http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-10/10-reasons-the-resurrection-really-happened/
Choke. Gag. Gasp. Turn Blue. Vomit. Wretch. Go into shock.
I thought that April Fool’s day and Easter were two different events.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
World's Largest Water Park?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/somalia/5130003/US-warship-arrives-at-site-of-pirate-kidnap.html
This on-going story has just up-ended my apple cart, or maybe dumped my canoe upside down in the river. Nuts.
For some time, now, I have been planning to write about our mis-use of “frames of reference”. That is, I was have been thinking about how we tend to plan and organize our current and future actions, based upon how we see our current situation through our visions of the past, or the “frames of reference” we commonly use to interpret where we have been and what we need to do now. This has most particularly with our military resources.
My biggest and best (I thought) example of using the wrong frame of reference was the DOD and the huge amounts of money they spend on the Navy. Consider this:
Civilizations have had navies as far back as we have had history chronologists to report them. Early on, the battling folks of Mesopotamia used the Mediterranean and the likes of the Nile as water parks to move troops around to conquer and bloody one another. This great tradition carried on most prominently with the Brits (Rule Brittania, and all that rot) , the French and the Spaniards…even the mostly landlocked Germans had grand battleships and U-boats, and today even Iran has a Navy (though I’m not sure why…will they use it to wipe Israel off the map?).
All this time, I have been thinking that we don’t really need a navy: we have aircraft to move themselves and personnel and now the drone wars are even delivering hellfire bombs without pilots. And these robots don’t even need an aircraft carrier in the neighborhood for support (aircraft carriers, to some, are just huge, floating, monstrously expensive floating city/airports that are gigantic sitting duck/missile targets on the ocean). We no longer need to float huge compliments of men and materiel from London to the Falklands, or from Madrid to Mexico, or Paris to Patagonia…well, wherever… to conquer and plunder and subdue undiscovered countries, battles at sea are no longer needed to gain territorial supremacy, the big boats (sorry, “ships”) cost unfathomable amounts of money, and their immediate value is no longer commensurate with what we spend on them. Just exactly who needs a “navy” anymore, anyway? (My apologies to Jimmy Carter).
But then comes this latest ‘water park” story: a merchant ship of the high seas is assaulted and nearly captured by an old “frame of reference”: pirates. Now I know that this is nothing new and that this has been going on for some time now, and I have been using the failure of anyone to do anything to stop these antique antics as another justification for “Why navies?”: they have not been able to help at all. But this story has a new twist. In the apparent spirit of American independence and defiance, the largely American crew overcame the pirates and took back the ship…almost. It seems like they lost the captain to a couple of pirates who made off with him in a life boat (I almost loved it: I thought for sure we maybe had made-for-TV movie in the works). And thence comes the Navy! The USS Bainbridge steams onto the scene and casts an entirely new pall on the situation. John Wayne has arrived.
For a short time I thought my entire premise about the irrelevance of the navy was ruined by the appearance of this destroyer. Perhaps suddenly a frame of reference has suddenly come back into vogue and was providing an overlooked and forgotten usefulness.
Well, almost. Maybe.
It turns out that as I write this, the escaped life boat is adrift off the hull of the merchant ship and out of fuel. Literally dead in the water. And the US Navy ship is a highly sophisticated “missile” ship. What? Something smells like overkill, here.
Perhaps the Bainbridge has a small boat or two it can put in the water to attempt to overtake, over-power and capture the life boat and its occupants, free the Captain. But at the moment, the only offensive capabilities the ship seems to have are highly sophisticated, (presumably) laser guided missiles, designed to obliterate much larger military targets and kill people many hundreds of miles away. Methinks the lifeboat is hopelessly over-matched and outgunned. Even assuming that one of the missiles from the ship could be trained and fired upon the lifeboat, the end result would not even be splinters.
It remains to be seen what might happen next. In recent Iranian or Chinese speedboat fashion, perhaps the occupants of both the lifeboat and the Bainbridge could moon one another in an act of sophomoric defiance. Or perhaps the members of the little vessel and the big vessel can have a literal pissing contest: that would seem like an American thing to do: we are good at polluting oceans.
Meanwhile, I am back to my original question: what good is a navy today, anyway, out on this giant water park, and why do we insist of upon using a frame of reference that says we need to spend so much money on one?
My dad was in the Navy. He used to repeat, “Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink.” Somehow that makes more sense to me, today.
This on-going story has just up-ended my apple cart, or maybe dumped my canoe upside down in the river. Nuts.
For some time, now, I have been planning to write about our mis-use of “frames of reference”. That is, I was have been thinking about how we tend to plan and organize our current and future actions, based upon how we see our current situation through our visions of the past, or the “frames of reference” we commonly use to interpret where we have been and what we need to do now. This has most particularly with our military resources.
My biggest and best (I thought) example of using the wrong frame of reference was the DOD and the huge amounts of money they spend on the Navy. Consider this:
Civilizations have had navies as far back as we have had history chronologists to report them. Early on, the battling folks of Mesopotamia used the Mediterranean and the likes of the Nile as water parks to move troops around to conquer and bloody one another. This great tradition carried on most prominently with the Brits (Rule Brittania, and all that rot) , the French and the Spaniards…even the mostly landlocked Germans had grand battleships and U-boats, and today even Iran has a Navy (though I’m not sure why…will they use it to wipe Israel off the map?).
All this time, I have been thinking that we don’t really need a navy: we have aircraft to move themselves and personnel and now the drone wars are even delivering hellfire bombs without pilots. And these robots don’t even need an aircraft carrier in the neighborhood for support (aircraft carriers, to some, are just huge, floating, monstrously expensive floating city/airports that are gigantic sitting duck/missile targets on the ocean). We no longer need to float huge compliments of men and materiel from London to the Falklands, or from Madrid to Mexico, or Paris to Patagonia…well, wherever… to conquer and plunder and subdue undiscovered countries, battles at sea are no longer needed to gain territorial supremacy, the big boats (sorry, “ships”) cost unfathomable amounts of money, and their immediate value is no longer commensurate with what we spend on them. Just exactly who needs a “navy” anymore, anyway? (My apologies to Jimmy Carter).
But then comes this latest ‘water park” story: a merchant ship of the high seas is assaulted and nearly captured by an old “frame of reference”: pirates. Now I know that this is nothing new and that this has been going on for some time now, and I have been using the failure of anyone to do anything to stop these antique antics as another justification for “Why navies?”: they have not been able to help at all. But this story has a new twist. In the apparent spirit of American independence and defiance, the largely American crew overcame the pirates and took back the ship…almost. It seems like they lost the captain to a couple of pirates who made off with him in a life boat (I almost loved it: I thought for sure we maybe had made-for-TV movie in the works). And thence comes the Navy! The USS Bainbridge steams onto the scene and casts an entirely new pall on the situation. John Wayne has arrived.
For a short time I thought my entire premise about the irrelevance of the navy was ruined by the appearance of this destroyer. Perhaps suddenly a frame of reference has suddenly come back into vogue and was providing an overlooked and forgotten usefulness.
Well, almost. Maybe.
It turns out that as I write this, the escaped life boat is adrift off the hull of the merchant ship and out of fuel. Literally dead in the water. And the US Navy ship is a highly sophisticated “missile” ship. What? Something smells like overkill, here.
Perhaps the Bainbridge has a small boat or two it can put in the water to attempt to overtake, over-power and capture the life boat and its occupants, free the Captain. But at the moment, the only offensive capabilities the ship seems to have are highly sophisticated, (presumably) laser guided missiles, designed to obliterate much larger military targets and kill people many hundreds of miles away. Methinks the lifeboat is hopelessly over-matched and outgunned. Even assuming that one of the missiles from the ship could be trained and fired upon the lifeboat, the end result would not even be splinters.
It remains to be seen what might happen next. In recent Iranian or Chinese speedboat fashion, perhaps the occupants of both the lifeboat and the Bainbridge could moon one another in an act of sophomoric defiance. Or perhaps the members of the little vessel and the big vessel can have a literal pissing contest: that would seem like an American thing to do: we are good at polluting oceans.
Meanwhile, I am back to my original question: what good is a navy today, anyway, out on this giant water park, and why do we insist of upon using a frame of reference that says we need to spend so much money on one?
My dad was in the Navy. He used to repeat, “Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink.” Somehow that makes more sense to me, today.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Too Much Stuff
I am simply overwhelmed this morning and have decided to “whelm” you as well. Every leaf I turn over today has a new tree sprouting under it, and I am just going to pass along the juiciest new shoots that popped up most recently. Here goes. Some are fun and some are not. And you won’t have time to read them all , but neither did I. You think you are special or sumpthin’?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/magazine/05wwln-medium-t.html?emc=eta1. Now here is a story about a lady who took a big leap forward in technology, only to have it backfire. She went backwards but is still light years ahead of anything I have available.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/workplace/135182. If you believe this hot air for even a minute, I’ll have Larry Summers send you part of his $5.2M he got from speeches to hedge funds and then I have a bridge to sell you. This is pure, unadulterated crap.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/sex/135094. I used to travel in Iowa. I am dumbfounded. Can Nebraska be next?
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/135155. When the forces at work in the above story and these folks collide, it should be great fun. Of course, Sarah is working on becoming a Scientologist, which should screw up everything. My recent blog about “Jesus is not alright with me” let me vent some about this.
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/135161. Bill Moyers continues to be a light in the darkness. If this makes you mad, then you should read the transcript of his interview with William Greider (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03272009/transcript2.html) . If you read both of these at the same time you read the Geithner story (above),you will need extra valium.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/135162. Maybe this is the best for (almost) last. As usual, I am too smart, too late, and should have been reading his work sooner. Same biting edge as Fred on Everything, but far more eloquent. This of course means that I have another book to read. Rats.
Last but not least: I just finished reading The Tyranny of Dead Ideas, by Matt Miller. The reviews of this book vary greatly, but I think it is well worth the time. The thrust of the book is neatly summarized in a sentence on page 230: The sooner we clear out the cobwebs of our minds, the less jarring and disruptive the years ahead will be, and the less damage these old ways of thinking will inflict on the country. I have certainly spent far more time on less productive pursuits. Without saying so, explicitly, Miller cogently and concisely refutes the Republican notion that “tax cuts, tax cuts and tax cuts” will save the country and the economy. But there is much, much more.
Good luck with all this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/magazine/05wwln-medium-t.html?emc=eta1. Now here is a story about a lady who took a big leap forward in technology, only to have it backfire. She went backwards but is still light years ahead of anything I have available.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/workplace/135182. If you believe this hot air for even a minute, I’ll have Larry Summers send you part of his $5.2M he got from speeches to hedge funds and then I have a bridge to sell you. This is pure, unadulterated crap.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/sex/135094. I used to travel in Iowa. I am dumbfounded. Can Nebraska be next?
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/135155. When the forces at work in the above story and these folks collide, it should be great fun. Of course, Sarah is working on becoming a Scientologist, which should screw up everything. My recent blog about “Jesus is not alright with me” let me vent some about this.
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/135161. Bill Moyers continues to be a light in the darkness. If this makes you mad, then you should read the transcript of his interview with William Greider (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03272009/transcript2.html) . If you read both of these at the same time you read the Geithner story (above),you will need extra valium.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/135162. Maybe this is the best for (almost) last. As usual, I am too smart, too late, and should have been reading his work sooner. Same biting edge as Fred on Everything, but far more eloquent. This of course means that I have another book to read. Rats.
Last but not least: I just finished reading The Tyranny of Dead Ideas, by Matt Miller. The reviews of this book vary greatly, but I think it is well worth the time. The thrust of the book is neatly summarized in a sentence on page 230: The sooner we clear out the cobwebs of our minds, the less jarring and disruptive the years ahead will be, and the less damage these old ways of thinking will inflict on the country. I have certainly spent far more time on less productive pursuits. Without saying so, explicitly, Miller cogently and concisely refutes the Republican notion that “tax cuts, tax cuts and tax cuts” will save the country and the economy. But there is much, much more.
Good luck with all this.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
We NeedTo Take This Seriously
I read this piece this morning and my heart just sank. I have been reading for weeks (ever since it became evident that Obama would be President) that the wing nuts were coming loose, and that ragged edges of the right side of the populace was becoming a mass of tattered flaps, blowing wildly in the breeze. The first lunacy I remember was learning that itinerant white, fundamentalist preachers in the rural south (TN, KY, WVA, AL,MS) were actually telling people that the first thing Obama would do, after taking office, would be "enslave" white men and rape all of their women. At first I laughed, and then I read it multiple times,along with murmurings about loss of firearms, absurd gun control hysteria from the NRA about the right to bear arms...and worse. I had no idea that being aMuslim was the moral equivalent to having an STD, but I soon learned that, as well.
This story on TP makes me newly aware that this wild-eyed weirdness is all too real and "in our face" and screams for some form of corrective action.
I am the first one to defend free speech, the free press and open public discourse, but the rantings (and the irrational behavior they generate) and dizzyingly idiotic proclaimations of Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter ( and that crazed Bachman creature from MN) cause me to stand up and loudly demand, as the say in txtng and twitter, "STFU!!!!!
The incitement to maniacal riot, civil unrest of such a destructionist nature, and the wanton taking and loss of human life, by people who have had their brains unfairly tampered with, needs to be brought under control. I cannot say that I have any immediate resolution or remedy or rectification, but perhaps calling the hate-mongers into account for the ramifications of their dangerous and pathologically corrosive speech, might well be in order.
This is the 21rst century. We have the scientific and medical resources to effect curative applications and treatments that will help prevent people from being driven to these acts of totally depraved and incoherent acts of murder and genocide. We have the ways and means to treat and care for people and not let them become so overwhelmed by their "percieved" yet non-existent villians and monsters that they are driven to run completely amok. But we need to pay attention to some of the causality, as well. Outright public lying is not a positive influence on society. (Of course, you can be the Governor of SC and refuse funds for effective public education,but that is another column).
The cadre of obscenely irritating hate-mongers of the airwaves and pulpits of America need to be put in check. It is time, perhaps, to identify a legal muzzle for this clearly detestible and insidious manipulation of people who are so easily molded and motivated to do the unthinkable. It might be arguable that there should be some form of punishment for creating such an unhealthy environment of agitation that it premeditates and promulgates horror. If hate speech prompts lunatic hate crimes and needless death, some corrective retribution may well be in order.
We let W, Cheney, Gonzalez, Ashcroft, et.al., get away with this sort of despicable rationalization for hate crimes around the world for years. They told us it was "for our own good" and that terror would overtake us if we did not act so viciously. Now the terror is all coming home "home to roost" in our own backyards, when the guy next door grabs a shotgun or an uzi and blows away portions of the nieghborhood, because some malicious blowhard on the radio tells him or her that it is "for his own good". We are supposed to be more civilized than this.
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 8:16 AM
Subject: Think Progress: "Right-wing's false claims that Obama will take away guns 'has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms.'"
> Check out this post on Think Progress: > > http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/04/right-wing-guns-claim/> > "Right-wing's false claims that Obama will take away guns 'has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms.'"> >
This story on TP makes me newly aware that this wild-eyed weirdness is all too real and "in our face" and screams for some form of corrective action.
I am the first one to defend free speech, the free press and open public discourse, but the rantings (and the irrational behavior they generate) and dizzyingly idiotic proclaimations of Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter ( and that crazed Bachman creature from MN) cause me to stand up and loudly demand, as the say in txtng and twitter, "STFU!!!!!
The incitement to maniacal riot, civil unrest of such a destructionist nature, and the wanton taking and loss of human life, by people who have had their brains unfairly tampered with, needs to be brought under control. I cannot say that I have any immediate resolution or remedy or rectification, but perhaps calling the hate-mongers into account for the ramifications of their dangerous and pathologically corrosive speech, might well be in order.
This is the 21rst century. We have the scientific and medical resources to effect curative applications and treatments that will help prevent people from being driven to these acts of totally depraved and incoherent acts of murder and genocide. We have the ways and means to treat and care for people and not let them become so overwhelmed by their "percieved" yet non-existent villians and monsters that they are driven to run completely amok. But we need to pay attention to some of the causality, as well. Outright public lying is not a positive influence on society. (Of course, you can be the Governor of SC and refuse funds for effective public education,but that is another column).
The cadre of obscenely irritating hate-mongers of the airwaves and pulpits of America need to be put in check. It is time, perhaps, to identify a legal muzzle for this clearly detestible and insidious manipulation of people who are so easily molded and motivated to do the unthinkable. It might be arguable that there should be some form of punishment for creating such an unhealthy environment of agitation that it premeditates and promulgates horror. If hate speech prompts lunatic hate crimes and needless death, some corrective retribution may well be in order.
We let W, Cheney, Gonzalez, Ashcroft, et.al., get away with this sort of despicable rationalization for hate crimes around the world for years. They told us it was "for our own good" and that terror would overtake us if we did not act so viciously. Now the terror is all coming home "home to roost" in our own backyards, when the guy next door grabs a shotgun or an uzi and blows away portions of the nieghborhood, because some malicious blowhard on the radio tells him or her that it is "for his own good". We are supposed to be more civilized than this.
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 8:16 AM
Subject: Think Progress: "Right-wing's false claims that Obama will take away guns 'has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms.'"
> Check out this post on Think Progress: > > http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/04/right-wing-guns-claim/> > "Right-wing's false claims that Obama will take away guns 'has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms.'"> >
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
