In the last few years, Texas Central (a private company) has been pushing to connect Dallas and Houston via high-speed rail without receiving any state funds. The project is controversial, to say the least, and some argue that high-speed rail is outdated technology in light of Elon Musk's Hyperloop.
Given the latest updates on the likely route for the Texas high-speed rail project, the most obvious missed opportunity jumps out sorely at anyone familiar with the geography of Houston: the bullet train is not coming to downtown. I would love to know the details for the "official" reasons underlying such a decision, lest it should seem no more than lack of creativity, competence, and willingness.
[Another big and obvious missed opportunity of the likely route is that it bypasses the International Airport at Houston, which is north of the city, on the way to Dallas... but I won't be discussing that on this post].
I speculate that going inside the 610 loop, all the way to downtown Houston, was too controversial among home and business owners since the train would have to cut through the relatively affluent neighborhoods of Memorial Park/Washington Avenue and Rice Military. I agree that it's quite disappointing to see trains and light rail running at ground level inside cities, interfering with car, bike, and pedestrian traffic -but this is still often better than not having trains nor light rail. On the other hand, burying train tracks is a MUCH more expensive alternative that might be tricky to implement in Houston due to the city's propensity to flooding.
That said, why can't the tracks be raised? Some might argue that they'd look too ugly, which I find to be an overly negative and neurotic opinion. There's nothing ugly about the SkyTrain in Vancouver (the same goes for Bangkok's rail, and rail systems in many other cities). Rather, it's an efficient system congruent with a modern, cosmopolitan city that CONSISTENTLY ranks among the most beautiful and livable in the world, greatly due to its renown urban planning. I lived in Vancouver for a year and returned to visit for months, and I also lived in Houston for 10 years and go back often to visit family and friends. Vancouver's SkyTrain is FAR more convenient and efficient than Houston's current MetroRail lines, which run at street level.
Figure 1. Screenshot from google maps of the north-western quadrant of Houston's 610 loop. The red cross indicates where Texas Central currently plans to build the Houston terminal for its high-speed rail, outside the 610 loop. The green arrow points to where the terminal SHOULD be built instead.
Downtown Houston is one of the densest and most active spots in the metropolitan area and its central location provides, on the aggregate, quicker access to all other important activity hubs than any site outside the 610 loop. Texas Central's high-speed train SHOULD, therefore, go to downtown Houston and, in light of the rationale above, it should do so on raised tracks over existing train lines inside the 610 loop. The obvious route would be along Allen St., all the way to the Amtrak station right onside of downtown Houston's western edge.
Any complaints from residents and businesses about the high-speed train going through their neighborhoods would seem right out ABSURD, since far uglier (older and noisier) trains are ALREADY going along that route. For sure, building a two-level train track system involving at least two different companies might come with a myriad of challenges. While I wasn't able to quickly find any prototype for this concept on the Web, I don't see any obvious impediments that would render such a solution impossible, and bringing high-speed rail to the heart of Houston will be worth the effort. Houston might even attract worldwide recognition if its city officials, planners, and local engineering talent manage to pull off such a feat.
Anyway, if conventional raised tracks are too offensive to the aesthetic sensitivities of the Houston innerloopers, there's a good (and extremely cool!) compromise: simply make the tracks invisible. I bid Houstonians, Texas Central, City and State authorities, and anyone else who is relevant to the project, to please give some more thought to the matter :-)
Probablemente es lo mismo que el Great Pacific Garbage Patch (alguna vez "postié" al respecto? No recuerdo...; quizá sólo tuve la intención).
En fin. Cómo paramos toda esta mierda?
This may well be the last time I speak on the House Floor. At the
end of the year I’ll leave Congress after 23 years in office over a 36
year period. My goals in 1976 were the same as they are today: promote
peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the principles of
individual liberty.
It was my opinion, that the course the U.S. embarked on in the latter part of the 20th
Century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a
foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national
security.
To achieve the goals I sought, government would have had to shrink in
size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject
the unsustainable costs of policing the world and expanding the
American Empire.
The problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet
from my view point, just following the constraints placed on the federal
government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start.
How Much Did I Accomplish?
In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career
in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. No named
legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness. In
spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes
remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible
regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without
Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant
and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in
our history.
All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded
liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer. A
grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the
well-kept secret that keeps the spending going. One side doesn’t give
up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one
penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and
subsidies for the banking and corporate elite. And the spending
continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues. As
the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth
burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe.
The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total
resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made
compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since
neither side has any intention of cutting spending.
The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there’s no “loot left to divvy up.”
Without this recognition the spenders in Washington will continue the
march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this
coming January.
I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as
a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits.
If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all
personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity
and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell. Yet, history
has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of
authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.
Authoritarianism vs. Liberty
If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all
individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people
should be begging for liberty. There certainly was a strong enough
sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated
those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful
British government.
During my time in Congress the appetite for liberty has been quite
weak; the understanding of its significance negligible. Yet the good
news is that compared to 1976 when I first came to Congress, the desire
for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and
growing, especially in grassroots America. Tens of thousands of
teenagers and college age students are, with great enthusiasm, welcoming
the message of liberty.
I have a few thoughts as to why the people of a country like ours,
once the freest and most prosperous, allowed the conditions to
deteriorate to the degree that they have.
Freedom, private property, and enforceable voluntary contracts,
generate wealth. In our early history we were very much aware of this.
But in the early part of the 20th century our politicians
promoted the notion that the tax and monetary systems had to change if
we were to involve ourselves in excessive domestic and military
spending. That is why Congress gave us the Federal Reserve and the
income tax. The majority of Americans and many government officials
agreed that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what
some claimed to be “progressive” ideas. Pure democracy became
acceptable.
They failed to recognized that what they were doing was exactly
opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from
the British.
Some complain that my arguments makes no sense, since great wealth
and the standard of living improved for many Americans over the last
100 years, even with these new policies.
But the damage to the market economy, and the currency, has been
insidious and steady. It took a long time to consume our wealth,
destroy the currency and undermine productivity and get our financial
obligations to a point of no return. Confidence sometimes lasts longer
than deserved. Most of our wealth today depends on debt.
The wealth that we enjoyed and seemed to be endless, allowed concern
for the principle of a free society to be neglected. As long as most
people believed the material abundance would last forever, worrying
about protecting a competitive productive economy and individual liberty
seemed unnecessary.
The Age of Redistribution
This neglect ushered in an age of redistribution of wealth by
government kowtowing to any and all special interests, except for those
who just wanted to left alone. That is why today money in politics far
surpasses money currently going into research and development and
productive entrepreneurial efforts.
The material benefits became more important than the understanding
and promoting the principles of liberty and a free market. It is good
that material abundance is a result of liberty but if materialism is all
that we care about, problems are guaranteed.
The crisis arrived because the illusion that wealth and prosperity
would last forever has ended. Since it was based on debt and a pretense
that debt can be papered over by an out-of-control fiat monetary system,
it was doomed to fail. We have ended up with a system that doesn’t
produce enough even to finance the debt and no fundamental understanding
of why a free society is crucial to reversing these trends.
If this is not recognized, the recovery will linger for a long time.
Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the
middle class, and a more intense scramble by the elite special interests
will continue.
We Need an Intellectual Awakening
Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven
by economic law. A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control
system to its knees.
If it’s not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring
liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our
crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism
and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties. Prosperity for a
large middle class though will become an abstract dream.
This continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how
our financial crisis of 2008 was handled. Congress first directed, with
bipartisan support, bailouts for the wealthy. Then it was the Federal
Reserve with its endless quantitative easing. If at first it doesn’t
succeed try again; QE1, QE2, and QE3 and with no results we try QE
indefinitely—that is until it too fails. There’s a cost to all of this
and let me assure you delaying the payment is no longer an option. The
rules of the market will extract its pound of flesh and it won’t be
pretty.
The current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism. And the pessimism
adds to less confidence in the future. The two feed on themselves,
making our situation worse.
If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood we cannot
solve our problems. The issues of warfare, welfare, deficits,
inflationism, corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be
ignored. By only expanding these policies we cannot expect good
results.
Everyone claims support for freedom. But too often it’s for one’s
own freedom and not for others. Too many believe that there must be
limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed
to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail,
through force, certain liberties.
Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited. These are the
politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on
gaining support from special interests.
No More ‘isms’
The great news is the answer is not to be found in more “isms.” The
answers are to be found in more liberty which cost so much less. Under
these circumstances spending goes down, wealth production goes up, and
the quality of life improves.
Just this recognition—especially if we move in this
direction—increases optimism which in itself is beneficial. The follow
through with sound policies are required which must be understood and
supported by the people.
But there is good evidence that the generation coming of age at the
present time is supportive of moving in the direction of more liberty
and self-reliance. The more this change in direction and the solutions
become known, the quicker will be the return of optimism.
Our job, for those of us who believe that a different system than the
one that we have had for the last 100 years, has driven us to this
unsustainable crisis, is to be more convincing that there is a
wonderful, uncomplicated, and moral system that provides the answers.
We had a taste of it in our early history. We need not give up on the
notion of advancing this cause.
It worked, but we allowed our leaders to concentrate on the material
abundance that freedom generates, while ignoring freedom itself. Now we
have neither, but the door is open, out of necessity, for an answer.
The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual liberty
and prohibiting the use of government force to provide privileges and
benefits to all special interests.
After over 100 years we face a society quite different from the one
that was intended by the Founders. In many ways their efforts to
protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger has
failed. Skeptics, at the time the Constitution was written in 1787,
warned us of today’s possible outcome. The insidious nature of the
erosion of our liberties and the reassurance our great abundance gave
us, allowed the process to evolve into the dangerous period in which we
now live.
Dependency on Government Largesse
Today we face a dependency on government largesse for almost every
need. Our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the
rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government
into satisfying their demands. Here are a few examples:
Undeclared wars are commonplace.
Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement.
The economy is overregulated, overtaxed and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system.
Debt is growing exponentially.
The Patriot Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate have resulted in a steady erosion of our 4th Amendment rights.
Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.
The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly
for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the
international laws flaunted. Once we are financially weakened and
militarily challenged, there will be a lot resentment thrown our way.
It’s now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely, without charges or a trial.
Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington.
Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation and WTO trade retaliation, call the true free traders “isolationists.”
Sanctions are used to punish countries that don’t follow our orders.
Bailouts and guarantees for all kinds of misbehavior are routine.
Central economic planning through monetary policy, regulations and legislative mandates has been an acceptable policy.
Questions
Excessive government has created such a mess it prompts many questions:
Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?
Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?
Why can’t Americans manufacturer rope and other products from hemp?
Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?
Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold
held by the FED for her in New York? Is it that the trust in the U.S.
and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?
Why do our political leaders believe it’s unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold?
Why can’t Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?
Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?
Why should there be mandatory sentences—even up to life for crimes without victims—as our drug laws require?
Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?
Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?
Why haven’t we given up on the drug war since it’s an obvious
failure and violates the people’s rights? Has nobody noticed that the
authorities can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our
entire society a prison solve the problem?
Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border
disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of
the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US?
Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?
Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?
Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and
foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost
their jobs and their homes?
Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?
Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government
bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without
totally destroying the principle of liberty?
Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?
Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives
the President authority to establish a “kill list,” including American
citizens, of those targeted for assassination?
Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and
the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of
liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to
challenge the government when it’s wrong.
Why is it is claimed that if people won’t or can’t take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?
Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?
Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?
Why don’t more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?
Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually
influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek
power to force others to obey their commands?
Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and
preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence,
or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced
redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the
world great religions.
Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to
disseminate false information dealing with both economic and foreign
policy?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the
minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?
Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility,
since there’s such a disconnect between what politicians say and what
they do?
Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the
fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the
distrust, the anger and frustration? Yes there is, and there’s a way
to reverse these attitudes. The negative perceptions are logical and a
consequence of bad policies bringing about our problems. Identification
of the problems and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to
come easy.
Trust Yourself, Not the Government
Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and
trust in government and not enough in themselves. Fortunately, many are
now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past
several decades. The blame is shared by both political parties. Many
Americans now are demanding to hear the plain truth of things and want
the demagoguing to stop. Without this first step, solutions are
impossible.
Seeking the truth and finding the answers in liberty and
self-reliance promotes the optimism necessary for restoring prosperity.
The task is not that difficult if politics doesn’t get in the way.
We have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons.
Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced.
Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and
bureaucrats. This replaces the confidence in a free society. Too many
in high places of authority became convinced that only they, armed
with arbitrary government power, can bring about fairness, while
facilitating wealth production. This always proves to be a utopian
dream and destroys wealth and liberty. It impoverishes the people and
rewards the special interests who end up controlling both political
parties.
It’s no surprise then that much of what goes on in Washington is
driven by aggressive partisanship and power seeking, with philosophic
differences being minor.
Economic Ignorance
Economic ignorance is commonplace. Keynesianism continues to thrive,
although today it is facing healthy and enthusiastic rebuttals.
Believers in military Keynesianism and domestic Keynesianism continue to
desperately promote their failed policies, as the economy languishes in
a deep slumber.
Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them.
Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates
related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal
liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge.
But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence.
Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use
force with bad intentions. The results are always negative.
The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems.
Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic
authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world.
Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when
well-intentioned—the results are dismal. The good results sought never
materialize. The new problems created require even more government
force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government
initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds.
This is the same fundamental reason our government uses force for
invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and
the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens.
It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no
respect for other people and their property, no one claims it’s
permissible to go into one’s neighbor’s house and tell them how to
behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.
Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger
with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and
order. Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests,
and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a
proper search warrant.
No Government Monopoly over Initiating Violence
Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a
government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to
exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of
civil society. Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior
from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream. We now have a
standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and
Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc. numbering over 100,000.
Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional
administrative courts.
Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in
social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor
should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things
peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted.
We must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity
just we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. But even in
these areas government is starting to use a backdoor approach of
political correctness to regulate speech-a dangerous trend. Since 9/11
monitoring speech on the internet is now a problem since warrants are no
longer required.
The Proliferation of Federal Crimes
The Constitution established four federal crimes. Today the experts
can’t even agree on how many federal crimes are now on the books—they
number into the thousands. No one person can comprehend the enormity of
the legal system—especially the tax code. Due to the ill-advised drug
war and the endless federal expansion of the criminal code we have over 6
million people under correctional suspension, more than the Soviets
ever had, and more than any other nation today, including China. I
don’t understand the complacency of the Congress and the willingness to
continue their obsession with passing more Federal laws. Mandatory
sentencing laws associated with drug laws have compounded our prison
problems.
The federal register is now 75,000 pages long and the tax code has
72,000 pages, and expands every year. When will the people start
shouting, “enough is enough,” and demand Congress cease and desist.
Achieving Liberty
Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive
use of force. If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is
needed. To achieve it, more than lip service is required.
Two choices are available.
A government designed to protect liberty—a natural right—as its sole
objective. The people are expected to care for themselves and reject
the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty.
Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts,
property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign
aggression.
A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power
to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations. Though
the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it
inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer. This is
the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages.
Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a
principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible. It is used
vigorously—though incrementally and insidiously. Granting power to
government officials always proves the adage that: “power corrupts.”
Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to
mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward
tyrannical government. Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the
process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression.
There’s no in-between. Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary
safety always ends badly.
Today’s mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.
The results are not good. As our liberties have been eroded our
wealth has been consumed. The wealth we see today is based on debt and a
foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for
goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our
debt system. It’s amazing that it has worked for this long but the
impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are
starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis
and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher
the outcome will be.
The Financial Crisis Is a Moral Crisis
Many are now acknowledging that a financial crisis looms but few
understand it’s, in reality, a moral crisis. It’s the moral crisis that
has allowed our liberties to be undermined and permits the exponential
growth of illegal government power. Without a clear understanding of
the nature of the crisis it will be difficult to prevent a steady march
toward tyranny and the poverty that will accompany it.
Ultimately, the people have to decide which form of government they
want; option #1 or option #2. There is no other choice. Claiming there
is a choice of a “little” tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a
“touch of pregnancy.” It is a myth to believe that a mixture of free
markets and government central economic planning is a worthy
compromise. What we see today is a result of that type of thinking.
And the results speak for themselves.
A Culture of Violence
American now suffers from a culture of violence. It’s easy to reject
the initiation of violence against one’s neighbor but it’s ironic that
the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with
monopoly power to initiate violence against the American
people—practically at will.
Because it’s the government that initiates force, most people accept
it as being legitimate. Those who exert the force have no sense of
guilt. It is believed by too many that governments are morally
justified in initiating force supposedly to “do good.” They incorrectly
believe that this authority has come from the “consent of the people.”
The minority, or victims of government violence never consented to
suffer the abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the
majority. Victims of TSA excesses never consented to this abuse.
This attitude has given us a policy of initiating war to “do good,”
as well. It is claimed that war, to prevent war for noble purposes, is
justified. This is similar to what we were once told that: “destroying
a village to save a village” was justified. It was said by a US
Secretary of State that the loss of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, in
the 1990s, as a result of American bombs and sanctions, was “worth it”
to achieve the “good” we brought to the Iraqi people. And look at the
mess that Iraq is in today.
Government use of force to mold social and economic behavior at home
and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms.
The fact that violence by government is seen as morally justified, is
the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis hits
and becomes a political crisis as well.
First, we recognize that individuals shouldn’t initiate violence,
then we give the authority to government. Eventually, the immoral use
of government violence, when things goes badly, will be used to justify
an individual’s “right” to do the same thing. Neither the government nor
individuals have the moral right to initiate violence against another
yet we are moving toward the day when both will claim this authority.
If this cycle is not reversed society will break down.
When needs are pressing, conditions deteriorate and rights become
relative to the demands and the whims of the majority. It’s then not a
great leap for individuals to take it upon themselves to use violence to
get what they claim is theirs. As the economy deteriorates and the
wealth discrepancies increase—as are already occurring— violence
increases as those in need take it in their own hands to get what they
believe is theirs. They will not wait for a government rescue program.
When government officials wield power over others to bail out the
special interests, even with disastrous results to the average citizen,
they feel no guilt for the harm they do. Those who take us into
undeclared wars with many casualties resulting, never lose sleep over
the death and destruction their bad decisions caused. They are convinced
that what they do is morally justified, and the fact that many suffer
just can’t be helped.
When the street criminals do the same thing, they too have no
remorse, believing they are only taking what is rightfully theirs. All
moral standards become relative. Whether it’s bailouts, privileges,
government subsidies or benefits for some from inflating a currency,
it’s all part of a process justified by a philosophy of forced
redistribution of wealth. Violence, or a threat of such, is the
instrument required and unfortunately is of little concern of most
members of Congress.
Some argue it’s only a matter of “fairness” that those in need are
cared for. There are two problems with this. First, the principle is
used to provide a greater amount of benefits to the rich than the poor.
Second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it’s fair to
those who end up paying for the benefits. The costs are usually placed
on the backs of the middle class and are hidden from the public eye. Too
many people believe government handouts are free, like printing money
out of thin air, and there is no cost. That deception is coming to an
end. The bills are coming due and that’s what the economic slowdown is
all about.
Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use
of force by government. It is the tool for telling the people how to
live, what to eat and drink, what to read and how to spend their money.
To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must
be understood and rejected. Granting to government even a small amount
of force is a dangerous concession.
Limiting Government Excesses vs. a Virtuous Moral People
Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and
abuse, has failed. The Founders warned that a free society depends on a
virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their
concerns were justified.
Most politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but
spend all their time in trying to reform government. The sad part is
that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom and the
importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored, or not
understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty.
The compounding effect has given us this steady erosion of liberty and
the massive expansion of debt. The real question is: if it is liberty
we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government reform or
trying to understand what “a virtuous and moral people” means and how to
promote it. The Constitution has not prevented the people from
demanding handouts for both rich and poor in their efforts to reform the
government, while ignoring the principles of a free society. All
branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use
their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare
state-and frequently their own wealth and power.
If the people are unhappy with the government performance it must be
recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society
that rejected a moral government of constitutional limitations of power
and love of freedom.
If this is the problem all the tinkering with thousands of pages of
new laws and regulations will do nothing to solve the problem.
It is self-evident that our freedoms have been severely limited and
the apparent prosperity we still have, is nothing more than leftover
wealth from a previous time. This fictitious wealth based on debt and
benefits from a false trust in our currency and credit, will play havoc
with our society when the bills come due. This means that the full
consequence of our lost liberties is yet to be felt.
But that illusion is now ending. Reversing a downward spiral depends on accepting a new approach.
Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a
significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free
society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal
government controlled school system to provide the intellectual
ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens
our liberties.
The internet will provide the alternative to the government/media
complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is
why it’s essential that the internet remains free of government
regulation.
Many of our religious institutions and secular organizations support
greater dependency on the state by supporting war, welfare and
corporatism and ignore the need for a virtuous people.
I never believed that the world or our country could be made more free by politicians, if the people had no desire for freedom.
Under the current circumstances the most we can hope to achieve in
the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to
alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need
to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they
truly seek. Without this, a constitutionally protected free society is
impossible.
If this is true, our individual goal in life ought to be for us to
seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness
only comes from using one’s natural ability, in the most productive
manner possible, according to one’s own talents.
Productivity and creativity are the true source of personal
satisfaction. Freedom, and not dependency, provides the environment
needed to achieve these goals. Government cannot do this for us; it only
gets in the way. When the government gets involved, the goal becomes a
bailout or a subsidy and these cannot provide a sense of personal
achievement.
Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our
goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the
politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual
leaders and our religious institutions. The solution can only come from
rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and
aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior. Without
accepting these restraints, inevitably the consensus will be to allow
the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to the
politicians who gain power and promote an environment that smothers the
freedoms of everyone. It is then that the responsible individuals who
seek excellence and self-esteem by being self-reliance and productive,
become the true victims.
Conclusion
What are the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five. 1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which
threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of
tyranny. 2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world.
Because the phenomenon of “blow-back” is not understood or denied, our
foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have
no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our
national security will
result. 3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by
Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even
for preemptive wars, otherwise known as
aggression. 4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive
debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy
in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The
danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be
understood. 5. World government taking over local and US sovereignty by
getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking, a
world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of
guns.
Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous trends.
What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple
moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a
suggestion is always: it’s too simplistic, too idealistic,
impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for
such an ideal.
The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of
government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty,
was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace
and prosperity.
What could be more utopian than that myth—considering the results
especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every
government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions. It’s time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state.
No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to
use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior.
Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny.
This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results
are in: reality dictates we try liberty.
The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of
force should be tried. The idealism of government sanctioned violence
has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty
and war. The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has
been around for a long time. It’s time to take a bold step and actually
permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards
as some would like us to do.
Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when King John
signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack. There’s every reason to
believe that a renewed effort with the use of the internet that we can
instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored message
that will serve to rein in government authority and challenge the
obsession with war and welfare.
What I’m talking about is a system of government guided by the moral principles of peace and tolerance.
The Founders were convinced that a free society could not exist
without a moral people. Just writing rules won’t work if the people
choose to ignore them. Today the rule of law written in the
Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who
work in Washington DC.
Benjamin Franklin claimed “only a virtuous people are capable of
freedom.” John Adams concurred: “Our Constitution was made for a moral
and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any
other.”
A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people’s beliefs or habits.
A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral
society. All great religions endorse the Golden Rule. The same moral
standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all
government officials. They cannot be exempt.
The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.
The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.
The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope
that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on
changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous
society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change.
It doesn’t mean that political action or holding office has no value.
At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is true
is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money
or power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is
taken for the right reasons it’s easy to understand why compromise
should be avoided. It also becomes clear why progress is best achieved
by working with coalitions, which bring people together, without anyone
sacrificing his principles.
Political action, to be truly beneficial, must be directed toward
changing the hearts and minds of the people, recognizing that it’s the
virtue and morality of the people that allow liberty to flourish.
The Constitution or more laws per se, have no value if the people’s attitudes aren’t changed.
To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be
overcome. Number one is “envy” which leads to hate and class warfare.
Number two is “intolerance” which leads to bigoted and judgmental
policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better
understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics.
Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is
popular.
The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic
interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are
swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding
that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many
to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals
making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these
misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses
voluntarism. Both views ought to be rejected.
I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying
to figure out “the plain truth of things.” The best chance for
achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people
world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.
If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.
I am semi addicted to Monster Energy drinks. They should release them in plastic bottles too, which you could cap. I very much dislike to have to rush through drinking it, or to no be able to save half of it for later, without leaving it open (as you have to, given that they only sell it in cans...).
No sé por qué, pero de pronto me antiapeteció el subtítulo que tuvo mi blog desde fines del 2004 hasta ahora. Lo que por tanto tiempo me pareció en cierto sentido gracioso, me inspiró repentinamente cierta repulsión y pena ajena. Será que maduré una pizca, o nomás estoy de un humor subóptimo?
Definitivamente no me he sentido cheerful estos últimos días (por causas específicas conscientes; nada de aquella "depresión conceptual subconsciente", que a veces el intelecto inventa como barata explicación a la ausencia de optimismo; y es que a los optimistas ingenuos nos cuesta trabajo ACEPTAR que no es posible estar SIEMPRE como un conejo saltarín en primavera, y que por el contrario es NORMAL tener altibajos emocionales, por cualesquier causa [falta de descanso, decepciones, eventualidades, etc.], aunque no seas una mujer en su período).
Quién sabe. Madurez o no, creo que las canas prosiguen con su subrepticia invasión de mi cráneo.
La lluvia por acá ha durado toda una semana (aclara a ratos). Recuerdo que mi amiga Anita me inspiró ternura cuando hablaba de cómo llovía y llovía constantemente en Vancouver durante el invierno (a modo de sutil queja), pero para verlo por el lado positivo se decía a sí misma "al menos es bueno para los árboles, y en primavera tenemos césped increiblemente verde...".
*** Old subtitle (RIP) "ERES MYERDA, ACÉPTALO (y no me estoy proyectando, para el psicólogo barato al que se le ocurra salir con esa sandez). [Nótese que cualquier falta de tildes en cualquier post débese, salvo al ocasional desliz por retraso, a que fue escrito con un teclado con el cual explicitar las tildes era un problema que mi pereza no estuvo dispuesta a resolver]. SI LEES POSTS AQUÍ, DEJA COMENTARIO!"
***
Ojalá sí se haga algo así, pera prevenir un segundo fraude electoral contra Andres Manuel López Obrador...
[Lo que no dice la siguiente foto, es dónde hay que "registrarse"...!].
Por qué AMLO no haría lo que ha hecho Chávez: Un decálogo comparativo.
Escrito por: Dr. Freddy Mariñez. Quien es Profesor-Investigador
venezolano Titular de la EGAP Gobierno y Política Pública, Tecnológico
de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey. Actualmente es Director de la Maestría
en Administración Pública y Política Pública (MAP)
1.- AMLO no es militar….Chávez es un militar convencido de que la
política debe hacerse como en un cuartel (con mando y obediencia y no
apegado más que a la legalidad castrense).
2.- Cuando Chávez
llega al poder en Venezuela no existían partidos políticos que le
hicieran contrapeso….En México, de perdido tenemos instituciones de
check-balance.
3.- A Chávez lo apoyaron los Medios de
Comunicación corruptos de la Venezuela de entonces y una vez que asume
el poder los critica y los estatiza. AMLO quiere democratizar los medios
de comunicación para evitar que el poder fáctico(Televisa y TV Azteca)
sea quien está presionando y gestionando las decisiones públicas.
4.- Chávez llenó la administración pública de militares asesorados por
los cubanos. AMLO tendría en la Administración pública gente como el
ex-rector de la UNAM, una escritora reconocida y legitimada por las
letras de Carlos Fuentes, el Jefe de Gobierno del D.F, empresarios, y
así por el estilo. Un gabinete plural pero que coinciden que el país
tiene que cambiar.
5.- Chávez hoy está casi sólo en el
concierto internacional y latinoamericano (Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia,
Irán son sus cuates)…….AMLO se encamina hacia un liberalismo social
estilo Brasil, Chile, Uruguay…….y ahora Francia con Monsieur Hollande.
6.- Chávez cuenta con el apoyo de jóvenes cooptados y manipulados,
acarreados y subditos que los manda a estudiar a Nicaragua en vez de
Canadá, a Cuba en vez de Francia, a Bolivia en vez de Estados Unidos, a
Iran en vez de Inglaterra). Los jóvenes “Yo soy 132″ es una diversidad
de primaveras que coinciden con AMLO en que la democracia hay que
democratizarla, sin show mediatico ni corrupción. Son jóvenes con futuro y preparados.
7.- A Chávez lo apoyaron los políticos corruptos que arruinaron a
Venezuela y está haciendo lo mismo arruinando más al país……AMLO tiene un
proyecto de nación de Cambio Verdadero con libertad y justicia en que
se empezaría con sanar al país de la corrupción (Moreira, Yarrigton,
Marín, Ruiz y otros que encarnan el viejo PRI que EPN los apapacha).
8.- Chávez hizo del Ejercito un patrimonio personal y una extensión del
ejercito de Fidel Castro. AMLO y quienes los apoyan ven en las Fuerzas
Armadas Nacionales una institución democrática de respeto, mas cuando
estamos en presencia de la guerra contra el narco.
9.- Chávez
tiene el control del Parlamento, del Poder Judicial, del arbitro
electoral, de las gobernaciones y municipios…..AMLO gobernaría con estos
contrapesos….porque esa es la democracia y la política democrática.
10.- Chávez quiere eternizarse en el poder….AMLO y su movimiento cree
que la alternancia es fundamental para la democracia. Fueron 70 años
durmiendo, 12 años soñando…..queda hacerle justicia a la
democracia……otro partido en el poder con visión de cambio.
Esa era la pregunta de seguridad de mi google/gmail account, y la verdad no tengo ni idea de cuál era la respuesta (tal vez "integrando", haha, pero no quise tratar por pereza y para que no me bloquearan el acceso).
Entré a editar mis settings con la esperanza de ver la respuesta ahí, pero google no dijo mucho al respecto: "Answer: Hidden for your security".
JA!
Supongo que me quedaré por siempre con la duda... (más que nada porque ya cambié la pregunta de seguridad, y la respectiva respuesta).
Aunque nunca disfrutaría comiendo en un restaurante como "The heart attack grill", quería ir nomás por la experiencia de estar en un lugar tan ridículo. Desafortunadamente, cerraron la sucursal de Dallas (a la que planeaba ir).
El restaurante le da comida gratis a los clientes que pesan 350 libras o más (los suben a una báscula y los pesan como ganado para ver si pasan la prueba!).
Recientemente, una obesa tuvo un ataque cardíaco on site, mientras se atascaba unas "flatliner-fries" y una "double-bypass burger". Y los otros clientes estaban tomándole fotos mientras se revolcaba en el piso, JA!
Me agarró el tonto cuando me contaron esta historia, que sonaba a ficción, pero no lo es:
("Flatliner-fries" quiere decir que las papas fritas que te comes provocan que la máquina que indica que todavía estás vivo en el hospital [la gráfica de los latidos de tu corazón, o lo que sea; el electrocardiograma, supongo?] muestre una línea recta, como cuando estás muerto; o sea, son papas mortales).
"Bypass" es una cirugía del corazón que permite que la sangre fluya por (o alrededor de) venas bloqueadas...; o sea que una double-bypass burger, es una hamburgesa que, después de comerla (6000 calorías!) causará que necesites tener dos bypasses (y ofrecen una triple-bypass burger, de 8000 calorías!).
El slogan es simplemente encantador: "Taste worth dying for!". Y pensar que muchos clientes de hecho sí se han muerto on-site. Increíble.
One should NEVER do this to a baby when not needed for some compelling medical reason!
It is BARBARIC.
It *SHOULD* be **ILLEGAL** for someone else to decide anyone has to undergo this as a baby.
(People can always choose to subject themselves to it as adults).
Not only is it barbaric, there are many known risks and undesirable consequences from circumcision which supersede the health benefits.
The greater argument in favor seems to nowadays be HIV prevention: Circumcised men are less likely to get infected.
This is hardly a good reason to MUTILATE babies. Removing parts of anyone's body without their consent and without need goes against human rights. The practice is equivalent to that of African tribes who horrify us with their customary removal of the clitoris from girls. The foreskin keeps the penis glans more sensitive and is full of (stimulate-able) nervous termini itself.
As a young adult, any man who thinks he'll put himself at risk of HIV by having unprotected sex could perfectly decide to subject his phallus to circumcision if he really believes it'll make a difference.
Some think that anti-circumcision is mostly about avoiding pain and trauma for the newborn, and that the usage of anesthesia would preclude the need to worry about anything.
WRONG. Babies undergo pain when being vaccinated too, or when having justifiable/needed surgeries. The main issue is that unnecessary mutilation of a helpless human being who cannot decide for himself is unethical; and once you've lost your foreskin, there's no way to get it back! So it is unacceptable for anyone else to impose on you the loss of a perfectly healthy part of your body.
Pero el aire en Houston la veldá' está lleno de mierda.
El edificio a la izquierda es una torre de departamentos (donde quisiera vivir, enfrente de Hermann Park), hecha de vidrio/crystal que se ve azul brillante/cielo/turquesa en días normales desde kilómetros y kilómetros de distancia... y sin embargo, en esta foto se ve completamente gris!
También en downtown pueden distinguirse los colores y las ventanas de (algunos) de los edificios en downtown desde lejos; pero en el día asqueroso en que tomé estas fotos (3 de enero de 2012, justo cuando regresé de mis vacaciones decembrinas en México), no se veía nada más que cajas grises, pese a que eran las 3pm y el sol estaba altísimo en el cielo, y no había ni una sola nube cerca...
Según la NASA, Houston y L.A. han estado disputándose el título de la ciudad con el aire más contamiado durante las últimas décadas...
Por cierto, me sorprende que Chicago (comentario semi-inconexo) no esté en la lista de las 25 ciudades gringas más contaminadas. Quizá debeise mudarme para allá (pero, ugh, hace tanto frío en invierno, y está tan lejos del mar!).
Los (ok, algunos) gringos son hiper-deficientes a la hora de pronunciar o entender las vocales más simples. En su idioma primitivo, las vocales adquieren distintos sonidos dependiendo de su contexto, y a veces suenan como 2 o hasta 3 juntas.
Sobra decir que no pueden pronunciar las "r" en español de manera correcta (ni las rs suaves, ni las dobles r); por ello, cuando me preguntan mi nombre, evito decir "Gerardo", y más bien opto por "Jesús".
Uno pensaría que con tantos hispanos en Houston (~40% de la población!), la mayoría de los no-hispanos deberían de estar familiarizados con el nombre Jesús; sin embargo, si oso pronunciarlo de la manera correcta en español, frecuentemente no me entienden, y los que sí entienden dicen "Haaay-zoose??" (una fonética que en español se aproxima a "Jei-zu-uz", con DOBLES vocales, o vocales largas).
Estaba una feliz noche tabaqueándome en el patio de un antro de la mala muerte (de unos años para acá tolero [no, más bien me encanta] tabaquear exclusivamente cuando me embriago), pero se me acabaron los cigarros muy pronto (me quedaban 2 o 3 nada más, de aquel viaje en Halloween a Nueva Orleans). No queriendo gastar dinero en cigarrillos, me di a la buitresca -y predilecta- tarea de carroñear. Y era ésto lo que hacía cuando le pedí un cigarro a un equis que estaba con sus amigos; muy amablemente me dio uno y empezamos a conversar, mas cuando se llegó la hora de intercambiar los semi-obligados (just out of politeness) "como-te-llamas?", un amigo del Sr. De Los Cigarrillos no me entendió. Slightly annoyed (internally), reiteré mi nombre, pero esta vez en inglés: "Gee-zuhz", y apuntando al cielo añadí un dramático "from above!!". Oh my. La mirada siniestra de desaprobación que me lanzó me condenó a todos y cada uno de los infiernos jamás concebidos y por concebir. "Waaa chu say it like dat? Thass not right".
No recuerdo exactamente con qué palabras traté de justificarme y recuperar La Salvación, pero mi verdugo no superó mi herejía en todo el rato que permanecí ante su presencia mientras se agotaba mi fuente de humo. Tal vez debí haber contestado "Because your dumb, fat, ignorant, ghetto *ss can't understand the most simple vowels. That's why. Deck.").
Fui a New Orleans el fin de semana de Halloween de este año (donde por cierto me la pasé FENOMENAL [qué asco de palabra, ja!... pero es la más adecuada]) y estando en el casino Harrah's me gané el (la?) Jackpot en un juego d'esos clásicos de casino (cómo coños se llaman?) donde jalas la palanquita, cuyo tema visual (las figuritas) era del Moulin Rouge. Desgraciadamente no tomé una foto y la caricatura acá abajo is just a poor representation:
El pago era de 1000x lo invertido!!
PEEERO para mi desgracia sólo invertí UN miserable centavo...
:(
... de tal modo que 1 penny se convirtió en 10 dólares, y más que feliz me sentí frustrado durante el primer microsegundo posterior a mi buen golpe de suerte, aunque al final volví a la felicidad y la satisfacción de saberte afortunado.
[Aunque si hubiese apostado 1 dolar... el viaje me habría salido gratis y hasta me habría sobrado!].
En fin. Burbon St. es un SANTO DESPAPAYE (jaja, elegí la palabra porque es LITERAL [muéstranse las papayas por aquí y por allá, al menos en Mardi Gras, durante febrero cada año], si tal fruta representa aún lo que en aquella vieja canción de Molotov...).
Ya lo sabía porque hace 3 años había ido (inocente y accidentalmente) en Halloween a Nueva Orleans con mi hermana y mi madre, y nos encontramos con las calles atestadas de gente en todo tipo de disfraces, ebrios en los balcones del French Quarter, y bar tras bar, antro tras antro, luces y más luces, porn shops, table-dance places, etc...
Entonces este año fui con toda premeditación (y alevosía, desde luego, y por supuesto que ventaja también).
Acabo de encontrar unas fotos de las épocas más felices de mi vida (Vancouver) que había estado buscando por MESES!
Qué bueno que (casi) siempre hago MIL backups de todo...
Heading to Babylon -ehem, New Orleans-, a un fin de semana de perdithión.
:)
[My Halloween costume is so, SO... shameless!].
Hacía siglos que no me ponía un disfraz en Halloween (de hecho, ni siquiera me acuerdo desde cuándo... ah, sí, desde alguna tocada/marihuaneada random a la que fui vestido dizque de pirata en el 2004, si mal no recuerdo), pero hace unas semanas me disfracé de ángel malvado en el Biochemistry Departmental Retreat de mi escuela. Fue divertido. A ver si posteo alguna(s) fotos, eventualmente [tengo TANTOS posts atrasados... (en el sentido de que estaban conceptualmente planeados, o al menos existieron alguna vez de manera vaga, a nivel de deseo indefinido)].
Tenía siglos queriendo poner algún video en youtube.
Cuando me di cuenta que no había ninguna versión satisfactoria de este concierto (salvo el audio de Perlman que lo tocaba perfectamente con su Stradivarius y la orquesta desde que estaba en el vientre de su madre), decidí que trataría de subir una versión más decente.
Mi profesor neurótico e histérico (Armenio) me tiró con las partituras de este concierto sin saber que yo ni música podía leer, jaja.
Cuando se dio cuenta me regresó a twinke twinkle, pero de todos modos me obligó a tocar esto en el recital de fin de semestre.
JA! No puedo creer que no cambié de pregunta en casi 2 años... totally off la predicción de que, como la pregunta era una mierda, cambiaría pronto (y la nueva no me gustó mucho tampoco; ya la pondré como pregunta#6 cuando llegue a ocurrir nuevamente el milagro de cambiar).
Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - Tuesday, July 5, 2011 Q5: Which is easier to make a model airplane out of and why: a banana peel or a wet sock?
A banana peel (not overly ripe) because it's firmer and you can carve a 2D airplane out of it in a minute or so.
Zürich es una ciudad pequeña que es atravesada (como Paty por Ricardo), por un río tampoco muy grande. Éste luego se ensancha bastante rápidamente y conviértese en un lago enorme (no sé si el de Ricardo...), en cuyo extremo sur pueden verse los Alpes con sus cimas nevadas [de hecho, el agua fluye en la dirección contraria a la descrita: Baja de los Alpes al Zürichsee, lago que después se reduce al mini-río que cruza la ciudad].
Una mañana feliz, caminaba desde la estación de metro hacia el segundo hostal en el que me hospedé en Zürich, cuando vi un thishne nadando felizmente por el riachuelo, cerca de un restaurante que protuberaba sobre el agua, a manera de muelle. Pensé que el thishne era la mascota del restaurante, puesto ahí para embellecer el entorno y atraer más clientes.
Era el thishne más impresionante que jamás hubiese visto (no que hubiese visto muchos, o alguno siquiera, antes; la verdad no me acuerdo); Prístino, Níveo, LUMINOSO... sí; el pájaro era tan blanco, tan puro, que parecía irradiar su propia luz. Y, por enthima, su alma era también de alabastro, como lo evidenciaba su modesta actitud.
(El cisne tiene, LITERALMENTE, un AURA!!... por lo intensamente que su blancura refleja el sol).
Para mi ligera decepción, luego me di cuenta que no era nada especial, ni la mascota del restaurante: El therdo probablemente estaba carroñeando la comida y/o basura del negocio. Arribé (ya que el agua ha sido tan mencionada) a tal revelación cuando, en la tarde, caminando hacia un muelle de verdad para tomar un barquito que me pasearía por el lago, me di cuenta que los thishnesh son animales comunes y corrientes ahí.
(Flock of swans chillin' at the shores of Lake Zürich).
Y desde luego la gente los alimenta y entherdethe....
Y los thishnesh carroñeros, peléanse por la comida y la pescan de donde pueden, sin importar cuán putrefacto sea el origen (como cualquier lesser animal, incluídos los seres humanos, claro está):
(Thishne A envidiando a thishne B, quien ha carroñeado sobras putrefactas que alguien lanzó en el lago).
Cómense hasta sus propias pulgas...
Pero, con todo, siguien siendo beautiful... (son de los pocos pájaros que no me dan asco total).
En Suiza, las monedas de 50 centavos son de 1/2 franco! JA!
Pensé que una viejita mamona me estaba queriendo ver la cara cuando me dijo "X.5 francos" (equis punto 5 francos) por Y cosa que compré (un magneto para el refri), y me regresó una moneda minúscula que, siendo pequeña y estando desgastada, y yo con mi retraso, no pude interpretar en el segundo que la vi. Me la eché al bolsillo mientras maldecía a la vieja por aprovecharse de la ignoranthia de los turistas (en realidad no; más bien la compadecí, pensando que probablemente era muy infeliz [alguna razón debía tener para ser TAN mamona] y que dando cambio de menos se procuraba algo de felicidad).
Más tarde, a closer look at the coin revealed que la amargada no me había timado.
Me topé con, quizá, el BLOG más racional que haya leído jamás (no estoy diciendo que sea perfecto, pero lo que he leído me ha gustado; lástima que parece estar descontinuado), y me veo en la necesidad de piratear/quote-ear de él literalmente:
"Homophobia is the ONLY rational position (SARCASMO). A greatVIDEOexplaining why. If you do not understand why homosexuals should not be allowed the SAME MARRIAGE with the SAME NAME (“marriage”) as anybody else gets, then I propose you neither understand, nor deserve civil rights. Period."
No sé exactamente dónde lo leí. (Fue hojeando alguna revista en algún supermercado): Never get angry. According to Dr. X, empathy can be an effective palliative. Understanding why someone screwed you, even if you have to make it up, makes it harder to be offended. An example: Someone cuts you in traffic. Possible excuse: He's late for a flight... that'll take him to a funeral... for his only daughter... who died trying to rescue his wife... from a fire that burned down the cabin that he built with his father... where she was staying with her new lover... who turned out to be his best friend.
No sabía de la existencia de "WikiLeaks"; pero después de enterarme de su existencia, eventualmente me dio por entrar a su página de internet para informarme, pero ésta no servía (www.wikileaks.org).
Es una página internacional que reporta noticias que el mainstream media deja fuera (para ocultarle a la población lo que el gobierno cree conveniente; tiene videos sobre injusticias de guerra en Iraq y Afghanistan, por ejemplo).
Según Time Magazine: " [it] Could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act"
And it has been shut down by the government... o quien sea que gobierne este país/mundo.
Al parecer, el gobierno en confabulación con quién sabe quién, quiere destruir el sitio.
Hasta los bancos suizos les congelaron sus cuentas (no que muy neutrales?).
Pay Pal eliminó la opción de donar dinero a WikiLeaks usando su sistema (economical sabotage).
Supuestamente el gobierno hasta extendió amenazas incluso a 'potential future employees' (como estudiantes de ciertos departamentos en Columbia University) para que no posteen links a, ni comenten la información de WikiLeaks en ningún medio social virtual como Facebook o Twitter...
Algunos arguyen que todo este escándalo será el pretexto para la creación de un "patriot act" del internet, tal que para usar la red tendrán que profanarte tanto como quieren hacerlo con los nuevos scanners y palpaciones en los aeropuertos (ésto último no me molesta para nada porque no limita mis libertades y sí pueden atrapar psicóticos que portan armas).
Asquerosamente, pese a que es un major-news-topic, CNN se rehusó a publicar la nueva dirección de la organización (mainstream media isn't objective, nor honest), según este artículo, donde pueden encontrarla los curiosos.
Finalmente, dice Ron Paul en su libro "Revolution: A Manifesto": "Truth is treason in an empire of lies".
Y según "Before It's News" (también alternative media), comentó que: "We need more WikiLeaks if we expect to live in a free society. In a free society we're supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble".
"The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will... They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by (the power of) government, keep them in their proper spheres."
Gouverneur Morris, 1787, (one of the authors of the U.S. Constitution)
Let alone causing the second most devastating crisis in the history of the USA, the last republican era (Bush Jr's dominion) resulted in the rich getting disgustingly richer and the middle class unacceptably poorer:
According to Harvard Magazine "... 66% of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans".
And NOW brainless FOX NEWS and fellow right-wing conservatives are blaming it on Obama that the middle class is struggling so much? HA! What nonsense. Can anyone reasonable really expect for the SH*T from 8 years to be wiped out by magic in only 2? During the upcoming elections on Nov 2nd, we really ought to consider if we want to go back to the BS that got us here in the first place.
"The current system is not capitalism but a form of state sponsored cronyism for banks. Most of us can understand that if you have a good product then by all means make a profit. This is the essence of any small business and their survival. But the banking system operates under perverse rules. They created inordinate amounts of debt products that serve no purpose and assured destruction of those taking on the product. Think of option ARMs that actually grew the balance of the mortgage! Horrible products that have destroyed large portions of the real economy and have pushed many off the middle class path. How many foreclosures could have been avoided over the past decade with more prudent banking? Yet this isn’t what the system wants. Banks wouldn’t mind if all you did was work and had to open your beat up leather wallet and pull out 99.99 percent of your net pay to service your debt. In fact, this is probably their ultimate wish..."
Panspermia, bajo la suposición de que la vida es tan "constante" en el universo como la materia/energía misma. Hm.
En algún lugar había oído algo al respecto antes...
Será Chandra Wickramashinghe algún imbécil tipo Tom Bearden, nomás que mejor maquillado?
Chandra sí tiene PhD, es profesor universitario en Inglaterra, ha publicado cientos de artículos en peer-reviewed journals, incluído Nature, la "revista" más leída y de mayor "influencia" en ciencia (en general).
[ ... ] "It would seem significant that life appears in an instant, geologically speaking, almost at the very first moment the Earth possessed a quiescent crust, an atmosphere and oceans, at the very first moment in fact that life was able to survive." [ ... ] "We agree that successive copying would accumulate errors, but such errors on the average would lead to a steady degradation of information. It is ridiculous to suppose that the information provided by one single primitive bacterium can be upgraded by copying to produce a man, and all other living things that inhabit our planet. This conventional wisdom, as it is called, is similar to the proposition that the first page of Genesis copied billion upon billions of times would eventually accumulate enough copying errors and hence enough variety to produce not merely the entire Bible but all the holding of all the major libraries of the world. The two statements are equally ridiculous. The processes of mutation and natural selection can only produce very minor effects in life as a kind of fine tuning of the whole evolutionary process. There is above all an absolute need for a continual addition of information for life, an addition that extends in time throughout the entire period for the geological record." [ ... ] "Frequent and massive gaps in the fossil record and the absence of transitional forms at the most crucial stages in the development of life show clearly that Darwinism is woefully inadequate to explain the facts." [ ... ] "... the extreme radiation resistance of certain types of bacteria, e.g. micrococcus radiodurans fall into this category. These bacterial types can withstand doses of radiation of 100,000 rem, far in excess of the radiation doses resulting from any naturally occurring sources on our planet. This glaring incongruence is in strict defiance of Darwinism. So also is the property that insects respond to ultraviolet light of wavelengths too short to be found on our planet, now or at any time in the past when life was possible."
"We cannot accept that the genes for producing great works of art or literature or music, or developing skills in higher mathematics emerged from chance mutations of monkey genes long ahead of their having any conceivable relevance for survival in a Darwinian sense..."
Hu? Claro que RAZONAR representa una ventaja evolutiva en el sentido Darwiniano. Te puedes chingar un tigre con una lanza racionalmente diseñada. Puedes administrar los recursos mejor con nociones matemáticas. ETC, ETC. La infelicidad, baja calidad de vida (carencia de recreación, que pudiese incluir al arte) y la sugestión (de creer/saber que la vida es una mierda, y no querer por ello vivirla) pueden predisponerte a la enfermedad y acelerar tu paso hacia la muerte.
"There is also a serious difficulty to understand how any re-shuffling of amino acids could occur at all in the context of a canonical terrestrial-style primeval soup. To link two amino acids together requires the removal of a water molecule and the supply of some 150 times more energy than heat in the Earth's oceans could supply. In the absence of a joining enzyme used by biology or without an excessively large flux of ultraviolet light at the ocean surface, no new arrangements could be achieved. But even if chemical barriers for the linkages are artificially and miraculously removed, the really vast improbability of 1 in 10 ^40,000 poses a serious dilemma for the whole of evolutionary science. Life could not be an accident, not just on the Earth alone, but anywhere, anywhere at all in the Universe. The facts as we now see them point to one of two distinct conclusions: an act of deliberate creation, or an indelible permanence of the patterns of life in a Universe that is eternal and boundless." [ ... ] "The notion of a creator placed outside the Universe poses logical difficulties, and is not one to which I can easily subscribe. My own philosophical preference is for an essentially eternal, boundless Universe, wherein a creator of life somehow emerges in a natural way... " [ ... ] "In the present state of our knowledge about life and about the Universe, an emphatic denial of some form of creation as an explanation for the origin of life implies a blindness to fact and an arrogance that cannot be condoned".
Many Americans have been brainwashed to the point of mistaking LIBERALISM for SOCIALISM, or even worse, thinking SOCIALISM is FASCISM. This ignorance has lead to the misinformed, prejudicial and damaging reluctance to embrace liberal policies (proposed mainly by Democrats), which would otherwise be happily accepted by the majority. Not a surprise considering how prone conservatives (most of them Republicans) are to cuts in the education budget to have some extra bucks for the army, or their own bank accounts.
Evidently the dirty work of mislabeling and defamation has worked so well that conservatives themselves really want what they incongruously claim to abhor : Based on surveys and studies by professors at Duke and Harvard, THIS REPORT showed that over 90% of AMERICANS WOULD PREFER A COUNTRY WITH THE WEALTH DISTRIBUTION OF SWEDEN, and that people are highly IGNORANT regarding the degree of inequality of today's wealth distribution in the USA. Concepts haven been so muddled up ("...the far right, for instance, has succeeded in promoting the myth that **liberalism equals socialism equals big government**", Steve Kangas), that people fanatically argue against what they don't even understand. The country is full of people who "...only embarrass themselves by attacking an ideology, only to discover they can't even define it" (Steve Kangas).
"In general, the only thing that unites liberals and socialists is the belief that corporate totalitarianism should be avoided. But they differ on how to make businesses more socially responsible, and uninformed critics who lump the two together should not be taken seriously" (Steve Kangas).
The difference between socialism and liberalism was magnificently expressed by Winston Churchill in a speech LONG time ago, but that's hardly an excuse for our society to have forgotten it: "... Liberalism is not Socialism, and never will be... there are immense differences of principle and of political philosophy between the views we put forward and the views they put forward ... Liberalism has its own history and its own tradition. Socialism has its own formulas and its own aims. Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty. Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right. Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference. Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass. Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly".
