Rupert Sheldrake A New Science of Life

Rupert Sheldrake has a video set on Youtube.com called, "A New Science of Life" and "Seven Experiments that could change the World". He has written a bunch of books and is a pretty interesting guy.

Robert Sheldrake

My son found it and I watched it. Very interesting stuff. Now my son is little more "out there" on new technologies and ways of thinking, physics and all that kind of very fascinating stuff. He is into now, the kinds of things I was into at his age, in his early twenties. But we have new things to be fascinated by now.

Still, I find sometimes that my son is a little too out there for me, either because I know that eventually he is going to come back from a dead end (and probably one I've been down myself, or a similar one), or simply because I do not understand what it is he is ruminating about. But this is very rewarding for us both. In some cases he is going down paths I went down and had thought were worthy to venture down, but later realized this was simply yet either another charlatan selling his or her wares, or they were simply interesting ideals with no real foundation in anything worthy of further pursuit.

Still, he came up with this guy: Rupert might seem a little nuts at first, but he has some very valid points. Like science is, and always has been, by design and by necessity (to some degree) and therefore, rather stodgy.

Rupert said that he had Richard Dawkins, one of my heroes, visit his home one day and at their request for a filmed event, but in the end, Rupert had to ask them to leave. It was because he said, Richard was simply too closed off and too much the skeptic. One should be skeptical, but not to the exclusion of seeing what is actually there. Or, may be. Richard just responded that science is seeing the fewest possible things.

Rupert gave examples of having done a study on ESP (you must know that means Extra Sensory Perception, yes?). The review he sent it to said you must be joking, or some such thing. He pointed out that originally Galileo couldn't get "scientists" of his time to look through his telescope. And the editor responded, I think I'll take the chance. A funny story, but it exemplifies the closed attitude of science.

I agreed with him, however, I still didn't know what he was about. Then he started talking about the dog study, which I found very interesting. Not only because of what he found, but also because he found someone who said his study was nonsense and then did his own study to prove him wrong, only to prove the original research as accurate, yet even more so.

What this study was about, was why a dog will go and wait for their owner, when the owner is on the way home from work (or wherever) for the day. Is it psychic? Is it what we call, paranormal? Well it seems that way. Still, couldn't it be a routine, after all, animals have a very good sense of time of day; couldn't it be that the other person in the house is "telegraphing" that someone is on the way home: couldn't it be that it is a simple coincidence and the animal is merely looking out the window as they do off and on, all day long?

Well, the study accounted for all of that and still they had relevant, let's say, a statistically relevant finding. Interesting, yes?


"I have carried out many trials with return-anticipating dogs, especially with Jaytee, a dog belonging to Pam Smart, in Ramsbottom, Lancashire. To start with, we recorded Jaytee's anticipatory behaviour on 100 occasions when Pam was absent for a wide range of times, some as short as an hour, others as long as long 12 hours. Jaytee anticipated her returns on 82 percent of these occasions, both with short and long absences (Sheldrake & Smart, 1998). He also anticipated her returns at least 10 minutes in advance when she was travelling in unfamiliar vehicles, such as taxis."

"Subsequently, in a series of 100 videotaped trials, the place at which Jaytee waited by the window was filmed continuously on timecoded videotape throughout Pam's absences. These films were evaluated "blind" by independent scorers, who recorded all the times at which Jaytee was by the window. The data showed that he was waiting by the window very significantly more when Pam was on her way home from destinations at least 5 miles away than in the main period of her absence (Sheldrake & Smart, 2000a).

"Marks suggested that the anticipatory behaviour of the Pam Smart's dog Jaytee could be explained by the dog learning when Pam could be expected home, and signalling accordingly. But if he had read our published papers he would have know that this hypothesis had already been refuted. Jaytee responded to Pam's homecomings after absences of very different durations. We tested for the possibility of learning effects by comparing Jaytee's behaviour after short, medium and long absences. His anticipatory behaviour was similar in all cases, ruling out the learning hypothesis (Sheldrake & Smart, 2000a, Figure 4)." Rupert Sheldrake

 
They gave one example of a son, coming home from the military, no routine, no usual car sound coming down the street as he used a train and then taxi, the mother didn't know the son was coming home, but the dog sat there waiting for him to walk in the door.

In the research they showed that the dog would wait for the owner to come home, before they were on the way home, but this was explained as the person deciding to come home, and the dog, feeling that, and getting ready, which, if you think about it, really makes perfect sense and almost proves the point due to the unexpected timing. If the dog responded as the person left work, wouldn't that be a little too pat and all neat and tidy? In a way, this is the exception proving the rule.

Sheldrake invokes morphogenetic fields to achieve the inheritance of experiences. Figure 1 is from The Presence of the Past and illustrates how morphogenetic fields relate to conventional genetics.

In his book Seven Experiments That Could Change the World, Rupert Sheldrake explains why "big questions don't [necessarily?] need big science."

I kind of like how this guy thinks.

Concealed Carry - Ever consider carrying a gun?

Have you ever, considered carrying a gun? Or even owning one, perhaps for home defense?


I've railed for years about things like how easy it is to get married, how hard to get divorced, which is, if you think about it, kind of backwards. And how hard it is to get a driver's license, yet how easy it is to get a gun, and even, to get licensed in many states, to carry it in a concealed fashion.

There is a group called USCAA, the United States Concealed Carry Association. Through them you can not only get insurance for carrying a gun, but education about the responsibilities and the difficulties related to carrying one. As I said, I'm really not advocating carrying, however, if you are going to, know what the heck you are doing and be aware of what it means.

USCAA has a very good document on the topic of concealed carry:

http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/downloads/reports/pdf/7_things_you_must_know.pdf

NOTE: USCAA said there have been some misunderstandings about their services on the insurance side, so they produced this video.

Don't misunderstand what I'm about to say, I am NOT advocating carrying. The idea of some of the people I know are carrying, with too little experience and training, kind of scares me. In some cases, it out right terrifies me.

However, that being said, I can't help but think about all those incidents where some nutcase walks into a burger joint, or an office somewhere and simply starts opening up with automatic weapons fire. If ONE person were carrying and had the balls to pull and fire one shot, how many lives could have been saved over the years if that happened each time an incident like this started up? If there were one person, with no training, just a handgun, who could have simply shot the person who is shooting innocent people, I find that far more likeable a situation. But the last thing we need are a bunch of "Dirty Harry" types running around being vigilantes.

No, we don't need a bunch of citizens all pulling and firing, but on the other hand, if five or fifteen citizens pulled a gun on some nut, might he not be motivated by overwhelming force to lay down his arms? Or if not, die on the spot? Possibly (hopefully) without the loss of a single innocent life? If the potential killer is there to "die by cop" as they say, I'm all for him "dying by citizen", too. It's like I've always said about murder suicides, if ONLY they would kill themselves first, then turn their gun on their children, loved ones, coworkers or family members. But no, they always seem to have to kill the others first. Too bad, right?

I have all kinds of compassion for suicides, just not murder suicides, because really, I couldn't care less what their personal situation is if they are going to take out anyone besides themselves.

Okay, the idea of a bunch of citizens, American citizens, especially the types of people who typically can't take the time to educate themselves properly about nearly anything, does scare me. The thought of some nutcase pulling a gun to indiscriminately start killing people, then a bunch of those people to pull and fire, is pretty scary. Guns blazing, people firing scared, in possibly conflicting directions, innocents killed... it's a fearsome consideration.

But odds are, there would only be one. I don't have a big concern if I were that citizen stopping someone, were I carrying something. But then, I've been trained on this since my Jr High School years. I got my "sports letter" (a big gold and black trimmed "L") in High School in of all places, on our HS's Rifle Club, which I was on for all three years.

In Basic Military Training I rated 120% on the M16. Don't ask how I did that, you'll figure it out in a minute. And five of those shots went into the guy's target next to me; you see, at that distance, it isn't really that hard to hit a target and then realize that it was the guy's target next to you; the point is you see, in that kind of scenario, simply to hit a target at that distance. That is, if you are shooting at an enemy "out there", you really just need to hit SOMEONE. If I were shooting alone as a sniper, yes, then it would be extremely good to hit whatever I was meaning to aim at. But that is with a long rifle, and at a distance. We're talking handgun here, and close up. And I've done quite well with that, too.

The scenario I'm talking about here, is a guy (or gal) right there in front of you, mere feet or yards away and there being no way to not know what you are aiming at positively. And just like the Good Samaritan, do you act or stand there? Not to mention, just because you have a weapon on you, does not mean you need to, or should, pull it, or should pull it and fire. That is something you have to make a split second decision about. But IF someone pulls a gun and shoots someone, and then takes aim at another, I don't know, I'm thinking, pull and fire?

But there are other issues to consider here, in fact, many.

When you carry, you really need to know what you are doing, and how to do it. Practice so that it's second nature (you don't want to be thinking too much, you want the decision, the right decision, to just happen). But how many simply buy a gun, then carry it, with no license? Or, get a license and carry, with no training. Or, get training but don't practice. Or, practice but don't practice for the reason they are carrying? Yeah, a lot, I'm sure.

UPDATE: NPR Article 1/29/2013 - Armed 'Good Guys' And The Realities Of Facing A Gunman

So, these USCAA people know all that. They want you to get that training and then they want to help you protect yourself, and others. Kind of like the Good Sam laws in some states.

Did you know that you can stop to help someone who is hurt, such as in a car accident, and if you make a mistake, or even if you don't, you can get sued for possibly saving the person's life? There have been situations where a citizen stopped to help someone dying, saved their life, then the person ends up permanently disabled, possibly because of their life being saved. Possibly, it was going to happen no matter who saved them. Then they sue the person that saved their life. Ridiculous, right? Even if they lose and you are proven right, it would be horrible being in that situation, maybe ending up in debt because of what, you tried to save someone's life? Makes you think you should have just let them die. But it has happened. And so some states have passed "Good Sam" laws so people wouldn't be thinking about that as they make up their mind to try to save someone's life.

The USCAA has insurance just for things like this. And for other cases. They give an example of a citizen who has taken his gun lawfully packed, to another state on a plane, but when he got there he was arrested, even though he believed he was following all the rules and laws. He got bailed out that same day by the USCAA and it was all worked out with the police.

So if you are going to carry, or in some cases, even own a gun, this might not be a bad deal for you. Plus, get any training they suggest. Because you can't just pull a gun and use it. Even if you need it, if you don't know what the hell you are doing, you are opening up a nasty can of worms.

Suzanna Gratia-Hupp's testamony video of her telling why she thinks people should be allowed to concealed carry after she was involved in a spree killing incident as a victim. It's an interesting statement.

They offer a document with seven things you absolutely have to know if you are going to concealed carry a handgun:

• When, do I have to shoot? - Knowing when to draw and fire. NEVER draw a gun as a warning, a bluff, or if you do not intend to kill. MAYBE, you can simply show your gun in its holster (and please, use a holster, putting a gun in your pants or pocket is unprofessional and can get you killed). If you draw a gun, especially if you aim it at someone, you need to have the mindset that you will kill that person, you have to be ready to squeeze that trigger, and you have to be prepared to kill them if necessary. Aim for the center body mass. IF your gun is aimed at someone in this scenario, they are going to die in a second or less, but if there is anyway you can NOT pull that trigger, that has to be a consideration. However, that being said, if you draw on them (and best not to get into a "quick draw" with someone, it's best to pull if they aren't looking at you, your mindset of their dying in a second, can be paramount in the possibility of their laying down their arms. Just don't expect it or depend on it, or you can get killed yourself. If they have killed someone and go to aim at you, I would suggest giving strong thought to squeezing and firing. Again, nothing like a professional giving you training on this (practice, practice, practice) before you have to deal with it.
• Training - Did I say to get a good professional trainer? Train. Have I mentioned you should Practice, regularly.This isn't the same as carrying a flashlight. This is a lethal weapon we're talking about here.
• The 21 foot rule - "The 21-foot rule is also known as the Tueller Drill, named after Dennis Tueller, a police officer with the Salt Lake City Police Department who asked the question: “How close is too close?” He essentially quantified the distance that an attacker can cover in
  the same time that a defender can draw his pistol and fire a shot on target. He found that the distance of 21 feet can be covered in 1.5 seconds. This is the standard by which many defensive shootings have been measured. Shoot too soon, you are criminally liable. Shoot too late, you risk injury or death. There is very little margin for error." For myself, I've seen a martial artist, granted in a dojo, have someone draw a (fake) handgun on them, 15 feet away, and the guy with the handgun, lost. Something to think about when you are the one holding the cards, or better, the gun. Don't have false confidence. Don't let them get too close, but ask yourself, what IS too close.
• 10 seconds to fight - if you  need to draw, you may only have a 1,000th of a second to decide, draw and fire, but if you are hit, you may only have 10 seconds to react, possibly to save yourself, and others. TV and movies, are NOT reality. I have a rule of thumb on this, if you try to kill someone, they will not die; if you only want to simply harm or fight someone, they will probably accidentally die. Shooting someone, does not kill them. You have to shoot them correctly, and possibly maybe many times. You may even have to empty your gun in a situation like this but, did they have a partner? Think, Columbine High School.
• Handgun retention - the art and science of defeating an attempt to disarm the legitimate
  wearer of the gun. If someone has a gun, you CAN take it away if you know how, and practice it (I'm not suggesting this, I'm just saying it can be done); likewise, they can take yours from you. Every year there are many people who are shot with their own handgun. If you consider the speed it can take to think and react to fire a gun, it's been proven, you CAN (it's possible) take action against an assailant before they can react. The best way to do this however, is not to let them know you exist. If someone is on a shooting spree in my office and one or more people have gone down (not that I'd have a gun at work, after all, they are not allowed, think about THAT for a minute), so let's say the spree is in someone else's office, I'm NOT telling him a damn thing if I am carrying, he will die without even knowing where the bullet came from. After all, I am NOT a cop. Now that being said, I MIGHT give him warning, but if he even sweats, my gun will go off and he will go down. But then I am me, and you are you. It's to be burned in YOUR mind the rest of your life, no matter what you do on a day like that. Maybe I'll give warning, maybe I won't, it will all depend upon the exact scenario going on at that moment, to decide what I would do.
• The one armed draw - practicing a draw before you need it, is a necessity; being able to draw with either hand, can be life saving. If you draw, always try to use two hands, for stability, especially if you're adrenalin is pumping, your hands are shaking, you will need that stable aim, then squeeze and fire smoothly. Try NEVER to fast draw on someone. Yes, you may need to, if you are going to die anyway, do it. Even if they hit you, you don't have to die for no reason, die by stopping them from harming any others. Don't be a martyr, unless you can stop them. But then that, is up to you as to what to do. But if I know I'm going to die, I am NOT going alone if I can help it and no one is going to die after I do, if it is at all possible.
• Arrested after the draw - Even if you are innocent and perfectly in your rights, if you draw a gun, especially if you shoot and probably if you harm or kill, you may be arrested. You may also be released shortly thereafter but many do not realize that they can be arrested for doing what was right and correct. Do NOT scream at the cops, they are just doing their job, they have to sort out what very well may be an absolute mess. And that takes time to figure out what happened. If you pull a gun for whatever reason (and you may be let go on the spot, but you will still need to give a statement), expect that your life stops, until this is cleared up.
• The cost of Defense - Legal defense, not armed defense. "A private defense attorney will charge you a hefty retainer to even initiate a defense, as much as $50,000 or more, depending on what he believes he will need to spend to defend you. The money is usually paid up front, because once an attorney becomes the attorney of record, he likely cannot be dismissed from the case
  just because you ran out of money to pay him. He is in it for the long haul. If you don’t have the money, some form of collateral will be established, like titles to your cars, your gun collection,
  expensive jewelry, or even your equity in your house. In addition to attorney’s fees, you [may] will need to pay a private investigator to investigate for you. You see, the investigation the police do is intended to convict people of crimes, not to exonerate them [although, that may be part of their investigation by it's nature]. You need your own investigator to help prove your innocence. Figure on $5,000 for this. You will also likely need experts, and perhaps lots of them."

I would add two more, lesser important but still extremely important, elements: 

• When do I carry? - I always thought of it this way, if I feel like I'm not sure, if I think maybe I shouldn't, I don't. If I'm not sure, if I feel like maybe I should, I do. Most times, you just know and don't think about it. If I'm carrying a lot of money for instance, for some reason. Riding a motorcycle cross country, knowing you'll be at stop lights, in a city, in the middle of the night, things like that. When you are vulnerable, basically. That goes to the core of intent, you have to feel 100% into what you are doing, if not, better perhaps to take the chance of needing it, and not have it. Concurrently, if you feel the opposite, better to have it available. I also believe that if you are going to carry at all, you really need to carry for a while, as much as possible, until it becomes a part of you, second nature, then you can stop carrying all the time. It's like with wearing a suit. I always wore a suit like I was out of place. It was uncomfortable, it felt weird. So I started wearing it to work, "weirding" everyone out which was fun ("is he trying for another job? What's going on with him?"), but I did that for about six months until I felt like it was a part of me. Then I stopped. Now when I put on a suit I look better and feel better, I feel, "natural" wearing it. Carrying a gun is uncomfortable. You have to get the right holster, the right position, location on your body, with concerns to your draw, concealability, etc. What looks good walking, can be uncomfortable sitting. Do you need speed of draw, concealability, does the size/weight/shape of the gun mean you need a certain kind of holster? And so on.
• What do I carry? -  You might want to get a trainer first, and let them help you choose. That being said, it depends upon several issues. What might you run into? How skilled are you? What are the chances you expect to run into (not that you can plan that, but still....) what kinds of situations? Will you use it for home defense too? It's legal to carry on your own property in most states and in your own home. There is a lot of disagreement in the field of what to carry and what the term "firepower" refers to; is it more, smaller cartridges, more powerful but fewer cartridges, or many powerful and many numbers of cartridges? You can always carry extras in "speed loaders" for revolvers, or extra magazines for semi-autos. But all you need to kill someone, and we're talking about killing, disabling if possible, but in many cases, that can get you killed. Do you use a revolver or a (semi) automatic? Where do you carry it? How much is concealment important to you as it relates to comfort and speed of the draw. DO not try to "shoot the gun out of their hand", do try to kill, and there are a few reasons for this. Why shoot if you're not going to kill, why pull a gun out if you don't need to kill?

All it really takes to kill is a small caliber weapon, a .22 or .32. Bullets kill through different means, bouncing around in the skull's brain chamber, or blowing the head completely apart. Although most people want massive firepower for the latter effect. The reasoning is, if you kind of hit them, you take them down, stop them, or kill them. But the bigger the caliber, the more people the bullet will possibly go through.

When you are in public, or at home especially, you want to limit that, so there are bullets such as frangible or hollow point bullets, that transfer more of the impact power to the body and stop more quickly rather than pass on through when they strike something, as a "hard ball" round will. If it passes through someone, much of that power passes through with them, rather than impacting the body.

In fact, if you are doing home defense, I would strongly advise against even using a handgun. Get a nice short shotgun. Especially if you are small, a woman, or old. That's not sexist, it's reality. If you break into someone's home and you walk into a guy, or a guy with a gun, you're in trouble, but he may try to hold you for the police. If you run into a woman, especially if she's alone, she's probably scared and knows she may be easily outmatched.

Consider you just broke in, and you are now looking down the barrel of a shotgun with a scared individual behind it. DO NOTHING. DO whatever she says. Nothing is scarier than the sound of a 12 gauge pump action shotgun in the dark with a scared woman behind it or a small man, worse if they are old, or a kid; the point is, anyone that has reason to be afraid, because fear holding a gun at you, well, there's nothing scarier. If you do go for a shotgun and someone breaks in, call 911, then if you have to, lock the buttstock under your arm, use the right shells so they tend not to pass through the walls and kill you family or, well, if you can, it's best really to simply run out of the house....

The image above shows penetration over 12" which is deeper than most people are, meaning, you can run a bullet through a person and kill the person behind them. Ricochets are also to be considered. The FBI did a study years ago and ricochets off the ground tend to run parallel to the ground so lying on the ground is not always the best situation.

Consider noise levels. One will usually shoot in a gun range, with ear and eye protection, and you should, but if you EVER use a gun in an emergency, there will be no protection (try keeping your mouth open and your Eustachian tubes in your inner ear unplugged).

So, if you don't carry a gun and you are the type who is responsible and rational, you might consider it. If you do carry a gun now, get more training. If you are going to carry a gun, get used to it, really used to it; get used to it to the point that it seems like an extension of your body, or else you are putting everyone into some degree of danger. Think about the stories you may have heard about basketball players being told by the coach to carry the ball with them for the first weeks or months, even sleeping with it, so it becomes a part of them. I'm not saying, sleep with your gun, it's a simile.

Again, I don't mean to be advocating carrying a weapon. I know it may sound like it. But I also don't mean to ignore the reality of how the world is, or that people do and are carrying. And I know there are people out there who it would be nice if they did carry because they are the types you wish were carrying in some situations. I know some people that always want a gun on them. Seems paranoid to me. I've found in many cases, I can find a weapon, if I needed on, in the environment around me, wherever I am. The best weapon is (honestly? almost) always with you: your brain.

If you are going to carry, simply do it smart.

Think about it. Prepare for it. Find out what professionals say about it. Know what you are doing and what you might have to do. Practice until it's second nature. Know your responsibilities. Go into it wide awake and aware, knowledgeable and practiced, not "eyes wide shut". Do not drink if you are carrying a gun. Partying and guns don't mix. If you are doing anything questionable, don't carry a gun. If police find you with a gun and drugs or alcohol, it goes far worse for you. So use that brain.

But if you do carry, please, be damn sure you know what you are doing. I might be the guy on the other side of the killer, who you accidentally shoot. And I don't want to hear, "I'm so sorry, I didn't see you standing there." You should have. And I still have other things to do in my life.

Is it time to change the Constitution?

Is it time to change the U.S. Constitution?

It's something to think about. For most Americans, even the thought of this is traitorous. Yet, we've revised it twenty-seven times with amendments. So, times do change, and when you consider the original was written with the consideration of a few united States and a few representatives, with expectations of the U.S. growing, there was no way the Founding Fathers could have foreseen appropriately what we would turn into, or what we would be dealing with, not to mention, how new technologies and World Politics would be changing.

Idealized Artist's view of the signing the US Constitution

If they could have foreseen these things, considering how well they have done already with their actual foresight, how amazing could things have been up to this point. Many of the things we deal with now were in place back then, World politics, commerce, considerations for Human Rights, etc.

But have things changed that much that we need at least a few more revisions, or a rewrite?

Don't worry, I don't think we should rewrite it. Still, it is a consideration we should at least think about, as that can give us the insight as to where to make changes, and what we may need to do now.

Iceland's Althing parliament

Consider Iceland. They have the oldest continuous parliament in the world. Their Althing or Alþingi, is the oldest one still in use, was formed in 930 by Vikings. Although, the Isle of Man has the oldest continuous parliament in the world. The Althing, the Icelandic parliament, is older, but it did not function for a number of years, so it is not the oldest continuous government.Some dispute that, as for 45 years they did not function. So let's review that oldest claim just for fun.

Tynwald

Wikipedia: "Tynwald is usually said in the Isle of Man to be the oldest parliament in continuous existence in the world, having been established by 979 (though its roots may go back to the late 9th century as the thing of Norse raiders not yet permanently resident on the island) and having continued to be held since that time without interruption.  Isle of Man is a self-governing British Crown Dependency, located in the Irish Sea between the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, within the British Isles.

Faroese Løgting- Outside

"There are other parliaments which are undoubtedly older but these have not had a continuous existence. The Icelandic Alþingi was established in 930 but abolished in 1800 and not re-founded until 1845.

Faroese Løgting - in se

The Faroese Løgting is believed to be older than both Tynwald and Alþingi, having been established as early as the 9th century and recorded as an annual assembly in the 10th century. San Marino, a country situated on the Italian peninsula on the eastern side of the Apennine Mountains, also claims that its parliament dates from AD 301, making it several centuries earlier than the claims of the Norse assemblies. Tynwald's claim to have continuous existence as a legislative body is disputed. From the 11th to the 15th centuries, Tynwald was arguably a judicial court and did not create legislation."

That now behind us, I think we can agree, Iceland's been around for a time. They last updated their constitution in 1947, now they think enough has changed that they need to do it again. They are staying vital in their government. They are essentially rewriting their constitution, asking their 350,000 citizens on Facebook what should go into this new constitution.

I'm thinking Fareed Zakaria was right today in asking, do we need another new constitution. If so, why, and how does it need to be changed? He has asked his viewers to suggest three changes. On the other hand, consider American's track record in making good decisions in recent years, I shudder to think if we allowed our citizens to rewrite the Constitution, what nonsense they would put into it, what with their feeling so entitled to anything they want.

I have to say, am so glad we have what we have in place now and that it was written at a time when we paid more attention to what needs to be done for the long term. I get the feeling now a days that even when we do make long term decisions, we only THINK they are long term but in reality their duration is only a few years, or decades, not the long haul.

Not to mention, if only those in positions of power would give us back what we have lost over the years. Do you realize how many in congress don't know what is in the constitution if you ask them?

So, what do you think? Is it time? What would you choose to add? What three things would you add to the
Constitution?

I don't know if we really need to change our constitution, but we certainly need some changes put in place. The problem I feel though, is that if we make any changes, they will end up being the wrong ones. So maybe it's best to leave well enough alone and simply continue to limp along, happy, fat, and ignorant.

Legalize it video contest?

In 1976, Peter Tosh, born Winston Hubert McIntosh (19 October 1944 – 11 September 1987), called on the world to "Legalize It."  This year, on the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon officially declaring the "War on Drugs," and in remembrance of the millions of lives lost and destroyed as a result of that war, Students for Sensible Drug Policy is carrying on Peter Tosh's legacy.  We're educating students, parents, and teachers around the country that, in reality, the War on Drugs is a war on us.

I got an email today: "Have you heard the news? The first-ever marijuana legalization bill will be introduced in Congress next week. You read that correctly!"

Now, don't get too excited. I'm not sure how that is accurate, but the Tosh and SSDP thing seems possible. I can't find where a bill is about to be introduced, but ignore that for now. We have bigger fish to fry, more important issues at bay. Anyway, make up your own mind after reading all of this....

The bill would end federal marijuana prohibition once and for all. You know, I have to assume it won't pass because of those foolish people in charge, all those who say privately they would and want to pass it but fear for their jobs because they will lose their next election. I'm so sad that we voted people in like that, who will not do their job and cast a vote for something so major that should be stopped immediately, decades ago.

Niambe Tosh

"It was thirty-five yers ago that my dad, Peter Tosh, released his groundbreaking hit, "Legalize It."  His song became an anthem for a generation of young people who shared his mission that marijuana should be legal.  As a mom and a teacher, I see how our marijuana laws have failed this generation.  That's why I'm proud to work with Students for Sensible Drug Policy to generate support for the upcoming marijuana legalization bill."

Legalize it Video Contest

Peter's daughter Niambe asks you to submit your ad to the contest by sending a link to your uploaded video to legalizeit@ssdp.org.  If they feature your video for the campaign, you'll get a free commemorative legacy edition box set of Legalize It.  

Help them spread the word about the first-ever marijuana legalization bill in Congress by making your own ad entitled "What 'Legalize It' Means to Me?"  What does legalization mean to you?  Does it mean justice?  Does it mean equality?

In an op-ed with the New York Times, former U.S. President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter has come out strongly in opposition to the war on drugs and in favor of the recommendations put forward by the Global Commission on Drug Policy in this recent report:

"The commission’s facts and arguments are persuasive. It recommends that governments be encouraged to experiment “with models of legal regulation of drugs ... that are designed to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens.” For effective examples, they can look to policies that have shown promising results in Europe, Australia and other places.

"But they probably won’t turn to the United States for advice. Drug policies here are more punitive and counterproductive than in other democracies, and have brought about an explosion in prison populations. At the end of 1980, just before I left office, 500,000 people were incarcerated in America; at the end of 2009 the number was nearly 2.3 million. There are 743 people in prison for every 100,000 Americans, a higher portion than in any other country and seven times as great as in Europe. Some 7.2 million people are either in prison or on probation or parole — more than 3 percent of all American adults!"

U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) takes on the War on Drugs.

I can tell you what it means to me. It means that many many people who are law abiding citizens, will not be turned into criminals, who will be adding to the American dream, not living it in prison. It will mean tax money for many things and now spending tax money on a useless abuse of Citizens by their Government.

If you think that keeping it illegal is the best thing for this country, you need to quit looking at it as an illegal drug, and start seeing it more accurately for what it is. It is possibly the most useful plant and substance on the face of the planet and is good for so many more things that simply "getting high". As far as people getting "high" on it, how is that anyone's business to have a whiskey in their home, or in a bar, at a restaurant or at a friend's house? 

That is not our business, other than it concerns public safety, drunk driving, etc. Regarding it being a "gateway drug" to harder drugs, that is more a terror tactic of the war on drugs than any kind of rational realistic consideration. People who get into harder drugs are doing that because of personality issues, not Cannabis. Take that away? They will still get into harder drugs and if you don't see that, you are fooling yourself.

As for those who have lost loved ones in related issues, well, we have that with alcohol and that's legal, we have it with cars, and those are legal, we have it with guns, and those are incredibly dangerous and those are legal and we have it with river inner tubing. The isn't isn't that, but is it your business and no, it is not. 

Drug use is a medical issue and not a legal one. For things like the hard drugs, Heroin, Cocaine, addictive pills and other drugs, yes, it is a legal issue, but some countries argue that too is a medical issue and in their country their citizens have more rights and freedoms in those areas that the "Land of the Brave and the (semi) Free". 

We need to stop acting in this country like juveniles in our government and our legislating and enforcements and start acting like adults. As I've said for years and have done with my kids, you raise kids to be adults, not kids. Many people raise their kids to be and continue to be kids and they have to deal with the reactions to that, which usually aren't good and sometimes involve drugs. 

My ex-wife tried to raise our kids in the old fashioned way and there were troubles; but when I tried to raise them to be adults things got better almost immediately and I did not have to deal with a drug situation. They felt the stresses of adolescence but not so much those from their family leader. They were not free to do anything, but they were free to think, to make decisions and they respected that.

I would argue that we are now seeing those in charge of this country who were either raised in a fearful way like the old style taught, or they grew into thinking that is how they need to handle and abuse our citizens in their legislating and applying laws. And so we, as American Citizens are treated like we are children because our foolishly elected leaders think they know far better what we need because they are scared of the numbers and a feeling of a lack of knowing what to do. 

Sometimes, by thinking you don't know what to do, you do the wrong thing. Sometimes (to you) the right thing is counterintuitive. But it's not. You just have to let people be and make deicsions for themselves and things will work out in the end. Stop trying to hard and let the rest of America help. In many cases, we can make our own decisions. Back off.

As to the bill, I don't know if that's accurate. But as to the guy that may have started all this, here it is:

US Congressman to File Marijuana Legalization Bill This Year

Jared Polis

America is on the cusp of majority support for marijuana legalization, but legalization is not inevitable and it's up to activists and the multi-billion-dollar marijuana industry to start throwing their weight around to make it happen, US Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) told an overflow crowd during the keynote address at NORML's 40th annual conference at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in downtown Denver Saturday afternoon.


"I am optimistic that we will reach a day when America has the smart, sensible marijuana policy that we deserve," Polis told an attentive audience. "But it could go either way. We could return to the dark ages of repression, or we could be on the eve of a new era of marijuana legalization. Your efforts will help determine which route this country takes and the legacy of this generation of activists on what marijuana policy looks like. Together we can accomplish this," he told the crowd.

Polis said that he would file a marijuana legalization bill this session in Congress. The language was still being developed, he added. He is also working on a bill that would address problems the medical marijuana industry is having with banks, he said.

"Marijuana policy is really coming of age," the businessman turned politician said. "Our Colorado model is very exciting," he added, touting the vibrant local medical marijuana industry on display for conference attendees from across the country. "In my last two elections, even my Republican opponents were for legalization. It's become a very mainstream value here."

One can only hope. Anti Cannabis laws are outdated, ignorant and harmful to US citizens. This has nothing to do with taking drugs. It now has to do with abusing US citizens. People need to start thinking right. Vote.

Yet More Confusion over God, Atheism and Theism

Hi. Welcome. This, should be fun.

Then again, this, is kind of sad. Christopher Hitchens, it seems to me, is not on top of his game in this video (see below). He is also playing by the rules of this debate, which is good, but really, it evades fully understanding the topic.

Christopher Hitchens

Watch the video, then think if the logic presented external to the video subject, makes full sense to you. That, is only partially important here, but it full irritating in its lack of clarity of logic.

In the video one Dr. Craig says that both the theist and the atheist share a burden of proof, as they both hold claims about reality which needs justification (i.e., God does/does not exist).

Mr. Hitchens says the atheist bears no burden of proof (it's ALL on the theist), because atheism is merely a lack of belief in God... but it's also distinct from agnosticism! Right, well.... let's back up a bit.

First, about the debate itself. It's a prime example of a condition regarding this debate, that is really so very much misunderstood. I'll give you an example in an entirely unrelated area.

In Full Contact Martial Arts, such as the UFC, which many may know of because of their show "he Ultimate Fighter", which did a lot to bring this form of Martial Art Tournament fighting to the public attention. These guys (mixed Martial Arts fighters in general) are incredible athletes and have my respect for their sacrifices, sportsmanship and abilities. Let's face it, they are tough guys.

However, although on the street or in a bar fight, they would typically be the guys to bet on most of the times, just because a guy is a champion in this type of ring or cage fight, it has little or no bearing on his being a champion on the street. This is something people haven't understood for as long as I can remember, even predating full contact mixed Martial Arts. You see, a true, professional martial artist in the oldest and truest sense of the word, in theory, could drop a UFC fighter pretty readily.

That being said, that same martial artist, if put in that champion's ring, with those rules and those limitations, could very well encounter extreme frustration and in the end, lose to that "champion". He is after all, a Champion in that ring, cage, or universe, if you will. But we have to consider, just what is he a "Champion", of?

This is something I experienced rather clearly myself in fighting tournaments when I was younger and it was quite frustrating to me, and my fellow style of Martial Artists that came to a head at one tournament in Tacoma. I won't bother here to explain why. But at that one tournament, after several of them going by and our style getting pretty much beat down, our heavy weight put the other style who were the big winners at that time, in the hospital. Three rapid punches to the body did it.

Some of us felt it was because our style had finally had enough of the constant humiliation in comments and lack of successful tournaments, which are the bread and butter of a martial art style or dojo (school) back through history. What we heard from the other leading style was that our style was lame and weak (typical comments) and theirs was the better style (this has been going on for a thousand years in East Asia). But in reality, their style was gross (in movements) and based bludgeoning in techniques, great for tournaments but not on the street.Where our style was elegant, specific and focused.

What happened was that this new style had been (rightly) designed toward tournament fighting. Our style was old and designed toward a specific purpose of killing Samurai, in full armor and gear, by little Okinawan farmers. But in a tournament, we were severely handicapped, while the other style, was pretty much actualized into winning, by design. Something we felt wasn't that useful in a real fight to the death type of match. It, would lose. No doubt about it we felt. After all, our style was designed for that. And so our style fell out of favor. Why. Because were weren't a good style? Or because we weren't a good style for tournaments?

So in a debate such as this, we find something similar. Before the debate gets started, the Atheist's side, is already at a disadvantage and some of that you can see in Hitchen's lack of fielding his argument well. So, let's follow these rules, starting here and ending there, and with a defined set of criteria, which stops the reality of the argument from ever actually happening or being addressed.

And so what Hitchens is bravely doing, and as he does so well, time and time again throughout the years, is play a theist's debate game, and repeatedly beating them at it. Granted in this video, its a closer decision on the debate and for obvious reasons, thus further spurring on and deluding those who are on the theists side, that Hitchens has proved nothing. But regardless of that, I would argue the same to be true on the other side, regardless of the banal over texting on the video stream. Nothing, really was proved. Which allows the Theists to walk away feeling successful. Because they proved their argument? No, because they didn't lose their argument. But really, neither did Hitchens. Think about that.

In that as indicated in the over texting on the video, "Atheism, was originally A-Theism, and so it's Athe-ism"?  The text writer of the subtitles was simply deluded by their own comments. But I appreciate they put their fallacy right there on the screen for everyone to see. I simply wonder, how many of the theists who see that, will even notice it, or simply accept it as, if it's presented, then it proves our case (a total lack of critical thinking, which is part and parcel in theism).

If you watch the video and see this and don't get it, I really don't know what to tell you. Read a book? Stop watching "Hoarders" on cable?

Life existed originally, with no god. Thought one day, then existed, still no god. Thought then either created or became aware of god and therefore, theism came after belief, or you could argue, simultaneously. Either way, atheism may have come after theism as a reaction to it, but the actual belief or understanding of there being a god, came after there having been no god, or any understanding of there being a god.

Consider also, especially in the Middle Eastern desert religions, Christianity (including Catholicism), Islam, Judaism...why was their God, not available during the early Sun worshiping thousands of years periods up until it hit where and when it did? Where was this God in the Mayan, the Aztecs? The Hindus? The Shinto, Buddhism, and others? Why is this God so specific to region and period in History? But, let's let that go for now.

The point of what is and when did it come to be, or what is it a reaction to if anything, really is a moot point.

Theists say that God always existed which comes from within their own argument and others are supposed to prove it incorrect. This is logical lunacy. It SOUNDS good (to them) but you have to back away from them and their arguments to clearly see it.

The problem we face in this God vs no god issue, is that in the beginning, there WAS no God. Accept it. Now, YOU prove to me, there is a God. Feels different, doesn't it?

And to be fair, theists because of the form of their philosophy, really do not have the luxury of admitting, seeing, or acknowledging God didn't exist and then try to prove it. And so by necessity, they start their argument there but, so do the atheists who have to begin their argument there.

THAT is where the problem lay in why the atheists have so much trouble in these debates (and let me say, that actually Hitchens frequently has little difficulty in his debates and his tactics are proper and accurate).

And so we have the issue now where people will argue that yes indeed, God was there at the beginning, because and only because, people proclaim it to be. Then they turn around and say if you don't believe us, prove it.

What? Uh... Really?

You are sitting at a nightclub. A magician is on stage. He does an incredible but doable magic trick that is, it's not real magic. Okay? Now, you let 2000 years pass. People talk about it, write about it. Start little clubs for it.

Now one day, we have a debate. Was what he did, Magic? Or make believe. Prove it wasn't for real, honest to God, Magic.

I'll wait.

Still waiting....

Hmmm....

Well?

Okay. I thought so.

Weekend Wise Words - Happy Father's Day!

Be Smart! Be Brilliant!

Okay, that's all I got on Father's Day. I hope all you Dad's have a good and rewarding day! Hopefully, you've earned it. Because some of you? Haven't. And for those, just try harder this year, okay?

Now....

Maybe instead of talking about Writer's Block, one should be examining the opposite? How one seduces The Muse, into giving you the ecstasy of an extraordinary flow of writing? - JZ Murdock

For the writers among us:

"There are three rules for writing the novel. Unfortunately, no one knows what they are." - W. Somerset Maugham

"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." - Frank Lloyd Wright

"A writer is a person for whom writing is more difficult than it is for other people." - Thomas Mann

St. Kavorkian - Doctor of Euthanasia

Dr. Jack Kavorkian. Remember Jack? Dr. Death? No, some people mostly people no longer with us, if they could come back, just might see him as an Angel. He famously said, "dying is not a crime". And if you need to die, an no one will help you, that, is Hell. 

If you don't believe it, try being in constant and extreme pain, knowing its for the rest of your life and no one will do a thing to help it stop; in fact, they will do everything they can to prolong your pain and discomfort, all the while saying they are doing either God's will, following their Hypocratic Oath, or simply trying to "make you comfortable" until you die. All the while, you just want to die. Now.

I don't think he was the nut, or the death lover people made him out to be. I know he stood for something we need to deal with and are too chicken to want to deal with. It also is a topic that Doctors are too afraid to deal with. Why, are we so scared of something so universal as death? Really, it's something we should deal with.

Beginning in 1999, Kevorkian served eight years of a 10-to-25-year prison sentence for second-degree murder. June 1, of 2007, he was released on parole on the condition that he would not offer suicide advice to any other person. He died in 2011.

A Kavorkian "War"

Wikipedia indicates that Dr. Kevorkian marketed limited quantities of his visual and musical artwork to the public having also been an oil painter and a jazz musician for years. Kevorkian was a jazz musician and composer. The Kevorkian Suite: A Very Still Life was a 1997 limited release CD of 5,000 copies from the 'Lucid Subjazz' label. It features Kevorkian on the flute and organ playing his own works with "The Morpheus Quintet". It was reviewed in Entertainment Weekly online as "weird" but "good natured".

Like with the Donor options of some years ago, where the government pushed for people to sign their body parts over to the public need in event of death, it was a terrible subject to bring up, but we finally did and it became a kind of "why aren't you donating" when you die stigma. Why? Because in the end, the loss of so many organs and so much meat and tissue from humans on a daily, even hourly basis, when so many could use that to have longer, fuller lives, was ridiculous.

During the Vietnam war Dr. Kavorkian found that you could use a cadaver to replenish the blood of a wounded soldier and that the Russians had been doing it for years. So if two soldiers get hit, one dies and one needs blood, and the deceased soldier has compatible blood according to his dog tags, you could save the living solder's life. But no, that wasn't the John Wayne way. Or, whatever.

He also found that by studying a person's eyes, you can tell if and when they had truly died. Rather than do that however, the establishment that be, preferred to spend thousands on a machine to do the same thing. Jack was always attracted to the odd or taboo. But this was a good thing. We just didn't want to believe it. He was odd, so we wanted to discount him. Our loss.

This man had a lot of good ideas and he had enough compassion for the dying that he thought they should be given not the dignity of dying when they wanted, but the compassion to relieve their suffering.

For those who point out the abuses that corporations, the State, or relatives can make on the no longer desired elderly, that is not an argument against this, it is simply lazy thinking. Dispassionate thinking not unlike that of those who would deny Cannabis to cancer patients in great pain or discomfort.