Survival of the non-stupid

Distracted pedestrians stumble into danger
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP50e3f5f32487449299f8201a13bd4ad5.html

Personally I think our gene pool needs a bit of scrubbing, so losing some of these people would be a fine thing for me. However, since that won’t be allowed, creating no-texting-while-walking laws are just as idiotic as no-texting-while-driving laws, we don’t need more laws, we need uniform enforcement of our existing laws. Distracted driving is already illegal and I bet there are laws on the book that have something to do with barging out into traffic without looking. If someone isn’t paying attention and walks into someone else, isn’t that the same as assault? Of course our ‘justice’ system is famous for its non-uniform application, so all this ranting is for naught.

This made me chortle so much I was worried my co-workers would think I was having a seizure (particularly the last)…

The cases include a 24-year-old woman who walked into a telephone pole while texting; a 28-year-old man who was walking along a road when he fell into a ditch while talking on a cellphone; a 12-year-old boy who was looking at a video game when he was clipped by a pickup truck as he crossed the street; and a 53-year-old woman who fell off a curb while texting and lacerated her face.

One 67-year-old man walking along the side of a road was hit a by a bicyclist who was talking on a cellphone as he rode. The pedestrian injured a knee.

Not sure how I feel…

Why Capitalism Has an Image Problem
Charles Murray examines the cloud now hanging over American business—and what today’s capitalists can do about it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443931404577549223178294822.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I got no idea who this Charles Murray guy is and am more than a bit dubious when the tag at the end of his article is this:

Mr. Murray is the author of “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010” and the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Having said that, there are some interesting elements in it. Just as democracy has proven to be a terrible form of government (but better than all the other alternatives) (paraphrased from Winston Churchill), capitalism is probably a horrible means of distributing society’s wealth, just more effective than any other. I do not now believe that unbridled capitalism is ever a good thing (I did think that as a youth, though), I think that constraints need to be put on to keep things from getting to the point where it does more harm to society than it benefits (today is a _perfect_ example of capitalism run amok). For example, the author complains about EPA, OSHA, etc. workplace regulations and how meeting them provides a barrier to entry for smaller organization and thus should be done away with. I consider that argument flatly wrong, (many of) those regulations were put in place to keep workers safe from the excesses of capitalism (e.g., cutting safety corners to maximize profit). If a new entrepreneur can’t find a way to compete in a given regulatory environment, then she should direct her attentions elsewhere. I agree very much, however, with the author’s assertions that our current system is out of control and incapable of benefiting society, but I don’t think the answer is to get rid of the system. Our system is corrupt, that is no doubt, so eliminate the corruption, not the system.

I won’t drone on about this article; I flip flop back and forth liking and hating it. I do, though, think it is something that might interest my reader(s), so wanted to post it here for your consideration.

Brain freeze

The Brain Set Free
Lifting neural constraints could turn back time, making way for youthful flexibility
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/342559/title/The_Brain_Set_Free

It is interesting to me that it might be practical to ‘soften’ the brain a bit to allow for learning complex new subject such as languages. I suspect that this ‘hardening’ process would be a survival characteristic as you need maximal decision making capability when a predator is striking and any sort of fuzzy thinking at that point would be highly counter productive. However, that was then, this is now, and I can see a huge value in allowing the hardened brains of adults to be softened enough to pick up new information (and I am not just talking about the Tea Party ;-)). In particular, given our much longer (on average) lives and our currently rapidly changing society (prior to a century or so ago, little was expected to change in the average lifetime), it might be a huge value to society to allow people in their more mature years to more easily grasp new knowledge. Brain retraining might become something routine, like an oil change for your car.

I have tried to learn a couple of languages (Mandarin and Tagalog most recently, Latin and French whilst in high school) and find/found it very difficult. I can memorize words and some phrases, but find that I am nearly incapable without context. I bet if I could ‘soften’ my brain for a while I might be able to easily become fluent, but as things stand now I doubt I will ever do much.

So obvious to me

GDP likely slowed without strong consumer spending
http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/25/news/economy/GDP-consumer-spending/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

This is what happens when a strong (financially) government elects to engage in austerity during an economic downturn. The downturn goes on and on and on and on and growth, if there is any measurable, is anemic. The article mentions the chicken-and-egg issue of poor consumer spending keeping wages and jobs down leading to poor consumer spending, round and round she goes. To me the obvious solution is to take the investor dollars being pushed on us (on the U.S., of course, no one wants to give money to ordinary people!) at such low rates that it is below inflation and spend it on fixing our dilapidated infrastructure. That not only provides a HUGE tangible investment (irrespective of any inevitable growth in tax revenues which would likely trivially be able to pay the loans back) with a payback going decades into the future, but it gives a huge shot in the arm to our economy by reducing unemployment and increasing average wages, thus providing the kick to consumer spending that would reverse this negative spiral.

Of course, since we don’t have any economists in our government (just con-artists with law degrees (yet have never even been lawyers in most cases!)) and nearly all are elected by tiny groups of people that are often living in fantasies, instead we have gridlock and dangerous, idiotic games with shutting down government or threatening to stop paying our bills.

I am not sure why I wrote this post, just thinking about the subject makes me depressed and hopeless…

This seals the deal

Romney in Piers Morgan interview: Stop attacking success
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/26/romney-in-piers-morgan-interview-stop-attacking-success/?hpt=hp_c2

I am now committed to voting for Obama (as much as I detest him; I think I would rather have voted for Ron Paul (and I detest him as well)). I now clearly see Romney as the worse evil and as bad as Obama has been for our country I am now convinced that Romney will be worse. The man seems constitutionally incapable of viewing society from any other viewpoint than that of inherited wealth. Well, we can’t all inherit wealth and _someone_ has to work for a living. The article is worth reading entire (as, I suppose, viewing the whole interview), but I copied a couple here for brief discussion…

“Dividing America based on who has money and who hasn’t – who is successful and who is less successful… That is not the American way,” Romney said.

Quite interesting coming from the mouth of someone who is rich because he was born to the right parents and attended the right schools. America has always been divided between those who live large without having to ever lift a finger and those who have to work like hell just to have something to eat at the end of the day (and let us not forget the shrinking middle class that now has to have two incomes just to keep the lights on, let alone plan for retirement). There has always been class in America (like essentially everywhere else in the world, one of the reasons why communism is so quick to devolve into a dictatorship), the difference here has (at least until recently) there was vertical mobility. Vertical mobility, of course, goes both ways, but, as I discuss earlier, the rich are incentivized _against_ vertical mobility because it means they risk losing their wealth. Romney is _clearly_ someone who is intent on blocking vertical mobility and this idiotic blather about ‘dividing America’ is pure and simple smoke screen for the Tea Party idiots and all about maintaining hard class lines and eliminating vertical mobility.

“I heard Marco Rubio the other day, he said, ‘You know, we were poor living in Miami, we saw these big homes across town…my parents never said to us, gee why don’t those people give to us some of what they have. They said instead, aren’t we lucky to live in a country where with education and hard work we might be able to achieve that ourselves’.”

Yeah, except that today, education means a lifetime(!) of student loan payments (I am still making mine and expect to continue for a decade, at least) and and you can’t work hard if you can’t get a damn job! The ‘American dream’ has been lost for at least a whole generation and guess what? That loss came to benefit the already rich and powerful! The rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer and that is all the rich care about.

[Regarding gun control] “The real point has to relate to individuals that are deranged and distressed and to find them, to help them and to keep them from carrying out terrible acts,”

Except the GOP wants to cut the last few shreds of the social safety net that used to help treat ‘deranged and distressed’ that either keep them off the street or help them keep from hurting themselves and others. Now, had the blowhard followed up this statement with “and I am proposing we channel billions of dollars into treatments for the ‘deranged and distressed’, then he might have earned himself some points.

So, to conclude: Obama in ’12! At least he gives you lube when he fucks you!

Sudden melt

NASA: Strange and sudden massive melt in Greenland
The abnormally warm weather is causing meltdowns even in Greenland’s highest and coldest places
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/nasa_strange_and_sudden_massive_melt_in_greenland/

I read this yesterday but wasn’t motivated to post at the time. To me this is just a natural variation in weather and climate and essentially meaningless in the global scale. Since I am a global warming skeptic (well, I _am_ skeptical that we need to destroy our society in order to ‘save’ it from human influenced global warming) naturally I more or less ignored the hysterical elements of the article and was just interested in the science.

Today I find this rather interesting, amazingly non-hysterical article on Fox:

Skeptics put the freeze on NASA ‘hot air’ about Greenland ice
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/26/skeptics-put-freeze-on-nasa-hot-air-about-greenland-ice/

The title is the most hysterical part of the article; it seems well written to me (I guess, just like the WSJ, occasionally, likely by accident, something gets written and published that isn’t horribly slanted or outright lies). It was this second article that motivated me to post. Just like I got interested when I saw the epigenetic adaptation of fish to higher temps.

Sixteen _trillion_ dollars!

Protectors of Wall Street
A vital new book from the TARP IG, and yesterday’s vote on a Fed audit, reveal some disturbing truths
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/26/protectors_of_wall_street/

I knew that the situation was bad, but I guess I missed out at how bad it was/is. Sixteen trillion dollars is a figure that is a bit difficult to imagine and one I can absolutely guarantee that if injected into our economy at the ‘user’ level (as opposed to the ‘abuser’ level) we would be humming along very nicely and probably back up to full employment (which, btw, is estimated to be around 4% unemployment). If we figure that Wall Street was ‘only’ able to get 1% on that money, that is $160 _billion_ dollars in pure profit (how many of the Fortune 500 need to be tallied up to get to that figure?) with not one tiny shred of risk. How, you ask? Well, the Fed lends (gives) money to Wall Street at just about zero interest rate, then Wall Street can then just turn right around and buy T-Bills or some such for a zero risk return. I am not up on the rates at the moment, but as I recall they are running below the rate of inflation (meaning investors are actually paying our government to lend it money!) and inflation is running around 1.5-2%. I think these secret loans are at a quarter percent or something link that (the Fed published those rates, they haven’t been changed for a long time and as I recall they are very close to zero).

Now, imagine that these Wall Street institutions actually use this money to do inter-bank lending (the now famed LIBOR), something that is just slightly more risky than buying US T-Bills, they can probably make 2% or even more off their nearly free money. All of this ‘lending’ doesn’t do a damn thing to stimulate the economy, but it does provide HUGE profits for the institutions that they can subsequently use to bribe (did I say bribe? I meant make campaign contributions) politicians or pay the astronomical salaries and bonuses for the airheads in charge.

Of course, the real crime here is that reporting this won’t make a damn bit of difference because the sheeple are more interested in reality TV.

Microsats

Artist makes satellite at home in just $500
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/personal-tech/computing/Artist-makes-satellite-at-home-in-just-500/articleshow/15162830.cms

This is the second time an article has got me thinking about the idea of micro satellites. Ten thousand dollars a pound sounds prohibitively expensive unless you can engineer ways to keep the overall weight down. Higher orbit is expensive, but once out of the bulk of the atmosphere and in an orbit there are several relatively low cost methods of increasing your orbital height. I am a huge fan of the idea of inflatables and have given a lot of thought over the years (decades, really; I started to get into space before I became a teenager) to how I would design something. This article makes me think that it might be a hobby worth pursuing (an expensive hobby, to be sure, unless it becomes practical to piggy back off of other projects (according to my calculations, the guy in this article had to pay over $100K to get his $500 satellite into orbit, or $48,000 per pound)). I have a couple of ideas for rocket design I would like to try, but haven’t pursued any of them because they are quite unlikely to provide any meaningful income for a decade or longer even if they work. I had hoped to pursue this sort of activity after becoming wealthy, but that looks increasingly unlikely as I get older (I still claw on to some fantasies, but it gets harder and harder to maintain a grip after all this time), so articles like this make me think that it might be worth exploring doing it now (or rather in a few years after our current expensive hobby project (greenhouse/pool) is paid for). There is that web site for getting donations to do projects (kickstarter.com) that might be interesting to explore for funding. I have thought off and on about projects to add to that site but nothing has grabbed me enough to want to invest the effort. There are space related projects already on the site and a few seem to have been successful, so there does appear to be some potential.

“Fashionable consumption” and “engineering of consent”

Welcome to post-legal America
How the Magna Carta became a minor carta
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/noam_chomsky_on_post_legal_america/

In general I am not one to believe in conspiracy theories. That attitude has evolved over my life, though. As a child I was intensely into UFOs, for instance, but the discovery that the vast majority of the iconic images were known fakes and essentially all the rest could easily be explained awakened the skeptic in me. I was convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy, not because I believed in any grassy knoll (to me the forensics is quite convincing: all the shots came from the book depository), but because his behavior wasn’t in alignment with the vast majority of political assassins. That attitude changed when I saw an interview of Lee’s brother where he said that he was convinced that Lee had done the dirty deed because Lee never once denied being responsible and Lee likely wanted to bask in the glow of the spotlight.

I have read about global conspiracies of various elite organizations, such as the Masons and of course Jews, but just couldn’t get interested in them because of the implausibly large number of people that would have to keep their efforts so secret. This article, though, is a real eye opener for me as it spins a plausible story about a global conspiracy of elites to govern the world, yet requires no one keep any secrets at all. Indeed, the ‘conspiracists’ (can you call it a conspiracy when there is no secrecy?) can detail their efforts on the evening news and people will _still_ ignore their efforts. This is a really interesting article and I encourage all my reader(s) to take the time to absorb it (it is a bit long, but please make time). I have snipped out a couple of portions, though, that I believe warrant emphasis…

…the public must be “put in its place,” marginalized and controlled — for their own interests of course. They were too “stupid and ignorant” to be allowed to run their own affairs. That task was to be left to the “intelligent minority,” who must be protected from “the trampling and the roar of [the] bewildered herd,” the “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders” — the “rascal multitude” as they were termed by their seventeenth century predecessors. The role of the general population was to be “spectators,” not “participants in action,” in a properly functioning democratic society

I am afraid that I exhibit much of that attitude. The only caveat I can offer, though, is that I am viewing the sheeple from a position where (if the article is to be believed) they have already been trained to be helpless and ignorant (and like it). I have viewed collectivism (a more polite word for communism) as an unstable form of government because it is so vulnerable to being taken over by a strong personality intent on maximizing personal gain over collective gain. However, it does allow for the average level of existence to be quite high, though at the near absolute expense of any elite or wealth. I acknowledge that it is _possible_ for a collective to be stable, presuming a well-educated group of people that continually monitor themselves to mitigate against herd behavior behind a charismatic leader, I am just not used to seeing groups of those sorts of people (outside of such fantastic things like Star Trek), just an individual here or there.

I have advocated a system that blocks sheeple from participation in government, but my approach allows anyone who is intent on investing some time and thought into the system whereas the above quote seems clear to me that non-elites are, by definition, incapable of participating in governance and thus must be excluded. Since elitism is inherited (can’t be one if you weren’t born to the right parents and attend the right schools, doanchano), the above quoted approach is nothing different than a monarchy. Once you get convinced that the sheeple are incapable of thought (something I tend to agree with whenever I see the poll numbers for Romney) then it is a trivial step to actively engineering society to keep ‘them’ pacified and under control. Indeed, it is trivial to extrapolate to our entire idiotic popularity contest form of government election as nothing more than a well orchestrated effort to keep the sheeple so wound up that they don’t have the energy to give a damn that the elites are carefully rigging the system in their favor.

Like I said, a real easy ‘conspiracy’ theory to believe.

Among the many topics that are not the business of the bewildered herd is foreign affairs. Anyone who has studied declassified secret documents will have discovered that, to a large extent, their classification was meant to protect public officials from public scrutiny. Domestically, the rabble should not hear the advice given by the courts to major corporations: that they should devote some highly visible efforts to good works, so that an “aroused public” will not discover the enormous benefits provided to them by the nanny state. More generally the U.S. public should not learn that “state policies are overwhelmingly regressive, thus reinforcing and expanding social inequality,” though designed in ways that lead “people to think that the government helps only the undeserving poor, allowing politicians to mobilize and exploit anti-government rhetoric and values even as they continue to funnel support to their better-off constituents” — I’m quoting from the main establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, not from some radical rag.

The above just serves as reinforcement for the earlier quote, just brought into a more modern perspective. Indeed, it is very easy to extend the ‘conspiracy’ theory to include the author (and, were I to have a large readership, to myself) since by allowing a certain amount of dissent the ‘shadow government’ can help direct the energies of the few that might evolve into revolutionaries. I am reminded of parts of the book the God Emperor of Dune (Frank Herbert was one of my favorite authors) where the leader would ‘test’ revolutionaries and if they passed the test (the test was basically to determine if they so committed to their cause they would give their life to it) then they were put in charge of the government. No strings attached, nothing. If they survived the test (and the test really was just about that simple), they got to be in charge. It was amazing how fast (granted, this is a book of fiction) they dropped right into line and started to back the system the revolted against. It is trivial to pick apart policies established for the greatest good of the greatest number when you don’t have to implement any of those policies, but once you are responsible for the _consequences_ of any failed policies (and presuming you are a real rebel and not just in it for show (hence the testing)), suddenly the tradeoffs of (reasonable intelligent, greatest-good-for-greatest-number) existing policy make so much more sense.

Sticking with the conspiracy theory aspect for a few more moments, the last nail in the coffin of my belief in UFOs was when someone articulated the theory that, due to budgetary and manpower limitations, the CIA (or whatever it was called back then) developed a way to snow the Russian spies with irrelevancy by initiating these stories about UFOs, Roswell crashes, etc. All that was necessary was from time to time (looking back, about once a decade) have a senior intelligence or military official ‘leak’ ‘evidence’ that the stories are true as his last official act. Thereafter he could deny it all he likes (or embellish, as he desires), the conspiracy believers had what they needed to continue on their own. That way, spies attempting to learn about the latest military / spy technology had to wade through these endless stories of mistaken eye witnesses to the point that it almost becomes impossible to know the ‘real’ from the fantasy. That helps to explain why it was possible to develop the stealth fighter and bomber all those years without anyone in the mainstream being aware of it. Any reports were from fringe UFO nuts easily ignored by the mainstream.

Thus, one can easily see that people like me could be working for the elites and creating a way to vent pressure. Of course I deny such, though an objective view of my life’s accomplishments would say I have been rewarded for such behavior.

The record of the terrorist list is of some interest. For example, in 1988 the Reagan administration declared Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress to be one of the world’s “more notorious terrorist groups,” so that Reagan could continue his support for the Apartheid regime and its murderous depredations in South Africa and in neighboring countries, as part of his “war on terror.” Twenty years later Mandela was finally removed from the terrorist list, and can now travel to the U.S. without a special waiver.

Another interesting case is Saddam Hussein, removed from the terrorist list in 1982 so that the Reagan administration could provide him with support for his invasion of Iran. The support continued well after the war ended. In 1989, President Bush I even invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to the U.S. for advanced training in weapons production — more information that must be kept from the eyes of the “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders.”

The above just reinforces the elite nature of our government (substitute ‘elite’ with ‘oligarchy’ in pretty much any of my earlier posts and the conclusions remain exactly the same). The elite own and operate our government for their own personal gain and when it is convenient to overthrow another government or reverse a deeply held policy to maximize personal gain, well all that is necessary is some palaver for the masses. Since the sheeple have been trained (for generations, if the author’s statements are to be believed) to be credulous, it is trivial to wave the red cape and misdirect their ire.

This is such an easy ‘conspiracy’ to believe in. It requires so little effort, sucks in and converts essentially anyone who would rebel, and is basically immune from compromise. Given the lengths of time that it seems apparent that the sheeple have been trained (bred?) to be credulous, how could one overcome that inertia? Of course, one could easily argue that by accepting this argument one is abdicating one’s responsibility to fight the system, but it seems even more that even without a global ‘conspiracy’ it is impossible to make any changes from the outside and who would want to make changes once one was inside?