Tuesday Science and Technology Abstract
Taipei Wi-Fi
Mecha-spin
3-D Data Storage
Archaeological Justice
NASA As Is
Getting the EB-Eye
James Kim and Survival: Lessons Learned
Gyrations
Hackosphere
Couple Found
The Hard and Soft of Artificial Intelligence
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Monday, December 11, 2006
An Ethnication in What Matters Most
Pesharim - An Ethnication in What Matters Most
My wife is black. I am not. Therefore our children are mixed.
Now my youngest daughter is often said to look Spanish, with long wavy, dark hair. My oldest daughter however is often said to look Italian, or even Greek, with a darker complexion than my youngest girl and with hair, which is not kinky, but very tightly curled.
About once a month or so my oldest daughter, now that she is a “pre-teen,” (whatever that means, when I was a kid you had baby, kid, teen, then adult- now you have about twenty categories of kidhood even though nobody seems to desire to be a real kid anymore) wants to get her hair straightened. Normally her hair is sort of brownish with almost red highlights at the tips of her curls and her hair appears to be somewhat short, just barely touching her shoulders. But when straightened it goes jet black in color and becomes incredibly long as it relaxes, it having been previously twisted up tighter than a dead possum’s tail.
So why do I mention this stuff? Because as my daughters age I’m getting a crash course in “Ethnic Concerns,” or as I like to say, an Ethnication in what Really Matters Most. Thank goodness for that, as if I weren’t already inundated enough with woman talk at church, at home, and just about everywhere else, and with my wife’s classic topic of whether to let her hair go natural, get it straightened, have it platted, curled, rolled, or whatever else there is that you can do to it, now I get the joys of discovering my daughter’s harrowing adventures in beauty tips and hairdos. Hurray!!
Now my daughter can be very sensitive about her hair, even though personally, being a man I don’t really much care about stuff like that. I’ve never cared about appearance and think any grown man who spends more than three minutes in front of a mirror grooming himself should probably look into changing his name to Sharon anyway, and so I have to admit that I find all matters regarding beauty tips and makeup tricks kinda humorous and hard to take seriously. But both my daughters occasionally model and are often told by most everyone that they are very pretty, which they are, and so they take this kind of thing deadly seriously. Like normal people would take a strike from a black mamba or being gored to death during the running of the bulls.
Me, it makes me want to laugh inside, but I dare not. My wife would castrate me, my daughters would curse me with the evil eye, and so generally I keep my giggles and guffaws to myself, or out of earshot at the very least.
But about two weeks ago my daughter got her hair straightened and it lasted about a week and a half, and then she got caught in a rain while riding on one of the floats at the local Christmas parade. It was just a sprinkle really, and I was there taking photographs of the parade, professionally as well as for myself, and also for my church whose float upon which she rode.
I really didn’t notice anything while they rode by and I snapped shots but after it was all over and we met again at church her hair started doing all kinds of crazy things. Soon she looked like Diana Ross caught in the electromagnetic currents near Edison Electric, but it still looked kinda cute. Actually she looked like one of those fancy-dancy New York style black girl models, so it was all cool to me. I thought it was fine and she got several compliments at church. So I thought it was also fine to have a little light fun, tease her about it a bit, while also telling her how sweet she looked. That worked out fine in public, and everyone was all smiles in the relative safety of the crowd, and the facetious banner seemed all in good humor, but once we got home my wife and two daughters tore me a new one right quick.
I couldn’t figure out what all the hubbub was, but they both insisted that I was completely insensitive to both female and ethnic issues and that if I couldn’t help then I should just shut up and stay out of the way. Hallelujah, I thought, I’ll just go do some work and let this all blow over. Bad choice of words.
My wife went upstairs and took some kinda African Hair Oil, put it all over my daughter’s hair, straightened it with a hot comb and then tried blow drying it. Well, it looked like a HALO parachute on top of her head with racing stripes that were on fire for a circus performance. I didn’t know this was all going on and when my wife called me in to look at what she had done my first reaction was to burst out laughing, and then ask if we could get that hair through the doorway without the use of special equipment. I also told my wife to never do that to my daughter again because it might be picked up on radar by local aircraft and they would confuse her for a landing strip.
Don’t say that kinda thing fellas, even in jest, it rarely works out well.
I’d like to tell you everything that followed from these momentous and truly innocent comments on my part but this is a family blog and assuming I can ever reproduce again I’d like to see my grandchildren being born someday.
Anywho I’ve gotten a valuable ethnication from all of this and can hardly wait to see what new wonders await me down the road on my one-man learning curve.
So to all of you White Guys out there who have married a chocolate wonder and been lucky enough to have a beautiful daughter or two let me give you one piece of advice. No matter what the hair of the females closest to you looks like never act like this is a matter of minor import or worse yet, an easy opportunity for some light hearted humor. It’s just not worth it boys, an ethnication is a terrible thing to waste. It’s even worse when it’s on the job training.
© JWG, Jr. 2006
My wife is black. I am not. Therefore our children are mixed.
Now my youngest daughter is often said to look Spanish, with long wavy, dark hair. My oldest daughter however is often said to look Italian, or even Greek, with a darker complexion than my youngest girl and with hair, which is not kinky, but very tightly curled.
About once a month or so my oldest daughter, now that she is a “pre-teen,” (whatever that means, when I was a kid you had baby, kid, teen, then adult- now you have about twenty categories of kidhood even though nobody seems to desire to be a real kid anymore) wants to get her hair straightened. Normally her hair is sort of brownish with almost red highlights at the tips of her curls and her hair appears to be somewhat short, just barely touching her shoulders. But when straightened it goes jet black in color and becomes incredibly long as it relaxes, it having been previously twisted up tighter than a dead possum’s tail.
So why do I mention this stuff? Because as my daughters age I’m getting a crash course in “Ethnic Concerns,” or as I like to say, an Ethnication in what Really Matters Most. Thank goodness for that, as if I weren’t already inundated enough with woman talk at church, at home, and just about everywhere else, and with my wife’s classic topic of whether to let her hair go natural, get it straightened, have it platted, curled, rolled, or whatever else there is that you can do to it, now I get the joys of discovering my daughter’s harrowing adventures in beauty tips and hairdos. Hurray!!
Now my daughter can be very sensitive about her hair, even though personally, being a man I don’t really much care about stuff like that. I’ve never cared about appearance and think any grown man who spends more than three minutes in front of a mirror grooming himself should probably look into changing his name to Sharon anyway, and so I have to admit that I find all matters regarding beauty tips and makeup tricks kinda humorous and hard to take seriously. But both my daughters occasionally model and are often told by most everyone that they are very pretty, which they are, and so they take this kind of thing deadly seriously. Like normal people would take a strike from a black mamba or being gored to death during the running of the bulls.
Me, it makes me want to laugh inside, but I dare not. My wife would castrate me, my daughters would curse me with the evil eye, and so generally I keep my giggles and guffaws to myself, or out of earshot at the very least.
But about two weeks ago my daughter got her hair straightened and it lasted about a week and a half, and then she got caught in a rain while riding on one of the floats at the local Christmas parade. It was just a sprinkle really, and I was there taking photographs of the parade, professionally as well as for myself, and also for my church whose float upon which she rode.
I really didn’t notice anything while they rode by and I snapped shots but after it was all over and we met again at church her hair started doing all kinds of crazy things. Soon she looked like Diana Ross caught in the electromagnetic currents near Edison Electric, but it still looked kinda cute. Actually she looked like one of those fancy-dancy New York style black girl models, so it was all cool to me. I thought it was fine and she got several compliments at church. So I thought it was also fine to have a little light fun, tease her about it a bit, while also telling her how sweet she looked. That worked out fine in public, and everyone was all smiles in the relative safety of the crowd, and the facetious banner seemed all in good humor, but once we got home my wife and two daughters tore me a new one right quick.
I couldn’t figure out what all the hubbub was, but they both insisted that I was completely insensitive to both female and ethnic issues and that if I couldn’t help then I should just shut up and stay out of the way. Hallelujah, I thought, I’ll just go do some work and let this all blow over. Bad choice of words.
My wife went upstairs and took some kinda African Hair Oil, put it all over my daughter’s hair, straightened it with a hot comb and then tried blow drying it. Well, it looked like a HALO parachute on top of her head with racing stripes that were on fire for a circus performance. I didn’t know this was all going on and when my wife called me in to look at what she had done my first reaction was to burst out laughing, and then ask if we could get that hair through the doorway without the use of special equipment. I also told my wife to never do that to my daughter again because it might be picked up on radar by local aircraft and they would confuse her for a landing strip.
Don’t say that kinda thing fellas, even in jest, it rarely works out well.
I’d like to tell you everything that followed from these momentous and truly innocent comments on my part but this is a family blog and assuming I can ever reproduce again I’d like to see my grandchildren being born someday.
Anywho I’ve gotten a valuable ethnication from all of this and can hardly wait to see what new wonders await me down the road on my one-man learning curve.
So to all of you White Guys out there who have married a chocolate wonder and been lucky enough to have a beautiful daughter or two let me give you one piece of advice. No matter what the hair of the females closest to you looks like never act like this is a matter of minor import or worse yet, an easy opportunity for some light hearted humor. It’s just not worth it boys, an ethnication is a terrible thing to waste. It’s even worse when it’s on the job training.
© JWG, Jr. 2006
New York Bans Fats From City Transportation System
Marxed - New York Bans Fats From City Transportation System
By Juan Wartina Garcia for the Missal
Last updated: 8:03 PM
Monday, December 11, 2006
In a bold move guaranteed to offend many the city of New York has decided to ban fat people from their public transportation system.
Anticipating legal challenges the city has nevertheless approved the ordinance that would bar the calorie challenged from gaining access to public transportation.
At a noon-time press conference outside of City Hall, New York City’s interim Chief of City Transportation Workers, the United 506 Stationaries declared, “We are quite serious in the efforts we are making. We feel that it is in the interest of all New Yorkers, as well as those using our transportation systems from out of town or out of state, to assure the most high quality and efficient experience possible. Public health and decorum demands that we enforce this new ordinance, and I do so gladly. Fat asses are no longer allowed in the jurisdictions of New York City, and they are no longer allowed to make use of our transportation networks. It is the considered opinion of our lawmakers that people of tremendous girth, and current systems of transportation do not mix very well and that our transportation systems are ill-prepared for the strain placed upon them by Whoppers, meaning the belly-boomers, and Whopper Jrs., the fat off-spring of these gargantuan people who never cease eating. America has a serious weight problem my friends, and here in New York City we’re doing something about it. New York has banned all trans-fats and I mean to see that ban properly enforced.”
When questioned further about the ban on trans-fats the Transportation Chief admitted he was unaware of the exact wording of the ordinance or exactly how broadly it might be applied. Nevertheless he insisted that he would apply the ordinance in the broadest possible sense. “If you’re too broad to get through our terminal doorway without use of the Jaws of Life, or you’re so broad that you require a Marine Armored Personnel Carrier as a personal mobility scooter then you’re too fat for the New York subway. Broad means broad and that’s the way I mean to look at it. Try walking more people and eating less whole mammals at a single meal and you should eventually be able to make use of our transportation hubs again. ‘Take a load off and we’ll take your load for you.’ That’s our new transport motto. But if you are a load unto yourself then you’d best haul it yourself, you’ll get no help from us.”
Asked if the City might be opening itself up for endless litigation a spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg released a statement which read, in part, “The City of New York has no business interfering in the private lifestyle choices of the citizens who live here. This is exactly why this ban was created, so that we no longer have any responsibility or liabilities in these matters. We leave it up to individuals by demanding that trans-fats be publicly eliminated. That’s the easiest way to resolve the matter, leave it up to the people to make their own choices and then ban those choices that are bad for them. That’s the way government should work.”
A precinct spokesman for the Police Dept. commenting on background and under condition of anonymity, said that he feared the ban could cause a rise in Black Market Transportation, which could eventually lead to serious problems with crime. “Suppose some Asian gang comes into town and decides they will exploit this situation? They bring in illegal transport slaves and force those slaves to ride these trans-fats around on their backs for practically nothing while the gang makes a killing as some poor little stick armed Cambodian woman is stuck hauling around seven hundred pound fat asses 24/7. We’ll see em dropping like flies in the summer time and who’s gonna have to clean up that mess? The Irish that’s who! Stinking Irish-men, if you ask me that’s who we should be banning. A man might not can help being lazy, shiftless, no-good, and weighing the same as a mini-CAT because he eats in the bed all the time, but at least he ain’t Irish! That’s off the record by the way. Don’t print that. I mean you can use the part about the Irish and the Asians and the fat asses, just don’t attach my name to it. I’m still on my green card and don’t want any heat from those gringos upstairs.”
A spokesman for the Behemoth Brotherhood, a non-profit, high consumption support group says that he feels the ban on trans-fats can be overturned in the courts by a reverse boycott. Asked what a reverse boycott might entail he said that it meant getting several thousand people who weighed six hundred pounds or more down to City Court and that he believed that would either tip the legal balance in their favor or tip the building on its side, thereby forcing the judiciary to reconsider the ban. Asked if he could gather several thousand people who weighed six hundred pounds or more for his reverse boycott he said that he had at least that many in his cream pie and sugar barrel exchange network. The trouble would be, he said, in being able to get all of them to make the six-mile trip to court without first becoming hopelessly diverted by the many doughnut shops and hot dog stands en route and thus forgetting the reason they had left the house in the first place.
This reporter however feels that he has not yet seen the tail end of this story. And if this story is as big as some of the parties I’ve interviewed for background research it may be a long time before the full girth of this weighty issue is entirely expounded.
© JWG, Jr. 2006
By Juan Wartina Garcia for the Missal
Last updated: 8:03 PM
Monday, December 11, 2006
In a bold move guaranteed to offend many the city of New York has decided to ban fat people from their public transportation system.
Anticipating legal challenges the city has nevertheless approved the ordinance that would bar the calorie challenged from gaining access to public transportation.
At a noon-time press conference outside of City Hall, New York City’s interim Chief of City Transportation Workers, the United 506 Stationaries declared, “We are quite serious in the efforts we are making. We feel that it is in the interest of all New Yorkers, as well as those using our transportation systems from out of town or out of state, to assure the most high quality and efficient experience possible. Public health and decorum demands that we enforce this new ordinance, and I do so gladly. Fat asses are no longer allowed in the jurisdictions of New York City, and they are no longer allowed to make use of our transportation networks. It is the considered opinion of our lawmakers that people of tremendous girth, and current systems of transportation do not mix very well and that our transportation systems are ill-prepared for the strain placed upon them by Whoppers, meaning the belly-boomers, and Whopper Jrs., the fat off-spring of these gargantuan people who never cease eating. America has a serious weight problem my friends, and here in New York City we’re doing something about it. New York has banned all trans-fats and I mean to see that ban properly enforced.”
When questioned further about the ban on trans-fats the Transportation Chief admitted he was unaware of the exact wording of the ordinance or exactly how broadly it might be applied. Nevertheless he insisted that he would apply the ordinance in the broadest possible sense. “If you’re too broad to get through our terminal doorway without use of the Jaws of Life, or you’re so broad that you require a Marine Armored Personnel Carrier as a personal mobility scooter then you’re too fat for the New York subway. Broad means broad and that’s the way I mean to look at it. Try walking more people and eating less whole mammals at a single meal and you should eventually be able to make use of our transportation hubs again. ‘Take a load off and we’ll take your load for you.’ That’s our new transport motto. But if you are a load unto yourself then you’d best haul it yourself, you’ll get no help from us.”
Asked if the City might be opening itself up for endless litigation a spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg released a statement which read, in part, “The City of New York has no business interfering in the private lifestyle choices of the citizens who live here. This is exactly why this ban was created, so that we no longer have any responsibility or liabilities in these matters. We leave it up to individuals by demanding that trans-fats be publicly eliminated. That’s the easiest way to resolve the matter, leave it up to the people to make their own choices and then ban those choices that are bad for them. That’s the way government should work.”
A precinct spokesman for the Police Dept. commenting on background and under condition of anonymity, said that he feared the ban could cause a rise in Black Market Transportation, which could eventually lead to serious problems with crime. “Suppose some Asian gang comes into town and decides they will exploit this situation? They bring in illegal transport slaves and force those slaves to ride these trans-fats around on their backs for practically nothing while the gang makes a killing as some poor little stick armed Cambodian woman is stuck hauling around seven hundred pound fat asses 24/7. We’ll see em dropping like flies in the summer time and who’s gonna have to clean up that mess? The Irish that’s who! Stinking Irish-men, if you ask me that’s who we should be banning. A man might not can help being lazy, shiftless, no-good, and weighing the same as a mini-CAT because he eats in the bed all the time, but at least he ain’t Irish! That’s off the record by the way. Don’t print that. I mean you can use the part about the Irish and the Asians and the fat asses, just don’t attach my name to it. I’m still on my green card and don’t want any heat from those gringos upstairs.”
A spokesman for the Behemoth Brotherhood, a non-profit, high consumption support group says that he feels the ban on trans-fats can be overturned in the courts by a reverse boycott. Asked what a reverse boycott might entail he said that it meant getting several thousand people who weighed six hundred pounds or more down to City Court and that he believed that would either tip the legal balance in their favor or tip the building on its side, thereby forcing the judiciary to reconsider the ban. Asked if he could gather several thousand people who weighed six hundred pounds or more for his reverse boycott he said that he had at least that many in his cream pie and sugar barrel exchange network. The trouble would be, he said, in being able to get all of them to make the six-mile trip to court without first becoming hopelessly diverted by the many doughnut shops and hot dog stands en route and thus forgetting the reason they had left the house in the first place.
This reporter however feels that he has not yet seen the tail end of this story. And if this story is as big as some of the parties I’ve interviewed for background research it may be a long time before the full girth of this weighty issue is entirely expounded.
© JWG, Jr. 2006
Monday Political Appraisal 12/11/06
Monday Political Appraisal
Bolton's Fuzzy Future?
No Monkey Business Anymore
Gates and the Guard
Women Less Funny
Arab Government
Basil's Take
Canadian Brain Salad Surgery
Advent and Christmas
Mumiamania
Annan's Outgoing Hissy - The predictability of the man never ceases to amaze.
Bolton's Fuzzy Future?
No Monkey Business Anymore
Gates and the Guard
Women Less Funny
Arab Government
Basil's Take
Canadian Brain Salad Surgery
Advent and Christmas
Mumiamania
Annan's Outgoing Hissy - The predictability of the man never ceases to amaze.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Friday Cultural Calculation 12/8/06
Friday Cultural Calculation
Crazy in a Small Town
You-YouTube-Too
China Contests Cambodia
China Goes Take-Out
US-India Nuke Agreement
Condoms "Too Big" for Indian Men - not sure how that relates to Nuke Capacity, but it seemed an interesting juxtapositioning.
Santa Trashed for Christmas
No Child Left Behind Bars
DC Once Again Under the Scope
Weapons of Mass Addiction
Crazy in a Small Town
You-YouTube-Too
China Contests Cambodia
China Goes Take-Out
US-India Nuke Agreement
Condoms "Too Big" for Indian Men - not sure how that relates to Nuke Capacity, but it seemed an interesting juxtapositioning.
Santa Trashed for Christmas
No Child Left Behind Bars
DC Once Again Under the Scope
Weapons of Mass Addiction
Friday, December 08, 2006
Thursday MCW Briefing 12/7/06
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Monkey Is as Monkey Doo
Invisible Hand - Monkey Is as Monkey-Doo
From Stingray:
I posted this article because I happen to agree with Sherley's conclusions based upon my own research into actual and on-going Stem Cell research projects.
I am not against all Stem Cell research or attempts to develop medical cures, because those projects showing the most promise involve either mature (adult) cells or stem cells rendered from the host organism.
But the attempt to develop cures from any stem cells, say stem cell lines derived from a creature other than the original host creature is a canard. That is if you were sick, reverse development of your own cells to a more undifferentiated state, or even use of derivatives of your own mature cells show medical promise, but use of cells from another creature to develop a cure for you shows no, extremely limited, or only temporary promise (at best).
I suspect this is for both biological and genetic reasons, humans - indeed all creatures are built with fail-safes which prevent the direct adoption of alien tissue, no matter the state of maturity or immaturity, from being properly assimilated without a host of secondary problems.
Your own tissues however, reconfigured, would simply be out of time phase with the surrounding tissue (meaning would simply be at a different level of maturity if undifferentiated), which would also create a cluster of assimilation problems, but not nearly as many as the legion of problems associated with alien tissue and cellular and genetic structures not native to the original host. By using tissue from the original host there is no danger of typical rejection processes, adoption of the tissue is automatic, and assimilation (excluding possible states of maturity issues) is assured regarding the surrounding tissue.
Obviously, as even common sense would dictate, the very best and most promising cures will be derived from the cellular and genetic structures native to the host organism (assuming there is no congenital defect, then you would simply have to screen the tissue or genetic material used until one finds structures free of defects), and the attempt to graft alien tissue (structures or genetic material derived from a source other than the host) will go nowhere fast, and indeed if the promise(s) of generalized, undifferentiated stem cells were easily resolvable then we would already have derived miracles cures, instead of countless experiments which might someday offer promise if pursued indefinitely.
The truth is the entire problem with the stem cell debate, as well as with the debate on reverse engineering cellular states and structures is not how can it be done, but where should the tissue, cells and genetic material come from? If I were suffering from some disorder then the obvious cellular and genetic answer to my problem lies within my own tissues, my healthy tissues. My healthy tissues, properly rearranged and reformatted would lead to cures in almost every way properly efficacious for me and my particular disorder. If however alien tissue is introduced into my body, no matter the cellular state, the inherent genetic differences will still trigger a host of problems, as regards rejection, immune system functioning, infection, tumor development, improper assimilation, adoption of, replication of, and reproduction of the alien tissue, and so forth, probably for the rest of the life of the hosting organism.
Sherley is exactly correct; the problems inherent in stem cells derived from any source are manifold and likely to create cancers and systemic disorders for years and years to come in any host organism.
The answer however is simple and easy. Use healthy cells from the host organism (the same creature who suffers the disease or disorder), reorganize or rearrange or transform those healthy cells as needed and you avoid a whole legion of medical, genetic, cellular, tissue, and moral problems.
Of course in modern science the moral answer is usually immediately considered as somehow suspect, because ultimately most of the people who engage in the debate are not interested in either evidence or true science, just "really cool ideas," politics, research grants, and program funding. Most casual readers on the subject don't know any more than they have heard in the popular media, and have not done any research on such matters either, other than in popular mass market and trade magazines. They have never done real science, never run an experiment of any kind, have never read a technical paper, or even critiqued a scientific idea. They swallow their "hard science" like a calf at the teat of a Mad Cow, and if you attach the term science to the words you write then you can sell them blood from a gooney bird as if it were Kamchatka mammoth droppings. They derive their science from People magazine and the New York Times and Internet message boards. Sixteen year old kids think they understand science (and somehow they have confused this word in their minds with "life," as if the terms were interchangeable except for the variation in spelling) and are the most brilliant generation ever because they grow up on the Internet (they don't even know of the day when the Internet was an actual and real academic and governmental research and exchange network) and read articles posted from another friend who got the article from another friend who got it from a "social network" (in which you never actually meet the people you socialize with, just exchange safe-data) where it was posted from an original article on CNN. Imaginary networks of supposedly like-minded people, endlessly recycling the same erroneous data - the entire sum total of their research and base of personal experience and knowledge on any given issue. So it must be true no matter what the actual evidence. I net therefore I know.
But, c'est la vie. That's life in modern times.
Monkey is as monkey do.
From Stingray:
I posted this article because I happen to agree with Sherley's conclusions based upon my own research into actual and on-going Stem Cell research projects.
I am not against all Stem Cell research or attempts to develop medical cures, because those projects showing the most promise involve either mature (adult) cells or stem cells rendered from the host organism.
But the attempt to develop cures from any stem cells, say stem cell lines derived from a creature other than the original host creature is a canard. That is if you were sick, reverse development of your own cells to a more undifferentiated state, or even use of derivatives of your own mature cells show medical promise, but use of cells from another creature to develop a cure for you shows no, extremely limited, or only temporary promise (at best).
I suspect this is for both biological and genetic reasons, humans - indeed all creatures are built with fail-safes which prevent the direct adoption of alien tissue, no matter the state of maturity or immaturity, from being properly assimilated without a host of secondary problems.
Your own tissues however, reconfigured, would simply be out of time phase with the surrounding tissue (meaning would simply be at a different level of maturity if undifferentiated), which would also create a cluster of assimilation problems, but not nearly as many as the legion of problems associated with alien tissue and cellular and genetic structures not native to the original host. By using tissue from the original host there is no danger of typical rejection processes, adoption of the tissue is automatic, and assimilation (excluding possible states of maturity issues) is assured regarding the surrounding tissue.
Obviously, as even common sense would dictate, the very best and most promising cures will be derived from the cellular and genetic structures native to the host organism (assuming there is no congenital defect, then you would simply have to screen the tissue or genetic material used until one finds structures free of defects), and the attempt to graft alien tissue (structures or genetic material derived from a source other than the host) will go nowhere fast, and indeed if the promise(s) of generalized, undifferentiated stem cells were easily resolvable then we would already have derived miracles cures, instead of countless experiments which might someday offer promise if pursued indefinitely.
The truth is the entire problem with the stem cell debate, as well as with the debate on reverse engineering cellular states and structures is not how can it be done, but where should the tissue, cells and genetic material come from? If I were suffering from some disorder then the obvious cellular and genetic answer to my problem lies within my own tissues, my healthy tissues. My healthy tissues, properly rearranged and reformatted would lead to cures in almost every way properly efficacious for me and my particular disorder. If however alien tissue is introduced into my body, no matter the cellular state, the inherent genetic differences will still trigger a host of problems, as regards rejection, immune system functioning, infection, tumor development, improper assimilation, adoption of, replication of, and reproduction of the alien tissue, and so forth, probably for the rest of the life of the hosting organism.
Sherley is exactly correct; the problems inherent in stem cells derived from any source are manifold and likely to create cancers and systemic disorders for years and years to come in any host organism.
The answer however is simple and easy. Use healthy cells from the host organism (the same creature who suffers the disease or disorder), reorganize or rearrange or transform those healthy cells as needed and you avoid a whole legion of medical, genetic, cellular, tissue, and moral problems.
Of course in modern science the moral answer is usually immediately considered as somehow suspect, because ultimately most of the people who engage in the debate are not interested in either evidence or true science, just "really cool ideas," politics, research grants, and program funding. Most casual readers on the subject don't know any more than they have heard in the popular media, and have not done any research on such matters either, other than in popular mass market and trade magazines. They have never done real science, never run an experiment of any kind, have never read a technical paper, or even critiqued a scientific idea. They swallow their "hard science" like a calf at the teat of a Mad Cow, and if you attach the term science to the words you write then you can sell them blood from a gooney bird as if it were Kamchatka mammoth droppings. They derive their science from People magazine and the New York Times and Internet message boards. Sixteen year old kids think they understand science (and somehow they have confused this word in their minds with "life," as if the terms were interchangeable except for the variation in spelling) and are the most brilliant generation ever because they grow up on the Internet (they don't even know of the day when the Internet was an actual and real academic and governmental research and exchange network) and read articles posted from another friend who got the article from another friend who got it from a "social network" (in which you never actually meet the people you socialize with, just exchange safe-data) where it was posted from an original article on CNN. Imaginary networks of supposedly like-minded people, endlessly recycling the same erroneous data - the entire sum total of their research and base of personal experience and knowledge on any given issue. So it must be true no matter what the actual evidence. I net therefore I know.
But, c'est la vie. That's life in modern times.
Monkey is as monkey do.
Victory As a Code Word
The Glair - Victory As a Code Word
Today, at lunch, I watched the press conference given by the Iraq Study Group to a gaggle of reporters gathered for this momentous event. The only trouble was, nothing momentous occurred.
Yes, some interesting political and military recommendations were made, most of which have been made previously by others, and frankly in far better overall form and format. Yes, the group presented some really interesting psychological ideas and concepts regarding the important benefits of national unity during a time of war. But is this not a rather self-obvious conclusion, if any reasonable person reflects upon the idea for about three milliseconds?
The group also deftly and brilliantly grasped the fundamental conclusion that if the Iraqis fail to act then eventually we can't win their liberty for them. That in the end the Iraqis must decide that their liberties will outweigh their oppression and fear and so decide decisively to fight the good fight by their own measure and on their own turf. But is this a conclusion that either we, or the Iraqis, needed to wait for this group to sanction before understanding the basic theme for ourselves? Then the Justice promoted the idea that she hoped the media would do their part to correctly and fairly present the President's goals and aspirations for success in Iraq to the American Public. Is this a recommendation of the pragmatic assurance of the triumph of Realism in domestic affairs, and if so, can one say with any certainty that Realism is a more, or less, likely method of conducting successful foreign policy than what we now currently enjoy?
I was also extremely gratified to see that the group steered clear of "code-words" like Victory. You want to stick to what you know and since so many of the panel members seem to have reached the conclusion that Victory is a perniciously difficult code word, no sense in attempting to Break the Code. Codes are not meant to be broken anymore, with parturient work and cunning cleverness, as was the case when our forefathers broke the codes for victory in the Revolution, or the Civil War, or World War II. Just admit that the very idea of code breaking in this case sounds a lot like much ado about nothing and it's best to just say, "we'll skip the term for now and return to that if events leading to a Victory ever overrun our recommendations." Victory is no longer an achievable goal, it is a force beyond our ability to control which eventually, if we are lucky, over-runs us like a mysterious demonic force or some unknown pathogenic agent. In short we have redefined victory as the Ghost of a Machine we cannot control, of which we are but one lonely cog, which will never understand anything other than our own liabilities and the ping of the gears as they work around us. The modern mind at work, the modern man as self-defined: he is pinged by his circumstances, but never master thereof.
America has given birth to a whole class of people, most highly urbanized and intellectually highly Europeonized, who have simply expelled and expunged certain terminology forever from both their personal and public vocabularies. Words, once very ordinary and basic words, like Victory, Adaptability, Overcoming, Strength, Sacrifice, Heroism, Principles, and Ideals have been replaced with more sophisticated sounding and no doubt sophistical terms like Success, Prudence, Consensus, Footprint, Structure, Reduction, Redeployment, and Realism.
Nobody likes this war, wars aren't supposed to be liked. Why that is so hard for the modern American mind to grasp is probably due to the fact of wide-scale public school education in matters of history and culture, but be that as it may wars are not supposed to be liked by either those fighting the wars, or the general public at large, they are supposed to be won. Not realigned, redeployed, re-regulated or regurgitated as tidy policy summations. You adapt in war, you do not accommodate. In any war anyone undertakes in life, whether it is national or local or even personal you are presented with a number of choices and options in the manner by which you conduct and execute that war. But eventually every single choice and option narrows to two inevitable conclusions. Win, or Lose. Self-Surrender is a loss in kind as surely as having your ass handed to you by the enemy because he has simply fought harder and longer and more successfully, and thereby overwhelmed you. That's not sophistry of the modern kind, or even the ancient Greek kind, that's Realism of the Universal Kind. It's the way it has always been and always will be.
I've got absolutely nothing against the Iraq Study Group or most of their recommendations. But to leave out the very idea of Victory is to leave out the meat from the chili, the engine from the automobile, the feathers from the eagle. Might as well eat air, drive a Pinto, or fly on the back of a turkey for all of the good those methods will do you. A concession on the idea of Victory is to practically and pragmatically admit by exclusion that Victory was never your intent and that you currently have no fundamental understanding of the term, and therefore probably never did. You fight to the very end, the end of what it takes to win, or you lose. Recast that in any light you wish, even ultraviolet or infrared, and a spade is still a spade and a flush still beats a pair of clever redefinitions.
Men, organizations, institutions, and nations are ultimately known by two things; what they say and what they do. In the case of Action - Work must follow Word. In the case of Words, the Employment must dictate the Exploit. Is there an honest and thinking man or woman among us, who, being willing to strip away the meaningless babble of misdefined terminology can find either Exploit or Victory in the code words of this report? Indeed, what does this report actually report and what does this study studiously suggest?
Commitment by Committee? Victory by Verisimilitude? Success by Superficiality? Realism by Recommendation?
If that's all your recommending esteemed ladies and gentlemen then please return and speak to us again when you actually have something worth suggesting in language that actually sports a real and achievable objective. Otherwise, and let me put this in terms you can understand, "your code is flawed."
© JWG, Jr. 2006
Excerpts of Iraq Study Group report
Today, at lunch, I watched the press conference given by the Iraq Study Group to a gaggle of reporters gathered for this momentous event. The only trouble was, nothing momentous occurred.
Yes, some interesting political and military recommendations were made, most of which have been made previously by others, and frankly in far better overall form and format. Yes, the group presented some really interesting psychological ideas and concepts regarding the important benefits of national unity during a time of war. But is this not a rather self-obvious conclusion, if any reasonable person reflects upon the idea for about three milliseconds?
The group also deftly and brilliantly grasped the fundamental conclusion that if the Iraqis fail to act then eventually we can't win their liberty for them. That in the end the Iraqis must decide that their liberties will outweigh their oppression and fear and so decide decisively to fight the good fight by their own measure and on their own turf. But is this a conclusion that either we, or the Iraqis, needed to wait for this group to sanction before understanding the basic theme for ourselves? Then the Justice promoted the idea that she hoped the media would do their part to correctly and fairly present the President's goals and aspirations for success in Iraq to the American Public. Is this a recommendation of the pragmatic assurance of the triumph of Realism in domestic affairs, and if so, can one say with any certainty that Realism is a more, or less, likely method of conducting successful foreign policy than what we now currently enjoy?
I was also extremely gratified to see that the group steered clear of "code-words" like Victory. You want to stick to what you know and since so many of the panel members seem to have reached the conclusion that Victory is a perniciously difficult code word, no sense in attempting to Break the Code. Codes are not meant to be broken anymore, with parturient work and cunning cleverness, as was the case when our forefathers broke the codes for victory in the Revolution, or the Civil War, or World War II. Just admit that the very idea of code breaking in this case sounds a lot like much ado about nothing and it's best to just say, "we'll skip the term for now and return to that if events leading to a Victory ever overrun our recommendations." Victory is no longer an achievable goal, it is a force beyond our ability to control which eventually, if we are lucky, over-runs us like a mysterious demonic force or some unknown pathogenic agent. In short we have redefined victory as the Ghost of a Machine we cannot control, of which we are but one lonely cog, which will never understand anything other than our own liabilities and the ping of the gears as they work around us. The modern mind at work, the modern man as self-defined: he is pinged by his circumstances, but never master thereof.
America has given birth to a whole class of people, most highly urbanized and intellectually highly Europeonized, who have simply expelled and expunged certain terminology forever from both their personal and public vocabularies. Words, once very ordinary and basic words, like Victory, Adaptability, Overcoming, Strength, Sacrifice, Heroism, Principles, and Ideals have been replaced with more sophisticated sounding and no doubt sophistical terms like Success, Prudence, Consensus, Footprint, Structure, Reduction, Redeployment, and Realism.
Nobody likes this war, wars aren't supposed to be liked. Why that is so hard for the modern American mind to grasp is probably due to the fact of wide-scale public school education in matters of history and culture, but be that as it may wars are not supposed to be liked by either those fighting the wars, or the general public at large, they are supposed to be won. Not realigned, redeployed, re-regulated or regurgitated as tidy policy summations. You adapt in war, you do not accommodate. In any war anyone undertakes in life, whether it is national or local or even personal you are presented with a number of choices and options in the manner by which you conduct and execute that war. But eventually every single choice and option narrows to two inevitable conclusions. Win, or Lose. Self-Surrender is a loss in kind as surely as having your ass handed to you by the enemy because he has simply fought harder and longer and more successfully, and thereby overwhelmed you. That's not sophistry of the modern kind, or even the ancient Greek kind, that's Realism of the Universal Kind. It's the way it has always been and always will be.
I've got absolutely nothing against the Iraq Study Group or most of their recommendations. But to leave out the very idea of Victory is to leave out the meat from the chili, the engine from the automobile, the feathers from the eagle. Might as well eat air, drive a Pinto, or fly on the back of a turkey for all of the good those methods will do you. A concession on the idea of Victory is to practically and pragmatically admit by exclusion that Victory was never your intent and that you currently have no fundamental understanding of the term, and therefore probably never did. You fight to the very end, the end of what it takes to win, or you lose. Recast that in any light you wish, even ultraviolet or infrared, and a spade is still a spade and a flush still beats a pair of clever redefinitions.
Men, organizations, institutions, and nations are ultimately known by two things; what they say and what they do. In the case of Action - Work must follow Word. In the case of Words, the Employment must dictate the Exploit. Is there an honest and thinking man or woman among us, who, being willing to strip away the meaningless babble of misdefined terminology can find either Exploit or Victory in the code words of this report? Indeed, what does this report actually report and what does this study studiously suggest?
Commitment by Committee? Victory by Verisimilitude? Success by Superficiality? Realism by Recommendation?
If that's all your recommending esteemed ladies and gentlemen then please return and speak to us again when you actually have something worth suggesting in language that actually sports a real and achievable objective. Otherwise, and let me put this in terms you can understand, "your code is flawed."
© JWG, Jr. 2006
Excerpts of Iraq Study Group report
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Gates to the Future
Signal, Sygnet, and Sigil - Gates to the Future
I've been watching part of the Gates confirmation hearing this morning, as much as time would permit anyway. I had expected Gates to be little more than a typical intellectual analyst (the kind so common in the Company) given his background.
However, so far, I've been favorably impressed by the few segments of testimony and examination I have witnessed thus far. I especially liked his tendency to place the onus on long term Strategic outlines for the War in Iraq and the War on Terror back upon Congress.
I see obvious Cold War parallels here where the necessity for maintaining a basic multi-generational strategy had to be developed and executed over a number of years and over the operational span of consecutive and different administrations and sitting Congresses.
I am hopeful that Gates can lead some in congress, at least, to understand the strategic and tactical implications of what he was hinting at, and what needs to be done considering the realities of our current (and likely future) situation.
But then again this is Congress that we're talking about and a Democratic Congress at that, so first and foremost the Conservative and Pragmatic Democrats will have to win out over the Liberals. No easy task to say the least.
I've been watching part of the Gates confirmation hearing this morning, as much as time would permit anyway. I had expected Gates to be little more than a typical intellectual analyst (the kind so common in the Company) given his background.
However, so far, I've been favorably impressed by the few segments of testimony and examination I have witnessed thus far. I especially liked his tendency to place the onus on long term Strategic outlines for the War in Iraq and the War on Terror back upon Congress.
I see obvious Cold War parallels here where the necessity for maintaining a basic multi-generational strategy had to be developed and executed over a number of years and over the operational span of consecutive and different administrations and sitting Congresses.
I am hopeful that Gates can lead some in congress, at least, to understand the strategic and tactical implications of what he was hinting at, and what needs to be done considering the realities of our current (and likely future) situation.
But then again this is Congress that we're talking about and a Democratic Congress at that, so first and foremost the Conservative and Pragmatic Democrats will have to win out over the Liberals. No easy task to say the least.
Monday, December 04, 2006
A Bit of News
Pesharim - A Bit of News
I've been invited to enter into a cooperative writing/blogging arrangement with Stingray (Michael McCullough's blog), which I intend to accept.
Actually I applied to an online invitation and was graciously accepted. Therefore I intend to make this my public declaration of acceptance. I am grateful to Michael for the invitation and appreciate the new opportunity. I feel that we have much in common personally and as he says we share an interest in mystical matters as well, so I'm looking forward to this relationship.
I've been visiting Stingray since I discovered it, enjoy it, and will gladly contribute articles and even act as a guest writer there on occasion if and when Michael needs me to do so. I am also adding Stingray to my list of Endorsements, to my Blogroll and it will be my featured Recommendation for this month.
So on Wednesdays when I normally blog on Religious matters I will be cross linking some of my Original and Personal Writings to Stingray, maybe some of my Wednesday Religious Assessment Research (I'll have to discuss that with him first), and maybe a few other related posts.
In addition I plan on Wednesdays to cross-link some of Michael's Posts on Stingray to the Missal.
I have also joined Christian Bloggers on a similar invitation and will be posting some of my articles there on Wednesdays as well as cross-linking interesting articles from that site here on the Missal.
I will continue to blog on my other subject matters of interest on the appropriate days, unless something particularly important takes precedence. I also intend to eventually accept initiations from other blog writers and blogsites (I've received a couple already) to contribute to Defense and Military and Law Enforcement blogs, and possibly to occasionally contribute to Political and Science/Technology blogs and sites as well, in addition to my normal freelance writing schedule, time and work permitting of course.
Now that I have about four to five months experience as a blogger I am coming more and more to understand the process and how best to work as a blogger. In addition as I learn more about the process of successful blogging I am making changes to my site to make it a better experience for my readers and hopefully far more useful to them as a location they might like to visit. I am also learning how to adjust my normal freelance writing style to better fit formats that are easier and more convenient for the blog reader to use and digest.
I still expect a steep learning curve over the next year or so, and I still have a lot of research to do on all aspects of blogging, but I expect to continue to improve with experience.
If any of my readers have any suggestions as to how to improve the site then of course I'll be happy to entertain your suggestions. Leave the suggestions here on site or email me as many of you normally do.
Now for something completely different. Moving into the Christmas season this is the time of year I normally rearrange things like my Goals and Objectives for the upcoming year, make resolutions, and change my prayer targets for the New Year as well. Last Sunday afternoon I had a little spare time so I went ahead and completed my Prayer Target list for 2007.
As some of you know my last grandmother died a few months back and the she is off my normal list and has instead been added to my Prayer List for Souls of the Dead, though I suspect given her life she needs my prayers for her about as much as she needs a suntan right now. Truth is, it's the other way around that would have the most beneficial effect. Still, it is my duty to her and she was my grandmother and a great woman. She doesn't need them but I owe her.
I've also added the following individuals to my personal prayer list: Michael, Drew, Bradley Stalker, Steve, Kevin (actually he's been on it awhile), Captain Thompson, Major Egland, Craig, Abby, and Cheri and her family. And Pope Benedict.
I'll also be praying for the following nations and peoples:
For the full liberty of, and for an end to oppression, war, and murder in: Iraq, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, Eastern Europe, and Russia.
For these nations to proper and be secure: Colombia (I have a foster son there), England, Italy, Germany, Canada, Kenya, and Australia.
For the United States to prosper and to be a beacon of Liberty, Virtue, Greatness, Heroism, Sacrifice, Success, Honor, Justice and Brotherhood to the rest of the world.
For my own state to proper, and for my city to continue to enjoy success and to be free of crime, corruption, and violence.
That's it for now,
Jack.
I've been invited to enter into a cooperative writing/blogging arrangement with Stingray (Michael McCullough's blog), which I intend to accept.
Actually I applied to an online invitation and was graciously accepted. Therefore I intend to make this my public declaration of acceptance. I am grateful to Michael for the invitation and appreciate the new opportunity. I feel that we have much in common personally and as he says we share an interest in mystical matters as well, so I'm looking forward to this relationship.
I've been visiting Stingray since I discovered it, enjoy it, and will gladly contribute articles and even act as a guest writer there on occasion if and when Michael needs me to do so. I am also adding Stingray to my list of Endorsements, to my Blogroll and it will be my featured Recommendation for this month.
So on Wednesdays when I normally blog on Religious matters I will be cross linking some of my Original and Personal Writings to Stingray, maybe some of my Wednesday Religious Assessment Research (I'll have to discuss that with him first), and maybe a few other related posts.
In addition I plan on Wednesdays to cross-link some of Michael's Posts on Stingray to the Missal.
I have also joined Christian Bloggers on a similar invitation and will be posting some of my articles there on Wednesdays as well as cross-linking interesting articles from that site here on the Missal.
I will continue to blog on my other subject matters of interest on the appropriate days, unless something particularly important takes precedence. I also intend to eventually accept initiations from other blog writers and blogsites (I've received a couple already) to contribute to Defense and Military and Law Enforcement blogs, and possibly to occasionally contribute to Political and Science/Technology blogs and sites as well, in addition to my normal freelance writing schedule, time and work permitting of course.
Now that I have about four to five months experience as a blogger I am coming more and more to understand the process and how best to work as a blogger. In addition as I learn more about the process of successful blogging I am making changes to my site to make it a better experience for my readers and hopefully far more useful to them as a location they might like to visit. I am also learning how to adjust my normal freelance writing style to better fit formats that are easier and more convenient for the blog reader to use and digest.
I still expect a steep learning curve over the next year or so, and I still have a lot of research to do on all aspects of blogging, but I expect to continue to improve with experience.
If any of my readers have any suggestions as to how to improve the site then of course I'll be happy to entertain your suggestions. Leave the suggestions here on site or email me as many of you normally do.
Now for something completely different. Moving into the Christmas season this is the time of year I normally rearrange things like my Goals and Objectives for the upcoming year, make resolutions, and change my prayer targets for the New Year as well. Last Sunday afternoon I had a little spare time so I went ahead and completed my Prayer Target list for 2007.
As some of you know my last grandmother died a few months back and the she is off my normal list and has instead been added to my Prayer List for Souls of the Dead, though I suspect given her life she needs my prayers for her about as much as she needs a suntan right now. Truth is, it's the other way around that would have the most beneficial effect. Still, it is my duty to her and she was my grandmother and a great woman. She doesn't need them but I owe her.
I've also added the following individuals to my personal prayer list: Michael, Drew, Bradley Stalker, Steve, Kevin (actually he's been on it awhile), Captain Thompson, Major Egland, Craig, Abby, and Cheri and her family. And Pope Benedict.
I'll also be praying for the following nations and peoples:
For the full liberty of, and for an end to oppression, war, and murder in: Iraq, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, Eastern Europe, and Russia.
For these nations to proper and be secure: Colombia (I have a foster son there), England, Italy, Germany, Canada, Kenya, and Australia.
For the United States to prosper and to be a beacon of Liberty, Virtue, Greatness, Heroism, Sacrifice, Success, Honor, Justice and Brotherhood to the rest of the world.
For my own state to proper, and for my city to continue to enjoy success and to be free of crime, corruption, and violence.
That's it for now,
Jack.
Winter Works
Humours of Idleness - Winter Works
I know, technically and astronomically it is not yet the Winter Solstice, but I still consider these Winter Works.
I know, technically and astronomically it is not yet the Winter Solstice, but I still consider these Winter Works.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Monday Political Appraisal 12/4/06
Monday Political Appraisal
Brownback-In?
Bolton Bolts - and who can blame him?
The Old War
The Race for a New Public Definition of Race
North Korea's New Scam
Bush Gets Shiited - then returns the favor
Burning Down the Mouse
Digg Gets Dugg
Sniping and Snooping
Conversio
San Panned
Over and Around
Brownback-In?
Bolton Bolts - and who can blame him?
The Old War
The Race for a New Public Definition of Race
North Korea's New Scam
Bush Gets Shiited - then returns the favor
Burning Down the Mouse
Digg Gets Dugg
Sniping and Snooping
Conversio
San Panned
Over and Around
Sunday, December 03, 2006
AN EXAMINATION OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CLASSICAL LIBERALS AND MODERN LIBERALS
The Glair - AN EXAMINATION OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CLASSICAL LIBERALS AND MODERN LIBERALS
How are the views of the Modern Liberal similar to, and different from, the views of the Classical Liberal? Let’s examine the evidence for a better understanding.
ON JUSTICE
Classical Liberal: Believed Perfect and Universal Justice in society a noble ideal to be industriously pursued, even if sometimes it can only be imperfectly achieved.
Modern Liberal: Believes the very idea of the pursuit of Justice an imperfect ideal, and therefore not a worthy objective. The only real Justice the modern liberal understands is something they call Social Justice, which is a bizarre and impotent bastardization of the idea of Universal Justice, a sort of “Multi Generational Vengeance” on the Macro, or Group Scale. Does not believe in Justice as normally defined, rather, believes in compensation, courts, and legislation by lawsuit.
ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Classical Liberal: Believed Human Rights Granted to all Men and Protected by God. Believed in Universal Equality.
Modern Liberal: Believes Rights derived by ever-malleable Human Social Contract, and therefore open to debate as to their nature, extent, and character. Believes some people are capable of liberty and some are better suited to rule by Tyrants, Strongmen, and Dictators.
ON EDUCATION
Classical Liberal: In general extremely well and Classically educated. Believed in self-education throughout the entire term of their lives.
Modern Liberal: Thinks the modern and current public education system is a brilliantly effective method of education. Doesn’t understand the term self-education, and sees no point to the exercise.
ON LIBERTY
Classical Liberal: Was willing to fight for, in word and deed, his own liberty and the liberty of his fellow man, no matter how long the struggle took or how difficult it might be.
Modern Liberal: Expects liberty to be granted to him as a birthright, but is unwilling to fight for or expand the franchise to his fellow man if any real sacrifice is called for, or any real struggle is involved.
ON RELIGION
Classical Liberal: Deeply, if often unorthodoxly, religious. Friendly towards expressions of religious liberty in public life. Believed faith based institutions such as churches valuable components of a healthy societal order and public virtue. Believed personal behavior often tied to, and beneficially regulated by, religious belief.
Modern Liberal: Unorthodox and Freakish in personal behavior. Often deeply irreligious. Desires religion and therefore religious liberty expunged from public life. Believes the greatest public virtue is to erase faith as a component of the societal order.
ON EVIL
Classical Liberal: Feared no evil and believed all evils could be overcome with patience, proper action, and reason.
Modern Liberal: Sees no reason to try to understand the concept of evil. Thinks it a Fairy Tale or subjective psychological construct. Resents recent talk of evil and wishes we could all return to the days of neuter-speak and inoffensive misdefinition.
ON TAXATION
Classical Liberal: Believed Taxation means and meant exhaustion and therefore taxation should not be imposed unless absolutely necessary for a true and valid function of local, state, or federal government. Did not believe in taxation without representation. Believed individuals made the most productive use of their own resources. Believed taxation should be directed towards what people consume, not what they produce, and that taxes in regards to property should be allodial.
Modern Liberal: Believes the resources of the individual actually belong to the government. Does not believe in any invalid or unproductive government function. Believes representatives should promote ever higher rates of taxation. Believes in a nebulous and non-sequitor term, “Progressive Taxation,” even though the terms progress (to continue or to improve) and tax (to exhaust) are diametrically opposed to one another. Thinks property should be continuously taxed in order that the state, not the individual owns the property in perpetua.
ON MARKETS
Classical Liberal: Believed Markets should be free and open enterprises and that competition is the mechanism by which both individual and collective industries improve, thrive, and prosper.
Modern Liberal: Thinks prospering is very bad and unjust and that people should be protected from the markets, lest they too profit.
ON INCOME AND WAGES
Classical Liberal: Understood the original and true distinctions in definition between the terms “Income” and “Earnings” and “Wages.”
Modern Liberal: Does not understand what an income is, but thinks it should be tied to the minimum wage, and that earnings should be universally regulated.
ON INITIATIVE AND INVENTION
Classical Liberal: Was admiring of Personal Initiative and Invention in individuals and considered both necessary qualities of eventual success.
Modern Liberal: Takes the initiative in declaring persons incapable of individual success without assistance from collective groups or governments. Is not impressed by success because it sets an unfair measure of personal achievement that makes it very difficult for the lazy to achieve profitability parity.
ON ENTERPRISE, PROFIT, INDUSTRY, AND DRIVE
Classical Liberal: Understood the definition of the term Enterprise and that it signified a dangerous and risky undertaking. Understood the concept of “Profit.” Thought a man would succeed or fail based upon his Personal Industry and Drive.
Modern Liberal: Has no concept of an enterprise. Thinks profits are bad and disgraceful and somehow personally and institutionally corrupting. Thinks no one should mention personal and industry in the same sentence. Likes governmentally mandated regulations on both what you drive, and how much drive you should have.
ON CREATIVITY AND ACCOMPLISHMENT
Classical Liberal: Believed in personal and individual creativity and accomplishment.
Modern Liberal: Thinks creativity occurs by committee, but since they also believe life has no ultimate meaning, personal accomplishments are all illusions anyway.
ON PROBLEM SOLVING
Classical Liberal: Believed every problem eventually soluble via the careful and consistent applications of reason and industry in the individual.
Modern Liberal: Thinks world is doomed and the individual an impotent cipher incapable of solving his own problems.
ON REASON
Classical Liberal: Believed the ability to Reason instrumental to success and one of God’s Great Gifts to Mankind.
Modern Liberal: Believes they have successfully reasoned away God.
ON LIFE, HEALTH, AND PROPERTY
Classical Liberal: Thought a man’s Life, Health, and Property the responsibility of the individual involved and subject to his personal decision making process. Believed very strongly in Personal Responsibility and Accountability.
Modern Liberal: Thinks a man’s health a function of society, his property in eternal escrow to the state, and his life determined by environmental factors and therefore a matter beyond his personal control.
ON PRIVACY AND PERSONAL CONDUCT
Classical Liberal: Believed a man should be secure and honored in his private opinions, speech, and papers. And that his public conduct should be upright and virtuous.
Modern Liberal: Believes everything a person does should be a private matter even if it involves publicly felonious conduct.
ON SCIENCE
Classical Liberal: Believed man should morally and materially benefit from the blessings of Science and scientific progress.
Modern Liberal: Believes that the material benefits derived from Science automatically relieve everyone of any cumbersome consideration of the moral ramifications of scientific progress.
ON TOUGHNESS AND HARDIHOOD
Classical Liberal: Admired the traits of Toughness and Hardihood in individual people.
Modern Liberal: Thinks toughness and hardihood chauvinistic and outmoded expressions of individual behavior. Admires effeminate conduct or at the very least gender-neutral personality expressions in all circumstances.
ON FREEDOM AND LIBERTY
Classical Liberal: Believed all men could and should enjoy the personal blessings of Freedom and Liberty.
Modern Liberal: Believes Freedom means that they should be at Liberty to do as they please.
ON EQUALITY AND THE LAW
Classical Liberal: Believed all men are and should be equal under the Law.
Modern Liberal: Believes the Law is a tool for righting perceived political inequalities.
ON OPTIMISM AND PROGRESS
Classical Liberal: Were highly Optimistic and Progressive in the true sense of the term.
Modern Liberal: Thinks true progress is achieved by properly executed tax schemes, and should be regulated by government. Highly pessimistic and reactionary in most other matters.
ON CHARITY AND PHILANTHROPY
Classical Liberal: Believed that good could best be done to the unfortunate by acts of private and voluntary Charity and Philanthropy.
Modern Liberal: Thinks the government is the best and most efficient method of distributing charity and philanthropy. This is unfortunately how they think they can best serve the unfortunate.
ON LABOR
Classical Liberal: Believed if a man was dissatisfied with the rewards of his labor that he should be free to seek better opportunities to fully exploit his personal industry for higher profit.
Modern Liberal: Believes all labor should be unionized so that the worker can best be collectively exploited, and so that profits may be diverted to more deserving persons.
ON CIVIC DUTY AND VOTING
Classical Liberal: Believed it was the duty of every citizen to vote and to vote with an informed background of information and experience towards both the candidates and the issues.
Modern Liberal: Thinks non-citizens and felons should vote, and vote often – even often in the same election, and that if voters do not understand the actual process and mechanics of voting that their failed intentions to properly execute a vote should be derived by statistical models, the courts, and by political soothsayers and augurs. Issues are secondary considerations in any election for the modern liberal, the important thing is assuring votes are counted or at least construed by psychic process.
ON REPUBLICS AND DEMOCRACIES
Classical Liberal: Believed the highest form of government to be a Constitutional Republic with Rights guaranteed by God for the good of the people.
Modern Liberal: Thinks Democracy the highest form of government, Constitutions open to “living legislation” by the Judiciary, God an anachronism, and the good of the people best decided and protected in every case by majority vote.
ON CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE
Classical Liberal: Believed the most important aspects of an individual to be the nature and content of his character.
Modern Liberal: Believes the most important aspects of an individual to be his charisma, charm, and personality.
© JWG, Jr. 2006
How are the views of the Modern Liberal similar to, and different from, the views of the Classical Liberal? Let’s examine the evidence for a better understanding.
ON JUSTICE
Classical Liberal: Believed Perfect and Universal Justice in society a noble ideal to be industriously pursued, even if sometimes it can only be imperfectly achieved.
Modern Liberal: Believes the very idea of the pursuit of Justice an imperfect ideal, and therefore not a worthy objective. The only real Justice the modern liberal understands is something they call Social Justice, which is a bizarre and impotent bastardization of the idea of Universal Justice, a sort of “Multi Generational Vengeance” on the Macro, or Group Scale. Does not believe in Justice as normally defined, rather, believes in compensation, courts, and legislation by lawsuit.
ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Classical Liberal: Believed Human Rights Granted to all Men and Protected by God. Believed in Universal Equality.
Modern Liberal: Believes Rights derived by ever-malleable Human Social Contract, and therefore open to debate as to their nature, extent, and character. Believes some people are capable of liberty and some are better suited to rule by Tyrants, Strongmen, and Dictators.
ON EDUCATION
Classical Liberal: In general extremely well and Classically educated. Believed in self-education throughout the entire term of their lives.
Modern Liberal: Thinks the modern and current public education system is a brilliantly effective method of education. Doesn’t understand the term self-education, and sees no point to the exercise.
ON LIBERTY
Classical Liberal: Was willing to fight for, in word and deed, his own liberty and the liberty of his fellow man, no matter how long the struggle took or how difficult it might be.
Modern Liberal: Expects liberty to be granted to him as a birthright, but is unwilling to fight for or expand the franchise to his fellow man if any real sacrifice is called for, or any real struggle is involved.
ON RELIGION
Classical Liberal: Deeply, if often unorthodoxly, religious. Friendly towards expressions of religious liberty in public life. Believed faith based institutions such as churches valuable components of a healthy societal order and public virtue. Believed personal behavior often tied to, and beneficially regulated by, religious belief.
Modern Liberal: Unorthodox and Freakish in personal behavior. Often deeply irreligious. Desires religion and therefore religious liberty expunged from public life. Believes the greatest public virtue is to erase faith as a component of the societal order.
ON EVIL
Classical Liberal: Feared no evil and believed all evils could be overcome with patience, proper action, and reason.
Modern Liberal: Sees no reason to try to understand the concept of evil. Thinks it a Fairy Tale or subjective psychological construct. Resents recent talk of evil and wishes we could all return to the days of neuter-speak and inoffensive misdefinition.
ON TAXATION
Classical Liberal: Believed Taxation means and meant exhaustion and therefore taxation should not be imposed unless absolutely necessary for a true and valid function of local, state, or federal government. Did not believe in taxation without representation. Believed individuals made the most productive use of their own resources. Believed taxation should be directed towards what people consume, not what they produce, and that taxes in regards to property should be allodial.
Modern Liberal: Believes the resources of the individual actually belong to the government. Does not believe in any invalid or unproductive government function. Believes representatives should promote ever higher rates of taxation. Believes in a nebulous and non-sequitor term, “Progressive Taxation,” even though the terms progress (to continue or to improve) and tax (to exhaust) are diametrically opposed to one another. Thinks property should be continuously taxed in order that the state, not the individual owns the property in perpetua.
ON MARKETS
Classical Liberal: Believed Markets should be free and open enterprises and that competition is the mechanism by which both individual and collective industries improve, thrive, and prosper.
Modern Liberal: Thinks prospering is very bad and unjust and that people should be protected from the markets, lest they too profit.
ON INCOME AND WAGES
Classical Liberal: Understood the original and true distinctions in definition between the terms “Income” and “Earnings” and “Wages.”
Modern Liberal: Does not understand what an income is, but thinks it should be tied to the minimum wage, and that earnings should be universally regulated.
ON INITIATIVE AND INVENTION
Classical Liberal: Was admiring of Personal Initiative and Invention in individuals and considered both necessary qualities of eventual success.
Modern Liberal: Takes the initiative in declaring persons incapable of individual success without assistance from collective groups or governments. Is not impressed by success because it sets an unfair measure of personal achievement that makes it very difficult for the lazy to achieve profitability parity.
ON ENTERPRISE, PROFIT, INDUSTRY, AND DRIVE
Classical Liberal: Understood the definition of the term Enterprise and that it signified a dangerous and risky undertaking. Understood the concept of “Profit.” Thought a man would succeed or fail based upon his Personal Industry and Drive.
Modern Liberal: Has no concept of an enterprise. Thinks profits are bad and disgraceful and somehow personally and institutionally corrupting. Thinks no one should mention personal and industry in the same sentence. Likes governmentally mandated regulations on both what you drive, and how much drive you should have.
ON CREATIVITY AND ACCOMPLISHMENT
Classical Liberal: Believed in personal and individual creativity and accomplishment.
Modern Liberal: Thinks creativity occurs by committee, but since they also believe life has no ultimate meaning, personal accomplishments are all illusions anyway.
ON PROBLEM SOLVING
Classical Liberal: Believed every problem eventually soluble via the careful and consistent applications of reason and industry in the individual.
Modern Liberal: Thinks world is doomed and the individual an impotent cipher incapable of solving his own problems.
ON REASON
Classical Liberal: Believed the ability to Reason instrumental to success and one of God’s Great Gifts to Mankind.
Modern Liberal: Believes they have successfully reasoned away God.
ON LIFE, HEALTH, AND PROPERTY
Classical Liberal: Thought a man’s Life, Health, and Property the responsibility of the individual involved and subject to his personal decision making process. Believed very strongly in Personal Responsibility and Accountability.
Modern Liberal: Thinks a man’s health a function of society, his property in eternal escrow to the state, and his life determined by environmental factors and therefore a matter beyond his personal control.
ON PRIVACY AND PERSONAL CONDUCT
Classical Liberal: Believed a man should be secure and honored in his private opinions, speech, and papers. And that his public conduct should be upright and virtuous.
Modern Liberal: Believes everything a person does should be a private matter even if it involves publicly felonious conduct.
ON SCIENCE
Classical Liberal: Believed man should morally and materially benefit from the blessings of Science and scientific progress.
Modern Liberal: Believes that the material benefits derived from Science automatically relieve everyone of any cumbersome consideration of the moral ramifications of scientific progress.
ON TOUGHNESS AND HARDIHOOD
Classical Liberal: Admired the traits of Toughness and Hardihood in individual people.
Modern Liberal: Thinks toughness and hardihood chauvinistic and outmoded expressions of individual behavior. Admires effeminate conduct or at the very least gender-neutral personality expressions in all circumstances.
ON FREEDOM AND LIBERTY
Classical Liberal: Believed all men could and should enjoy the personal blessings of Freedom and Liberty.
Modern Liberal: Believes Freedom means that they should be at Liberty to do as they please.
ON EQUALITY AND THE LAW
Classical Liberal: Believed all men are and should be equal under the Law.
Modern Liberal: Believes the Law is a tool for righting perceived political inequalities.
ON OPTIMISM AND PROGRESS
Classical Liberal: Were highly Optimistic and Progressive in the true sense of the term.
Modern Liberal: Thinks true progress is achieved by properly executed tax schemes, and should be regulated by government. Highly pessimistic and reactionary in most other matters.
ON CHARITY AND PHILANTHROPY
Classical Liberal: Believed that good could best be done to the unfortunate by acts of private and voluntary Charity and Philanthropy.
Modern Liberal: Thinks the government is the best and most efficient method of distributing charity and philanthropy. This is unfortunately how they think they can best serve the unfortunate.
ON LABOR
Classical Liberal: Believed if a man was dissatisfied with the rewards of his labor that he should be free to seek better opportunities to fully exploit his personal industry for higher profit.
Modern Liberal: Believes all labor should be unionized so that the worker can best be collectively exploited, and so that profits may be diverted to more deserving persons.
ON CIVIC DUTY AND VOTING
Classical Liberal: Believed it was the duty of every citizen to vote and to vote with an informed background of information and experience towards both the candidates and the issues.
Modern Liberal: Thinks non-citizens and felons should vote, and vote often – even often in the same election, and that if voters do not understand the actual process and mechanics of voting that their failed intentions to properly execute a vote should be derived by statistical models, the courts, and by political soothsayers and augurs. Issues are secondary considerations in any election for the modern liberal, the important thing is assuring votes are counted or at least construed by psychic process.
ON REPUBLICS AND DEMOCRACIES
Classical Liberal: Believed the highest form of government to be a Constitutional Republic with Rights guaranteed by God for the good of the people.
Modern Liberal: Thinks Democracy the highest form of government, Constitutions open to “living legislation” by the Judiciary, God an anachronism, and the good of the people best decided and protected in every case by majority vote.
ON CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE
Classical Liberal: Believed the most important aspects of an individual to be the nature and content of his character.
Modern Liberal: Believes the most important aspects of an individual to be his charisma, charm, and personality.
© JWG, Jr. 2006
Friday, December 01, 2006
Thursday MCW Briefing 11/30/06
Thursday MCW Briefing
Update on Litvinenko Investigation
Gaidar Now on the Radar
Six Steps to Victory
RAND Paper on T&E and Future Weapon's system Cost Analysis
Defense Tech's Rapid Fire
International Internet Smuggling
Community Outreach
The Case of DB Cooper
CSIRT
Ahmadijaland
Brats and Rats
Somali Homicides
Kapal Nath and Aghor
Update on Litvinenko Investigation
Gaidar Now on the Radar
Six Steps to Victory
RAND Paper on T&E and Future Weapon's system Cost Analysis
Defense Tech's Rapid Fire
International Internet Smuggling
Community Outreach
The Case of DB Cooper
CSIRT
Ahmadijaland
Brats and Rats
Somali Homicides
Kapal Nath and Aghor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
