The Senate voted on a bill to limit the EPA's role in regulating Carbon emissions. They voted AGAINST their ability to limit the EPA. What the? A legislative body voting against their right to legislate. That is retarded, that is criminal and that is being a traitor.
It is not about the regulation. It is about the legislative body voting that they cannot legislate. What does it matter who we send to congress? The EPA needs to show by what legislation they have the right to regulate, congress does not need to vote on their own authority. This is insanity.
Ladies and gentlemen. I am sitting here sipping on a nice glass of Pinot Noir and having a cigarette while reading utter nonsense.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Links on the site
I have had a few people ask me specifically what news sources I follow. In truth, more than I can count. I used to say it was about 20, I underestimated by a lot. It is probably closer to 40 or 50. The attempt is to get as broad a view as possible of a news story and catch trends.
I read the local news, national news, international news, alternate news sources, micro newspapers, television news and far out there news. I am not looking for the truth in a news source, I am looking to see the various pieces and approaches. In addition, I read many specialized magazines and news sources. I have provided links to some of them. I do not get a click through fee, my blog is not monetized, I am not a reporter, I am simply a guy following the news.
I read somethings that I would not recommend to others and therefore have not provided links. There are some news sources that I consider poison, I read them with that in mind. I have previously provided links to some of the foreign papers, I will make them permanent later.
When I was in college to get my degree in Political Science, the first they made us do was read the New York Times on a daily basis, the whole thing. We would get quizzed on it. John Kennedy would read as many papers a day as he could. Hitler, it is said, would take a newspaper from anyone he saw in his office and immediately read it. We are fortunate, in some ways, in that we can access more news sources over the internet and see the worlds take on events.
I should point out that I read very quickly. In addition, many papers will have the exact same article from AP or quote from another paper. This was not done as much in the past so now we are all hearing the same thing. If the FCC has their way, we only hear from "accredited" sources.
To anyone that has read this blog and followed the links in my posts, it will become immediately apparent that I don't trust the news, that is why I will often post to the source itself. I recommend you do the same when possible. After decades of writing research papers and position papers, I have learned to search for things in ways that I cannot quickly explain.
When I was in High School, a man came to make a presentation. He began by saying how much he appreciated having the opportunity to talk to American students. He explained how he was the Russian government and after some small talk began explaining what was wrong with America. The students were enraged and asked questions and made statements responding to him. Eventually he explained that he was not Russian and wanted to teach us about how propaganda worked. He then explained how newspapers and television used certain approaches to direct our beliefs. I will not explain the methodology but am amused by seeing it at work in our country and thank the man.
The purpose of mass media is to influence the masses. That is it's purpose. It is not there to inform, it is there to shape public opinion and make money. It's primary purpose is to shape opinion, money is secondary. You may find that hard to believe, it is true. People published free papers with no advertisements before they made money.
I don't think everyone will read as many news sources as me. I don't think you have to, I think if you do on occasion, you will be better off. I believe you should read at least your daily news, a micro paper, a national source and an international source. If you did that daily, you would begin to seek out more and your opinion of the world would change, quickly.
I read the local news, national news, international news, alternate news sources, micro newspapers, television news and far out there news. I am not looking for the truth in a news source, I am looking to see the various pieces and approaches. In addition, I read many specialized magazines and news sources. I have provided links to some of them. I do not get a click through fee, my blog is not monetized, I am not a reporter, I am simply a guy following the news.
I read somethings that I would not recommend to others and therefore have not provided links. There are some news sources that I consider poison, I read them with that in mind. I have previously provided links to some of the foreign papers, I will make them permanent later.
When I was in college to get my degree in Political Science, the first they made us do was read the New York Times on a daily basis, the whole thing. We would get quizzed on it. John Kennedy would read as many papers a day as he could. Hitler, it is said, would take a newspaper from anyone he saw in his office and immediately read it. We are fortunate, in some ways, in that we can access more news sources over the internet and see the worlds take on events.
I should point out that I read very quickly. In addition, many papers will have the exact same article from AP or quote from another paper. This was not done as much in the past so now we are all hearing the same thing. If the FCC has their way, we only hear from "accredited" sources.
To anyone that has read this blog and followed the links in my posts, it will become immediately apparent that I don't trust the news, that is why I will often post to the source itself. I recommend you do the same when possible. After decades of writing research papers and position papers, I have learned to search for things in ways that I cannot quickly explain.
When I was in High School, a man came to make a presentation. He began by saying how much he appreciated having the opportunity to talk to American students. He explained how he was the Russian government and after some small talk began explaining what was wrong with America. The students were enraged and asked questions and made statements responding to him. Eventually he explained that he was not Russian and wanted to teach us about how propaganda worked. He then explained how newspapers and television used certain approaches to direct our beliefs. I will not explain the methodology but am amused by seeing it at work in our country and thank the man.
The purpose of mass media is to influence the masses. That is it's purpose. It is not there to inform, it is there to shape public opinion and make money. It's primary purpose is to shape opinion, money is secondary. You may find that hard to believe, it is true. People published free papers with no advertisements before they made money.
I don't think everyone will read as many news sources as me. I don't think you have to, I think if you do on occasion, you will be better off. I believe you should read at least your daily news, a micro paper, a national source and an international source. If you did that daily, you would begin to seek out more and your opinion of the world would change, quickly.
That sinking feeling
I want to quickly talk about sinkholes. First is this article about sinkholes in China.
Chinese sinkholes.
Guatemala City
Sinkholes are generally caused by a few specific things. It may be caused by the gradual erosion of soft, permeable rock or the collapse of an underground cave. Problem with the sinkholes in China and Guatemala City is that they are round and not caused by water. Look at the pictures.
Sinkholes caused by water are not round, they go to wherever the soil has the least resistance. Sinkholes caused by collapsing caves are not round either. The sinkholes in China and Guatemala City are round to the bottom. Having a three story building sink into one makes less sense as prior to construction one should have tested the soil and dug test holes. Just odd stuff.
Chinese sinkholes.
Guatemala City
Sinkholes are generally caused by a few specific things. It may be caused by the gradual erosion of soft, permeable rock or the collapse of an underground cave. Problem with the sinkholes in China and Guatemala City is that they are round and not caused by water. Look at the pictures.
Sinkholes caused by water are not round, they go to wherever the soil has the least resistance. Sinkholes caused by collapsing caves are not round either. The sinkholes in China and Guatemala City are round to the bottom. Having a three story building sink into one makes less sense as prior to construction one should have tested the soil and dug test holes. Just odd stuff.
A What if question, something light
I was driving home and came upon a thought. Telepathy. A singer named Lene Lovich wrote a song by that name. The lyrics follow:
"I know what ya done
I saw ya in my crystal
I saw you making love
I'm gonna get my pistol
Telepathy's gonna be the death of me
Telepathy's gonna be the death of me
I know what ya done before you even do it
Don't tell me ya story I can see throught it
Love is really mutual trust
Respect and understanding is a must
But my baby's mind is like a TV
And everthing I see make a fool of me
I know what you've done, yeh
You think I don't know
You been playing round with Mrs. So-And-So
Telepathy's gonna be the death of me
Oh, those little lies
Right, behind your eyes
I don't need no spies
With my ESP
You're not fooling me
But ohhhhhh, the jealousy"
The idea behind the song is simple. What if you dated someone who could read your mind, what would it be like? I will take it a step farther, what if you both could read each other's minds. Could you handle having your love know your every thought and you know theirs? How would it effect you?
Lets look at how a relationship develops and run through what the impact might be. You meet someone for the first date and you know they are thinking about how much money you make and you are thinking about how she might look with her clothes off. Could be a short date. All the things most people do to put their "best foot forward" would be meaningless.
But, lets say you both decided you were compatible. You begin dating seriously. You are walking down the street and see a lovely lady, you look for a second and think how pretty she is. Your date would not be able to complain because she no doubt saw men she found attractive, even if it was on television. Would you get over jealousy. Now, what if they seriously began thinking about sleeping with that other person?
Anyway, you get past those issues and marry. Hiding things from your partner would be a thing of the past. Agreeing on things for the sake of peace would be pointless. Misunderstanding would also disappear. You would never feel alone or misunderstood. You could have a true union. If you grew apart, you both would know it and have the opportunity to resolve it in the beginning. You would forced to deal with problems; but, they would be easier to resolve.
The risk would be that if one of you were not clear in your beliefs and your morals, you could give in to the beliefs of the other without thinking it through for yourself. The beauty is that you could fully experience things second hand. Sharing on a level that we cannot currently comprehend and you couldn't marry the wrong the person.
If you can truly imagine such a thing, would you want it? Would you be willing to risk having all of your weaknesses known to have a greater love? Would you look down on people the same if all of your thoughts could be read? It is easy to fake being a decent person, you merely follow the rules and conform to societies concept of acceptable. Couldn't do that if the other could actually read your mind and useless justifications would not work, you would no longer be able to lie to yourself, the other person would know.
Now here is the real kicker. Would it change what you liked in a person? Oh, it would. Can you imagine being with a beautiful women (yes, I am stereotyping to make a point) who was a complete and utter fool. Hearing nonsense in your head all day and night. I have known people who married for beauty alone. Would a man with all the money in the world be worth it if you had to hear him think about how he was going to lie, cheat and steal to get ahead? You would overlook a lot of physical things for true peace of mind.
"I know what ya done
I saw ya in my crystal
I saw you making love
I'm gonna get my pistol
Telepathy's gonna be the death of me
Telepathy's gonna be the death of me
I know what ya done before you even do it
Don't tell me ya story I can see throught it
Love is really mutual trust
Respect and understanding is a must
But my baby's mind is like a TV
And everthing I see make a fool of me
I know what you've done, yeh
You think I don't know
You been playing round with Mrs. So-And-So
Telepathy's gonna be the death of me
Oh, those little lies
Right, behind your eyes
I don't need no spies
With my ESP
You're not fooling me
But ohhhhhh, the jealousy"
The idea behind the song is simple. What if you dated someone who could read your mind, what would it be like? I will take it a step farther, what if you both could read each other's minds. Could you handle having your love know your every thought and you know theirs? How would it effect you?
Lets look at how a relationship develops and run through what the impact might be. You meet someone for the first date and you know they are thinking about how much money you make and you are thinking about how she might look with her clothes off. Could be a short date. All the things most people do to put their "best foot forward" would be meaningless.
But, lets say you both decided you were compatible. You begin dating seriously. You are walking down the street and see a lovely lady, you look for a second and think how pretty she is. Your date would not be able to complain because she no doubt saw men she found attractive, even if it was on television. Would you get over jealousy. Now, what if they seriously began thinking about sleeping with that other person?
Anyway, you get past those issues and marry. Hiding things from your partner would be a thing of the past. Agreeing on things for the sake of peace would be pointless. Misunderstanding would also disappear. You would never feel alone or misunderstood. You could have a true union. If you grew apart, you both would know it and have the opportunity to resolve it in the beginning. You would forced to deal with problems; but, they would be easier to resolve.
The risk would be that if one of you were not clear in your beliefs and your morals, you could give in to the beliefs of the other without thinking it through for yourself. The beauty is that you could fully experience things second hand. Sharing on a level that we cannot currently comprehend and you couldn't marry the wrong the person.
If you can truly imagine such a thing, would you want it? Would you be willing to risk having all of your weaknesses known to have a greater love? Would you look down on people the same if all of your thoughts could be read? It is easy to fake being a decent person, you merely follow the rules and conform to societies concept of acceptable. Couldn't do that if the other could actually read your mind and useless justifications would not work, you would no longer be able to lie to yourself, the other person would know.
Now here is the real kicker. Would it change what you liked in a person? Oh, it would. Can you imagine being with a beautiful women (yes, I am stereotyping to make a point) who was a complete and utter fool. Hearing nonsense in your head all day and night. I have known people who married for beauty alone. Would a man with all the money in the world be worth it if you had to hear him think about how he was going to lie, cheat and steal to get ahead? You would overlook a lot of physical things for true peace of mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)