Complexities of a modern society

I have been thinking about why there seems to be greater and greater societal and political extremism.  As the population of the planet has grown ever larger has it become more Balkanized and splintered as people naturally start gravitating towards sub-tribes that make them feel a sense of belonging?  Imagine a society that has 100 people; can they agree to act as a united team, granted with sub-interests, but sufficiently small that they see a need to compromise to get along and move the whole group forward with the hope that on another future issue they will get their way and others will compromise in return - give and take group dynamics. As this group/population grows, it becomes increasingly difficult for everyone to have a say on everything so political parties ie spokesmen develop to speak the will of sub groups - governments are birthed and politicians created to represent the will of their constituents.  One might say this has been the way for eons...what is different now?  I think that until not so long ago, perhaps as late as the 70s or 80s, society and goverment were able to mostly control the conversation. There were only limited paths for information to be shared and govenment or what now  is an ugly term 'the political and financial elite' could more effectively manage the narrative.  Now with the internet, instant news, cheap narrow broadcasting, it's far too simple for everyone to know everything almost instanteneously; more importantly it is ridiculously easy for the most opinionated and motivated to get their message out and for the dissatisfied in society to become a ready audience.  From there the world becomes an increasing echo chamber with those inside becoming convinced that their information is a 'world view' and hence there is no need to compromise as their position is self evidently a 'majority' view. This becomes a perfect vehicle for ambitious self serving megalomaniacs to manipulate the masses/'followers' to amass power, riches and achieve what they want.

The problem is that if the above is true, I am not sure I see a workable way out.  Shutting down or even restricting communications does not seam feasible or even desirable.  Has what the writers of the US constitution come to pass?  Democracy is a great concept, but if everyone has a say, do you create chaos as the unimformed get manipulated by the shamelessly ambitious?

Regular Exercise

 

My desired workout frequency is 5 days a week. Lately, I have been doing well to get 3 days in and am very happy when I manage 4 times.

Achieving regular 4x plus per week is wonderful and once in the groove it's great...if I can keep it up. But after a while something invariably comes up and the frequency drops....and once that happens....it's easy to start making excuses...and it starts dropping to 3... then 2 or even once per week....or when really bad...none at all....and once at the bottom of the barrel...it's a struggle to get up to a good frequency again.

I know that some people are lucky (?) to feel physically bad when they don't workout...so it keeps them motivated to workout regularly. I, unfortunately, am not one of those people.

So take today....I went...for the third time this week and the third day in four days...pretty good. But I did a long workout...using relatively new equipment at the gym, which I am still not used to. Plus, I have to admit that I was not really in the mood for it. So it was a hard workout. Nevertheless, I did it. And I am certainly better for doing so.

Now, all I need to do is find some way to keep the momentum going:))

 

Another look at our gun culture

As noted on an earlier post below, I have tried to look at both sides of the gun fence. In fact I actually own several hand guns and rifles, although not many, and frankly I have not been using them lately.

I view guns from a recreational standpoint. I am not one of those people that pursue gun ownership under the premise and need for self defense. I also do not see it as a means to defend myself from an out of control government. Mostly, I just like to be able to shoot straight and hit a target at long range. That is it.

As such, I do not see it as a right to own guns and certainly not a right to own an arsenal with thousand of rounds of ammunition and automatic large capacity weapons. There is no conceivable way to justify that for “hunting”. And no, I do not believe that ‘guns don’t kill people, people do’. Yes, people have to pull the trigger, but it is a fact that making weapons so readily available for purchase gets those weapons in people’s guns more easily. Furthermore, try to kill 15+ people with a knife or baseball bat instead of a semiautomatic weapon, and watch that person fail.

What has finally really irritated me about the extreme position of the hard core NRA crowd is a recent opinion published in a gun publication. The premise was that the UN was looking into imposing new regulations to cover the transportation of weapons for hunting when traveling overseas. The writer further commented that this was part of the international conspiracy by the UN to restrict Americans the use of their guns and impose restrictions on our second amendment rights..saying as always ‘who knows where this will lead?’. There are no international second amendment rights!!! Just because we are crazy enough to want to carry weapons in the street, in a bar, or in a school doesn’t mean that we have the right to do so all over the world. And for that I am very thankful!

What the heck has happened to reasonable moderation. Why are we inundated in extremism every where we turn?

2012 Elections

After watching the Republican convention and with the thought of the Democratic convention to come, I have to say that I am very uncertain about how or if I will vote. I know that not voting is a waste of my civic duty and a right that many citizens of other countries will literarily die for, so I probably will. But it is a fact that I am very disappointed with both parties.

At the risk of offending both sides, I have to say that I cannot trust the blatant lies of republicans and question the competency of democrats in managing the economy. It thus leads to a choice of the least of two evils. Given the stubborn and blind faith of republicans to believe in tax reduction and increased defense spending as the solution to all problems, as well as the arrogant no-compromise approach they have, I guess I will be voting democrat. But it will be a reluctant choice.

I wish that we could find an inspirational leader of any party, including independent, that would succeed in leading this nation and find ways to address the needs of both sides of the political spectrum. Has there ever been such a politician? Or is my naive view of historic presidents tainted by selective perception. Politicians are just people. And in particular, politicians are usually ambitious people that will do and say whatever it takes to win election. In this fragmented society we live in, with interest groups for just about anything, and money freely flowing for whatever cause raises its popular head, is it possible that we will never have a leader to look up to again, but merely the compromised choice that we hope will do the least damage?

In Search of the Elite

I find it somewhat amusing that the conservative movement uses the term elite as a derogatory term to described the opposition. Are not the elite in society those people that reside in the upper echelon of society? Economically, socially, politically who exactly are the elite of society? Of the two parties in the US which one has members that tend to be richer, in the upper echelons of society and in greater control of the centers of power, whether government, media, military and corporate? Is it not the Republicans? If so, how is it that they scream about the opposition "elites" when they themselves are elite?

This is where I begin to wonder whether it is all about using an Orwellian strategy of repeatedly saying something that is contrary to the truth and through doing so making something the "conventional wisdom". If so, there is a mass of "ordinary" Americans that are being sadly misled.

Now, given the above, I am still really tired of both sides of the political spectrum at the edges. Both manipulate and twist the truth in the hope of getting or retaining power. All politicians lie. And you don't need to go far to understand why. The vast majority of successful politicians tend to have a high regard for themselves, tend to want power and wealth, and will pretty much do whatever it takes as long as it is not quite breaking the law to get their desires met. I am sure there are a few that do not reflect the above, but I strongly suspect that they are in the majority sadly.

My final point is in reference to this odd belief that we want an 'ordinary American' to lead this nation. Do people seriously believe? I sure hope not. Do you really want your neighbor Bob running this nation? Controlling the nations defense? Negotiating treaties? Dealing with emergencies? Etc. ? Don't people want the best qualified, knowledgable, experienced person we can get our hands on? Do they really want to entrust the fate of 350 million people and perhaps the world to Joe average? Going back to the days of Washington, this country has been led by so called 'elites' for the simple reason that they tended to be better qualified than your typical citizen. Can we really say that with a level of complexity that is many times greater than it was a couple of centuries ago, we now want anything less.

It just all makes me wonder how much of all the stuff is just a bunch of hot air to rile up the masses and make everyone jump to the desired drumroll. Unfortunately, the lemmings are all too willing to jump over the cliff while smiling all the way down. Sad.




-- Post From My iPhone

iPad

Using my new iPad. Third day and really like it a lot. I know there are many people out there that think it has no real purpose, but I really like the quick boot up and speed of the product. I do only have the WiFi version, and may leave to regret not having 3G for access on the fly, but I just did not want to pay for yet another wireless plan.

Got to get better at finding free WiFi locations. Book stores, bars, cafes.

It does seem to polarize people. It is not just an oversized iTouch. It is a much more involving experience.


-- Post From My iPhone

Location:Kennedy Ct,Coto de Caza,United States

The Puzzle of Guns

Gun ownership is certainly a controversial topic, but one that definitely is worth exploring. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say upfront that I spent my teen years living in Britain - a state where gun ownership is very restrictive. However, I truly want to take an honest and open look at this topic from both sides. So, here we go...

In the US Constitution, Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms (Ratified 12/15/1791) states

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What exactly does this mean?

If you listen to the NRA, it has a pretty literal and open interpretation designed to not limit in virtually any case the right of citizens (or even residents) to own and use guns. The basic premise is the need to safeguard the public's right to protect itself from unreasonable governments as was the case at the time of the US war of independence. Outwardly a fair minded intent, but lets consider the circumstances prevalent when these words were written. In the 1700's, this country was still limited to mostly the 13 east coast states. Beyond these territories, the continent was still essentially "wild", with plenty of dangers present. Even within the civilized areas, population was still quite spread out and individuals still needed to defend their lands and families without easy access to police and military assistance. Furthermore, people still hunted, not for sport but as a means to put food on their table. And yes, perhaps in those days, when government only had foot soldiers, muskets, horses and some cannons, citizens still could put up effective levels of resistance.

Now however, can we really make an argument that your typical individual or even semi organized groups could take these:










And effectively fend of governments with these:












Now, I know that many out there would say yes indeed they could. Where there is a will, there is a way. Maybe...but I suspect that those people would get creamed. So the following argument would revolve around the slippery slope. If a few gun restrictions are implemented, pretty soon every gun would be taken away. Do people really believe this? I am sure some do.

I do believe that there are some definite reasons for those that want to own guns to do so. Self defense. Hunting. Because they simply like them. But the question then becomes: do those people really need to own semi or fully automatic operational weapons? 50 cal armor piercing rifles? 15, 20 or more weapons? Are those reasonable? I am sure many would say that it is their god given right to own whatever and however many guns they want. Perhaps in a perfect world yes. But we live in a very imperfect world, in which even if one in a 100 or even 1 in 1000 goes nuts and uses such armories to conduct mass killings, is not the greater good of the majority society worth balancing against the rights of a small minority of gun owners wanting to own large weapon caches?

To the last point, the counter argument usually is: with the right training, the right non-excessive background checks, and perhaps by allowing everyone to carry guns, such things would not happen - but do we really want to live in the wild west again with people walking around armed and ready? And even with all such actions, we still have the occasional nut that goes on killing sprees. People would say that such people would have killed even if guns were less available. But is that really the case. Could some one really kill 5, 10 or more people with a knife or machete? In general terms, societies with more restrictive arms laws do seem to have less incidents of mass gun related killings. BUT I emphasize "less", because there have been problems like these in Britain and recently in Germany - one of the most restrictive gun ownership countries around. Also, there does seem to be some vague evidence that gun carrying states do have some lower incidents of violent crimes - but I am not sure if this is conclusive.

The final issue that really places a giant hurdle in the path of my strongly advocating rigid gun restrictions is the simple fact that there are already so many guns out there in America. The reality is that there are way too many voting constituents out there for there ever to be a mass collection of existing guns. The political will is missing. The practicality of elimination is not realistic. And frankly the societal acceptance is too entrenched.

So what if anything can be done? One interesting idea I have seen offered as a way to spark discussion of the topic is the following changes to the 2nd Amendment wording:

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.

Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.

This change is designed to more realistically reflect the real world reasons for gun ownership in the US instead of the supposed militia rationale. The use of the term "reasonable" will of course insult those that want large and heavy weapon arsenal, but should we not try to strike a balance between gun owners and societal safety?

The purpose of the above is to ask both sides to talk, be realistic and find a workable compromise. Anti-gun people need to acknowledge the realities on the ground and the legitimate rights of people to own guns for law abiding reasons. Pro-gun people need to accept the idea that some limits are needed to protect society and that some test of reasonableness needs to be applied. As long as the two sides simply rail against each other, not listening and refusing to find a middle ground, all we will get is a continued list of dead Americans and plenty of fodder for sensationalist news stories. Yes, training will help. But I really do not think that is the full solution. Let people have more thorough background checks. Restrict sales of certain weapons that have no reasonable civilian use like 50 cal armor piercing rifles. Have better and ongoing means of maintaining registrations. Balance that with strong insurance to not let that process lead to gun-owner's fears that the information will be used to take the guns away. No, I do not have all the answers to how to do all this and satisfy all sides. But this topic has been around for a very long time. I am certain there have to be some workable solutions out there from both sides.

I welcome any and all ideas to move this topic forward and find a way to safe lives. Don't you think America owes it to itself?

PS - just want to point out for those gun aficionados that I have always been interested in military history, am quite knowledgeable about WWII hand weapons, and have many gun-loving friends. Those friends and I often have spirited but respectful discussions about gun ownership that usually end in agreeing to disagree. However, from a societal standpoint such a standoff, even in its friendly form, is not a solution long term.

Water, Water everywhere...Just not in the right spots

Water, water everywhere...Just not in the right spots

This information I obtained mostly from The Economist.

Right now, across the whole world, there is more water than we need to sustain ourselves and our industries. But that is 'for the moment'. At the rate we are going, if we do not cut our use or learn to conserve more, we are headed towards inevitable water shortages.

It appears that just like a lot of things, the US is using much higher levels of water per capita than anyone else.

And to top that, it seems that the conversion of diets to meat , creates much higher levels of water usage. So guess who eats the most meat. Now the Chinese are starting to eat much greater levels of meat diets.

In this, as with other critical resources, we cannot blame the world for increasing their life styles to ours. The problem is that the world does not seem capable of supporting all of us living at that level. And of course there are significant population increases coming in the next 50 to 100 years.

So what is the solution? Do we lower our standards of living and allow the rest to come up to a new intermediate level for everyone? I am sure we would not like that. On the other hand, can we ask everyone else to stop raising their lifestyles? I doubt they would accept that either. So what indeed do we do before we all go over the cliff that is headed our way????

Movies

Watching No Country for Old Men...start seems a little slow but violent...It gets great reviews, so should pick up..

Mobile post sent by LeonardoZ using Utterli.  Replies.