POLITICS: HAD I THE EAR OF . . .
John McCain says that we should all be interested in the news that a Hamas advisor says he would like to see Obama elected president. I agree with Senator McCain: we all should be interested in this news. Like the Hamas advisor, I want to see Obama elected president--so I suppose I agree with both Senator McCain and the Hamas advisor.
What could this statement signify? Not what McCain is suggesting: that Obama's candidacy is endorsed by the enemy . Rather, it suggests that at least one leader of Hamas thinks that with Obama as president Hamas could safely enter a bonafide truce and into serious peace talks.
Wouldn't that be a good thing? Of course: "good" and "gather"and "together" all come from the same root, and all mean the same thing.
vrijdag 9 mei 2008
maandag 5 mei 2008
Here's a gem. It's a note that Ronald Reagan wrote in his diary about George W. Bush:
"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida ;the one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless.This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job.Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire himas a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work."
From The Reagan Diaries, edited by Doug Brinkley and published by Harper-Collins. Entry for May 17, 1986.
"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida ;the one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless.This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job.Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire himas a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work."
From The Reagan Diaries, edited by Doug Brinkley and published by Harper-Collins. Entry for May 17, 1986.
dinsdag 29 april 2008
NOAH’S INVOLVMENT IN DARWINIAN HISTORY
Noah’s involvment in Darwinian history had not been satisfactorily examined. He had to make choices that may have interfered radically with evolutionary history.
Noah’s job was to preserve all the species. Two of each sex. But the problem is not whether or not Noah could tell the difference between a male snail and a female of the species. Perhaps Noah could have recruited volunteers only as couples. Male and female couples only? Well, that would cut down on the homosexuals significantly.
The more serious problem is that Noah had to make choices of what qualified as a species. Were giraffes just long-necked cows? Were rats different from squirrels? How many kinds of dolphin would you accept?
And then the big, big problem. Do dolphins count? Did Noah take on dolphins? And whales? How many pairs of whales? And frogs and turtles, and water-snakes. All the amphibians.
And what about the fish? Did he have to take a pair of every fish? Every crustacean? Or did he let them swim alongside? But what about the oysters and mussels. Even if he took them on the ark, somebody would have had to help them get aboard. And those swimming fish: just a pair of each kind? But what if the big ones ate the little ones?
It’s time for us to get some answers to these questions. They are almost as important as the question of where the Bush daughters were hidden for seven years.
How many species did Noah have on board his Ark? That is to say, at what point in genetic evolution does he intervene? We know that he forgot the unicorns;[i] what other species did he miss?
According to Jewish history, Noah comes along rather too late to save the dinosaurs.[ii] But how far along?
If we knew the number of species Noah saved, and the rate at which species divide—the Darwinian Ramifacation Factor—then we could date the Ark.
If we discover that Noah came along after the introduction of races—black, white, red, brown, yellow—is known to have happened, then we know that the Noah myth is partial, just another one of the thousand flood myths belonging to various cultures.[iii] But we don’t know who saved what in the floods experienced by other cultures.[iv]
And what do we know of the creatures who preceded Noah, and didn’t survive, weren’t rescued?
In cultures which honor the Bible, Noah is a very important ancestor. He saved us all, in this world. Jesus is referred to by Christians as the “savior”—but Christian salvation is other-worldly, not in this world. Actually, of course, Jesus—like Socrates before him—taught the Western World how to save themselves in that world, not beyond. Jesus tried to teach us how to live together.
Modern cultures throughout the world, are devoted for the most part to the saving of self, whether in this world or in the next. That’s pure perversity, of course. The heroes of the self-savers are Odysseus, who proves incapable of civilization and Cain. And Jacob, who tried to steal his brother’s birthright. And the great American gangsters, Billy the Kid and Al Capone and John D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan and Andrew Carneige and Cornelius Vanderbilt and Jay Gould.
Where is Noah? Where is the celebration of him? He’s our savior! There’s nobody around—at least according to the Biblical myth—who didn’t come over on the Ark.
[i] See the Irish Rovers, “Silly Unicorns.”
[ii]Actually, dinosaurs weren’t invented until the nineteenth century. The word “dinosaur” means fearsome lizard.
[iii] See Sir James Frazier’s The Golden Bough for accounts of various flood myths, and Napoleon Chagnon, The Yanomamo.
[iv] In Yanomamo culture, in the Amazon valley, when the great flood came all the sjmart Yanomamos climbed trees, but the dumb Yanomamos were swept out to sea and lost. Any foreigners they met had to be dumb Yanomamos.
Noah’s involvment in Darwinian history had not been satisfactorily examined. He had to make choices that may have interfered radically with evolutionary history.
Noah’s job was to preserve all the species. Two of each sex. But the problem is not whether or not Noah could tell the difference between a male snail and a female of the species. Perhaps Noah could have recruited volunteers only as couples. Male and female couples only? Well, that would cut down on the homosexuals significantly.
The more serious problem is that Noah had to make choices of what qualified as a species. Were giraffes just long-necked cows? Were rats different from squirrels? How many kinds of dolphin would you accept?
And then the big, big problem. Do dolphins count? Did Noah take on dolphins? And whales? How many pairs of whales? And frogs and turtles, and water-snakes. All the amphibians.
And what about the fish? Did he have to take a pair of every fish? Every crustacean? Or did he let them swim alongside? But what about the oysters and mussels. Even if he took them on the ark, somebody would have had to help them get aboard. And those swimming fish: just a pair of each kind? But what if the big ones ate the little ones?
It’s time for us to get some answers to these questions. They are almost as important as the question of where the Bush daughters were hidden for seven years.
How many species did Noah have on board his Ark? That is to say, at what point in genetic evolution does he intervene? We know that he forgot the unicorns;[i] what other species did he miss?
According to Jewish history, Noah comes along rather too late to save the dinosaurs.[ii] But how far along?
If we knew the number of species Noah saved, and the rate at which species divide—the Darwinian Ramifacation Factor—then we could date the Ark.
If we discover that Noah came along after the introduction of races—black, white, red, brown, yellow—is known to have happened, then we know that the Noah myth is partial, just another one of the thousand flood myths belonging to various cultures.[iii] But we don’t know who saved what in the floods experienced by other cultures.[iv]
And what do we know of the creatures who preceded Noah, and didn’t survive, weren’t rescued?
In cultures which honor the Bible, Noah is a very important ancestor. He saved us all, in this world. Jesus is referred to by Christians as the “savior”—but Christian salvation is other-worldly, not in this world. Actually, of course, Jesus—like Socrates before him—taught the Western World how to save themselves in that world, not beyond. Jesus tried to teach us how to live together.
Modern cultures throughout the world, are devoted for the most part to the saving of self, whether in this world or in the next. That’s pure perversity, of course. The heroes of the self-savers are Odysseus, who proves incapable of civilization and Cain. And Jacob, who tried to steal his brother’s birthright. And the great American gangsters, Billy the Kid and Al Capone and John D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan and Andrew Carneige and Cornelius Vanderbilt and Jay Gould.
Where is Noah? Where is the celebration of him? He’s our savior! There’s nobody around—at least according to the Biblical myth—who didn’t come over on the Ark.
[i] See the Irish Rovers, “Silly Unicorns.”
[ii]Actually, dinosaurs weren’t invented until the nineteenth century. The word “dinosaur” means fearsome lizard.
[iii] See Sir James Frazier’s The Golden Bough for accounts of various flood myths, and Napoleon Chagnon, The Yanomamo.
[iv] In Yanomamo culture, in the Amazon valley, when the great flood came all the sjmart Yanomamos climbed trees, but the dumb Yanomamos were swept out to sea and lost. Any foreigners they met had to be dumb Yanomamos.
zaterdag 26 april 2008
"WORDS ALONE ARE CERTAIN GOOD"
As a young man, W. B. Yeats said that: "Words alone are certain good." He was wrong, of course. Take these words from one of our pundits:
"Who wins Pennsylvania is important for the Democrats because that will determine who is leading and who is behind in the run for the presidential nomination."
"It's better to win fair than not to win at all" is correct, though it says nothing of any significance. But the pundific comment on the Pennsylvania primary didn't say anything--and somehow was also wrong! (In no way could the Pennsylvania primary determine who was head and who was behind; it could bring Clinton closer to Obama")
As a young man, W. B. Yeats said that: "Words alone are certain good." He was wrong, of course. Take these words from one of our pundits:
"Who wins Pennsylvania is important for the Democrats because that will determine who is leading and who is behind in the run for the presidential nomination."
"It's better to win fair than not to win at all" is correct, though it says nothing of any significance. But the pundific comment on the Pennsylvania primary didn't say anything--and somehow was also wrong! (In no way could the Pennsylvania primary determine who was head and who was behind; it could bring Clinton closer to Obama")
1775, HERE WE COME
For years I have argued that North America--and thus the world--would have been better off if we had skipped 1492. The Native Americans had a much better idea of "society" and "civilisation" than Europeans did. Or anybody else.
Now I find that the Democratic party in the United States is making a similar argument, though not quite so long as mine, historically: indeed, there is no historical evidence to support their argument. The history of Nartive American government involved the smoking of peace-pipes, but not our old smoke-filled rooms.
The House of Lords in Great Britain was (still is) an unelected body of supposed aristocratic toads who supported the king. On this side of the Atlantic Ocean we didn't like the idea of aristocratic privilege, or kings, so in 1776 we revolted. When we drew up our Constitution we populated both of our legislative chambers with elected members, and provided for an elected president.
But the Democratic Party has decided--like me with the Native Americans in 1491--that things were better back in 1775, and have restored the House of Lords to their proper place in the party. They are now called Super-Delegates.
Why don't the rest of us just ignore them? Recalculate what it takes to win without their participation, and let the delegate count be decided on the basis of elected delegates'votes.
I'm sure I'm right about 1491, and how much better the world would be if 1492 had been skipped. But since we can't do away with 1492, at least we can keep 1776.
For years I have argued that North America--and thus the world--would have been better off if we had skipped 1492. The Native Americans had a much better idea of "society" and "civilisation" than Europeans did. Or anybody else.
Now I find that the Democratic party in the United States is making a similar argument, though not quite so long as mine, historically: indeed, there is no historical evidence to support their argument. The history of Nartive American government involved the smoking of peace-pipes, but not our old smoke-filled rooms.
The House of Lords in Great Britain was (still is) an unelected body of supposed aristocratic toads who supported the king. On this side of the Atlantic Ocean we didn't like the idea of aristocratic privilege, or kings, so in 1776 we revolted. When we drew up our Constitution we populated both of our legislative chambers with elected members, and provided for an elected president.
But the Democratic Party has decided--like me with the Native Americans in 1491--that things were better back in 1775, and have restored the House of Lords to their proper place in the party. They are now called Super-Delegates.
Why don't the rest of us just ignore them? Recalculate what it takes to win without their participation, and let the delegate count be decided on the basis of elected delegates'votes.
I'm sure I'm right about 1491, and how much better the world would be if 1492 had been skipped. But since we can't do away with 1492, at least we can keep 1776.
LET'S TALK. . . .
Washington says that it "doesn't trust" Syria. Who cares? The US leads the world in not being trusted--by anybody. And all those countries have been stung by our lies, over and over and over, particularly in the last eight years. It might even be that since the US "doesn't trust" Syria, the rest of the world will assume--because nobody trusts the US--that Syria is being quite truthful.
US newspapers report that the Dalai Lama wants"serious talks"with the Chinese government. Isn't that an insult, Mr. Lama? Heads of state should be expected to talk seriously about serious matters, shouldn't they? What good is served by the Dalai Lama's criticising the Chinese is such an insulting way? I am not taking sides: I am concerned at the Dalai Lama poisoning things before either side says anything, face to face. A pre-emptive strike from him is hardly what we need.
Washington says that it "doesn't trust" Syria. Who cares? The US leads the world in not being trusted--by anybody. And all those countries have been stung by our lies, over and over and over, particularly in the last eight years. It might even be that since the US "doesn't trust" Syria, the rest of the world will assume--because nobody trusts the US--that Syria is being quite truthful.
US newspapers report that the Dalai Lama wants"serious talks"with the Chinese government. Isn't that an insult, Mr. Lama? Heads of state should be expected to talk seriously about serious matters, shouldn't they? What good is served by the Dalai Lama's criticising the Chinese is such an insulting way? I am not taking sides: I am concerned at the Dalai Lama poisoning things before either side says anything, face to face. A pre-emptive strike from him is hardly what we need.
woensdag 23 april 2008
A NEW WAY TO COOL THIS EARTH?
Geothermal energy may save us. Artificial geysers--man-drilled holes into the earth, releasing steam--will give us energy, and we won't keep using carbon fuels and causing global warming.
Of course, if we keep drilling deep holes into the earth's core and pumping water into them to make steam, we will eventually start to cool the center of the earth, which will in turn cool the surface of the earth from the inside.
The hot core of the earth is our second sun, the one on the inside. We depend on it to warm us the same way we depend on the sun. Neither is a "renewable" energy source, in the long run. But do we have any idea how long the long run is for the burning center of our little earth.
Or am I being stupid?
Geothermal energy may save us. Artificial geysers--man-drilled holes into the earth, releasing steam--will give us energy, and we won't keep using carbon fuels and causing global warming.
Of course, if we keep drilling deep holes into the earth's core and pumping water into them to make steam, we will eventually start to cool the center of the earth, which will in turn cool the surface of the earth from the inside.
The hot core of the earth is our second sun, the one on the inside. We depend on it to warm us the same way we depend on the sun. Neither is a "renewable" energy source, in the long run. But do we have any idea how long the long run is for the burning center of our little earth.
Or am I being stupid?
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)