I spent my free time this past week watching youtube videos about dimensions beyond our 3+ (spacetime). I was drawn there, because I wanted to try to visualize a hypercube/tesseract, and thought that there would be some good videos on that topic.
What I wound up spending most of my time doing, was watching videos on other ideations of extra-dimensional space. The basic, agreed upon issue, is that there are 10+ dimensions, in theory. But what these dimensions actually ARE, is a matter of speculation. Some speculate that the higher dimesnsions are tiny, or all wound up in a knot, or apparently whatever turns them on. As these dimensons are beyond mundane perception, it seems that scientists let their hair down and get creative.
Rob Bryanton has a series of videos exploring and explaining one way of articulating the ensemble of dimensions. (10thdimension.com) His videos on the subject are very informative. He embraces one of three main branches that try to explain the multiverse - that collection of universes that comprise the whole of everything. they call these theories, "Theories of Everything", or "TOE's".
In a general way, there are 3 competing TOE's. There is the "Bubble Universe" theory, in which we have either discreet portions of this universe, or areas within black holes, or areas (bubbles) so far from our light cone that they will never touch on our galaxy through gravity light etc, where the basic laws are different: we exist here, with these laws of physics, because this "bubble" is suited for us to develop. Then, there is the "Membranes" theory, in which it is supposed that the 3d planes of our reality, exist side by side with other iterations of reality, lying like pages in a book across 9-dimensional space (this is the one that "String Theory" supports/comes from). The "Membranes", or 'Branes', would each contain entire 3d universes, stacked together side by side in a great "deck of the multiverse". The last of the TOE's, is the "ManyWorlds" theory of quantum mechanics. If Brane theory posits visualizing the TOE as 3d universes stacked togeher like a deck of cards or pages in a book, Many Worlds offers a visualization of constant, ever-branching realities, in which everything that could happen, does in fact happen. Every time the "wave function" collapses, Many Worlds suggests that BOTH or MANY outcomes actually do occur, and reality branches off. In this model, the multiverse is a reality in which everything branches out in greater and greater complexity.
I do not have an opinion about which of the 3 "theories of everything" (TOE's) is correct. However, I hold the opinion that one of them is certainly correct in broad strokes. While there are certainly more than twice as many dimensions in reality, than those available to our perception, what that actually means is clearly difficult to ascertain. We have no (known) capacity to perceive dimensions, beyond the mundane sucessive 3 dimensional Planck-frames moving in one direction (mundane spacetime). Within our mundane spacetime frame of reference, our sense of dimensionality suggests that successive dimensions "grow" at right angles to the existing ones. What this means when we try to "grow" a fourth spatial dimension, is the source of the confusion. We are simply not designed to perceive whatever exists at a right angle to spacetime.
When we use additional dimensions (to 3 dimensions, or 3 + time) in mathematics, there is little difficulty. But when we try to imagine or visualize these extra dimensions as something real and concrete, we simply lack the necessary referrents. The "10thDimension.com" site offers the suggestion that the 4th dimension is like time ( it calls it a "Worldline" in its parlance), and calls the 5th dimension, a "Probability plane" - which seems to touch on the Many Worlds TOE. This answer to "what is at a right angle to spacetime", is then "different possible iterations of spacetime". It makes a kind of sense, but is not a very satisfying "spatial direction".
While I am not a mathematician or any stripe of scientist, it seems to me that the competing TOE theories may be each stating something similar - again, in broad strokes. I have a strong intuition that they each contain the other - that these three TOE's are just 3 ways of looking at the same TOE. It is possible that I own this intuition purely because of my ignorance of the complex mathematics that underlie these theories. However, it is too late in the game for me to discard intuition as my guiding priciple.\
The TOE's offer very fertile ground for wild flights of fancy, as well as metaphysical and spiritual fantasizing. This potential is realized by interested, poorly educated laypersons like myself, as well as by the scientists and mathematicians that are carving careers in this and other fields. As I watched a "10thdimension.com" video on the 10th dimension, it occurred to me that what Mr Bryanton was descrining, was a way of apprehing God...
I am not on the same page with him. However, the TOE's do offer some very useful ways to look at spiritual issues. I noticed, among the Many Worlds consequences, a satisfying (to me) answer to the question of Gods Goodness, or "why do bad things happen to good people?". If everything that could happen, does in fact happen, then it is not really that bad things happen to good people, but that everything that can happen, does in fact happen - and so if we could examine enough probability paths, we could observe everything that could happen to a person, actually occur. In that sense, All possible things happen to all possible people: the fact that we inhabit one probability path obscures our view of these other occurences.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Saturday, January 30, 2016
In ww2, we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japanese civilian populations in order to compel the nation's leadership to surrender. We did not use our nuclear assets to terminate the enemy civilian and military leaders. Today, we routinely employ our military assets to terminate enemy combatant leaders: drones, snipers and high tech ordnance allow precision removal of enemy command and high-value assets.
The modern innovation of asymmetrical warefare, and the massive growth of mass media of the past century have resulted in extensive erosion of the trappings of honor and martial mores that informed western martial culture and warfare for centuries. The soldier is no longer popularly imagined as an honorable, heroic officer defending society, but as just another monkey in the chain (arranged in a long line by height, each beaten by his larger neighbor while busily beating away on the smaller monkey on his other side...)
There is something wrong with the way our nation uses martial interventions. Parcel to this issue is our use of mercenaries in our modern military actions. Private military corporations are an end run around our democracy, and allow an egregious misuse of American combat veterans, who are these businesses primary employees. The issues attending warfare are altogether too vital, and important, to be trusted to private companies. And the men and women defending our nation while in private employ deserve the same protections and compensations as our military personnel serving in our formal military.
We live in a nation tormented by a storm of miseries. Beset by a bewildering stew pot of problems, systemic abuses, human weaknesses and political contention, it is difficult to prioritize. Modern America is in a disastrous state: we are living in a national Emergency Room in a disaster and while we mostly all agree there is a problem of some sort, we cannot even come to agreement about a triage policy. Certainly no agreement about what the problem actually is, or a triage policy, is in any danger of suddenly blooming into consensus.
My first impulse is to be more loving, to look for a way to promote empathy in myself. If I could change how some of these problems express inside myself, that could be a place to start. But I think maybe that is asking too much (or too little). Perhaps we might begin using our media, already so gifted at tweaking and guiding public behavior, to promote more civic - positive political policy.
Our political system is geared to respond to financial pressure. In many ways, our democracy functions in a figurative, rather than literal, sense. We have a functional government, it's just not really properly called a democracy - and just what it should be called would depend upon the level of government you were speaking of and belongs elsewhere. But the political realities in which we live could be used to promote a more utopian social ideal than what we currently endure. The problem is, lack of misery or profit. In order to combat the powerful private interests, one would need to marshall financial resources that could compete with those of the "enemy". As the forces arrayed seem to be those of the .5% of the nation that control 99.5% of the national wealth standing one one side, and the 99.5% of the population who control .5% of the national wealth on the other, the result of the conflict does not seem to be in doubt.
I believe most of the foregoing paragraph; and while i grant the pessimistic end of the final sentence, it is not the final word on the subject. but its a complex field of thorny issues. i will lay out some of my thoughts to try and martial up some clarity:
A small minority of our nation wields enormous power.
Our government operates largely by forces opaque to common observation and exempt from democratic checks.
The people of our nation are not in a position to challenge the ruling minority through direct financial means.
The media wields enormous influence in the minds of the nation.
Much of the work of the ruling class is carried out by systemic forces rather than through their direct oversight and intervention (the system has many self-perpetuating & self-regulating components that further the aims of the ruling class due to a convenient confluence of self-interest, abject dependence and need rather than direct, insidious manipulations by nefarious cabals)
With these premises, I start to see a means of attacking the problem. Trying to compete on financial grounds seems doomed - the enemy are too well armed, and our side are poor by definition. However, the ability to utilize media to effect public opinion is the elephant in the room. Media in the modern age is in an unprecedented position in its' history - never before has the bar been so low so far as having access to news and information. And never before has information been more readily available, and in whatever medium a person may require. In an age of unprecedented literacy, knowledge and information are readily available in many formats, though most modern news media comes in spoken format by default.
It seems the easiest way to begin assaulting the enemies' power base is through media. n a sense, our social fighting about choosing presidential canddates is part of thr same effort. We need to build social consensus about what the problems are, and agreement about prioritizing the solution actions. Presidential elections are great excersizes for mobiliing communities to implement social changes.
The take away from elections is that the organizing methods, team building expertise, and deft use of social media technology are important parts of the toolchest for social change. Perhaps these organizational skills could be organized, collated and presented in a format(set of formats) and made available to activist groups. Having a common language and a technology for collaborative communication could help promote cooperation between groups with similar agendas or philosophies. There are lots of reasons to promote the idea, I will move on.
The nation is seething with emotion, strongly in the grip of the debates that attend the ramp-up for our coming national elections. Much like the brief flare of charitable donations that accompany the yearly end of the western calendar, our national social conscience ignites for a brief, indignant inferno every four years. Following presidential selection, the fires are banked, receding into coals nursed by the dedicated, and those too effected, tormented or afflicted to be allowed the option of turning their attenttion away.
It seems a tragic waste, to allow all that organization to be squandered, thrown away after the election if over. Perhaps civic groups should exist, and be utilized by candidates that can secure them. My neighborhood, in North Minneapolis, could certainly use a civic, socially minded organization that bwas well connected through social media. And while my urban setting is more charged with racial and financial issues tha the "average" american neighborhood, the utility of such a group would be very broad indeed..
I have perhaps, again, stumbled across another argument in favor of what are, in effect, Anarchist "Affinity Groups" becoming mainstream, common facets of modern society. Of course you could never market it as an "Anarchist" anything, but the idea is the same - self organizing civic groups arranged by common interests strong eneough to motivate actual activity and action. The civic answer to religious community service organizations, in a sense. Perhaps the massive public interest in social media could be harnessed toward social progress in addittion to the practical applicationa of socializing and entertainment.
The modern innovation of asymmetrical warefare, and the massive growth of mass media of the past century have resulted in extensive erosion of the trappings of honor and martial mores that informed western martial culture and warfare for centuries. The soldier is no longer popularly imagined as an honorable, heroic officer defending society, but as just another monkey in the chain (arranged in a long line by height, each beaten by his larger neighbor while busily beating away on the smaller monkey on his other side...)
There is something wrong with the way our nation uses martial interventions. Parcel to this issue is our use of mercenaries in our modern military actions. Private military corporations are an end run around our democracy, and allow an egregious misuse of American combat veterans, who are these businesses primary employees. The issues attending warfare are altogether too vital, and important, to be trusted to private companies. And the men and women defending our nation while in private employ deserve the same protections and compensations as our military personnel serving in our formal military.
We live in a nation tormented by a storm of miseries. Beset by a bewildering stew pot of problems, systemic abuses, human weaknesses and political contention, it is difficult to prioritize. Modern America is in a disastrous state: we are living in a national Emergency Room in a disaster and while we mostly all agree there is a problem of some sort, we cannot even come to agreement about a triage policy. Certainly no agreement about what the problem actually is, or a triage policy, is in any danger of suddenly blooming into consensus.
My first impulse is to be more loving, to look for a way to promote empathy in myself. If I could change how some of these problems express inside myself, that could be a place to start. But I think maybe that is asking too much (or too little). Perhaps we might begin using our media, already so gifted at tweaking and guiding public behavior, to promote more civic - positive political policy.
Our political system is geared to respond to financial pressure. In many ways, our democracy functions in a figurative, rather than literal, sense. We have a functional government, it's just not really properly called a democracy - and just what it should be called would depend upon the level of government you were speaking of and belongs elsewhere. But the political realities in which we live could be used to promote a more utopian social ideal than what we currently endure. The problem is, lack of misery or profit. In order to combat the powerful private interests, one would need to marshall financial resources that could compete with those of the "enemy". As the forces arrayed seem to be those of the .5% of the nation that control 99.5% of the national wealth standing one one side, and the 99.5% of the population who control .5% of the national wealth on the other, the result of the conflict does not seem to be in doubt.
I believe most of the foregoing paragraph; and while i grant the pessimistic end of the final sentence, it is not the final word on the subject. but its a complex field of thorny issues. i will lay out some of my thoughts to try and martial up some clarity:
A small minority of our nation wields enormous power.
Our government operates largely by forces opaque to common observation and exempt from democratic checks.
The people of our nation are not in a position to challenge the ruling minority through direct financial means.
The media wields enormous influence in the minds of the nation.
Much of the work of the ruling class is carried out by systemic forces rather than through their direct oversight and intervention (the system has many self-perpetuating & self-regulating components that further the aims of the ruling class due to a convenient confluence of self-interest, abject dependence and need rather than direct, insidious manipulations by nefarious cabals)
With these premises, I start to see a means of attacking the problem. Trying to compete on financial grounds seems doomed - the enemy are too well armed, and our side are poor by definition. However, the ability to utilize media to effect public opinion is the elephant in the room. Media in the modern age is in an unprecedented position in its' history - never before has the bar been so low so far as having access to news and information. And never before has information been more readily available, and in whatever medium a person may require. In an age of unprecedented literacy, knowledge and information are readily available in many formats, though most modern news media comes in spoken format by default.
It seems the easiest way to begin assaulting the enemies' power base is through media. n a sense, our social fighting about choosing presidential canddates is part of thr same effort. We need to build social consensus about what the problems are, and agreement about prioritizing the solution actions. Presidential elections are great excersizes for mobiliing communities to implement social changes.
The take away from elections is that the organizing methods, team building expertise, and deft use of social media technology are important parts of the toolchest for social change. Perhaps these organizational skills could be organized, collated and presented in a format(set of formats) and made available to activist groups. Having a common language and a technology for collaborative communication could help promote cooperation between groups with similar agendas or philosophies. There are lots of reasons to promote the idea, I will move on.
The nation is seething with emotion, strongly in the grip of the debates that attend the ramp-up for our coming national elections. Much like the brief flare of charitable donations that accompany the yearly end of the western calendar, our national social conscience ignites for a brief, indignant inferno every four years. Following presidential selection, the fires are banked, receding into coals nursed by the dedicated, and those too effected, tormented or afflicted to be allowed the option of turning their attenttion away.
It seems a tragic waste, to allow all that organization to be squandered, thrown away after the election if over. Perhaps civic groups should exist, and be utilized by candidates that can secure them. My neighborhood, in North Minneapolis, could certainly use a civic, socially minded organization that bwas well connected through social media. And while my urban setting is more charged with racial and financial issues tha the "average" american neighborhood, the utility of such a group would be very broad indeed..
I have perhaps, again, stumbled across another argument in favor of what are, in effect, Anarchist "Affinity Groups" becoming mainstream, common facets of modern society. Of course you could never market it as an "Anarchist" anything, but the idea is the same - self organizing civic groups arranged by common interests strong eneough to motivate actual activity and action. The civic answer to religious community service organizations, in a sense. Perhaps the massive public interest in social media could be harnessed toward social progress in addittion to the practical applicationa of socializing and entertainment.
Friday, January 1, 2016
At-will compassion, situational cooperative flexibility, and desire to obtain personal change
There is a group of humans who's language includes uvula - waving as part of their language sound pallet. Not only could a person like myself not make this(these) sound(s), it is unlikely I would even perceive it(them). (Not from inherent inability, but because I am an adult and the developmental opportunity has passed, similarly my ears lost the high-range sensitivity from disuse) There are differences in these persons experienced reality and my own. This population, in fact, admirably illustrates difference. They possess an ability that I do not. We are, in a practical sense, unequal. From their perspective, I could be said to be disabled, lacking both an ability to produce part of the sound spectrum, and also to perceive that spectrum. We are certainly equally human; yet we are not equal in capacity or performance.
What does it mean to all be created equal? If equality is esoteric and figurative, rather than practical and literal, how does it differ from a "Noble Lie"? Does our Equality rest on the claim of Created equality - we are equal in some otherworldly, god-derived sense, because God "created" us so? Is it a legal fiat accomplished by declaration? Or are we equal in the Animal Farm sense - as in, we are all equal, but Some are more equal than Others?
The Buddha seems partial to compassion. While that is another kettle of fish, it is an answer of sorts to this topic for myself. I am sure I could dredge up a similar Christian rationalization too. We have lots of choice about the world we perceive. Part of our shared humanity is the investment=suffering equation.
We live in a world in which we are connected in diverse novel ways. Our social dynamics really need a greater level of complexity, in order to really make the most of human potential. Dolphins clique up in a complex manner, with second, third, and fourth order sociopolitical alliances that vary and alter depending on circumstances. Other groups and individual dolphins can be enemies or allies depending on where and when they encounter each other - the behavior suits the dolphins best interest, rather than some code. As it sits right now for humans, the kind of fluid consensus building behavior I am talking about is really only practiced by the legal weasels and mercenary politicians behind closed doors, rather than in the open by respected leaders.
There is a pressing need to build excuses, or motivation, preference, desire, within ourselves to promote compassion and practical consensus-building. I am promoting compassion here expressly because of the way compassion nurtures consensus. When in my interest, it should be possible to respect people who hold hostile or opposing views to my own. It should even be possible to find common cause with such persons, on such occasions when doing so would profit my goals or needs (this threatens to branch off into "can the end justify the means" discussion).
The media has an agenda of its own (whatever you may think that is). There are lots of causes trying to address specific issues, but few voices raised to promote better, more complex and practical consensus building in general. That is where our countries attention should be spent - on building a social desire for modern, practical engines of democracy. These practical democracy engines could benefit humanity on a wide spectrum of levels. But to harness this well of potential, the people of our nation need to be hungry for that kind of change.
We live in a troubled, fractious nation. Our country has been taught to know a constant hunger for safety from the threat of terror, and a shifting faulty economy. As the nation starves for solution to economic and civil unrest, so too our nation must nurture a hunger for obtaining broader solutions: we need to WANT to obtain consensus. It is well and good that we have political parties that represent differing philosophies, but the system is incomplete - it needs a means of bringing the machine all together following an election. And more generally, the nation needs to be hungry, to desire, the sort of connectedness and civil communion in which practical consensus can regularly be realized.
We as humans are created equal in many senses, many perspectives. But you would need a pretty loose definition of the word "equal", if you were to claim that "U.S. citizens all enjoy equal opportunities, treatment and privileges". So, within me, I see two related areas of desirable growth. Both of these are topics which recommend themselves to a broader audience. The first, is the need to nurture a desire for access to an at-will compassionate perspective: to want the capacity to empathize when chosen or desired. The second, is the ability to develop a sensitivity to how much objective utility a particular instance of situational cooperation offers- the ability to see when the practical deployment of "on-demand" compassion offers utility or benefit. More people might choose cooperation and achieve consensus, if the path were more clearly marked and the map widely published.
After reading this again to edit for clarity, it occurred to me to offer a caveat. I am in no way advocating a lessening of compassion, or that I or anyone else create a means of limiting or lessening/limiting the amount of compassion I/they employ. I advocate broadening the conditions and situations in which compassion and cooperation occur, to the greatest degree practical and reasonable. We need to be responsible in safeguarding ourselves, and whatever causes or values we support - balancing caution against whatever gains we may secure.
There are perspectives that allow us to see humanity as all equal, in some sense. Humans can share similarities, but are not the same. We are challenged by a wild array of difficulties: how we pursue our lives makes a statement about our convictions. How we frame our struggle, identify and name our goals, foes and foils, gives to our selves their aspect and identity. A clever, gifted individual might - with an unusual degree of luck, happenstance, and indulgence - be to some degree self-realized. But we are none of us self-made. With motivation, practice, and attention, it is possible to achieve occasional, even regular, periods of self-awareness. Promoting healthy, positive prosocial desires, like at-will compassion and situational social cooperation and consensus-building, seems like a safe, practical intervention.
What does it mean to all be created equal? If equality is esoteric and figurative, rather than practical and literal, how does it differ from a "Noble Lie"? Does our Equality rest on the claim of Created equality - we are equal in some otherworldly, god-derived sense, because God "created" us so? Is it a legal fiat accomplished by declaration? Or are we equal in the Animal Farm sense - as in, we are all equal, but Some are more equal than Others?
The Buddha seems partial to compassion. While that is another kettle of fish, it is an answer of sorts to this topic for myself. I am sure I could dredge up a similar Christian rationalization too. We have lots of choice about the world we perceive. Part of our shared humanity is the investment=suffering equation.
We live in a world in which we are connected in diverse novel ways. Our social dynamics really need a greater level of complexity, in order to really make the most of human potential. Dolphins clique up in a complex manner, with second, third, and fourth order sociopolitical alliances that vary and alter depending on circumstances. Other groups and individual dolphins can be enemies or allies depending on where and when they encounter each other - the behavior suits the dolphins best interest, rather than some code. As it sits right now for humans, the kind of fluid consensus building behavior I am talking about is really only practiced by the legal weasels and mercenary politicians behind closed doors, rather than in the open by respected leaders.
There is a pressing need to build excuses, or motivation, preference, desire, within ourselves to promote compassion and practical consensus-building. I am promoting compassion here expressly because of the way compassion nurtures consensus. When in my interest, it should be possible to respect people who hold hostile or opposing views to my own. It should even be possible to find common cause with such persons, on such occasions when doing so would profit my goals or needs (this threatens to branch off into "can the end justify the means" discussion).
The media has an agenda of its own (whatever you may think that is). There are lots of causes trying to address specific issues, but few voices raised to promote better, more complex and practical consensus building in general. That is where our countries attention should be spent - on building a social desire for modern, practical engines of democracy. These practical democracy engines could benefit humanity on a wide spectrum of levels. But to harness this well of potential, the people of our nation need to be hungry for that kind of change.
We live in a troubled, fractious nation. Our country has been taught to know a constant hunger for safety from the threat of terror, and a shifting faulty economy. As the nation starves for solution to economic and civil unrest, so too our nation must nurture a hunger for obtaining broader solutions: we need to WANT to obtain consensus. It is well and good that we have political parties that represent differing philosophies, but the system is incomplete - it needs a means of bringing the machine all together following an election. And more generally, the nation needs to be hungry, to desire, the sort of connectedness and civil communion in which practical consensus can regularly be realized.
We as humans are created equal in many senses, many perspectives. But you would need a pretty loose definition of the word "equal", if you were to claim that "U.S. citizens all enjoy equal opportunities, treatment and privileges". So, within me, I see two related areas of desirable growth. Both of these are topics which recommend themselves to a broader audience. The first, is the need to nurture a desire for access to an at-will compassionate perspective: to want the capacity to empathize when chosen or desired. The second, is the ability to develop a sensitivity to how much objective utility a particular instance of situational cooperation offers- the ability to see when the practical deployment of "on-demand" compassion offers utility or benefit. More people might choose cooperation and achieve consensus, if the path were more clearly marked and the map widely published.
After reading this again to edit for clarity, it occurred to me to offer a caveat. I am in no way advocating a lessening of compassion, or that I or anyone else create a means of limiting or lessening/limiting the amount of compassion I/they employ. I advocate broadening the conditions and situations in which compassion and cooperation occur, to the greatest degree practical and reasonable. We need to be responsible in safeguarding ourselves, and whatever causes or values we support - balancing caution against whatever gains we may secure.
There are perspectives that allow us to see humanity as all equal, in some sense. Humans can share similarities, but are not the same. We are challenged by a wild array of difficulties: how we pursue our lives makes a statement about our convictions. How we frame our struggle, identify and name our goals, foes and foils, gives to our selves their aspect and identity. A clever, gifted individual might - with an unusual degree of luck, happenstance, and indulgence - be to some degree self-realized. But we are none of us self-made. With motivation, practice, and attention, it is possible to achieve occasional, even regular, periods of self-awareness. Promoting healthy, positive prosocial desires, like at-will compassion and situational social cooperation and consensus-building, seems like a safe, practical intervention.
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Gun Control Hysteria
I am a legal gun owner. I do not want the U.S. to alter our national gun laws, unless it were to expand privleges or relax restrictions on them. If individual states wish to experiment with a range of approaches to firearm regulation, well, that is what states' legal systems exist for. But I will continue to live in states that allow me private ownership of firearms, so long as the option exists. While I recognize the fact that firearms can be used to commit crimes, so too can a wide range of other tools (none of which are the subject of comparable media hysteria or legal interference).
In modern U.S. life, we are often motivated to support organizations because they are simply the only allies available. I regularly vote for Democrats. I am not, myself, a Democrat - I am something both left and right of them, some Anarchist "ism" or other. But the Democrats frequently either most closely represent my beleifs/political needs; or, most often, really are just defence against the republican candidate. In rare cases, the situation is reversed, and I vote against a democrat.
It is this sort of relationship I have with the NRA. I do not really like much about the NRA. Many of the people that work as spokesmen for them really alienate me. And in social life, I do not have alot of friends that are members. Or if I do, I do not know it, because they are'nt telling. But I am an NRA member. This organization represents my interests to a certain extent- the privledge/right to lawfully keep, own, and use, firearms.
In their job as lobbyists protecting my Firearm privliges, I expect them to perform. I want them to succeed as pro-firearm lobbyists. I do not have to like the NRA or its spokesmen to be a member. They kind of need to be awful, I think, as they exist to lobby politicians - a bunch of lying, morally bankrupt vampiric elites. They have to be awful to be able to influence politicians. The NRA has a core mission; currently, it represents my interests in that respect.
In modern U.S. life, we are often motivated to support organizations because they are simply the only allies available. I regularly vote for Democrats. I am not, myself, a Democrat - I am something both left and right of them, some Anarchist "ism" or other. But the Democrats frequently either most closely represent my beleifs/political needs; or, most often, really are just defence against the republican candidate. In rare cases, the situation is reversed, and I vote against a democrat.
It is this sort of relationship I have with the NRA. I do not really like much about the NRA. Many of the people that work as spokesmen for them really alienate me. And in social life, I do not have alot of friends that are members. Or if I do, I do not know it, because they are'nt telling. But I am an NRA member. This organization represents my interests to a certain extent- the privledge/right to lawfully keep, own, and use, firearms.
In their job as lobbyists protecting my Firearm privliges, I expect them to perform. I want them to succeed as pro-firearm lobbyists. I do not have to like the NRA or its spokesmen to be a member. They kind of need to be awful, I think, as they exist to lobby politicians - a bunch of lying, morally bankrupt vampiric elites. They have to be awful to be able to influence politicians. The NRA has a core mission; currently, it represents my interests in that respect.
Monday, September 22, 2014
I have been vaping (using an electronic cigarette) for 3 years, in place of smoking cigarettes. Prior to that, I used ecigs for three years as a stand in when smoking was inconvenient or impossible. I would have transited sooner, but the technology was just not there - ecigs have only started to really get great in the last 4 years or so.
I have lots of personal and professional experience with addiction, in many forms. Smoking is somewhere in the middle of the road as addictive substances go. It is damnably hard to shrug off. I am very happy to have ecigs as a harm reduction strategy, as I am seriously dependent on nicotine.
I will be keeping up on the page better in the following days, sticking more to the ecig topic. Please address comments and thoughts to FB page, thanks.
I have lots of personal and professional experience with addiction, in many forms. Smoking is somewhere in the middle of the road as addictive substances go. It is damnably hard to shrug off. I am very happy to have ecigs as a harm reduction strategy, as I am seriously dependent on nicotine.
I will be keeping up on the page better in the following days, sticking more to the ecig topic. Please address comments and thoughts to FB page, thanks.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Medical Marijuana in Mn
Minnesota currently is a "decriminalized" Marijuana state; possession of a small amount is subject to civil penalties - a fine. Small amounts of Marijuana will not send you to jail (unless you find a way to ramp it up, like failure to pay your ticket, which could result in arrest and some time in a holding pen). In 2009, Governor Tim Pawlenty vetoed a Medical MJ bill; since then, there have been no serious attempts to put Medical MJ legislation in place.
Minnesota has spent a number of years creating a harsh legal fiction to combat Marijuana production. A series of court decisions have set the stage for railroading anyone caught growing pot straight into jail. In MN, legal precedent now in place considers the act of growing Marijuana the same as distributing Marijuana. So, any Chemtherapy patient caught growing their own medicine would be prosecuted the same way a Crystal Meth lab owner would be - with similar penalties attached. Sound to you lame?
There a a number of compelling arguments backing up the legalization movement, and I will not bother going in to them here. The arguments against legalization are almost all flimsy, based on lies, misconceptions, o plain old prejudice. The only argument I can give any weight to at all, is the "Gateway drug" aregument - that research shows that Marijuana can be many drug addicts first drug experience, and MAY lead to the use of stronger drugs.I mention this argument because it is difficult to refute - many people who eventually go on to become addicted to strong narcotics ARE exposed to Marijuana first. I respond to that issue by bringing up smoking cigarettes - they are THE ULTIMATE Gateway drug. Tobacco use is far more common as a Gateway drug than Marijuana - and it is legal and socially accepted (sort of).
It is a massive injustice to criminalize marijuana use, production, posession and sales. Decades of law enforcement has been unable to make a dent in its use. It is in no danger of disappearing; why are we not taxing it? How can our government fail to follow the clear desires of its people? Who is benefitting from Marijuana Prohibition?
As the economy slowly deflates, we will no doubt see an increase in local marijuana production. A cash crop could not be created to be easier to grow - its a tenacious weed! In the coming years, will we Minnesotans continue to allow our elected officials screw us over like this? Or, are we going to finally make this a priority in our elections? I for one intent to make this a key issue in my political decisions over the next decade. Getting involved, making appointments to speak with my elected officials, email campaigns, and social networking are all in the cards.
Minnesota has spent a number of years creating a harsh legal fiction to combat Marijuana production. A series of court decisions have set the stage for railroading anyone caught growing pot straight into jail. In MN, legal precedent now in place considers the act of growing Marijuana the same as distributing Marijuana. So, any Chemtherapy patient caught growing their own medicine would be prosecuted the same way a Crystal Meth lab owner would be - with similar penalties attached. Sound to you lame?
There a a number of compelling arguments backing up the legalization movement, and I will not bother going in to them here. The arguments against legalization are almost all flimsy, based on lies, misconceptions, o plain old prejudice. The only argument I can give any weight to at all, is the "Gateway drug" aregument - that research shows that Marijuana can be many drug addicts first drug experience, and MAY lead to the use of stronger drugs.I mention this argument because it is difficult to refute - many people who eventually go on to become addicted to strong narcotics ARE exposed to Marijuana first. I respond to that issue by bringing up smoking cigarettes - they are THE ULTIMATE Gateway drug. Tobacco use is far more common as a Gateway drug than Marijuana - and it is legal and socially accepted (sort of).
It is a massive injustice to criminalize marijuana use, production, posession and sales. Decades of law enforcement has been unable to make a dent in its use. It is in no danger of disappearing; why are we not taxing it? How can our government fail to follow the clear desires of its people? Who is benefitting from Marijuana Prohibition?
As the economy slowly deflates, we will no doubt see an increase in local marijuana production. A cash crop could not be created to be easier to grow - its a tenacious weed! In the coming years, will we Minnesotans continue to allow our elected officials screw us over like this? Or, are we going to finally make this a priority in our elections? I for one intent to make this a key issue in my political decisions over the next decade. Getting involved, making appointments to speak with my elected officials, email campaigns, and social networking are all in the cards.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Protect IP Act highlights conflict at the core of our national values
Are we a nation of individual creatures, or are we a nation of business interests? Clearly, we can look at our country from either perspective; and the perspective we take will influence our assessment of how well those interests are being championed and asserted. But just because we can look at this topic through the example of individual Vs business (or Collective), does that mean that there really are two "sides" ?
We could look at this pair of national interests and be tempted to see two separate camps at war and in polar opposition to one another. And certainly, there are many examples of individuals who are completely in one camp or another; but these extreme examples are popularized in the media because they allow the bulk of us to maintain the fiction that we are in one of these two camps as well. I would suggest that we are all beneficiaries of this fiction; that we enjoy the benefits of both individual freedoms, and the fruits of large scale, managed cooperative enterprises. However, we insulate our conscience with this polarized fiction, so as to both create a Bug-a-boo to relieve us of blame, and create a target for this guilt.
We have a long history of "piracy" in the sense used for online appropriation of intellectual property; many similar issues have cropped up over the long history of commerce. While it is irritating, the appropriation of "intellectual property" is a fact of life; it is endemic to the model. Fundamental; one could even refer to it as a basic principle, something formulated like "Successful products will be copied; production will occur outside of legitimate owners control in proportion to the demand for the item in question; measures taken to limit such appropriation will be unsuccessful.
I base my conclusion on historic precedents like the copyright laws of the late middle ages protecting cloth patterns, and the chinese laws attempting to stem the tide of opium. Time and time again, draconian measures taken to stop some undesired activity fail in their stated aim. People will alter their approach when the risks change, but they will never simply pack it in and give up. People are evolved to game systems - we can't help ourselves. Open, legal market measures will never curb black market activities. In the best case, such measures drive the wheels of evolution, forcing the development of better, more efficient, or more refined black market product.
So, we do not ever arrive at the cessation or significant curtailment of the undesired activity; do we enjoy any benefit from censorship? Well, a number of individuals will certainly get some measure of satisfaction from the legal penalties inflicted on a small number of consumers caught in the act; but again, these penalties will not effect the behavior of others to any significant extent. This is where I see the real intent of the Protect IP Act: the only real effect it can have is to allow the blacklisting of online sites without oversight or review by the public.
We have been exposed to a constant stream of incidents in which members of our government have been caught using the system and its laws to hide a wide array of wrongs and crimes. The abuse of government authority is too great a risk - too realistic and likely a threat - to allow them to interfere with distribution of information on the internet. Time and time again, we have been shown that we cannot trust the government to rationally and honorably exercise powers such as the censorship
We could look at this pair of national interests and be tempted to see two separate camps at war and in polar opposition to one another. And certainly, there are many examples of individuals who are completely in one camp or another; but these extreme examples are popularized in the media because they allow the bulk of us to maintain the fiction that we are in one of these two camps as well. I would suggest that we are all beneficiaries of this fiction; that we enjoy the benefits of both individual freedoms, and the fruits of large scale, managed cooperative enterprises. However, we insulate our conscience with this polarized fiction, so as to both create a Bug-a-boo to relieve us of blame, and create a target for this guilt.
We have a long history of "piracy" in the sense used for online appropriation of intellectual property; many similar issues have cropped up over the long history of commerce. While it is irritating, the appropriation of "intellectual property" is a fact of life; it is endemic to the model. Fundamental; one could even refer to it as a basic principle, something formulated like "Successful products will be copied; production will occur outside of legitimate owners control in proportion to the demand for the item in question; measures taken to limit such appropriation will be unsuccessful.
I base my conclusion on historic precedents like the copyright laws of the late middle ages protecting cloth patterns, and the chinese laws attempting to stem the tide of opium. Time and time again, draconian measures taken to stop some undesired activity fail in their stated aim. People will alter their approach when the risks change, but they will never simply pack it in and give up. People are evolved to game systems - we can't help ourselves. Open, legal market measures will never curb black market activities. In the best case, such measures drive the wheels of evolution, forcing the development of better, more efficient, or more refined black market product.
So, we do not ever arrive at the cessation or significant curtailment of the undesired activity; do we enjoy any benefit from censorship? Well, a number of individuals will certainly get some measure of satisfaction from the legal penalties inflicted on a small number of consumers caught in the act; but again, these penalties will not effect the behavior of others to any significant extent. This is where I see the real intent of the Protect IP Act: the only real effect it can have is to allow the blacklisting of online sites without oversight or review by the public.
We have been exposed to a constant stream of incidents in which members of our government have been caught using the system and its laws to hide a wide array of wrongs and crimes. The abuse of government authority is too great a risk - too realistic and likely a threat - to allow them to interfere with distribution of information on the internet. Time and time again, we have been shown that we cannot trust the government to rationally and honorably exercise powers such as the censorship
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)