Toadfish Monastery

Apparently he has a bad temper image abroad:
[youtube=425,350]wxJoMIFDTSs[/youtube]
I found the story on a tech site, but the funny thing is the renderings of the accusations.

Reading an article on Marketplace I found the following pearl (notice the monitor on the back):
[youtube=425,350]xhIu7qp5vo8[/youtube]

Disclaimer: personal opinions about religion below. The commentaries are a reflection of my inner thoughts on the subject, and are in no means an attempt to offend those who held those beliefs dear.
----
I went to church today (to sing, not something I would do for myself), and while I listened the the pastor (a woman for a change) I was doing a mental exercise trying to exclude what I didn't like and listen to what I like. After years of catholic brainwashing I have some very negative associations to words like 'sin', 'obedience', 'submission', etc, etc, but I am still receptive to words of respect to others, charity, etc.

It got me thinking, what would be a service in which there is no mention of the 'bad' words? I personally don't want to hear that I, for the sole reason of existing, am dirty of some sort of 'original' sin. I am quite capable to make a mess of myself without the help of some mythic disobedience, thank you very much, and while I do believe that makes sense to be told to be a decent person, I can't stand the idea of 'submitting to the lord' in order to become such decent person.

Obviously I have a problem with authority, and the idea of total obedience and submission bothers me to no end, but, I do understand that the concept of submitting one self to the good inside is generally a good idea. Also I do see certain relation with the concept of internal discipline, to better yourself, to learn self control, all good ideas in my opinion.

What would be a spiritual service that doesn't make emphasis on dogma but reminds us to be better persons? Would any of you go to such a service being a believer or not? Would it have to avoid the word 'god' (personally I would prefer so)?

Lastly, I believe Q has some idea of how the UU works, is that similar in any respect?

Perhaps some of you have seen this video perhaps not, and despite it's length (1:33) I would suggest doing so just for the beautiful photography. There are versions in different languages including English and it has an HD version which played beautifully on my computer. As for how I felt after watching it... let's say that reinforced quite graphically my view of the future.

http://www.youtube.com/homeproject

Reading one tech site I found this gem:
[youtube=590,350]-dadPWhEhVk[/youtube]
The guy spent $300 and apparently he got a $30M contract out of it.

Sweet!

I was reading 538 and in one post there was a mention on a gallup poll made globally about both the awareness of climate change and the perception of personal threat on the topic.

One of the things that surprised me is that despite having a very high awareness many in European countries don't consider it to be a personal threat including low coastal countries like the Netherlands (57%), or the Nordic countries (Sweden 56%, Norway 43%, Denmark 40% Finland 39% and most incredibly Iceland 33%).

Is it because it's bloody cold and people think its going to be more balmy and comfortable (as opposed to having to move out of coastal cities due to rising sea levels) or there is an [unknown to me] cultural war* in Northern Europe denying the potential effects of GW?

Can any of the European siblings enlighten the apparent conundrum?

*Heck! Even here in the states where the right has gone out of it's way to demonize and discredit the science the personal threat perception is higher (64%).

For those living under a rock, Obama finally committed to 30K more troops for Afghanistan and a date to start withdrawing. Obviously nobody is happy with the decision, the left want to cut our losses and the right... well the right will say anything the president does is bad regardless. 

Does it make sense to stay and increase troops? Does it make sense to pull out? What seems to be clear is that the status quo isn't working at all. Thoughts?

There is a thread for cephalopods somewhere, but this being a pirate shore we should have a parrot thread, so let me present you a Major Mitchel Cockatoo in flight:

This one is for Goat, wherever he is.
---
We al know what Neo-Conservatism is and what is all about, I think the name is a misnomer because it isn't so much a new way to promote conservative ideals but a new stint to push fascist (corporatist) ideals and in consequence it should be called Neo-Fascism or Neo-Corporatism.

On the other side of the coin there isn't a comparative movement, ie, a reinterpretation of left wing ideals, for the most part the left became the center (not necessarily a bad thing) and the alternatives are more related to the environment than anything else (ie, the greens).

So the question is: How can the ideological left be redefined in a consistent philosophical argument? The main criticism from the right is that of the origins of the left movement, specifically at Marxism, and subsequently to mainstream socialism which has been portrayed as a movement who's only goal is to raise taxes. The problem then is that the discussion has been centered in the size of the state more than a philosophical principle, because those principles from the left have been diluted so much that they aren't even mentioned anymore.

In consequence it would be interesting to find a solid philosophical position based on left ideals that is consequent with what we know now rather than apply the concepts of the early industrial revolution. It could be called Neo-Communism or Neo-Com for short as opposition to the Neo-Con mantra. 

What do we know then about the origins of communism and why even if the ideals sound right the implementation has been so abysmally nasty? What concepts are simply inapplicable to the 21st century (or ever)? We have:

1. Abolition of private property: you can tell from the start it will not work. It isn't that we humans can't share, but that we do have a rightful entitlement to the things we own through our work. The problem isn't private property in itself but the size of it. Some interpretations of Socialism take care of that through progressive taxation but taxes are frequently aimed at all aspects of society; it stops being about redistributing wealth to become means to sustain a bureaucracy (or in the worse cases a hierarchy).

2. Control of the means of production: a consequence to #1 above, has been so far unworkable or significantly less efficient than a market based economy (yes, people survive[d] in planned economies, had work, even if those look terrible) with significant shortages and a frequent disconnection between the administrative heads to the requirements on the ground.

3. A stateless society: the excuse for the totalitarian implementation of the scheme, with an ultimate centralist view of the world. The idea of a world without borders shouldn't transform the tyranny of many to a tyranny of one.

What could be an spiritual heir of such a movement and what principles then are to be embraced?

Equality: that should be equality under the law, equality of opportunities, and equality of voice, that the voice of the individual isn't drowned by those with more means than him/her.

Freedom of expression: that is, encompassed within the one above, meaning that every individual should be able to express his/her ideas without coercion to or by him. IOW a particular speech should not be able to drown other forms of speech.

Autonomy: what 'stateless' should mean, there shouldn't be a center imposing it's views, groups of individuals should be able to govern themselves according to their means. IMO the smaller the unit the better.

And last but possibly what should be the philosophical cornerstone of said revision, A full embrace of Antitrust as means to prevent the tyranny of big capital. Private property is fine, and private means of production are fine so long the power of said institutions is controlled in size. No company should ever own a controlling stake in a market. If central means of production created a complete lack of competition, quality and innovation, the lack of antitrust enforcement does exactly the same with the aggravation of the concentration of capital that results from it.

All this encompassed within a true democracy (if no voice is bigger than others choices are truly democratic).
---
Is all that plausible? common sensical? What is missing?

Thoughts?

I was reading FiveThrityEight and found a reference to an analysis in Democracy Corps titled "The Very Separate World of Conservative Republicans. Why Republican Leaders will have Trouble Speaking to the Rest of America"

Quote from: Democracy Corpsthese voters identify themselves as part of a 'mocked' minority with a set of shared beliefs and knowledge, and commitment to oppose Obama that sets them apart from the majority in the country.  They believe Obama is ruthlessly advancing a 'secret agenda' to bankrupt the United States and dramatically expand government control to an extent nothing short of socialism.

Reading the article I found an interesting tidbit:

Quote from: annotation from the articleOur combined survey data reveals that the Georgia group definition fits more than three-quarters (77 percent) of conservative strong or weak Republicans of the 45-60 age group, and an even higher proportion – 85 percent – of white strong Republicans of the same age.

and that "...There's only one FOX".

Basically, they're drinking coolaid unfiltered and asking for more. 

As a previous user of a Danger designed cellphone (which my son now uses without a data plan) it came to me as a surprise that their servers died and with them all the data from their Sidekick users.

To compound said surprise I discover (I guess I've been living under a rock) that no other than Microsoft bought Danger for US$500 millions about a year ago, and now some supposed insiders allege that the server crash was sabotaged by an insider:

Quote from: San Francisco ChronicleDilger quotes his inside source as saying the Pink project existed before Danger was acquired and that contractual obligations delayed Danger's engineers from immediately joining Pink. When they did, the source said, "innumerable bad decisions had already been made by clueless idiots."
[snip]
The source says one scenario for the problem could be that Microsoft wanted to use its own technology to run Sidekick -- what it often calls "eating its own dog food" -- and blew an attempt to replace Sidekick's Oracle Real Application Cluster.Dilger says there is evidence to suggest "there was no reason for a major transition or upgrade to be occurring" because Microsoft was interested in Danger's phone expertise and not the Sidekick service. His conclusion: "intentional sabotage by a disgruntled employee."

Is it that hard to believe that elements inside M$ would love to kill the Sidekick when the last version of Windows mobile just went out to receive a shower of criticisms on the clunkyness of the system and it's growing irrelevance to confront RIMs Blackberry's, Iphones, and the Android system?
---
Why do I remember Borland now?

I was reading Cleolinda's magnificent parody of the movie, and some more from two (guys/gals?) and it came to me, could it be that Edward Cullen is a card carrying Republican? Perhaps a Mike Huckabee follower?

Or am I completely off the bat on this one?

Disclaimer 1: the use of psychoactive drugs is generally considered a very stupid thing with the very few exceptions when medical use is legit*.

Disclaimer 2: I personally believe in individual freedoms, to the point of letting people kill themselves if that is their desire, as long as their [auto]destructive behavior doesn't affect others.
---
My son turned fourteen two weeks ago, and as his birthday present he wanted to go to a Metallica concert, to which we went last week. We didn't have the best seats in the place but it was OK (a bit of acoustic problems possibly due to our position in the stadium and the type of music with a loud bass and battery, but nothing that prevented us from enjoying the concert).

The place was packed with very few empty seats as soon as the concert started, and perhaps predictably the potheads started their vice. In the beginning it was just a bit of smell but at some point into the concert a bunch of guys two rows and a few seats to our right started smoking, even worse the guys in front of us lighted theirs just two minutes later.

WTF is wrong with this people?!?!?

If you want to get high why don't you do it in the comfort of your house, car, park, or some bloody place where those of us who don't like the stuff don't have to be second hand smokers?!?! For f%^k sakes, I don't care if you use pills, powder or needles I don't wanna smell that f%^ing thing!!! If the only way you can enjoy the concert is being hi, why the f&(k don't you do it in your car? Is really that difficult to understand that there are other people there, and that perhaps they don't need drugs to enjoy the music?

Thankfully they only smoked one bloody thing so that the headache I got didn't last as much even while trying to steer the smoke away in a very conspicuous way that obviously was completely ignored by the perps.

Frankly, while I believe in the legalization of drugs it was very tempting to call someone to take the idiots out.


* medical use of marijuana applies to cancer patients on chimo to name a case.

This one is for Swato:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8285817.stm

and perhaps the stuff is good for diabetics too.

After listening a tiny remark in a polite conversation today after a rehearsal I got thinking that this one is worth debating in a rational* way: Pros and Cons of guns, regulation, limits (or lack thereof), etc. Do the classical arguments for and against hold water?

Who want's to take a side on this one? 

*something virtually impossible anywhere else.

To keep our debating chamber alive I suggest a new debate about the benefits and evils of federalism and of its counterpart, centralism. Depending on who you ask, we are dangerously moving towards uncontrollable chaos or towards and evil dictatorship.

Who is in favor, who is against and obviously, why?

Ok, the idea is the following:

If condition A makes B possible and B makes C possible then A => C

Example:

If Sergey Koroliev had survived his cancer, the Russian moon landing project would have worked, in consequence the American moon missions would have continued (and we would have moon bases now).

Try to make them plausible (like conspiracy theories ).

Following one of Swato's links this week I found this article in Alternet:

Quote from: articleWould any sane person think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal "solutions"?

Reading the article there is some basic truth about the importance of political change (and pressure) but the article left me with a bad taste, if taking shorter showers doesn't help because most water is used for industrial farming shouldn't I stop using the products of those industrial farms?

The other side of the coin is that if consumerism brings ecological destruction the absence of it's economy creates social strife (look at the 3rd world). Could it be that we are just too many for a sustainable human society? Is our large population the elephant in the room?

Ok, not so much movement lately so lets try something controversial to debate, namely the use of the burqa, hijab and chador. Any takers to defend its use?

...with Google & Microsoft!
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1432774/tories-promise-microsoft-google-lucrative-it-contracts

I imagine beagle must be jumping of happiness...