Underwear Goes Inside The Pants Lyrics
Why is marijuana not legal? Why is marijuana not legal?full lyrics
It’s a natural plant that grows in the dirt.
Do you know what’s not natural?
80 year old dudes with hard-ons. That’s not natural.
But we got pills for that.
We’re dedicating all our medical resources to keeping the old guys erect,
but we’re putting people in jail for something that grows in the dirt?
You know we have more prescription drugs now.
Every commercial that comes on TV is a prescription drug ad.more lyrics
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Human powered flight and energy harvesting kites
A strange confluence of events and circumstances has given me some ideas about human powered flight. I watched a snail slithering...just kidding. While vacationing in Florida I watched a guy parasurfing. That night I went home and went to sleep. The next morning was a Sunday so Comedy Central was playing a rerun of the Colbert Report's Friday night show. I had watched some of the show Friday but had not seen the interview with Saul Griffith. Saul Griffith is a genius who is working on wind power generation using high altitude kites to capture the high winds available above 2000 feet. When we got home from Florida I looked up Saul and found a website where he was explaining how the kites work with the aid of a large screen audio-visual presentation.
Last night I woke up thinking about human powered flight which is not uncommon for me but I realized that the actual terminology "human powered" is a limitation that need not exist. The small sail that was used by the parasurfer to skim over the waves at high speed and the piano sized kites used by Saul's power generation facility both had far more pulling power than was being used. Then I began thinking that a tandem device, one part prosthesis, one part kite, could give human beings the power to fly. Rather it could allow us to harness the wind long enough to elevate the flyer to the height necessary to then glide (predominantly) to his destination.
I attempted to use a sheet as a sail on my ripstick once and ran into all the problems of wind power at ground level: insufficient strength, sensitivity to direction of wind, etc. Parasurfing improves upon windsurfing by removing the power source to the sky above the surfer giving him much more maneuverability relative to the wind. The next logical step, in my mind, is to allow the parasail to drag a winged human, instead of a surfing human.
I had been trying to conceptualize a bicycle paired with a retractable set of wings as a means to allow the wings to reach the necessary speed for lift before opening them and taking off. In this concept the bicycle would simply fall away as the flyer opened a hang glider like set of folding wings and began to gain altitude. The problem with this approach is twofold. The first issue is that the speed necessary to generate sufficient lift of a human is too high to be achieved under normal bicycling conditions. Secondly once the rider/flyer leaves the bicycle the power source evaporates and thus the lift disappears. A kitesail on the other hand continues to provide power after the flyer takes off. The power is translated by the wings into lift and the flyer (or his software) may simply determine the altitude needed.
The next question then is how to disempower?unempower? the kitesail without simply cutting it loose. I had this same question watching the parasurfer, wondering how he would stop when he was done. What I had not anticipated was that he could change directions, having assumed that he must simply follow the direction of the wind and then let go. I watched as he approached the pier and then performed a tacking like maneuver and reversed direction back toward the area of the shore from which he came.
In flight the ideal scenario would be retrieval of the parachute once gliding began so that it could be redeployed to gain more altitude or used in an emergency as a parachute. High strength, lightweight cabling with a retractor could be used to reel the kitesail and the flyer toward one another but the only way I can conceptualize the kitesail collapsing is by releasing one side of it and then rolling up the fabric. This may prove a cumbersome load for a human/wind powered flyer to carry and then redeploy.
An alternative method could be to release one side of the kite sail and retract it and then lower it toward the ground so that it could be dropped for later recovery. An airborne-deployable parachute/kitesail could be worn on the body for use in an emergency.
The first step to researching these possibilities is to go parasurfing.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maimaigeronimo/3563512176/in/set-72157618583321484/
Last night I woke up thinking about human powered flight which is not uncommon for me but I realized that the actual terminology "human powered" is a limitation that need not exist. The small sail that was used by the parasurfer to skim over the waves at high speed and the piano sized kites used by Saul's power generation facility both had far more pulling power than was being used. Then I began thinking that a tandem device, one part prosthesis, one part kite, could give human beings the power to fly. Rather it could allow us to harness the wind long enough to elevate the flyer to the height necessary to then glide (predominantly) to his destination.
I attempted to use a sheet as a sail on my ripstick once and ran into all the problems of wind power at ground level: insufficient strength, sensitivity to direction of wind, etc. Parasurfing improves upon windsurfing by removing the power source to the sky above the surfer giving him much more maneuverability relative to the wind. The next logical step, in my mind, is to allow the parasail to drag a winged human, instead of a surfing human.
I had been trying to conceptualize a bicycle paired with a retractable set of wings as a means to allow the wings to reach the necessary speed for lift before opening them and taking off. In this concept the bicycle would simply fall away as the flyer opened a hang glider like set of folding wings and began to gain altitude. The problem with this approach is twofold. The first issue is that the speed necessary to generate sufficient lift of a human is too high to be achieved under normal bicycling conditions. Secondly once the rider/flyer leaves the bicycle the power source evaporates and thus the lift disappears. A kitesail on the other hand continues to provide power after the flyer takes off. The power is translated by the wings into lift and the flyer (or his software) may simply determine the altitude needed.
The next question then is how to disempower?unempower? the kitesail without simply cutting it loose. I had this same question watching the parasurfer, wondering how he would stop when he was done. What I had not anticipated was that he could change directions, having assumed that he must simply follow the direction of the wind and then let go. I watched as he approached the pier and then performed a tacking like maneuver and reversed direction back toward the area of the shore from which he came.
In flight the ideal scenario would be retrieval of the parachute once gliding began so that it could be redeployed to gain more altitude or used in an emergency as a parachute. High strength, lightweight cabling with a retractor could be used to reel the kitesail and the flyer toward one another but the only way I can conceptualize the kitesail collapsing is by releasing one side of it and then rolling up the fabric. This may prove a cumbersome load for a human/wind powered flyer to carry and then redeploy.
An alternative method could be to release one side of the kite sail and retract it and then lower it toward the ground so that it could be dropped for later recovery. An airborne-deployable parachute/kitesail could be worn on the body for use in an emergency.
The first step to researching these possibilities is to go parasurfing.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maimaigeronimo/3563512176/in/set-72157618583321484/
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Do You Have Ideas,
or Do Ideas Have You?
“The ideologist is a man who falls for the fraud perpetrated on him by his own intellect: that an idea, i.e. the symbol of a momentarily perceived reality,
can possess absolute reality.”
–Socrates, refuting Plato’s interpretation of his ideas
“The world eludes us because it becomes itself again.”
–Lewis Carroll
Editor’s introduction: Possibly the best text any of us have written on the subject of ideology is a letter Nadia once sent to a friend in response to an article he had written with her help (her original title for the piece had been “The Political Struggle is the Struggle Against the Political,” which he changed to “Against the Shallowness of the Political”)... so here is her letter, reprinted from his private collection. Remember, whatever you believe imprisons you.
June 2
Amsterdam (at Chloë’s, with
Phoebe and Heloise)
Dearest E---,
No, you haven’t understood what I’m talking about at all. In your hurry to purchase for yourself the image of “political activist” (or, worse, theorist)—whatever that is—you’ve concluded that everything must be “political”—whatever that is! For the farther you expand the meaning of any word, the blurrier it becomes, and the more useless. Once everything is political, then “political” means nothing all over again, and we have to start from scratch.
So, assuming “political” isn’t just a meaningless all-purpose word... Of course there are “political” ways to look at every issue, including one’s own mortality—I wasn’t trying to deny that. That, in fact, is exactly my point: once you begin to think of yourself as “political,” once you start to think in terms of analysis and critique—worse yet to think of yourself as having a critique—you come to approach everything on those terms, you try to fit everything into your analysis. Being “political” becomes a cancer that slowly spreads to every corner of your being, until you can’t think about anything except in terms of class struggle or gender or whatever.
And there is no analysis, no ideology (because that’s what we’re talking about here, with your insistence on the politics of living and the theory of politics) broad enough to capture everything that life is. An ideology, just like an image, is always something you have to purchase—that is, you must give up a part of yourself in return for it. That part of yourself is every aspect of the world, every deliciously complex experience, every irreducible detail that won’t fit into the framework you’ve so proudly constructed.
Sure, you can look at oral sex and sunsets and love songs and really good Chinese food in terms of political issues, or even approach them in a way that is political in a far less superficial sense—but the fact is that when you’re there in those moments there are things that escape any kind of comprehension, let alone expression, let alone analysis. Living and feeling are simply too complicated to be captured completely by any language, or any combination of languages. Just like that fucking halfwit Plato, the casualty of ideology (which I’m begging you not to be) comes to doubt the reality of anything he can’t symbolize with language (political or otherwise), because he’s forgotten that his symbols are only convenient generalizations to stand in place of the innumerable unique moments that make up the universe.
I can anticipate your response: my critique of the political is itself a political evaluation, a part of my ideology. And so it is. I write to you so vehemently about this because it’s an issue I’m really struggling with now. I find myself turning everything into a political tract or critique, possessed by (what my ideology describes as!) a capitalistic compulsion to transform all my feelings and experiences into objects—that is, into theories I can carry around with me. My values have come to revolve around these theories, which I show off as proof of my intelligence and importance, the same way a bourgeois man shows off his car as proof of his worth: my life isn’t about my actual experience anymore, it’s about “the struggle”—when I’d wanted that struggle to be about centering my life on my experiences, not some new substitute! I’d like to say this letter is my last stand against the all-consuming demands of the political... but that was probably long ago, the last time I was able to reflect on something without the political ramifications even occurring to me. Careful what you wish for, E---, when you say everything is political.
I think part of this pathological need to systematize everything comes from living in cities, incidentally. Every single thing around us here has been made by human beings, and has specific human meanings attached to it—so when you look around, instead of seeing the actual objects that are around you, you see a forest of symbols. When I was staying in the mountains, it was different. I would go walking and I wouldn’t see “don’t walk” signs, I would see trees and flowers, things that have an existence beyond any framework of human meanings and values. Standing under a starry sky, there, gazing at the silent horizon, the world felt so immense and profound that I could only stand before it mute and trembling. No politics could ever provide a vessel deep enough to hold those moments. Not to say there’s no reason for us to conceptualize things, E---, because of course that’s useful sometimes… but it’s a means, and not the only means, to a much greater end. That’s all.
I’ll leave you with this, my own poor translation of a line from the farewell letter Mao Tse-tung’s mistress wrote him shortly after the so-called success of the Chinese so-called Communist Revolution:
“It’s sadly predictable that the only way you can come up with to celebrate the liberation you feel at leaving the old system behind is by coming up with a “system of liberation,” as if such a thing could exist—but that’s what we can expect from those who have never known anything other than systems and systematizing, I guess.”
Yours with love,
Nadia
can possess absolute reality.”
–Socrates, refuting Plato’s interpretation of his ideas
“The world eludes us because it becomes itself again.”
–Lewis Carroll
Editor’s introduction: Possibly the best text any of us have written on the subject of ideology is a letter Nadia once sent to a friend in response to an article he had written with her help (her original title for the piece had been “The Political Struggle is the Struggle Against the Political,” which he changed to “Against the Shallowness of the Political”)... so here is her letter, reprinted from his private collection. Remember, whatever you believe imprisons you.
June 2
Amsterdam (at Chloë’s, with
Phoebe and Heloise)
Dearest E---,
No, you haven’t understood what I’m talking about at all. In your hurry to purchase for yourself the image of “political activist” (or, worse, theorist)—whatever that is—you’ve concluded that everything must be “political”—whatever that is! For the farther you expand the meaning of any word, the blurrier it becomes, and the more useless. Once everything is political, then “political” means nothing all over again, and we have to start from scratch.
So, assuming “political” isn’t just a meaningless all-purpose word... Of course there are “political” ways to look at every issue, including one’s own mortality—I wasn’t trying to deny that. That, in fact, is exactly my point: once you begin to think of yourself as “political,” once you start to think in terms of analysis and critique—worse yet to think of yourself as having a critique—you come to approach everything on those terms, you try to fit everything into your analysis. Being “political” becomes a cancer that slowly spreads to every corner of your being, until you can’t think about anything except in terms of class struggle or gender or whatever.
And there is no analysis, no ideology (because that’s what we’re talking about here, with your insistence on the politics of living and the theory of politics) broad enough to capture everything that life is. An ideology, just like an image, is always something you have to purchase—that is, you must give up a part of yourself in return for it. That part of yourself is every aspect of the world, every deliciously complex experience, every irreducible detail that won’t fit into the framework you’ve so proudly constructed.
Sure, you can look at oral sex and sunsets and love songs and really good Chinese food in terms of political issues, or even approach them in a way that is political in a far less superficial sense—but the fact is that when you’re there in those moments there are things that escape any kind of comprehension, let alone expression, let alone analysis. Living and feeling are simply too complicated to be captured completely by any language, or any combination of languages. Just like that fucking halfwit Plato, the casualty of ideology (which I’m begging you not to be) comes to doubt the reality of anything he can’t symbolize with language (political or otherwise), because he’s forgotten that his symbols are only convenient generalizations to stand in place of the innumerable unique moments that make up the universe.
I can anticipate your response: my critique of the political is itself a political evaluation, a part of my ideology. And so it is. I write to you so vehemently about this because it’s an issue I’m really struggling with now. I find myself turning everything into a political tract or critique, possessed by (what my ideology describes as!) a capitalistic compulsion to transform all my feelings and experiences into objects—that is, into theories I can carry around with me. My values have come to revolve around these theories, which I show off as proof of my intelligence and importance, the same way a bourgeois man shows off his car as proof of his worth: my life isn’t about my actual experience anymore, it’s about “the struggle”—when I’d wanted that struggle to be about centering my life on my experiences, not some new substitute! I’d like to say this letter is my last stand against the all-consuming demands of the political... but that was probably long ago, the last time I was able to reflect on something without the political ramifications even occurring to me. Careful what you wish for, E---, when you say everything is political.
I think part of this pathological need to systematize everything comes from living in cities, incidentally. Every single thing around us here has been made by human beings, and has specific human meanings attached to it—so when you look around, instead of seeing the actual objects that are around you, you see a forest of symbols. When I was staying in the mountains, it was different. I would go walking and I wouldn’t see “don’t walk” signs, I would see trees and flowers, things that have an existence beyond any framework of human meanings and values. Standing under a starry sky, there, gazing at the silent horizon, the world felt so immense and profound that I could only stand before it mute and trembling. No politics could ever provide a vessel deep enough to hold those moments. Not to say there’s no reason for us to conceptualize things, E---, because of course that’s useful sometimes… but it’s a means, and not the only means, to a much greater end. That’s all.
I’ll leave you with this, my own poor translation of a line from the farewell letter Mao Tse-tung’s mistress wrote him shortly after the so-called success of the Chinese so-called Communist Revolution:
“It’s sadly predictable that the only way you can come up with to celebrate the liberation you feel at leaving the old system behind is by coming up with a “system of liberation,” as if such a thing could exist—but that’s what we can expect from those who have never known anything other than systems and systematizing, I guess.”
Yours with love,
Nadia
Monday, August 23, 2010
My Life as a Work of Art
A couple years ago I was seriously considering taking up painting or drawing and becoming an artist in the commonly understood sense of the term when I had an epiphany. Unlike most of the epiphanies I have had in my life this one reverberates with me to this day and I have never questioned its veracity. Simply stated: do not create works of art, make your life a work of art. In every breath, every day, every person, animal and plant that comes your way make your life a work of art.
And I can attest that this works. As the days end I more often than not am left with a sense of amazement that somehow the truth and beauty of today has surpassed that of yesterday. My toes sink deeper into the sand, my spirit floats higher into the ether, my children laugh, my dogs play, my heart soars and I say..seek not to create works of art but make your life a work of art.
And I can attest that this works. As the days end I more often than not am left with a sense of amazement that somehow the truth and beauty of today has surpassed that of yesterday. My toes sink deeper into the sand, my spirit floats higher into the ether, my children laugh, my dogs play, my heart soars and I say..seek not to create works of art but make your life a work of art.
The Perennial Philosophy
Orwell and Huxley are two of my favorites. Both had the knack for fantastic fiction and the balls to confront the fascist cultures of their time in blistering non-fiction essays and treatises. Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy is not only an encyclopedia of religious knowledge but a timeless critique of the forms of government which have brought us to the near extinction of life on planet earth. I yield the remainder of my time to the master...Aldous Huxley:
Of all social moral and spiritual problems that of power is the most chronically
urgent and the most difficult of solution. Craving for power is not a vice of
the body, consequently knows none of the limitations imposed by a tired or
satiated physiology upon gluttony, intemperance and lust. Growing with every
successive satisfaction, the appetite for power can manifest itself
indefinitely, without interruption by bodily fatigue or sickness. Moreover the
nature of society is such that the higher a man climbs in the political economic
or religious hierarchy, the greater are his opportunities and resources for
exercising power...
That is why in Acton's words 'all great men are bad.' Can we therefore be
surprised if political action, undertaken, in all too many cases, not for the
public good, but solely or at least primarily to gratify the power lusts of bad
men, should prove so often either self-stultifying or downright disastrous?
"L'etat c'est moi ," says the tyrant;
and this is true, of course, not only of the autocrat at the apex of the
pyramid, but of all the members of the ruling minority through whom he governs
and who are, in fact, the real rulers of the nation. Moreover, so long as the
policy which gratifies the power lusts of the ruling class is successful, and so
long as the price of success is not too high, even the masses of the ruled will
feel that the state is themselves--a vast and splendid projection of the
individual's insignificant ego. The little man can satisfy his lust for power
vicariously through the activities of the imperialistic state, just as the big
man does; the difference between them is one of degree not kind.
No infallible method for controlling the political manifestations of the lust
for power has ever been devised. Since power is of its very essence
indefinitely expansive , it cannot be checked except by colliding with another
power. Hence, any society that values liberty, in the sense of government by
law rather than by class interest or personal decree must see to it that the
power interests of its rulers is divided. National unity means national
servitude to a single man and his supporting oligarchy. Organized and balanced
disunity is the necessary condition of liberty.
--Aldous Huxley
--The Perennial Philosophy
pp. 121-122
Of all social moral and spiritual problems that of power is the most chronically
urgent and the most difficult of solution. Craving for power is not a vice of
the body, consequently knows none of the limitations imposed by a tired or
satiated physiology upon gluttony, intemperance and lust. Growing with every
successive satisfaction, the appetite for power can manifest itself
indefinitely, without interruption by bodily fatigue or sickness. Moreover the
nature of society is such that the higher a man climbs in the political economic
or religious hierarchy, the greater are his opportunities and resources for
exercising power...
That is why in Acton's words 'all great men are bad.' Can we therefore be
surprised if political action, undertaken, in all too many cases, not for the
public good, but solely or at least primarily to gratify the power lusts of bad
men, should prove so often either self-stultifying or downright disastrous?
"L'etat c'est moi ," says the tyrant;
and this is true, of course, not only of the autocrat at the apex of the
pyramid, but of all the members of the ruling minority through whom he governs
and who are, in fact, the real rulers of the nation. Moreover, so long as the
policy which gratifies the power lusts of the ruling class is successful, and so
long as the price of success is not too high, even the masses of the ruled will
feel that the state is themselves--a vast and splendid projection of the
individual's insignificant ego. The little man can satisfy his lust for power
vicariously through the activities of the imperialistic state, just as the big
man does; the difference between them is one of degree not kind.
No infallible method for controlling the political manifestations of the lust
for power has ever been devised. Since power is of its very essence
indefinitely expansive , it cannot be checked except by colliding with another
power. Hence, any society that values liberty, in the sense of government by
law rather than by class interest or personal decree must see to it that the
power interests of its rulers is divided. National unity means national
servitude to a single man and his supporting oligarchy. Organized and balanced
disunity is the necessary condition of liberty.
--Aldous Huxley
--The Perennial Philosophy
pp. 121-122
Saturday, August 21, 2010
killing the innocent
The Quran, in chapter 5, verse 32, says that if you kill one innocent person, it's as though you have killed the entire world. I heard this in the movie "Traitor" which seemed as if it might be original until it became one more justification for the so called war on terror. But the verse has been playing in my head and with my head since I heard it.
Those with legal training will immediately zero in on the meaning of the word 'innocent' as the crux of the matter. At one extreme 'innocent' would mean only young children who have not reached an age when they can decide for themselves whether or not to participate in the war effort. At the opposite extreme would be the view that all who are not actively participating in the fighting are innocent. The first view would exculpate most so called acts of terrorism as the victims are adults, paying taxes into a treasury which funds the war effort. The latter view would condemn all acts of terrorism and justify only direct action against military forces on the battlefield.
But let as consider some hypotheticals. A high ranking military officer on vacation with his family is killed. Would such an action be considered a violation of the Koran? What if he was a retired officer? How about an injured veteran who has served his time in the military and had a change of heart about his actions? Who has the authority to define innocence? Those of you who believe in an anthropomorphic God will simply answer that only God may decide but that is the answer of a coward.
Divinity has been delegated to us, the human race. Our actions determine the fate not only of our species but perhaps all life on this planet. If the powers that control the planet's resources are jeopardizing our future as a species than it is incumbent upon us to take action to stop the potential destruction of our species and our planet.
Religion, like all forms of dogma, is garbage but the texts that underpin many of the religions of the world are rife with beautiful and amazing insights into the complexity of the human condition. Sura 5:32 is just such an insight. It is a clear condemnation of the war tactics which are followed and have been followed by most state governments throughout history. Innocent death (or in our Orwellian rewriting of unpleasant terms "collateral damage") has become an accepted part of any conflict.
The loss of innocent life is glossed over when the murder occurs at the hands of a state, but if a resistance movement brings down a munitions factory and accidentally kills a night watchman it is front page news. A case in point is the Weather Underground's demise largely due to loss of innocent life.
I have heard it said that the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is an improper translation of "Thou shalt not murder". To square the Hebraic, Christian and Islamic versions of this proscription we need only define the meanings of "murder", "kill" and "innocent". If murder is the killing of the innocent than the death of those who are not innocent is left to our discretion. Can a human being make such a determination? He can.
Those with legal training will immediately zero in on the meaning of the word 'innocent' as the crux of the matter. At one extreme 'innocent' would mean only young children who have not reached an age when they can decide for themselves whether or not to participate in the war effort. At the opposite extreme would be the view that all who are not actively participating in the fighting are innocent. The first view would exculpate most so called acts of terrorism as the victims are adults, paying taxes into a treasury which funds the war effort. The latter view would condemn all acts of terrorism and justify only direct action against military forces on the battlefield.
But let as consider some hypotheticals. A high ranking military officer on vacation with his family is killed. Would such an action be considered a violation of the Koran? What if he was a retired officer? How about an injured veteran who has served his time in the military and had a change of heart about his actions? Who has the authority to define innocence? Those of you who believe in an anthropomorphic God will simply answer that only God may decide but that is the answer of a coward.
Divinity has been delegated to us, the human race. Our actions determine the fate not only of our species but perhaps all life on this planet. If the powers that control the planet's resources are jeopardizing our future as a species than it is incumbent upon us to take action to stop the potential destruction of our species and our planet.
Religion, like all forms of dogma, is garbage but the texts that underpin many of the religions of the world are rife with beautiful and amazing insights into the complexity of the human condition. Sura 5:32 is just such an insight. It is a clear condemnation of the war tactics which are followed and have been followed by most state governments throughout history. Innocent death (or in our Orwellian rewriting of unpleasant terms "collateral damage") has become an accepted part of any conflict.
The loss of innocent life is glossed over when the murder occurs at the hands of a state, but if a resistance movement brings down a munitions factory and accidentally kills a night watchman it is front page news. A case in point is the Weather Underground's demise largely due to loss of innocent life.
I have heard it said that the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is an improper translation of "Thou shalt not murder". To square the Hebraic, Christian and Islamic versions of this proscription we need only define the meanings of "murder", "kill" and "innocent". If murder is the killing of the innocent than the death of those who are not innocent is left to our discretion. Can a human being make such a determination? He can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
