Showing posts with label jerks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jerks. Show all posts

Saturday, 29 June 2013

Your Actions are (part of) Causing that Traffic Jam You're Stuck in*

*In the morning and evening of most large American cities (especially those surrounded by plenty of suburb), when everyone is driving their cars to their 9-5 jobs, there are simply too many vehicles on the highway for the lane capacity.  You get on the highway at the nearest entrance, and proceed to average 15mph the entire distance from your suburban home to the downtown city center where you work, frequently coming to a complete stop, never going more than 25mph at the most.

In that situation, traffic is going to go slow, no matter what.
That isn't the type of traffic jam I'm talking about.
There is also another type of traffic back up.  The kind that happens in moderate traffic.  Everyone slows down, sometimes even to a complete stop, and then a few hundred feet later, you are moving again at 50, 60, 70mph, as if nothing happened.
Sometimes this happens because there is the aftermath of a crash in the shoulder, or even across the divider on the opposite shoulder of the oncoming lane, and all the drivers feel it is very important for them to take a good look at it, because humans are just like that.  Other times its because someone is getting a traffic ticket, and, even though the cop is clearly busy at the moment, people imagine they are more likely to be caught speeding if the can see a police car.
But most often, these slow downs happen for no apparent reason at all.  You get to the front of it, and cars are accelerating just as suddenly as they slowed down.
Sometimes traffic pulses like this, fast - slow - fast - slow - fast - slow for miles.  In some places, not quite as dense as in the first example above, the daily commute does this pulse jam every single day.
When you find yourself in this situation, the choices you make can either make it better, or they can make it worse.  If you are reading this, there is a decent chance you are one of the few who makes it better already - but if you are like most people, there is a much better chance you are making it worse. 
In fact, if everyone realized what I'm about to explain, and acted appropriately, those slowdowns would never happen in the first place, but, of course, most people don't know any better, so its hard to hold it against them.
At least once you have finished reading this, there will be one more person who understands whats going on, and makes it better instead of worse.

The easiest way to understand how individual actions make the backup better or worse is with an analogy.

Lets say you are in a crowd, and for some reason everyone wants to go through a doorway as quickly as possible (the iconic burning theater, perhaps, or maybe just a Black Friday sale).
Each individual is acting as an independent free agent, and each wants their own personal speed to be as fast as possible.
What happens? 
Everyone rushes the door, and they get stuck on each other as they try to squeeze through all at once.  In extreme cases people get trampled, occasionally fatally, but even if everyone stays on their feet, the chaos amplifies the bottleneck and it takes an even longer time for everyone to get through.



Now consider an equally large crowd, but imagine they consist of a highly trained military company.  When the fire alarm goes off, instead of each individual going straight for the door and attempting to shove each other out of the way, they all immediately form a single file line down the center of the room, each taking their place based on where they started, no one "cuts in line", everyone moves at a quick but controlled pace and never any faster than the person in front of them.
In the second scenario the very last person to go through the door gets through faster than the middle person in the free-for-all scenario.
What has changed?  Each individual is moving a little bit slower, they all give each other a little more space, and no one runs around to the edge of the door to try to squeeze in from the side.  The exact things that people acting as individuals do to try to optimize their own individual escape time are what cause them to get stuck on each other and, paradoxically, means they and everyone else gets out slower.
Researchers have looked at this phenomenon of "more haste, less speed":

The desire for speed overwhelms the desire to avoid collision and the blob people jam up against one another -- just as salt can jam the shaker even though the hole is bigger than the largest grain. The room takes longer to empty even though everyone tries to move faster -- handfuls of people escape in bursts between clogging events.

You can see something analogous on the highways everyday.  Drivers attempt to go as fast as possible at all times, even when there are other cars ahead of them.   Many tend to drive as close as possible to the car ahead, much closer than the recommended 2-3 second rule from drivers-ed class.  When coming up on a line of stopped cars ahead, they will keep a foot on the accelerator as long as they possibly can before hitting the brakes hard just in time to prevent impact.  And any time one lane is temporarily going slightly faster than the one they are in, they pull into it to gain one or two car lengths over those around them. 
The overly aggressive drivers are obvious.
But almost everyone contributes, if to a lesser extent, to the same general phenomenon. 
Say every car is as close as is safe to the car ahead, in every lane, and everyone is moving at a constant rate.  Now what happens if one car wants to change lanes?  Since the cars are all as close as can be already, there is no possible way that the car can change lanes smoothly, because someone is going to have to slow to let them in, and they will have to slow to make the merge.  Now the following cars in both lanes have to brake.  And since the cars behind them were already as close as possible to them, those cars also have to brake.  And since the cars behind them... you get the idea... the stopped cars now travels back through the traffic in a wave. 
Now the same scenario - except the drivers are self-regulating like our military company escaping the burning theater: each car leaves a gap from the car ahead of them large enough that another car can safely merge in front of them.
Now when a car inevitably needs to change lanes, they can do so without slowing down, and without making the car behind them slow down.  They and the car behind them will want to reopen the gap that they just filled, but this can be done gradually over time, with only minor adjustments to speed, and the wave of stopped cars never occurs.

Traffic engineers can control individual driver behavior by putting in deliberate bottlenecks, called metering lights - the kind found at toll plazas and some on-ramps, where everyone is supposed to wait just a couple seconds before they merge with traffic.  Everyone ends up on the highway, but that moment of waiting forces everyone to space themselves out, and even though you had to wait, it is more than made up for by higher average speeds for everyone - including you. 
Sometimes you can even see a similar effect from lane closures or rubbernecking - a section of highway that is moderately backed-up everyday, but on one occasion has a lane closed for construction or due to an accident, if its near the beginning of your trip, occasionally has you get to your destination faster than usual.  As the cars slow down for the bottleneck, and then reach the end and start to accelerate one at a time, they spread themselves out, just like a metering light would have done. 
An identical effect is seen with the crowd of pedestrians trying to get through a doorway; putting an obstacle in the way of the exit actually makes the crowd get though it faster.


Most fire codes require that the pathway to an emergency exit be kept wide open, but according to researchers in Japan, placing an obstruction next to an exit may actually help crowds of people to get out of a room more efficiently.

Researchers found that when people bottleneck near an exit, they start to jostle each other for position. The jostling acts much like friction, slowing down the rate at which people can exit. Introducing a strategically-placed obstacle near the exit can reduce the number of people pushing for the exit, speeding up the rate at which people can pass through.

"We found that we can evacuate faster if we put an obstacle at the suitable position in front of the exit," said Daichi Yanagisawa, who lead the study from the University of Tokyo in Japan.
Even without metering lights, though, you can make a conscious choice to help traffic you are in move more smoothly.
Pay attention to the road ahead.  If you see an ocean of brake lights up ahead, take your foot off the accelerator.  There is no point in racing to be the first to come to a stop.  Resist the urge to change lanes every time one appears to be going slightly faster, unless you have enough space that you can do it without anyone having to slow down for you. Leave a big enough gap between you and the car ahead of you that someone else could safely merge in front of you without you having to slow down.  That applies at any speed, from stop and crawl to over the posted limit** - not only will it smooth out traffic flow, it will also reduce your chances of being involved in a collision, not to mention reduce other people's road rage.  No one can cut you off if you choose to slow down and let them in.
That means people will get it front of you.
And that's ok.
At as slow as 10mph, one car length costs you all of one second.  At 35 it costs you one third of one second.  Big freggin deal!  Let 50 cars get in front of you on a trip with a 45mph average speed, and you get where you are going all of 30 seconds later than you would have had you made sure to be the one to go first.
Not only have you made 50 people a little happier, but you have helped traffic flow a little better for all the people behind you, all the way back down the highway.
Better still, when you are coming up to one of those pointless braking waves, and you start slowing down well in advance, often times it will have completely cleared itself up by the time you get to where it was.  Which means by simply taking your foot off the accelerator, you never have to brake at all.  By avoiding coming to a complete stop, your average speed ends up being higher!  Its quite like timing traffic lights - if you try to go faster than the timed lights are designed for, you have to stop for the red, and someone driving at the speed limit will pass you just as it turns green again while you are accelerating from a stand still.
And if driving with less pointless starting and stopping, less stress, and helping to clear up traffic jams wasn't enough, this also happens to be the best way to minimize fuel when driving in traffic, so you save cash too, along with the environment and America's energy independence. 

Next time you are driving, think about this essay.  When someone exits in front of you, leaving a huge gap between you and the next car, don't rush to catch up.  When you are entering the highway, and the on-ramp is clear but the merging lane is slow, don't stay on the on-ramp until the very last second and then cross over the solid white line in an attempt to pass as many other cars as possible.  You are saving yourself a negligible amount of time, probably less than a second, but you are creating a braking wave that will snarl the traffic behind you potentially for miles.  Think about the orderly single file line, and how much faster everyone exits the building.  Everyone else is going to drive how they are going to drive, but at least you won't be making it worse.  And who knows, if enough of us start doing it, a few others might just take notice, and sooner or later stop and go traffic waves will simply cease to exist.

Thursday, 6 September 2012

Advertisements that only work due to ignorance and stupidity

I don't generally see a lot of ads, thanks to AdBlock on the computer and a RePlayTV unit that automatically skips them when I watch an occasional show, but between Hulu, the few that get past the RePlay's filters, and billboards, I can't seem to escape them entirely.
Which is fine, they are paying for me to have free content, some of them are entertaining, and every once in a great while actually informative.

But there are 3 out right now which grate against me so severely that the only way I'm going to be able to stop ranting in my own head about them is to rant on the internet.

They are deliberately relying on consumer's ignorance in order to try to convey a message which simply isn't there - the facts are technically accurate, but the implication is actually the exact opposite of reality.


1) The new milk campaign, attempting to discredit soy milk:



They list a bunch of scary sounding "chemicals" that soy milk contains, to contrast with cow milk, which according to the ingredient list has only one ingredient: "milk".
Never mind that the list of scary sounding chemicals they list consists almost entirely of vitamins and minerals which are actually quite healthy, or neutral at worst.

So, in the interest of fairness, here are some scary sounding chemicals that are present in cow's milk:


  • oligosaccharides
    galactose
    pantothenic acid
    phosphorus
    selenium
    manganese
    lipoprotein lipase
    inactivated alkaline phosphatase
    lactoperoxidase
    C16:0 ß-hydroxy fatty acids
    conjugated linoleic acid*
    α-lactalbumin
    blood serum albumin
    transferrin
    high proline micelle
    methionine
    cholin
    cerebrosides
Golly.  Don't all those chemicals sound unknown, and therefor scary? 


*(which is a TRANSfat omg!!!!!!!! - but wait, aren't transfats all man-made and added by the evil food industry????  What?  Some transfats are naturally occurring? How can that be, when everything natural is good and healthy, and all transfats are devil food??)



2) 5-hour energy:



73% "said they would recommend a low-calorie energy supplements to their healthy patients who used energy supplements. 73%!"
Wow!  That's a C- grade.
Ok, so never mind that 73% is not particularly impressive.

Never mind that if it has no calories it has no actual energy.  It may make you feel energetic, but the human body gets its energy from calories, not stimulants.  (Don't believe it, try going on a fast where you consume nothing but cocaine for a few months)

And never mind that almost 1/2 the doctors they tried to survey refused to participate in the first place...


They worded it pretty carefully.  Sounds like they handed out a survey that said "if you had a patient who was determined to take an energy supplement, would you recommend that it be low calorie?"
Well, sure, given that constraint, of course.
Just like IF you have a patient that smokes, you might recommend that at the very least they smoke light, filtered cigarettes.  That's not exactly an endorsement.
And even with that particular wording, 27% still wouldn't recommend it.
But wait - there's more!
If you read the fine print, even among those who would recommend low calorie energy supplements to patients who are going to take energy supplements anyway, after reviewing the ingredients of the specific 5-Hour Energy brand, 45% of them would NOT recommend it!  45%!

So, assuming that the 1/2 of doctors who refused to dignify their survey with an answer would not have been impressed, you have 50% (number who answered at all) x 73% (number who said yes to low calorie) x 55% (number of those who said yes to the brand) = 20% who actually said they would recommend the product IF a person was dead-set on using an "energy supplement".

We can only assume that the number who would recommend it to a patient who wasn't already on legal stimulants is approximately 0%



3) No On Beverage Tax



This is a local one, but similar measures are being proposed all over.
It isn't even a ballot measure yet, but the soda industry and retailers are fighting it preemptively.  In theory it would tax beverages with added sugar by one penny an ounce.

The ad claims that it would "hit the city’s poorest residents and the elderly the hardest"

Because, you know, poor people and old people are legally mandated to drink nothing but soda. 
Or is it that their unique physiological properties make it that the empty calories in soda are actually a nutritional requirement? 

Ah, I know - some people are SO poor that, not only aren't there supermarkets nearby with real juice, they don't have running water, so their only source of liquid is the soda they buy at the gas station.

Wait... what?  Gas stations and corner stores sell not only 100% juice, but also bottled water? Hmm....

Whoa, whoa, whats that!?  Running water is legally required in all rental units, including the projects and even homeless shelters, and many if not most renters don't actually pay for metered water?  Are you saying all these poor people could actually be drinking water for FREE?

And even if one does pay metered rate for tap water, its cost is between one half to 5 cents a gallon?  Now you are just being silly. 
That would mean that even without the tax, generic brand soda costs roughly 35 times as much as tap water for the exact same nutritional value. 
Gosh, so maybe drinking water would save more money than traveling to a city without a beverage tax to find cheap soda, as the ad campaign suggests is the only possible alternative.



I suppose its good that we have any truth in advertising laws at all, but I really think we need to take the next step and ban "technically accurate but deliberately deceptive and misleading in it's implications" advertising as well.

Sunday, 24 January 2010

Micheal Scott has it right


  • Jan 24, 2010

Micheal Scott has it right

On the popular TV show "The Office", the branch manager is a bit of a doofus.  He's not all that bright, he is totally obsessed with having his employees like him on a personal level, and he has very little knowledge of actual business or management theory.
He makes his superiors wring their hands and shake their heads - but the thing is, his office's sales record is the best in the company, so despite his many, many faux pax, he always keeps his job.

Nobody can quite figure out how he manages to do such a good job in spite of himself.

Even though he tells them quite clearly, time and again.

He considers his employees family.
He wants his customers to feel cared for.
He is more interested in making people happy than in making money.

You can't learn to be community based and to value clients as actual people in business school.  You can't use the idea of caring about people and being friendly to increase the bottom line, because if your interest is in the bottom line, you aren't genuinely interested in people.  You can't fake authenticity. 



Its either about the love, or its about money. Once you start thinking about rate of return ratios, receivables balance fractions, risk-adjusted profitability, or marginal value-added pricing structures, and all the other things one learns in business school, you are far beyond the point of seeing every person you work for and every person you work with as numbers.

From there it is a very slippery slope to the scenario described by "Jack" in Fight Club: If the cost of the average rate of settlement times the expected rate of failure is less than the cost of a recall for a known deadly manufacturing error, we don't do the recall.
In the end it comes down to morality.  Its either being moral, or maximizing profit.  They are mutually exclusive.

No business is going to have as their slogan "All we care about is your money", and a lot of them try in ads to sound like it isn't true; for any public corporation it is actually illegal for them to consider anything else above the bottom line - if they tried the shareholders could sue. 
For the vast majority of companies jumping on the band wagon, being environmentally responsible is a marketing gimmick as much as a catchy jingle.

Thinking in terms of doing productive work for society while earning fair compensation, as opposed to thinking of how to maximize revenue while minimizing costs will not (always) lead to the highest possible profits.

It will, I think, mean that business actually increases while the rest of the country is in an economic downturn.  It means getting so many referrals its necessary to turn jobs down after going a year and a half without any form of advertising.  It means when, inevitably, mistakes are made, no customer ever makes a claim, because they realize they are not just numbers, that every attempt to be careful was made, all actions in good faith. 
It means that quite a few of my customers make me meals while I'm working.

If a job is a paycheck, it will show through to the customer, no matter how you try to hide it.
If I am ever in a position to hire anyone, my first question will not be about education or experience or abilities or references.  My first and most important question is just this: Why do you want the job?  If its about pay and benefits, no matter how qualified, its "next please".

It has to be about the love.

Tuesday, 4 August 2009

Hate, now in a rainbow of colors




  • Aug 4, 2009

Hate, now in a rainbow of colors

A number of things I have read recently have had the same saddening undertones to me lately.

Whether its queer folk expressing prejudice against heterosexuals, feminists who hate men, or people of color claiming that white activists who have no money coming into their neighborhood is a “gentrification” issue. http://www.anarchistnews.org/?q=node/8794

I hear about "gentrification" here in
Oakland too.
Oakland has rent control, which means no tenant can be forced out or have their rent raised dramatically just because local property valuations have gone up.
Raising the average income in an area serves to increase the tax base, lower crime, and is not bad for a neighborhood.  If, thanks to rent control, no one is being displaced this means that, like in the clash between anarchists in
Pittsburgh, what people are really fighting for is something activists spent years trying to dismantle: segregation.

Bigotry which comes from an oppressed group is still just as much bigotry as it is when it comes from wealthy straight white men. 
In all cases it is counter-productive.
Activists, please - stop alienating your allies just because they look different than you.

That is exactly what they want us to do.

Sunday, 24 May 2009

Counter-protest / Not that there's anything wrong with it


  • May 24, 2009

Counter-protest / Not that there's anything wrong with it

 

A friend of mine insists that I seem really gay (despite this friend being female, and us sleeping together).
As evidence she questioned someone I had just met, who agreed that whatever I was, she doubted it was straight.
As I found this more than a little strange, I proceeded to ask other people if they thought that when they first met me.
Responses mixed, but I was surprised to find some people agreed with their assessment.

The reasons I got included: that I seem comfortable with myself and others, comfortable in my own skin (mind you, I was in my own home at the time), and that I am not a sleazy slimeball.

I definitely consider those both to be very positive (and, I like to imagine, accurate) things to say about me, but it leaves an absolutely terrible implication for like, all straight men everywhere. 
Like, (aside from gay guys and me), they are all fake, all of the time (or at least around women), always trying to show off or prove something, I suppose, or one way or another acting (presumably for the chance to have sex with everyone they meet).
I have a lot of trouble believing that.



Having an inside pass, I do know that this is terribly common.  Disturbingly common.
But if it is perceived to be universal...
Perhaps this is why nice guys finish last.  Women perceive guys who are just regular, decent human beings as all being gay.

When I was younger I used to believe that everyone is naturally bi, and it is only social conditioning that makes us suppress it.  I was raised in an extremely liberal household by an openly bi former hippy who was totally honest and through in education on all topics. 
(A note for the anti-sex-ed folk: nothing can make sex less appealing to a young person than hearing about it in detail from one's mother.  Statistics show that repressive communities have a far higher teen birth rate.  I on the other hand waited until 21, and then only because the other person insisted).
I grew up not just watching but participating in the gay parade.  It was a while before I understood that a certain anonymous alcohol recovery support group was not in fact specifically for the LGBT community.  Many of my best childhood memories was of Camp Lavender Hill, where every kid was from a LGBT family.  So I was open-minded.
Then I got the opportunity to test the theory.
Turns out I was wrong.
It just doesn't do it for me.
Not at all.
Even years later, I tell myself I "should" be more open-minded.  Nothing can make me lose interest in sex faster than watching gay porn.

I am neutral on the gender tests I have taken, and I'm proud of that.  I may act effeminate by this society's standards - mainly because I am totally oblivious to the standards.  I probably wouldn't act the way I am "supposed to" even if I knew, but the truth is I don't.  When I think about it, I don't see what I could do that wouldn't be a blatant caricature of what it means to be Manly.  I think of flannel, a big belt buckle, beer, and slapping women I barely know on the ass.  I think of constantly challenging other guys to frivolous competitions and asking total strangers for her number on the sole basis of her being "hot".  Who does these things?  How can anyone take them seriously? 

On the Kinsey scale I am all the way over to the right.  I can recognize when a guy is cute.  I have kissed a few guys.  I have even gone much further than that once.  And it all causes exactly zero erotic response for me.  Even when there is a physical response from the physical stimuli, its just not sexy (and yes, I don't know how this isn't common knowledge, but the physical and mental responses are totally separate things, and it is entirely possible to have either without the other.  They generally tend to be associated, but they are separate things.)
I may be sensitive, caring, introspective, open with my feelings, honest and not at all manipulative; but the thing is I REALLY like having sex with women.  I mean, a lot.  If I could find a partner to match, we would spend at least a few hours each day on it.  I just can't even put it in words.  I walk around a college campus, a beach, some special event, all these incredible girls walking around, ohhhh, on a hot day, skin showing, dude - I can't even write this without driving myself crazy.  Remembering race day last week for example.  I could melt.  Melt onto her.  Melt into her.  Her too.  Screw all my convictions and preferences about partnership and commitment - look at that girl right there, her face, that curve where hip meets waist, firm little belly, that smile oh my god I want that girl...
That's what makes me straight.  That, and when I see or think about two guys that way (or one and me) my deepest reaction is I feel a little sick inside, (which, incidentally, allows me to understand homophobia.  Sure, they are bigoted jack-asses who buy into what some book written thousands of years ago tells them to believe -  but ultimately homophobia comes from a raw emotional place, just like for the pro-life people).




On race day I could understand people who didn't know me assuming I was gay, given the circumstances.

The Bay to Breakers, you probably know, is an annual running race is San Francisco which is unique in that it is simultaneously a legitimate competitive race in which people fly in from all over the world to compete for $74,000 in prize money, and a moving festival/party with giant floats, free alcohol, public nudity, and all manner of silly costumes.

This was my 3rd year competing, and as always I combine the two elements by actually running the course, but not wearing traditional running attire.  Its the one time a year I don my stripper outfit - silver swimsuit and a bowtie.
I hoped to beat last years time by 11 minutes.  To improve on last years haphazard practicing I started training earlier, made a schedule, kept a log, and made sure to begin my recovery earlier (I started last years race sore).  I trained smarter - but not harder.  I skipped on rainy days and never made up for them.  I did do one long run (11miles), but I never matched last year's 4 repeats on the 300ft-in-one-block hill near my house.
In the end I beat my old time but only by 30 seconds.
On the plus side I ended the race with very little soreness or pain, and for the first time had the strength and energy to walk around, see costumes and meet up with friends instead of just lying in the grass for an hour and then going home like last year.

As I began walking back the way I had come I noticed some of those "God Hates Sinners" people with their giant signs and bull horns who come out to every public party type event in San Fransisco.

And I got a spontaneous idea for a simple counter-protest.
No words.  No sign. 
I, dressed like a male stripper, still listening to my MP3 player music, stood near them, and began to dance. 



Fun.  Life.  Free. Joy.  Dance.  No one gets hurt.  How can anyone say dancing and enjoying a beautiful day like this is something God hates?  God invented all this. 
I just happen to not being wearing a lot of clothes.  Hell, humans invented clothes.  God puts us here naked.  I'm not even gay.  I'm not Catholic either.  (Catholic is in the largest font on the list of things God hates).  I think my implication was understood because all the people passing by began to cheer and wave and take pictures - which must have confused my Christian friends, as I had come from behind and they had no way to know I was there.
Eventually they turned around, and said something I couldn't hear over my headphones, and tried to move away from me a little.  Then I went on to put on another show near a different set of the same group a little up the road.  I was told by a couple people that I was their hero. 
I was just happy to make people's experience of passing by the hate filled religious fanatics a more positive and entertaining one.
I'm thinking, maybe a worthwhile annual tradition...

Monday, 4 February 2008

Evil will always win. But its OK



  • Feb 4, 2008

Evil will always win. But its OK

Whether history teaches us to be optimistic or pessimistic is only a matter of when and where you choose to look.

There have been wars at least as long as there has been civilization - which of course continues to today.
Empires have risen, Persian, Chinese, Mongolian, Ottoman, Aztec, Inca, British, USSR.
Some lasted for centuries, some covered the majority of the world (that the culture knew of).
Every one of them fell, for one reason or another, eventually.

That could give hope that the US, which is extending influence both culturally, politically, and militarily throughout the world, will inevitably follow - but its seems obvious that it will be replaced by another - no matter the ideals in begins in, it will inevitably grow corrupt. They all do.

In the 3rd century BC the Egyptian library/museum at Alexandria contained the collected knowledge of the Egyptian and Greek civilizations, the largest in the world. While the circumstances of its destruction are debated, it was apparently due to some combination of war and religious fundamentalism.

The civilizations of the Mediterranean created, among other things, plumbing, calculus, and democracy (but only for white male property owners) - and at the hight of the Roman Empire, a popular spectator sport involved watching humans fight to the death, and eventually flooding the coliseum to create mock sea battles - but with real weapons - for the entertainment of government and the wealthy.
In the Dark Ages, as Rome fell, much of the infrastructure was allowed to fall to ruins, and everything from libraries to aqueducts was lost - along with the education and intellectual development that had accompanied it, and much already acquired knowledge and technology was lost.
Then came about the forced conversion of people in Europe, Asia, and Africa to Christianity and Islam, as well as wars between the two (the Crusades) - ultimately spreading throughout the world, and, of-course, lasting to the present.
Europe's renaissance consisted largely of no more than the re-discovery of things which had been previously known, but lost.

For every Ghandi there has been a Hitler and a Mussolini. For every Roosevelt and Carter we've had a Regan, A Bush, and a Bush Jr. Lenin's "people's revolution" turned quickly into Stalin's purges.
Che failed to start a revolution, and after all of Chavez's work, today immigrants still work in pesticide laden fields for far less than minimum wage while middle class Americans with far more comfortable lives advocate criminalizing them for it.


For all the noise the anti-war movement made, American troops pulled out because the North Vietnamese won.
In fact, the non-violent success Ghandi seemingly had happened to be at a time when the British Empire was already in decline with Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Egypt, and Iraq becoming officially fully independent in (or around) 1931, and their military over extended worldwide - a guerrilla war with Ireland, the aftermath of WWII, and calls (and actions) for independence throughout the British Empire in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. For 40 years India had sought independence, but it was not until these - often violent - worldwide events came along that it was finally granted.
Then, almost immediately, (as British representatives had predicted) the country split, and the potentially violent stand-off between newly formed Pakistan and India (both of which have nukes) has lasted to this day. So much for non-violence.





There have been advances in the Western World in civil rights, and yet they are also under constant attack, and undermined in complex and creative new ways. Spirituality offers some personal growth, health and happiness, while the largest portion of the world knows it through organized religion, the most powerful (Christianity and its estranged twin Islam) are anti-science and reason, anti-democratic, anti-individual, anti-sex, and, basically, anti-happiness. The caste system, subjugation, and untold amounts of violence are attributed to "God(s)". In the past the strength of religion has risen and fallen, and we may well be in an up cycle once again, as Islam and Christianity move towards stronger fundamentalists bases - the latter being the larger threat, since it affects the worlds only super power.

Whether monarchy or republic ("democracy") a small group of wealthy elites rules, with privilege inherited instead of earned.


It should come as no surprise, for one very simple principal:

Evil (or those who are more than willing to bring harm upon others for personal gain), will always be willing to do anything it takes to get ahead, to secure power, to gain wealth. Whatever rules there may be, evil will break. What ever morals society may have, evil lacks. How can anything or anyone compete with that?
If someone with good intentions stays within the rules, they are not only at a severe disadvantage from the start, but if they become too successful, they are risking assassination. He who does not accept corporate campaign contributions is never heard of by the general public.
When one takes the tactic of evil to defeat it, one becomes that which is being fought.
If good, caring, progressive, giving people bend the rules a little for the greater good, the slippery slope snowballs oh so quickly, and they end up just a competing faction of evil.

Our "democracy" works perfectly, because we have the illusion of distributed power, so that no one feels, on principal, repressed, and citizens have an abundance of material goods, which they fear losing too much to ever risk revolution. It makes the system stable. Change will never come from within - not unless things get much much worse first.

Why, then after so much seeming historical negativity, did I begin with the claim that there is equal optimism to be found?
The answer is as simple and clear as the argument that evil will always win;
Life is not, and never has been, about the large scale political and social details which are the focus of so much attention.

Life is about the warm sunshine on an early fall afternoon.
Life is about cold ice cream or a juicy orange on a hot summer day.
Life is about sex and affection with one's partner under the covers at night while the rain or snow falls cold outside and makes little patter patter noises outside on the roof and windows.
Life is an engrossing book, or coming home tired but satisfied after a successful day of work.
Its the extra attention you get when you're sick, and the feeling of getting better again, the smell of dinner just before that first bite, unexpected good fortune, and games on the weekend. Life is friends, music, sport, relaxation, children, learning, conversations, all of these little tiny things that fill up each day that seem to pale in comparison to the significance of war and famine - but in truth those things are only important because they interrupt those little things for a while, those little things which are, in fact, everything.
Of course it would be nice were it possible to end all war forever. But there has always been war, (even before there were mammals) and there always will be, because it will be to some people's advantage to take from others, always. But after its over, and new lines are drawn on the maps, the sunshine will still be there. Love, which exists only inside of us, will exist so long as a human is still breathing on this planet.

Saving the world is futile. The world has been as it is (for all practical purposes) forever, and there seems to be no good reason to think it will not continue to be. This is not reason to despair. Just the opposite. For this entire time, everywhere, there exists happiness. Happiness is not merely a reflection of the political system one lives under, or income. Happiness is an emotion that we, as sentient beings, are capable of experiencing. And so we do.

If you can not save the world, if one person can almost never make a real and lasting difference, it gives good people a little more flexibility. One does not fault them self for not stopping the eruption of volcanoes or earthquakes. At most we may try to predict them, perhaps minimize the damage, but we recognize that its going to happen sooner or later, that no individual or group has the capacity or power to "fix" or eliminate the threat. So to with the nature of humanity. Violence and greed are a part of human nature, as they are a part of nature, as we are a part of nature.
Do good if you can. By all means; most certainly; why not?
Do no harm. If you know better, if you feel a morality based on living things capacity to feel (as opposed to the more common version based on what a book or the community dictates), live your own life in such a way that you do not make things worse.
If it works out well for you, since you must work anyway for you own sustenance, work in a field that in some way, makes things a little better for someone. If it is something you enjoy, volunteer. These things are noble, admirable, and only good can come from them.
Just don't expect miracles. Don't sacrifice your life to a cause. We have only this one life (probably) and a life not enjoyed is a life wasted. A life not enjoyed is the most tragic thing imaginable.
Have the courage to change the things you can, but also accept the things you can not change.

Do something good for yourself.
Go out and enjoy the sunshine.

Yes, evil must inevitably win in the long run, every time.
But that's ok.

It's sunny out today.

Thursday, 21 June 2007

Land Rover ad makes it explicit


  • Jun 21, 2007

Land Rover ad makes it explicit

after listing off fancy technological off road features, the voice over says:

"despite the probability that you won't, the LR2 is designed for the possibility that you will"

American consumer mindset, right there.

Our homes, our cars, the self-storage industry (which has only existed since the 1970s and has doubled in the past few years) all guided by that principal.

Lets all take what we can grab before it runs out...
(and try to forget that it wouldn't be running out if we weren't all grabbing)

Wednesday, 20 June 2007

Prius v. my own Hypocrisy



  • Jun 20, 2007

Prius v. my own Hypocrisy

Auto ads today would have you believe that 30-35 mpg is amazingly good.

35 is awful!
We have the technology to have affordable passenger vehicles that get 100mpg.
I'll avoid the technical details, but the potential is absolutely there. Without being a hybrid. Seriously. Trust me.

A small part of it is the industry's refusal to do it.
But the primary reason they don't exist is us.

You and I, my friend.

I just read an article in Mother Jones about this guy who volunteered with Habitat for Humanity - that is, until they wanted to put a couple of affordable homes in HIS neighborhood! Then he began to protest and look for legal recourse against his former organization's work.

We look down on him, but we are all him. We are happy to help, as long as the cost to ourselves is negligible.

We are unhappy with a car that takes 20 seconds to go 0-60, maxes out at 85, has room for only 1 passenger, a small trunk, seats with minimal padding, no A/C or heat, manual transmission, manual steering, no power brakes, no power anything.

And so I look at how popular the Prius is; even though the Insight was available years earlier, and gets nearly twice the average mileage (35-40 vs 70); even though 90% of or trips have one or no passengers, even though the speed limit is 65 and we rarely exceed it by more than 15mph or so - we want to know that we could carry 4 passengers at 95mph, and so the Insight doesn't sell, and is discontinued, while the Prius, with its pathetic 35-40 has a waiting list.


And what I realized is:
I drive. My (motor)bike gets 55-60mpg; good, about as good as available for a freeway speed capable machine sold today. That's still a lot of gas getting burned, a lot of pollutants in the air. Just to save me an hour of travel time here and there. Yes, my truck runs on 100% vegetable oil - but it has its own form of pollution, and it still has to come from somewhere, it has to get transported. I ride my bike to work...most days. Which means sometimes I don't. Yes, I have an ultra-efficient home - but it saves me money, plus I enjoy it.
So what, really, am I sacrificing?

And so, in my self-righteousness, I am exactly like the Prius owner.
I work for a non-profit and split my tips with the Coalition; but I don't volunteer (and I have no intention of starting to).
I am vegetarian, but mainly because the thought of eating flesh is sickening.

I guess it is a part of the human mind to despise most those people whose faults match our own most closely.

The people who abhor welfare usually inherited wealth or at least education and connections.
The anti-sex are secretly perverted, and the strongest homophobes are often as not gay. Narcs steal from the evidence room, and the woman who sent hate mail to the guy from the example above who stopped volunteering for Habitat, her home is just as expensive as his.
The deeply religious feel guilt for all their own sins (Christianity's appeal is that all sins are forgiven, as long as you have faith).

I always found the religious to be the most hypocritical and disturbing of all.
To apply the trend I have found, that must mean I am secretly religious myself...


... ... ...




Nnnoope!

Not even a little.

So, I guess that destroys my whole theory about indignant hypocrisy. Sometimes we just dislike something because its stupid; it doesn't have to be projection. That's good. I feel better now. Damn Priuses.

Friday, 6 April 2007

It turns out my neighbor ISN'T a crack head!



  • Apr 6, 2007

It turns out my neighbor ISN'T a crack head!

It's heroin, not crack.

Not that I am surprised.  I just use the term "crack-head" because it's got a certain ring to it, which "heroin-addict" lacks.

I hear from one of my former neighbors, who bought some of my furniture today, that the crazy pet-abusing child-threatening neighbor-robbing 3-broken-car-owning driveway-full-of-crap trailer trash neighbor is actually being evicted!

Hooray!

Apparently despite the drug sales, the credit card fraud, the identity theft, and the burglary, he still couldn't pay the rent.
Supposedly that time the cops were here for so long, it was for his girl, not for him.  That explains why she hasn't been around for a while.  Supposedly she will be away for a good while, from all the identity theft she was caught involved in.
The former neighbor who told me all this, she warned me to watch out.  Now that he's being evicted (dear god I hope they take his kid) he has nothing to lose from hurting his neighbors - especially ones he has a grudge against, i.e. ME. 
So, one of these days something of mine will be missing, or maybe there will be a brick through the window of the truck or trailer.
But, it will be worth it!
Won't have to deal with him ever again after that.  Won't have to listen to him cursing and threatening his 2 year old for walking more than 5 ft away from the driveway.  Won't have to worry about the revenge that might or might not be coming some day.  Won't have to worry about drunkenness giving him the courage to actually start a fight - I'd have the advantage of being sober and not an idiot, but he'd have the advantage of surprise, size and weight, and probably countless street and prison fights in the past.  Considering that he already has nothing, I couldn't even sue for damages.  Even if I "won", nothing good could come of it.
But it may be a moot point very soon.  He didn't pay his rent.  They're throwing him out.
Ding-Dong the witch is dead!  Which old witch?  The wicked witch!

Tuesday, 19 December 2006

on so called "conspiracy theories"


·                     Dec 19, 2006

on so called "conspiracy theories"

The pain ray, and the video I saw, and the comments on it, and looking up the PNAC, and from there about the "conspiracy theories" surrounding 9/11/01, got me thinking about all that again.

Obviously there are some theories out there which are born of hear-say, conjecture, misinformation, and ignorance.
Others have not really been addressed in any serious way - and probably could not be.
The people who object to them, (Popular Mechanics, John McCain, 9/11myths.com) tend to point out the reasons why such and such could have physically happened the way the official version says it did, or why such and such theory is impossible.
They then also say something along the lines of it being both unscientific and and detrimental to America to suggest such things.
But how it happened is not the point, and never was.



Never mind that they were supposedly unable to find any of 4 blackboxes at the WTC center site (which are specifically designed to withstand a crash -  that is the entire point of their existence - and give of a signal to aid in their recovery) but they were able to find a passport made of paperwithin hours - which happened to belong to one of the "terrorists"; it could happen.
Never mind that the damage to the pentagon was substantially smaller than the size of the plane which was supposed to have hit it, and that there was no sign of pieces of wing, engine or other plane parts visible anywhere on the site (or that video of the event was confiscated, or that it just happened to hit the one wing of the building which had just been reinforced and was largely empty due to the renovation), perhaps the engines vaporized but the fuselage punched through, could happen.
Never mind that WTC 7 (which housed the FBI, CIA, and SEC - including the files on prosecuting Enron and dozens of other corrupt corporations) collapsed entirely due to fire and being hit with falling debris - unlike WTC 3, 4, 5, 6 and every other building in the area - which is unprecedented in all the rest of history.  That too could be a coincidence.

If every thing physically happened exactly the way the official version says, that does not in anyway make it less likely Americans - and specifically the government - was directly involved.
If they were, we would likely never know.
They certainly had a lot to gain from it, much more than the Islamists did.

It would not have taken much.
Say 1/10 the members of the PNAC ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC , http://www.newamericancentury.org/), 5 high level, trusted CIA agents, and 2 or three trusted Saudi Arabians, Bin Ladens perhaps.  The PNAC is the primary think tank of the neocon movement, and includes people who have held high government positions for the past half century and other rich and powerful people, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, Richard Armitage, Dan Quayle, and Steve Forbes.

They plan what the targets should be, maximum effect, minimum actual damage, and believable.  Something symbolic, but not catastrophic.  A military target to justify a military response, and plenty of civilian deaths to get the American people agitated.  They provide limited cash, but that's it, for fear of ever being caught. Mostly what they would have provided was the idea, what to do, how to do it.  They would have wanted clues planted well in advance - for example, having the volunteers train at a US flight school, when they could just as easily trained in their own country.  They might have made sure to set up certain training exercises, certain security camera angles, stuff which could seem perfectly innocent, but which would help make it easier to carry out, and easier to know who to blame.  Bin Laden's original idea was to hit some 10-20 targets at once, on both coasts, but they would have shot that idea down, because they wanted to limit the actual damage.  Then, through the Arab contacts, they found some people looking to martyr themselves.  The actual hijackers have no idea that they are actually enacting a plan partially developed by and for the US leadership, they feel they are doing Gods work by killing thousands of corrupt infidels.  And the end result is the Islamists are able to up their recruiting a million percent, and the PNAC gets almost absolute power and one step closer to their stated goal of world domination.
Their principals (emphasis mine):
• we [the US] need to increasedefense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interestsand values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

They spelled out in better detail how to achieve this in a report they released in 2000: (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

"while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein"
"Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".

"...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool"

"...the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."

This last one is most telling, since there is strong evidence that the US government, including possibly President Roosevelt, knew that the Japanese were planning the attack, and deliberately failed to warn the base because a surprise attack would better appal the American people and build their support for the war.
( http://www.thenewamerican.com/departments/feature/1999/070499.htm   http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp   http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?eventID=28 )

Had someone suggested in 1972 that the president of the United States personally knew about and authorized secret agents to literally break into his political opponents hotel room in order to find information to be used against him in the coming campaign, most ordinary people would have called them a "conspiracy theorist".  But they would have been right. Had some one suggested that the US government sent CIA officials to assassinate the democratically elected rulers of socialist South American countries, or that the administration was making arms trade deals with Iran to fund insurgents in a democratic society, they would be labeled a "conspiracy theorist".  But these things happened. There is this stigma attached to the word "conspiracy" as though it belief in one automatically makes them insane or at least without credibility.  But the fact remains that conspiracies exist.  A conspiracy is just a group of people getting together to discuss the details of a crime.  The rich and powerful commit crime just as often as anyone else.  And often times they work together.  Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, and CIA support of military coups against the democratically elected governments in Chile, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, including the murder of their leaders, as well as the many unsuccessful attempts to do the same in Cuba, were all conspiracies.  The only reason some ideas are conspiracy "theories" is because insufficient evidence exists to prove them.  Which you would expect, if the conspirators had covered their tracks well.
We know these things happened, and yet, being so long ago (20 years?) we conclude they are no longer relevant, and choose to continue to believe that something like that could never happen.

What is important is not proving whether or not the official version of 9/11 - physically - is accurate.  To say that one should never question the purity of the American government is to insure that if they ever tried to do something like that, they would succeed.  Indeed, if they were in anyway involved, the best way to prevent any real investigation, to prevent being questioned, is to accuse anyone who doubts them of being unpatriotic.  This is exactly what Pop Mec and McCain have said (and I used to really like him).  This is what millions of American citizens think to themselves.  This is what we are up against.  That is the major element which 1984 failed to fully address - the strength of internalization of patriotism, the support for a leader - any leader.  The government does not need to have a two way screen in your living room TV so long as your neighbors will report unAmerican activity.  Reporting unattended bags may be just the first step.  Of course, doesn't hurt to watch us as well.  The British government is planning to use their extensive network of public cameras to track the trips of every vehicle in the country.  I doubt the computer power to do that exists, but it certainly will soon.

This should be an interesting next few decades, if nothing else.

Saturday, 9 September 2006

20; How Would Jesus Drive?


  • Sep 9, 2006

20; How Would Jesus Drive?

I just got cut off by someone with a Jesus "fish" on their car on the freeway.
I believe Jesus would use His turn signals.

For that matter, I doubt He would be driving a large SUV in an urban area, with just Himself in a 7 passenger vehicle

Friday, 8 September 2006

19; in which America has no moral grounds to disarm anyone


  • Sep 8, 2006

19; in which America has no moral grounds to disarm anyone

In all of history, nuclear arms have been used only one time.
It was by the US.

We bombed two civilian cities, not military targets.

We did nothing to help in Rwanda

We have more biological and chemical weapon knowledge and reserves than anyone (even if we promise to never use them)

We do not set out to save the world, we set out to protect our own interests.

We didn't care that Hitler was engaged in genocide before we were attacked.

There are no examples which show that we are benevolent, moral caretakers of the world.
We are hardly in a position to tell others they can't have weapons.

Funny thing is, a lot of those in support of an armed America and unarmed everyone else, are often the same ones who oppose gun control, because the government has no right to say who should be armed and who not...  

Friday, 1 September 2006

Passage 15 ; in which half of American drivers don't signal


  • Sep 1, 2006

Passage 15 ; in which half of American drivers don't signal

I had thought, just from driving around, that it was almost half.  Turns out it is actually more than.  Around 57%
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2006/03/15/66496.htm
That means the chances are good that you, reading this, don't signal.

I honestly can not understand it.

The reasons I've heard make literally make no sense.  It takes virtually NO EFFORT.  Less than changing the channel with a remote (your hand doesn't move as far, and there are only two choices instead of about 20) and far less than the rest of driving.  It doesn't force you to drive any slower, or to take any additional driving time.



Your hand is already right there on the wheel.  It takes about a second of time, and moving one's hand about 3 inches.

If its just a lane change, not a turn, holding it down (or up) halfway prevents it locking in place so you don't have to remember to shut it off.  All cars have that feature, for at least several decades (The "Happy" Van, my first car which was built in 1968 had it)

Not only is it a simple courtesy to other drivers, it can also prevent accidents.
Having driven both large commercial trucks, and tiny motorcycles, and having been both the victim and cause of accidents, I am quite aware that, no matter how much you are paying attention, there will be times when you miss someone.
If you signal, it gives them a few seconds more time to either get out of your way, or honk to alert you of their presence.
I mentioned this to a friend of mine recently who pointed out that some drivers will speed up when they see your signal, to prevent you from getting ahead of them.
True enough, but personally I find not injuring or killing someone to be more important than getting one single car length ahead.  That extra car length is likely, at most, to equal a tenth of a second difference in how quickly you get to your destination.

Plus, of course, it is just respectful to those around you, who could plan their own route more efficiently if they knew what you were planning to do.  For example, if you are on a four lane street, and the person in front of you turns on the left signal, it gives you time to change lanes so that you do not have to stop and wait behind them as they wait for an opening.

Wouldn't you appreciate that?  So why wouldn't you extend the same courtesy to others?

I suspect the general obnoxiousness of society is tied more than casually with the significant expansion of commercialism in recent years.  (For example, naming public stadiums after a company is an entirely new phenomenon.  We are moving more than ever towards the idea that profit is the only sane reason to do anything - but perhaps I will get into all that later)

I saw recently a motorcyclist who changed lanes every few seconds, cutting directly in front of other vehicles, of course never signaling.  If the traffic suddenly slowed, as happens without warning fairly often, he would have had no way to avoid being rear-ended.  I sort of hoped I could see this happen.  Unfortunately not this time.  At least in this case he was primarily just endangering himself.
I've also been seeing state highway patrol cars not bothering to signal.  Since their primary job is enforcing traffic laws, it implies that as a society we have decided that enough people ignore the law it is in fact ok to just ignore it...  Sort of like with all traffic laws in NYC...