I found the title link via curi.us. Which is indeed, as the title implies, a curious blog. While reading it I had that vaguely schizophrenic feeling as though I couldn't be entirely certain I wasn't hallucinating.
Anyhow, regarding the title link, I can't for the life of me fathom why people seem to think humanity is some sort of disease. Is it fashionable? Is it the creed for some secret society? Perhaps, there's some sort of gratification of which I am unaware?
The gist of the article is that humans fail miserably as parents.
"Four-legged or two-legged, which makes the better parent? Hands down, the animals win."
I'm guessing this lady hasn't spent a lot of time around animals. I've seen cats eat their kittens. I've seen sows eat their piglets and wallow them to death. I've seen cows kick their calves to death. Horses wean their foals by kicking them in the face when they try to suckle (goats and sheep and cattle tend to do the same thing).
People like her seem to forget that people actually are animals. Like it or not, we are biological machines just like any other critter. We are a bag of chemicals, slaves to little bits of protein that float around telling us what to do. The difference is that we have a few genetic alterations as compared to our animal relatives resulting in wildly divergent behavior as compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.
People invest more of their lives in rearing children than any other species. We spend (though we don't necessarily have to) at least 18 years raising and grooming our children. In fact, the average age a person leaves home is 26. You can find the statistics on the Casey Family page but I'm too lazy to look them up. Statistically, about one third of a parent's life is consumed by a single child. We do pretty well on that score. Additionally, humans don't generally wean our children by elbowing them in the face. I won't rule it out, but I haven't heard of humans eating their own offspring.
The score is about equal so far. Then again, when people do evil things to children other people punish them. We recognize that it's wrong to treat children cruelly and make a group effort to limit such cruelty. Animals don't do that. We take in other people's children when it's necessary. It happens in the animal world, but it's pretty rare. I've raised a number of bums because it's nearly impossible to get animals to accept babies that aren't theirs.
For all the appalling things people do to their kids, I think we measure up pretty well in general. In fact, I would indeed place us well above other animals though as I said we too are just a differently shaped bag of chemicals.
The piety is what gets me. Obviously humanity haters don't include themselves with the herd or they would take steps to remove themselves from the catastrophe (and spare the rest of us their idiot moaning). It seems that their recognition of "reality" makes them enlightened or possibly even transcendant.
The fact that we are animals means we will behave as such. Humans will always do monstrous things to one another. The thing that makes us better is that we strive for virtue in a way that I believe is beyond the ability of animals.
(I'm not sure where to post this, so it's going in politics).
They're Spanish ice cream flavored lollipops. Chupa in Spanish means suck. Chupa in (Brazillian) Portuguese means a wet, vigorous kiss, or to suck (in an . . . orally gratifying manner).
It's a mythical monster sort of like the Jersey Devil or the Yeti. Mostly reports of El Chupa Cabra come from Texas, California, Florida, Puerto Rico, etc. Cabra means goat in Portuguese and Spanish. Chupa Cabra means Suck Goat. Or, I suppose in colloquial English, Goat Sucker.
It boggles my mind that people buy this junk. "American and international panels of experts concluded as early as 2001 that smokestack and tailpipe discharges of heat-trapping gases were the most likely cause of recent global warming." This is according to "the best possible scientific information".
Here you can see another side of the story. One that is a bit more scientifically rigorous than the New York Times article, and likely more rigorous than the study completed by the "experts".
What they do is create a computer model of the environment and tweak certain numbers. The model runs a number of iterations and spits out a result. The problem is that these models aren't very accurate. The weatherman on tv uses these same kinds of models to make forecasts. The thing is they can't predict the weather with any kind of accuracy more than about five days in advance. Here you have a bunch of yahoos claiming they can predict the changes in the entire global climate over a period of years and decades. Not only that, they have determined that a few factors representing a tiny fraction of the causes of global temperature fluctuation will effectively bring about the destruction of the ecosphere.
These experts aren't pursuing science. They're pursuing their own self interest. They're having a field day and getting paid to tinker with their computer models and every now and then they find themselves in the news. These experts are the frauds in the EPA. They're fat-assed bureaucrats and lawyers who make a killing ripping off the government and companies. They're crooks. Pure and simple.
Go here for a site that is honestly interested in environmental health.
1. Your name spelled backwards. nitsuJ 2. Where were your parents born? Father South Dakota (Possibly Gregory); Mother – Wyoming (possibly Saratoga). 3. What is the last thing you downloaded onto your computer? mIRC. 4. What’s your favorite restaurant? Nantuckets (Steak and Lobster and ever so much to drink). 5. Last time you swam in a pool? About a month ago for scuba lessons. 6. Have you ever been in a school play? Several. I’ve been in Alice In Wonderland, A Baseball Variety Show, a couple Shakespeare thingums. 7. How many kids do you want? Two (fat chance of that). 8. Type of music you dislike most? Rap and Europop (I don’t qualify them as actual music.) 9. Are you registered to vote? Indeed. 10. Do you have cable? I have rabbit ears. 11. Have you ever ridden on a moped? I laughed at some guy pushing one. 12. Ever prank call anybody? No. 13. Ever get a parking ticket? I live in the Bay Area. Parking tickets are more ubiquitous than telemarketers around here. 14. Would you go bungee jumping or sky diving? In a heartbeat. 15. Farthest place you ever traveled. The opposite side of the planet. 16. Do you have a garden? I have a plant. It’s still alive. 17. What’s your favorite comic strip? Garfield. 18. Do you really know all the words to your national anthem? Verse one. 19. Bath or Shower, morning or night? Morning and Evening shower. 20. Best movie you’ve seen in the past month? I Robot 21. Favorite pizza topping? Pepperoni ham and mushrooms. 22. Chips or popcorn? Chips. Or popcorn. 23. What color lipstick do you usually wear? No. 24. Have you ever smoked peanut shells? I can’t be sure. When I drive down memory lane I find a few fogbanks. 25. Have you ever been in a beauty pageant? Please. 26. Orange Juice or apple? Cranberry. 27. Who was the last person you went out to dinner with and where did you dine? A friend and I went to Pasta Primavera II. 28. Favorite type chocolate bar? Symphony. With almonds. 29. When was the last time you voted at the polls? 2000. 30. Last time you ate a homegrown tomato? About six years. 31. Have you ever won a trophy? I won the spelling bee, the geography bee, and the math bee. 32. Are you a good cook? I'm an excellent cook. 33. Do you know how to pump your own gas? Absolutely! 34. Ever order an article from an infomercial? They wouldn’t let me have him. 35. Sprite or 7-up? Cranberry Juice. 36. Have you ever had to wear a uniform to work? I wore an apron when I was a dishwasher. 37. Last thing you bought at a pharmacy? Lighter fluid and barbecue briquettes. 38. Ever throw up in public? Possibly. See #24. 39. Would you prefer being a millionaire or find true love? Whichever comes first. 40. Do you believe in love at first sight? Retch. 41. Ever call a 1-900 number? No. 42. Can ex’s be friends? It could happen. 43. Who was the last person you visited in a hospital? My friend after the birth of her daughter. 44. Did you have a lot of hair when you were a baby? Maybe. 45. What message is on your answering machine? Instructions. 46. What’s your all time favorite Saturday Night Live Character? The lizard on the Geico commercial. I hate Saturday Night Live. 47. What was the name of your first pet? Sir Giles. A Collie/Australian Shepherd/Blue Tick Hound/Portuguese Water Dog. 48. What is in your purse? Don’t have one. 49. Favorite thing to do before bedtime? It’s private. 50. What is one thing you are grateful for today? Payday. Link: ;http://llamabutchers.mu.nu/
So, yesterday I helped move a friend, went to a wedding, and then to a club for a friend's sister's birthday. I had a blast but today I'm tired/sore/hungover/possi bly still drunk. I remember now why I don't do this kind of thing very often.
This Swift Vets thing is a big hairy deal. I've read the letter they put up on the web. It's fairly damning on its own. I haven't seen the commercial, seeing as how I don't watch television. I don't really think the content matters all that much.
The relevant thing here is that Kerry is allowing himself to be deflected from actual campaigning.
Kerry placed so much weight on his Vietnam service in the beginning that he can't afford to allow it to be besmirched. So, he's wrangling with the Swift Boat Vets who certainly don't hold him in high esteem. He's doing so in order to protect his reputation and all, but this bickering makes him look weak and narcisistic (more so). In the meantime, Bush sails along campaigning and presidenting like a madman.
Kerry set himself up for this situation by making his veteran status a cornerstone of his campaign. Rather stupidly, I might add. He went to Vietnam. When he came home he basically spit on his fellow soldiers and turned his back on them. As far as I can tell, it was a political decision aimed at currying favor with the left (which had much more influence then). He gambled on the left thirty years ago. At the time more socialist policies were necessary or at least tolerated for the sake of fighting the Cold War. Nobody had any reason to think that the left would eventually outlive some of its usefulness or that conservatives would take their turn at the helm again.
Anyhow, Kerry misjudged. He didn't count on their long memories. The Swift Boat Vets have been biding their time, waiting for a chance to get back at Kerry for his disloyalty. His slight against them was a major deal to these people. It would have been okay for him to disagree with the war, but he actively worked against it, undermining and, from their perspective, disrespecting them and their efforts in Vietnam. It's the same reason we don't much care for France. The French claimed to be our friend and ally, but when we asked for their support they not only said no, they actively worked to oppose us.
The actual content of the arguments is no longer much of an issue. It still boils down to spin, to one's word against another's. What matters now is that Kerry must defend his reputation and he seems to be doing so to the exclusion of other considerations. He appears shallow and petulant.
At this point it would be a disaster if Kerry abandoned his Vietnam platform since it is the cornerstone of his bid. It's the only evidence he can offer that might make him remotely attractive to hawkish Americans. But in defending it so strenuously, he turns into a five year old on the playground "Am so." "Are not." "Am so."
The title link will be added to my list. I stumbled across this site, which in turn took me to the title link. It's all terribly interesting reading. I would say I find it odd that groups like the Conservative Brotherhood aren't more widely acknowledged in the news, but I don't.
Anyhow, I titled this post Americana because I see an illustration of traditional American folk culture here. I wrote a little about it in this post.
It's often commented that America is the only place in the world where people can come and become nationals. Americans can't move to Italy or Egypt or Japan and become Italian or Egyptian or Japanese. But people from anywhere in the world can come to American and become Americans. All one must do to become American is demonstrate their commitment to American ideals and values. The bureaucracy part can be disregarded for my purposes.
I grew up in a very small town in Wyoming. My folks lived there for about eight years before I was born. I remember that the generational families were a little standoffish towards us. My parents weren't usually invited to card parties or things like that. The neighbors were always friendly and civil towards us, but vaguely cool. We moved a couple of times, but so far, my family has always found its way back to that little town. It was when I was in high school that I realized what had been going on and also realized that we actually were finally and still are a part of the community. At some point, there's no defining moment or time period, the town agreed that our family were good respectable folks and proud members of the community. Others who moved there while we lived there didn't fare quite so well. A number of families came and went because they didn't understand what it meant or took to belong. Their words and actions decided for them how welcome they would be. Some of them hung on and pretended not to notice or care, but were overheard complaining and backbiting (which certainly didn't help their efforts). Eventually most of them moved on.
Anyhow, this illustrates American folk culture. My family noticed but didn't care. They were there to make a life and raise a family. They worked hard. They took care of business. They were committed to making a life in that little town. We did move away a couple of times, but that is still our home (even mine though I'm now in California). Because we held the same values and ideals of the people in our little town, we became members rather than residents.
This happens over time throughout America. Immigrant populations eventually find that if they fail to adopt American values, they fail to find the success they seek. As generations are born and raised, they slowly abandon their own roots and become more American.
The traditional American values are complex and sometimes seem contradictory, but they boil down to some fairly simple concepts. Personal integrity, hard work, willingness to do unto others, and cautious generosity are what I would claim to be the backbone of traditional American values.
These values are sometimes contradictory because we are also a nomadic people, because our first loyalty is to ourselves and our immediate family, and we often place efficiency above integrity.
Americans are friendly and curious about strangers, but remain shallow and slightly distant. It doesn't pay to get too close to somebody who might pick up and leave at any time. And until one has proven one's dedication to the American way, you can't be sure of their motives or their worth.
It makes for a fascinating twist to history. We created a cultural paradox because of our ostensibly contradictory values and actions, and black people have been more or less trapped at the center of it for nearly the entire duration of our history. Now I think the twist is smoothing out, however slowly. We brought Africans here to be slaves. They did not come voluntarily, and were barely recognized as people much less Americans. Our inherent moralism eventually led to war. We were fighting ourselves and our conscience. The fight continued, though not necessarily with weapons. Instead, the war became one of ideology that persists to this very day.
The ideological war is between what might be called the moralists and the traditionalists. It's a fascinating contradiction. On one hand, our moral voice tells us that we owe something, especially to black people. On the other hand, we can't accept them as Americans until they turn away from dependency and prove they can carry their own weight independent of entitlements. Americans don't trust people who don't earn their keep. We offer a cookie with one hand and slap with the other. I think they are deciding that the cookie isn't worth the slap anymore.
I wrote about Bill Cosby's speech at the NAACP, and he sees what must be done. He wasn't castigating black people, he was trying to make them see that they must be responsible for themselves if they are to find success.
I can't say any of this is necessarily fair, but since when has history been fair? People perceived as potentially un-American have to worker harder to cover less distance. They carry the burden of proving whether they believe in the American way and deserve to be recognized as Americans.
Members of the Conservative Brotherhood demonstrate an understanding of this facet of American folk culture in their writing and an acceptance. The American folk tradition runs deep especially in the South and Midwest. In the end, accepting and adopting that traditional culture will go further towards erasing inequities than any amount of legislation will do. Link: ;http://www.conservativebrothe...
Futurepundit asks. I'm not sure I entirely agree with his assessment. I'm not convinced that some of his predictions will have come true in fifty years much less the ten or twenty he gives some of them.
Within Ten Years (U.S):
1. Growing retiree population 2. Medical care 3. Energy Infrastructure redesign following more Eastern Seaboard style blackouts. 4. Protein/Genetic/Stem Cell research 5. Genetically Modified animals (as we have GM Corn right now).
Within Twenty Years (U.S and World):
1. African Terrorists (Not necessarily Islamic) (I suspect we may see a biological, chemical, or radiological terrorist event by twenty years, but not necessarily by ten) 2. Economic competition/tension with China and Southeast Asia 3. Alternate fuel sources 4. Selective reproduction 5. Pending collapse of the EU
Within Thirty Years (U.S. and World)
1. Human Cloning 2. Eugenics (designer babies) 3. OPEC nations near collapse as oil reserves dry up. Influence shifts to Canada (oil sands) and off-shore drilling projects. 4. Cybernetic Implants for fun and profit 5. Senescence research
Within Forty Years
1. Human Cloning 2. Eugenics 3. Cognitive Machinery
4. Genetic Engineering (designer organisms)
5. Senescence research
Within 50 Years
1. Cognitive Machinery
2. Neural Implants (wetware)
3. Extraplanetary colonization (territoriality)
4. Robot cognition
5. Nanotech machines
So, there's my list. Most of my entries are based on science and technology. I think that a lot of social concerns will remain more or less the same. Things like social welfare and education will always be important to people and I don't think that will change in fifty or one hundred years. They are sort of background issues and I don't think they will prove to be keystone issues. Likewise, things like gay marriage and racial issues will fade as we cease to care about them (and I do think that will happen).
I will include a disclaimer here about the order of my list. Science and technology can change terribly rapidly and it isn't very predictable so we could see some of the 50 year projections come true in 20 and not realize some of the 20 year projections for 50.
Another thing I've not focused on too heavily are buzzword issues. Global warming for example. I think global warming is a foolish premise at best. The earth's climate has never been particularly stable for as far back as we can research. I don't think humans have much impact on making it more or less stable. It's also unpredictable. There will be many major geological and climatological events in the future, but it's nearly impossible to predict when they will occur. The climate will change. Yellowstone will probably erupt again, a meteor will eventually collide with earth. Politically I don't think there is much we can do about it. Pass a law forbidding volcanic eruptions maybe.
Anyhow, I also chose a number of things on my list because there will be moral challenges from both sides of the aisle. Conservatives will be worried about playing god with genetics. Liberals will be worried about the rights of cognitive machinery. Things of that nature will be what fuels the political discourse as these issues come forware. The non-science issues like demographics will prove to be challenging political issues as old people fail to die. We will end up increasing the working life of people, changing retirement plans, battle with medical costs. All of these things will have to be addressed and all of them will likely be addressed individually.
I didn't put much about energy policy in the list because it will likely take care of itself. We know that there are alternatives, and we even have a good idea of what they are. There is also an impressive amount of research being done on making them feasible. The only real important political aspect is how the balance of power will change as we deplete the easily extracted oil reserves found in the Middle East and move to less easily accessed oil found in oil shale and oil sands and under the sea bed. The thing that stops us from accessing alternates to fossil fuels is that fossil fuels are handily concentrated fuels and we don't have the technologies to replace them while keeping the costs comparable. I laugh at people who insist we don't have to be dependent on fossil fuels not because their ideas won't work, but because their ideas won't work now (except for the tinfoil hat people who know how the harness zero-point energy or angular momentum. I just laugh at them because they're fucking nuts). Only the market and technology will decide when we can operate as a hydrogen or nuclear economy and that won't be for some time. Thus energy policy will generally be relegated to the realm of background issues. Yeah, it's important, but it's not likely to be radically so.
So, I figure the most important issues will be ones that affect humanity's, um, humanity. Things like designer babies and clones and cybernetic implants will be bitterly debated (probably more in the U.S. than almost anywhere else).
The first ten years I focused on the U.S. The rest are generalized. I don't mind making a few other predictions here more broad and less politically charged. The current delegation of power around the world is changing even as you read this. Europe has lost a lot of its prestige. I don't see any signs that it will come roaring back in the near future. The focus of U.S. and world affairs is slowly starting to ignore Europe. Their political influence is become less relevant and soon Europe will be treated like some dear crazy uncle. The Middle East will be temporarily important. Without radical social change, however, they will not continue to be as important. Middle Eastern countries must find a replacement for their oil wealth. I'm not aware of any of them doing that. I think power will next emerge in Asia. It could be China, but I think India is more likely. I think I will live to see a revolution in China. I don't know whether it will be violent, but there will be change and upheaval, and their growth will be deflected. If there is a violent revolution, it could begin with Taiwan. If India can find peace with the Muslim population, I think it will surpass China. I think we will see a lot more trouble in Africa and South America. I'm not sure either of those places will have much prominence in the world for the next fify or more years unless something radical happens. Europe will remain important to the U.S. economically, culturally and historically, but not so much politically. Australia has important cultural and historical ties with America. We have similar social structures, and they will be an invaluable ally as we turn our attention towards Asia and the Pacific. Watch for expanding military collaboration.
Many of the things I mentioned are barely emerging right now. Some of them will develop more rapidly than others. I put nanotech far down on the list. I don't think we will be able to pursue nanotechnology until we have a better grasp of matter and energy. Quantum mechanics gave us mastery in chemistry; I think we will need an equivalent breakthrough to pursue nano scale machinery. Genetics is already an issue and it will grow in importance as we hone our abilities. I think that research in proteins and protein folding will prove to be the holy grail of genetic engineering and modification. When we understand how and why proteins fold the way they do we will have a near complete picture of the mechanics of biology. After that, we will have what knowledge we need to understand how the entire system works, to understand the big biology picture. Cybernetics is more speculative I think. We are making in-roads into merging organic and non-organic bits to make computer chips and eventually computers. I don't think there is any reason to think that we will not be able to build the bionic man at some point (figuratively speaking). The real leap forward will come when we can integrate neurally with computers. It's already on the horizon with artificial eyeballs (cameras) and the talking monkey device. I think the really big hairy deal will be the cognitive machinery. And that, I think is a topic worth its own post.
It's still the dog days, I guess. I'm still not posting though I have a few drafts sitting around. Eventually things will be back on pace.
"Power, Terror, Peace, and War : America's Grand Strategy in a World at Risk" is fascinating. I bought it yesterday, and pretty much read it cover to cover when I got home. Mead plows through all the garbage and spells things out clearly and intelligently. He doesn't arbitrarily adopt a position on the political spectrum though he seems somewhat conservative.
Mead also articulates things I understand intuitively. His writing reminds me of Alexis de Toqueville (sp?). The difference of course is that he is writing from an insiders perspective. Still, reading his things gives me one of those "Aha!" moments.
He identifies four traditional schools of American political thought. Jeffersonians being isolationist libertarians, Hamiltonians being practical-minded lassez faire capitalists, Jacksonians being traditional American folk culture, and Wilsonians being idealist internationalists. He goes on to describe the current state of affairs in a historical and cultural context that makes a hell of a lot of sense.
I grew up in Wyoming where the Jacksonian tradition runs deep. It undoubtedly colors my perception of world events and American responses. I wrote earlier about how I noticed a change in the political wind, that people are drifting towards a more conservative moralistic attitude. Mead explains much better what I noticed and more thoroughly, but it's nice to know I wasn't making things up.
The end of the cold war, and Reagan's economic and institutional policies were perhaps the catalyst, and the first suggestion that things were shifting. Mead describes pre torn-down-wall days as Fordist capitalism. The period was characterized by fairly heavy-handed regulation, and bureaucratization. Reagan bulldozed these institutions which were no longer necessary after the Cold War ended and though it is a slow process and one the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail, we continue to hammer away at them. The result is a newly vibrant economy more akin to the early days of Americna economic ingenuity. There is a certain loss of stability our economy is more volatile than it has been, but there is also greater economic freedom and greater opportunity for competition. The protectionist policies that kept things somewhat static and protected certain large industries were wrecked. For some long time there were only a handful of companies that served certain industries. These companies, like AT&T lasted for decades. Having lost their policy protection they face stiff competition. Companies come and go in a matter of years, and there is always somebody building a better mouse trap.
This kind of economy appeals to Jacksonians and Hamilitonians. For the Jacksonians, it is at least somewhat cut-throat and they can exercise their rough and tumble attitudes in the business world. For the Hamiltonians it is the natural progression of a capitalist market. Capitalism follows the path of greatest efficiency and least resistance. Mead's Fordist society worked best during the Cold-War because people were prepared to make certain sacrifices and band together during that time to guarantee our triumph over communism. Now that we have won, it is no longer in the best interest of the market, nor is it desired by the traditionalists who mistrust elitists and institutionalists.
It's really kind of exciting to me. It's a prime example of the grinding revolution that carries on in America. Both parties are facing a period of transition. The Democrats are alienating large sectors of America by clinging to the old more statist version of capitalism, and in deed if not in word, are ignoring a large sector of the America. They still believe in elitism to a certain degree. Sociologists and economists and professionals of that sort should be telling us what to do because they know. Jacksonians tolerated them during the Cold War, but now it seems they've outlived their usefulness. The Democrats are struggling to maintain their leftist platform without losing the centrists they need.
The Republicans on the other hand are facing a split. Centrists and youngsters are moving towards the Republican party because they are more representative of traditional American folk culture, and that attitude is rekindled in America. The split comes about because the hard right is too stodgy and rigid. The new Republicans are more dynamic and tolerant and eager to see the change that is coming. I think the ideologies are similar enough that Republicans will stick to the party, but I think there will be many show-downs between the two wings. Over time the New Republicans will win out due to senescense if nothing else. It will probably be more abrupt than that though.
In any case, it'll be a slow process and before it's finished things will be changing again. Whadda place.
