The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[Mick Wenlock]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Seriously, you are arguing that International relations should be based on some weird standard of "fairness"? Or that, in contrast to the rest of the planet, the USA should maintain a policy that damages its relations with a country which supplies a vital interest just to satisfy a fake sense of "balance". No country on this earth operates that way.



The US - like the other nuclear powers tries to enforce a non-proliferation - not all that successfully. That it is happier that an ally it trusts, Israel, has nuclear weapons than, for example, countries that had threatened to eradicate another country from the face of the earth strikes me as being smart, not disingenuous. It would be idiotic to think that somehow trying to be "fair" would be a smart move.

The purpose of US Foreign Policy - like any country's foreign policy is to advance the interests of the citizens of the United States.

Why should the USA make itself subject to the Hague when the European governments proved incapable of even beginning to take action at ethnic cleansing being done in their own back yards - and this 50 years AFTER the demise of the Nazis? That US troops sent to countries that have nothing to do with US Vital interests should be subject to a court composed of the very people who helped create the situation in the first place? Not high on the agenda and very rightly so.

As for the rest of it - in my experience the vast majority of people in the USA really don't give a fuck what most of the world thinks of them. And having seen some of the "thinking" in the rest of the world - neither do I.

I don't dispute the validity of what you wrote here, not at all. What I am getting at is that if you want other countries to be subject to the International Court of Justice in the Hague then you should be too - but you're not. If you want Europe to impose austerity and sane economic policies then you should do that too - but you don't. If you want the rest of the world to abide by the nuclear non-proliferation decrees then you need to make Israel abide as well - but you don't. You self-righteously want Arab countries to have "democratic governments" and will go to war to impose such, but your vassal states like Saudi Arabia and the Emirates and Kuwait don't need to be.

The list could go on. The lack of respect that many have for the US is not because of the good that the US has done in the world but because of the "one rule for you guys and another rule for us" doctrine that has been enforced on the world for so long.

That's all.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I don't dispute the validity of what you wrote here, not at all. What I am getting at is that if you want other countries to be subject to the International Court of Justice in the Hague then you should be too - but you're not. If you want Europe to impose austerity and sane economic policies then you should do that too - but you don't. If you want the rest of the world to abide by the nuclear non-proliferation decrees then you need to make Israel abide as well - but you don't. You self-righteously want Arab countries to have "democratic governments" and will go to war to impose such, but your vassal states like Saudi Arabia and the Emirates and Kuwait don't need to be.

The list could go on. The lack of respect that many have for the US is not because of the good that the US has done in the world but because of the "one rule for you guys and another rule for us" doctrine that has been enforced on the world for so long.

That's all.

I'm okay with your post. The USA should follow the same set of rules as the other countries.

I am just trying to "see" or figure out why the USA rose from a small group of English colonies to the most powerful nation in the world in only about 2 lifetimes. For this to happen, there MUST have been some kind of truth in the founding documents and constitution of the US which was superior to that of the other countries.

The US was founded as a loose collection of independent States ruled by a small Federal Government which was purposely limited in scope and power. To me, there is something in this concept which is simple and beautiful and which worked insofar as it quickly took the US from "nowhere's ville" to being the World's major superpower as far as national wealth, economics and military might are concerned.

In a world where people are screwed up, have aberrations, predjudices and biases, etc., the USA founders, nevertheless, designed the USA as a democratic republic. Within the democratic component of the US may lie the seed of its destruction.

In the early days of the country, voting rights were not universal. Voting was left to a relatively small body of the nation's populace, all male and generally well to do land owners. Its not a popular idea now but for that time period it was probably the correct way to set things up. As time passed and the society became more modern, more and more people were added to the rolls of eligible voters. This had to take place and it was a good thing that it did.

Initially, as the class of voters expanded, it was taken for granted that voters would have to be US Citizens, would have to know English, would have to have a decent general education and would study up on the issues and become informed voters. For a while this was the case and the country grew accordingly.

Form some time now, the country's constitution and basic principles have been considered passe and "unfair" by groups whose beliefs are more "progressive" than those of our founders. A major platform or tenet of the progressives is that everyone is equal. They feel that such things as national boundaries, private ownership of property, voter requirements and all manner of things are divisive and have been set up to protect the wealth and power of the privileged few. They desperately feel that these old fashion concepts need to be eliminated.

Like virtually any movement or basic idea, there is some truth in their approach. However, they are taking their position way too far. They want EVERYONE to vote - the only requirement to cast a vote, in their view, is to be a breathing human being. Oh yes, there is one other requirement and that is that the person vote a straight progressive ticket. CLEARLY INSISTENCE ON THIS TYPE OF VOTING REQUIRMENT WILL DESTROY OUR COUNTRY IN VERY SHORT ORDER.

ISRAEL - I agree with your comment about Israel as well but wish to state a few facts. The Jews are very unique people in several ways. For some reason, they have never been popular with the people of other groups. They aren't able to form alliances with other peoples very well. The USA and Evangelical Christians have been the only two groups who have stood with them consistently since Israel was formed in 1948.

The Jews face a very real problem and that is one of being annihilated. They occupy a tiny piece of land, about the size of New Jersey or Riverside County near Los Angeles and they are surrounded by neighbors, most of whom don't want them to be where they are. Inquisitions, Pogroms Holocausts etc. have been their lot when they have relied on others. It is certainly understandable that they have adopted a national policy that they must be self reliant.

That being said, I still agree with your comments about Israel and nuclear arms limitations and also agree with you that Israel and the USA both have contributed greatly to their no longer being held in high esteem by the community of nations.
Lakey

 

[Smilla]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I'm okay with your post. The USA should follow the same set of rules as the other countries.

That's good.

I am just trying to "see" or figure out why the USA rose from a small group of English colonies to the most powerful nation in the world in only about 2 lifetimes. For this to happen, there MUST have been some kind of truth in the founding documents and constitution of the US which was superior to that of the other countries.

That doesn't prove that they were superior, but it does proved that they worked, which is good enough.

The US was founded as a loose collection of independent States ruled by a small Federal Government which was purposely limited in scope and power. To me, there is something in this concept which is simple and beautiful and which worked insofar as it quickly took the US from "nowhere's ville" to being the World's major superpower as far as national wealth, economics and military might are concerned.

I agree, but that was a long time ago, and it isn't that way now.

In a world where people are screwed up, have aberrations, predjudices and biases, etc., the USA founders, nevertheless, designed the USA as a democratic republic. Within the democratic component of the US may lie the seed of its destruction.

Not sure what you mean with that.

In the early days of the country, voting rights were not universal. Voting was left to a relatively small body of the nation's populace, all male and generally well to do land owners. Its not a popular idea now but for that time period it was probably the correct way to set things up. As time passed and the society became more modern, more and more people were added to the rolls of eligible voters. This had to take place and it was a good thing that it did.

Initially, as the class of voters expanded, it was taken for granted that voters would have to be US Citizens, would have to know English, would have to have a decent general education and would study up on the issues and become informed voters. For a while this was the case and the country grew accordingly.

I'm not sure that there's a valid correlation to be found there. Are you?

Form some time now, the country's constitution and basic principles have been considered passe and "unfair" by groups whose beliefs are more "progressive" than those of our founders. A major platform or tenet of the progressives is that everyone is equal. They feel that such things as national boundaries, private ownership of property, voter requirements and all manner of things are divisive and have been set up to protect the wealth and power of the privileged few. They desperately feel that these old fashion concepts need to be eliminated.

It was largely the US establishment, who decided that the Constitution and Bill of Rights needed watering down for various reasons.

Like virtually any movement or basic idea, there is some truth in their approach. However, they are taking their position way too far. They want EVERYONE to vote - the only requirement to cast a vote, in their view, is to be a breathing human being. Oh yes, there is one other requirement and that is that the person vote a straight progressive ticket. CLEARLY INSISTENCE ON THIS TYPE OF VOTING REQUIRMENT WILL DESTROY OUR COUNTRY IN VERY SHORT ORDER.

I firmly believe that only the nationals of any country be allowed to vote in that countries elections.

ISRAEL - I agree with your comment about Israel as well but wish to state a few facts. The Jews are very unique people in several ways. For some reason, they have never been popular with the people of other groups. They aren't able to form alliances with other peoples very well. The USA and Evangelical Christians have been the only two groups who have stood with them consistently since Israel was formed in 1948.

It's hard to form alliances with people who want you dead.

The Jews face a very real problem and that is one of being annihilated. They occupy a tiny piece of land, about the size of New Jersey or Riverside County near Los Angeles and they are surrounded by neighbors, most of whom don't want them to be where they are. Inquisitions, Pogroms Holocausts etc. have been their lot when they have relied on others. It is certainly understandable that they have adopted a national policy that they must be self reliant.

True.

That being said, I still agree with your comments about Israel and nuclear arms limitations and also agree with you that Israel and the USA both have contributed greatly to their no longer being held in high esteem by the community of nations.

The law of Nuclear Proliferation: Those that have them won't give them up, and those that don't have them want them. This is true, but with some exceptions. South Africa, for one.

For Israel to give up it's Nuclear Weapons would be stupid beyond belief, and will never happen. More would be better.

Lakey

If the USA could return to it's founding values, the world would be a better place. I hope it can.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

If the USA could return to it's founding values, the world would be a better place. I hope it can.

Thanks for commenting Smila! You know, my post was an overview, no one can write a totally accurate summary on the current US political scene in just a few paragraphs.

I made a stab at doing something along these lines, just touching on a few key points. After I read your critique, I think I did a decent job for a layman, not privy to any of the inside info.

I thought your comments were poignant. I don't want to go any further in my analysis at this time but do wish to comment briefly on a couple of your comments.

On the comment where I stressed that citizens at large generally are a group with aberrations, I am basically stating that most people don't have the innate ability to remain unbiased and objective and come to a totally impartial and logical conclusion when they vote. To me, it would be best if every voter thought similar to Mr. Spock on the old Star Trek series. If all voters thought as he did and went for the greatest good for the greatest number of groups and peoples, democracies would work better than they currently do.

About Israel honoring a non nuclear proliferation treaty, I don't actually know what this treaty states. I was keying off of the word proliferation, which means to grow and spread. Not for one minute would I recommend that Israel give up the nuclear weapons which they already have! That would certainly be an invitation to national disaster for them.

On my second point, I am taking a pragmatic approach. As you say, it is apparent that the Founder's model for the US Constitution worked. Does being workable prove that something is superior? Probably in a strict semantic context it does not mean that. However, in a practical and pragmatic sense, I would think that following something that consistently succeeded over a period of two to three lifetimes is the way to go and if somethings succeeds over a significant length of time in a difficult area of endeavor, it is probably fair to call it superior to other methods attempted during that time.

A Ponzi scheme may work and make a few millionaires over a short time span but its inherent structure has failure built into it at its inception. Study will reveal why it must fail and when it must fail so it is not a superior system though it may be workable over a short to medium term.

On the correlation between voters having their basics in, i.e. knowing the English language and being well studied in the issues and attempting to vote impartially on the most good for the most number premise, I am pretty sure this correlates with the growth and success which took place when these principles were in use. Actually, this is almost the exact point which was discussed above. Technically, I have not proved any correlation but by equating workability with success over an extended period of time, I am asserting that there is a correlation. Technically, this may be incorrect but pragmatically, I like it.

Finally, on your comment that its hard to form alliances with people who want you dead, I agree with this in principle but also the party who is unable to form alliances must examine itself to make sure it is not precipitating this through its actions or demeanor.

I would say that very strong leadership can exist which can overcome the principle that alliances can't be formed with someone who wants you dead. Take Egypt as a case in point when Anwar Sadat was President. He was a great leader and he was able to broker a peace with Israel through his own strength of character and determination.

The Soviet Union basically want the United States to be dead, figuratively speaking. Gorbachev was able to forge a peace treaty with the USA when for decades it looked as if this would never come to pass.

Lastly, the existence of a dangerous common enemy can sometimes facilitate a short term peace treaty between two parties, one of which wants the other one dead. Thus you have the USA and the Soviet Union both allying so as to defeat Hitler.
Lakey

 

[Smilla]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

T
On my second point, I am taking a pragmatic approach. As you say, it is apparent that the Founder's model for the US Constitution worked. Does being workable prove that something is superior? Probably in a strict semantic context it does not mean that. However, in a practical and pragmatic sense, I would think that following something that consistently succeeded over a period of two to three lifetimes is the way to go and if somethings succeeds over a significant length of time in a difficult area of endeavor, it is probably fair to call it superior to other methods attempted during that time.

It would be superior to anything that didn't work, or didn't work as well., for sure.

*A Ponzi scheme may work and make a few millionaires over a short time span but its inherent structure has failure built into it at its inception. Study will reveal why it must fail and when it must fail so it is not a superior system though it may be workable over a short to medium term.*

*There's quite a few politicians around who would like to run countries along those lines. Lol.

Thanks for your posts Lakey, I always enjoy them

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Thanks Leon and Lakey for illustrating this dichotomy. I think it had come as a shock to many of us Americans this decade that we are so disdained and hated from the outside. "But we're the GOOD guys" we naively lament, being truly ignorant of the invisible black hand of powerful private interests.

I am saddened despite this by the fact that so much of our deterioration is generated from within.
We have embraced millions on our soil with no expectations of any loyalty. I worked every day with people from all over the globe during the last 15 yrs. I know how they regard the U.S....the good and the bad. To me, most are trying to collect on a victim/ perpetrator scenario. Even though they themselves, coming here to live from Russia, Guatemala, Columbia, Cuba or Puerto Rico may not have been harmed they bring with them this notion that they are here to play "CATCH UP"against the United States. We are created as the enemy and I see it in abundance, the disrespect of many of the management trainees in the international exchange programs here. And the dramatization of 'getting even' is evident in so many ways. Some country's participants have a lot less disdain and distrust than others, but things are often 1.1. The intention seems to be to let us be of use long enough to get back whatever their culture feels they've lost. Unfortunately the meme of the bad U.S. promulgated by their own dictators is not always true, but it has preprogrammed the business exchange students to create us as something that needs to be subdued.

I have to concede that college level youth often program themselves on campus with their own radical views. As I do recall.

Very interesting post Hats! What do you think of the existence of a "rooting for the underdog" theory. The Big Guy on the block is perceived of as a bully while the little guy is the one everybody is rooting for.

Every time I turn on a random sporting event, if my tieam is not playing, I automatically root for the underdog. It is some kind of a manic because there is no rational reason for it. On the other hand other people will always root for the favorite. This is easier to understand because it is possible that they prefer siding with a winner.

In basketball, I root for the L.A. Clippers, always a consistent loser up until the 2012 team. I used to be a L.A. Lakers fan before the Clippers arrived in town.

Let's say I turn on the Lakers and they are playing one of the really weak teams such as the Charlotte Hornets, I will automatically root for the Hornets. The "think" if you can call it that, is that the Lakers have already won more than their share, so it would tend to even things out a little if the underdog Hornets won this game. There seems to be a yearning for things to even out.

On the other hand, plenty of people automatically root for the New York Yankees or the L.A. Lakers because they are proven winners and have long histories of winning. Not only that but all the coolest people and celebrities are fans of these teams.

In today's society, all the coolest people, such as Hollywood idols, are rooting for the disadvantaged groups, the homeless, the unemployed, the undocumented worker, the minority applicant to a college, the female applicant for an executive post, The transvestite applicant, etc. The think is, "The White Male Christian types have been running things for a long time, its time now for things to even out so let's let the 'less fortunate among us' have some of these opportunities".
Lakey

 

[Smilla]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

How Fortunate the Man with None

From the play "Mother Courage"

You saw sagacious Solomon
You know what came of him,
To him complexities seemed plain.
He cursed the hour that gave birth to him
And saw that everything was vain.
How great and wise was Solomon.
The world however did not wait
But soon observed what followed on.
It's wisdom that had brought him to this state.
How fortunate the man with none.


You saw courageous Caesar next
You know what he became.
They deified him in his life
Then had him murdered just the same.
And as they raised the fatal knife
How loud he cried: you too my son!
The world however did not wait
But soon observed what followed on.
It's courage that had brought him to that state.
How fortunate the man with none.

You heard of honest Socrates
The man who never lied:
They weren't so grateful as you'd think
Instead the rulers fixed to have him tried
And handed him the poisoned drink.
How honest was the people's noble son.
The world however did not wait
But soon observed what followed on.
It's honesty that brought him to that state.
How fortunate the man with none.


Here you can see respectable folk
Keeping to God's own laws.
So far he hasn't taken heed.
You who sit safe and warm indoors
Help to relieve our bitter need.
How virtuously we had begun.
The world however did not wait
But soon observed what followed on.
It's fear of god that brought us to that state.
How fortunate the man with none.


-Bertolt Brecht

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Very interesting post Hats! What do you think of the existence of a "rooting for the underdog" theory. The Big Guy on the block is perceived of as a bully while the little guy is the one everybody is rooting for.

Every time I turn on a random sporting event, if my tieam is not playing, I automatically root for the underdog. It is some kind of a manic because there is no rational reason for it. On the other hand other people will always root for the favorite. This is easier to understand because it is possible that they prefer siding with a winner.

In basketball, I root for the L.A. Clippers, always a consistent loser up until the 2012 team. I used to be a L.A. Lakers fan before the Clippers arrived in town.

Let's say I turn on the Lakers and they are playing one of the really weak teams such as the Charlotte Hornets, I will automatically root for the Hornets. The "think" if you can call it that, is that the Lakers have already won more than their share, so it would tend to even things out a little if the underdog Hornets won this game. There seems to be a yearning for things to even out.

On the other hand, plenty of people automatically root for the New York Yankees or the L.A. Lakers because they are proven winners and have long histories of winning. Not only that but all the coolest people and celebrities are fans of these teams.


Lakey

One of my favs. Mystery, Alaska..... small hometown hockey team takes on the New York Rangers who flew to Alaska for a publicity stunt. Mystery was holding its own but just missed game point by a hair.

[video=youtube;ewkuCU-Afbg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewkuCU-Afbg&sns=em[/video]

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

One of my favs. Mystery, Alaska..... small hometown hockey team takes on the New York Rangers who flew to Alaska for a publicity stunt. Mystery was holding its own but just missed game point by a hair.

[video=youtube;ewkuCU-Afbg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewkuCU-Afbg&sns=em[/video]

Isn't that pretty much the theme of the first "Rocky" movie. An obscure local club fighter named Rocky Balboa "The Italian Stallion" who is a little past his prime but has some decent boxing skills gets a match with the World Champion, "Apollo Creed" as a sort of publicity gimmick.

Rocky goes the distance but just barely losses the decision by a hair. Rocky wins over all the fans who had been mocking him and even wins over the friendship of Apollo and parlays this into a rematch and a big American success story

Everybody loves the underdog and the movie wins the Academy Award for best picture.
Lakey

 

[Leon]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Seriously, you are arguing that International relations should be based on some weird standard of "fairness"? Or that, in contrast to the rest of the planet, the USA should maintain a policy that damages its relations with a country which supplies a vital interest just to satisfy a fake sense of "balance". No country on this earth operates that way.



The US - like the other nuclear powers tries to enforce a non-proliferation - not all that successfully. That it is happier that an ally it trusts, Israel, has nuclear weapons than, for example, countries that had threatened to eradicate another country from the face of the earth strikes me as being smart, not disingenuous. It would be idiotic to think that somehow trying to be "fair" would be a smart move.

The purpose of US Foreign Policy - like any country's foreign policy is to advance the interests of the citizens of the United States.

Why should the USA make itself subject to the Hague when the European governments proved incapable of even beginning to take action at ethnic cleansing being done in their own back yards - and this 50 years AFTER the demise of the Nazis? That US troops sent to countries that have nothing to do with US Vital interests should be subject to a court composed of the very people who helped create the situation in the first place? Not high on the agenda and very rightly so.

As for the rest of it - in my experience the vast majority of people in the USA really don't give a fuck what most of the world thinks of them. And having seen some of the "thinking" in the rest of the world - neither do I.

This really does sum up the prevailing US attitude to the world rather neatly. It truly is an attitude that is no longer sustainable.

The only thing that is holding the USA together right now - please note: the ONLY thing - is the fact that the US dollar is the international reserve currency. Yet as we speak nations are doing all they can to quietly, without rocking the boat too much, get out of their dependency on dollars. When the US loses that status it will be Game Over. When that happens you won't be able to print money any more - no one will want it. And seeing the current complacency and disbelief among Americans that one does - well I reckon that end is inevitable and soon.

In my bedside drawer I have a 500 million Zimbabwe dollar note - and that was issued after they devalued by chopping off six zeroes from their currency, so it is really 500 trillion dollars. When it was issued you could buy a loaf of bread with it. It is printed on plain paper, a bit thicker than newsprint and comes with a 'use by' date printed on it. I hope I don't get to add a similar US dollar note to my collection. But when I do, I look forward to seeing Mick Wenlock tell the world to get fucked.

 

[Lone Star]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This really does sum up the prevailing US attitude to the world rather neatly. It truly is an attitude that is no longer sustainable.

The only thing that is holding the USA together right now - please note: the ONLY thing - is the fact that the US dollar is the international reserve currency. Yet as we speak nations are doing all they can to quietly, without rocking the boat too much, get out of their dependency on dollars. When the US loses that status it will be Game Over. When that happens you won't be able to print money any more - no one will want it. And seeing the current complacency and disbelief among Americans that one does - well I reckon that end is inevitable and soon.

In my bedside drawer I have a 500 million Zimbabwe dollar note - and that was issued after they devalued by chopping off six zeroes from their currency, so it is really 500 trillion dollars. When it was issued you could buy a loaf of bread with it. It is printed on plain paper, a bit thicker than newsprint and comes with a 'use by' date printed on it. I hope I don't get to add a similar US dollar note to my collection. But when I do, I look forward to seeing Mick Wenlock tell the world to get fucked.

Actually Mick didn't tell the world to get fucked.

The problem is that US foreign policy, in large part, is being driven by interests outside of the government proper. Some of these guys aren't even American. Follow the money. Always follow the money.

It will be a few years before hyperinflation hits the US. We're entering into a deflationary depression. Notice where commodity prices are trending now? The dollar is increasing in value and will keep doing so for a while. But in a deflationary depression a higher valued dollar isn't helpful, unless you have a lot of them.

Don't worry though...high inflation will come when the deflationary cycle has run it's course.

My biggest concern is world war and a free society surviving the coming years.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Actually Mick didn't tell the world to get fucked.

The problem is that US foreign policy, in large part, is being driven by interests outside of the government proper. Some of these guys aren't even American. Follow the money. Always follow the money.

It will be a few years before hyperinflation hits the US. We're entering into a deflationary depression. Notice where commodity prices are trending now? The dollar is increasing in value and will keep doing so for a while. But in a deflationary depression a higher valued dollar isn't helpful, unless you have a lot of them.

Don't worry though...high inflation will come when the deflationary cycle has run it's course.

My biggest concern is world war and a free society surviving the coming years.

If the U.S. or Nato puts missiles in Poland there will almost certainly be a World War.

But what always bails the U.S. out of its troubles is when Europeans start knocking each other on the head.

They'll be doing that soon.

An inflation may occur, but not a hyperinflation.

Every ten years the Economists magazine puts out an issue discussing what the major problems the world will be facing in the next decade.

And as their editors point out, they have always been wrong.

Looking at things now we see apotential financial meltdown as real possibility.

And fresh water shortages.

And nuclear accidents.

And radical groups with dirty bombs.

Are these things are certainly real.

But life for individuals as well as groups is going from one Black Swan experience to the next.

And the funny thing is, when something happens that no one saw coming immediately afterwards experts as well as everyday people say "Of course. It happened because of such and such."

Economist are just the astrologers of today. Their theories are about as valid as astrology is.

Nobody knows what is going to happen, especially when dealing with the world or hemispheres as a whole.

I mentioned World War over missiles in Poland because the Russians have made it clear offcially they will bomb them.

But who really knows?

I have just recently had three Black Swans in my life. And you would not believe all the advice I got from people.

Use economic theory is you want, use the Mayan calendar if you want, use space aliens, or the New World Order, or Mayan economists with time machines.

But the truth is nobody knows what is going to happen.

People can look at what they consider cause and effect reasons to anticipated possibilities.

But nobody knows what is going to happen.

And the more certain a person is about what is going to happen, the more likely he will be wrong.

Because certainty is an impossibility. And if a person believes he is certain he is being unreal.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

 

[Leon]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Good post, AJ

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hed-armchair--theres-need-worry-leg-room.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-festival-Bonnaroo-mesmerizing-merengue.html

[video=youtube;_hnLlaBOnIE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hnLlaBOnIE&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

 

[Lone Star]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

If the U.S. or Nato puts missiles in Poland there will almost certainly be a World War.

But what always bails the U.S. out of its troubles is when Europeans start knocking each other on the head.

They'll be doing that soon.

An inflation may occur, but not a hyperinflation.

Every ten years the Economists magazine puts out an issue discussing what the major problems the world will be facing in the next decade.

And as their editors point out, they have always been wrong.

Looking at things now we see apotential financial meltdown as real possibility.

And fresh water shortages.

And nuclear accidents.

And radical groups with dirty bombs.

Are these things are certainly real.

But life for individuals as well as groups is going from one Black Swan experience to the next.

And the funny thing is, when something happens that no one saw coming immediately afterwards experts as well as everyday people say "Of course. It happened because of such and such."

Economist are just the astrologers of today. Their theories are about as valid as astrology is.

Nobody knows what is going to happen, especially when dealing with the world or hemispheres as a whole.

I mentioned World War over missiles in Poland because the Russians have made it clear offcially they will bomb them.

But who really knows?

I have just recently had three Black Swans in my life. And you would not believe all the advice I got from people.

Use economic theory is you want, use the Mayan calendar if you want, use space aliens, or the New World Order, or Mayan economists with time machines.

But the truth is nobody knows what is going to happen.

People can look at what they consider cause and effect reasons to anticipated possibilities.

But nobody knows what is going to happen.

And the more certain a person is about what is going to happen, the more likely he will be wrong.

Because certainty is an impossibility. And if a person believes he is certain he is being unreal.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Certainly.

 

[Smilla]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The future isn't fixed. All there is is an almost infinite number of possible futures - "no fate but what we make".

I've done many many hours floating in isolation tanks for various reasons, and I'll share a little experience with you here. Whilst floating in the silence one day, I came across a faint faint fizzing and buzzing, that was kind of discordant and disturbing. I didn't know what it was, but I didn't like it. I decided to go towards it and study it. As I moved towards it, I noticed myself clench up, my heart and breathing sped up, and I felt pretty uncomfortable. But I stayed with it, experiencing it, rather than resisting, it or moving away from it. For a moment I considered getting out of the water, but I didn't.

Then I realised what it was. It was the faint, very subtle, background existential anxiety that is engendered by our culture, and a near-universal constant in the life of all human beings. So constant, and so subtle, that it's in the background all the time, on a level below our every day awareness, made up of all the "what if's?" What if I miss my bus?" "What if that medical test comes back positive?" "What if I forgot to turn the cooker off?" And so on, and so on, and so on, but with an almost limitless number of smaller, fainter, and unobserved other "What if's?" I've visited it and experienced it again on a couple of subsequent floats, but it's like listening to static on a radio, so I don't go looking for it.

To get to the punchline, I think that these disaster predictions, that have always been around, are how we humans externalise and experience this level of subtle and unobserved "what if's" and low level existential anxiety.

That's the conclusion I came too - that the disaster predictions are the external projection of an internal phenomenon.

YMMV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VawhGe79Emw

 

[Ted]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Fascinating!

sciencedemonstration


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVkdfJ9PkRQ&feature=player_embedded

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

From Bloomberg

OP-EDS
Republicans Won’t Gain by Attacking Obama on Syria
By James Mann
June 11, 2012 6:30 PM EDT
Facebook Twitter Queue
removed because this should be linked - not quoted.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Introductory processes and assists

A download

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/40075348/Introductory and demonstration PROCESESSES & ASSISTS.pdf