Excellent https://youtu.be/OAtEnKBvmbM

Simplicissimus

Caravan

Hokusai

Mauzan

Dark eyes

Finding lost foods

Swing 48

de Feure

Huergo

From Music Row: Music City Walk Of Fame Announces 2024 Inductees The Nashville Convention & Visitors Corp have announced the Music City Walk of Fame will induct Jimmy Buffett, gospel quartet The Fairfield Four, Ryman Hospitality Properties’ Colin …

From Good Morning America: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to pay tribute to Jimmy Buffett James Taylor, Mac McAnally, Kenny Chesney, Dr. Dre, Demi Lovato, Dua Lipa, Jelly Roll and Keith Urban will be …

Keep the Party Going – A Tribute to Jimmy Buffett featuring The Coral Reefer Band. Thrilled to be able to announce that the The Coral Reefer Band will be playing at the Hard Rock Hotel’s …

From Rolling Stone: Kenny Chesney, James Taylor Salute Jimmy Buffett at 2024 Rock Hall Ceremony. Dave Matthews, Mac McAnally also appear as late singer-songwriter receives Musical Excellence Award at Cleveland ceremony. Dave Matthews, Kenny Chesney, …

From the Tennessean: Jimmy Buffett, Fairfield Four among quartet inducted at Music City Walk of Fame ceremony Nashville’s 2024 Music City Walk of Fame ceremony highlighted all corners and eras of the city’s multitude of …

“Skinny Boy,” the new single by Original Coral Reefer Guitarist, Roger Bartlett and Steven Taylor, is now available for download exclusively at The Songwriters Joint. Featuring an all-star lineup including TC Carr, John Frinzi, and members of …

When I worked as a respiratory therapist part of my responsibilities was to keep flowsheets for the mechanical ventilators I worked on. That’s a record of what the machine was doing with a time log. And when I gave a breathing treatment to an asthma patient I recorded the details of that treatment, the time,...

from Instagram https://instagr.am/p/DB2zpz3xwt6/ via IFTTT

from Instagram https://instagr.am/p/DB48I-gSloZ/ via IFTTT

from Instagram https://instagr.am/p/DB7zGKyJ0FA/ via IFTTT

James’ post The long view of a blog is a terrific first read of the day for me today. New month. New week. New day. New UTC time offset. And it’s about one of my favorite questions, “what does my website mean to me?” The modality and presentation of content is part of the long view of...

Although the economy isn’t nearly as bad as some politicians would like us to believe (i.e., teetering on the edge of catastrophic collapse) nor as good as others claim (seriously: have you bought a bag of potato chips lately, one of the many items that victimizes consumers through shrinkflation?), one thing is certain: It is tough to get a job.

One of the recent events that could have conceivably caused a pandemic of globe luxation (i.e., eyes literally popping out of one’s head) was General Motors announcement a few weeks ago that it was jettisoning more than 1,000 software and services engineers. Just imagine a few years back when Susie or Johnny wanted to pursue studies of 17th-century metaphysical poets and were told by their parents that that was a dead-end and that they should go into a field with a bright future, one that would provide assured employment—like software engineering.

So it very well be that the un- or underemployed may think that now is a good time to take that weekends-only musical performing to a full-time gig.

After all, there was Swift’s remarkably lucrative Eras Tour, followed by Coldplay’s Music of the Spheres, which made it the first band to gross over a billion dollars.

Read more at Glorious Noise...

This is never what you want to see in your inbox:

Today will be a tough day, and by 9pm ET you will have heard if your job is affected. Your leaders and the People team will provide you with all the important details. We are committed to helping those impacted through this with the utmost respect, and supporting them with a runway during the transition.

To break that down:

• It will be a “tough day” for the recipients.
• While there is something to be said for a time certain (“by 9pm ET”), it is also a potential axe hanging oh-so precariously over one’s head, with the rope fraying strand-by-strand.
• Any organization that calls HR “the People team” wants to make it seem as though one would never receive an emailed message of this nature.
• What is “helping. . .with the utmost respect”? It may sound good. Does this mean there will be no judgment as “We” help pack the corrugated cardboard boxes?
• And “a runway during the transition” is a prime example of trying to obfuscate what will be absolutely obvious to those who will be affected.

Read more at Glorious Noise...

From 1989 to 1994 there was a show with a prescient title and approach, a show that gave rise to people including Jon Stewart and Marc Maron: “Short Attention Span Theater.” It presented bits and clips, standup and skits. Quick takes in keeping with the short attention spans that were existing then and arguably shrinking even more so now.

Market research firm MIDiA has recently conducted its annual survey of independent labels and distributors to create what it describes as “the definitive view of the independent music economy.” Modesty notwithstanding, it has sliced, diced and riced data from 5,500 companies in that space—which represents $10.6-billion of recorded music revenue—so its assessment is undoubtedly substantive, especially as it adds in financials from major labels and artist distribution platforms, thereby achieving, it claims, 93% of all recorded music revenue on a global basis.

The big labels, of course, make big money. Universal Music Group reported its Q3 2024 earnings last week, which has it that for the first nine months of 2024 the company had revenues of €8,396 million, which is a 6.3% increase over the same period in 2023. Focusing just on the Recorded Music category, the revenues were €6,335 million, up 4.9% year-over-year—and last year wasn’t at all bad.

Read more at Glorious Noise...

POLJUNK, the National Affairs desk of Glorious Noise

Here we are again. In the year of someone’s Lord 2024, we are back in time. We had a slight reprieve with four years of competent governing that resulted in record economic growth, withdrawal from historically disastrous military entanglements in the mideast (brought to you by the formerly worst president in US history), and at least some sense of normalcy, but I guess we are going back. This was after what many thought was an aberrant Trump presidency–surely that was a blip in the American experience, right? As it turns out, the aberrant is the accepted. It’s America’s true face, one we occasionally veil but never actually change.

I could list all the reasons Donald Trump is a terrible person and worse “leader,” but we all know them. And that’s the point: This isn’t some unknown or misunderstood element. This is Donald Trump. We know him and unfortunately, he knows us. Better than many of us know ourselves.

Trump isn’t some genius, he’s just a guy who is willing to do what others won’t because most of us live between imaginary lines of decency.

Read more at Glorious Noise...

Andrew Bowler, Academy Award nominated filmmaker and writer-director of Time Freak, sat down with DVD Talk writer and film...

DVDTalk.com staff writer and film critic Neil Lumbard has compiled a list of some of the best releases of...

by Jon Rappoport www.nomorefakenews.com The medical system kills 225,000 people a year. (Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, "Is US health really the best in the world?") "In principle, gene therapy is a medical miracle waiting to happen ... after 17 years of trying, scientists are still struggling to make gene therapy work. Complications include rejection of DNA carriers ... [and] new genes end up where they shouldn't, or behave unpredictably." ("Gene Therapy: Is Death and Acceptable Risk?", Wired, Brandon Keim, August 30, 2007) MARCH 28, 2012 - In discussing Matrix Science, I'm reminded of Philip Dick's sensational novel, Lies, Inc. It proposes an invention that can teleport humans light-years to a planet where a better way of life exists. The author then spends the rest of the book deconstructing this utopian legend and revealing the truth and the titanic power-grab that sit behind it. Then there is HG Well's 1933 classic novel, The Shape of Things to Come, in which a world exhausted by war and economic collapse turns to a Global State as the only possible solution, after all other solutions have historically failed. This new ruling authority is based on Science. All religions are crushed. Education is designed to teach every child how to become a genius/global citizen. Eventually, the State withers away and is of course replaced by a spontaneous Utopia. Science/technology: the final all-encompassing answer. A significant aspect of Matrix propaganda revolves around myths about how human behavior can be transformed. Transformed through advances in biology and chemistry. Populations are being trained to expect these momentous changes. A major selling point: no effort is required. Just ingest this tablet. Accept this new gene. All will be done for you by experts. Technocrats will design the future so you will fit into it happily. The technocratic wing of Globalism has clout. It promises management of the planet through science, and who can argue with science? Central Planning will ensure proper benefits for all. My late friend and colleague, hypnotherapist Jack True, once told me in an interview:...

What are 'quackbusters', you might ask. Well, Tim Bolen has the answer to that question. On his site (quackpotwatch.org) he explains: The "quackbuster" operation is a conspiracy. It is a propaganda enterprise, one part crackpot, two parts evil. It's sole purpose is to discredit, and suppress, in an "anything goes" attack mode, what is wrongfully named "Alternative Medicine." It has declared war on reality. The conspirators are acting in the interests of, and are being paid, directly and indirectly, by the "conventional" medical-industrial complex. These so-called quackbusters seem to be a branch of a larger movement, the "skeptics". Their website at www.skeptic.com/ shows who they are. Skeptics think of themselves as having opinions based on scientific 'truth'. They are very outspoken and very much "out there" to disabuse the rest of us of any idea that does not fit into their version of the scientific world view. While real scientific procedure requires there to be observation and experiment, formation and testing of hypotheses, and open discussion of both experiment and theories, the skeptics have firmly made up their mind on a number of issues. And they don't hesitate to tell us where we are going wrong... Mercury and fluoride for instance are not poisons for skeptics, and anyone who thinks they are must clearly be a conspiracy nut. Vaccination is good for you, as are chemotherapy and radiation cancer treatments offered by conventional medicine. If you oppose either of them you are simply a 'quack' or at the least you are an easy target for those who take advantage of your stupidity. The practices of alternative medicine, including "chiropractic, the placebo effect, homeopathy, acupuncture, and the questionable benefits of organic food, detoxification, and ‘natural’ remedies" are a favorite subject of the skeptics. They know that only mainstream medicine should be relied on and everyone who is into those practices really needs to have their head examined....

Ractopamine is a drug given to pigs and cows in the last months of their lives to "make the meat more lean". Taiwan has been blocking imports of meat from the US over concerns that the drug's residues that stay in the meat are less than healthy. At a recent Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting, the meat producing and exporting countries, and those heavily lobbied and pressured by US diplomats prevailed in a close vote to make the agency adopt a standard for residues of ractopamine in meat. That means that the countries that resist meat from doped animals will have a harder time to justify why they don't want to subject their citizens to yet another experiment for the sake of the economy of large-scale animal-to-meat operations. Scott Tips of the National Health Federation has represented the consumer side at Codex and he reports on the meeting: After taking a vote by secret ballot this late morning, the Chairman of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Mr. Sanjay Dave, announced the results of the voting on whether or not Ractopamine (a steroid-like vet drug, the residues of which remain in the slaughtered animal to then be consumed by meat-eaters) standards were adopted. Out of 143 ballots cast, the vote was 69 for Ractopamine, 67 against Ractopamine, with 7 abstaining. If only one vote had shifted from the “for” camp to the “against” camp, then the result would have been completely different and the Ractopamine standard would not have been adopted. This voting was forced upon the Commission by the insistence of the United States, Costa Rica, and Brazil that the long stalemate over the adoption of a standard for Ractopamine MRLs (Maximum Residue Levels) could not be resolved through the Codex-preferred process of “consensus” but would, after all, have to be voted upon......

This is a reasoned argument by Joanna (Why I Don't Vaccinate My Children) posted on Erwin Alber's VINE facebook page which was started in 2009, to help parents make an informed choice on behalf of their children. Image credit topnews.ae Joanna responds (below) to a lady who published an article saying that unvaccinated children are the cause of recent increased pertussis (whooping cough) outbreaks in areas where vaccination is actively pursued......

More and more evidence is coming to light that Dr. Wakefield was on the right track when he researched the connection between the MMR vaccine and intestinal inflammation in the vaccinated children. Was Dr. Andrew Wakefield Right After All? Wakefield’s Lancet Paper Vindicated New Published Study Verifies Andrew Wakefield’s Research on Autism But how did Dr. Wakefield first get into the sights of the UK vaccine industry and how was the campaign against him mounted? Martin Walker, the author of "Dirty Medicine" and a number of other books on health, closely followed the case that eventually resulted in Dr. Wakefield's exile from the UK. He describes how it all happened and how the vaccine manufacturers were able to bring down the full weight of government and the courts against both Wakefield and the many parents who were suing for recognition of the damage vaccines had done to their children. "As a campaigner of 40 years, I think that what surprises me most about Dr Wakefield’s case, is how easily and how completely we were defeated by the pharmaceutical companies, how over a thousand parents and children were written out of history together with their adverse drug reactions. Part of this defeat for the parents, the children and the doctors concerned was grounded in an unfortunate understanding that pharmaceutical company executives were decent people and humanitarians. In fact the pharmaceutical companies, their corporate structure and their relentless pursuit of profit, their fraudulent practices represent one of the last remaining shibboleths, in our society which need to be completely reformed, democratised, divested of vested interests and made public from top to bottom." We do learn from experience. That is why we should pay attention to how this case went so wrong and why the campaign to ruin those researchers and to leave the damaged children by the wayside was mounted in the first place. So it won't happen again. Here is Martin Walker's essay....

Inclined Bed Therapy or IBT is the brain child of Andrew Fletcher, who discovered in the 1990's that gravity actually helps to drive circulation of the sap in trees. From there, it was a short step to ask whether this was also true for animals and humans. This posed the question "why on Earth do people sleep flat?" So Andrew suggested that people slightly raise the head end of their bed and see if any changes in their health are noticeable. This is one of the numerous anecdotes ... stories of personal success people have reported after raising the head end of their bed by just five or six inches. "Over two years ago I sat in the armchair reading a small advert which asked people to raise their bed by six inches at the head and to reply and tell what benefits had been noted. (No explanation was given) At the time I could not move my neck to my left or right side and it ached continuously. I was unable to sleep at night as i could not get comfortable. I was only able to turn by gently easing myself. It took about three to four turns. Getting out of bed was a major obstacle. I needed help to dress and undress. I spent most of my nights in the chair with the result that I was always tired and had no energy. My problem is osteoporosis of the upper and lower spine. I had tried hormone replacement therapy and wasted a small fortune with bone specialists and osteopaths. I was resigned to living my days out as best I could, having been told that there was nothing more that could be done for me. I expected nothing but had nothing to lose, so Harry raised the bed by six inches. We did not take it very seriously but were happy to try anything. On the fourth night I had the first full nights sleep since I don't remember when. By the end of the week I was sleeping naturally and turning over with ease. My dressing was a problem no longer, each day it became easier. I was able to turn my head without pain, right or left, to see the clock without getting up from my chair. There have been many other benefits too. I have worn glasses from the age of seven years and I am now sixty eight years. Last year was the first time I was told that there was a small improvement. My hair appears thicker, my hair brush needs cleaning less often. Harry had a large suppurating scar since he was six years old. He has had to continually dress it all of his life. But now it has healed up. His ear which constantly gave him trouble with a discharge has now cleared up completely. We both feel that the clock has been put back for us!" Ruby, 2nd April 1998 Other such stories can be found on the Inclined Bed Therapy website and on the facebook page with the same name...

About a month ago I wrote this entry which was, I think, somewhat misunderstood, at least by the one confirmed reader of it. In it I tried to argue that there are some fundamental problems involved in conceptualizing time which, in my mind, appear intractable, and hence its existence as a concept contradictory, impossible. To which it was replied that of course time has an existence, as a social convention, a mental framework. Of that I have no doubt-it would be impossible for me to refute even if I wanted to. My point was about metaphysics, not sociology, and in that regard I don’t think it was that much different from that expressed by St. Augustine regarding time: “if no one asks me what it is I know what it is, but if someone asks me I don’t know.” Or, even more notably, Kant, who regarded time, in addition to space, not as an entity, process, or property of the physical world, but as a filter of percpetion, the mental framework which orders our experience of the world.

Which brings me back to science. I just finished reading The Evolution of Physics, by Einstein and Leopold Infeld. Of course Einstein is justly famed for, among many other things, pioneering the idea of space-time. However, I was quite intrigued to discover, while perusing the science section at the National Library in Paris, that Gödel claimed that his late work on relativity and physics, upon which I touched in my earlier post, was inspired by an intense study of Kant. Now, assuming such a dour man as Gödel was not simply being facetious, the implications of this are immediate. In the (apparent) somewhat paradoxical act of tearing down the structure of Einstein’s work while bringing some of its deepest tendencies to fruition, he was working under the influence of a theory which denies the type of external, property-based existence which Einstein implicitly ascribes to time (and space)! As I understand special relativity (always a dubious premise, I grant you), it holds that space and time, as properties of the universe, are perceived differently at every point of view, or coordinate system, as he calls them. But for me it seems a question of the simplest explanation: if everyone is in a relative frame of reference with respect to space and time, is it simpler and more likely that time and space are real properties which are different at every point in the universe, or simply that they are perceived differently by each observer? It seems to me that if one takes Kant’s idea of space and time as elements perception and not of external reality, none of these problems come up, although there may of course be others. Again, it’s hard for me to say what Gödel’s interpretation of all of this is, since no one seems to have engaged and propogated his work on this subject much, but if he was following in the line of Kant’s thinking as well as the tradition of relativity, it would be interesting to see the resuscitation, by “a commodius vicus of recirculation,” of a very powerful and cogent point of view which has nonetheless been largely dismissed by scientists as non-pertinently metaphysical. Perhaps interesting also to note that, in dealing with Kant last year, I protested against his classification of space as a perceptual framework, and even managed to convince my philosophy professor that it is rather the fundamental visual property, before reversing myself and concluding that light is actually the fundamental visible property. Light is also in some ways the fundamental property in Einstein’s system, or at least the one constant in all of the warping of space-time, which somehow doesn’t seem so surprising now…

p.s. For all of those intersted in Spanish literature (which at this point probably composes nearly 100% of our readership), I also came across this article with the following sub-headline: “It is the 400th anniversary of Don Quixote, a more important work than all of Einstein’s theories.” To the extent that the article follows up on this point, I think the claim about the inevitability of scientific discovery is at the very least highly disputable (and even if Cervantes’ work is more inimitable, that does not in itself mean that it is more “important”), but nonetheless a provocative idea, and gratifying to my humanities-leaning heart.

I may have bored everyone to death about this topic, but I have my last exam tomorrow, so here is my final thought about what distinguishes science. Most of the descriptions of science that I know of don’t really explain how science progresses without falling into a quaint mythology about approaching some metaphysical truth. Kuhn doesn’t, Popper doesn’t, Pierre Duhem doesn’t, and I myself have neglected to account for it to some extent.

I think the key is that science, at least experimental science, is essentially concerned with predicting the future. Every hypothesis, in essence, is a prediction about the future. What distinguishes science from other forms of prediction is the emphasis on verification, the insistence on framing predictions in such a way that when they are tested they can be decisively answered positively or negatively. In other, the goal is not to not be wrong but to achieve a definitive positive answer. Even a definite negative answer is preferable to none at all.

Some philosophers, like Duhem, claim that individual hypotheses can neither be verified nor falsified, because a whole body of theories and assumptions lies behind, and is implicated in, every hypothesis, and thus one can never be sure just what has been validated or failed. While that’s true, it is also nonetheless true that when the result of an experiment does not match a hypothetical prediction the hypothesis has been proven invalid as it stands. In other words, no matter what went wrong, the body of theories and assumptions that led to the hypothesis do not work as they now stand. Thus, things will have to be changed until they produce accurate predictions. Conversely, if a hypotheis is corroborated with a positive answer, the theories behind it stand validated until a hypothesis receives a negative answer.

In other words, experimentation does not serve to lead by induction to new theories, but rather theories serve to make possible specific predictions about the future which can be verified decisively. This at least is the goal. The goal is not a description which is true or corresponds to the truth, or at least that is not the immediate goal. When the facts or events are given, anyone can interpret them, and the fact that these events are known can mask the relative merits of the theory which interprets them. The idea that theories are validated by their correspondence to experimental results is tautological: the first condition of any theory is that it accounts for the experimental results that gave rise to it. But the only way to determine whether it is simply a theory to fit the facts or whether it is truly generalizable is to test it against unknown facts via prediction. Of course, predictions are almost always only approximately true, so the specific point of acceptability is not provided for by the general concept, but, at least in theory, decisive verification of predictions provides a simple, clear, and immensely useful criterion by which to evaluate theories. In my opinion, this explains much of the evolutionary capacity of science (I mean evolution in the more contemporary sense of diversification and selection rather than the old idea of teleological perfectibility).

If experimental prediction is the mark of science, this leaves the question of whether purely descriptive disciplines like zoology and areas like quantum theory where predictions are inherently statistical and ambiguous are scientific. Zoology and the like I think are, because hypothetical prediction inherently implies classification. In other words, by saying “under these conditions, such an event will happen,” one classifies, in other words sets parameters. The goal of zoology seems to be not simply to describe members of a group but to describe all the characteristics which define the group, set the parameters of the group, which is the first step towards making predictions about the group. So it is an element of science, but incomplete. As for quantum, I avow my profound ignorance of it, so let my opinion be taken in that light. As far as I understand, the stastical laws in that realm allow predictions in aggregate, so I am inclined to view it as still within the domain of science, at least in spirit, but of course the lack of decisiveness of statistical predictions gravely weakens the predictive power of science in this area, and I have already suggested that the rise of relativity and quantum in my view are intimately tied to the waning of the scientific age. Finally, it should be noted that while making correct predictions is the goal of science, that should be qualified by saying that the predictions are intended to answer general questions concerning the nature of things and establish specific knowledge. Optics or engineering, for example, are not science, although they once were, because all the major questions have been answered, and they no longer concern gaining further knowledge of the future and the universe, but rather in applying that knowledge to constructing specific objects.

So the goal and value of science is in predicting, and thus establishing knowledge of, the future, and the scientific method is the means of arriving at correct predictions. This is not to discard my earlier contention about the ideological basis of science, because the efficacy of prediction is based on the relative value of induction, and successful induction relies on the essential regularity and stability of the universe. In other words, in order to draw a general theory from a specific experimental result and vice versa, the universe must be considered as basically the same everywhere and at every time, which in turn implies that it be material, matter being defined as that which cannot change itself and is therefore static. It seems to me that if in quantum theory, for example, phenomena become genuinely dependent on the observeer in ways that are neither generalizable nor predicatable, it cannot continue to remain truly a science. It would seem to me that the branches of physics which are entirely theoretical are for practical purposes basically metaphysics.

This model depends on a linear notion of time. It might seem the opposite, that if the physical laws are eternal and universal time is actually opposed to this insofar as it represents dynamism, change. But in reality the sameness of the universe upon which science is predicated is not a a sameness at any particular moment, but rather a sameness of behavior. In other words, a view of the universe from a materialist perspective at any given moment shows that everything in the univese is different in the sense of being distinct. However, the idea is that under the same conditions all matter (or whatever you call the fundamental substances) will act in the same way. Without the steady march of time, this unity of behavior disappears, and there are simply a million disparate entities. Thus, space (and time) as properties of the universe are essential to science.

As for what the value of science is, I’m afraid I can’t generalize about that. From reading my recent posts one can most likely guess at my views, but I will simply say that one’s view of the efficacy of science in making the universe understandable will probably depend on entirely on whether one a) believes that linear time is a real property of the universe and b) if so, whether true induction is possible.

p.s. I should note that Henri Poincaré anticipates me in seeing the epistemological value of science as consisting mainly of its ability to make predictions rather than its descriptive correspondence to reality. However, he also thinks that theories are conventions and definitions of concepts, not true descriptions of physical phenomena based necessarily on experimental results. He thinks the conjunction of these two make theories relatively independent of their experimental bases, which he regards as a good thing because it creates a body of stable principles in which we can trust. I think that that is neither true nor a good value. The emphasis is on predicting correctly, not creating stable beliefs (if you want unchanging beliefs, what not join the Church?), and if generating true predictions is the goal, theories should be more rather than less sensitive to their experimental roots.

p.p.s. Since my exam was about scientific laws and causality, I should add that while scientific activity depends on a belief in time, not all scientific theories do: the law of conservation of energy, for example, I believe is essentially atemporal.

“Perhaps you’re familiar with “the tragedy of the commons,” a social dilemma outlined by the late biologist Garrett Hardin in a famous 1968 essay of the same name. The dilemma is that when individuals pursue personal gain, the net result for society as a whole may be impoverishment. (Pollution is the most familiar example.) Such thinking has fallen out of fashion amid President Bush’s talk of an “ownership society,” but its logic is unassailable.”

That response seems like a pretty damn obtuse interpretation of the essay, simply because the essay is nothing if not a plea for the creation of property rights. Furthermore, while it is true that Hardin claims that pursuing individual gain leads to group catastrophe, the word “when” in the paragraph above implies that there are times when the individual doesn’t, whereas Hardin claims that individuals basically always pursue their own interest, which is the problem in high-density situations where some amout of coordination is necessary. However, upon re-reading it, I realize that for Hardin property rights only forms a part of a wished-for imposition of coercive measures which will prevent individuals from pursuing personal gain at the expense of their environment. Which makes sense, because property rights, for all this may get lost in the ceaseless ideological wrangling today, are themselves forms of state-imposed coercion. Dismiss the semi-metaphysical nonsense in Locke and Kant about gaining “just propriety” over an object by making a visible mark on it. Think about it: animals control exactly as much “property” as they can defend; cheetahs peeing on trees only works because they will fight to defend what they have claimed. By contrast, think about who adjudicates the (in theory) incontestable property rights: the authorities, i.e. in our society, the State. The corollary of this, of course, is that nationalized or federal property is not “public property,” in the sense of property owned by the public—quite the contrary. The dichotomy between it and “private property” is spurious. “Public property” is simply property owned by the government. This no doubt seems obvious and intuitive, but based on the foolishness I cited above, it bears repeating that property rights, whether granted to others by the government or to itself, are not opposed to coercive state power but are in fact the very essence of it. That fact is perhaps more apparent in regards to so-called “intellectual property.”

As a marginal note, Hardin’s essay, despite the pithiness of its central analogy, is rather dispiriting insofar as it takes Hegel’s statement that “Freedom lies in the recognition of necessity” as its motto and guiding spirit. That formulation is, as I believe I have said before, perfectly monstruous. Freedom means nothing if it is not the absence of restriction, and it is perhaps a sign of the evasive confusion of priorities in Western culture that one would pretend to celebrate this value in such a way while in fact describing its opposite. Freedom is not an act or a thought, but rather a set of conditions under which action and thought occur. This is the same idealistic debasement of the language that has turned love into a deed: making love.

Note to Curt:

Just because the state claims the authority to apprehend and punish rapists doesn’t mean that apprehending and punishing rapists is a form of state coercion. Nor is the notion that rape is bad an example of state coercion. Depending on your perspective, this is either a moral truth derived from God/reason/whatever or a widely-accepted social convention. Similarly, the notion that one can own property is (again, depending on your perspective) either morally necessary or a widely-accepted social convention that seems to work pretty well (here I’m dispensing with Communists and other fools who have nothing intelligent to say on the matter). Either way, the fact that the state claims ultimate authority to adjudicate property disputes does not make private property a form of state coercion. (Further reading)

"Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them." This is good advice, especially for democracies, which tend (as even Plato and Thucydides noted) to have short-term attention spans. But we shouldn't forget an equally important lesson, articulated most forcefully by Nietzsche: The health of a person and a people also depends vitally on the capacity to forget. Forgetting is necessary to free ourselves from imperfectly understood "lessons of history," so that we can see the challenges ahead clearly, without preconceptions or prejudice. Forgetting is also the better part of forgiving, and there are whole domains of political controversy -- indeed, whole regions of the world -- where a little less history could be of service in this respect.
--Eliot Noyes, Getting Past the Past

It’s almost comforting that such invidious fluffy-minded sludge as this is floating around, as it seems, like religion, to keep the middle-brows hypnotized by “beautiful sentiments” which are so vague as to keep them from actually getting together and doing anything. It’s sort of weird to hear this weakly Marxist social-democratic pap which used to be shouted from the rooftops now being whispered in a low monotonous whine. The author avows his fealty to Jeremy Bentham, not Marx, and calls it utilitarianism not Marxism, but there are many illegitimate fathers along this line of thought.

The root of the idea is that, now that neuroscience has supposedly made it possible to actually identify what makes us happy, the idea of happiness has become quantifiable, and hence a program of providing the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people has become objectively possible. However, the author does not make the slightest effort to apply these wonders of modern science to actually determining what the alleged sources of human happiness are. The neuroscience tack is really just a defensive ploy to ward off the eternal charges that utilitarinism is simply a euphemism for an authoritarian imposition of values. As for espousing his positive program for what constitutes human happiness, it is simply the usual liberal middle-class canards, with not surprisingly a socialist edge: more time to spend with family, a decent wage for everyone, blah blah blah. But he seems to make two pretty criminally unsubstantiated assumptions: one is these sources are essentially the same for everyone, or at least could be under certain conditions, and the other is that they do not inherently conflict with anyone else’s.

I say under certain conditions could be, because in evaluating our current society he seems to privilege envy of other’s material well-being as the principal determinant of happiness. His theory is that above a certain level of material subsistence people are motivated primarily by status-seeking and the desire for a high rank within their social group. Therefore, the increasing wealth of the society will not increase happiness because people measure their well-being relative to the group, not by their absolute prosperity. This is always been a flaw in the concept of the “war against poverty”; I’m not sure it’s much of an argument for socialist economic redistribution. But actually if you read his section on the value of income taxes carefully, he doesn’t even seem to be arguing that they are useful insofar as they can be redirected to the less prosperous, although he does evidently believe that a certain amount of money contributes more to the happiness of a poor person than to a rich one’s. Rather, he seems to think that taking money away from the properous is valuable in and of itself, because it will supposedly make them less focused on the “rat race,” more family-oriented, etc., etc. In short he seems to be advocating a net impoverishment of society.

All of which may be consistent with the program of a good little socialist, but does not necessarily accord marvelously with his own evidence about the supposedly quantified happiness of humanity. The research that he cites non-specifically supposedly indicates that people’s feeling of happiness has not risen in the last half-century, but he does not cite anything which indicates that it has necessarily declined. He cites rising rates of depression and crime as presumably implicit indicators of greater unhappiness, but he does not seem to acknowledge the possibility that in our hyper-medicated and surveillance-based society perhaps people simply report depression and crime more. In any event, if roughly similar numbers of people today as in the ‘50’s report themselves happy (and we believe them), despite the increase in prosperity, that might perhaps indicate that happiness is not fixed to material well-being. Which may be consistent with his general point, but not with his idea of increasing happiness by manipulating income levels.

And even if it did, it seems rather difficult to countenance any social program predicated upon appealing to one of humanity’s most depraved instincts, namely envy. The author acknowledges that his ideal of taxation is mainly motivated by the desire to pander to people’s envy, but he seems to think that their envy will be sated by the loss of prosperity of those around them and that after that point there will be no more. So the envy of the less prosperous will be satisfied by the losses accrued by the more prosperous, which will somehow not be counter-balanced by the chagrin of the more prosperous at the prospect of seeing their status diminished. Very logical.

One of the more egregious presumptions of utilitarians is that non-utilitarian social systems somehow aren’t concerned with seeking the greatest good for the greatest number of people. On the contrary, that’s the defining problem of practically every social and political theory I can think of, and they all either seek or claim to have found the answer—whether such a solution exists, I have my doubts, but that’s why I’m a skeptic about politics. This is a handy trick by utilitarians: they say “I believe in the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” Which is practically begging the question: “As opposed to whom?” It’s useful because it tends to conceal the fact that their real agenda is generally somewhat more specific, and tends to consist in the autocratic notion that one or two measures of social living can be authoritatively determined to be the sources of happiness, and then divided up in a centralized fashion. Those that are the most insistent on the idea of liberty are generally those that are the most skeptical about the possibility of the notion of happiness being either quantitatively defined or generalizable. In other words, only indviduals can determine their own sources of happiness.

For the author, on the other hand, the fact that certain stimuli trigger certain areas of the brain at the times when test subjects profess pleasure has solved the problem of determining happiness. Of course, as mentioned, he never really bothers with the results that those studies have yielded. Somehow the fact that he considers envy to be a principal element of human happiness does not place very severe limits on the harmoniousness of individual happiness. Nor does it constitute a tyranny of the majority, because he claims that in an ideal utilitarian society the happiness of the most unhappy would be considered of pre-eminent importance. Of course, at the beginning of the article he cited the equal importance of each individual’s happiness as the fouding tenet of his theory, but I’m sure it all sorts out in the end.

Among social factors responsible for unhappiness, he cites divorce and unemployment as of pre-eminent importance. Of course, rates of both divorce and unemployment in the crassly materialistic and religious United States are much lower than in the much more overtly utilitarian-embracing Europe, but it would be a bit embarassing for him to admit this after avowing that all traditional value-systems outside of utilitarianism and “individualism” are dead.

Personally the question of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people doesn’t exactly compel me constantly, although the issue of personal happiness tends to impose itself intransigently. I would have thought that evolutionary biology would have provided an adequate explanation of this, as well as the recurrence of what we call altruism. But such an idea of course suggests that happiness, whatever that is, is not really the point of our little existences, and that the more imperious competitiveness of life will ultimately subvert all of these little trifles of pleasure and pain. But in the meantime, we have these debased statistical notions of happiness to amuse us in an idle hour.

It seems to me that if one’s “objective” measure of happiness is electrical stimulation in the cerebral cortex, the most efficient utilitarian solution to the problem of human happiness would be strap everyone onto hospital gurneys and stimulate the “happiness” part of their brain all day long. If one does not wish to be this deterministic about it, perhaps one should allow more latitute to individuals to discover their own conception of happiness. Personally, I have found happiness generally to be an idea for the unhappy and something rarely spoken of by the happiness; mention of practically guarantees that it is not present in the environment where it is uttered. I don’t deny that what you might call love is the real bridge between personal happiness and moral obligations, and the only true means by which the desires of oneself and of others are united, but such a sentiment can never be mandated; it is entirely resistant to intellectual compulsion. Utilitarianism, which sometimes does a decent job of faking morality, is nevertheless ultimately predicated on the pleasure principle, and hence is wholly inadequate to uniting the moral and the pleasurable except when love truly pertains. In that case, of course, political theory is entirely superfluous, which is why this is all a waste of time.

p.s. I don’t claim that people’s behavior necessarily reflects what really would make them happy, but presumably it does at least reflect what they consciously value. Hence, if I were the author I would have been a bit skeptical of using the results of “surveys” of what people claim to value when the results don’t correlate with their behavior, i.e. they claim that spending time with family is most important, but they spend a disproportiante amount of time working (at least according to him). So either people are not really being forthright (consciously or unconsciously) in responding to surveys, or there is not actually a problem of priorities. In either case, he’s way over-valuing surveys as a guide to what will make people happy.

So blöd, wie es auf den ersten Blick aussehen mag, war die Frau keineswegs, die am 19.9.2007 einen Ehescheidungsantrag beim Schleswig-Holsteinischen Verwaltungsgericht einreichte. Welches Ziel hatte sie wohl mit ihrer - laut OLG Schleswig rechtsmissbräuchlichen, im Ergebnis aber doch erfolgreichen - Aktion im Auge?

Lochen, Heften und Ablegen sind selbst für einen kleinen Beamten keine ernsthafte Herausforderung. Einen wahren Extremsport scheint hingegen das korrekte Inkraftsetzen eines Bebauungsplans darzustellen, zumindest in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Jedenfalls finde ich in der

Gestern habe ich mich bei der

Win10 BrightnessSlider adds a Monitor Brightness icon to on Taskbar Tray that lets you adjust the brightness of your monitor(s) with a simple slider. If you use multiple monito....

USB Device Tree Viewer provides detailed information for all USB ports and hubs on a computer in a tree view format. If a device is connected to a port, it also provides detailed information for the ....

Absolute Uninstaller offers an alternative to the standard Windows Add/Remove (Programs and Features) applet. It provides a user friendly interface that automatically highlights newly added programs ....