LOGOS B SOPHOS

2012-02-03T16:57:00.000+01:00

But you won't listen to reason. It's like playing Chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at Chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like its victorious.

2012-01-29T13:55:00.002+01:00

“I’ve learned that no matter what happens, or how bad it seems today, life does go on, and it will be better tomorrow. I’ve learned that you can tell a lot about a person by the way he/she handles these three things: a rainy day, lost luggage, and tangled Christmas tree lights. I’ve learned that regardless of your relationship with your parents, you’ll miss them when they’re gone from your life. I’ve learned that making a “living” is not the same thing as making a “life.” I’ve learned that life sometimes gives you a second chance. I’ve learned that you shouldn’t go through life with a catcher’s mitt on both hands; you need to be able to throw something back. I’ve learned that whenever I decide something with an open heart, I usually make the right decision. I’ve learned that even when I have pains, I don’t have to be one. I’ve learned that every day you should reach out and touch someone. People love a warm hug, or just a friendly pat on the back. I’ve learned that I still have a lot to learn. I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”

- Maya Angelou

2011-12-24T15:22:00.000+01:00

For instance? Well, for instance, what it means to be a man. In a city. In a century. In transition. In a mass. Transformed by science. Under organized power. Subject to tremendous controls. In a condition caused by mechanization. After the late failure of radical hopes. In a society that was no community and devalued the person. Owing to the multiplied power of numbers which made the self negligible. Which spent military billions against foreign enemies but would not pay for order at home. Which permitted savagery and barbarism in its own great cities. At the same time, the pressure of human millions who have discovered what concerned efforts and thoughts can do. As megatons of water shape organisms on the ocean floor. As tides polish stones. As winds hollow cliffs. The beautiful supermachinery opening a new life for innumerable mankind. Would you deny them the right to exist? Would you ask them to labor and go hungry while you yourself enjoyed old-fashioned Values? You-you yourself are a child of this mass and a brother to all the rest. Or else an ingrate, dilettante, idiot. There, Herzog, thought Herzog, since you ask for the instance, is the way it runs.

Herzog, Saul Bellow 1964

2011-12-08T02:53:00.008+01:00

Once upon a time
in the land of distant ponds and morning dew
Where fiberoptics
connected bonds and cherished thoughts of two
Memories
flooded mood and states of "high quality"
Before sunrise
the two created memories embodied eternal
A cerebral space
shared by two fused together
Time and space transcended
and always available when two desired one
"Tell me a story" she echoes
Life was grand and happier next to none.
As the moon faded away
the fork came to come.
Bound and agreed to different suns
Separation
and entitlement could not be done
Still connected
along independent paths
No labels
the walls sway but strong they remain
Cybernetic fun -
swings, frogs, ducks, and pancakes
Nerd bombin true on red pillars and wheels spinning in mud
Who needs a lock when a marker and wall scream word
Dancing fans, bathing nymphs, she said it tastes like butter
Hell yea cupcakes and coffee
So what matter is matter
when the world is just one big neighbor
Memories continue
Hope calls for the ideal
Bend space and time, mutant abilities and superhero power,
but
History has taught us pragmatics,
Lovers tend to fade
and anything
outside of normative would ring unreasonable,
selfish,
and held together by halo effects
One step at a time
Spontaneous inspiration
motivates the sequence of experience
No need to rush,
Only time will tell
And two can become
Or one can remain one
and find eleven somewhere else

2011-11-13T00:28:00.000+01:00

A repost: Just because I like what I wrote in the last paragraph (not the last sentence but the paragraph before it)

Monday, August 01, 2005

The Duchess

"Be what you would seem to be"-or if you'd like it put more simply-"Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise." -The Duchess from 'Alice in Wonderland' by Lewis Carol.

I wonder, is this truly how we should be in our social networks? To create one impression and continue to maintain that impression throughout our associations without changing, even if it might not be an entirely accurate portrait of our self? If we produced one impression and implanted unto others what we would "seem to be," then gave a different impression other than what we "seem to be," or acted contrary to what others thought how we would act in accordance with their impression of what we "seem to be," does that make the initial impression fake?

Is it an obligation, of each and every one of us, to maintain what we seem or appear to be so that we ourselves do not appear "to be otherwise" ??

Or is it merely a matter of interpretation or on how others formulate one's conception. For over a period of time, one acts inevitably according to how one would act and the impression that is portrayed during that time is naturally how one would "seem to be," and as time passes it would be impossible to act "otherwise." And yet, people in our social networks continue to make assumptions about us and at times we may act in a manner that is not necessarily in accordance with those assumptions. In this sense we appear to be otherwise than what we appear to be. Does this indicate that we are not being who we are and what we are? Even though we are being inevitably who we are by which we know no different. A chameleon by nature is a chameleon and is only claimed not to be a chameleon by those who only think they know but don't really know. So judgments that are passed without the basis of true understanding or open mindedness, are not accurate judgments at all but only biased ones based on one's own false conception. But the fact of the matter is, if one does have a basis of understanding and open mindedness there is actually no judgment at all but only mere acceptance.

one cannot recognize a wolf in sheep's clothing without understanding what a wolf is in the first place.

2011-11-10T21:51:00.002+01:00

'Vanity' is the wrong term here. Vanity invokes a sense of "showing off" for the sake of others. A pride in one's appearance and action for the sake of social recognition. So I am going to renegue - although vanity may play a role for others in their pursuit of happiness, social praise, and aspiration, which may serve as a mode of meaning for them. However, as we are discussing the roles of meaning, validating existence in the face of death as the ultimate deadline, and happiness, 'vanity' is indeed a much hollower concept than what most do for the fulfillment of meaning. The pursuit of one’s aspirations, happiness, and meaning is not vain. Aspiration and the 'pursuit of happiness' inherently contains personal drive and motivation to achieve what one would like to achieve for personal gratification and one's own sense of well-being/happiness, rather than a pursuit for the sake of “impressing others,” which is vain (and like I said, some may have this as a goal in which they would like to achieve, the desire for immortality, in name at least, and living one’s life strictly for that purpose I would characterize as vain, as it is an aspiration not for the fulfillment of one’s personal inquiry and pursuits, but that they are constantly examining their work for the purpose of, or attempt at, becoming “famous.” All the great artists, musicians, philosophers, authors and scientists produced work for their own inquiry and in the name of the virtue/art/science they were pursuing, and as a consequence they received recognition. The actual audience is ultimately an irrelevant variable. The tangible capacity for an audience however, is not. In other words, a work must materialize). Nietzsche advocated the creation of new paths and new modes of health: “there are a thousand paths which have never been trodden, a thousand kinds of health and hidden islands of life.” If we combine this with Foucault’s sense of social identity in being perceived by others as social validation, we can ask what is personal validation within, and for, one’s existence? I think you are right to invoke Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia, human flourishing, and whether there _should_ and _ought_ to be a sense of a universal _how_ or if the fulfillment of it hinges on the subjectivity in personal method in achieving one’s personal, and not social, validation. Aristotle noted that the highest form of eudaimonia was the educated, the thoughtful, philosophical man as the pinnacle. However, this cannot possibly be true. As we both know, there have been many intellectuals and philosophers, learned men, who have gone insane and have been troubled by much during the course of their lives because of the nature of their inquiry. I think the question of whether a drug/porn addict, with no further aspirations, has fulfilled the criteria for a meaningful life is an interesting one. Every life is individualized regardless of the tendency to categorize persons under lifestyle, nationality, or any category we may place upon persons. In this sense, there is much to be said about the subjectivity in the pursuit of aspiration, happiness, and the fulfillment of a meaningful life. If the drug/porn addict’s personal pursuits, happiness, and fulfillment of a meaningful life according to him/her is met by his/her own standards, then how can we say that he/she has not had a meaningful life? The subjective allows for one to ask one self: what are my aspirations, what is happiness to me, what is a meaningful life to/for me? I think these are the central questions one should ask rather than the cliche question of “how do you want to be remembered,” precisely because this question invokes the audience, the social, as a significant variable in shaping one’s life. The central questions that I would posit, at this time, are indeed self-centered for the individual with respect to how one should lead a meaningful life. Peter Singer suggested that a meaningful life is one that is attached to a cause. But a cause should not be one that is obligatory. Attaching to a cause for the sake of a cause or because of a social influence is fighting for something because it is audience motivated. The cause is ultimately one’s own life and one’s personal drive for life. And within one’s life, if one aspires for the virtue of a social cause than I think that is great. However, that should not be a definitive _ought_ or a prescribed criteria for a meaningful life.

This is a dangerous path I am going down, because it allows happiness, aspiration, and meaning to encompass all sorts of fanaticism - if it is what their personal drive, source of happiness, and fulfillment of meaning, is. Here I would have to throw in a radical condition, and that is the self-less aesthetic. It does seem paradoxical, allowing for the range of subjectivity and personal taste in what aspiration, happiness, and a meaningful life is and striving for those in a self-fulfilling sense, but at the same time, suggesting a condition of selfless-ness is suggesting their abandonment. However, I would argue it is not an abandonment but rather a conscious embodiment of one’s self-fulfilling habituation towards one’s aspiration, happiness, and what one considers a meaningful life and in that embodiment is the abandonment of the selfish but not the self-ful. In becoming one’s pursuit of aspiration, happiness, and meaning, a habituated self is fully realized in that pursuit. In a cliche sense, after one becomes “one” with their “path” the conscientious self of self-correcting for that path is unnecessary. The self-ish is unnecessary. The pursuit of obtaining things for their pursuit of aspiration, happiness, and meaning is no longer a required aspect of self. Abandoning the selfish while maintaining the self-ful. It is the embodiment of one’s integrity without the effort in trying to be genuine. One is one’s integrity without work. This allows integrity as well as social malleability and empathy without compromising a habituated self-ful pursuit. In this sense one is self-less and self-ful, and the aesthetic is found in the harmony of this dialectic that is, in a Hegelian sense, a synthetic. The aesthetic is not grounded in any superficial measure of beauty. But the aesthetic in habituating/embodying one’s pursuit of one’s aspirations, happiness, and meaning for the personal validation of one’s existence regardless of any audience, while giving room for such selfless-ness that one is able to have the empathic capacity. The aesthetic self-less life is therefore the product of personal validation and embodiment....now that I'm looking back on this, it's a pretty romantic response lol...and problematic in how to achieve it for sure...but I’m willing to take this as a starting point and let it evolve in our conversation. Only arrive to go further yea? Perhaps one of the beauties of philosophy...

2011-07-27T06:33:00.000+02:00

Gojingamrae

苦尽甘来

명사

쓴 것이 다하면 단 것이 온다는 뜻으로, 고생 끝에 즐거움이 옴을 이르는 말.

고진감래 라더니 이렇게 좋은 일도 있구나.

2011-07-11T12:52:00.002+02:00

A: commemorate existence. trash your liver.

B: hahaha commemorate existence. engage in aiding your impending death :)

A: lol. is that not the nature of existence? commemorating life through the progression towards death? The only matter is in the disposition of how one commemorates one's existence - oscillating positions of heaven and hell; optimistically or pessimistically (pessimistically in an apathetic sense of nonchalance regarding one's existential continuum). the will to take power over one's life lies inherently within one's interpretive position for the events surrounding one's life. Existence is a matter of how one wants to commemorate life towards the inevitable pending death. drink, trash your liver, be merry. One's date of birth is merely an annual reminder.

2011-07-03T23:36:00.002+02:00

you are my hell and my haven.

but as time goes by
the haven is becoming less

and hell is growing stronger

2011-06-22T16:45:00.003+02:00

Does consent make a moral difference?

2011-06-19T01:12:00.001+02:00

I wonder why it's so hard for people to admit their presumptions and projections. And funny enough, when I concede my own, they take it for their own momentum - rather than finding humility. It seems that people don't like to acknowledge certain things within themselves, it seems.

Imagine

2011-06-13T13:24:00.000+02:00

John Lennon:

A Perfect Circle:

interview with Maynard about the video

Maynard and his Mother

2011-06-13T12:27:00.001+02:00

*the following includes videos created by others on the internet. The work done to produce them is entirely their own, or however methodology they conducted. I have merely embedded them here. I give them all credit for their work, and none to my own besides the production of this post. All videos include lyrics to facilitate the production here.

I like to think the following sequence is a manifestation of Maynard's relationship with his mother - Judith Marie Keenan. Maynard is the lead singer for Tool, and after the band blew up with the album Aenema, he decided to also do Perfect Circle. In 2000, his mother had a stroke and was restricted to a wheel chair. Consequently he made the song "Judith." But I would like to begin here:

Then, "Judith":

Maynard then works with Tool and puts out Lateralus - an awesome album by the way. And although the following two songs from the album are arguable whether they directly relate to this relationship he has with his mother, although I think it very well stands as a general statement, nonetheless, I do think they provide insight into the relationship.

Tool's latest album is 10,000 days. Maynard's mother was paralyzed for 27 years, which is approximately 10,000 days (rounding up). In 2003 she had passed away. Maynard:

Not only is this a beautiful relationship through musical and lyrical expression of Maynard and his relationship with his mother. It is an exemplary case of the significance of music. As an audience we appreciate the music and the lyrics become meaningful to our own selves in our own personal lives. The artist expresses herself in her own creative way, which may not always be "permissible" in the day to day. For Maynard, he was given a medium to express his self through songwriting. And in that medium he wrote and sang what he felt. His mother was big part of it. A dynamic, yet typical in a way, from anger with her faith, her debilitation, and eventually admiration, love, and defense for her. This sequence of songs, is not only to point out the relationship and the glory the bands do to it, I would like to think that this is also a point to the significance of music in the life of the mind. That music enhances our lives just as much as any other enjoyable pass time.

And to close, in humour and all gravity: For the future enrichment of our minds, teach the kids more music! Give them access to more instruments! Expose them to the diversity!

2011-06-13T10:30:00.000+02:00

I met a boy wearing Vans, 501s, and a
Dope Beastie t, nipple rings, and
New tattoos that claimed that he
Was OGT,
Back in '92,
From the first EP

And in between
Sips of Coke
He told me that
He thought
We were sellin' out,
Layin' down,
Suckin' up
To the man

Well now I've got some
Advice for you, little buddy
Before you point the finger
You should know that
I'm the man,

And if I'm the man,
Then you're the man, and
He's the man as well so you can
Point that fuckin' finger up your ass

All you know about me is what I've sold you,
Dumb fuck
I sold out long before you ever heard my name

I sold my soul to make a record,
Dip shit,
And you bought one

So I've got some
Advice for you, little buddy
Before you point your finger
You should know that
I'm the man,

If I'm the fuckin' man
Then you're the fuckin' man as well
So you can
Point that fuckin' finger up your ass

All you know about me is what I've sold you,
Dumb fuck
I sold out long before you ever heard my name

I sold my soul to make a record,
Dip shit,
And you bought one

All you read and
Wear or see and
Hear on TV
Is a product
Begging for your
Fatass dirty
Dollar

So...Shut up and

Buy my new record
Send more money
Fuck you, buddy

2011-06-13T08:28:00.003+02:00

Jordan or LeBron?

2011-06-13T08:27:00.000+02:00

Article:
Pretty

Documentary : Sexy Girls Have It Easy from Bright Hand Pictures on Vimeo.

2011-06-13T07:38:00.000+02:00

respect = honor + skill

( ...? )

neither of which have been redeemed....

bitch

2011-06-10T10:52:00.003+02:00

"Weep for yourself, my man,

You'll never be what's in your heart."

-Mumford and Sons 'Little Lion Man'

2011-06-09T17:30:00.006+02:00

"If you want any one thing too badly,

it's likely to turn out to be a disappointment.

The only healthy way to live life

is to learn to like all the little everyday things"

-Gus McCrae 'Lonesome Dove'

2011-06-06T23:59:00.000+02:00

"It will be enough for our purposes, to define "reality" as a quality appertaining to a phenomena that we recognize as having a being independent of our own volition (we cannot "wish them away"), and the define "knowledge" as the certainty that phenomena are real and that they possess specific characteristics." -Berger and Luckmann

2011-06-06T23:50:00.003+02:00

"Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. The understanding can intuit nothing, the senses can think nothing. Only through their unison can knowledge arise." -Immanuel Kant

i.e.

Big ideas without details are empty; details without big ideas are blind

2011-05-29T01:37:00.002+02:00

“Here lies our sovereign king,” wrote the Earl of Rochester about King Charles:

Whose word no man relies on.
Who never said a foolish thing
Or ever did a wise one.

2011-05-28T16:51:00.000+02:00

A propensity to hope and joy is real riches;

one to fear and sorrow real poverty.

- David Hume

2011-05-21T03:30:00.000+02:00

And my response:

2011-05-12T06:33:00.000+02:00

Published on The Simpleton -
Egypt: A Post-Revolution Critique

2011-05-02T16:24:00.000+02:00

"Every man is a creative cause of what happens,

a primum mobile with an original movement"

- Nietzsche

Really Obama? Dead Osama?

2011-05-02T09:11:00.006+02:00

The story is all over the internet. But have we lost our memories? What makes this statement any different from all the other conjectures of Osama's death?

In December of 2001, there were reports that Osama was killed in the Torra Bora mountains:

In 2006, there were reports from a French newspaper that bin Laden was ill and near death:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2035777n

(appy-poly-logies, couldn't get it to embed)

In 2007, Benazir Bhutto, in an interview, stated that Osama was murdered (she was assassinated shortly after):

In 2009, Pakistan's President believed that bin Laden was dead as well, while conceding, perhaps unintentionally that the U.S. had told him that they lost bin Laden:

In 2001, America experienced the tragedy of 9/11. Immediately, the Bush administration decided to go into Afghanistan to find bin Laden. After several reports of "being close" to hunting down Osama, there was a huge media shift to Iraq, Saddam, and his "Weapons of Mass Destruction." We found none, took down Saddam, but still occupied Iraq. Barack Obama gets elected and all of a sudden we have two wars: the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Now, in his address to the people, it is not a war in Afghanistan but a war on Al Qaeda. Obama was sensitive and firm in stating that this was not a war against Muslims and strictly denied that Osama was a Muslim leader - that he killed thousands of Muslims.

What I find problematic is that bin Laden's death has been announced on several occasions. What makes this statement so different and how do we know for sure this time that he really is dead? There are articles stating that officials will be sensitive to Muslim death practices and that they will bury bin Laden in the sea, out of fear of his veneration and a potential shrine built by those who support and see him as a martyr. I do hope they take pictures and videos that are confirmed, not only by US officials, but many independent others, that this is the truth.

Interesting, to say the least. Especially when there exists such polarity between the party lines and the people blinded by political loyalties for, or against, Obama. So the matter is not whether Osama bin Laden is really dead but whether Obama is credible. The whole distraction about birth certificates has creased the lines amongst the populus. Either you believe what he has to say and still have hope that his intentions for government are good or you think he's the "devil" and just don't like what he's doing. The matter again, is about popularity, credibility, and the sensational reactions by the people. What a f*ck fest. Truth is no longer relevant but image.

There seems to be several stories developing here, especially in light of the recent announcement that bin Laden has already been buried at sea, which seems rather quick after the announcement was made to the American people. Either the reports from past years are false representations by Al Qaeda and other sources to diminish the search for bin Laden and he was recently killed in this gargantuan mansion in Pakistan. Or, bin Laden is indeed dead pursuant to the reports above - illness, murder, firefight in Torra Bora, whichever - and his death has been used as a political card to pull for the sake of gaining popularity when the time warrants the boost.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the "war on terrorism," implications on foreign policy when it comes to the Middle East - Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the uprisings/revolutions/turmoil happening in the region, and what that means for America. There are many statements that Al Qaeda could retaliate, which means heighten security, which always includes hidden incentives and agendas at the White House, and stating that bin Laden is dead, secures that funding while simultaneously providing the popularity boost for Obama because it happened during his administration.

All I would like to say is: Let's pay attention in the next few months and the next few years. Who knows, they might announce that Osama bin Laden is dead again.

2011-04-26T11:19:00.000+02:00

ART THOUGHTZ: Post-Structuralism from Hennessy Youngman on Vimeo.

So...I just rewatched this...and I'm not all too familiar with the labels but am with the progression, to an extent that is.

He starts with describing modernism in order to describe post-structuralism (in other words, it would be within the category of post-modernism, spear-headed by Derrida, I guess). Which is basically saying here's history, the standard set of categories, epistemologies, science, understandings and where the concept of 'language game' comes out with wittgenstein (I would presume - might be a little off, but it would appropriate for him to be coming up in this context) etc., but let's look closer at it - be more specific says post-modernism. Let's read between the lines.

And yet, what post-structuralism does by engaging in such activity is establishing another set of structure, so in a sense, post-structuralism becomes a misnomer because post-structure is more structure, more detail, more knowledge, more science, more categories if one is a Kantian, and more 'language games' if one is a Wittgensteinian. Ironic right? What post-structuralism does is perpetuate the modern era of epistemology but with further detail. Bring back the de-emphasized and omitted parts of history. And society has in a sense, but it's presented in pieces, fragments, distortions, and further manipulations that were perpetuated in the modern era, just now it's post-structural savvy. The push for clarity has created a murkier and a greater gap in the polarized schema of people. So what is the meta-post-structuralism? Is there something that can include and supersede the paradigm? An Einsteinian physics engulfing the Newtonian? This is a question for perhaps every discipline. What are the past assumptions, what caused the past assumptions, and what can we do to prevent those assumptions that includes the modern and post-modern era but in a meaningful way such that the paradigm is progressive towards a better utility (not to necessarily say that I am a utilitarian).

Pre-reading Response: The Moral Landscape; how science can determine human values

2011-04-25T12:15:00.004+02:00

"Many of these people also claim that a scientific foundation for morality would serve no purpose in any case. They think we can combat human evil all the while knowing that our notions of "good" and "evil" are completely unwarranted. It is always amusing when these same people then hesitate to condemn specific instances of patently abominable behavior." - Sam Harris

p. 27... and I stop:

Before I read this book, a book claiming that science can be a tool for declarative statements about what is right and wrong. That science is what we should use to make the statements of what we ought to be like. This is right and this is wrong - apart from culture; there are universal rights and wrongs that transcend culture, is his statement with science. While I think there is much science can say about human nature and contribute to the discussion of 'well-being' and 'happiness,' I'll blow caution to the wind. Any statement that goes to say that there are objective standards of living is one that requires scrutiny and careful consideration in the use of science. Science does not make value statements. Science is a tool, a methodology of investigation and the fruits of its labor can be easily misinterpreted and misconstrued. Declarative value statements in the name of science have been found in the past. History is not kind.

This form of argument is analogous to the ban of anything on moral grounds - how ever derived. Saying that those people should not wear the burqa because it is oppressive (the feminists said so) and morally wrong to oppress women then go on to create a law banning the burqa specifically is analogous with saying gay people should not get married because marriage is between a man and a woman and it is morally wrong to allow gay people to get married therefore gay people cannot get married. A law is created. Either way, a moral imperative is imposed on people's lives. In fact, both the burqa and a law against gay marriage is oppressive. However, to go and pick and choose what is morally right and what is morally wrong against the will of the person in question who adheres to those customs, is no different from imposing one culture upon another culture in an oppressive fashion. The issue is not determining what customs are right and what customs are wrong. It is not what science proves is good for a person or not good for a person. It is a matter of cultural imperialism. Science is a tool for education. Not dictatorship. Cultures must be allowed space for progress and growth not an imposition of values.

Mental health and well-being are not exact sciences. Science provides insight, not definitive claims of morality and values - or how to obtain those values or what science can do to facilitate those values.

And now, I will read with caution and check his citations in the name of science - scrutiny is critical.

2011-04-22T09:47:00.006+02:00

Abandon certainty all ye who enter herein!

Never again will you enjoy the immunity to doubt

and ambiguity that went with your previous life.

But then the ability to live with perpetual ambiguity

is also the trait that distinguishes adults from adolescents.

-Armand Mauss

2011-04-19T16:19:00.001+02:00

Baby Preacher.
Who, although he himself is unable to speak, conveys the sentiment, gestures, and cadence of enthusiastic sermons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zALqMWimBbM

This baby, not so different from the baby preacher, has learned a religious "habitus" towards religious songs:

2011-04-17T07:30:00.003+02:00

And...it happens again.

WTF?

2011-04-16T11:54:00.002+02:00

"In order to come into balance we have to stand astride several worlds. We have to be able to feel at the same time as thinking, accept at the same time as judging, receive at the same time as giving. We have the opportunity to live in a state of antagonistic flow, balancing all the contradictions that make up our reality. We are all perfect just as we are, and we are all very imperfect, and that's perfect. Instead of opting for one side of the contradiction and letting the other ossify, and be projected onto the outside world, we can sit in the middle of our conflicts and learn to balance the different energies, and in doing so the conflicts become less extreme, our judgements become less harsh, we discover an inner dynamic equilibrium that does not create stillness at the expense of suppression of important parts of us, but finds a harmony in difference. This is peace. It is an inner liveliness, not a static inertia. It is the balance of life and death, light and dark, the goddess and the monster. By owning our own monsters we need not create external monsters. If we accept our internal wars, and let them come to rest, we may not need to create external ones." - Mabel Elsworth Todd

Thanks for asking me to do this. I Like...Me Like.
Ok:

I'm going to have to be picky in a way, because I largely agree wiith the sentiment/philosophy in the relation of balance and self, but disagree on the more technical terms regarding human nature, and that the author in fact expresses a phenomenological interpretation of balance in self, that is relate-able no doubt, but technically incorrect insofar as the relation of brain and body that comprises one's sense of self, which also ensues into the discussion of balance and self.

My pickiness for this article is in how she describes attention and the processing. Attention is one-sided. We can shift attention and remember the information from the attention we spent several objects-of-attention-ago. But attention essentially shifts from focus to focus (and those who seem to have an "extreme" case of this we call "adhd", and let's hold off on the foucault critique). We process one event at a time but shift. To emphasize something we are picking up in our sense-data. If the contemporary neuroscience on attention is correct, which I believe it is, means that holding different informations "at the same time" is not technically correct, but phenomenologically (subjectively, 1st person-wise) it is. Which means that it feels like we are experiencing two things at the same time. Although, a lot of the time, the processing of emotion comes after, as a reaction, to the incoming information as we rationally process it, each with our own consideration of "rational" and importance that weighs the rationality. Nonetheless, I think the feeling, of what is happening, is correct. Perhaps, more importantly is the take on dealing with conflict and contradictory data from different sources of our being and how to deal with that existentially.

I think the approach is largely daoistic in a sense. Accepting what is happening in terms of our feelings and understanding what our feelings mean to us personally, which of course differs over a sense of time and being; how we were back then etc. etc. you know what I'm talkin about. The sense of being is a concept of acceptance. Being able to understand and accept one's feelings and how we think-a very subjective sense and categorically speaking interpretive trends in a way - about those feelings as they re-occur. It is, in the Nietzschean sense, the "eternal recurrence" and the "will to power" is recognizing the circumstance - willing of one's self to overcome the recognizable trend out of the habit of cognizance in personal and social space that makes one "miserable"; "despair" - transcending that recurrence, a "will to power" to overcome one's re-occurring themes that one tends to attribute to one's outlook on life. It is the "window."

I like the sense of affirmation that is expressed in this passage; The affirmation of self. Until we say yes, to our own understanding of self, and the unnecessary, yet quite natural, sense of becoming conflicted with one's feelings, we are in its negation, we see what is wrong with the world. And although this is important in giving substance to "who I am" after we find our preferences and solidified sense of self, being comfortable with what we like and dislike, the time is acceptance, the affirmation of life, being open to experience and assessing it on one's own without preconceptions of how it is going to be.

Balance is a question of personal awareness of values and their relation to each other - interconnected network of, maybe subconscious mechanisms at work, understandings of self - modes of understanding what a particular facet of self is. And in this endeavor we see the conflict within our selves in the collision of energies emitted from inter-subjective realities. That space through which we are talking and understanding one another. What we have to learn, like the author said:

"learn to balance the different energies, and in doing so the conflicts become less extreme, our judgements become less harsh, we discover an inner dynamic equilibrium that does not create stillness at the expense of suppression of important parts of us, but finds a harmony in difference."

But before I say anything further, there is a part that says we are perfect within ourselves, as we are, I will not say that that this means a static stubborn sense of self. We are perfect with what we are given and we can be perfect with it in our development of it as we consider our selves throughout the times. But to think that we are fine the way we are. No. We are not. The ability to think critically about criticism given regarding your character is a, in a way, frightening task and one we like to shy away from - reminiscent of Jung. In balancing one's conflicts is an exercise in prioritizing self and what one stands for - as one makes it to be - in the face of compromise and ambiguity.Inner Peace is in the persistent exercise of understanding one's self in its many spaces of interaction and what we do when we are alone - inaction, in a tree-in-the-forest-and nobody-hears-it sense of the term, and coming to an understanding sense of personality as one understands one's self to be in places of conflict - you know, situations where one's sense of self is placed in an ambiguous position where you don't know what to think. The understanding and managing one's self is the process of coming to a place of inner peace, and therefore it is an internal exercise - as expressed in the excerpt. And until one understands why something is happening and being able to accept it, without creating inner turmoil and in others, reacting in a way that is in peace with the intentions that arise from intersubjective experiences and one's own personal experiences in the intercourse of "I and I;" the intimate relation one comes to have with one's self - from birth until death, a task in self in novel experiences, vulnerable experiences, putting one's self out there, being bold, living dangerously, is the process of self-discovery as one comes to encounter the many experiences one comes to encounter. Life as an internal phenomenon is a perpetual process of self-discovery. Coming to terms with it, is the peace, the author talks about. Through understanding one's internal conflicts, one prevents and understands how to absorb the external conflicts into a meta-understanding in inter-subjective dialogue and the ability to be honest with the situation; the what is happening sense of understanding others - a phenomenon of empathy.

The creation of external conflict is from the habits of internal methods of processing information; aka the "filtering of reality," as it is so commonly described. So in this sense, the understanding of *how* one understands information allows one to manage external "conflict" that may arise. Any conflict can be beneficial or detrimental to one's being in becoming. Conflict is not truly conflict but rather material for self-understanding. There is no good or bad or point in labeling something as any beneficial or detrimental event can lead to a beneficial or detrimental event. No point in judging holistically until it is time to reflect holistically in one's relation to reality and what one could call the conscious recollection of one's autobiography, with the caveat as one understands one's self And therefore there is no real need to label an event as good or bad, or conflict as a good or a bad thing - mood is not a gage but the overall reflection of the moods one has had is a gage. What is not static is this consensus that is evolving in refining what one likes, dislikes, and then embodying them such that there is no "I",or "me" but simply as one is, discovering, embodying, then forgetting so that one is one without being one; I am who I am without thinking about Who I am and Who I am becomes obsolete and without utility. The sense of selfless-ness while being fully one's self, but where the integration of self in its utmost fullest sense of understanding self - from the ugliest to the most pleasant, in a...Freudian sense, but, as I like to think of it, the Nietzschean sense: personal greatness, the "hero," accentuating one's passions in life - the things (person's) that makes one happy; the "ubermensch", uberman, translated sometimes as the superman, the over-man, much sensitivities came from how the translate the word without associating the connotation of the word in the translating language. But the sense of the word is there, despite it's translational conundrums. The uberman as I understand it stands in strong accordance with internal and external conflict, because those are the bricks that will bring about personal greatness as one's talents relish in their own personal gratification (which is where I would like to think about a new economic model, but this is another conversation). One must first be a destroyer of values, destroy preconceptions, in order to be a creator of values, meaningful values that gives the fruitfulness of life and simply living in existence. Passion is applicable everywhere. Even in its darkest corners (another issue on its own, regarding the judicial).

Inner peace, "a harmony in difference" is an active activity. It is something we constantly work on. Echo the author, "an inner liveliness, not a static inertia." A process of becoming and understanding of "personal peace." The things that we are in synchronicity with - occupation, hobbies, company- friends & family, chocolate, etc. etc. the things that make us happy. (caution to the wind, beware of falling into the self-absorbing delusion that dismisses the lessons of history and the place of our species with regard to each other and our relation to the planet). Being mindful of self, attentive of one's habits and their affecting/effecting, process and response, impress on others is an active observance and awareness. The task is internal peace, but this is a discipline of one's self, a practice in self-understanding - body incorporated. "Polishing one's way" as it could be translated from a buddhist/daoist tradition. A never-ending endeavor of self-discovery. The ultimate question is how do we manage it and do we learn from it? Peace and conflict are active manifestations of our own personal reactions and interpretation/understanding of the situation. Personal habitual tendencies to react, and reluctance to admit that reaction so we push the reaction. sticking to my guns. Roar. And we know, that it's just going to escalate, but nope, we are pot-invested. Being aware, and learning how humility overcomes pride, modesty over indulgence, and simple fulfillment in the art of one's passions rather than luxury and galmour. We observe a state of self-awareness and understanding. We see this expand into one's area of social interaction and ethics. From our own experiences, we can master our self; Nietzsche said, "man is a thing to be mastered." Mastering one's self, is being at peace with one's self to the point that self, the importance of "Me! Me! Me!" is no more. What I like and dislike, does not matter. Just being without the active sense of being. I am without I am...but without the discipline to think about one's self...there is no mastery....no "harmony in difference"; no harmony in the integration.....

2011-04-15T12:09:00.003+02:00

Creepin out of the shadows engulfin the globe

Burnin the curtains exposing the mode

This systemically inbred culture of toads

What once was human, draconian means

Transforming minds; hermeneutics of old

A veil with a tv screen

Just playing the news

They said it was new but it’s just a script

Change the names and it’s still the same shit

Go ahead take a hit, oh that fear?

That fear right there, my ninja, that shit right there.

That shit is the product of politicized sin my ninja.

Against research findings.

Why? ‘Cus:

Machiavelli’s the name

Rummage through whatever means

To obtain the desired end

Fear is a governing tool. Loyalty in love is betrayed.

…Evolving

Now it goes:

Generate fear. target their love.

Sap the wealth, fatten that pocket.

The trend in the name of progress: business

Economic prosperity

Who doesn’t want to succeed?

Make money. Build your life. You can do it.

Oh and psst, the means don’t matter.

Look at them. Everybody knows. and Nothing.

The means don’t mean anything.

Get so big, gov’ment. can’t even touch.

Virtues compromised.

Got to make money.

Gotta pay rent. Gotta eat.

Want to live… but “the rent is too damn high”

Gotta make money.

All to fuel the perpetuating gap.

Why is the system set against the development of working citizens?

Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains

Rather than educating and assisting them to be working citizens?

The market and education should not be independent.

But rather transitionary.

Optimize unit.

2011-04-13T09:05:00.001+02:00

Beware of your ethnocentric

tendencies and ways of thought.

If you are blind to them

you will fall

into the folly of

imperialistic habits.

2011-04-04T10:33:00.001+02:00

The issue raised in this clip toward the end, provides the case, R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens, of four persons on a boat the youngest, age 17, drinks the ocean water and gets sick - against the advice of the others. They had two cans of turnips. They ate the two within 5 days. At 19 days, they propose a lottery - draw sticks, for one to sacrifice for the well-being of all. One refuses. They then decide, the other 3, to eat the one sick. They eat, surviving over the next few weeks or so, then go on to get rescued.

Was this ok? The moderator, Sandel, was stout to stick to Y v N. Defend or Prosecute; Innocent or Guilty, no degrees of variation. But let's entertain, in what cases would it be ok? When is Cannibalism justified? Does consent make a moral difference? The lotto? Due process? 1 for the sake of 3 - or 3 for the sake of 9 (let's say they all have a wife and child)?

Or, is killing just wrong? Cannibalism just wrong?

Do we take the categorical stance or the relative stance?

I would take the moral relative stance.

I would argue, that Cannibalism can be justified, however, the present case I would argue not. A consenting individual who willingly does so, I would argue permissible, however, coerced consent I would argue not. A lottery of all, willing to all place themselves in a position of dying, I would argue allowable, however, the fabrication of such story afterwards, I would argue not. Were they stupid about it? Yes. All one would need to say is: "Eat your own goddamn toe." Sustain your own self - in the most literal sense. But they did what they did and what should we do about it - guilty yes, but get a good lawyer and plead down the sentence.

If the case was tried, Yes, you killed and ate somebody. You, who are of no culture in such practices, without consent, killed and ate a sick 17 year old boy. Guilty. As a member of this society, that partakes in no such practice, you have violated the law. Punitive damages will vary upon your role, the quality of your lawyer, and what the jury thinks, within the range of ascribed in the categorical penal code - describing the degrees and variations of the crime in question.

Although I find the discussion fascinating, and the range of opinions brilliant in the argument for or against, my primary concern is the framing of the matter. As a teaching mechanism, this is great, however, none were quite able to consider that they were working within the utilitarian paradigm of moral reasoning. One for the betterment of the others. Was it morally ok, or not ok? These are your two options. This is a false imposition upon our moral reasoning; a coerced(?) mental moral framework in considering the issue.

What is wrong with utilitarianism? To maximize the utility of happiness over pain, to do the most good, there is nothing necessarily wrong with this idea, however, it is critical to think about what "happiness," or "the most good," means. There are alternative methods than the sacrifice of one for the others, one for a hundred, for a thousand, etc. The betterment of some at the expense of a few. I disagree. Utilitarianism is no longer the best we can do. It is now possible for a universal accountability, to optimize the standards of living for a global humanity.

Nevertheless, there is much to learn from utilitarianism.

2011-03-31T02:40:00.001+02:00

Lame Party quote:

"Oh my god! I love your place! I'm decorating my place just like it: all asian."

-___-;;

On Reality

2011-03-26T03:56:00.002+01:00

A friend from the 'dam has a radio show (Marx Marvelous)
and on this show, he poses questions for discussion along with an awesome playlist of great songs. Today, one of the questions he raised is an age-old question in philosophy: What is reality? Is there an objective reality or is it all a matter of subjective reality? If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody heard it, did the tree really fall?

And I think much insight can be gained by thinking about the question, which provides the answer and what the question parallels in contemporary society. And the question is: if something happens, and nobody witnessed it, did it really happen? So given the first part, if a tree did indeed fall in the forest, but nobody was there to see it, then did it really happen? In much given reality, if something did indeed happen, then what happened can be re-traceable or there will be evidence that it did happen (of course it doesn't always turn out like this: fragments can create an array of theories). In other words, if an event occurred, the evidence - or fragments- of its occurrence will be there for its confirmation. Then of course, the tree really fell. For the person, who has not witnessed or heard of it, then it did not happen. If one is oblivious to an event of history then there is no knowledge or understanding of the event. And this appeals to the subjective perspective. It is impossible for one subjective perspective, one stream of perception and cognition, to know everything that is happening. For that person, the tree did not fall, in fact, there was no tree to begin with.

An example to contemporary socio-political mechanics via media - a smokescreen tactic:
If we can recall back to 1998, the clinton scandal. Monica Lewinsky. And then a dozen other women. But the media blew this up. There was so much attention to the scandal. However, during this gargantuan media fiasco, the clinton administration decided to bomb a pharamceutical plant in sudan. The link describes the circumstances as well as the criticality of the plant for the people of sudan. But if you look closer, you will notice the overlap in dates. When the bombing happened, which crippled the country, and when the scandal happened. Why was there no discussion of whether we should conduct such acts, and why does nobody remember the bombs on afghanistan and sudan?

Such an event is a direct parallel to the tree in the forest. But does it mean that the u.s. did not bomb the pharmaceutical plant? No, the u.s. did, but does it matter much? Probably not, why? Because not many know about it. So for these who know not of the occurrence, there was no such thing. But for those who have heard about and read about it, do know (and of course, with the doubts of credibility in the articles, but when you read several from several different countries, as well as notable scholars who are astute observers of governments and nations, then I think it's ok to think that the event in all likelihood did indeed happen). In a broader reality outside of the phenomenological perspective, the first-person's perspective, the event did happen. Is this the objective reality? Well, we know that it happened, do we know the full story of what and why it happened? We are limited to what we experience from reading, listening, and directly witnessing. The full story of anything can be considered from several perspectives and how they tie together is just as intricate in how it manifests. The full spectrum of why is a daunting task.

But alas, whether that is relevant to the subjective reality, is another issue. Perhaps, the issue for any kind of real social and political change or any shift in methodology of governance.

2011-03-26T00:46:00.001+01:00

The paradox of proximity
is that there may be
no separation between two points
yet they remain
quintessentially
an infinite space apart

Othello

2011-03-26T00:43:00.002+01:00

Loyalty to a false friend
has inseminated
open ears with
poisonous hearsay

Hamlet

2011-03-26T00:41:00.004+01:00

Oh how the seeds of deception
incubating in thine hearts
have given birth
to death
woven
into the fabric of your destinies

Wisdom from a Video Game

2011-03-25T08:39:00.001+01:00

Having, relatively recently, inheriting a x-box, what once was new school now old school - x-box 360 being the latest, along with a bunch of games, I have come to a new appreciation of video games. First I beat Halo 1 and then 2 (in relatively short time), and enjoyed both of them very much with fulfilling excitement and satisfaction/gratification - wiping out seemingly insurmountable hoards of aliens and artificial intelligence for the accomplishment of meeting the next checkpoint. After thoroughly enjoying the Halo games for the x-box, defeating them on normal - yes, not much skill but mind you I have not owned a video game console since the dream cast for one game, which I traded in the Playstation 1 I had before that, and until then, I was a Nintendo enthusiast. I began to play Splinter Cell.

At first, the process is begrudgingly slow. The pace of the game and the care required to partake in a certain task drives the patience producing an initial reaction of frustration. However, with any art, the beginning drives one's patience and unbeknownst to us we are frustrated with the craft at hand. And yay it may be bold to say that playing "video games" (you know with that sarcastic voice) is a craft and art, but with any process of art, craft, trait, sport, etc., where one is required to learn in order to do something well, a video game requires one to learn from a trial and error perspective eventually coming to that peak of sufficient perfection to pass on towards the next part in the sequence.

But before I consider the philosophical importance - in its truest sense (a love of wisdom) - I would like to glorify the magnificence in the detail and significance placed on shadows. Absolutely awesome. The graphics are amazing. K, 'nuff said.

The intricacies in the story line and the overtone of defeating conspiracies within governmental agencies make the story engaging and, in my view, probably not too far (although undoubtedly embellished) from the actual nature of intertwined conspiracies and the incidental, yet casual, crossroads of intentions and ulterior motives. I digress. The actual joy and gratification from the game is in undertaking the trial and error process. At first, encountering a novel situation, one reacts in the way one would react as a person controlling a character in a video game and in the process of overcoming the next obstacle. However, once we die, or fail - and we all do, in that first attempt, we learn a little something about the situation. We try again. We die, fail. But once again, we've learned something again about the situation. Again and again, we die, fail, learn something new, and try again. Die, fail, learn, try - repeat. And after so many times, we marinate the situation with perfection. We knew everything, where the lights were, where the guards were gonna move-so that we could sit there in the perfect spot with a perfect head shot just waiting to happen. We knew what the best strategy to pass this situation was. And achieving that, is mundane bliss. Satisfaction in accomplishment at its purest. The format and the structure of the game is given. We are provided the paradigm and set to accomplish a particular telos set out by the story of the game. And the objective of the game is perfected stealth. To surpass these seemingly impossible circumstances, and simply utilizing one's learned anticipation of what is to happen, and the shadows to conceal one's self - remaining true to the integrity of the character.

To love, appreciate, the wisdom given in a trial and error situation of motivating one's self to capture the perfection of this character, in this game, given his circumstances. The game is now not only one of accomplishing the objective of the game, but a thrusting paradigm of interacting with the artificial intelligence (ai) of the game, that is, being forced to learn the patterns that manifest in the game and how they change when the character engages or makes a mistake - ultimately changing the situation in the game; Splinter cell, the game, is an intuitive interaction with the programmed ai.

The philosophical take is this: Much of life is an art, turned chore, turned habit. The experience of trial and error and eventual accomplishment is a statement of patience; allowing things to develop and understanding the situation to an ultimate performance in anticipation and execution. Life as art, task, and habitual motion, is in the appreciation of the details that returns the appreciation back to an acceptance of art as task as habitual motion in a sequential progression in advancement in achievement. The initial frustration from things not coming easily is ubiquitous and even observable in infants who wish to walk but their bones are yet to be strong enough. The task is overcoming the initial frustration. Not to deny emotions in any stoic sense but to understand what the emotion is - feeling then understanding the feeling. It is also a statement about history. Advancement toward a goal - political or otherwise, is to not ignore the historicity of processes. The political history and a system towards a peaceful humanity is a struggle between the governed and the govern-ers. The system also carries the necessary consideration of the economic system and the primary holders of wealth, not because they have that wealth, but from how they have accumulated, obtained, and recycle that wealth into further wealth - primarily through the use of major corporations, interest groups, think tanks, and other various organizations (some clear on their political leanings and some superficially considered "neutral"). In a sense the governed and the govern-ers dichotomy is still maintained if socio-political economic considerations in the control of power amongst the govern-ers are taken into account.

The negation of history is a negation of evolving societal structure and government The negation of one's self and history of self is the negation of one's evolving personal structural development. The beauty and progress of trial and error should not be lost. The patience to observe and understand then executing is one to not be forgotten. The significance and investigations stemming from history are critical. It is the importance and criticality of historical understanding and the importance to think about the aim, the telos, of progression.

2011-03-19T21:33:00.002+01:00

kiss yet still distant
connected yet detached

a moving train
while I simply sit watching
they say it's a great picture
while none come talking

we say wow
that's bad
but still proceed
with watches shackled
to the unconscious

try to live correct
but simply veiling discrimination
pronouncing 'I'
giving content to a letter
distaste, dislike, disinterest
preference
with a fancy that

slowly discarding
the varieties of infinite experience
to those we seek to create
negate
deny
filter

tears in cookie dough
make bitter cookies
and unique recipes
stimulate titillating intrigue

passion lost
from the chains suppressing
self-expression as a resource
stifling imagination to a hobby
inefficient sufficiency principle

when all is wonders
once discrimination in taste
has filled the void in 'I'
'I' is unnecessary
nothing is worth upsetting
concern is real

what is the direction
in this becoming?

A Poem from '07

2011-03-19T21:20:00.002+01:00

what lurks

what lurks in the curtains

but the question that something is lurking in the curtains

who was it that sent the word
to give birth to the song of the birds

a thousand-eared present just to reproduce resonance
word

as manifested fabric perpetuates eternal recurrence
word?

the movement the utterance
the canons the confluence network

tied together in innocuous knots aimed to stop
that which lurks in the curtains

distilled within the silence lies this timeless patience

awaiting the resilience
to resolve the tension intended to pop the bubble of aggression

envision the progression

the culmination of discontent presence

seeking the outlet for their rebellion

bellicose contra comatose
juxtaposed with the need of self-perfection

tis the edification of projected conception

the concept intercepts the content

filtering the input redirecting the output

alas lasts this
inevitable canonization of self-justified reason

pre or post action

acted out in seasoned incisions of precision

correlated in visions of self-righteous perceptions

perceiving within a scope of contorted distortions

tied together by a single strand of rope
in hopes to make a stand against big brother

but only to falter back down
to the bottom of the hill along with the everlasting boulder

shoulder the weight as time gets bolder

five finger the stake to take the planet of the apes and wait

for the populous to educate the fate

filling the crate with identities

or maybe just another plate full of destined uncertainties

2011-03-08T06:09:00.002+01:00

motherfuckers like to sound profound
but they lack substance

and without will
ultimately contribute nothing

fucking charlatans

'On Human Trafficking'

2011-02-19T07:48:00.001+01:00

'On Human Trafficking'

After attending a panel on human trafficking and a lecture by Lydia Cacho on the same subject, the matter can be considered through two major lenses: an economic critique and a sexual critique (which was the more provoking theme throughout the talks while the former was not really discussed at all).

If I may begin with the latter, the sexual critique, although relevant with the discussion of how societies perceives sexuality (which I will go into later on), it could be argued that it is moreso in the issues of abusing women and children, i.e. human rights abuses.

The majority of 'human trafficking' cases and issues concern the abduction of women (teenage and up) and children (boys and girls) into the sex trade i.e. prostitution rings. I am first met with a reaction of disgust at these people who perpetuate these abuses. Men who rape little boys and girls, steal women, rape and sell into the slave industry, and that these motherfuckers are using the internet, as always, just like they used myspace, facebook to lure, gather information, and kidnap these people. The fact that they are not only abusing these women physically, but that they are damaging them psychologically, emotionally, and impinging on their right to live and flourish, or at least attempt to flourish, in this society; to reach for their aspirations (the "pursuit of happiness." And presumably so, it is the nature of society's "duty" to prevent such occurrences. It is an abuse of Human Rights - if we can stand that taking away (which can be discussed in what sense something "takes away") one's ability to "flourish" in society then it is a violation of the law by which society is structured and kept in an order of "peace" (which could arguably translate into a state of comfort without fear or threat).

In transition to the second matter, the economic critique, we can start with an issue also in the sexual abuse case, which is the way in which society or the men of this industry perceive women and children as sexual objects. Putting aside the psychological perception of objectifying women and children as tools, by which they can satisfy then detach themselves from the object. We can discuss the way in which they are transported through that network of trade, which is the fact that they are being treated as commodity. Taking Marx's 'Das Kapitaal' seriously (if you haven't read it, I strongly suggest that you do), that the purpose of the market is to turn a profit at the expense of exploiting resources; valuing the overall product higher than the cost of its parts. Or exploiting demand, which is to take one thing from one place and sell it another place for a higher price because people want it and they are willing to pay the price for it. In that regard, the sexual exploitation and the slave trade can be considered in the sense of abusing persons as commodity (particularly sexual commodity). The question is a matter of what drives that market and what can we do to prevent it (and the question: if we can prevent it).

The sex slave market must be considered like any other market and the problem we have is the methodology, the manner, by which they have obtained their "resources" to fuel that market. Let's look at several indicative cases of 'human trafficking' that warrants their ill consideration.

We have the very symbolic story of the abduction of young women and children, raped, then sold on to another or pimped out for prostitution.

And in a bigger umbrella, we have the transportation of immigrants (or non-immigrants) and exploiting them, as slave labor, and immobilizing them through one mean or another. I find this issue very interesting because this is the story of capitalism and industry. Through various degrees, we are all immobilized by one thing or another. The issues is how are we all immobilized and what is the degree of difference that makes our immobilization different from the immobilization in the cases of 'human trafficking.'

If I may skip ahead, I think we need to think about the term "progress" - what does "progress" mean for society today? Is it just making ad hoc adjustments to the structure we have now, reactively making changes? Or does "progress" mean fundamentally changing how the joint nature of governance and economy functions? Or does "progress" insinuate a deterministic trend that by continuously making these ad hoc reactive changes we will eventually reach an ideal relationship between governance and economy for the well-being of all? What does progress mean and does it mean that we quell the little things without changing the bigger structure that perpetuate these atrocities and abuses of human rights? What does progress mean and what can we change so that we can target the causes and treat them while not impinging on the rights and state of flourishing of others?

Re: Chomsky - Foucault Debate

2011-02-11T08:31:00.003+01:00

définir la société à venir
Uploaded by adrien_fournier. - Discover more college videos.

I find these few minutes of discussion between Foucault and Chomsky to be very important and thought-provoking. There are two key points being made here. One is the idea of human nature and its optimization as a form of governance (Chomsky - focusing on an innate drive to be creative as a fundamental aspect of human nature) and the necessary need to address the current institutional political loyalties from supposedly "neutral" organizations such as banks, wall street, hospitals, universities, law enforcement, military, and etc. as the danger of their re-occurrence (political loyalties and lobbying power), even in the event of a mass revolution, is possible in a rebuilding process (Foucault - stating that this is the immediate analysis necessary prior to commencing any normative governmental framework by which a revolution may seek; although Foucault is skeptical about Chomsky's version of human nature and a government for it).

Insofar as the two points go, I am in agreement with both of them. If human nature possesses an innate drive to be creative and places one's self in a network of free associations that can at the same time provide the services necessary to the people and still maintain the flow of the market apart from major corporations that always seem to tilt the scale, then the optimization of creativity becomes the driving force behind society and government. The question is how do we optimize every person's creative potential (a matter of education and exposing children to a diverse range of topics and pushing their interests), how should the system look like to accommodate such a shift in perception of human nature and what is the nature of government in relation to that view? If the optimization of human creativity and its product are the motivating forces then it would seem that a fundamental shift in governance and market consequences need to be considered. Perhaps someone will provide a theory that can fulfill such a shift in perspective for governance.

I am also in strong agreement with Foucault here. The dangers of hidden political loyalties behind the veil of "neutrality" are bound to come up again even if there is some form of revolution of government. In the case of Egypt, the question is where does the military hold their political loyalties - not to mention the hospitals, universities, banks, schools, religions, and other institutions. Depending on what their political demands/stances/loyalties are, their place in society, the desires of such institutions will shape the democratic elections that will eventually come to take place in Egypt, unless we see some other events aspiring.

In a recent discussion, a friend provided the view that we should continue to elect hard-nosed politicians that will push the masses to revolt (more W Bush-like presidents). A position advocating revolution and destruction, such that, for him, tribal anarchism (a view similar to Chomsky's) would emerge. I think Foucault's insight is important here as well. Even if we were to grant that such a scenario would occur, the dangers of past political and economic stances of how a society or even tribe should operate are bound to emerge again and the push for power through hollow rhetoric and monetary power (the big stack schmuck who bullies everyone at the table) starts all over again. Albeit on a smaller scale than national governance. In such a situation, it is also quite plausible that big corporations take over the role or simply override government in smaller communities if a tribal anarchist model is adopted. Popular appeal rather than wisdom, knowledge, and reason will perpetuate the politics that was previously demolished, potentially, emerges again.

Another individual, met randomly at some party, suggested that we change the business world to a complete non-profit orientation. Although the idea is arguably noble, the problems will still continue to arise. Non-governmental, non-partisan, organizations still maintain their ideologies, which lean to one direction or the other. In such a scenario the political landscape would still be as polarized as ever - non-profits will maintain lobbying power to sway governance. Furthermore, how does a normal business, become non-profit? And where would the profit actually go to? Changing everything to a non-profit orientation in the current economic system would simply not make any sense as the need for personal sustainability and the desire of luxury or comforts drives the working class. People want to buy homes, cars, eat good food, have nice clothes, etc. etc. And as long as that is the system, the non-partisan paradigm would not work. Even if all profit goes towards "business expenses," such a term is actually still quite relative. A non-profit business could buy homes, cars, people, and call it all a "business expense." Potentially, any expense can be a "business expense." Hosting a "client" at a titty-bar, flying first class, etc. etc. can all be claimed under "business expenses." Lobbyists can be hired, extra personnel can be hired, the avenues of spending the "profit" on the cultivation of business extends to whatever the business claims it needs. I don't see a non-profit economic system within a capitalist society holding any significance in changing the economic structure. Corruption can seep through any crevice, regardless of how many layers you throw in there.

So how do we analyze such "neutral" institutions and what are the details of a society and government that looks to optimize personal choice in their creative processes and facilitate people to work in a job that they love to do? What are the mechanics/logistics of such a theory of government and society? In a documentary called, 'The Examined Life' where a series of philosophers are interviewed, the Michael Sanders interview is most notable here. In his interview he began talking about South America and the revolutions that were going on in the 70s and 80s. One of his informants told him to go have 'revolution' in the U.S. And when Sanders asked how, he was told that it was easy: Get a bunch of guns and ammo then hide and do guerilla tactics in the mountains. The statement struck Sanders in that such a strategy simply does not translate into American society. If revolution were to happen, America would fundamentally need to rethink the notion of revolution and how to go about bringing it out. In Howard Zinn's documentary, 'You can't be neutral on a moving train,' Zinn praised those who came out in protest. Although we are not a true democracy but rather a republic (a democracy + an oligarchy, more oligarchy than democracy; democracy is the facade behind the mechanics of oligarchic hierarchy), the people coming out in a sign of solidarity was what can put pressure on government and invoke change. However, I became disillusioned with this notion, primarily because -although social solidarity and acts of protest are great - the American public is so fragmented and concerned with the issues they are passionate about, there is a fundamental problem in arousing a sense of social solidarity that can parallel the revolutions happening in the middle east. The greatest ploy of American politics is keeping the people divided and fragmented - the political process then becomes a matter of probabilities and popular appeal. The latest social cohesion that occurred was probably after 9/11 where the people were in outrage. Although the outrage was misdirected and spoon-fed into war without any constitutional declaration of such. But went ahead and said, we are at war.

And while broad brush strokes are encouraging, the devil lies in the details. It is necessary to consider the elements of the economy in how they will play out, how government will be managed, how laws are to be enforced, and how past political loyalties from "neutral" institutions factor into the re-formulation of past mistakes, as well as how an actual revolution may take place such that the causes for revolution is enough for all persons and walks of life to come out in protest and create a sense of unifying social solidarity against the inner practices of politics today.

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Response to Michael Specter: The danger of science denial

2011-02-08T00:47:00.001+01:00

Michael Specter raises an important issue regarding the role of science in society. He is right in the sense that we have made tremendous progress insofar as health is concerned - indicated by an increase in the average lifespan of humans today. He points to the potential and the possibility of an optimized use of science today. The example he gives is injecting vitamin A into rice and feeding famished countries. And in part, I agree that science can help these global concerns. But I think he oversimplifies the problems surrounding the matter.

The issue isn't just a matter of aversion or fear of big government, "big pharma" corporations, and a reactionary turn towards "herbal" medicines, vitamins, and "organic" foods. But rather a growing understanding that science has been bastardized and prostituted for marketability and profit. The integrity of science and the scientific method has been jeopardized by politics and profit-motivated businesses. And because of this growing understanding, people seek alternative methods to address their health concerns. He calls it "big placebo." Although I think he is right to some degree, he mocks "herbal medicines," "organic" foods, and the consumption of vitamins, all in one swift jest by saying it just gives you "dark piss." The "dark piss" is primarily a function of those vitamins and supplements we take. And yes, it does give you "dark piss" but really if you think about those who do take those vitamins, the body will consume the vitamins that it needs and pisses out the rest. If you don't need that much then the unused or unnecessary vitamins get pissed out - voila "dark piss." So he is right, but undermines the function of the body. Nonetheless, our bodies get what we need from vitamins and flush out the rest. They are truly "supplemental."

He further goes on to dismiss "herbal" or alternative medicines and "organic" food calling it a useless debate because it is a "political" divide. To an extent he's right, but he makes a false dichotomy. The divide in people who eat "organic" food and those who use "herbal" medicines against those who don't care is not a division in science. The polarization of people is a byproduct of the growing lack of ethics and health concern of the people by the industry. We are simply becoming more and more aware of it. The pharmaceutical industry, the meat and produce industry, have all used contemporary western psychology to appeal to the masses and then played on it for marketability. We can thank Freudian psychology and its abuse by his nephew Edward Bernays (a documentary by the BBC called, "The Century of Self" portrays this point in American advertising quite well). One of the more popular themes is the "bigger is better" mentality. Grow bigger chickens, bigger cows, bigger vegetables, plumper fruit, make it all bigger and prettier - American people like pretty things and more bang for their buck. Corporations are willing to use science to accomplish this - genetic engineering, insertion of hormones, steroids, etc. etc. What's happening is that people are catching on to the cut corners, the manipulations and lack of control by businesses. It has created a sense of disgust. And because it seems so unrecognizable a practice we have the movement toward "natural", "organic", "herbal" products. The guy points out that even those are products of science. And indeed, they are. We have cultivated our food to the point of our fancy. We can make seedless watermelons. Corn is not naturally yellow. Much has been altered by science. Well, more or less, a better understanding of evolution and using it for our benefit actually. A great example are dogs. Dogs are not naturally the way they are - they have been bred over and over again to meet our standards of what we think a dog should be - temperament, physique, and etc. We do the same with our produce and meat. So yes, science is there. But he conveniently skims out the distasteful things the industry does to our food. And this is the abuse and prostitution of science for marketability and profit that I mentioned. So in reality, I don't think that it's a fear of big government or "big pharma," and a lack of faith in science but rather a growing sense of disgust in the ethics and practices the pro-business, pro-profit, that the present economic model has encouraged, which includes the prostitution of science.

The distaste that Michael Specter mentions is the present economic shift in capitalizing on that "organic", "herbal", "green movement." And he makes it a social issue calling them those "organic" elite; a food bourgeoisie. I think this is a misguided judgment. There is nothing wrong with people being picky about the food they put into their bodies. The present "fear" or shift in attitudes towards science is not a distrust in the institution of science itself but its abuses. The role of science today has not been for the betterment or progress of humanity. The role of science has been the "wing-man" to business. The corporations are the pimps, science the whore, and we the customer. Science has been manipulated, compromised, and statistically twisted to facilitate the advertising mechanism. Science is, however and thankfully, a broad broad term for many many disciplines. The academic community has preserved the scientific method and perpetuates its virtues. The failure is the incompatibility of scientific rigor into positive transitions and uses for a pro-business economic society. With the world leaders all playing economic chess games with each other, at the expense of the well-being of its people, science has not reached its optimal potential.

A fundamental shift in the use of science and its role in contemporary society is necessary. Presently, it seems there is a misguided use of science in the economic model of governance and business, i.e. a misappropriation of funds for research and its use in the public and private social sphere. Science should not be tainted by economic gains. In the end, I agree that if we maintain the virtues and integrity of science it is possible to make the world, to be cliche, a "better place." In other words, science can be a tool and method to resolve global crises. But rather than phrasing the issue as a matter of "denial," I think it would be more appropriate to phrase the matter as an issue of misappropriating science in a pro-business economic model. The people are simply reactionary and seek other avenues.

2011-01-21T22:58:00.001+01:00

Simple mundane pedestrians

caught up in complex

egocentric tragic comedies

The Gubernatorial debate and a single act of Civil Disobedience

2010-10-21T08:30:00.000+02:00

On a day of purple, my thoughts turn to yesterday's public act of civil disobedience during the gubernatorial debate. I almost didn't remember but while on the shuttle, I saw a girl with a ticket in her hand and was reminded that Governor Gary Herbert and Mayor Peter Corroon would be having a debate later on in the evening. The event would be free to the public for attendance and it would also be broadcasting live on C-SPAN and the local news channel, KSL.

The event was supposed to start at 6pm and because the vote is early November, I was told that it would probably be wise to show up at 5. I arrived at 5:15. The coordinators handed out a red piece of paper, folded like a booklet, with the candidates information on it. One candidate highlighted his Church membership (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints aka the Mormon church, his local upbringing, and his marriage to his wife; quite subtly highlighting his position on many issues through a discourse that rings political volumes in this state. The other candidate highlighted his education, this degree from this institution, this one from this one, and that one from this one. I found the juxtaposition in background introduction quite interesting.

When I took notice of the seating areas again, there was still ample seating in the non-reserved public section, while almost bare up front in the reserved private section. As the minutes passed, the public section filled up while the reserved area was still quite bare with one or two individuals in sparse sections of the area. With about 10 minutes to airtime, a staff member came up and said, "If you want to move up and sit closer please do so now" (or something along those lines). And naturally, everybody got up and shifted down to the lower, closer, and the once-known reserved section came to be no more. The public was there, upfront before the two candidates - one republican and one democrat. The moderator, Bruce Lindsay, a news anchor for the channel, gave the rules of civility and conduct for the audience during the debate and gave the instructions to the candidates. Seemed as if everything was going to plan for the debate to take place and the people to make their own impressions - although of course there are those who have already made up their minds based on party loyalty. (I will spare the suspense of my own impression right now: I was not impressed by either).

The first question was on the economy and the two candidates were off. Talking their party lines and stances on what they would do without any real thorough explanation of anything - as if they assumed the audience knew the bills and legislative activities they were referring to. Although the virtues of democracy lie in an informed public, not everybody has the time to follow the legislative arena nor are they all aware of what policy changes and resolutions and laws have been passed. Of course they are posted on websites for the people but the information is filled with so much jargon and political trends that the people are unaware of, that the entire notion of an informed public seems absurd. But this is another subject.

Anyway, during Governor Herbert's speaking time a young man in his early twenties stood up, maybe four five rows ahead of me at 11 o'clock and began reading something about gay members of the Church and Utah community committing suicide - couldn't really hear what he was saying, Bruce Lindsay was on the verge of freaking out asking the guy to stop and sit down. The man finishes with a something something like and pauses. Nothing happens for a second and he turns around towards my direction and with a look of "What are you doing?!" A second later, another man in the row ahead of me, or maybe two rows ahead of me, stands up, unfolds a sign and says a name. Seconds later a young girl two rows back at 4 o'clock stands up and unfolds a sign and says another name. And at this point, the "security" comes in and asks them to leave, grabbing each one by the arm and escorted out of the hall.

I began to wonder, was this act of civil disobedience effective? Or does it portray immaturity and simply lays a stepping stone to the thinking of why public debates are uncivil and this only happened because it was held at the University...

But first, I must applaud those who conducted this brave act of civil disobedience. It's not easy to interrupt a live broadcast debate and stand up for an issue. But more importantly, the fact that it happened in Utah I think is tremendously significant as an act of defiance and indicative of the growing political vigor in Utah's students; something I find encouraging and happy to see.

Now, to get back to the question, was such an act effective in presenting and bringing awareness to the issue?

Was this the proper venue for such a display?

The event was a televised debate on public television and as far as public exposure, I would think there would be none greater than national and local broadcast. The only question is, did those who conducted this act get on television? Did the cameraman turn to them? And did the sound-guy pickup on what they were saying? If so, then great. The exposure and the act is effective in expressing disgust in what has been happening.

If not - no sound no visual - then the act could have been seen as a mild disruption to a debate and perhaps frowned upon by the Utah community. The inference could even be made that this happened because it was at the University of Utah and that it was open to the public blah blah blah. We all know the possible inferences a red state can make and the various absurd reasons that can come out. But perhaps, attention itself - negative or positive - is good as it draws attention to the issue, on the condition that the issue is mentioned.

Second, the forum was a political debate. And I wondered, does gay suicides have to do with politics? Perhaps if this was any other state, probably not. But the fact that this is Utah with a dominant Republican Mormon community forced me to think about the subject. The man who stood up directed his talk at Governor Herbert, the current Republican Governor for the state of Utah, and member of the LDS Church. Perhaps it is this connection that the majority of Utah leaders are indeed Mormon that prompted the gentleman and his peers to engage in the activity. There is no doubt that many teenagers are thrown out of their Mormon homes because they "came out" to their parents and were disowned. There have been seemingly countless suicides of young gay Mormons, although their sexuality is often concealed to prevent any attention to the Church and their position on homosexuality. The issue of gay Mormon suicide is real.
But the question in Utah is who influences who? Does government, or better yet, Can government influence the Church? Does an act of civil disobedience towards a governor bring attention to the Church? In part yes, and in part no, depending on the line of reasoning one takes. The plea of political attention to gay suicides does help, however, I can't say that the driven attention to politics really gets at the issue. If 30 gay, lesbian, tranny, bisexual people got up and started making out in before the debate in protest for the approval of gay marriage and their disgust in the Church's involvement then that may have been a better act as gay marriage is a political issue relevant in politics across the nation.

Gay suicide is a social issue - particularly in Utah - derived from the Mormon majority and their obedience to the Church on the disapproval of the LGBT community. Not only does the Church's stance create political disagreement but it also alienates those gay members who wish to be Mormon but seen as disgraceful because of their sexuality. And although I think bringing awareness and attention to the matter is very important. I am uncertain of whether the act of civil disobedience was indeed effective.

2010-09-30T21:21:00.003+02:00

I wonder a little about the premise: Anthropomorphism in philosophical thought and discourse. I'm not sure if philosophical thought entails that philosophers tend to discuss the nature of things in terms of human qualities or personalities. But rather it may fall guilty to an "anthrocentrism" in the sense that we discuss things with humans and what we can theoretically call "human nature," at the center of our discussions. We talk about existence, ontology, epistemology, hermeneutics, political philosophy and etc. all of which place the human mind and its relation to reality at its center. However, I am not so sure this is necessarily a bad thing as we are inclined to talk about our place in the universe, our relation to other things, our being, our becoming, and the nature of groups from small networks to bigger networks such as political groups and religious fractions.

In this sense, OOO is really no different as it places our being into relation of other things and considers the self and the surrounding objects in a holistic process. Not just one thing doing one thing but one thing in relation to a bunch of other things doing one single thing e.g. eating. And to this end I agree that there is a holistic process in everything that we do with an exceptional case of, perhaps, the phenomena of "thinking" which also can be debated in its orientation to objects and their relation to our thought processes. But I think this could be another discussion. For now, let me stick with the initial discussion of ontology and OOO given Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel, which I am also familiar with.

For one, I'm not sure if the structure of our ontology is the same as a toaster, which may be an ab reductio absurdum. I agree that as far as the occupation of space is concerned I take up space no differently from a toaster in structure. But I think ontology is a bit more than simply a spatial occupation. Ontology is the study of being and within the concept of 'being' is whole canopy of what a person's 'being' is and what that consists of. And to this end our 'being' or structure of existence is fundamentally different than a toaster apart from the physical space both entities occupy. And even there, we find a plethora of distinctions and discrepancies between any one individual and a toaster such as mobility, thought, behavior, etc. all of which open another line of discussion.

But I think most philosophers would agree that we are in a vortex of relations to objects and other people and plenty of other relations. As far as Jared Diamond's analysis goes in terms of the OOO, I agree that indeed guns, germs, and steel have drastically influenced and changed over the years the development of culture. No doubt. However, it is our ontological potential as a species that created guns and steel and to one degree or another germs. I'm not saying that we invented bacteria or diseases but we have had an influence on the evolution of bacteria as well. But to begin with guns and steel are man-made concoctions that have changed the face of humanity and undoubtedly the next book will have to include the internet. But this too, is a man-made construction that has developed into its own cyber organism - much like the stock market. So we must beg the question if OOO is a more eloquent way of stating: we are in relation to the things we create and we change because of it. So OOO does consider other objects as a holistic process but I do not think any philosopher would entirely disagree with that premise. If the purpose of OOO is an attempt to negate a certain anthrocentrism that is prevalent in much philosophical thought, then I think it fails. OOO becomes tautological because the objects that we involve in almost any holistic process of behavior, habit or whatever like eating, are man-made objects or human-programmed objects etc. Trying to say that we are not central to what we do is a fallacy. And the objects we include are man-made. So even OOO can not elude a certain degree of anthrocentrism and I don't think there is a sense of anthropomorphism because we do not necessarily ascribe human personalities or emotional attributes to the objects around us - although it is fun to name one's bike, or car, delila and think it has a personality or thinking that by the way we talk to our piece of machinery it will function better in response to our utterances of affection or frustration. I certainly fall guilty of talking shit to my computer, but nonetheless I don't think philosophers would consider that as a particular philosophical trend unless we are considering the phenomenology of that particular phenomena - talking affectionately to a computer as if it will perform better - as a topic for discussion.

With regard to the freedom topic. I totally agree. The restraints are more apparent today than they were 20-30 years ago. The internet has opened up an entirely new dynamic of connectivity and communication. And yes, I agree that the old forms of prejudice, bias, and racism are still very much alive today. There has been a thin veil that has been draped and people know how to speak in a politically correct manner to hide underlying modes of thought. I like what you said at the end that the racial structures and institutions are still in place. This reminds me of Foucault and his criticism of the state and criticism for revolution - or rather his proposal at what the first step to a revolution should be. For Foucault, revolution has to begin with looking at these seemingly "neutral institutions" that are in place in our society - schools, universities, hospitals, corporations, and any other institution that claims they have no political bias. Foucault would argue that they do have a political bias. And I have seen it or was reminded of it in court, and the drug court system that wishes to "assist" people with addiction. The court system and any rehabilitation system talks about a normativity of the human condition. They talk about "thinking errors" and what "rational behavior" or "irrational behavior" is. When in fact these are things that are actually very hard to quantify or qualitatively determine outside of the most extreme cases. The current system which is a reflection of the legislation, in Utah at least, a very puritan, complete sobriety, type of system. Anything otherwise, you are abnormal or irrational. Now what this does is that it subjects people to a certain mode of thought and attitude and approach, which, let's be honest, the Utah way of politickin. It is a very what we now call "conservative" way of going about things, a very puritanical way of going about things - "the best way to solve the problem is to eradicate and abstain from it." Something that is just not feasible considering the human psyche and diverse methods of living. But to get back to the point, these seemingly neutral institutions in their attempts to "help" people are condemning their way of thought. This was Foucault's objection to the discipline of psychology back in the day - and psychology has progressed tremendously since then and at the same necessary to discuss what type of psychology we are talking about - but moreso than the discipline itself, Foucault was concerned about our alleged mental institutions and the DSM that characterizes mental disorders, and rehab centers. The discussion can go into sexuality as well, which is also one direction Foucault went. But I think he has a point that if we do not consider these institutions, regardless of any revolution, the trends and approaches of such subtle, covert, manifestations will re-occur rendering the revolution moot or without real change. So in order for any real stance on the restraint of freedom or any real consideration of any kind of "revolution" there are many levels in which we need to consider what a meaningful change in the system would be. Not only is it to look critically at government and its political philosophies but also the institutions that manifest and the way in which they influence the people's way of thinking.

2010-09-13T00:25:00.004+02:00

typical.

2010-09-11T07:42:00.003+02:00

'RiP: A Remix Manifesto' is a documentary film in defense of the remix culture and points out the absurdity of copyright or "intellectual property" laws of the U.S. and in turn applied internationally.

I agree that the use of technology and the creative uses of technology expressing previously established works of art in a new way is itself a form of creativity. Drawing a mustache on the mona lisa and animating the picture into a musical of sort should not be prohibited by any copyright law because the copyright laws of the mona lisa are owned by some organization. Improvising and utilizing other works for the extension of creativity and the manifestation of art derived from other art should not be prohibited nor against the law. At least I do not believe it should.

However, I am against utilizing the same product and selling it as one's own without giving due credit. A prime example of this is the instance of Chuck Berry and The Beach Boys. Chuck Berry made a song called 'Sweet Little Sixteen' in 1958:

In 1963 The Beach Boys released 'Surfin USA.' This song is the same song as Chuck Berry's 'Sweet Little Sixteen' with a change in lyrics.

Now, this would have been fine if The Beach Boys gave credit to Chuck Berry. However, none of this happened. The Beach Boys literally took Chuck Berry's song note for note got new lyrics and profited tremendously on the song. There was no copyright infringement because the label that bought Chuck Berry's song sold it to The Beach Boys. And during the same time Chuck Berry was arrested and put into jail during or about the time The Beach Boys came out with this song.

I am against such occurrences because it is neither modifying the tunes or sampling a riff or break but taking the entire song and putting a different lyric to it. This is much like taking the purple cap off of a vile of crack, putting on a yellow cap and calling it something different. I think this is not appropriate and no credit or royalty was provided to Chuck Berry. This is in stark contrast to what weird Al Yanjovic did as he gave credit and royalty to those who produced the song while wrote his own lyrics and made fun of it.

In contrast to what the Beach Boys did and in a different sense Weird Al, the creative process is very different from 'Girl Talk' or any other remix or mash up artist. 'Girl Talk' is sampling riffs, notes, breaks, and putting them in a different orientation that involves an entirely different creative process than simply superimposing one set of lyrics over another. Changing the nature of a song and putting it into a medley of 20-30 different songs is a creative process that requires an understanding of the techniques and a understanding of the way in which music is structured. There is a qualitative difference in creative processes.

What is ironic of the whole copyright laws and processes is that corporations today are looking to exploit, take, steal, other material and market it for themselves and yet try to protect themselves from being exploited in the same way they did to others. This happened with Disney's Micky Mouse and it also happened relatively recently with the Matrix. So according to corporate America's view, it is alright if we exploit other's treasures but they can't ours unless they get permission and pay us.

2010-08-13T00:05:00.000+02:00

The application of the social contract, as it manifests in society, is a prejudicial and biased one. Society through its systems of management not only provide a mandatory contract by which the will to abide or consent is one of distorted wills. The individual is not giving a willful consent to the application of the social contract. This is something that is most evident within the judicial system and the application of laws. If anything a reconsideration of the laws and the system of social contracts is required to weigh in the benefits of living in a society and if there is indeed an ipso facto agreement, or tacit agreement, to live pursuant to the laws of that society. Unless there is an agreement of the minds and a mutual consent to the terms of a social contract, which is essentially invisible, the social contract theory fails in the maintenance and adherence of all citizens of that country as it imposes invisible agreements and manipulative practices behind the back of the "consenting" individual, simply by living in a society.

2010-08-04T20:33:00.001+02:00

The Buddha spoke of suffering as a discontentedness, dissatisfaction, or inner turmoil with one’s life. And no doubt we all have our own share of suffering in that sense, dissatisfaction with life or discontent with the way things are going in our lives. Albeit these dissatisfactions may vary from person to person and to various degrees but nonetheless we all have them - even for those who seemingly don’t have any worries or those who seem to be in “control,” “cool,” “calm and collected.” Suffering exists for all; we all have our worries and concerns. Many may be content with one aspect of their lives but perhaps not in another. The multifaceted complexities of life are such that it is possible for degrees of content-ness and discontent-ness.

What becomes interesting in the manifesting actions as a result of such content-ness or discontent-ness are the behavioral and lingual expressions reflecting one’s current perspective on life. Naturally, expression is as varied and diverse as the nature of one’s contentment and/or discontentment. To this end I don’t want to go into the various forms of expression but rather the effects of such expression, the consequences of expression. It would seem plausible to categorize expression into three forms of affect: positive, negative, and neutral - and of course we have all the “gray” areas in between. Another necessary distinction is within the act of expression: the intention of the expression and the extraction from that expression. In other words, we have the intention of the expression whether it was directed towards some thing or some one or whether it was simply a method of self-catharsis that happens to affect another; and of course we have the simple observational statement that means nothing but the perception acknowledging the observation - perhaps in the type of intention directed at some thing or some one. In contrast, we have the extraction of that expression, which is the meaning or effect upon another from that expression. In this regard the expression and the effect of the expression may or may not be congruent with one another and may even be oppositely construed. Naturally the extraction of expression is hermeneutical and contingent upon the individual’s cognitive attention in what that person “wants” to hear or focus on. This may be a direct product of social nurture or conditioning in how to interpret or understand something. Similarly the expression itself is also a product of one’s social environment in how to express one’s thought efficaciously. Nonetheless despite our absorption of thought and modes of communication and interpretation, there is a tremendous gap between the communicator and the communicated. Many will extract based upon tone and the seeming gist of what is being said. In this extraction, the expression of the expressor carries a particular "energy" that influences or impacts, to varying degrees, the person who the expression is directed towards or any extractor of that expression, which would entail an absorption of that energy carried in the expression.

The energy carried in expression is then correlative to one's sense of self, self-esteem, and state of happiness - contentness or discontentness- as transmitted and extracted from those who those expressions are directed towards, and at the same time the extent or degree of impact that energy has on the person is also related to the receiving person's degree of self, self-esteem, and state of happiness - contentness or discontentness - as the energy is absorbed pursuant to that person's mood or disposition at the time of transmittance.

The output and intake of energy from one person to another lies in one's own degree of self and rendition of his or her quality of life. In this sense expression can be considered as an indicator of self in the measure of happiness, or rather, simply a reflection of one's state of being.

2010-07-03T23:23:00.001+02:00

Knotted energy, clotted energy, must be resolved for one to flow without hindrance.

Acceptance and understanding of the roots that stem those knots is necessary for their resolution and release;
knots that are formulated from harboring, and eventually embodied, rationalized emotions such as jealousy,anger, frustration, fear, disappointment, greed, discontent, doubt, shame...in their conceptual manifestations of mind and where we place those emotions.

Discipline is necessary to flow with direction and purpose.

2010-07-03T08:58:00.000+02:00

So lately I've been having conversations with multiple people about life, happiness, and the current capitalist system that we all live in today.

The first two concepts, life and happiness, are quite abstract and require a clarification of what it is we are all talking about. Although seemingly implicit in their meanings, the terms can be quite varied as to what they indicate and of course the concept of 'happiness' itself can mean several things over for different people. But if we can condense the issue to the very premise that we are alive in an economic system that requires, for the majority, a job by which we earn our wages and pursue the luxuries that we want and by the pursuit and obtainment of such luxuries, whatever they might be, has been easily conceived as the achievement of happiness. The typical scenario goes: we're born, we start going to school, we learn various things from experience, and when we get old enough we begin the contemplation of getting a job. A job because we want spending money in addition to what we get from the benefits of living in a home. Or because we have to pay to go to school, or pay to live in our own home and pay the bills, then for those who choose to, get married, and money money money money money. You got to make money to sustain a certain quality of life, befitting one's standard of life. So what do we all do? We have to get a job that makes a certain amount of income. It is the inevitable bind we all find ourselves in. The Job. The Career. Contingent upon which, many questions of status or qualifications of existence come into play. It has become a launching point for measuring existence. And by which, many come to create a measure of happiness. What makes them happy? What is happiness for them? Is it a satisfaction of the existence they are leading? And what becomes the measure for one to begin measuring that satisfaction? There can be measures of short-term goals of achievement or obtainment, and there can be long-term goals. And of course, we can see both. We can look at what we want right here and now. And we can look at what we want later on down the road. In between, we have the compromise and dialogue between what can we have right now and what do I need to do to get what I want later on? If the common ground in methodology is the necessity of money, we then have the question of management and deliberation on what we can have now and what we shouldn't have now because of something we want later. The construction can be applied to practically anything couched in terms of "wants" and "don't wants." And what we are willing to compromise in between, i.e. "settling."

Rather than going into a longer deliberative discrimination of what each would potentially mean. I think much of the conversation can be boiled down to, what do you want to do with your life and how do you plan on achieving that? And the ensuing qualitative question is, is that going to make your life better? Happier? Or will it give you a sense of satisfaction? And what kind of satisfaction?

And during the interim of asking these questions, we have to worry about maintaining the current level, such that progression is viable. Our own personal status quo is required to achieve a "higher" status quo. And status quo can be anything one measures one's place in life; money, income, job, career, social relations, etc, whatever.

So we are essentially placed in an inherent burden of existence pursuant to a certain modality imposed by society. An inherent burden of pressure to become an adult, we can't change it, we all physically and mentally develop. Where we max out is variable. But the growth is indubitable. And of course we have the social factors that are attached with physical growth and societal growth as far as stage of life, which we can all easily categorize through the stage of education we are at. Age can also be an indicator, and it is for some cultures. We may also measure the stage of growth by our emotional reactions and methods of reason. Perhaps even a measure by the things we have, the luxuries and toys we own. In pursuit of progressing along whatever measure we measure our happiness, we have the drive to comply, complacently or enthusiastically, in conjunction with the drive to accomplish our ultimate niche or placement in life. The dilemma comes when we must manage, maintain, and balance, simultaneously for the survival and the optimization, according to our dreams and aspirations, of our existence.

What is your happiness?

2010-07-01T07:55:00.000+02:00

order and chaos are machinations of the mind
contingent upon one's internal world of ideas
with regard to one's immediate external environment

Local Girl Dies from Drug Deal

2010-06-06T22:04:00.004+02:00

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700035574/Police-say-fatal-Taylorsville-attack-not-random.html?s_cid=rss-30We

This is sad but something I'm not terribly surprised about.

Yes her parents kicked her out of the home. And we can say that this is a result of irrational fears and decades of drug war propaganda regarding illegal drugs. Many families, or probably all families, go through disputes surrounding the child's obedience and parental authority. The result of Heather being kicked out could be this tension (obedience and authority) submersed in a clash of understanding about drugs, marijuana, and lifestyle. Such things happen all the time. Family tension is part of the game of growing up and again as adults. This is not what bothers me, although as a friend said, there is the task of education and disbursal of accurate information regarding currently illegal drugs; the task of dispelling myth.

What bugs me the most, is that because marijuana continues to be a profitable black market street commodity there is appeal in its participation and thus subject to street brutality. We continue to see generations and generations resorting to make money through the black market. It is an easy and fast way to make money. This undermines education in general. Rather than investing in the long-term there is the increasing need for short term gratification in seeing income. In other words, it is more profitable to partake in the black market than taking the old-fashioned route of good grades, college, job security, and then paying off all of one's debts; getting out of the perpetual financial bind is the name of the rat-race. It is a droll system. In rebellion we see generations resorting to the profitable, and risky, black market. Risk not only in terms of the potential dangers of the street but also the dangers of encountering the judicial system - the stigma of being labeled as a criminal goes a long way in terms of social and personal progress. Unfortunately the girl here was a victim to the prior and the black market that motivates it.

The bigger issue, I think, is how people will interpret this in terms of what needs to be done. Either such an occurrence will motivate them further to say, this is why we need to get rid of illegal drugs and continue to work harder in busting drug dealers to get these drugs off the streets. But as many of us know, this has failed over and over and over again. No matter how many drug dealers the system busts, more will continue to pop up and heavier, stricter, enforcement does not dissolve it. The streets are adaptive and will devise other and more clever means of evading and distributing. The system taps personal cell phones, the street will go to disposable phones or use other codes of communication.

Or, the issue can be interpreted as this is why we need to take the black market out from under the rug of the streets. By doing so, not only does it strip away one avenue for younger generations to find profit in the black market but it also takes away revenue generated for organized gangs who profit the most.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but because society continues to frame such issues in terms of "the children! what about the children!" It is also important, I think, to stress the compromise of education for the appeal of profit in the black market along with the medical purposes and criminal justice issues that surround illegal drugs. Although they all tie in together in the bigger picture.

2010-05-14T09:48:00.002+02:00

In response to the article:

How do Christians become Conservative?

(in the mix of a formulating discussion)

The issue seems to be one of ethics and economics. How do we approach the subject and in what way do we critically assess the current system of economics with regard to the issues of social justice, equality, and ideas of inclusiveness. The economic lens is one way of looking at the issue. We can speak about the nature of markets and how the market fluctuates according to supply and demand. Another plausible lens is one of social justice and the issues of exploitation. Considering the current nature of economics, the exploitation of others is practically inevitable. A working class is necessary for the system to function - Marx being a champion of the working class made this quite clear in das kapital. The author also advocates that Jesus was a champion of the poor and the catch phrase "what would jesus do" fails to apply to the nature of American capitalism.

I don't think the issue is how much should we help or what kind of help is in fact effective, but rather what kind of reform do we need such that a poor working class isn't left in a perpetual sisyphean struggle. In other words, how do we take the current capitalist system and consider the phenomenological state of the poor into a meaningful discussion of reform. The question almost seems paradoxical in that a working class is necessary, but can the system improve the quality of life of the working class? Of course we would have to discuss why the poor are indeed poor, which raises a bevy of other issues regarding society - both past and present in terms of "social evolution" if you will. But leaving these other variables aside, which may not really be plausible for a comprehensive discussion of the poor, society, and economics, the issue of reform becomes one of economic regulation and how those regulations can help the poor. As Mr. Timothy Dudley pointed out, the issue of help and efficacy is also one that needs to be critically considered. I also think that in addition to the issue of efficacy and help, the issue of exploitation and how to mitigate it is one of importance. Like Foucault mentions in his debate with Chomsky, if we do not critically evaluate the seemingly neutral institutions of today and their involvement in politics and economics, there is a risk that they will arise again, thus devaluing any kind of reform that may take place.

Critical evaluation of institutions, as well as economic regulations - both state and federal - are necessary as well as a critical assessment of the poor and their phenomenological lives, not simply as a quantified figure. How do we consider economic reform while taking into account the state of capitalism, issues of assistance and the changes needed such that constant assistance does not become necessary, exploitation, alleged neutral institutions and their treatment of the poor, and the phenomenological aspect of the poor.

2010-05-12T10:09:00.003+02:00

it's funny how it's so easy to make generalizations or qualifications about another person and his or her actions - both lingual and physical. We are quick to assume that a statement or action indicates this thing when in fact, it quite the contrary; the presumptious assumption can and could be far from what the actor is or was or whatever extraction one made.

it is better to check, inspect,and assess, our own assumptions of others rather than imposing those assumptions upon one's self and go down the path of venomous red herrings, which in turn leads to a perpetuation of miscommunication and misunderstanding.

although this should be, it is not always the practical case. it begs the question: how long do we leave it open until it is safe to sufficiently state it is affirmatively true? the presumption of another person that is.

or even better yet, we can ask the presumptions we have about ourselves and how we are. check presumption. all presumption. presumption of self, presumption we have of others, presumption of the past, presumption of the present, presumption of the future and the presumption that others have a particular presumption about you. forget it all. why presumptively assert any assumption?

perhaps all that u wished for was true and it is only ur projection of obstacles that inhibits the dream to be real.

"or maybe you're just an asshole

maybe i'm just an asshole" -says Aesop in the corner

;)

nonetheless, false presumptions or false concerns can be the start of petty quarrels and disagreements. but petty quarrels and disagreements do not simply just disappear. but rather, they build contiguously upon episode upon episode upon episode; the plot thickens, of course to various degrees, and for some the matter becomes such a mind fuck that even iago would stand to applaud.

it is necessary to know all sides of the story prior to convincing one's self of what one interprets to have experienced is the truth. u can hold what you believe and know to be true and supplement and understand it from the other side as well.

2010-05-06T09:49:00.000+02:00

Libertarian Communitarian Communitarian Libertarian

labels do not seem to encompass one's vision for society

maximize liberty and maximize security

2010-04-13T09:53:00.001+02:00

i feel like there should be a public option for individuals who want to contribute their taxes to particular areas of society...like education, instead of govt cutting that area to balance their books. just a thought...

the idea is very crude and would need serious consideration if anything similar were to be implemented. If the public option was completely open for the personal dictation of tax to which areas received that money, then the rich would indeed tilt the contribution of taxes in certain areas that may ultimately serve private concerns or ulterior motives. Perhaps a base percentage should go towards a general tax and another percentage toward the individual's areas of concern? Or perhaps the public options should vary from year to year depending on which areas of social concern the budget requires further funding? Or as you suggested, limit the areas where the option is available....

And yet, all still seem problematic. The prior, although providing a basis, still leaves room for a bias of the rich to tilt the development of society (as if this wasn't happening already).

If we went with the second suggestion, what becomes problematic is the deliberation of what a "social concern" is and how that is determined to be an option for public tax dollars... It would be very disconcerting if politicians were to manipulate government spending in one area to facilitate the facade of a need for funding in another area. Tax dollars should not be manipulated to meet the needs and promises made to lobbyists of private industries (accountability and ensuring/following up on tax dollar expenditure). Also, if the areas of necessary funding don't receive the attention that they should then they would not become an option for the public. Many feel strongly about various things but if the passion is not received with equal attention in government, then the social concern doesn't become an option.

The third would share similar concerns as the second. How are those limited options determined? And what happens when they no longer require the additional tax monies? And what about areas that are underrepresented? Politicians have a tendency to ignore the concerns of the poor let alone distribute government spending properly.

...it all seems to get blurred in the logistics of implementation to one degree or another... play within the box or scrap it and start from scratch? Food for thought :)

2010-04-08T05:55:00.002+02:00

we circulate so much negative energy today; we presume, assume, and pass judgments; we infer and assume the intentions of others, when reality eludes the subtlest imaginations. it is common for us to rationalize our actions through external stimuluses, while others (those who see and try to comprehend) attribute our acts as internally motivated. when in fact, it is a matter of embodiment; a composition of how we have internalized our constantly fluctuating social cultures. how we have habituated and understood to adapt and function in society.

Obedience, Aspiration and Duty; commentary on 'The Polygamists'

2010-03-30T08:29:00.000+02:00

After reading Scott Anderson’s article, ‘The Polygamists’ from the 2010 February issue of National Geographic, I couldn’t help but think that I was being informed through the lens of Scott Anderson’s perspective interspersed with past events reported by the media and statements of history. Whether the events happened in the way Scott Anderson tells it, other than my own exposure to the events through external sources of information i.e. news on the internet, I wouldn’t know. Although I understand that there could be discrepancies within the details of history and its interpretation as there would be discrepancies between the experience of an actual event and the reporting of that event, I am no expert of history. Nevertheless, the history and the accuracy of representation do not bother me here. I am left to the faith in National Geographic and Mr. Scott Anderson’s professionalism as a journalist. I’ll take the quotation marks to mean literal statements/utterances from those Anderson interviewed and/or spoke with. What fascinated me, particularly, was the juxtaposition between Scott Anderson’s personal experience of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) community and with what he understood about FLDS history along with their involvement in the news. The values represented through utterance in quotations, or via Scott Anderson, contrasted with the values represented by media and law, via Scott Anderson, I think, from a social science perspective, presents a tension of value systems – conflicting senses of morality.

Just recently I was introduced to a dialectic in the morality of law – the morality of aspiration and the morality of duty. The morality of aspiration, I was explained, is much like what the Ancient Greeks have called, the “Good Life.” And of course there are variations and different takes on what the “Good Life” would be; America declared it as our “unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness;” in life, we have the “unalienable right” to pursue happiness with liberty. For society, this is the morality of aspiration in law. The law stands to enable the individual with those rights to pursue happiness. The morality of duty is the basic rules of civility society must preserve to maintain order and civility for the functioning of society. Most commonly, it has come in the form of “thou shalt not,” steal, murder, and so on; the bottom-up approach I’m told. Eventually, these two forms of morality overlap when what one aspires to conflicts with what one isn’t allowed to do. In other words, these two moralities in their idyllic state – for the purposes of government – conflict at the experiential level, the phenomenological level, as what the pursuit of happiness is and how it manifests, carries its own set of hermeneutical issues for each individual and/or culture that may conflict with the morality of duty instilled within the law.

With regard to the FLDS community, as presented by the media, the moralities of duty and aspiration have come together in its enforcement and manifestation of raids, indictments, and convictions as well as their ensuing sentences in court – not only for the case of Warren Jeffs, and other members charged with forms of sexual abuse, but also for the community and their judicial consequences e.g. land, custody of children, and so on. The media and the judicial sentences strike a dissonant chord of disgust when we hear the charges of ‘rape as an accomplice’ and ‘sexual assault.’ I would assume that this comes under the morality of duty side of the law while preserving one’s right in the morality of aspiration; the enforcement of one for the preservation of the other.

In contrast, the morality of aspiration and duty has taken on a different tone within the polygamous sect. Rather than an emphasis on an individual level of value in aspiration the emphasis is placed on communal values. The opening scene of “several thousand” members in gathering to mourn the death of a wife and show support for the family; “old fashioned devotion and neighborly cooperation” where even the children help bring in the yield; where a sister shares her husband for her sister’s “happiness,” all of which has been centered around the motif of plural marriage “to build up the Kingdom of God.” Women are given the task to “build up the celestial family” that will continue for eternity.” In this sense, the morality of aspiration is centered on theological grounds for the afterlife reflecting a social governance centered upon the “law of plural marriage,” family, and community; the theological fueling the social – and of course how is variable from community to community, network to network. And it is in this morality of aspiration joined with the morality of duty that creates a dynamic tension within and between individuals, social networks, and overall governance.

As some of the women in the article have indicated, the concept of obedience has strained that sense of aspiration as it interjects into their embodied conceptual organization of what they are aspiring towards. Dorothy Jessop states, “to be honest […] I think a lot of women have a hard time with it, because it's not an easy thing to share the man you love. But I came to realize this is another test that God places before you—the sin of jealousy, of pride—and that to be a godly woman, I needed to overcome it.” In the cases of “reassignment, Warren Jeffs accounts, via Scott Anderson, that “One of his brother's wives had difficulty accepting the news and could barely bring herself to kiss her new husband. "She showed a great spirit of resistance, yet she went through with it," Jeffs records. "She needs to learn to submit to Priesthood." Similarly, Scott Anderson portrays a “wary” Melinda Jeffs – who presents a “stout defense” of Warren Jeffs and confidently stating, “that [reassignment] wouldn’t happen” – when she ponders the following question, would she “obey” if her “reassignment” were to occur.

At the same time, we have Joyce Broadbent: “from my experience, sister wives usually get along very well. Oh sure, you might be closer to one than another, or someone might get on your nerves occasionally, but that's true in any family. I've never felt any rivalry or jealousy at all." Scott Anderson indicates that the division of household duties (schoolteacher, kitchen, sewing, etc) and an awareness of their role “to bear and raise as many children as possible, to build up the "celestial family" that will remain together for eternity” helps mitigate the tensions of jealousy and allows sorority.

The approach and associated values within the moralities of duty and aspiration – beginning on theoretical, metaphysical, or in this case, theological grounds – are instilled within the social ethos of any network, community, or state. And yet, the social ethos of an individual, or even community, cannot be assumed to manifest in a one to one relation. The moralities as they are conceived do not come to being in the same ethos for every individual; automaton cannot be assumed. But rather, the moralities manifest through the understanding and hermeneutics of those moralities in the paradigm upon which they are grounded, which ranges to various degrees for each individual adhering to that paradigm. In turn, that cognitive and conceptual organization comes into consideration during the assessment, and emotional response, of social situations or circumstances individuals are placed in.

The FLDS members are submersed in a dynamic tension of theological aspiration (family and eternity) and a morality of duty enforced in the power of governance to perpetuate a social structure surrounding that morality of aspiration. This would seem to have resulted in an internal dissonance in the conceptualization of obedience. Not only is there an obedience to one’s personal understanding of self on a metaphysical level in relation to his/her understanding of God as one aspires to reach that celestial state, there is the obedience to a morality of duty that is grounded in a relation to the community, including household, and what has been deemed as revelations brought forth by a prophet; a tension that each member eventually reconciles considering their self in relation to the community and understanding of the afterlife.

America: A Leading Terrorist State?

2010-02-28T13:55:00.001+01:00

After watching "The most dangerous man in America," a documentary on Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon papers. A book came to mind on the nature of American foreign policy. The book is a collection of interviews conducted with Noam Chomsky, called '9-11,' (Seven Stories Press, New York, 2001) and in one of his interviews he calls America: a leading terrorist state. When asked to elaborate on this remark he gave several examples, which I would like to share.

"Nicaragua in the 1980s was subjected to violent assault by the U.S. Tens of thousands of people died. The country was substantially destroyed; it may never recover. The international terrorist attack was accompanied by a devastating economic war, which a small country isolated by a vengeful and cruel superpower could scarcely sustain [...] They didn't respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They went to the World Court, which ruled in their favor, ordering the U.S. to desist and pay substantial reparations. The U.S. dismissed the court judgment with contempt, responding with an immediate escalation of the attack. So Nicaragua then went to the Security Council, which considered a resolution calling on states to observe international law. The U.S. alone vetoed it." pg. 24-25

"the U.S. is the only country that was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court and that rejected a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law"-pg 44

In 1985, Beirut, Reagan administration set off a terrorist bombing, "a truck bombing outside a mosque timed to kill the maximum number of people as they left. It killed 80 and wounded 250, mostly women and children, according to a report in the Washington Post 3 years later. The terrorist bombing was aimed at a Muslim cleric whom they didn't like and whom they missed" -pg. 44 -_-

"Supporting Turkey's crushing of its own Kurdish population, for which the Clinton administration gave the decisive support, 80 percent of the arms"-pg. 44-45

The destruction of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan by the Clinton administration in August 20, 1998.

Al-Shifa produced "90 percent of Sudan's major pharmaceutical products," "produced 50 percent of Sudan's medicines, and its destruction has left the country with no supplies of chloroquine, the standard treatment for malaria,"

the British refused requests to "resupply chloroquine in emergency relief"

the Al-Shifa facility was "the only one producing TB drugs-for more than 100,000 patients, at about 1 British pound a month."

Al-Shifa "was also the only factory making veterinary drugs in the vast, mostly pastoralist, country. Its specialty was drugs to kill the parasites which pass from herds to herders, one of Sudan's principle causes of infant mortality" -quotes from pg. 48-49

Yes, this was America in the past, and it was in the 1980's when the U.S. was accused of international terrorism, and yes America may be different now, but how much and to what extent I don't know. What must be considered is that there is shit going on both ways.

Terrorism: "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear."

2010-02-25T07:02:00.002+01:00

After watching this and listening to the discussion focusing on what we can do to resolve America's current obsession with a particular view of beauty; the focus on one's physical figure, with a photo-shopped standard of beauty and the tendency for eating disorders, which in turn becomes America's quick presumption for individual's to consider themselves as "ugly" rather than "pretty" or "beautiful."

The filmmaker focused on media centered influences such as television, mtv, magazines, celebrities, etc. etc. He interviews several people along the way and follows the life of a 12 or 13 year 6ft tall model. The film notes the change of self-esteem in many individuals who become quick to consider themselves as being ugly.

In this sense he attributes this change in self-esteem and obsession with body image as a product of external influences. And yes, I would agree that the people's obsession with body image can be attributed to external circumstances such as the media but what I think furthers this obsession and influence on self-esteem is more or less related to an issue of social acceptance which hinges, in part, on appearance. Many teenagers will argue that a certain piece of fabric or whatever, in the movie it was a padded bra for this girl, or style of dress will maker him/her "feel good" about herself. She was adamant that it wasn't because of boys or anything of that nature and that it was because it made her "feel good." But what does this really mean? True that it may make her feel good but what does that "feel good" hinge upon? Is it not related to social acceptance and approval? We have created a judgmental society where it is easy to criticize one's weight, style of dress, and appearance. And because this judgmental attitude is so prevalent, it chips at the self-esteem of our children.

Anorexia nervosa is a psychological disorder, associated with many issues of depression, that develops from a socially influenced eating habits, diets, and obsessions with image (one that develops in both girls and boys). There is significant evidence that those who do have this condition create extremely distorted portrayals of what their body looks like. In reality they may look skinner than a prisoner at Auschwitz but when asked to draw themselves and their body, the image is one that is so obese that it is incredible to think how one could create such a distorted view of what their body looks like.

Towards the end, the last question was from a father who's wife has a eating disorder and the daughter has been told by a physician that she should stay at the weight she is at and not gain 5 pounds. The father's question was: what is a father to do? One of the panelists stated that the father should inform the child about the consequences and to join awareness groups to change these things in society. She mentioned a "fat acceptance" group. Now, all of those things are great and people should love themselves for who and what they are but this does not warrant people to lose sight of being health-conscious. Fat acceptance should not entail that people can just let themselves go and become absurdly obese. Granted that there are those who have heavier set parents and are simply genetically disposed to have a heavier set body and that we should accept them, but at the same time fat acceptance should not be an excuse for people to become as fat as they want to be. This is the wrong message to be communicated. It should be centered around loving one's body and acceptance of different shapes and forms of people. For the father my answer would be to simply love your child for who and what she is and to teach her that body image is not what creates a substantive individual.

I agree with the film's assessment that the American people are overtly concerned with their body. And I do agree that eating disorders are an issue for future generations and the psychology of our children. However, I do not believe in a point blank let's accept America's obsession with fast food and the consequential result of obesity in the population. The issue with America's obsession of beauty is not one that is primarily centered around external influences, although they do play a significant role, but one of esteem and social psychology as well as one of America's quick fix for the fast foods industry.

Retrospection

2010-02-16T06:30:00.001+01:00

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

I wonder, is this truly how we should be in our social networks? To create one impression and continue to maintain that impression throughout our associations without changing, even if it might not be an entirely accurate portrait of our self? If we produced one impression and implanted unto others what we would "seem to be," then gave a different impression other than what we "seem to be," or acted contrary to what others thought how we would act in accordance with their impression of what we "seem to be," does that make the initial impression fake?

Is it an obligation, of each and every one of us, to maintain what we seem or appear to be so that we ourselves do not appear "to be otherwise" ??

Or is it merely a matter of interpretation or on how others formulate one's conception. For over a period of time, one acts inevitably according to how one would act and the impression that is portrayed during that time is naturally how one would "seem to be," and as time passes it would be impossible to act "otherwise." And yet, people in our social networks continue to make assumptions about us and at times we may act in a manner that is not necessarily in accordance with those assumptions. In this sense we appear to be otherwise than what we appear to be. Does this indicate that we are not being who we are and what we are? Even though we are being inevitably who we are by which we know no different. A chameleon by nature is a chameleon and is only claimed not to be a chameleon by those who only think they know but don't really know. So judgments that are passed without the basis of true understanding or open mindedness, are not accurate judgments at all but only biased ones based on one's own false conception. But the fact of the matter is, if one does have a basis of understanding and open mindedness there is actually no judgment at all but only mere acceptance.

one cannot recognize a wolf in sheep's clothing without understanding what a wolf is in the first place.

Conversation with an Artist about Audience

2010-02-05T05:19:00.014+01:00

Dear Mr. G

If you do not have an audience, your art in cyber space is useless and there is no creative measure placed into the internet. If this was translated into the art that you create out of material, then your paintings would suffer qualitatively if they did not have an audience. What do you think about this?

Is the audience necessary for the quality of art to manifest themselves? Not the enhancement of quality but the qualitative substance of art in and of itself. To put it in comparative terms: what is the difference between the quality of art Van Gough as an unknown until after his death and Gaugain who was known to the art community during his time (i think, if he wasn't then put an artist who was known at the time of his existence).

And is the audience even relevant for creation?

In “The Creative Act,” Marcel Duchamp talks about the necessity of an audience for art to exist. Without an audience, there is no art. Who that audience is, I think, varies, depending on the function of that specific artwork and its context. “How good or how bad” will be judged subjectively by this audience, and hopefully the artwork will suggest the criterion it should be judged by, for itself. Value is in the eye of the beholder.

In an absolute black and white perspective, how is there a sacrifice of creative expression for a validation of others? As a blog, the audience is inherently public. When writing a blog post one is aware of this. Utilizing the forum potential that is a part of the function of a blog format and consciously addressing the audience; admitting to this “art form,” is actually pretty opposite from being useless.

And I would not consider this blog to be “in and of itself.”

Perhaps a better question is, would artistic quality suffer if there was no audience?

Hypothetically speaking, can we say that Van Gough’s work would have been “better” if there was an immediate audience during his period of work?

And would Picasso’s work not be Picasso if he did not have his audience?

With respect to the blog, if there is no audience then is there no point in writing, or “blogging,” qualitatively in the sense of putting one’s expression into cyber format on the basis that there is no audience? Or does the audience even matter with regard to creative expression?

Is an audience truly necessary for art?

does an audience make the work of art, “real”? does the audience validate its existence?

I interpreted Duchamp’s essay to mean that until somebody experiences the art, the act of creation is incomplete. An audience can range from solely the creator, to the public, to someone in the distant future.

Gerry O’Gabe hit upon something in an earlier comment that may be relevant to this conversation: if a tree falls in the middle of the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a noise?

One uproarious thing that Marcel Duchamp did was utilize the ready-made object. His most famous example, I think, is called “fountain,” a toilet turned upside-down, in a gallery context. The ready-made object was used to emphasize the audience’s role in experiencing art. What is art? Do you think that this toilet elevated from the status of common every day object to the status of art?

… would you say that when someone makes something with an expressive intent, the person who is making it becomes the first (and in certain cases, final) audience?

Considering the vast range and variety of who an audience can comprise of – and what an audience even is – an audience is necessary for art… for art to be acknowledged, for art to be beautiful/ugly, for art to be good/bad, all of these questions hinge upon the audience. Vice versa, there would probably be no audience without art. How separate would you consider these two entities: art and audience? Does one encompass the other? Are there works of art where the audience is the art or the art is the audience?

Van Gogh suffered. He manically created all that we know of his artistic career in the short span of 10 years, ending with what is widely accepted as a suicide. Though he was a well-informed painter, I believe that at a certain point in his artistic development he painted largely for the beneficial therapy and comfort and desperation. Maybe his greatest audience was himself, or God, considering his religious views. Though only truly appreciated post humously, he also perhaps reached a timeless audience, in terms of humanistic poetic value, with his work and his romantic legend.

Picasso, on the other hand, had a massive public audience while he was alive. He was also a public figure and a great self-promoter. Picasso probably would not be “Picasso” if he did not have such exposure and involvement in the game. I certainly don’t know if he would have gained post-humous fame and recognition to the degree that his name is associated with as we know it, if he was as rejected as Van Gogh was during his lifetime. Or if he had a more similar personality to Van Gogh. Unlike Van Gogh, Picasso was a prodigy, and developed into a legend before his death. Ironically, Van Gogh was considered too ugly to sell during his lifetime, and Picasso purposefully dealt with notions of beauty and its effectiveness in his work, and made a fortune in his lifetime. What about when Picasso saw some of Van Gogh’s art?

If the audience does not suggest the poetic, commercial, and/or historical quality – i’ll say value instead – of a work of art, where does value lie? How else could one determine the significance of art? If there’s no audience whatsoever, no memory or traceable record of a work of art existing, how can its value or influence be imagined?

If the value of art is indeed related to an audience, and the audience stretches beyond the artist, there is a lot of room for subjectivity. Good to who? Better than what, from which lens? What kind of mood is the viewer in? What is interesting? What about comparisons? Does the Starry Night beat Les Desmoiselles d Avignon in double overtime or does a cubist still-life life kick some sunflower ass?

I would also like to mention the influence of patrons of the arts in determining the course of art history and what is generally deemed as important, great, and valuable.

it seems there is always an audience, if it is to be art. Whether or not something is “better” or “worse” depends on which audience is experiencing that art piece. Van Gogh did have an immediate audience. Socially he was very difficult and had problems of his own, but he went to Paris. Gaugin moved in with him. He was eager to share his work, particularly with other artists. He searched for a critical dialogue with his colleagues. He wanted people to see his work, and some did, but overlooked his work. He was supported by his brother Theo, and Theo was an art dealer. He wasn’t a total outsider. Nobody wanted his work. He was considered bad at the time. But attitudes changed after he died, and maybe in another time he would have been riding around in a stretched out hummer drinking champagne with diamonds in the glass. In light of this Van Gogh example, you should take a look at an artist named Henry Darger. His story is also very fascinating. Let’s assume that Picasso is heavily acclaimed because he was a world-wide celebrity. What made Picasso so famous in the first place?

Blogging happens to be more social than private in function. It’s self-publishing.

Good, so we’ve come to the definitional problem of ‘audience.’ And at its broadest construction the term can refer to the artist him or herself and from there on. I agree that the creation of art is not complete until the audience comes into play, which makes it at that point “complete.” And contingent upon that audience a value judgment is made – good, bad, so-so, whatever. And we both agree that that value judgment and recognition in the art world is dependent upon the social elite who say that a work of art is good by whatever gauge they would measure such a judgment. In turn, the judgment spreads and the artist gains recognition and acceptance. And of course, we can’t speak of one work of art being better than another without the subjective relation and hermeneutical nature of the audience. As you so sarcastically put, it would indeed be absurd to say that starry night whoops whatever’s ass, without basing one’s comparison on personal taste.

The creation of art seems both intimately a private enterprise but also a social one in nature; as we have said, the act of creation is incomplete without the audience.

The questions you have posed (How separate would you consider these two entities: art and audience? Does one encompass the other? Are there works of art where the audience is the art or the art is the audience?) are tasty morsels for philosophical reflection but perhaps more important for the artist’s consideration rather than one who is not. The questions are inherent within the act of creation and susceptible to influencing the artist’s absorption into a piece.

And to answer your philosophical inquiry about the tree in the forest and whether its fall would make a noise if no one saw it. Well, for me, the question is absurd in and of itself. We can ask as if it is profound and it speaks to the nature of what we all subjectively call reality. And for the majority, if we do not see nor hear about it, it didn’t happen. Just because nobody heard that genocide was occurring or that the capitalist system is based on a veil of ignorance of the people for their manipulation and exploitation, does that mean that it is not happening? Of course not. The tree fell and it made a noise regardless of whether or not somebody heard or saw it. Phenomenology lies outside the realm of actual occurrence as the discipline focuses on personal experience and states of consciousness.

Similarly, even if a work of art did not have an audience, it does not negate its creation. Creation and the acknowledgment of creation are two separate phenomenal occurrences.

It is easy to revert to the personal. And that is what many do. However, the personal although it is meaningful and potentially filled with purpose. One’s personal life does not encompass all of reality, nor is it possible to be aware of all of reality; which would turn into the question of omniscience, the philosophy of religion and human experience – although this is a different set of issues in itself.

Art is in and of itself a virtue of creation regardless of any form of audience. Art once manifested is in existence, whether or not one chooses to acknowledge it or not. And indeed, the creator artist may be sufficient to constitute an audience. But then the question becomes, who is the art for? And what is the purpose behind creating art in general?

What makes art different from regular objects/acts/images/sounds etc? Creation and acknowledgment of creation are two separate phenomenal occurences – yes, but isn’t acknowledgment at the root of titling something as art? If a work of art did not have an audience, it could not be called art. It doesn’t make sense to be able to negate the creation of a work of art if there was no audience, because without an audience it isn’t art. Just because I move, doesn’t mean that I am dancing. Duchamp’s toilet is no ordinary toilet. An ordinary object could not be called artistic until it is acknowledged. Sometimes, the creator of an object is not even a part of the audience. Who made the toilet? How many people were involved in the creation of this toilet? Well, it still has an audience. It seems that what we’re referring to as art is losing tangibility; art can be an object, but an object isn’t necessarily art. An object can exist whether or not it is art (plenty of things exist that aren’t art) but only with an audience can it become a subject of artistic contemplation. The object holds part of the secret(?) of art – it can be provocative, but must be activated. Art can be complex, but art is also elusive: perhaps an object could pass in and out of the state of being art.

Who is the art for? What is the purpose behind creating art in general? Blogging is different from Painting. Being online feels like being out in the public. Your identity can get blurry. Any/Everyone can see you. Who do you become?

There is something paradoxical in drawing from one’s personal experiences as inspiration for art. Though very individualistic, it has the potential to speak universally.

Marcel Duchamp's 'Fountain'

ART?

Yes or No

As we both acknowledge, the audience is necessary, at its bare essence the creator-spectator is primary but the process of deliberating or giving value is inherently different from a third party spectator.

However it is not necessarily mass appeal and approval or acknowledgment of the audience that jeopardizes the integrity of the audience, but the capital, the money, that dictates the mass appeal; and in turn potentially influencing the artist's creative expression - which is of course contingent upon the artist's personality and type of vanity.

The pursuit of money as a means to an end in itself, compromises the integrity and qualitative creative and phenomenological expression that is true to the integrity of the individual and his or her wavelength (which would be the case of those artist who are so anxious and nervous about presenting something that is acceptable and considered "good" art to the third-party audience driven by the influence of influential patrons).

If money makes a man strange~

2010-01-27T07:34:00.003+01:00

[printer friendly version]

A Message from the Drug Enforcement Administration

Summary of the Top Ten Facts on Legalization

Fact 1: We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts.

The Legalization Lobby claims that the fight against drugs cannot be won. However, overall drug use is down by more than a third in the last twenty years, while cocaine use has dropped by an astounding 70 percent. Ninety-five percent of Americans do not use drugs. This is success by any standards.

Fact one defines "significant progress" through the utilization of statistics. However, it is questionable as to how these statistics were obtained and processed through statistical analysis. It is easy to manipulate numbers with the addition or subtraction of certain data sets. The explanation of fact one, indicates that within the last twenty years overall drug use has declined. The issue here is which drugs did they monitor and obtain data and what was their population for obtaining such information. If drugs are defined primarily by the illegal consumption of drugs, then it is extremely problematic as any survey cannot possibly create a consensus of every illegal drug user across the nation. If we consider all drugs, both legal and illegal, the drug consumption of America cannot possibly have gone down when America was once considered a "Prozac Nation" and the pharmaceutical is seen, in general, as the panacea for any malady. If we get sick, we go get drugs from the store. If we go to a doctor, most often than not, we are given prescriptions for drugs. On this basis alone, the consumption of illegal drugs being impossible to measure and the consumption of pharmaceuticals, although presumptively but with good ground, could not possibly have decreased over the past twenty years when the pharmaceutical industry continues to grow. The issue is the same with cocaine. It is impossible to measure the consumption of cocaine across the nation. And the statement, "95% of Americans do not use drugs" is simply absurd to a point of comedy. These numbers were most likely obtained from research on a sample (n), which was considered to be indicative of the population. In this sense, the actual research needs to be scrutinized to determine the accuracy and extent to which the sample they chose to study truly reflects the American population. Nevertheless, these numbers they've thrown around sound profoundly exaggerated and the conclusions they've deducted from those figures are equally bunk. Statements made from false information are inherently flawed.

Fact 2: A balanced approach of prevention, enforcement, and treatment is the key in the fight against drugs.

A successful drug policy must apply a balanced approach of prevention, enforcement and treatment. All three aspects are crucial. For those who end up hooked on drugs, there are innovative programs, like Drug Treatment Courts, that offer non-violent users the option of seeking treatment. Drug Treatment Courts provide court supervision, unlike voluntary treatment centers.

First of all, we have a definitional issue here. They do not address what it is they wish to prevent, enforce and treat. Is it the prevention of addiction? Or is it the prevention of illegal drugs being imported into the country? Or maybe even the prevention of drug cultivation within the nation? There are several ways to consider "prevention" in terms of the war on drugs. What are they referring to? Similarly, what is it that they wish to enforce? What is it they wish to treat? These three ambiguous terms can only be determined as crucial, when the terms are defined with regard to what they wish to address. Furthermore, any sense of prevention, enforcement, and treatment, are futile without a proper understanding of drug use in general and the cultural attitudes adopted in society (which is in and of itself a variable depending on the demographic one asks).

It would seem that the statement here is addressing the issue of illegal drug use and potential abuse/addiction. They suggest Drug Courts and supervision as opposed to voluntary treatment centers as effective modes of treatment. However, this is disputable when the former option is a court order by which one may violate and be found in contempt. It is the method of an iron fist. And although compliance is necessary to not be fined and given harsher conditions deemed necessary by the court, this does not entail that the individual undergoing such treatment wishes to be clean. It is very plausible and likely that once treatment is done, many go on to continue their drug use. In this regard based on the very nature of the human will and human desire, court ordered drug court does not entail a clean and sober subject that has undergone such a process. For example, many citizens of the Soviet Union continued to practice their religion underground despite harsh conditions and mandates abolishing religious practice. The Russian Orthodox Church is now a major player in Russian politics and still very important to the Russian people, in general. This furthers the argument that an iron fist is not always effective in achieving its goals. But to be fair, I am sure there are those who have had a wake-up call from drugs by going into drug court and decided to sober themselves up. However, such occurrences indicate a desire and will to change. Without such a will and desire these court-ordered treatment programs I do not believe are effective.

By contrast, a voluntary treatment center is an option exercised by the subject's own will and desire to sever a dependency upon a substance. With the aid of a voluntary treatment center, the individual's success will be directly related to that person's will to quit the addiction. In this sense, a voluntary option leaves the success of treatment up to the individual and not the court.

Fact 3: Illegal drugs are illegal because they are harmful.

There is a growing misconception that some illegal drugs can be taken safely. For example, savvy drug dealers have learned how to market drugs like Ecstasy to youth. Some in the Legalization Lobby even claim such drugs have medical value, despite the lack of conclusive scientific evidence.

This is also an absurd statement. Alcohol and cigarettes, also drugs, are harmful but they are not illegal. If they were consistent with their logic, then because alcohol and cigarettes are harmful, they would be illegal. And yet, they are not. Furthermore, just because pharmaceutical drugs are legal does not mean that they are not harmful. We have prescription drugs like oxycontin, xanax, valium, prozac, ritalin, etc. etc. all of these drugs are not necessarily safe. They produce a certain effect within the body, just as any drug does. The abuse of any drug is harmful. At the same time, any drug could have beneficial effects if one considers the broad range of drug application in terms of "medicine" for the physical, the mental, and/or even the spiritual. It is possible to isolate certain chemicals existing in certain material for pharmaceutical use. There are claims that MDMA aka Ecstasy has beneficial effects for PTSD ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090309092953.htm ); Tim O Leary believed that LSD expanded consciousness which in turn allowed one to further one's consciousness of experience. In the Amazon, a psychedelic substance called Ayahuasca is utilized for spiritual and ritual purposes as well as medicinal purposes. The utility of drugs is broad and versatile in their cultural and medicinal respects. With regard to the phrase, "conclusive scientific evidence," it is extremely difficult to determine what "conclusive scientific evidence" is and furthermore the establishment of a one to one causal relationship is even harder to establish. It took the scientific community a very long time to determine and establish as fact that cigarettes indeed causes cancer.

Fact 4: Smoked marijuana is not scientifically approved medicine. Marinol, the legal version of medical marijuana, is approved by science.

According to the Institute of Medicine, there is no future in smoked marijuana as medicine. However, the prescription drug Marinol—a legal and safe version of medical marijuana which isolates the active ingredient of THC—has been studied and approved by the Food & Drug Administration as safe medicine. The difference is that you have to get a prescription for Marinol from a licensed physician. You can’t buy it on a street corner, and you don’t smoke it.

I find this statement funny because it plays on the term "approval." They claim that the drug Marinol is a legal and safe version of medicinal marijuana because it has been approved by the FDA. However, this is an arbitrary distinction and simply a matter of bureaucratic process. THC is still THC whether marijuana is smoked or ingested or whether it is in pill form. THC has been isolated and placed in peanut butter, reese's cups, and any other food. Simply because it is in a pill form does not make it "safer." Also, having something "approved by science" does not make a substance safer. There are many pharmaceuticals that have been "approved by science" but produce harmful effects. Furthermore, we can ask what is "science" as it is used here? Is it the NIH? the NIMH? or is it the FDA and the associated research companies that conduct research for them. On another issue, we can also question the integrity of science with regard to political implications in the sense of distorting data, the influence of lobbyists on the results, and the dissuasion of even conducting research on the issue because it has been socially ingrained that a certain substance is bad. The prevention of research because of a social and moral convention that impacted the way society thought. Such a tactic is similar to the late 80's and 90's with the TV show 'Cops.' In the early 90's, I remember that every criminal on that show was a black man or woman. This created a stigma for the black people and consequently hindered their social progress because of this show. It even perpetuated judgments about intellect and civility. Something we all know is completely false and simply bullshit.

Fact 5: Drug control spending is a minor portion of the U.S. budget. Compared to the social costs of drug abuse and addiction, government spending on drug control is minimal.

The Legalization Lobby claims that the United States has wasted billions of dollars in its anti-drug efforts. But for those kids saved from drug addiction, this is hardly wasted dollars. Moreover, our fight against drug abuse and addiction is an ongoing struggle that should be treated like any other social problem. Would we give up on education or poverty simply because we haven’t eliminated all problems? Compared to the social costs of drug abuse and addiction—whether in taxpayer dollars or in pain and suffering—government spending on drug control is minimal.

"Fact 5" is simply evading the issue. The question aims at the issue of Drug Control spending, not the issue of rehab and education. It justifies the issue of government spending on drug control with the social value of rehabilitating addicts. This is simply diverting the issue. Rehabilitation centers and education will continue to be around as we will continue to see the need for those who wish to kick an addiction. Education will also continue whether or not the government spends money on drug control. The rationality is one of justifying the dollar amount and what better way to justify its policy with a slogan, "its for the kids! for the kids!" They would like to provide a social value on the children of society in direct relation to government spending on Drug Control which is aimed at stopping the production and importation of illegal drugs, because it provides sympathetic value to their cause. These two issues are not directly related and are correlational at best. The budget on drug control is spent on fighting cartels and lobbying power in other countries, not for the education and quality of life for individuals.

Fact 6: Legalization of drugs will lead to increased use and increased levels of addiction. Legalization has been tried before, and failed miserably.

Legalization has been tried before—and failed miserably. Alaska’s experiment with Legalization in the 1970s led to the state’s teens using marijuana at more than twice the rate of other youths nationally. This led Alaska’s residents to vote to re-criminalize marijuana in 1990.

The Alaska experiment is a poor example as the legalization of pot did not sink into its society. It is obvious that once marijuana is legalized hoards of people will go out and smoke. If a parent continued to say "don't eat the cookie in the cookie jar," producing a child deprived of cookies, and all of a sudden opened the jar and said "have at it," then of course the child is going to gorge on the cookies. It is by nature to gorge on a delectable that is deprived. If we look at the Netherlands, marijuana consumption has dropped since its decriminalization. In fact, the majority of pot is smoked by tourists who visit Holland. The same had occurred for the red light district. The legalization of drugs does indeed lead to an increased use but will eventually drop down and stabilize to a social constant. As far as addiction goes, it probably will lead to an increased level of addiction but simultaneously this is dependent upon the substance legalized. It is not a valid statement to say that legalization has "failed miserably" when it has never really been given a chance to assimilate itself into American culture.

Fact 7: Crime, violence, and drug use go hand-in-hand.

Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.

If you do drugs, then you will commit crime, and act in violence. Such a statement is a slippery slope; and reminds me of my mother's own sense of reasoning (not to talk smack about her, she is a complete saint, but her reasoning just baffles me at times). My mother will often tell me: if you don't shave, you won't get a job, people won't respect you, you won't get a gf, and then you'll end up poor and lonely and I'll just be devastated. :) Good ol' mom. This is an assumptive form of reasoning. Although drugs can potentially lead an individual to act in a criminal manner and be violent. But we cannot definitively state that drugs will cause people to act in such a manner and if we legalize drugs, then crime will increase dramatically. Is it really the drug in and of itself that caused one to act in a violent manner or is it that person's disposition already and drugs just brought it out in that person? This is so speculative that it is equally plausible to say that if drugs were legalized then crime will decrease and everybody will be peaceful. It is hypocritical to make such a statement about illegal drugs when the legal substance of alcohol is known to many as one that will bring one to violence. It is not uncommon to see cultural representations of alcoholic fathers coming home and beating their wives and children. If I may quote the British Columbia Police, "we'ld rather have the whole city high than drunk." Saying that drugs will create more crimes and violence is complete speculation founded on the basis of a society deprived. If you starve a dog, it will eventually bite the hand that feeds it.

Fact 8: Alcohol has caused significant health, social, and crime problems in this country, and legalized drugs would only make the situation worse.

The Legalization Lobby claims drugs are no more dangerous than alcohol. But drunk driving is one of the primary killers of Americans. Do we want our bus drivers, nurses, and airline pilots to be able to take drugs one evening, and operate freely at work the next day? Do we want to add to the destruction by making drugged driving another primary killer?

First of all, not all people who drink alcohol will use drugs and not all who use drugs will drink alcohol. The argument here is one-sided and presumptive of the people's behavior. They ask if we want to add another "killer" to the streets. And yet, if drugs were legalized how many people would not commit crimes and violence? If it is true that addicts are the ones who predominantly commit crimes because of their addiction, then would those crimes not dissipate as they do not need to commit crimes for their fix? There is a need for regulation just as there are regulations with alcohol. DUIs are going to occur and kill whether we like it or not. Legalizing drugs will undoubtedly give people an opportunity to drive while high on a substance. However, this is a contingency and not a statement of definitive fact that will happen if drugs were legalized. Such an argument is born out of fear for the unknown and not sensibility.

Fact 9: Europe’s more liberal drug policies are not the right model for America.

The Legalization Lobby claims that the “European Model” of the drug problem is successful. However, since legalization of marijuana in Holland, heroin addiction levels have tripled. And Needle Park seems like a poor model for America.

Although I do not know whether heroin addiction has tripled after the decriminalization of marijuana in Holland, considering the statistics they presented above I would not be surprised if this was also an embellishment. The presumption is that the legalization of one drug will lead to a higher rate of addiction in another drug. At the same time, the criminalization of a drug has lead to the creation of other drugs with higher rates of addiction as well i.e. meth; which is a big problem in Utah County.

Fact 10: Most non-violent drug users get treatment, not jail time.

The Legalization Lobby claims that America’s prisons are filling up with users. Truth is, only about 5 percent of inmates in federal prison are there because of simple possession. Most drug criminals are in jail—even on possession charges—because they have plea-bargained down from major trafficking offences or more violent drug crimes.

5 percent of the population is still a considerable number to be placed into federal prison for a simple possession charge. And yet, this is only the federal prison. What about the state prisons and jails? What are the numbers there? Recently there were two individuals from the Bronx who had spent 5 days in jail for possession of candy, that was presumed to be drugs ( http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bronx/two_bronx_men_free_after_drugs_turn_QsGYjXU210b3HP1BMzylWO ). How do we account for this when individuals who aren't even in possession of a drug are put into jail because of racial profiling and presumptuous police work? Individuals placed into jail for possession charges or even presuming possession, is still an unnecessary cost for taxpayers to fund these jails for members of society who have not committed any serious crime.

Crime, violence, and drug use go hand-in-hand

the pamphlet above is a set of allegations and assertions, not fact. The mere fact that they use the term "fact" is manipulative and deceptive. This is not a set of facts for the public but a pamphlet of propaganda for the Drug War to create moral support for a ridiculous war

2010-01-13T08:49:00.004+01:00

America. The United States of America. The photo presents a series of opinions and asks what the flag, a symbol for the country, represents to you. The question is essentially, what does "America" represent to you?

The characters above mentioned: Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, Murder? Repression? Despair?

But these in themselves are abstract and highly theoretical in the sense that how these concepts actually manifest in reality is not what is always envisioned. Life? What does he mean by life when "life" is constrained by a system of economics placed to perpetuate a working class; an inherent competition to obtain the cheapest working class. It has been embedded in American history - slaves to indentured servants to the continuous import of minorities for the new wave in cheap labor. With such a system in place, the term "life" becomes a term of qualitative variance. Is it the quality of life and the various degrees of how they manifest in America or is "life," simply the right to some form of existence.

When we consider liberty, what is the holding point, the standard, for liberty and what are the constraints to maintain that standard? Is it a question of law and morality in the formulation of a convention? Or are we suggesting the basic fact that we all hold a certain degree of mobility, of agency.

And again, the pursuit of happiness. It too leaves one to consider what happiness is and what happiness would mean for every individual. And what that individual does to achieve that happiness...although it is important to consider environmental factors e.g. the media and the degree to which it is able to suggest and create a conscious market in attitude in the sense of what glamour is, what wealth is, what extravagance is, what being rich is, what hip is. What is happiness? Or better yet, what is happiness for you.

Murder, repression, despair. Many would look at this guy with a peace bandana, and call him a pessimist. That he is unpatriotic. But murder, repression, despair? Is America full of murder, repression, and despair? No doubt, there are murders, there are forms of repression, and there is despair. But in all consideration, what country does not have murder, repression, and despair? It would seem that any civilization will have such occurrences as we have yet to see any form of utopia. But on the other side of the spectrum, we can consider what America as a country has done to other countries in the form of murder, repression, and despair. As any colonial power has, America too has had such blood on its hands. What is even deplorable, is that much of it still occurs globally, not only America, but other powers as well, behind the veil of ignorance masked across the people's eyes.

In turn, the question becomes a moral one. Is it justified to conduct international and foreign policies for the perpetuation of economic wealth and benefit for the sustainment of one country and its population; or better yet, its financially viable population.

Considering the issue of morality, it is important to consider the range of moralities within a society. One that ranges from private, individual morality, to the group, to the public in gradual progression of course. It is this collision of morality, this dynamic range of morality and opinion regarding society, its conventions, and various policies.

Perhaps we can consider this the struggle of modernity, of contemporary society. The battle of moralities, opinions, and perspectives; maybe we could even go so far as to consider it as the post-modern civil war. It is the collision of what people consider society should be and their views on what society is now.

2010-01-05T09:50:00.003+01:00

Due to several recent occurrences, I've decided to blog on the nature of impressions.

In order to properly discuss the nature of impressions, it is important to discuss perception and attention. And by perception, I mean the senses - vision, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and somatosensory, that is, what we see, hear, smell, taste, and touch. And although all these senses are occurring at the same time, we give attention to particular senses rather than the entirety. In other words, what we perceive is guided by what we pay attention to and by attention I refer to one's focus. And through a constant shifting of one's focus, one assimilates to one's environment from and through this shift of focus. For example:

I walked to the park

upon arrival a magnificent tree tilts my head toward the sky

below green tips lie gently atop homogeneous grass

the fresh aroma tickles me in the midst of composing compilation

sliding sandles through greenery as shakes stick to skin

water splashing quacking

a red bike!

perceptual composition guided by attention stored and recognized in memory That is to say, perception is a perpetual intake of sensory information determined by what we register through our scope of attention. And through this perceptual intake, selective registration, and storage we create our impressions, which in turn connects to our conceptual network creating conceptions and concepts.

For example, when any one person goes out he or she will be dressed a particular way and interact according to that person's inclination to act. Other persons observing and interacting with this one person will undoubtedly receive a cluster of information from this interaction. Of course that cluster is only what his attention allowed him to perceive and selectively collect. From this collection of information, one relates it to one's conceptual background of knowledge and contingent upon that knowledge the collection of information is deciphered and understood within that person's method of interpreting and creating fact-truth-knowledge, i.e. understood via one's epistemic method.

And from such a network we have our methods of interpreting social behavior, with the exception of those with autism who have a very different configuration of connecting information. Much of our social knowledge is created from our observing perception, triggered emotions and feelings of sympathy, empathy. We are able to interpret our social surroundings and evolving environment.

But our ways of thought are only considered so much as they are guided by what is accessible around us and how we embody what we take away from that accessible tray. Enclosed in a Zeitgeist with access to the sequential evolution leading to that Zeitgeist; and of course within it all we have the recorded history of thought; the adventures of ideas.

And what we understand from history in adherence to our own experiences, our interpretations of our experiences, and discover what we have come to like and what we have come to dislike, we create our own methods of interpreting life and reality.

It is precisely in the attitude and degree by which one attaches one's self to his/her hermeneutical method that becomes problematic in developing tolerance, understanding, and a willingness.

2009-12-31T20:54:00.004+01:00

December 30, 2009 Economic Scene Health Cuts With Little Effect on Care By DAVID LEONHARDT RICHMOND, Va.

At the heart of the health care debate is the question of whether it’s possible to cut medical costs without harming patients. What has happened here in Richmond helps to answer that question.

Since 1996, the Richmond area has lost more than 600 of its hospital beds, mostly because of state regulations on capacity. Several hospitals have closed, and others have shrunk. In 1996, the region had 4.8 hospital beds for every 1,000 residents. Today, it has about three. Hospital care has been, in a word, rationed.

Neither the House health reform bill nor the Senate version would impose any such reductions on the nation’s hospitals. But the basic idea behind the bills’ cost-control measures is similar. They would try to slow the growth of medical treatments, be it through new rules for Medicare, a Cadillac tax on the costliest insurance plans or other measures.

So take a glimpse at what our future may look like:

The quality of care in Richmond is better than in most American metropolitan areas, according to various measures, and it continues to improve. Medicare data, for example, shows that Richmond hospitals do a better-than-average job of treating heart attacks, heart failure and pneumonia.

When I recently asked patients in Richmond whether they felt as if their care had been rationed, they found the question bizarre. “I feel like there’s nothing cheap about the care,” Janet Binns, a retired school district employee, said. After her elderly father fell down one morning, she e-mailed a doctor and was on the phone with him in minutes.

Yet when it comes to health care costs, Richmond’s rationing has made a clear difference. In 1992, it spent somewhat less than average, per capita, on Medicare — 126th lowest out of 305 metropolitan areas nationwide. Since then, though, costs have risen at a significantly slower pace than they have elsewhere. As a result, Richmond had the 39th lowest costs in 2006.

Of course, Richmond is no medical panacea. Some of its hospitals do poorly on Medicare’s metrics, and I’m sure some patients there feel that they are not getting care they need — just as is the case in every other part of the country. But that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?

Richmond has gotten rid of 15 percent of its hospital beds, and its health care still looks a lot like the rest of the country’s, only cheaper and a bit better.

Peter Bernard — the chief executive of Bon Secours, the second-largest health care system in Richmond — has spent the last two decades running hospitals. In 1987, when he became the chief operating officer of a South Dakota hospital, the state had a law similar to Virginia’s current one on capacity. If a hospital wanted to build a new wing or buy a new machine, it had to apply for something called a certificate of need from the state and show that the community needed the new service.

But South Dakota scrapped that program in 1988, and Mr. Bernard quickly went on an expansion binge. “When it went away, I busted every franchise my competitor had,” he told me. He started an open-heart program. He started a neonatal intensive care unit. He built what he called a “big, huge” obstetrics practice.

Suddenly, southeastern South Dakota had vastly more medical capacity than just a few years earlier.

In other industries, all that new capacity might have led to a glut, in which workers and equipment sat idle. But health care is different. Doctors and patients tend to believe that more care is better, and patients often don’t pay much extra for any additional care. So new doctors, nurses and equipment generally stay busy.

Dr. John Wennberg of the Dartmouth Medical School refers to this phenomenon as supply-sensitive care. Dr. Marlon Priest, the chief medical officer of Bon Secours, puts it this way: “If you build 100 beds, they’ll get used.”

Mr. Bernard said he would be happy to do precisely that in Richmond — to expand, much as he did in South Dakota. His overriding goal is to make his hospitals as successful as possible, not to reform American medicine. Today, though, he can’t succeed simply by expanding.

Virginia requires him to get permission. It is one of 37 states with a certificate-of-need program, and unlike some, Virginia’s is more than a mere formality. If a hospital even wants to move, it needs permission to remain as big as it was (which is a big reason hospital capacity has shrunk in recent years). Major hospitals usually win approval for the certificates they request, but the process itself is often enough to discourage them from applying. It’s even more discouraging to individual doctors who are thinking of buying, say, their own M.R.I. machine.

That seems to be why Richmond is dominated by a small number of group practices. Three orthopedic groups provide essentially all the orthopedic care. One pulmonologist group provides much of the lung care. Richmond doesn’t seem to have many of the entrepreneurial doctors, common in some other places, who are extremely aggressive about doing procedures or tests. “There aren’t a lot of people who are on the fringe doing things that are not medically acceptable,” Dr. Marc Katz, a cardiac surgeon, says.

Nobody in Richmond thinks that the certificate of need is a silver bullet. Some say the area emphasizes primary care, which holds down costs. Others named Virginia’s $2 million cap on malpractice awards. Dr. Sheldon Retchin, head of the Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, pointed out that his hospitals self-insure for malpractice — which gives them more incentive to reduce the costly medical errors that lead to lawsuits.

But there is little question that constraints on supply matter. Intriguingly, doctors and hospital executives told me that they thought Virginia regulators had become more lax about handing out certificates in recent years. One executive speculated that cost growth had probably picked up in recent years as a result.

So after my visit, I asked the Dartmouth researchers who analyze Medicare spending if they had any data more recent than the 2006 numbers I already had. They did. And the latest numbers showed that spending growth had indeed accelerated. In 2007, Richmond had the 69th lowest Medicare spending, compared with 39th the previous year. Build the capacity, and it will get used.

During the long fight over health reform, skeptics have often suggested that there really is no way to cut spending without hurting people. Insurance companies and labor unions say a Cadillac tax will discourage necessary care. Congressional Republicans have criticized the proposed Medicare oversight commission as an agent of rationing.

These concerns are understandable, too. Intuitively, cutting health spending seems as if it should damage health.

Yet we now have abundant evidence that it does not have to. That’s the lesson of Richmond. It’s also the lesson of those model hospital systems, like the Cleveland Clinic, that get excellent results with relatively low costs. More care is not always better care. Sometimes, in fact, it’s worse. Just consider the recent research showing that radiation from CT scans will eventually kill thousands of patients a year.

Changing our more-is-always-better health system will not be easy. It will require difficult, uncertain decisions. But the alternative to those decisions is the system we have now — one that features unacceptably spotty care, a Medicare program on the path to insolvency and insurance premiums high enough to eat up workers’ pay increases.

We can do better than that. It looks as if we are about to try.

E-mail: leonhardt@nytimes.com

Thanks for this article, I'm glad I read it.

health care is counterintuitive in the sense that when supply goes up prices increase; seemingly counter-intuitive economics.

I agree that the counter-intuitive nature of the healthcare market is probably because of the seeming disconnect in the method by which the supply is provided to the demand. The seeming disconnect, perhaps, may very well be in the economic methodology of healthcare and its capacity to increase supply while increasing prices. However, it would seem, the only reason why such a methodology is plausible and actually feasible is the inherent play on the risk-aversive nature of fear. Risk-averse in the sense that there is a desire to maintain and ensure our health and the health of our loved ones. And because we would rather be equipped with available resources and be in a situation of emergency rather than being without those resources. We would rather consume what we feel is necessary in terms of maximizing available health care and avoid potential future disasters.

The economic methodology hinges on this understanding. If it's available it will be utilized. The play is in the nature of the consumer's relationship with the physician, credibility-trust, and the health care consumers' worry for the future. If a bigger facility is built with more capabilities and more supplies, they will be utilized, consumed, if not on their own accord of concern, fear, and precaution then by the power of suggestion.

It is possible to maintain such a counter-intuitive sense of economics with supply and cost, because the majority of hospitals are accessible to those who have insurance and the funds to receive health care. A slight push or increase in prices is feasible because people, with available funds, will pay for it. There is an overtly sensitive fear surrounding health; a necessity to ensure the health of self and family; but the only variable lies in the extent to which individuals will take precautionary measures in health. The more hospitals utilize their supplies-tests, measures, etc. etc.- to those who can afford them, the more revenue. The aim is not to optimize available health care for the population but to maximize gain for whomever or whatever that revenue goes to. And it is simply more plausible, economically, to provide the service to those who can afford it.

There would be no incentive for those who invest in hospitals, and lobby for them, to build and provide health care to those who cannot afford it. There is no profit from such enterprises and yet, because of political sensitivity surrounding the morality of not providing any health care to those who cannot afford it, free clinics are strung along with scraps and minimums in expenses. The discrepancy in the quality of health care exists, not only nationally but globally as well. We as a global community, a national community, have lost our sense of propriety and appropriation.

2009-12-29T10:58:00.006+01:00

"Reformation in government is followed by reformation in opinion." -Thomas Jefferson

A reformation in opinion necessitates a willingness to listen, to discuss, to entertain ideas, to think about rather than dismiss issues, to inquire and accept what is happening in the current state of affairs...without such willingness or inquiry, society will continue in its efforts to perpetuate tradition and the ideology it seeks to adhere to.

acceptance and consensus, may very well be the biggest hurdle to any form of real change; the hermeneutical nature of interpretation and sources of information leaves the people divided and susceptible to manipulation; blind acceptance of lead to deaf ears and closed opinions...

faith without doubt is not true faith...or something like that...which is also to say, faith without critical reflection is not true faith

2009-12-22T18:31:00.000+01:00

The discussion below this on youtube seems so petty I can't even read it.

Obama fully acknowledges the paradoxical nature of this prize at this stage of his career. I admire the present discernment between the pragmatic and the ideal (although what the ideal is, is a definitional issue that requires clarification). Progressing towards what is attainable is indeed pragmatic, steps are required to be taken in order to advance to whatever is deemed ideal. Yet, the question remains in its methodology. How is this methodology to be executed? Obama states that it cannot be America's task alone. That a system of standard and order is necessary. There is a promise to adhere to the Geneva Convention: http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/genevaconventions

And yet, for me, his speech hinges on the definitional grounds of what he means by system, by order, what that standard of adherence is and should be, and the methodology that is to be enforced for the peaceful function of that system. These are necessary issues that should be addressed. If, and I emphasize if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are just wars, the public should be the critics to make sure the American government is executing those just wars and adhering to the Geneva Convention. We should also watch the global market and the subsequent economics that follows from those wars. In this regard, global politics is at a tender stage. What ensues may potentially be a redefinition of terms in regards to action, a change in approach and philosophy so to speak, or at the same time, it could be a statement of guise in the approach of war, with an underlying global economic agenda - something that also needs to be approached with caution.

Although I myself do not necessarily believe in the current global economic system as one for the benefit of all of humanity, unless a radical revolution occurs, the current system will continue to perpetuate itself. Capitalism has created not only economic prosperity to many countries and particularly the wealthy of those countries, it has also been the core of power and human rights atrocities around the world. Capitalism fuels greed and in greed, horrendous things occur at the belittlement and degradation of human life. Of course this is a simplification, and generalization, of the nature of greed and the human emotions, motivations, and intentions behind the human phenomena, there is a generalized truth that requires further analysis and clarification.

There is a necessity of the people to be critical. Why elect anyone, if we do not followup with what he/she does?

*note: Yes, I would rather be critical of a Democrat than a Republican, and prefer a liberal at the presidency.

2009-10-20T10:41:00.007+02:00

one: is it "ethical", "moral", or a "proper practice," in international relations for one nation to "manipulate," via economics, another nation?

and two:

should a nation state be speculated analogously to an individual person's mindset? is a nation a single entity with regards to the law? should we compare the acts of a nation state to the acts of an individual person?

*tangent: if 'need' is strictly set to something defined as something one can not live without, then how much of our stuff is truly something we 'need'? and because the market is designed to thrive on things that we want, how does "want," or things we desire, play into the role of international relations and business? and finally what is the nature of wealth in its demographic accumulation and international circulation?

three: what is the relationship between money/currency and power -to what extent does money play a role in having an influence upon others, as broadly as we can construe the matter and to its narrowest.

Questions to statements, question to statement, quest to state

2006-07-03T15:02:00.000+02:00

Robots to do household work in S. Korea SEOUL, July 2 (UPI) -- Approximately 1,000 families in Seoul will use remote-controlled robots to perform household chores this fall, the Korea Times reports. Project manager Oh Sang-rok of the Ministry of Information and Communication announced a test project, "Ubiquitous Robot Companion," that will include 1,000 households and 40 kindergartens. The robots will clean up homes, care for pets, read to children and identify visitors, the newspaper reported. Half of them will be controlled remotely via cell phone. Most of the software and processing work will be performed over the Internet, allowing the ministry to monitor activities and check for bugs, the newspaper said. Five types of robots, all on wheels, will be involved in this fall's test. The robots will be relatively cheap, with prices ranging between $1,000 and $2,000. After the test this autumn, the ministry wants a robot in every Korean home by 2020, the Times said. Copyright 2006 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.

2006-06-25T12:45:00.000+02:00

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060623215216.htm Source: University College London Posted: June 23, 2006 Our Grip On Reality Is Slim, Says University College London Scientist The neurological basis for poor witness statements and hallucinations has been found by scientists at UCL (University College London). In over a fifth of cases, people wrongly remembered whether they actually witnessed an event or just imagined it, according to a paper published in NeuroImage this week. Dr Jon Simons and Dr Paul Burgess led the study at the UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience. Dr Burgess said: "In our tests volunteers either thought they had imagined words which they had actually been shown or said they had seen words which in fact they had just imagined - in over 20 per cent of cases. That is quite a lot of mistakes to be making, and shows how fallible our memory is - or perhaps, how slim our grip on reality is! "Our work has implications for the validity of witness statements and agrees with other studies that show that our mind sometimes fills in memory gaps for us, and we confuse what we imagined occurred in a situation - which is related to what we expect to happen or what usually happens - with what actually happened. "Most of us, though, have a critical reality monitoring function so that we are able to distinguish well enough between what is real and what is imagined and our imagination does not have too great an impact on our lives - unless the reality check system breaks down such as after stroke or in cases of schizophrenia." The study found that the areas that were activated while remembering whether an event really happened or was imagined in healthy subjects are the very same areas that are dysfunctional in people who experience hallucinations. Dr Burgess said: "We believe that hallucinations are caused by a difficulty in discriminating information present in the outside world from information that is imagined. In schizophrenia the difficulty you have in separating reality from imagined events becomes exaggerated so some people have hallucinations and hear voices that simply aren't there." These results indicate a link between the brain areas implicated in schizophrenia and the regions that support the ability to discriminate between perceived and imagined information. In the tests, healthy subjects were shown 96 well-known word pairs from pop culture such as 'Laurel and Hardy', 'bacon and eggs', and 'rock and roll'. The participants were asked to count the number of letters in the second word of the pair. Often the second word wasn't actually shown and the subject had to imagine the word – such as 'Laurel and ?'. Participants were then asked which of the second words they had actually seen on screen and which ones they had only imagined. The subjects' brain activity was observed using fMRI scans while they remembered whether words had been imagined or seen on screen. When people accurately remembered whether they had actually seen a word or just imagined it brain activity in the key areas increased – many of which are found in brain area 10, which is involved in imagination and reality checking, develops last in the brain and is twice as big in humans as in other animals. In the people who did not remember correctly, activation in brain area 10 was reduced. Copyright © 1995-2006 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved — Contact: editor@sciencedaily.com

2006-06-23T13:52:00.000+02:00

Historian Debunks Claim that South Started Korean War A new study debunks the so-called "Haeju seizure" theory, which forms the foundation of the view that South Korea provoked the Korean War by attacking the North first. The study published ahead of the 56th anniversary of the Korean War by Prof. Jung Byung-joon of Mokpo National University is titled, "The Korean War: Confrontations at the 38 parallel and the formation of the War." It concludes that the Korean War started indeed as a sudden surprise invasion of the North in accordance with a directive from Stalin. The academic says the Haeju attack had been drawn up as part of regular defensive planning in March 1950 by the Korean Army in accordance with Operation Command 38. The directive ordered a decisive offensive to the north of Haeju to disperse North Korean forces if they attacked in the direction of Seoul but was not an order for a preemptive attack on North Korea.

The professor says Korean Army command directed forces to follow through with the Haeju attack, but not, as some have claimed, on the morning of June 25 but only after North Korea had already attacked and South Korean forces in the Ongjin area had already been defeated. Attacking Haeju according to plan was deemed impossible, but in the retreat of the first and second battalions of the 17th Regiment from Ongjin, communications were lost. Before the battalions showed up at Incheon Harbor on July 28, the U.S. Far East Command incorrectly concluded that they had taken Haeju, which led to a premature announcement by the Defense Ministry on July 26 that Haeju was occupied. The Haeju attack theory has it that the 17th Regiment did push northward into Haeju, and this "invasion” of the South prompted the large-scale self-defensive attack by the North. The hypothesis was published by the Indian scholar Karunakar Gupta and then carried on by Bruce Cummings and developed into the view that the South incited the Korean War. Jung’s conclusions are based on volumes of documents seized by the U.S. from North Korea and now housed at the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and from Soviet documents.

In the three years, one month and two days until the armistice was signed, some 149,000 South Korea troops, 294,000 North Korea troops and 36,000 allied troops from countries including the U.S., the U.K. and Turkey died in the Korean War. The war also claimed some 244,000 South Korean and 406,000 North Korean civilians. More than 1,000,000 civilians are still missing. Meanwhile the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs will hold a remembrance ceremony for the war on the 25th at 11 a.m. at the Jangchoong gymnasium in Seoul. The event will also be attended by 143 veterans from allied countries and 118 overseas Koreans. url: http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200606/200606230014.html Copyright (c)2003 DIGITAL CHOSUN All rights reserved. Contact letters@chosun.com for more information. Privacy Statement Contact privacy@chosun.com i can't believe that there's even a theory behind this. it's only been 50 years and they don't know for sure what happened? then i wonder how valid the history books tell us about any of the wars?

2006-06-23T13:27:00.000+02:00

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060622172738.htm Source: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Posted: June 22, 2006 Music Thought To Enhance Intelligence, Mental Health And Immune System A recent volume of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences takes a closer look at how music evolved and how we respond to it. Contributors to the volume believe that animals such as birds, dolphins and whales make sounds analogous to music out of a desire to imitate each other. This ability to learn and imitate sounds is a trait necessary to acquire language and scientists feel that many of the sounds animals make may be precursors to human music. Another study in the volume looks at whether music training can make individuals smarter. Scientists found more grey matter in the auditory cortex of the right hemisphere in musicians compared to nonmusicians. They feel these differences are probably not genetic, but instead due to use and practice. Listening to classical music, particularly Mozart, has recently been thought to enhance performance on cognitive tests. Contributors to this volume take a closer look at this assertion and their findings indicate that listening to any music that is personally enjoyable has positive effects on cognition. In addition, the use of music to enhance memory is explored and research suggests that musical recitation enhances the coding of information by activating neural networks in a more united and thus more optimal fashion. Other studies in this volume look at music's positive effects on health and immunity, how music is processed in the brain, the interplay between language and music, and the relationship between our emotions and music. The Neurosciences and Music II is volume 1060 of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences . Copyright © 1995-2006 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved — Contact: editor@sciencedaily.com

suspicious suspicious

2006-06-21T12:22:00.000+02:00

Saddam's main lawyer killed: police By Ibon Villelabeitia in Baghdad 21jun06 GUNMEN kidnapped and killed one of Saddam Hussein's chief defence lawyers and dumped his body in a Baghdad street, police said on today. Khamis al-Obaidi was the third defence lawyer to be killed since the trial against Saddam and seven co-accused on charges of crimes against humanity began in October and was likely to revive complaints Iraq's violence was hindering a fair trial. It came two days after the chief prosecutor demanded a death penalty for Saddam and three of his former top aides for their roles in a crackdown on Shiite villagers following a 1982 attempt on the ousted leader's life. Police said Mr Obaidi's body was found today. He had been kidnapped in the insurgent stronghold of Doura, one of the capital's most violent districts, police said. Mr Obaidi had been in court during Monday's session. He said late last year that, unlike most of his fellow defence attorneys, he preferred to stay in Iraq during court recesses: "Whatever will be will be," he said. The killing of Mr Obaidi dealt a fresh blow to the US-backed court, which has also been marred by the resignation of the previous chief judge and complaints from the defence and international human rights groups that Iraq's sectarian tension makes a fair trial impossible. Saddam and his aides, along with many of their counsel, are from the Sunni Arab minority which accuses the US-backed, Shiite-led majority government of persecuting them. On October 20 2005, the day after Saddam's trial started, Saadoun Janabi, defence lawyer for the former head of Saddam's Revolutionary Court, Awad Hamed al-Bander, was abducted from his office and killed. Neighbours said the attackers told them they were from the Interior Ministry. Gunmen killed Adil al-Zubeidi, a lawyer working for Saddam's half brother, Barzan al-Tikriti and his former vice president Taha Yassin Ramadan in November 2005 and wounded a colleague, who later fled Iraq. Saddam and the other defendants face charges of crimes against humanity for their roles in the killings, torture and executions that followed an attempt on the Iraqi leader's life in the village of Dujail. If found guilty they face death by hanging. Further trials were planned, however. Defence lawyers were due to make their summing up for each of the eight defendants on July 10. Saddam, a Sunni, has admitted he ordered Dujail trials that led to executions of members of the long-oppressed Shiite majority now in power but said it was his legal right because he was the head of state at a time of war with neighbouring Iran. privacy terms © The Australian

hehe i'm addicted to knowledge

2006-06-21T12:17:00.000+02:00

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060620170342.htm Source: University of Southern California Posted: June 20, 2006 'Thirst For Knowledge' May Be Opium Craving Neuroscientists have proposed a simple explanation for the pleasure of grasping a new concept: The brain is getting its fix. The "click" of comprehension triggers a biochemical cascade that rewards the brain with a shot of natural opium-like substances, said Irving Biederman of the University of Southern California. He presents his theory in an invited article in the latest issue of American Scientist. "While you're trying to understand a difficult theorem, it's not fun," said Biederman, professor of neuroscience in the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. "But once you get it, you just feel fabulous." The brain's craving for a fix motivates humans to maximize the rate at which they absorb knowledge, he said. "I think we're exquisitely tuned to this as if we're junkies, second by second." Biederman hypothesized that knowledge addiction has strong evolutionary value because mate selection correlates closely with perceived intelligence. Only more pressing material needs, such as hunger, can suspend the quest for knowledge, he added. The same mechanism is involved in the aesthetic experience, Biederman said, providing a neurological explanation for the pleasure we derive from art. "This account may provide a plausible and very simple mechanism for aesthetic and perceptual and cognitive curiosity." Biederman's theory was inspired by a widely ignored 25-year-old finding that mu-opioid receptors – binding sites for natural opiates – increase in density along the ventral visual pathway, a part of the brain involved in image recognition and processing. The receptors are tightly packed in the areas of the pathway linked to comprehension and interpretation of images, but sparse in areas where visual stimuli first hit the cortex. Biederman's theory holds that the greater the neural activity in the areas rich in opioid receptors, the greater the pleasure. In a series of functional magnetic resonance imaging trials with human volunteers exposed to a wide variety of images, Biederman's research group found that strongly preferred images prompted the greatest fMRI activity in more complex areas of the ventral visual pathway. (The data from the studies are being submitted for publication.) Biederman also found that repeated viewing of an attractive image lessened both the rating of pleasure and the activity in the opioid-rich areas. In his article, he explains this familiar experience with a neural-network model termed "competitive learning." In competitive learning (also known as "Neural Darwinism"), the first presentation of an image activates many neurons, some strongly and a greater number only weakly. With repetition of the image, the connections to the strongly activated neurons grow in strength. But the strongly activated neurons inhibit their weakly activated neighbors, causing a net reduction in activity. This reduction in activity, Biederman's research shows, parallels the decline in the pleasure felt during repeated viewing. "One advantage of competitive learning is that the inhibited neurons are now free to code for other stimulus patterns," Biederman writes. This preference for novel concepts also has evolutionary value, he added. "The system is essentially designed to maximize the rate at which you acquire new but interpretable [understandable] information. Once you have acquired the information, you best spend your time learning something else. "There's this incredible selectivity that we show in real time. Without thinking about it, we pick out experiences that are richly interpretable but novel." The theory, while currently tested only in the visual system, likely applies to other senses, Biederman said. Edward Vessel, who was Biederman's graduate student at USC, is now a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Neural Science at New York University. Vessel collaborated on the studies and co-authored the American Scientist article. Copyright © 1995-2006 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved — Contact: editor@sciencedaily.com

2006-06-17T12:10:00.000+02:00

Drugs firm blocks cheap blindness cure Company will only seek licence for medicine that costs 100 times more Sarah Boseley, health editor Saturday June 17, 2006 The Guardian A major drug company is blocking access to a medicine that is cheaply and effectively saving thousands of people from going blind because it wants to launch a more expensive product on the market. Ophthalmologists around the world, on their own initiative, are injecting tiny quantities of a colon cancer drug called Avastin into the eyes of patients with wet macular degeneration, a common condition of older age that can lead to severely impaired eyesight and blindness. They report remarkable success at very low cost because one phial can be split and used for dozens of patients. But Genentech, the company that invented Avastin, does not want it used in this way. Instead it is applying to license a fragment of Avastin, called Lucentis, which is packaged in the tiny quantities suitable for eyes at a higher cost. Speculation in the US suggests it could cost £1,000 per dose instead of less than £10. The company says Lucentis is specifically designed for eyes, with modifications over Avastin, and has been through 10 years of testing to prove it is safe. Unless Avastin is approved in the UK by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) it will not be universally available within the NHS. But because Genentech declines to apply for a licence for this use of Avastin, Nice cannot consider it. In spite of the growing drugs bill of the NHS, it will appraise, and probably approve, Lucentis next year. Although Nice's role is to look at cost-effectiveness, it says it cannot appraise a drug and pass it for use in the NHS unless the drug is referred to it by the Department of Health. The department says its hands are tied. "The drug company hasn't applied for it to be licensed for this use. It wouldn't be referred to Nice until they have made the first move," said a Department of Health spokeswoman. "They need to step up and get a licence. If they are not getting it licensed, why aren't they?" New drugs for the condition are badly needed: those we have now only slow the progression to blindness. With Avastin, many patients get their sight back with just one or two injections. Avastin was first used on human eyes by Philip Rosenfeld, an ophthalmologist in the US, who was aware of animal studies carried out by Genentech that showed potential in eye conditions. This unlicensed use of Avastin has spread across continents entirely by word of mouth from one doctor to another. It has now been injected into 7,000 eyes, with considerable success. Professor Rosenfeld has published his results and a website has been launched in the US to collate the experiences of doctors from around the world. But although the evidence is good, regulators require randomised controlled trials before they grant licences, which generally only the drug companies can afford to carry out. Prof Rosenfeld said the real issue was drug company profits. "This truly is a wonder drug," he said. "This shows both how good they [the drug companies] are and on the flip side, how greedy they are." He would like to see governments fund clinical trials of drugs such as Avastin in the public interest. Rising drug bills are a big problem on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, said David Wong, chairman of the scientific committee of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, doctors are fighting battles to persuade primary care trusts to pay for drugs to stop their patients going blind while they wait for Nice to decide on Lucentis and another expensive drug called Macugen. That decision is not expected before the end of next year. About 20,000 people are diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration in the UK each year. "From the patient's point of view, if they have an eye condition that deteriorates very quickly, there is no question of waiting," said Professor Wong. "We're talking about days and weeks, rather than months. The question is should we do nothing and say there is no randomised controlled trial to prove Avastin is of value?" He called for primary care trusts to agree to pay for the planned phasing-in of new drugs for the condition. Last night Genentech said its main concern over the use of Avastin to treat eye conditions was patient safety. "While there are some small, single-centre, uncontrolled studies of Avastin being performed, safety data on patients who are treated with Avastin off-label is not being collected in a standard or organised fashion," said a spokeswoman for the company. Pharmaceutical firms say they need to launch drugs at high prices because of the hundreds of millions of pounds spent on developing them. Critics point out that the company's calculations also include the marketing budget.

2006-06-14T12:00:00.000+02:00

address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060614000616.htm Source: Washington University School of Medicine Posted: June 13, 2006 Erotic Images Elicit Strong Response From Brain A new study suggests the brain is quickly turned on and "tuned in" when a person views erotic images. A brain map illustrates different levels of activity as brain circuits process erotic and neutral visual materials 185 milliseconds after a picture is viewed. Red zones represent the highest activity levels in the brain regions processing erotic pictures. (Image courtesy of Washington University School of Medicine) Researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis measured brainwave activity of 264 women as they viewed a series of 55 color slides that contained various scenes from water skiers to snarling dogs to partially-clad couples in sensual poses. What they found may seem like a "no brainer." When study volunteers viewed erotic pictures, their brains produced electrical responses that were stronger than those elicited by other material that was viewed, no matter how pleasant or disturbing the other material may have been. This difference in brainwave response emerged very quickly, suggesting that different neural circuits may be involved in the processing of erotic images. "That surprised us," says first author Andrey P. Anokhin, Ph.D., research assistant professor of psychiatry. "We believed both pleasant and disturbing images would evoke a rapid response, but erotic scenes always elicited the strongest response." As subjects looked at the slides, electrodes on their scalps measured changes in the brain's electrical activity called event-related potentials (ERPs). The researchers learned that regardless of a picture's content, the brain acts very quickly to classify the visual image. The ERPs begin firing in the brain's cortex long before a person is conscious of whether they are seeing a picture that is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. But when the picture is erotic, ERPs begin firing within 160 milliseconds, about 20 percent faster than occurred with any of the other pictures. Soon after, the ERPs begin to diverge, with processing taking place in different brain structures for erotic pictures than those that process the other images. "When we present a stimulus to a subject — for example, when a picture appears on a screen — it changes ongoing brain activity in certain ways, and we can detect those changes," Anokhin says. Pictures appeared on a screen at 12 to 18 second intervals, and each picture remained on the screen for about 6 seconds. The subjects were instructed to do nothing other than look at the pictures. A great deal of past research has suggested that men are more visual creatures than women and get more aroused by erotic images than women. Anokhin says the fact that the women's brains in this study exhibited such a quick response to erotic pictures suggests that, perhaps for evolutionary reasons, our brains are programmed to preferentially respond to erotic material. "Usually men subjectively rate erotic material much higher than women," he says. "So based on those data we would expect lower responses in women, but that was not the case. Women have responses as strong as those seen in men." Because the electroencephalogram (EEG) technology cannot pinpoint specific brain structures involved in this visual processing, Anokhin says it's not clear exactly which circuits are reacting to these visual scenes. Recent studies in primates recorded the electrical activity of single neural cells within the brain and have shown that the frontal cortex contains neurons that can discriminate between different categories of visual objects such as dogs versus cats. Whether or not the human prefrontal cortex contains special neurons that are "tuned" for sex remains a subject for future studies. "The newer and more advanced technologies such as MRI and PET provide much better spatial resolution," he says. "Those methods can better localize areas of brain activity, but ERPs have a much better temporal resolution. The EEG can record neuronal activity in real time. When measuring activity in milliseconds, any delay is undesirable." Most of Anokhin's research is centered on the genetic and neurobiological bases of behavioral traits that might be associated with increased vulnerability to alcoholism and addictive disorders. He believes this study could contribute to that work by detecting differences between responses to images with different emotional significance. Because many psychiatric disorders also are associated with poor processing of signals associated with reward and pleasure, as well as sexual disturbances, he believes the way the brain processes emotional pictures, including erotic materials, might help scientists better understand some forms of mental illness. Anokhin AP, Golosheykin S, Sirevaag E, Kristjansson S, Rohrbaugh JW, Heath AC. Rapid discrimination of visual scene content in the human brain. Brain Research, doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.03.108, available on-line May 18, 2006. Funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health. Copyright © 1995-2006 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved — Contact: editor@sciencedaily.com

hehehe

2006-06-09T05:44:00.000+02:00

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060607170545.htm Source: University Of Melbourne Posted: June 8, 2006 Secret Sex Lives Of Swans Under Scrutiny In New Study The promiscuous mating habits of black swans have initiated a new study at Albert Park Lake by University of Melbourne researchers. Dr Raoul Mulder with one of the black swans under scrutiny at Albert Park Lake in Melbourne. (Photo: Les O'Rourke) “Swans have long been renowned as symbols of lifelong fidelity and devotion, but our recent work has shown that infidelity is rife among black swans,” says Dr Raoul Mulder from the University of Melbourne’s Department of Zoology. Previous DNA paternity analysis has revealed that about one in six baby swans are ‘illegitimate’, resulting from secretive matings between a female and a male other than her own partner. “What is unusual about these findings is that male swans are typically very protective of their female companions. How then can a female be promiscuous in this relationship? Is she sneaking off in the middle of the night to meet other swans? In addition, the male is also seeking bonus copulation with other females,” says Dr Mulder. Dr Mulder says the often secretive mating habits of birds have proven difficult or impossible to monitor in the wild. He says the project’s innovative technology will, for the first time, provide researchers with a way of monitoring the swans’ secretive sexual behaviour. A research team led by Dr Mulder will be capturing and tagging the swans that live around the lake as part of a long-term study. On top of the standard procedures for monitoring the birds, each of the males will have a tiny microchip attached to one of its tail feathers. Dr Mulder explains that during the breeding season, the females will be temporarily fitted with a miniature state-of-the-art electronic tracking device, or ‘decoder. He says the decoder recognises individual microchips similar to how e-tags operate. “The devices look similar to small backpacks and are placed on the bird’s lower back,” he says “When a male and female copulate, the female’s decoder unit detects the microchip implanted in the male’s tail feathers, registering the male’s identity, as well as the time of copulation.” “All mating events are logged onto the decoder unit, so that a complete record of her mating behaviour over several weeks can be downloaded when the swan is recaptured.” The results of the study will be presented for scientific publication. “Our research hopes to provide new material for nature documentaries and reveal to the world, the true sexual nature of these iconic birds.” The study at Albert Park Lake is funded by a grant from the Australian Research Council, with permission from Parks Victoria, the Department of Sustainability and Environment, the Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme and the University of Melbourne’s Animal Experimentation Ethics Committee. Copyright © 1995-2006 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved — Contact: editor@sciencedaily.com

facial expressions

2006-06-09T05:41:00.000+02:00

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060607085104.htm Source: Cell Press Posted: June 7, 2006 Do angry men get noticed? By comparing how quickly human facial expressions of different types are detected in a crowd of neutral faces, researchers have demonstrated that male angry faces are a priority for visual processing -- particularly for male observers. The findings are reported by Mark Williams of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Jason Mattingley of the University of Melbourne, Australia, and appear in the June 6th issue of Current Biology. In evolutionary terms, it makes sense that our attention is attracted by threat in the environment. It has long been hypothesized that facial expressions that signal potential threat, such as anger, may capture attention and therefore "stand out" in a crowd. In fact, there are specific brain regions that are dedicated to processing threatening facial expressions. Given the many differences between males and females, with males being larger and more physically aggressive than females, one might also suspect differences in the way in which threat is detected from individuals of different genders. In the new work, Williams and Mattingley show that angry male faces are found more rapidly than angry female faces by both men and women. In addition, men find angry faces of both genders faster than women, whereas women find socially relevant expressions (for example, happy or sad) more rapidly. The work suggests that although males are biased toward detecting threatening faces, and females are more attuned to socially relevant expressions, both sexes prioritize the detection of angry male faces; in short, angry men get noticed. The advantage for detecting angry male faces is consistent with the notion that human perceptual processes have been shaped by evolutionary pressures arising from the social environment. Reference: Mark A. Williams of Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts and University of Melbourne in Parkville,Victoria, Australia; Jason B. Mattingley of Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Williams et al.: "Correspondence: Do angry men get noticed?" Publishing in Current Biology 16, R402-404, June 6, 2006. www.current-biology.com Copyright © 1995-2006 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved — Contact: editor@sciencedaily.com

interesting...

2006-06-09T05:39:00.000+02:00

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060608091701.htm Source: Cell Press Posted: June 8, 2006 Zebra Finch Males Prefer Females With Exaggerated Maternal Traits Researchers have demonstrated that learning about the appearance of their parents may give birds a preference for mates with exaggerated parental traits, rather than traits that more exactly match those of their parents. Such learned mate preferences may help drive the evolution of exaggerated traits and strong morphological differences between sexes -- phenomena seen frequently in birds and other animals. The findings are reported by Carel ten Cate, Machteld Verzijden and Eric Etman of Leiden University, and appear in the June 6th issue of Current Biology. In most bird species, young individuals take their parents as a model for what their later sexual partner should look like. This is the process of sexual imprinting, made famous by the Nobel prizewinner Konrad Lorenz. Nonetheless, most birds prefer mates in which specific traits are exaggerated compared with those of their parents. Because learning about a specific stimulus usually leads to a preference for this familiar stimulus over an unfamiliar one, it has generally been assumed that imprinting itself could not give rise to preferences for novel, exaggerated traits. In their new work, the researchers tested the sexual preferences of zebra finch males that were raised by white parents differing in beak color. For one group of males, the researchers painted the beak color of the mother orange and that of the father red; for another group, the mother got a red beak and the father an orange one. When the males reached adulthood, they were tested with females with a spectrum of beak colors ranging from extreme orange to extreme red. Males in both groups preferred females with beaks that were more extremely colored than their mothers' beaks. This "peak shift" effect is known from other learning processes in which animals learn to distinguish different stimuli, but the presence of this effect in the imprinting process has not been demonstrated previously. The outcome of the study shows that the skewed mating preferences that are crucial for driving the evolution of sexual dimorphism and exaggerated traits in birds may result directly from sexual imprinting. The researchers include Carel ten Cate, Machteld N. Verzijden, and Eric Etman of Leiden University in Leiden, The Netherlands. This study was supported by grant 803-30-044 from the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO). Reference: ten Cate et al.: "Sexual Imprinting Can Induce Sexual Preferences for Exaggerated Parental Traits." Publishing in Current Biology 16, 1128--1132, June 6, 2006 DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2006.03.068 www.current-biology.com Copyright © 1995-2006 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved — Contact: editor@sciencedaily.com

2006-05-25T13:46:00.000+02:00

Heavy marijuana use not linked to lung cancer Medical Studies/Trials Published: Wednesday, 24-May-2006 Printer Friendly Email to a Friend Despite popular belief, a new study shows that people who smoke marijuana do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer. It seems even heavy, long-term marijuana users do not appear to increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus. Senior researcher, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles says the findings were a surprise as they expected to find that a history of heavy marijuana use would increase the risk of cancer from several years to decades after exposure to marijuana. The study looked at people in Los Angeles County - 611 who developed lung cancer, 601 who developed cancer of the head or neck regions, and 1,040 people without cancer who were matched on age, gender and neighborhood. The researchers used the University of Southern California Tumor Registry, which is notified as soon as a patient in Los Angeles County receives a diagnosis of cancer. The study was limited to people under age 60 as those born prior to 1940, were unlikely to be exposed to marijuana use during their teens and 20s - the time of peak marijuana use. Dr. Tashkin says people who were exposed to marijuana use in their youth are only now getting to the age when cancer typically starts to develop. The participants were questioned about lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol, as well as other drugs, their diet, occupation, family history of cancer and socioeconomic status. Dr. Tashkin says the subjects' reported use of marijuana was similar to that found in other surveys. The heaviest smokers in the study had smoked more than 22,000 marijuana cigarettes, or joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 to 22,000 joints. Even these smokers did not have an increased risk of developing cancer and people who smoked more marijuana were not at any increased risk compared with those who smoked less marijuana or none at all. The study found that 80% of lung cancer patients and 70% of patients with head and neck cancer had smoked tobacco, while only about half of patients with both types of cancer smoked marijuana. A clear association was seen between smoking tobacco and cancer. The study found a 20-fold increased risk of lung cancer in people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day and the more tobacco a person smoked, the greater the risk of developing both lung cancer and head and neck cancers. The findings support many previous studies. Dr. Tashkin say the new findings are surprising for several reasons; previous studies have shown that marijuana tar contains about 50% higher concentrations of chemicals linked to lung cancer, compared with tobacco tar, and smoking marijuana cigarettes deposits four times more tar in the lungs than smoking an equivalent amount of tobacco. Apparently marijuana is packed more loosely than tobacco, so less filtration takes place through the rod of the cigarette, so more particles are inhaled. Dr. Tashkin says also that marijuana smokers hold their breath about four times longer than tobacco smokers, allowing more time for extra fine particles to be deposited in the lungs. Tashkin does offer one possible explanation in that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a chemical in marijuana smoke, may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation. Dr. Tashkin says, the next step is to study the DNA samples of the subjects, to see whether there are some heavy marijuana users who may be at increased risk of developing cancer if they have a genetic susceptibility for cancer. Other experts are warning that the study should not be viewed as a green light to smoke pot, as smoking marijuana has been associated with problems such as cognitive impairment and chronic bronchitis.

-_-

2006-05-25T13:36:00.000+02:00

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060524093736.htm Source: University of Michigan Posted: May 24, 2006 If All Drivers Were Polite, They Would Get Where They're Going Faster A new study from the University of Michigan found that traffic metering systems that incorporate new algorithms for merging could reduce the seriousness of traffic slowdowns that originate near freeway on-ramps. Craig Davis, a retired Ford Motor Co. research scientist and current adjunct professor at U-M, studied highway merging to see how current on-ramp traffic meter systems could be made more effective. Currently, meter systems try to improve traffic flow by letting a certain number of cars enter the highway each minute based on how many cars are already there. Traffic metering has been around for a long time and many large U.S. cities have metering systems, Davis says. Davis says there are two basic types of traffic congestion: gridlock-type jams where cars stop; and the synchronous flow-type congestion, where two or more lanes of traffic all slow down to the same speed. Synchronous flow happens often near on-ramps, when cars don't give one another enough room to merge, or when too many cars are on the road. Metering systems use computer algorithms to try to predict when a jam may occur, typically based on occupancy. Davis, however, based his algorithm on the throughput and the rate at which vehicles are merging, not on highway occupancy. He found that traffic jams happen when throughput exceeds about 1,900 cars per hour per lane, and after that capacity drops by 10 percent or more. Davis says in the absence of metering systems, simple politeness would go a long way toward thinning the sludgy traffic near on-ramps. But, letting people merge is helpful only if you don't slow down too much to do so. "If you can do it without slowing down very much, that allows the driver who's entering to enter at a higher speed," Davis said. "If they have to crawl along waiting for an opening, they slow down the other vehicles on the freeway." If you can safely move over a lane and allow a vehicle merge, that is even better, he adds. Davis has received much attention for his research on automatic cruise control, a separate but related area of traffic congestion research. With ACC, onboard computers keep the correct distance between cars. Such systems have been shown in computer simulations to reduce traffic jams in throughput lanes, but don't do much to lessen the problem that is caused by merging near on-ramps, he says. Editor's Note: The original news release can be found here. Copyright © 1995-2006 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved — Contact: editor@sciencedaily.com

2006-05-25T13:34:00.000+02:00

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060524123803.htm Source: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Posted: May 24, 2006 Listening To Music Can Reduce Chronic Pain And Depression By Up To A Quarter Listening to music can reduce chronic pain by up to 21 per cent and depression by up to 25 per cent, according to a paper in the latest UK-based Journal of Advanced Nursing. It can also make people feel more in control of their pain and less disabled by their condition. Researchers carried out a controlled clinical trial with sixty people, dividing them into two music groups and a control group. They found that people who listened to music for an hour every day for a week reported improved physical and psychological symptoms compared to the control group. The participants, who had an average age of 50, were recruited from pain and chiropractic clinics in Ohio, USA. They had been suffering from a range of painful conditions, including osteoarthritis, disc problems and rheumatoid arthritis, for an average of six and a half years. 90 per cent said the pain affected more than one part of their body and 95 per cent said it was continuous. Before the music study, participants reported that their usual pain averaged just under six on a zero to ten pain scale and their worst pain exceeded nine out of ten. "The people who took part in the music groups listened to music on a headset for an hour a day and everyone who took part, including the control group, kept a pain diary" explains nurse researcher Dr Sandra L Siedlecki from the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Ohio. "Forty people were assigned to the two music groups and the other 20 formed the control group. "The first group were invited to choose their own favourite music and this included everything from pop and rock to slow and melodious tunes and nature sounds traditionally used to promote sleep or relaxation. "The second group chose from five relaxing tapes selected by us. These featured piano, jazz, orchestra, harp and synthesizer and had been used in previous pain studies by co-author Professor Marion Good from the Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing at Case Western Reserve University, Ohio." At the end of the trial: The music groups reported that their pain had fallen by between 12 and 21 per cent, when measured by two different pain measurement scales. The control group reported that pain increased by between one and two per cent. People in the music groups reported 19 to 25 per cent less depression than the control group. The music groups reported feeling nine to 18 per cent less disabled than those who hadn't listened to music and said they had between five and eight per cent more power over their pain than the control group. "Our results show that listening to music had a statistically significant effect on the two experimental groups, reducing pain, depression and disability and increasing feelings of power" says Dr Siedlecki. "There were some small differences between the two music groups, but they both showed consistent improvements in each category when compared to the control group. "Non-malignant pain remains a major health problem and sufferers continue to report high levels of unrelieved pain despite using medication. So anything that can provide relief is to be welcomed." "Listening to music has already been shown to promote a number of positive benefits and this research adds to the growing body of evidence that it has an important role to play in modern healthcare" adds co-author Professor Marion Good. Previous research by Professor Good and Hui-Ling Lai, published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing in 2005 and republished in journal's 30th Anniversary issue in 2006, showed that listening to 45 minutes of soft music before bedtime can improve sleep by more than a third. Reference: Effect of music on power, pain, depression and disability. Sandra L Siedlecki, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Ohio, and Marion Good, Case Western University, Ohio. Journal of Advanced Nursing. Volume 54.5, pages 553 to 562. The study was supported by a predoctoral grant from the National Institute of Nursing Research of the US Government's National Institutes of Health. Journal of Advanced Nursing, which is celebrating its 30th anniversary in 2006, is read by experienced nurses, midwives, health visitors and advanced nursing students in over 80 countries. It informs, educates, explores, debates and challenges the foundations of nursing health care knowledge and practice worldwide. Edited by Professor Alison Tierney, it is published 24 times a year by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, part of the international Blackwell Publishing group. www.journalofadvancednursing.com Copyright © 1995-2006 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved — Contact: editor@sciencedaily.com

hehe

2006-05-18T19:09:00.000+02:00

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060517190502.htm Source: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Posted: May 18, 2006 One In 50 Teenagers Still Wet The Bed One in 50 teenagers still wet the bed and almost half of 19 year-olds who have a problem are wetting the bed every night, according to research published in the May issue of the urology journal BJUI International. Professor Chung K Yeung from the Chinese University of Hong Kong teamed up with colleagues from the Prince of Wales Hospital to analyse the results of more than 16,500 questionnaires surveying children aged from five to 19. He hopes that his findings will reassure parents of children with mild bed wetting problems, but stress the importance of seeking advice in severe cases, which can often be caused by underlying medical problems and continue into adulthood. 512 children - just over three per cent of those surveyed - reported night-time bedwetting and one in five of those also had daytime incontinence. 302 were boys and 210 were girls. The researchers found that although bed wetting was less common as children got older, the percentage reporting severe problems increased with age. Children and adolescents who wet the bed at night also showed a similar pattern when it came to daytime incontinence, with a higher percentage of problems reported in older age groups. When the researchers looked in detail at the 512 children with bed wetting problems they found that: Mild bed wetting was much worse among younger children, with 58 per cent of five to ten year-olds and 18 per cent of 11-19 year-olds wetting the bed less than three times a week. But older children reported a higher level of severe problems, with 82 per cent of 11-19 year-olds wetting the bed more than three times a week, compared with 42 per cent of five to ten year-olds. Just over 16 per cent of five year-olds wet the bed, with boys (21 per cent) having almost twice as many problems as girls (11 per cent). By the age of 19, three per cent of boys and two per cent of girls were still wetting the bed. Just under a third of 11-19 year-old boys (32 per cent) also experienced daytime incontinence, almost double the 15 per cent recorded in the under ten age group. The figures for girls were lower but showed a similar trend, at 25.5 per cent for 11-19 year-olds and 12 per cent for girls under ten. Overall, 29 per cent of children aged 11-19 experienced daytime incontinence, compared with 14 cent of under tens. "Bed wetting showed a general reduction as children got older" says Professor Yeung, who is also President of the International Children's Continence Society. "However, this reduction was much greater in those with mild symptoms who wet the bed three or less times a week, compared to those with severe problems who were wetting the bed every night. "Just over 14 per cent of five year-olds who wet the bed did so seven nights a week. By the age of 19, severe bed wetting accounted for over 48 per cent of teenagers who were still wetting the bed." 21,000 questionnaires were distributed to 67 schools, with a greater emphasis on children over ten, and just under 79 per cent were returned by parents and children. The average age of respondents was just under 14 and the largest number of responses were from teenagers aged 16-18. 24 per cent of the questionnaires concerned children under ten. "Our findings challenge the myth that bedwetting will always get better and disappear as the child gets older" says Professor Yeung. "In 2004 we published findings of a previous study in BJU International that showed that adults showed no significant decrease in bed wetting problems from the age of 10 to 40. "These latest findings underline the importance of seeking help for children with severe bed wetting problems, especially if they continue into adolescence. If these individuals are left untreated, the evidence suggests that they will continue to experience ongoing problems when they become adults." Reference: Differences in characteristics of nocturnal enuresis between children and adolescents: a critical appraisal from a large epidemiological study. Yeung et al. Chinese University of Hong Kong and Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong. BJU International. Volume 97, pages 1069 to 1073 (May 2006). Established in 1929, BJU International is published 12 times a year by Blackwell Publishing and edited by Professor John Fitzpatrick from University College Dublin, Ireland. It provides its international readership with invaluable practical information on all aspects of urology, including original and investigative articles and illustrated surgery. www.bjui.org Copyright © 1995-2006 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved — Contact: editor@sciencedaily.com

hahahaha

2006-05-14T12:22:00.000+02:00

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060512204529.htm Source: University of Chicago Press Journals Posted: May 12, 2006 Female Guppies Risk Their Lives To Avoid Too Much Male Attention Sexual harassment is a burden that females of many species face, and some may go to extreme lengths to avoid it. In a new paper from the June issue of the American Naturalist, Darren Croft (University of Wales) and a research team from the University of Leeds suggest that female guppies, a popular aquarium fish, may risk their lives to avoid too much attention from males. Observing wild population of guppies in the rainforest of Trinidad, the researchers found that female guppies swim in habitats that contain few males -- but many predators. Male and female guppies show a tendency to live in different types of habitats, known as sexual segregation. (Credit: Lesley Morrell) "Male guppies spend most of their time displaying to females. But if their courtship displays don't impress the females, males will attempt to sneak mating with them when they aren't looking," says Croft. Male guppies are brightly colored to attract female attention, while female guppies are a dull brown color. The researchers show that female guppies might use this color difference to their advantage, venturing into the deep water where predators lurk. The males' bright coloring also attracts predators, making it too dangerous for them to follow. "Understanding why and how [sexual segregation] occurs is essential if we are going to conserve and protect species and habitats," explains Croft, who points out that fish are not the only species who display this social characteristic. "In many ecosystems, predators are the first to go extinct, and our work shows that this may have many, perhaps unexpected, effects. In this case, females may suffer more sexual harassment." Founded in 1867, The American Naturalist is one of the world's most renowned, peer-reviewed publications in ecology, evolution, and population and integrative biology research. AN emphasizes sophisticated methodologies and innovative theoretical syntheses--all in an effort to advance the knowledge of organic evolution and other broad biological principles. Reference: Darren P. Croft, et al. "Predation risk as a driving force for sexual segregation: A cross-population comparison," The American Naturalist 167:6. Copyright © 1995-2006 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved — Contact: editor@sciencedaily.com

what the fuck

2006-05-12T11:29:00.000+02:00

http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Korean Military Occupies Farming Village For three days, 1,000's of protestors have clashed with police and soldiers in a resistance to a U.S. base expansion. The expansion of Camp Humphreys (K-6) is part of the United States' Global Posture Review, following the agenda of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and implemented by the Bush Administration to consolidate its military hegemony over Northeast Asia. The Korean Ministry of National Defense (MND) has designated the village of Daechuri and surrounding areas as a miltary protected zone in its latest attempt to seize land slated to be property of the United States military. In an attempt to control the escalating chaos that ensued when it sent troops and riot police to evict residents and activists, the MND was conducting door to door searches and arresting people on sight. Road blockades of sand bags and police buses have been placed around the village to prevent anyone from entering or exiting. At least 400 people have been injured and 524 arrested since Thursday. The three days of violence has prompted criticism of the police force's conduct during the eviction. Human rights advisors to the National Police Agency described the scene as a "blood bath", and an "embarrassing moment" for the national government. International support is urgently needed | www.saveptfarmers.org | Updates here Background: Daechuri's Struggle | History of US bases in Korea |1,000's clash in Korean resistance to U.S. base expansion | Autonomy Declared in Daechuri, South Korea | Autonomous Village Under Siege by Korean troops | Updates on the siege Photos: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Videos here

2006-05-11T10:34:00.000+02:00

Women can choose ideal mates by looking at faces www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-11 13:38:06 Women can tell whether a man will make a good husband for his wife and a good father for his kids. Researchers behind the discovery say they do this by looking at his face or simply studying a photograph of a man. (file photo) BEIJING, May 11 (Xinhuanet) -- Women can tell whether a man will make a good husband for his wife and a good father for his kids. Researchers behind the discovery say they do this by looking at his face or simply studying a photograph of a man. The face of a man can give women subconscious clues as to whether he likes children or not and therefore whether he would make a good long-term mate or a short-term partner, researchers at St Andrews University said lately. The study was published Thursday in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Dr Nick Neave, an evolutionary psychologist from Northumbria University, said: "It seems that women can tell an awful lot from a man's face. They can tell whether he likes children and his testosterone levels, and it may be that this involves two different signals. The paper is a step forward in our understanding, but it does not go all the way to answering the questions about just what makes someone a good parent or perfect partner." The team from the University of Southern California took 39 young men aged 18 to 33 years and tested their hormone levels. A group of 29 women aged around 18 were then shown "A perfect partner" digital photographs of each of the men and asked to rate them. They were told to say whether or not they thought the men liked children, was masculine, physically attractive or kind. They also rated them on how attractive they would be as a short-term partner and as a long-term mate. As expected, they found the masculine faces more attractive as short-term mates whereas those with softer features more likely as a good long-term partner to help care for offspring. By studying what appealed to women, researchers concluded that the ideal partner should have a symmetrical face, large deep and expressive eyes, with a straight nose and soft jaw. Researchers at St Andrews University have even come up with the face of the perfect man, whose softer feminised features reflected a more nurturing side. Researchers believe the discovery adds an important dimension to knowledge about mate selection among humans. Enditem (Agencies) Editor: Yang Li

2006-05-11T10:16:00.000+02:00

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060510091101.htm Source: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Posted: May 10, 2006 How Internet Addiction Is Affecting Lives The Internet -- millions of people rely on it for everyday tasks. But when is the line crossed between average use and addiction? An article published in Perspectives in Psychiatric Care states, "The Internet has properties that for some individuals promote addictive behaviors and pseudo-intimate interpersonal relationships." Nurse practitioners will soon find themselves faced with the issues of "internet addicts" and their inability to get offline. While not yet defined as a true addiction, many are suffering the consequences of obsession with the online world, unable to control their use. From gaming to sexual and emotional relationships, the internet is taking over lives. More and more people will be confronted with consequences such as divorce and physical symptoms which will force them to seek both medical and psychological treatment. Online marital infidelity (cybersex) can lead to divorce and harm personal relationships. Individuals who seek out sexual partners online also appear to be at higher risk for sexually transmitted disease. Furthermore, such behaviors can lead to cybersexual addiction. Previous studies have reported that "Approximately 9 million people, or 15 percent of Internet users, accessed one of the top adult Web sites in a 1-month period." Some physical symptoms include "cyber shakes," dry eyes, carpal tunnel syndrome and headaches. "A focus on the computer and lack of attention to daily reality is indicative of poor judgment and results on lowered grades in school, job loss, and indebtedness." Recognizing this as an addiction will allow for appropriate treatment. Subsequently, therapists will be faced with how to treat such technological addictions and their associated issues. This study is published in the Perspectives in Psychiatric Care. Diane M. Wieland, PhD, RN, CS has been a psychiatric nurse for over twenty-five years. Dr. Wieland also has a private practice in which she has treated patients with computer addiction. She received her PhD from the University of Pennsylvania and is certified as a clinical specialist for adult psychiatric-mental health from the American Nurses' Association. About Perspectives in Psychiatric Care Perspectives in Psychiatric Care (PPC) is recognized and respected as the journal for advanced practice psychiatric nurses. The journal provides advanced practice nurses with current research, clinical application, and knowledge about psychiatric nursing, prescriptive treatment, and education. It publishes peer-reviewed papers that reflect clinical practice issues, psychobiological information, and integrative perspectives that are evidence-based. About the International Society of Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurses The mission of the International Society of Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurses (ISPN) is to unite and strengthen the presence and the voice of specialty psychiatric-mental health nursing while influencing health care policy to promote equitable, evidence-based and effective treatment and care for individuals, families and communities. For more information, visit: www.ispn-psych.org. About Blackwell Publishing Blackwell Publishing is the world's leading society publisher, partnering with more than 665 academic, medical, and professional societies. Blackwell publishes over 800 journals and, to date, has published close to 6,000 text and reference books, across a wide range of academic, medical, and professional subjects. Copyright © 1995-2006 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved — Contact: editor@sciencedaily.com

stephen colbert

2006-05-11T00:24:00.000+02:00

http://www.muchosucko.com/video-stephencolbertatthewhitehousecorrespondentsassoc.html at the white house correspondents' associations dinner

wOrd

2006-05-11T00:20:00.000+02:00

why is freedom of speech and press necessary? for obvious reasons freedom of press to inform others freely, truthfully or not truthfully freedom of speech, to say what we want to say but i think the power of speech and press is important and under-valued. there are individuals who believe that they're voice can change nothing in this world, this city, town, school, whatever. they see no point in doing so, they may feel insignificant, they may have no confidence in what they say, may think that it is useless and futile to do so in that some authority will squash it anyway. (but who cares as long as you know and admit that you're not an authority on it, and leave yourself open to correction, so i say voice your opinion but know where you stand) it is fair to say that the media is filtered, censored, and-if the government wants to-manipulated, all of which occurs regularly. It is also fair to state that when we speak to one or several people, there is an audience-people paying attention to what you say-and that one or two or three persons will have their own mode of taking in what you say, and this is filtered through their belief system, beliefs about the topic you're talking about, beliefs about the credibility of your character, beliefs about the situation that is occuring (or comprehension of the present reality/situation), and the current status of wanting/needing something. all of which dictate the attention that you give. the attention may be on the particular words themselves, it may be on the entirety of the message that is being given, the attention could be on finding a flaw in character, the attention may be on getting somewhere else and thus not paying attention to the words given, you might be hungry, whatever draws attention. so pending on their set of beliefs in regards to the words being spoken and the person producing those words, what is produced by one and comprehended by the other is not always an equal give and take. in other words, what is given is not always taken in the way that it was meant to be taken. and because of this, miscommunication is inevitable. we are sensitive in our own ways to what is said, how it's said, and later questioning why it's said, although there may or may not always be a reason behind a 'why' however, when we are conversing and believing (not just face) at the same time that we both know what we are talking about and capable of reproducing what the other said in one's own words, which should be an indication of comprehension, then communication can be effective in transferring information and passing on an idea to another. and the intention of giving the idea is variable. but if we look optimistically, which doesn't necessarily mean naive, at the power of communication. it is possible to pass on ideas, in particular the truth about what happens around the world, unto another person. and yes this is probably stating the obvious about communication but it needs to be said. we are capable of spreading information. and this spreading of information is never futile because it necessarily effects those around you. whatever you say will cause some chain reaction, it may or may not be a long reaction, it could just stop at the person you told it to and affected to various degrees. but nevertheless information is passed on, and whether that information contains any validity, will depend on the consumer and his/her judgment of that information being passed on, which would deal again with the beliefs one harbors.but when one becomes convinced and does consume that information, that information is left to be passed on towards others, whether it does or not pends on the individual. so my voice can effect those who choose to listen to my voice, and if i can effect them in one way or another, then they have the potential to effect another. which in turn goes on towards others. tis the domino effect of language and thus, the chain of affected minds. this is the potential of communicative action. if taken far enough it leads to wars, to global and social injustice, to the majority of the bullshit that surrounds this globe. but it is also the remedy; towards revolutions and change. taken on a smaller scale, any sort of contact in which information is passed, it will necessarily produce a ripple, big or small, in the space and time of the reciever. word affects action, action affects word, action produces change. w0rD. all the articles I have placed here on this blog, I have given the copyrights to where it is due. I do not claim any of the news articles as my own writing. I have only pasted what I think is interesting

2006-05-08T17:56:00.000+02:00

Timeline: US-Iran ties A chronology of key events: 1953 US and British intelligence services help Iranian military officers depose Prime Minister Muhammad Mussadeq, a leading exponent of nationalising the oil industry. 1979 16 January - US-backed Shah of Iran forced to leave the country after widespread demonstrations and strikes. 1979 1 February - Islamic religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini returns from exile and takes effective power. 1979 4 November - Iranian students seize 63 hostages at US embassy in Tehran, prompting drawn-out crisis leading to severing of diplomatic ties and sweeping US sanctions against Iran. Their initial demand is that the Shah return from the US to Iran to face trial. Later Iran also demands the US undertake not to interfere in its affairs. 1980 25 April - Secret US military mission to rescue hostages ends in disaster in sandstorm in central Iranian desert. 1980 27 July - Exiled Shah dies of cancer in Egypt, but hostage crisis continues. 1980 22 September - Iraq invades, sparking a war with Iran which lasts the rest of the decade. While several Western countries provide support to Iraq during the war, Iran remains diplomatically isolated. 1981 20 January - Last 52 US hostages freed in January after intense diplomatic activity. Their release comes a few hours after US President Jimmy Carter leaves office. They had been held for 444 days. 1985/6 US holds secret talks with Iran and makes weapons shipments, allegedly in exchange for Iranian assistance in releasing US hostages in Lebanon. With revelations that profits were illegally channelled to Nicaraguan rebels, this creates the biggest crisis of Ronald Reagan's US presidency. 1987/8 US forces engage in series of encounters with Iranian forces, including strikes on Gulf oil platforms. 1988 3 July - US cruiser Vincennes mistakenly shoots down Iran Air Airbus over the Gulf, killing all 290 people on board. 1989 3 June - Ayatollah Khomeini dies. President Khamenei is appointed supreme leader the following day. 1989 17 August - Hashemi Rafsanjani sworn in as president, with apparent backing of both conservatives and reformers in the leadership. 1990/91 Iran remains neutral in US-led intervention in Kuwait. Rapprochement with West hindered by Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 religious edict ordering that British author Salman Rushdie be killed for offending Islam in one of his novels. 1992/3 Iran criticises perceived US regional interference in the wake of the Gulf War and the 1993 Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. 1993 US President Bill Clinton takes office. 1995 President Clinton imposes oil and trade sanctions on Iran for alleged sponsorship of "terrorism", seeking to acquire nuclear arms and hostility to the Middle East process. Iran denies the charges. 1996 Mr Clinton stiffens sanctions with penalties against any firm that invests $40m or more a year in oil and gas projects in Iran and Libya. 1997 23 May - Muhammad Khatami elected president of Iran. 1998 President Khatami calls for a "dialogue with the American people" in American TV interview. But in a sermon a few weeks later he is sharply critical of US "oppressive policies". 1999 Twentieth anniversary of US embassy siege. Hardliners celebrate the occasion, as reformists look to the future rather than the past. 2000 18 February - Iranian reformists win landslide victory in general election. Shortly afterwards, President Clinton extends ban on US oil contracts with Iran, accusing it of continuing to support international terrorism. 2000 March - US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright calls for a new start in US-Iranian relations and announces lifting of sanctions on Iranian exports ranging from carpets to food products. Iranian foreign ministry initially welcomes the move, but Ayatollah Khamenei later describes it as deceitful and belated. 2000 September - Mrs Albright meets Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi at UN in New York - the first such talks since diplomatic ties were severed in 1979. 2001 June - The US alleges that elements within the Iranian Government were directly involved in the bombing of an American military base in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Tehran angrily rejects the allegations. 2001 September - Report by Central Intelligence Agency accuses Iran of having one of the world's most active programmes to acquire nuclear weapons. The CIA report says Iran is seeking missile-related technology from a number of countries including Russia and China. 2002 29 January - US President George W Bush, in his State of the Union address, describes Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil". He warns that the proliferation of long-range missiles being developed in these countries is as great a danger to the US as terrorism. The speech causes outrage in Iran and is condemned by reformists and conservatives alike. 2002 September - Russian technicians begin construction of Iran's first nuclear reactor at Bushehr despite strong objections from US. 2002 December - The US accuses Iran of seeking to develop a secret nuclear weapons programme and publishes satellite images of two nuclear sites under construction at Natanz and Arak. 2003 February-May - The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conducts a series of inspections in Iran. The country confirms that there are sites at Natanz and Arak under construction, but insists that these, like Bushehr, are designed solely to provide fuel for future power plants. 2003 June - White House refuses to rule out the "military option" in dealing with Iran after IAEA says Iran "failed to report certain nuclear materials and activities". But IAEA does not declare Iran in breach of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 2003 September - Washington says Iran is not complying with non-proliferation accords but agrees to support proposal from Britain, France and Germany to give Iran until end of October fully to disclose nuclear activities and allow surprise inspections. 2003 October-November - Tehran agrees to suspend its uranium enrichment programme and allow tougher UN inspections of its nuclear facilities. An IAEA report says Iran has admitted producing plutonium but adds there is no evidence that it was trying to build an atomic bomb. However, US dismisses the report as "impossible to believe". The IAEA votes to censure Iran but stops short of imposing sanctions. 2003 December - US sends humanitarian aid to Iran after earthquake kills up to 50,000 people in city of Bam. US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Iran's permanent envoy to UN, Mohammad Javad Zarif, hold telephone talks in a rare direct contact. 2004 January - President Bush denies that US has changed its policy towards Tehran and says moves to help Iran in the wake of earthquake do not indicate a thaw in relations. 2004 March - A UN resolution condemns Iran for keeping some of its nuclear activities secret. Iran reacts by banning inspectors from its sites for several weeks. 2004 September - The IAEA passes a resolution giving a November deadline for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. Iran rejects the call and begins converting raw uranium into gas. A US nuclear monitor publishes satellite images of an Iranian weapons facility which it says may be involved in work on nuclear arms. 2004 November - Iran agrees to a European offer to suspend uranium enrichment in exchange for trade concessions. At the last minute, Tehran backs down from its demand to exclude some centrifuges from the freeze. The US says it maintains its right to send Iran unilaterally to the UN Security Council if Tehran fails to fulfil its commitment. 2005 January - Europe and Iran begin trade talks. The European trio, France, Germany and the UK, demand Iran stop its uranium enrichment programme permanently. 2005 February - Iranian President Mohammed Khatami says his country will never give up nuclear technology, but stresses it is for peaceful purposes. Russia backs Tehran, and signs a deal to supply fuel to Iran's Bushehr reactor. New US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says attacking Iran is not on the US agenda "at this point in time". 2005 March - President George W Bush signals a major change in policy towards Iran. He says the US will back the negotiation track led by the European trio - EU3 - and offer economic incentives for the Islamic state to give up its alleged nuclear ambitions. Mr Bush announces the US will lift a decade-long block on Iran's membership of the World Trade Organization, and objections to Tehran obtaining parts for commercial planes. 2005 June - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Tehran's ultra-conservative mayor, wins a run-off vote in presidential elections, defeating cleric and former president Hashemi Rafsanjani. 2005 July - The US concludes that President Ahmadinejad was a leader of the group behind the 1979 hostage crisis at its embassy in Tehran, but says it is unsure whether he took an active part in taking Americans prisoner. 2005 August - President George W Bush makes the first of several statements in which he refuses to rule out using force against Iran. 2005 August-September - Tehran says it has resumed uranium conversion at its Isfahan plant and insists the programme is for peaceful purposes. The IAEA finds Iran in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 2006 March - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the US faces "no greater challenge" than Iran's nuclear programme. 2006 April - A report in the New Yorker suggests the US is planning a tactical nuclear strike against underground nuclear sites - a claim Washington denies. Iran says it will retaliate against any attack and complains to the UN. Iran announces it has successfully enriched uranium - prompting Ms Rice to demand "strong steps" by the UN. An IAEA report concludes Iran has not complied with a Security Council demand that it suspend uranium enrichment. Mr Ahmadinejad insists the pursuit of peaceful nuclear technology is Iran's "absolute right". Tehran offers to hold direct talks with Washington on the situation in Iraq, in what would have been the first such talks since 1980. Tehran later withdraws the offer. 2006 May - The US, Britain and France table a draft resolution at the United Nations Security Council calling on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment or face "further action". In response, Iran's parliament threatens to pull out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if pressure over its nuclear programme increases. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad then sends a letter to President George W Bush proposing "new solutions" to their differences. It is reported to be the first time an Iranian leader has written to the US leader since the Iranian revolution in 1979. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/3362443.stm Published: 2006/05/08 12:27:21 GMT © BBC MMVI

2006-05-08T12:24:00.000+02:00

Polygamous sect leader makes FBI's most wanted SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- Polygamist church leader Warren Jeffs has been placed on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list in hopes that the additional exposure and reward money will lead to his arrest. Jeffs, 50, is accused of arranging marriages between underage girls and older men. He is wanted in Arizona on criminal charges of sexual conduct with a minor. He also was charged in Utah with rape as an accomplice. (Watch life in the town Warren Jeffs led -- 4:15) "We are doing everything we can to track him down," Fuhrman, special agent in charge of the FBI's Salt Lake City field office, said Saturday. Jeffs is the leader of the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, based in the neighboring communities of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Arizona. The sect split from mainstream Mormonism after the broader church renounced polygamy in 1890. The mainstream Latter Day Saints church excommunicates members found to be practicing polygamy. Jeffs has not been seen by anyone outside of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints community for nearly two years. He also faces a charge of unlawful flight to avoid prosecution. By putting him on the Top 10 list, the FBI's reward increases from $50,000 to $100,000. The list is also distributed worldwide. "We think that the inclusion of a $100,000 reward is going to mean that people are going to be much more aware of Warren Jeffs, they're going to be much more aware of what he looks like, and they're going to be much more willing to come forward to assist us in our efforts to locate him," U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton said at a news conference in Phoenix. The FBI's announcement coincided with Jeffs' case appearing on the television program "America's Most Wanted." Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/06/wanted.polygamist.ap/index.html

2006-05-07T13:52:00.000+02:00

Korea, China, Japan to Kickstart Single Asian Currency Korea, China and Japan have agreed to start joint research at government level on introducing an Asian single currency comparable to the euro. Finance Minister Han Duck-soo made the agreement with his Chinese counterpart Jin Renqing and Japan’s Sadakazu Tanigaki on the sidelines of the 39th annual meeting of the Asian Development Bank in India. This is the first time governments have decided to make concrete efforts toward the launch of the Asian currency unit (ACU), which only exists as a theoretical construct. So far, calls have mostly come from the private sector. The three countries will set up a research team staffed by government officials and experts at public and private research institutes by the end of the year and come up with a framework for the ACU. The finance ministers agreed the research efforts should start at the ASEAN+3 Finance Ministers' Meeting. While the ministers were on the same page in their optimism about the three countries’ economic prospects this year, they warned that continuing high oil prices and rising interest rates worldwide pose a threat to the regional economy. url: http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200605/200605040024.html Copyright (c)2003 DIGITAL CHOSUN All rights reserved. Contact letters@chosun.com for more information. Privacy Statement Contact privacy@chosun.com