I wonder if all those Climate Change aka Global Warming, deniers truly understand the horror that is facing mankind. Back in the mid 1950’s in a small town in America a group of courageous high schoolers saved their town and the country from an outer space monster. We know this happened because of the Docu-drama that hit the drive-in theaters in 1958 under the catchy name “The Blob”.
So what is the danger to us now? Simply put the “Blob” wasn’t killed, only frozen. An as Steve Andrews says at the end of the movie “As long as the Arctic stays cold.” Well the Arctic isn’t staying cold, now is it. Just listen to the news, Alaska and Greenland have and/or are having the hottest heatwaves in their history. An if the movie is accurate on where the Blob’s capsule was dropped, it was on the Arctic Icesheet. That is sea ice, not land.
Are we sure the capsule shown in the movie was an accurate representation of the actual capsule used. Is it jelly tight or can the Blob, once it has thawed out, squeeze out. How corrosion resistant is the capsule? After all it has been over 60+ years are we really sure that the Blob is in it’s prison? Do we know if the capsule is still on the ice sheet and hasn’t melted it’s way thru the ice and dropped to the Arctic sea bed?
From what we saw in the movie the Blob will absorb any animal life. (In the movie the Blob ignores all of the plant life in the town and goes for the people and other animals.). We also know it will move towards the nearest concentration of animal life and will recoil from cold. This leads to holding it will move towards schools of fish and eventually towards land and villages. But that is not the worst, not at all.
If the docu-drama is anywhere accurate the Blob grows almost exponentially. Grow even bigger than what it eats. Also just what effect will high explosives have. It won’t kill the Blob but it could scatter bits a pieces all over the place. Will the pieces rejoin to make on big blob or will the each go on their own way help create a Blob Apocalypse? What will we do if one or more pieces get down below the snow line, where it rarely, if ever, get down to freezing. How do we stop it then?
So there you have it. The TRUE terror of global warming. Now we know just what the 1% is truly hiding from us. They are able to afford cryogenic fortifications able to stop the Blob(s). The rest of us, not so much. So
Today we saw two great enemies the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have both taken Pres. Donald Trump to task for Saying that the New York Times committed treason. After reading both editorials, Pres. Trump’s response and the original comments by the New Your Time I have just a few words to say.
First, and foremost Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution (see Article III Section 3) and what the New Your Times did does not pass this test. What was done by the Times was the crime of Lese-majesty. Or even sacrilege, depending on how you look at it. It was certainly disrespectful.
There was a good reason why the authors of the Constitution put such a limit on just what treason was in the United States. Every one of them had committed treason against the Crown (not counting open rebellion). If you want to see a document rampant with disrespect for the Monarch just read the American Declaration of Independence. So forget about the rebellion AKA Revolution, the treasonest act of Lese-majesty was also committed. But the President of the United States is not a Monarch, nor is he a divinely appointee representative of a God, nor a god Himself, nor a divinity. So we get to be as rude as we like to who ever holds the office.
So, Pres. Trump you need to get your lapdog, or is is lap-turtle, Sen. McConnell to get a new Constitutional Amendment passed making any act of Leses-majesty an act of treason. Maybe you can combine it with the one making the office hereditary in the house of Trump?
The other day, my friend Lin (AKA my Ex), made a comment about how I really didn’t understand about all the talk about ‘Whte Male Privlage’. How, being a white male, I really didn’t and couldn’t understand the feelings of those who resented it. An I was both hurt and angered by the comment.
How could she say that to me, of all people, didn’t she know better? It is enough to say we eased thru the tenseness of the moment and went on with out visit. But I got me think about the whole issue of Privlage, of who has it, and who knows they have it. If we could make a good study of it I think we would find that most (a very large percentage) of white males are totally unaware of having any Privlage at all. An why is this? Is it just white male obliviousness? Do we just refuse to see it? In most cases I think not.
I submit for your consideration the following hypothesis:
That ‘White Male’ Privilege is not privlaged, but rather the absence of discrimination.
Or perhaps it is best to say what we call out as “White Male” Privilege is the absence of discrimination. What I’m trying to say is that most of what is identified as being a ‘privilege’ acting in a way everyone should be treated but aren’t. To all the White Males out there I call on you to do everything in your power, in your everyday lives, to treat everyone the same way you expect to be treated. Everyone you see as not ‘white’ in you daily life take a little extra effort to see that you treat them just like you want to be treated. Apply this to every woman who crosses your path today, an everyday. An when you see another person you see as ‘one of us’ doing, saying, acting in a way you would object to if you were that person, then call it out. Ask them why they are acting that way? Tell them to please stop doing what ever they were doing in your presence.
An, please, don’t do it with anger. Ask it as a question, as a little child would. More in confusion than in anger. Don’t give them any chance to take what you say as a personal challenge or insult. For me it is all a mater of WDJD (What Did Jesus Do) for everyone else just replace the J with what ever divinity of love kindness and forgiveness you wish.
One of the tings I learned as a young man was how to tell the difference between Good Liars, Bad Liars, and Terrible Liars. An to be grateful for the latter. We should be grateful that Pres. Trump and most of his administration are such terrible liars.
Maybe I should back up just a bit and explain what I mean by Good Liars, Bad Liars, and Terrible Liars. By Good Liars I mean people who lie so well no one ever discovers the lie that was told. By Bad Liars I mean people who tell lies that can and are eventually uncovered. An Terrible Liars are those people who you know are lying as they speak/write/etc. I have found that most of the terrible liars I have known share one trait in common, they really don’t care if you know that what they are saying is the truth or not. Unfortunately I have also know a time or two terrible liars who are totally unaware they are lying because, at the time they are lying the ‘know’ what they are telling you is the ‘truth’. I hold that Donald Trump is this later kind of Terrible Liar.
I also hold that way too many of the supporters of Pres. Trump are the first kind of Terrible Liars. I also have a theory on why they are like this. They only care about winning. They hold to be true that “wining isn’t everything, it is the only thing!” Also most of the time the penalty they have to pay is so minor compared to what they see as their gains it is well worth it. Often they are not even the people who have to pay the price of their lies. Someone else, who comes after pays the price, not them.
This is why I am saying we are lucky that Donald Trump and his Administration is such Terrible Liars. We know, in real-time, they are lying to us and we have the opportunity to hold them accountable for those lies. This is also the problem the GOP is facing now. If they don’t stop enabling these Terrible Liars they are, as a party, going to end up paying the price of all of the Trump Administration lies. In twenty years the GOP just maybe a memory of the body politic. It will go the way of the “American Party”. Gone extinct do to a total lose of credibility.
Most business were ‘small’ like two or three people small. An big business was never over a 100 people. Where money was cold hard cash (coin mind you) that you still had to check out to be sure of it’s purity (monarchs still liked to debase coinage to stretch the budget) and true weight (people like to shave or Knick coins). An people lived in neighborhoods so small everyone knew everyone else and was suspicious of everyone else.
In Great Britain (England, Scotland,and Wales) most towns had just had Church & Chapel if not just Church. If you acted badly in your business everyone would know and best you would have a very hard time of it. If you were very unlucky or very bad, you could even have your “Name read out” on Sunday. Your wife, if wife you had, would could be ostracized from all town social life and finding suitable marriages for you children would be next to impossible. Now I can hear some of you saying, “But what about all those stories I read like “Pride and Prejudice”. First the people in the story are not middle class they are ‘Gentry’ AKA lower upper class. An if you look closely few, if any, of the characters are in “Trade” which is what business was called back then.
So what does this all have to do with Capitalism? Simply that the Capitalism being discussed is small/local Capitalism. Capitalism with few and easily identified entries into starting a business. Just consider this: Why was the silver smith shop of Paul Revere in Boston, a city, and not in a village like Braintree. Several reasons but two of the most important was access to raw materials (shipped in over water to Boston Harbor) and customers. That is the people with both the need to buy silver and the cash gold to buy it. It would do us well to remember that most artisans did their work on consignment. This went for cobblers, cartwrights, blacksmiths as well as silver or gold smiths. Very little would you see a shop filled with goods you could come in and buy.
Also the law was very different back then. Like modern day full partnerships, someone like Paul Revere, or even John Hancock, was personally responsible for all debts and liabilities of the business. It is just about this time you see the first limited/shared liability companies showing up in London (to wit “ lloyds of London”) where an investor was liable only for the amount of money he invested and nothing more. Even then some very interesting cases in commercial law come out of the period that forced Parliament to make new law. Next comes the steam revolution that suddenly made traveling over hundreds of miles in a day something that could be done by most anyone. I shan’t go into more detail on the industrial revolution as there are many many good books and online classes on the subject.
What is important here is that the type and form of capitalism we have now would be totally unrecognizable to Adam Smith. Trying to justify economic activity using his writing makes as much since as starting a business based solely on cold hard cash and selecting your business location on foot traffic of the wealthy.