Can that be expressed graphically? Like two points on any graph with a straight line so that eventually a third point will necessarily intersect. Such as any points, designated X or Y, who's relationship is represented by a line that will eventually include any point Z - any arbitrarily chosen point Z.
This is what it feels like to campaign for or observe the process of public policy.
When it seems like it takes three times the work to simply counter campaigns of misinformation used maliciously or not.
It's interesting that it was only recently "discovered" that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, or that it is a shocking idea. It seems like it would be intuitive that the universe has to expand like that, otherwise it would not exist. I really don't think it has a choice. If the acceleration were slowing, it would mean the universe is reaching a certain "point." And any point is arbitrary making existence "unsupportable."
Even expanding at a
specific rate is arbitrary. It has to be an accelerating and un-pinable
rate. Anything that could define the universe as arbitrary would cause
it to cease existing.
Those who say "________ will hurt the economy" are actually saying "________ will hurt MY economy."
Economies are sprouting and dying every second. This morning when I bought a coffee from the local coffee shop I started and ended an economy between me and the coffee shop. You could say I hurt the economy of another coffee shop by not buying there but yet the economy of coffee buying remains the same regardless of which shop I went to.
So, in the context of all this hurting, how does one define The Economy? Where does one draw a circle around transactions and call it The Economy? The Earth? The USA? The local coffee shop?
When the statement "________ will hurt the economy" is used, it is being drawn by the speaker around his or her own interests.
Economy is just like Mother Nature. Both will continue to push out and adapt until there is no more Earth. And neither really needs humans necessarily. Mother Nature could care less what happens to humans.
The irony of trying to save humans through acts that will "hurt the economy."
It's sad that even the most successful corporations are ultimately just followers and not leaders. They are simply followers of future trends. They are in a sense slaves of themselves. Why can't a corporation truly be a leader. Is it by definition, impossible? Is it by definition - via U.S. Shareholder laws - illegal?
Why can't a corporation lead people to a greater Good?
Party" - A theoretical political party with a limited but targeted agenda focusing
on amending the methods of representation of the United States of
America at the federal level.
I understand it was the
desires of some if not all the "Founding Fathers" to create a democratically elected
representative government that was free of political parties and relied
on the individual to have a direct say through representation on the stewardship of our
collective pursuits. If this was the goal, it has egregiously failed, now that two
parties dominate the federal (and state) government and work at maintaining their
control, as much as working on issues of the people. Members of the 4th
Party believe that while the two party system is detrimental to democracy, a no party
system is unrealistic. It is the goal of 4th party to reform the
mechanisms of the federal government to ensure there are always 4
distinct parties participating at the federal level (no less and possibly no more). 4th Party also
limits its goal to this issue in order to be accessible to individuals
of divergent opinions who agree on the need for reform. The 4th party
platform is limited to the following three platform items:
An individual elected to a federal office may be re-elected to the same
office only once consecutively. I.e., the
individual can return for election to the same office after not participating in at least one election cycle of said office.
The President will be elected by popular national vote. The individual
receiving the highest vote will become President. The second
individual will become President of the Senate and a Senator-at-Large. The third and fourth
place individuals will become Senators-at-Large. All three
Senators-at-Large will have full Senatorial powers for four year terms.
The President will designate his Vice-President who will also take on
the role of Secretary of State.
The House of Representatives will be divided into four different groups
by a method of voting. A minimum of four Representatives will
volunteer their names for position of Speaker of the House or, if the
list is greater than four, the House will vote until the top four most
popular Representatives are explicit. The House will vote for one of
the four to become Speaker of the House. The remaining three will join a
Representative chosen by the Speaker to take the "four corners"
of the House. The remaining Representatives will designate the corner
of their choice to join. The voting power of each corner is determined by the
number of its members. Each corner will have the power to produce
legislation for the entire House to vote on.
[red hot blooz blooz] noun 1. (used with a plural verb) the despondency acquired from opening a bag of Garden of Eatin' Red Hot Blues and then discovering the lack of the spicy red powder on nearly all the chips!
e.g. "I might as well have bought the regular flavor blue chips.... f' it"
It would require 1) a constitutional amendment (yeah, I know.), 2) amnesty, permanent residency, or some similar status granted to all current undocumented residents with no criminal record. 3) and an NGO to register all current undocumented residents.
The amendment and amnesty would be a quid pro quo to get broad support. Specifically, the 14th amendment would be amended to no longer provide citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," starting the moment the new amendment is passed, in exchange for an amnesty or similar status for all current residents violating current immigration law.
Since the current law gives citizenship to anyone born on US soil, eliminating that should give the "conservatives" something they like while the "liberals" should like the amnesty or residency status.
Considering the time frame required of constitutional amendments, an NGO would be charged with registering and creating a database of all current "undocumented migrants" up to a certain date. After the passage of the amendment, those names would be submitted to U.S. government for amnesty.
There was a time when designing was simply feeling the pencil's graphite softly crumble against the paper.
Excerpt from somewhere on the internet:
"I work with heavy Rhino models a lot. I've noticed no significant slow
down- I guess it depends how you bring it into Max though. After a lot
of testing different formats etc, I use a Rhinoscript to export each
layer as an obj file (highest geometry settings). I use a Maxscript to
batch import all these into Max because I find it works best with
"import as single mesh" ticked. Add an Edit Mesh and Auto Edge
Visibility everything, add a Map Scaler OSM modifier set to 1m and it's
all good to go. There's a couple of extra steps I do, but that's the
basics, works great."
PTSD. To label the wounded
warriors as having a 'disorder' misses the target, I feel. Would it
not really be more correct to call it “Post-Traumatic Stress
Reaction” or “Post-Traumatic Stress Injury?” To explain, I
find it more fitting if we consider such results of the last 12 years
as more of an affliction thrust upon those who stood up to serve
rather than an affliction for those who couldn't quite 'cut it'. To
label the wounded warriors as having a disorder I think makes it seem
that they are “in the wrong” when it is obvious that the real
disorder was invading Iraq in the first place.
There really isn't much else to dynamics of the markets. Fear of loss causes the drops and Boredom (or the fear of missing out) causes them to go up. That's why talk of 'hurting' or 'destroying' economies is BS. There will always be an economy of some sort as long as people fear or get bored.
Forgive me for putting your words on my web-log, Mr. Orwell, but I couldn't help but think "architect" where is written "writer:"
"To suggest that a creative writer, in a time of conflict, must split
his life into two compartments, may seem defeatist or frivolous: yet in
practice I do not see what else he can do. To lock yourself up in an ivory tower is impossible and undesirable. To yield subjectively, not
merely to a party machine, but even to a group ideology, is to destroy
yourself as a writer. We feel this dilemma to be a painful one, because we see the need of engaging in politics while also seeing
what a dirty, degrading business it is. And most of us still have a
lingering belief that every choice, even every political choice, is
between good and evil, and that if a thing is necessary it is also
right. We should, I think, get rid of this belief, which belongs to the
nursery. In politics one can never do more than decide which of two
evils is the lesser, and there are some situations from which one can
only escape by acting like a devil or a lunatic." ― George Orwell, Writers and the Leviathan
Alas, it is the paradox of Life: the Imperfect. It was going since the Beginning and we would not be here without it, yet it frustrates us at the same time. Anything more would be hubris, or Nothing.
Since the one party (a.k.a. "two party" system) of the US is a problem, efforts to encourage diversity is a solution. So here's the plan: Instead of ignoring the existence of political parties on the Constitutional level, officially acknowledging a minimum of four so to at least double the ideological representation, and move beyond the 1 dimensional left - right spectrum.
In my 'rough draft' suggestion, House members would vote for four leaders of each "corner of the room" or four camps. With a quasi-run-off voting method, members would vote until only four designated representatives remained. Those four would be "leaders" of some sort with certain powers that would make it of valuable interest for participation and delineation of the complexity of thinking representing a large populace.
A story from This American Life implied that there are several Republican House members that are secretly supporters of efforts to tackle Climate Change..... What about a Non-Binding Anonymous Conscience Vote then? Would it help move the issue forward if everyone voted their conscience on issue without fear of reprisal or commitment?
1) The House Minority Leader or official equivalent may call for a Non-Binding Anonymous Conscience Vote on any issue once per legislative year.
2) No House member may be allowed to indicate or convey in any manner how they voted.
When in a hurry to a meeting I will never remember, were
the moments from lives just unparralleled, unforgetable:
The first time I heard your laugh.
The first time I saw your coat.
The first time I saw your scarf.
The first time I saw your face.
The first time I looked into your eyes.
The first time you smiled at me.
I will never know your name
but I do know the overpass
of where none of these moments will ever happen.
It's nothing if not entertaining to watch evangelical Republicans find euphemisms for not supporting Mitt Romney. From "Romney Care" to "Flip-Flopper" to "Too Rich???" Rich. Evangelicals cannot allow a Mormon to become president because to them it would legitimize the religion and much worse make it a step closer to becoming considered a "true" sect of Christianity.
If Romney were not a Mormon he would have won the nomination by now and possibly even the 2008 nomination, previously. All the other issues would have been spun and justified by the NeoCon media machine.
Evangelical Republicans want your votes not your people, Mormons. Jesus.
I asked that question of Wang Shu today. If you told me he is the greatest living architect of China at this time I would not argue.
He said no.
I couldn't think of a better question to ask someone from the heart of a world that will be more and more the heart of the entire world. I would not have been surprised by either answer. His presentation was amazing. He was happy to share his vision, sincerity, background, and work with everyone. Together all four told a clear story that confirmed what I could only gather from various anecdotes about the recent history of China. He is a man with such foresight that he left architecture in 1989, after finishing an 80 story building, after seeing what kind of future that meant. Only returning to architecture after many years of philosophy to question what it truly means to be an architect. He made the presentation with such warm and avuncular humor that to hear him say he is optimistic would have been just as believable. The only benefit to his answer was that it saved me the time of asking my follow up questions, now moot. (How would he counter international downward forces on architecture and humanity? With an international counter? An alliance of architects across the globe? Would fighting fire with fire be paradoxical?)
To be serious, briefly, there is one other benefit to his response. After an initial sadness to hear it, I feel a sense of kinship with him and more importantly a pleasant resignation (and confirmation) that the Arts is truly all we have left and whether we want to lead by example or not it ends up on the same path.
The website for Amtrak is way better than it used to be but I'd still add another feature. People are complaining about Amtrak not being that affordable compared to alternatives. I am now realizing these first-timers are just plugging in trip locations and using the default time setting. Of course that is going to be expensive. Like airlines the closer to departure the higher the ticket. Amtrak should always say: If you were to buy this ticket a week or two in advance it would cost X amount of dollars (less than what you see above.)
1. Automatic transmission motorcycles
2. Automatic seat-belts
3. Putting gelatin in yogurt
4. The little pocket in a pocket in men's pants
5. Reviving the button fly.
6. Slow closing lid trash cans.
6. GE's refrigerator water/ice dispenser button
I came back to this thought recently because of noticing the variety in quality of graffiti and its effect on the urban landscape AND vice versa. Graffiti is not necessarily a negative or positive value but a multiplier.
It reflects and magnifies the urban landscape and its qualities, good or bad, for better or worse. And even in the worst cases, graffiti simply calls attention to where urban design has been neglected or abused.
I would like to see a hypothetical outcome of a law making it impossible for one person or developer to own adjacent properties in a city block. Would we get the classical beauty of old cities with alternating variety of modern and/or classical designs?
On my return flight to the US of A, I made a stop in NYC. I went via Newark airport. From previous experience I knew that the rail line into Manhattan was a convenient one. But had I not known that from before, I would have ended up seeing buses as my only option. At the exit of Newark International, where you see the sign for 'Ground Transportation' the arrow points to the right - THE EXACT OPPOSITE DIRECTION of the rail line station to Manhattan which has no sign at that juncture. The bus ride costs $5 more than the train and is far less comfortable. Does NJTransit know people get funneled into the bus services like that?
[Update: Looking at the generic comments that this post collected, there is obviously money to be made by hiding the comfort of NJ Transit's smooth rail ride straight into Penn Station and duping people into paying more for a bumpy bus ride.]
I'm a Tovo supporter... but... I can't get over those signs. Is it just me or does that ovoid shape look like the Pork logo?
It's always too easy to criticize and I'm no stranger to the pitfalls of attempting novel graphic design. Maybe it's successful in the category of getting any attention is good attention. Maybe it's even a winning idea. It's eye catching, right?
Or hell, maybe the fella who designed her sign is the same one working for the Pork Council and he just got his project files mixed up. That would explain this:
This seems to be the pivotal question for the healthcare debate today which is dumb.
I DON'T believe universal healthcare is a right, I just think it's a GOOD IDEA.
The whole point of insurance is to have as large a population as possible participating so as to blunt the impact of a tragedy to any one individual. What could be a larger population than all of the United States?
Moreover I would ask: Isn't making a profit on the failing health of others immoral? Especially in a gambling format?
A universal healthcare system would not only save lives it would save some souls as well.
Tariffs define national borders. Stopping global homogenization would require cancelling all "free" trade agreements and implementing a universal 5% import tariff on all products from all foreign states. Other countries should do likewise.
We all know the six simple machines as defined in the classical era. I just discovered the existence of a seventh. I was trying to repair my trash can with mechanical top and foot lever. What I found was amazing: the hinge broke because it was a thinned out piece of plastic attached to two struts. That is, the plastic was thinned out at the middle so it could bend. That's it. It acts as a hinge. Bending thin plastic is how I used to intentionally break pieces of model kits off the sprues. I can do nothing but salute the inventors of this new machine, the Seventh Simple, designed to work until it breaks!! Awe!
According to USGS estimates the Artic National Wildlife Refuge contains no more than 16 billion barrels of oil. The United States consumes 21 million barrels per day. That means at best ANWR can provide America's need for two years. The Democrats should talk about a 100 year oil plan. Any idiot can accept that we'll be needing oil 100, 200, even 500 years from now. So if neo-cons are really fiscally responsible conservatives, shouldn't ANWR be America's PIGGY BANK? "If you think things are bad now what will the future hold?" we should ask. One day oil will be worth $500 a barrel. That's the time to break the piggy.
If the Democratic presidential candidates are going to run on a platform with a national health care system they should go with "Single Payer." Not necessarily because it may be the best of the various national systems but because it would be the easiest to sell, politically.
- Single Payer just sounds streamlined and efficient. Something the lowest common denominator can comprehend.
- I'm not an expert but I think Single Payer would end the custom of getting health insurance through employers. I think this could be sold as fewer things employers and employees have to worry about.
- This is also the system employed by Canada. It doesn't seem so scary if the quiet neighbor to the north isn't complaining.