While RepubliCON madness appears to be just one of the facts of life we have to deal with, the latest message from their ranks reaches new highs in their disconnection from the real world and sanity.
Kansas legislators have just passed a bill banning health insurers from including abortion coverage in their polices, even in the event of pregnancy due to rape. In an exchange on the issue, Peter DeGraaf responded to the question of coverage for abortions for rape victims with this:
“We do need to plan ahead, don’t we, in life?”
Barbara Bollier then asked him,
“And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with a pregnancy?”
DeGraaf responded,
“I have a spare tire on my car.”
“I also have life insurance,” he added. “I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for.”
Yes, you did read that correctly. Peter DeGraaf believes that being raped is comparable to having a flat tire and is just something that you should plan for. I’m sure he would find a lot in common with Egyptian Generals…
How do you describe something so objectionably wrong in so many ways? How is it even possible that anyone could conceivably make such a statement?
The response from people has been quick and savage and thoroughly deserved. But where is the response from the RepubliCONs? Where is the outright condemnation of this stunted mental case? Where are the howls calling for him to be thrown out of the party?
Nowhere.
So heaven is a ‘fairy story’, declares Stephen Hawking in an interview with The Guardian newspaper. In the interview he relates how he regards the brain as merely a ‘computer’ that stops working when its parts break down, and that belief in heaven is a comfort for people afraid of the dark.
I can hardly wait for the mumblings, accusations and attacks to begin. Although this particular viewpoint has been stated many times in the past by many people (including myself), the fact that someone as high profile as Stephen Hawking IS saying it will no doubt have every religious extremist and nut-bag ’alternative living’ zealot in the world up in arms.
I remember discussing religion with a devout Muslim, during which I was asked what I believed in and answered simply “nothing”. My acquaintance indicated disbelief at this and suggested I must believe in Christianity or a number of other religious possibilities. I then explained that, as far as I was concerned, anyone who believed in such things was clearly both delusional and insane – “you’re all mad”.
I knew the person well enough to know that they were a gentle person and would not get upset by the expression of my opinion; though I would have said much the same even if I didn’t know that.
When I was younger I read a lot of books about myth and legend from multiple sources – Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Scandinavian, Indian, North American and more. They were always interesting and often had a lot in common with each other.
One of the things that struck me, even at such a young age, was that almost all of these tales were, at one time believed to be real; people actually worshipped, gave sacrifice, planned their lives on the basis of these screwy tales of god, giants, flying horses etc. and again which were clearly pure unadulterated rubbish.
So then when I looked at the ‘modern’ religions, it was clear that this was just more of the same. If these ancient legends were all wrong, how could the modern versions be any truer? Again it’s just nonsense of the highest order.
Apparently we are pre-disposed to believe in god and the afterlife, but I guess in my case the brain-washing didn’t take. Though, as the person leading that research describes himself as an ‘observant Christian’ and believes that God is ‘all-knowing, all powerful’, he can hardly be classed as an impartial observer. 
Let the mud-slinging commence!
According to news on the oil-pipeline leak, the oil was partially contained by a beaver dam.
It’s good to see the animal population of Canada taking its own stance on environmental protection. Certainly with Stephen Harper’s government taking a ‘majority’, we can guarantee that this is probably about as much protection as we’re likely to see for the next few years. The CONservatives are traditional enemies of anyone who has the temerity to suggest that protection of the environment might have some importance.
Thinking about it, we’re likely to see a CONservative-led call for a cull on all beavers. After all, just because they’re Canada’s National Symbol doesn’t mean that they should be allowed to go around irresponsibly protecting us from oil spills and the like!
While on the subject of Stephen Harper, I’m pleased to provide irrefutable proof that he is not linked with the Nazi party in any way.
In Canada we’re on the verge of a Federal election and all the parties are going full steam to explain why you would be better off voting for them, while simultaneously avoiding classic foot-in-mouth syndrome by saying absolutely nothing of consequence.
I’ve experienced various elections, national/federal, local/provincial, in two different countries and been an ‘observer’ of many others in nations all around the world, so I think I can consider myself a bit of an ‘expert’ on the process. This allows me to predict the result of this current election with absolute confidence.
Nothing will change.
By that I don’t mean that the current government will necessarily stay in power. What I am predicting is that regardless of who wins, the big picture will stay pretty much the same. Here’s three reasons why – pick the explanation that you like best.
- The “timid’ explanation
Politicians and political parties are about getting votes. To win any election you are basically chasing as many votes as possible and this means that you will say anything to achieve that end. To maximise votes it’s necessary to present yourself and party as being all things to all people. Taking a stand, courageous actions, strong leadership and dealing with real issues are all fundamentally risky activities. So each party squabbles incessantly over minor differences around the central ground and occupies the same middle-of-the-road, say-nothing, do-nothing territory. The only cure for this is for someone to actually grow a pair, and that would immediately disqualify them by upsetting someone somewhere. - The ‘generous’ explanation
When your party is in opposition, you really don’t have access to all the information and financial picture of what’s really going on within the government. You’re like a schoolkid with their ear to the door trying to understand what the parents are really talking about, but not really ever quite fully catching what’s been said. You see certain things that the general public sees, you know a few more things through internal rumours and whispers – but you really don’t know the true picture. All those ‘behind closed doors’ trade deals, the you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours arrangements, that contract for jets that the current incumbents screwed up big time, it’s all outside your knowledge. As you don’t know those things and also don’t have a full set of economic information, you’re forced to make guesses about what you are going to be able to do in power. Then bing! You’re elected, few of your guesses turned out to be very good, so now you have to back-track. The only cure for this is for the current government to let all its rivals have full sight of everything that goes down. Yeah… right… - The ‘cynical’ explanation
Politicians are not interested in the general public. They really only care about one thing: lining their own and their friends pockets (the two usually run side-by-side for some strange reason). The net result of this is that they only need you and I, the public, at times of great emergency, i.e. when they want to be elected/re-elected. At any other time they don’t even want to acknowledge the public exists and they sure as hell don’t want to talk to them or listen to them. So, having convinced you to vote them in (or back in) to power, they find great comfort and solace in forgetting that the ‘unwashed masses’ ever existed; and go back to work on the next trade deal that will sell off yet another national asset to foreign buyers while they enjoy the kickbacks. There is no cure for this scenario.
Any one of these scenarios ensures that my prediction is accurate. To many people change is something to fear and dread. People say “‘everything could change” in hushed tones as though this would be the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it(TM). My fear is simple; that nothing will ever change.
Now that is a really frightening thought.
According to research by the Manchester School of Psychological Research, individuals who believed that their moods were out of their control developed more problems later, while others who believed that their reactions were a a reaction to stress, or believed they could manage their mood, did better.
These findings are encouraging for talking therapies — such as CBT — that aim to help patients to talk about their moods and change their thinking about them.
While it’s useful to have this confirmed by the research, I have to wonder if psychologists ever actually listen to the people they are supposedly treating.
From my own experience it’s obvious that the only way to effectively deal with depression is to deal with it internally – either by accepting that there are very real external causes for your feelings and that your response to these causes is a right and valid reaction, or by realising that your internal response to external issues is inaccurate or invalid.
One of the issues in that I’ve seen is that there seems to be a widespread feeling that if a person reacts strongly to a situation or circumstance that this is automatically ‘bad’. We’re all supposed to be un-emotionless Vulcans, operating by pure logic, never getting excited or raising our voices. People shy away from strong emotions and reactions as though the feelings themselves are somehow invalid, regardless of the actual circumstances.
In reality, the only way to step back from those responses is to not care. If you care about something, it becomes important to you. When that gets knocked or trampled upon, you react strongly. It’s a natural response. People who react strongly to situations do so because they care strongly.
Everyone can take responsibility for their thoughts, feelings and actions. When you do you automatically improve the potential for a better future outcome. When you don’t and believe that you have no control over things, you shut out the possibility of dealing with any issues – which is never a solution.
In June, Reaction Engines plans to test its revolutionary SABRE engine, the key technology in its plans for the Skylon space plane. If successful, this will release further private funds that will enable the entire development programme to go ahead.
Skylon was developed from the HOTOL proposal from Rolls Royce and British Aerospace in the 1980s – a project cancelled by the British government through a systemic lack of vision for any space-related venture.
Despite having funding withdrawn, Alan Bond kept the dream alive and founded Reaction Engines, which is now on the verge of being able to put together a true Space Plane.
Unlike the space shuttle, Skylon doesn’t require booster rockets and is designed to be fully automated. It takes off and lands like a conventional plane and operates like a regular jet for the first part of its journey to space. Once the air gets too thin to support jet operation, the Skylon changes to a rocket to boost itself into Earth orbit.
Once the mission is complete, Skylon re-enters the atmosphere and glides to a landing, again operating like a regular aircraft.
The potential of Skylon to cut the cost of accessing space is remarkable, offering the benefits that the shuttle promised but was never capable of delivering. Interestingly, NASA will today announce funding for private spaceship companies. Wouldn’t it be amazing if they displayed real vision and invested some of that in the Skylon?
Sadly, Reaction Engines is a British company and I’m sure NASA will only invest in U.S. based companies for, ahem, ‘political’ reasons.
The other unfortunate reflection is that the world could have had this technology twenty-plus years ago, if the British Government had invested in it. Development costs are estimated at $15 billion. Compare that to the $200 billion spent on the shuttle or the trillions of dollars spent on bank bailouts…
I know where I’d rather my money went.
The US government is reported to be pushing ahead with a new ‘Internet ID’ scheme. This will provide people with a unique ID that can then be used to do all kinds of useful things like access health information, check and file tax returns and err… provide linked tracking information to security forces.
That last point is being downplayed by everyone naturally. This is just a way to make it more convenient for citizens to access information – right…
Senator Barbara Mikulski was kind enough to let the cat out of the bag with her somewhat confused comments.
“Protecting civil liberties is important,” Mikulski said. “But the first civil liberty is to be able to have a job, lead a life, and be able to buy what you want in the way we now buy it, which is through credit cards.”
I hadn’t realised that buying things with credit cards was a ‘civil liberty’. I better check my copy of the U.S. constitution to find out where that is. I guess it must be lodged in the section that guarantees that obscenely rich banks must be bailed out when they destroy the economy and that obscenely rich oil companies need tax breaks…
The Senator continues though:
“We’re going to support the FBI,” said Mikulski, who heads the Senate subcommittee that oversees the FBI’s funding. “We’re going to support the growth of the FBI.”
Ah! Now we see it. Forget protecting the civil liberty to consume. What we’re really doing here is helping law enforcement agencies. Bring on that old Police State boys – we’re back in business!
Of course this doesn’t affect people outside the U.S. We’re all safe and cozy, wrapped in the warmth of our own civil liberties. Yet, when we look at some of the recent news here in Canada and elsewhere, how far down the line would it be before we followed the ‘Land of the Free’?
You would think that raising kids would be pretty easy by now, wouldn’t you? After all the human race has around 200,000 years of doing just that fairly successfully (if we weren’t successful we wouldn’t be here of course!). But it seems in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries that this has become suddenly complex beyond belief.
Children, we are told, must be cosseted, protected from any possibility of ‘harm’, no matter how slight. They must be indulged, served, pandered to and every waking moment must be filled with just the right mix of ‘structured activities’ that will guarantee that little James or Jemima turns into the next Einstein/Beethoven/Pavlova/Williams.
Recent research also shows that our children are unable to deal with just 24 hours without access to media and technology. After a short time they start to suffer symptoms of what is very obviously addiction withdrawal. One of the interesting conclusions was: “Particularly noteworthy was the short attention spans of the students – how quickly they became bored and lost interest in the alternative activities they did try.”
It seems clear to me that there is a connection between this and early development. This addiction starts in early childhood, encouraged and indeed fostered by parents. James/Jemima are given a TV and cartoons, electronic puzzles and toys; a little later it’s a PlayStation or similar. It’s very easy to fool yourself that your child is doing well if you can just sit them down in front of something electronic that’s labelled ‘educational’.
The problem with all of these things is that they are entirely passive, not just in a physical sense but also in a mental sense. James and Jemima don’t need to imagine a cave with monsters, they’re spoon-fed the whole visual experience. There’s no need to imagine a spaceship and aliens from another world, it’s provided for them. Not just that but in toys too, why imagine what anything looks like when they can just be given a detailed example where all the imagination has been done by the (adult) designers?
When I was young, my parents didn’t try to fill every minute of my time. In fact they used to just tell me to ‘find something to do’. The idea was that left to my own devices I would figure out a way of keeping myself occupied, whether by reading, inventing imaginary worlds, playing (physically) with friends. As long as we weren’t getting in to ‘mischief’ there was no problem and if we did we were *gasp* punished!
But think about this. All of that play, all of that imagination, all of that ‘unstructured time’ permitted and required that we use our minds, that we used our imaginations. By doing that we were training ourselves to think, to focus, to concentrate and develop our independence of thought. Sure, we didn’t know we were ‘training’ anything; we were just playing.
It seems obvious that we need to rediscover this idea. By providing everything in spoon-fed, predigested form we take away the tools and processes our children need to develop their minds (and bodies) fully.
Studies by the University of Michigan reveal the devastating trend – since the 1970s, “children have lost 12 hours per week in free time, including a 25 percent drop in play and a 50 percent drop in unstructured outdoor activities.” Not only that but “homework increased dramatically between 1981 and 1997″. The amount given to 6- to 8-year-olds increasing 300% .
We think by giving them everything, that we are being ‘good parents’, when in reality we are harming their overall development and raising people who can’t think for themselves, who suffer from ‘attention deficit’ and who believe that anything in the media is ‘real’. We’re breeding sheep for the exploitation of whoever controls the channels pumping non-stop drivel into our children’s heads.
Don’t handicap your kids by denying them the value of being bored. Boredom stimulates both imagination and activity, both of which are highly valuable and make people what they should be: intelligent, focused, adaptable and valuable.
Let them play.
“A new study in the Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy shows that the addition of alumina nanoparticles can improve the performance and combustion of biodiesel, while producing fewer emissions.” [ScienceDaily]
This looks like good news until you realise that if this took place we would be dumping tonnes of nano-particles into the environment, something that has already proved toxic to both the environment and humans. This hardly seems like an improvement.
Indeed the article later quotes R. B. Anand, one of the report authors, as saying that nano-particles ”should be used judiciously” because they ”entrain into human bodies”.
Let’s clarify that ‘entrain’ bit. The chemistry definition of ‘entrain’ is “To carry (suspended particles, for example) along in a current.” [FreeDictionary.com]. In other words, these particles get inside us and essentially poison us.
This might be seen as a reasonable risk to take given that we’re helping the environment by improving bio-fuels.
Bio-fuels do nothing to improve the cleanliness of vehicles or power plants of any type. They burn the same type of fuel as petroleum-based products and while petroleum products release most of their pollution when burned, bio-fuels release large quantities during their actual production too.
The push to market bio-fuels, whether in the form of diesel or ethanol, is a smoke and mirrors act aimed at deflecting the necessity to change our way of thinking. It protects vehicle manufacturers’ interests by lifting the requirement to invest in development of truly clean vehicles and also nicely lines the pockets of that other big industrial group – the farmers.
Oil is not about to run out overnight, despite the high prices caused by the supposed current ‘shortages’. What we need is a concerted investment into research aimed at developing truly efficient and environmentally-friendly power-plants. Electric or hybrid cars don’t help either – they just displace where the emissions are generated.
Hydrogen fuel-cell technology seems to be the best answer, but there is limited investment in this because of the politicised focus on so-called ‘alternatives’ that serve only to protect the status-quo of current big money concerns.
Canadian Grand Prix Farce
The Canadian Grand Prix should have been subtitled “Someone sneezed, get the safety car out!”. The race started under the safety car, depriving everyone of what would have surely been a historic battle off the line, and continued to have the safety car deployed a further five times during the ‘race’.
Formula One racing seems almost unrecognisable these days: Don’t try to overtake too hard or you get penalised, don’t try to defend too hard or you get penalised; overtaking now granted by the whim of the stewards rather than the skill of the drivers, and now finally – let’s not try and race in that nasty rain…
It’s like watching a couple of oh-too polite people at a revolving door.
Driver 1: “You go first.”
Driver 2: “Oh no, please you go first.”
Driver 1: “Really. Please, I insist.”
Driver 2: “No, no. After you.”
F1 Steward: “Driver 2. You now have our permission to overtake.”
Driver 2: “Really? Oh thank you awfully.”
No-one wants drivers to get hurt, but you can’t just keep increasingly sanitising it and still call it ‘racing’. Motor sport is dangerous! It says so right here on the ticket.