Lucky Larry

I'm sorry, I meant give me an example of a sustainable business practice, or something, and its mode of operation. I wasn't looking for a philosophy or definition of sustainable. Recently saw this video on how a airport scarfs heat from customers and sells it to a neighbor. Its' overwhelming use of resources to build this green technology leads me to suggest that the environmental damage done to get the resources for this green machine is not sustainable. A misconception of tribes or primitives is that they spent all their time hunting and gathering. Now this my be wrong but I read that they actually spent only 3 hours per day in such sustainable activities. The rest of the time they spent doing nothing. Doing nothing is very hard, try it sometime. Who in todays society can spend most of their time doing nothing? Philosophy is too boring for most people. Doing nothing goes against most western values. And yet I would counter that it is in 'doing something' that has really helped to screw things up. Medicine has led to overpopulation. Science and Technology has led to the bomb, agribusiness, so-called better cars. Social progress has progressed to help the few that are lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. Supposedly we can solve the problems through creativity. Prove me wrong; I would welcome it. Give me a model of sustainable. The idea of sustainable is as silly as an Utopian society.

Please give give me an example of sustainable if you want to debate it.

Interesting, has there ever been a peaceful transition of power? Has anyone heard a meaningful political debate lately? [Citation needed]

Nice, I thought it was spirulena.

Never would have believed that my happy spank would ever take a permanent leave of absence 10 years ago. A friend of mine said it would come right back if a young woman wanted it. Of course you here the stories of guys going overseas for that. Can you imagine the employment and income that this country could generate just from hand jobs? And sustainable green. Thanks for the laugh. edit: Can't believe i said that because just look at all the economy generated by the plane tickets being sold.

The great savior of economic progress has arrived bearing the message,"it is green; therefore, go and indulge your desire to drive and consume all that has been labeled green." The green revolution relies just as heavily on oil, if not more than, the current environmental trap. It discards what is still useful to validate the use of more resources to produce green products. In essence the green revolution is a feel good consumerism movement. When has driving ever been green? Even if you pretend that the car is neutrally green everything surrounding its use is not. There is no technological, scientific, economic, or agrarian solution to overpopulation. Beliefs that hold every American can own a home and a car etc are not carbon neutral; especially if it is extrapolated to the other 6 billion or so people. Wikipedia: sustainable development is viewed as a solution but carries the implication that economic growth (the cause of much oil consumption) remains imperative.

Wikipedia: rhetorical questions of Achish, king of Gath:: Lo, you see the man is mad; why then have you brought him to me? Do I lack madmen, that you have brought this fellow to play the madman in my presence? —I Sam 21:10-15[9] Some analysis of Shakespeare's comedy has found that his characters tend to hold mutually contradictory positions; because this implies a lack of careful analysis it indicates stupidity on their part. Walter B. Pitkin (1932): And Stupidity can easily be proved the supreme Social Evil. Three factors combine to establish it as such. First and foremost, the number of stupid people is legion. Secondly, most of the power in business, finance, diplomacy and politics is in the hands of more or less stupid individuals. Finally, high abilities are often linked with serious stupidity.[9] And One of the main effects of illusory superiority in intelligence is the Downing effect. This describes the tendency of people with a below average intelligence quotient (IQ) to overestimate their intelligence, and of people with an above average IQ to underestimate their intelligence. The propensity to predictably misjudge one's own intelligence was first noted by C. L. Downing who conducted the first cross-cultural studies on perceived intelligence. His studies also evidenced that the ability to accurately estimate others' intelligence was proportional to one's own intelligence. This means that the lower the IQ of an individual, the less capable they are of appreciating and accurately appraising others' intelligence. Therefore individuals with a lower IQ are more likely to rate themselves as more intelligent than those around them. Conversely, people with a higher IQ, while better at appraising others' intelligence overall, are still likely to rate people of similar intelligence as themselves as having higher IQs.

Sweet photos, looks like a great place to climb. Thank You.

I'm slow, shoot me, what is a t-chart?

Ivan: what's lost amongst all the chatter is how normal, really, this incident is - seriously, 3 months from now, who the hell's even goign to remember this apart from all the other nastiness? as said, the environment is toxic enough that likely something similiarly shitty will have occurred in the interim to make us forget. this incident hasn't broken new ground either. all the classics are involved to some degree: bad economics, bad education, drugs, political vitrol, guns, immigration, yadda, yadda, yadda. Hey, theres no pink elephant in the room. Surely your not blaming the modern(economic) progress we have made in this country for the lack of the social progress we have made. And most certainly technological progress hasn't harmed a fly. And it would appear that philosophy has answered everything. Science has solved everything. Wikipedia: Progress trap, the condition societies find themselves in when human ingenuity, in pursuing progress, inadvertently introduces problems that it does not have the resources to solve, preventing further progress or inciting social collapse. Remember the movie, A Clock Work Orange. Certainly this guy is kooky for killing. Follow this premise and it reads thus: violence is a form of insanity. Our country cheers the heroes into battle. What happens to the heroes is sadness. Are the leaders anywhere to be seen on the front lines? The Philosophical Dictionary Voltaire Selected and Translated by H.I. Woolf New York: Knopf, 1924 Scanned by the Hanover College Department of History in 1995. Proofread and pages added by Jonathan Perry, March 2001. Free Will EVER since men have reasoned, the philosophers have obscured this matter: but the theologians have rendered it unintelligible by absurd subtleties about grace. Locke is perhaps the first man to find a thread in this labyrinth; for he is the first who, without having the arrogance of trusting in setting out from a general principle, examined human nature by analysis. For three thousand years people have disputed whether or no the will is free. In the "Essay on the Human Understanding," chapter on "Power," Locke shows first of all that the question is absurd, and that liberty can no more belong to the will than can colour and movement. What is the meaning of this phrase "to be free"? it means "to be able," or assuredly it has no sense. For the will ''to be able '' is as ridiculous at bottom as to say that the will is yellow or blue, round or square. To will is to wish, and to be free is to be able. Let us note step by step the chain of what passes in us, without obfuscating our minds by any terms of the schools or any antecedent principle. It is proposed to you that you mount a horse, you must absolutely make a choice, for it is quite clear that you either will go or that you will not go. There is no middle way. It is therefore of absolute necessity that you wish yes or no. Up to there it is demonstrated that the will is not free. You wish to mount the horse; why? The reason, an ignoramus will say, is because I wish it. This answer is idiotic, nothing happens or can happen without a reason, a cause; there is one therefore for your wish. What is it? the agreeable idea of going on horseback which presents itself in your brain, the dominant idea, the determinant idea. But, you will say, can I not resist an idea which dominates me? No, for what would be the cause of your resistance? None. By your will you can obey only an idea which will dominate you more. Now you receive all your ideas; therefore you receive your wish, you wish therefore necessarily. The word "liberty" does not therefore belong in any way to your will. You ask me how thought and wish are formed in us. I answer you that I have not the remotest idea. I do not know how ideas are made any more than how the world was made. All that is given to us is to grope for what passes in our incomprehensible machine. The will, therefore, is not a faculty that one can call free. A free will is an expression absolutely void of sense, and what the scholastics have called will of indifference, that is to say willing without cause, is a chimera unworthy of being combated. Where will be liberty then? in the power to do what one wills. I wish to leave my study, the door is open, I am free to leave it. But, say you, if the door is closed, and I wish to stay at home, I stay there freely. Let us be explicit You exercise then the power that you have of staying; you have this power, but you have not that of going out. The liberty about which so many volumes have been written is, therefore, reduced to its accurate terms, only the power of acting. In what sense then must one utter the phrase-" Man is free "? in the same sense that one utters the words, health, strength, happiness. Man is not always strong, always healthy, always happy. A great passion, a great obstacle, deprive him of his liberty, his power of action. The word "liberty," "free-will," is therefore an abstract word, a general word, like beauty, goodness, justice. These terms do not state that all men are always beautiful, good and just; similarly, they are not always free. Let us go further: this liberty being only the power of acting, what is this power? it is the effect of the constitution and present state of our organs. Leibnitz wishes to resolve a geometrical problem, he has an apoplectic fit, he certainly has not liberty to resolve his problem. Is a vigorous young man, madly in love, who holds his willing mistress in his arms, free to tame his passion? undoubtedly not. He has the power of enjoying, and has not the power of refraining. Locke was therefore very right to call liberty "power." When is it that this young man can refrain despite the violence of his passion? when a stronger idea determines in a contrary sense the activity of his body and his soul. But what! the other animals will have the same liberty, then, the same power? Why not? They have senses, memory, feeling, perceptions, as we have. They act with spontaneity as we act. They must have also, as we have, the power of acting by virtue of their perceptions, by virtue of the play of their organs. Someone cries: "If it be so, everything is only machine, everything in the universe is subjected to eternal laws." Well! would you have everything at the pleasure of a million blind caprices? Either everything is the sequence of the necessity of the nature of things, or everything is the effect of the eternal order of an absolute master; in both cases we are only wheels in the machine of the world. It is a vain witticism, a commonplace to say that without the pretended liberty of the will, all pains and rewards are useless. Reason, and you will come to a quite contrary conclusion. If a brigand is executed, his accomplice who sees him expire has the liberty of not being frightened at the punishment; if his will is determined by itself, he will go from the foot of the scaffold to assassinate on the broad highway; if his organs, stricken with horror, make him experience an unconquerable terror, he will stop robbing. His companion's punishment becomes useful to him and an insurance for society only so long as his will is not free. Liberty then is only and can be only the power to do what one will. That is what philosophy teaches us. But if one considers liberty in the theological sense, it is a matter so sublime that profane eyes dare not raise themselves to it. Hanover Historical Texts Project Return to Hanover College Department of History Please send comments to: luttmer@hanover.edu

Wikipedia: Corporations Jefferson in 1816 wrote to George Logan, In this respect England exhibits the most remarkable phenomenon in the universe in the contrast between the profligacy of it's government and the probity of it's citizens. And accordingly it is now exhibiting an example of the truth of the maxim that virtue & interest are inseparable. It ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of it's people, but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe. I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.[85]

wikipedia After the Revolutionary War, Jefferson advocated restraining government via rebellion and violence when necessary, in order to protect individual freedoms. In a letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787, Jefferson wrote, "A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical...It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."[88] Similarly, in a letter to Abigail Adams on February 22, 1787 he wrote, "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."[88] Concerning Shays' Rebellion after he had heard of the bloodshed, on November 13, 1787 Jefferson wrote to William S. Smith, John Adams' son-in-law, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."[89] In another letter to William S. Smith during 1787, Jefferson wrote: And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.[88]

I don't own a gun but it makes me wonder if maybe I should. When I go climbing I carry protection and remind myself that it really is for the 'what if' factor and use it. Now some people carry it and don't even consider the 'what if' factor. Instead, they justify not using it because "I'm not going to fall". A lot of people complain about spray: it's a waste of time, hate monger, this right, that left, foul language, etc. Personally, I think it is great, especially if you don't agree me. It allows people to save face because there is no face to it. Nobody's back is against the wall. My beliefs aren't my own: they have been programed into me and/or I stole them. I wouldn't defend your freedom of speech with my life.Hallelujah, I wouldn't even risk my own life to defend what I have to say. And yet climbers risk their lives all the time too climb; a very strange paradox. I've often wondered if climbing isn't just an escapism for people that don't want to face reality. Not really any different then HDTV in the end; however, the stakes are much higher--no pun intended. I don't even agree with President Jefferson on indians and slaves. But i do agree with him on banks, bankers, individual rights, corporations, rebellion. Wikipedia: Jefferson copied many excerpts from the various books he read into his "Legal Commonplace Book."[83] One passage he copied which touches on gun control was from Cesare Beccaria's Essay on Crimes and Punishments. The passage, which is written in Italian, discusses the "false idea of utility” (false idee di utilità) which Beccaria saw as underlying some laws. It can be translated, in part, as: A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility ... who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it. The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. ... It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.[84] Jefferson's only notation was, "False idee di utilità."[84] It isn't known whether Jefferson agreed with the example Beccaria used, or with the general idea, or if he had some other reason for copying the passage.

Statistically interested in the percentage of Mt. boots people have actually used that worked out for them. I would estimate that only 10% (1 out of ten pairs) has ever worked out for me. Please don't include any anecdotal stories. Thank you.

Just curious, how many people can on sight 5.14?

Wow Dave, sorry; guess someone found your button.

Crux, is your avatar from Dursla the hunter, or looks like some Bolshevik revolution movie pic. Anyway the dude looks upset. Also, I don't know why but I find the baby swing o'rama thing very sickening for some reason; anyone else feel the same way? Wow, you tube found it shocking and disgusting too; who would of thought.

If he'd returned the jacket to Mountain Hardwear that'd be a different issue.[/qu A scam is a scam. Is it ethical or justifiable if you do it to a corporation that won't feel the pain as much as a small shop? If you really can't pay for food, clothing, medicine etc then I would say it might be philosophically justified to scam it; the lesser of two evils ie being hungry or not hungry. Does it hurt anyone if you scam free food 4 the hungry and justify it by saying to yourself that they are just going to throw it out anyway? I can't answer that but it would make me feel weird to do it now myself. Especially when I consider how little it actually costs to eat low on the food chain eg potatoes, eggs. All of us justify our actions in one way or another. Forget using morality as a guide. The only guide you need is whether you would like it done to you. And then maybe consider the circumstances. One of my biggest regrets is voting for the death penalty. It is unethical to take an eye for an eye. It only illustrates our desire to inflict pain and suffering on others that have inflicted pain; what's so righteous about that? It doesn't right a wrong. Forget Religion. Mankind's social progress is not marked by its' revenge but only by the its' ability to forgive itself and others for their(its') own human nature: vice, desire, passions, failings. And maybe by helping someone in need: charity. There are two statues in front of the State Justice building here in Salem, OR and they are both missing their heads but not their mouths; and I'm not joking.

On this point I would agree with Voltaire. The Philosophical Dictionary Voltaire Selected and Translated by H.I. Woolf New York: Knopf, 1924 Scanned by the Hanover College Department of History in 1995. Proofread and pages added by Jonathan Perry, March 2001. Democracy ORDINARILY there is no comparison between the crimes of the great who are always ambitious, and the crimes of the people who always want, and can want only liberty and equality. These two sentiments, Liberty and Equality, do not lead direct to calumny, rapine, assassination, poisoning, the devastation of one's neighbours' lands, etc.; but ambitious might and the mania for power plunge into all these crimes whatever be the time, whatever be the place. Popular government is in itself, therefore, less iniquitous, less abominable than despotic power. The great vice of democracy is certainly not tyranny and cruelty: there have been mountain-dwelling republicans, savage, ferocious; but it is not the republican spirit that made them so, it is nature. The real vice of a civilized republic is in the Turkish fable of the dragon with many heads and the dragon with many tails. The many heads hurt each other, and the many tails obey a single head which wants to devour everything. Democracy seems suitable only to a very little country, and further it must be happily situated. Small though it be, it will make many mistakes, because it will be composed of men. Discord will reign there as in a monastery; but there will be no St. Bartholomew, no Irish massacres, no Sicilian vespers, no inquisition, no condemnation to the galleys for having taken some water from the sea without paying for it, unless one supposes this republic composed of devils in a corner of hell. One questions every day whether a republican government is preferable to a king's government? The dispute ends always by agreeing that to govern men is very difficult. The Jews had God Himself for master; see what has happened to them on that account: nearly always have they been beaten and slaves, and to-day do you not find that they cut a pretty figure? Hanover Historical Texts Project Return to Hanover College Department of History Please send comments to: luttmer@hanover.edu

holy cow pooh, is this abuse? and they thought Micheal Jackson was a bad guy 4 holding the kid out the window.

quote:Ask yourself who killed Martin Luther King and then start researching it to see if you even know the answer. The lies and criminal actions some of our fearless "leaders" are playing are likely going to kill our great and (formerly) amazing country. the amazing country killed off most of the original Americans: indigenous people. Wikipedia:[president] Jefferson believed assimilation was best for Indians; second best was removal to the west. The worst possible outcome would happen if Indians attacked the whites.[109] He told his Secretary of War, General Henry Dearborn (who was the primary government official responsible for Indian affairs): "if we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down until that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Mississipi."

That's what I've been thinking. That chick that does fresh air had a Clinton wonk attorney of accountability something or other that is suppose to keep an eye on shit and he let the whole swap thing go down. This dude was claiming Americans need to be more responsible with their own personal finances. WTF? She didn't even bust his ass on this, just licked it. Hard Ball journalism is DOA.

Seems like NPR: national public radio, aka baby pabulum, should be called No Public Resource. Seems like they just regurgitate. Like reporting there aren't any indicators to point at the economy getting better or worse; is this BS or am I senile or both? Anyone like BBC or Democracy Now or? Any suggestions?

Quote: The message is clear, say analysts. Armed with foreign reserves of $2.7 trillion, China is offering its financial muscle to rescue a struggling Europe in exchange for technology and open borders. Just curious; does anyone think it is in Chinas interest to crash the US dollar when they hold so many of them. Is this why they won't peg the yen at a higher rate?