| Username: |
Ormond Otvos |
| PersonId: |
75 |
| Created: |
Thu May 07, 2009 at 15:52:51 PM EDT |
Ormond Otvos's RSS Feed
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 17:30:23 PM EST
|
|
Democrats, George W. Bush was not the only cause of our current recession. That's like blaming The Backstreet Boys for pop music. He was a player, but financial policies going back to Clinton and even farther made our current situation inevitable. Every president has given us a 4 to 8 year plan, leading to inherent instability in our system. What we really needs is a 20 to 40 year plan, so that we don't keep repeating this cycle.
Republicans, socialism isn't inherently bad. Stop using it as a buzz word to evoke bad feelings. All governments need a mixture of socialism and free-market capitalism to stabilize and be viable. What is social security? What is benefits for veterans? What is public education? These are all forms of socialism.
Looking forward to the day where we debate logically....
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 15:53:27 PM EST
|
The Feuilleton , is a writing genre that allows for much freedom as far as its content, composition and style are concerned; the text is hybrid which means that it makes use of different genre structures, both journalistic and literary ones. The characteristic of a column is also the lack of the group of fixed features in strong structural relation.
Thematic domain of a Feuilleton column tends to be always up-to-date, focusing specifically on culture matters and social and moral issues. An accented and active role by the columnist as the subject of the narration is also very important characteristic of this genre. The tone a column is written in is usually reflexive, humorous, ironic and above all very subjective in drawing conclusions, assessments and comments on a particular subject.
The Feuilleton style , contrary to the style of most journalistic publications, is very close to literary. Its characteristic feature is lightness and wit, that is shown by play on words, parody, paradox and humorous hyperboles. The vocabulary is usually not neutral, and strongly emotionally loaded words and phrases prevail.
[edit]
|
|
Discuss
:: (12
Comments)
|
|
Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 12:50:07 PM EST
|
|
Rick Warren sells his book,"The Purpose-Driven Life" by the millions. Do you think it's because the average American has actually figured out that there is no real purpose in life other than staying alive?
That's pretty thin gruel for the high-powered intention analyzer called our mind, the one of yours that's reading this and trying to scope out why I'm writing this.
Suppose the "patriots" hijack all these weakly motivated layabouts and teach them to mentally goose-step all over our indecisive progressive asses?
It's how Hitler worked it out, in "Mein Kampf" and you know the corporate parasites that run this world will use any means to stay on top. How you gonna defend yourself when the neighbors come for you because you have an Obama sticker on your bumper?
|
|
Discuss
:: (17
Comments)
|
|
Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 21:42:08 PM EST
|
|
Did you read Stack's Manifesto?
Wow. I think it will generate some serious followers. A TeaPartier with real cojones.
|
|
There's More...
:: (32
Comments, 3184 words in story)
|
|
Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 01:28:08 AM EST
|
|
Good game, for football.
Big powerplant under construction in Ct. blew up.
Bad weather in the Mid-Atlantic.
Sarah Palin busts Obama teleprompter while reading from her palm during interview, makes no sense at all again, conflicting sentences one sentence apart. The ultimate ADD, short term memory shot, but trainable. Job security for Tina Fey.
Blogs are dying. SciAm comments stuffed with very clever denialists. News full of garbage. Society in decline. Haiti what?
Meanwhile science blasts ahead.
|
|
Discuss
:: (6
Comments)
|
|
Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 17:24:05 PM EST
|
Just completed a panel on "weak signals" ... essentially, factors generally underappreciated (or, in market parlance, not priced in) with significant global implications for the future. A very wide ranging discussion. And notably, almost all the signals offered for discussion by the group were negative.
...snip...
4) Rapid geoeconomic and geopolitical change leads to a world increasingly lacking leadership. Weak signals are becoming more problematic accordingly. Or, to be more bleak, we're actually in a pre-war, not a post-war environment, and we're assessing coming changes accordingly.
http://eurasia.foreignpolicy.c...
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 15:07:36 PM EST
|
|
The Military-Industrial Complex must be drooling.
Prepare to be vampired for every last dollar.
See below fold. From the official Chinese site.
Note the language, the exceptions, the modifiers, the "reasons".
Nationalism morphs into Imperialism.
Capitalism eats another country, and then the world.
The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:
http://www.china.org.cn/opinio...
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 1089 words in story)
|
|
Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 00:44:13 AM EST
|
|
Do you make your own version? Custom noodles? Garlic, lemon grass, barbecue sauce, vegan?
From the NYTimes article
http://travel.nytimes.com/2010...
"One of the reasons it's an obsession is it's truly an everyperson's dish," Mr. Orkin said. "Pricewise, it's affordable for just about anybody. It comes in a bowl, and a good bowl of ramen is balanced perfectly: the soup, the noodles, the toppings, everything works together. So when you're eating it, even though it's all these disparate ingredients together, somehow they feel as if you're eating one thing."
And it fits in a begging bowl.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 20:02:05 PM EST
|
|
There are several seeming contradictions, perhaps caused by word choices, in this interesting post:
"The trickery of Gurdjieff and his theosophists awakened hopes in pop culture, and in concert with Einstein's downgrading of Newton's time, paved the way for Teilhard's Darwinism to see a generalized potential within matter, tending to arrange itself via purely physical and historical/thermodynamic laws into new phenomena...... planet accretion.....atmospheric condensation....biogenesis....evolution.....culture..... history.......human media.
continued over fold, with link and author.
|
|
There's More...
:: (9
Comments, 585 words in story)
|
|
Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 02:55:24 AM EST
|
|
January 19th, 2010 in Medicine & Health / Other
Acknowledging that the idea of rationing health care, particularly at the end of life, may incite too much vitriol to get much rational consideration, a Johns Hopkins emeritus professor of neurology called for the start of a discussion anyway, with an opinion piece featured in this month's issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 333 words in story)
|
|
Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 22:00:16 PM EST
|
|
I place myself in the Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Meyers school of aggressive anti-theist militant atheism. If not for people like them, and organizations that share their tact, we would not be seeing the surge in rational thought and outspoken opposition coming from previously closeted atheists and agnostics who are now "coming out."
The contributions of scientists, the best of whom are non-believers of varying degrees, whose efforts have lead to medical advances, longer life spans for humanity, technology that just 100 years ago was unimagined, are rarely if ever praised by the religionists. They see science as the bulwark of anti-religious thought. So much for atheists gaining legitimacy in the eyes of religionists with gentility, reason, and contributions to their very existence. Theists will credit god instead.
Some say that engaging in aggressive debate using reason will never change the mind of those who are absolutists, who base their lives on supernaturalism to which they were exposed at an early age. I agree. It is as unlikely to yield fruit as religious proselytizing will cause a thinking person to suddenly abandon reason for supernaturalist belief. But what debate does do is give fence sitters something to think about, chew on. If they are prompted to question the unquestionable precepts of faith, something religions do not encourage, then by observing a realist in aggressive debate their curiosity may be piqued and their reasoning skills along with it.
Those who despise atheists, distrust them, see them as immoral and un-American, will not be swayed by a kinder gentler approach ... my reference to scientists is one example. The fundamentalist theist mind, be it Christian or Muslim, are as firm in their dismissal of science and atheists as they are immersed in their supernaturalist beliefs. We'd be deceiving ourselves to think otherwise. The women's suffrage movement didn't win the right to vote by being kinder and gentler. Nor did blacks attain civil rights by just being good citizens and walking on tip toe to the back of the bus. Nor did the gay rights movement win any converts to full equality and tolerance by working in soup kitchens, or contributing to the Red Cross.
Every one of those movements realized that the kinder and gentler method of whispering their desire for equality was perceived as weakness, powerlessness, by the majority opposition. A strong front, challenging the religious right's efforts; demanding that the Separation of Church and state be kept sacrosanct; fighting theist intrusions into our lives and schools and government; calling out the fakes, frauds and exposing the unbalanced words and deeds of religionists is how we will gain influence and retain our freedom. If they take offense, so what?
Islam continues to flood into Western society. With governmental and the media's failure to stand firm against Muslim threats of violence if demands for the limitation of free speech where their religion is concerned isn't observed, we are reinforcing their perception of us as the spineless "Kafir." If the West doesn't pull its head out of the sand, change its approach, Islamic Fundamentalists will continue to capitalize on it, the virus will spread, and Western culture will continue contributing to its own eventual demise.
So, if we are militant as atheists, if we push it to the wall and go toe to toe with theist ignorance, arrogance and intolerance what's the worst that can happen? Muslims will riot, burn and threaten us with domination and death? They already do that. Christians will hate us, mistrust us, deny our patriotism and morality? They already do that too. We need to make it crystal clear that as freethinkers we are not door mats to mindless fanaticism; that the days of pretending to be theist are over; that expectations of respect for their mindless beliefs can be forgotten; that we won't give an inch to their attempts at creeping theocracy. That there will be no appeasement, no compromise, no negotiating with ancient delusion.
I'm a militant atheist, I could be nothing else.
http://atheistcamel.blogspot.com/
|
|
Discuss
:: (99
Comments)
|
|
Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 15:11:58 PM EST
|
|
Nope. An association of people is not a person. For an excellent exposition on the subject, see Reinhold Niebuhr's book, Moral Man in an Amoral Society, 1932?, where he points out that a corporation is not capable of moral judgments because they are the most complicated things we do, since they arise from evolved socialization. (At the time, mirror neurons were not known to scientists and moral philosophers.)
If the associations wish to exhort their members to donate privately, that's fine by me. The association should not have that power of aggregation of interests toward the legislators. Nowadays, the legislators can easily keep track of who cares about what with an Excel spreadsheet. I would also limit individual contributions rather severely. We're way too far from democracy.
The campaigns are too long, the lies told are too egregious. We need to look into the psychological manipulation of the population, a subject I'm sure will meet with disingenuous objections from those with axes to grind, and lots of money to spend. But then, that's the problem, isn't it?
There's a point where an evolved government protects us from the emergence post-Dunbar of destructive influences. Put simply, humans aren't evolved yet for groups above ~150 (see Dunbar number), and I'd guess that one of the main jobs of culture, broadly defined, is to augment the brain's socialization capacity, comparable to how a calculator allows us to multiply bigger numbers.
You can think of various forms of government as different kinds of calculators. I suspect that simplistic notions like "the less government, the better" are incapable of expressing what we need in a globalized world of billions. But people have been brainwashed into thinking that they are born self-governors. I think history teaches otherwise. I'd be glad to discuss governance at this level, but not at bumpersticker slogan levels.
What's your take on this?
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 23:10:21 PM EST
|
"Americans live in a political, social, and historical context that advances personal freedom, choice, and self-determination above all else," write authors Hazel Rose Markus (Stanford University) and Barry Schwartz (Swarthmore College). "Contemporary psychology has proliferated this emphasis on choice and self-determination as the key to healthy psychological functioning."
The authors point out that this emphasis on choice and freedom is not universal. "The picture presented by a half-century of research may present an accurate picture of the psychological importance of choice, freedom, and autonomy among middle-class, college-educated Americans, but this is a picture that leaves about 95 percent of the world's population outside its frame," the authors write.
The authors reviewed a body of research surrounding the cultural ideas surrounding choice. They found that among non-Western cultures and among working-class Westerners, freedom and choice are less important or mean something different than they do for the university-educated people who have participated in psychological research on choice.
"And even what counts as a 'choice' may be different for non-Westerners than it is for Westerners," the authors write. "Moreover, the enormous opportunity for growth and self-advancement that flows from unlimited freedom of choice may diminish rather than enhance subjective well-being."
People can become paralyzed by unlimited choice, and find less satisfaction with their decisions. Choice can also foster a lack of empathy, the authors found, because it can focus people on their own preferences and on themselves at the expense of the preferences of others and of society as a whole.
"We cannot assume that choice, as understood by educated, affluent Westerners, is a universal aspiration, and that the provision of choice will necessarily foster freedom and well-being," the authors write. "Even in contexts where choice can foster freedom, empowerment, and independence, it is not an unalloyed good. Choice can also produce a numbing uncertainty, depression, and selfishness."
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 17:43:53 PM EST
|
|
2004 letter to Bush asking for more "innovative" financing for low-income housing. Is this the cause of the housing boom? And eventual bust?
"We also ask you to support our efforts to push the GSEs to do more affordable housing. Specifically, join us in advocating for more innovative loan products and programs for people who desire to buy manufactured housing, similar products to preserve as affordable and rehabilitate aging affordable housing, and more meaningful GSE affordable housing goals from HUD."
http://financialservices.house...
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 04:07:45 AM EST
|
According to the basic Enlightenment epistemology,
knowledge is objectively grounded by interest, i.e., pleasure and pain, which thus gives us the truth conditions for the properties of things.
Discuss.
|
|
Discuss
:: (56
Comments)
|
|
Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 22:23:46 PM EST
|
|
By CLIFTON ROSS
Daniel Alegría still thinks of himself as a Sandinista, "a Sandinista, no Orteguista." He looks pretty much the same as he did when I first met him at Comedor Sara in January, 1984 where he spent his evenings drinking beer and talking politics with the internacionalistas who gathered there in the evenings. The big question in those days, was when, or if the US would invade the country, and Daniel, who worked as Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN, the "Frente") Comandante Tomás Borge's bodyguard and translator, we knew would have the inside scoop. Tonight, as he cooks up a delicious garbanzo bean and sausage stew, I can still see him in my mind's eye as he looked then: a crisp green military uniform, hair and beard slightly incongruous by most standards except here in Nicaragua and Central America where the wild hair was part of the guerrilla uniform; in the end, a dashing fellow who usually had one or two women hanging on his every word. Now, as he dances between the kitchen and the cool patio, where a cold Toña beer awaits him, I can see he's put on weight, his wrinkles have deepened and his hair is gray at the temples. But he's still a strikingly handsome man with a rare enthusiasm and zest for life.
|
|
There's More...
:: (8
Comments, 1903 words in story)
|
|
Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 23:51:58 PM EDT
|
It's true that all the men you knew
were dealers who said they were through
with dealing every time you gave them shelter.
I know that kind of man.
It's hard to hold the hand of anyone
who's reaching for the sky just to surrender.
And then sweeping up the jokers that he left behind
you find he did not leave you very much, not even laughter.
Like any dealer he was watching for the card so high and wild
he knows he'll never need to deal another.
He was just some Joseph looking for a manger
Then leaning on your window sill
he'll say one day you caused his will
to weaken with your love and warmth and shelter,
And taking from his wallet an old schedule of trains,
he'll say "I told you when I came I was a stranger..."
But now another stranger seems
to want you to ignore his dreams
as though they were the burden of some other.
O, you've seen that man before,
his golden arm dispatching cards
but now it's rusted from the elbows to the finger
And he wants to trade the game he plays for shelter
Ah, you hate to see another tired man lay down his hand
and giving up his holy game of poker,
And while he talks his dreams to sleep
you notice there's a highway
that is curling up like smoke above his shoulder
You tell him to come in, sit down
but something makes you turn around,
the door is open - you can't close your shelter.
You try the handle of the road, it opens, do not be afraid
It's you my love, it's you who are the stranger
Well, I've been waiting, I was sure
we'd meet between the trains we're waiting for,
I think it's time to board another.
Please understand, I never had a secret charm
to get me to
the heart of this or any other matter.
When he talks like this you don't know what he's after
Let's meet tomorrow if you choose
upon the shore, beneath the bridge
that they are building on some endless river.
Then he leaves the platform
for the sleeping car that's warm
You realize, he's only advertising one more shelter
And it comes to you, he never was a stranger
And you say ok the bridge or someplace later.
And then sweeping up the jokers that he left behind ...
And leaning on your window sill ...
I told you when I came I was a stranger.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Sun May 31, 2009 at 14:38:13 PM EDT
|
|
And today we talk about the mechanism whereby we each individually do our part to plunge the world into war.
Let's drop in on a typical discussion of religion, which ends, if amicable, in a mutually agreed decision to disagree on the nature of evidence, and its acceptability of its nature to either party. What's the basis for the decision, and does it have consequences down the line for the larger society and its interaction with other cultures?
The answer is yes. The level of personal discomfort necessary to accommodate another culture is higher than the level we settle for in these discussions we haven't the fortitude to complete, and it cripples us in our tolerance of the more difficult diplomacy of issues grounded in life habits
This is the basis of the popular aversion to the middle ground. We have developed an easy out from confronting our common reality: We just pretend that everyone's reality is different. They aren't.
Donald E Brown Human Universals.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
