
I also know that most people seek a higher power.
That seeking is due to evolutionary and excellent survival behaviors from our distant past.
The "need to seek" is what religions of the world prey upon, to get more people into the tent.
There is no soul
there is no god(s)
there is no afterlife
there is only our own chemistry
there is no shared cosmic consciousnessHowever, most don't believe that, since they are born with "a need to seek".
Enjoy.
I cannot convince you, even with the most rational and logical and scientific argument (such as the one presented above).
That's because most of you don't have freewill in this matter.
Enjoy it.
We are born moral, and our conscience is culturally determined.
Religion and god have absolutely NOTHING to do with it, but religion would like to take credit for it.
Enjoy.
--
That was the comment I left below your article, happy to "test your faith" further if you care to correspond.Cheers,
Frish
Fearless Leader, LA Brights
Thursday, September 25, 2008
a response to your "Atheist....really!" article, from a real atheist!
To David Doster, Pastor:
I responded to your article http://www2.morganton.com/content/2008/sep/25/atheist-really/#comments
because I'm Fearless Leader of the LA Brights, and part of our mandate is to respond to articles such as yours.
My response follows:
1. The definition of faith - belief without reason.
Therefore, the "faithful" and atheists can agree: "No reason for god(s)"
2. Disproving the idea of an omni-present, omni-potent, omni-temporal, omni-xxx god is simple.
To do what that god is said to be able to do is to defy the laws of the known universe. That "god" must be able to operate at greater than light speed.
"He" is also supposed to have purpose. Therefore, "he" must think and be "an entity".
For information to exist, the information that makes up this "entity", it must have a physical substrate upon which to exist.
Since no particle exists that operates faster than light in our universe, what holds the thoughts of god?
God cannot exist.
Easy to prove, although it does depend on what YOUR definition of god is.
I'd ask the preacher, and Mr. Colson, how they can prove god does exist, since they claim "he" does...
They cannot.
If you synthesize all the best philosophy and theological work on what god is and how "he" operates, you are left with "God works in mysterious ways".
Now, I know that nothing like god(s) can or even need exist.
I also know that most people seek a higher power.
That seeking is due to evolutionary and excellent survival behaviors from our distant past.
The "need to seek" is what religions of the world prey upon, to get more people into the tent.
There is no soul
there is no god(s)
there is no afterlife
there is only our own chemistry
there is no shared cosmic consciousness
However, most don't believe that, since they are born with "a need to seek".
Enjoy.
I cannot convince you, even with the most rational and logical and scientific argument (such as the one presented above).
That's because most of you don't have freewill in this matter.
Enjoy it.
We are born moral, and our conscience is culturally determined.
Religion and god have absolutely NOTHING to do with it, but religion would like to take credit for it.
Enjoy.
--That was the comment I left below your article, happy to "test your faith" further if you care to correspond.
Cheers,
Frish
Frish
Fearless Leader, LA Brights
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Methane, It's a gas!
Esteemed VHEMTers and those who question our mission:
Welcome to greatly accelerating Human Caused Climate Chaos...
Here's the article:
Here's my comment, on a comment to that article that describes nuclear power as some sort of answer!
Live Long and Die Off - happier every day I'm a Volunteer, couldn't be more proud!
--
Cheers, Frish
Cheers, Frish
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Just a suggestion!
Dear Friends:
Few can be happy with Sarah Palin's position on reproductive rights.
Few can be happy with Sarah Palin's position on reproductive rights.
Her position on abstinance-only education is ironic at least and destructive for certain,
and no abortion (even for incest or rape victims) is positively medieval.
Hence my suggestion: Make a $5 minimum donation to Planned Parenthood. In Sarah Palin's name.
Hence my suggestion: Make a $5 minimum donation to Planned Parenthood. In Sarah Palin's name.
When you make a donation to PP in her name, they'll send her a card telling her that the donation has been made in her honor.
The address to use to send the 'in Sarah Palin's honor' card:
McCain for President/Sarah Palin
1235 S. Clark Street
1st Floor
Arlington, VA 22202
Send this along to all your friends.
Frish
McCain for President/Sarah Palin
1235 S. Clark Street
1st Floor
Arlington, VA 22202
Send this along to all your friends.
Frish
This message definitely NOT approved by McCain. Or Palin.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Morton C. Frishberg's Obituary Published
Dear Family and others copied...
I signed the guest book.
| September 21, 2008 | |
| | My father was a wonderful human being, a highly moral actor, brilliant in things technical and marketing. Along with his remarkable combination of expertise he was a fabulous public speaker. He recognized very early in his life the threats to our very existence that we see unfolding now. He did more than most to attempt to "fix things". The results of the impacts he had on daily life around the world will never be acknowledged and, at the same time, cannot be overemphasized. We miss you Mort, here's a haiku for you! Morton C. Frishberg Every way an Emcee "Truth is easier" |
| Michael Frishberg (West Hollywood, CA) |
And, don't forget the donation to Obama in Mort's name thanks...
--
Cheers,Frish
Michael W. Frishberg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
