Femmelution?

The following was posted in a forum discussion over at Pete's Place. The original topic was population, but one thing leads, as always, to another. I weighed in a bit on the matter and felt it worthy of putting to print here.

"Do we even still have evolution? Curious what people think of this topic, as I am not sure if we really do have any significant natural selection any more, aside from that as plot devices in X-Men comics. Or perhaps this should be another thread..."

I found myself addressing the population issue not too long ago.

Regarding the mention of whether or not we (homo sapiens) are still subject to evolution...

I would argue that yes, we are. The manner of selection is a bit less brutal and the criteria have changed, but in general the process continues. You have to keep in mind that the time involved has to be measured (usually) on a geological scale. In a general sense though, you can point out to the rise of more social, cognitive humans among the larger population. The traits we've come to identify as 'desirable' (wealth, health and upward mobility) are generally found more prevalently in those of us better able to successfully interact with (in various ways) each other and take advantage of the technologies and techniques that increasingly run our society.

In other words, a Rolls Royce is the equivalent of a massive rack of antlers or a bird's bower.

Now admittedly I'm using male-aggressive references here. On the flip side, females are finding themselves in a similar, if different, boat. The thing is, most of the traits males seek out in females haven't changed significantly. We're still drawn to rumps & bumps. Some interesting traits that have changed in the field of male-desirable perception are behavioral. More guys are expressing interest in dynamic females. The altering of the gender-perception social matrix has made it more likely that aggressive (previously read THREATENING) females will breed successfully. In an interesting paradox however, whereas the behavior-acceptability has changed, the physical-acceptability has not. The potential result may be that increasingly aggressive females are going to realize that they are running up against a social-psychological wall where they will find their behaviors frustrated by increasingly 'femme' physicality.

Which raises another interesting line of thought. Has anyone else noticed that what are now often described as 'hyper-masculine' males are slowly leaving the scene? You can make jokes about the ascendence of the Metrosexual, but the truth is that females, no longer prisoners to the mating decisions of large, powerful males are electing smaller, leaner and (in many people's perception) more feminine mates. So if this trend proves accurate and breeds true, with both the physical and behavioral male traits being gradually bred out in favor of what may be redundant femininity, where do we wind up? Slender, less aggressive, more cerebral males and more aggressive, more cerebral hyper-feminine females?

The mind boggles. If nothing else, a reduction in species aggressiveness (keeping in mind that, statistically, the most aggressive female is less aggressive than the least aggressive male) could make larger, more concentrated populations somewhat more feasible

Round Numbers

I can't help wondering why there's all this hullabaloo about "The First Hundred Days" of the current administration. I mean, understand how we got to the point where many folks think its significant; what escapes me is whether or not they realize exactly how silly it all is.

In the first place, do you realise that the only reason the number 100 seems significant is that our counting system is base 10? Can you imagine if we used, say, base 13? We'd be another 69 days until until you'd see people acting like this.

Another point worth mentioning is how many people seem to be astounded at the amount of work Fearless Leader has put in thus far. How is this in any way surprising? The man came into the office with a "To Do List" that read like the Labors of Hercules. Getting any of it done in a timely manner demands he set a breakneck pace, to say nothing of the political realities of allowing for the glacial pace of movement inside The Beltway.

Finally, has anyone figured out that the really hard stuff is yet to come? Or that, moving forward, what happens next is at least as important as what already happened? I'm the first and loudest proponent of the principle that beginnings are important, but seriously folks: obsessing about the past, even to the limits of then vis a vis now, is counterproductive.

Cross Indexing

So I've started trying to nudge my theory out the door.

While I don't doubt one could argue about the appropriateness of the given forum, I for one can't imagine a better place to maximize the odds of this going viral. Here's hoping.

The Art of Science

For the first time I understand what people who have experienced the words of great leaders mean when words fail them and they can't seem to convey what it was that overtook them in the experience. Yesterday, Fearless Leader gave a speech to the National Academy of Sciences, the content of which moved me, in heart as well as mind, truly and deeply. While it may well have been a lack of sleep and blood sugar, as I sat there in Aston, PA on the morning of April 27, 2009 and listened I could only find one sentence that seemed appropriate to say.

"He understands!"

That was the only reaction I could manage at the moment but, I tell you truly, in that moment I felt something I hadn't experienced in years, since my departure from military service. I felt a quality of inspiration and loyalty whereby, had he asked it, I could have moved the sun in it's course. Laugh if you like but I tell you, I would have given (and still would) whatever service was asked, with a pride and joy I had thought myself quite emptied of. I was 18 again and ready to storm the gates of Hell and quite thoroughly convinced that I could.

I'd like to post the entire thing here, but I know people have limits. So I'll stick to what I think are the most important points and encourage you view the entire thing for yourselves.

I'll start at the end, of course. Towards the end of his address, Fearless Leader said something which reverberated deeply with me:

"And some truths fill us with awe. Others force us to question long-held views. Science can’t answer every question, and indeed, it seems at times the more we plumb the mysteries of the physical world, the more humble we must be. Science cannot supplant our ethics or our values, our principles or our faith. But science can inform those things and help put those values — these moral sentiments, that faith — can put those things to work — to feed a child, or to heal the sick, to be good stewards of this Earth."
-President Barack H. Obama, 04/27/09

Now anyone who knows me passing well or has familiarity with this blog will know by now that I, for one, don't go in for the superstitious rot. The way I refer to it (as superstitious rot) should give away my opinion. What the man has said here, however, I can live with that. I, personally, think that science, properly applied can provide us all the answers. I also understand that lots of people don't agree with me and I'm okay with that. All I ask is that you don't try and force the rest of us to play by rules you can't prove.

Possibly the most moving part of his speech was his referring to the Apollo 8 mission, during which Bill Anders took the now famous 'Earthrise' picture. Anders later said something that was one of those exquisitely rare, transformative utterances.

"In 1968, a year defined by loss and conflict and tumult, Apollo 8 carried into space the first human beings ever to slip beyond Earth’s gravity, and the ship would circle the moon 10 times before returning home. But on its fourth orbit, the capsule rotated and for the first time Earth became visible through the windows.
Bill Anders, one of the astronauts aboard Apollo 8, scrambled for a camera, and he took a photo that showed the Earth coming up over the moon’s horizon. It was the first ever taken from so distant a vantage point, and it soon became known as “Earthrise.”
Anders would say that the moment forever changed him, to see our world — this pale blue sphere — without borders, without divisions, at once so tranquil and beautiful and alone.
“We came all this way to explore the moon,” he said, “and the most important thing is that we discovered the Earth.” "
-President Barack H. Obama, 04/27/09

Words will never suffice to express the feelings this photo and that single statement engender in me. It possibly the only thing that has ever caused me to feel such joy as to bring tears to my eyes and pain to my heart. To look upon my world, my home, as it truly is...words fail me.

Of no less import was the eloquently stated argument to renew public investment in basic and applied research:

"This is important right now, as public and private colleges and universities across the country reckon with shrinking endowments and tightening budgets. But this is also incredibly important for our future. As Vannevar Bush, who served as scientific advisor to President Franklin Roosevelt, famously said: “Basic scientific research is scientific capital.”

The fact is an investigation into a particular physical, chemical, or biological process might not pay off for a year, or a decade, or at all. And when it does, the rewards are often broadly shared, enjoyed by those who bore its costs but also by those who did not.

And that’s why the private sector generally under-invests in basic science, and why the public sector must invest in this kind of research — because while the risks may be large, so are the rewards for our economy and our society."
-President Barack H. Obama, 04/27/09

So many people in these United States do not understand exactly how good science happens. They don't even understand the distinction between science and technology. In short, the public grasp of science, what it is, how it is developed and employed is shameful. We have reached a sort of regressive apogee, demonstrating Clark's Third Law. As a general rule, people in this country in this day and age simply don't understand how most of the tools and techniques they take for granted work. Its magic to them, although most wouldn't admit it. This makes the dismal performance statistics cited by Fearless Leader in no way surprising, only deeply depressing and more than a little alarming.

So you can imagine how positively overjoyed I am to know that we're recommitting to actually investing in research again. We have a leader here who understands the national interest. He understands that you cannot back into the future. He understands that you cannot have economy fueled by innovation if all you do is repackage the same technology every year. Yes, it is vital to continue refining existing discoveries but, but...true innovation requires basic research to understand new principles; it isn't enough to just find new applications for old tricks.

Possibly the most inspiring part of the entire shebang is his commitment to revolutionizing how we produce and consume energy. I would liken this challenge to that made by JFK at Rice University. In my writings I have made much of energy; here, perhaps, I take my cue from a man who I am become more proud of each day, who fills me with a furious urgency and vision. A proper mastery of energy, its production and distribution, would transform the entire fabric of not only our nation but the entire species.

Airplane!

Okay, call me insensitive, but I just can't quite wrap my head around the whole "photo-op" stink.

Frankly, the whole damned thing is pure comedy. First some genius decided that doing the fly-by was a good idea. Then they decided not telling anyone was a good idea. Then the people in the city fled their office buildings in terror. Then the boss found out.

I can just imagine that conversation in the West Wing. "Dude, wait. You did what? Where? ... have you completely lost your goddam mind?"

The icing on the cake is the reaction from Bloomberg, essentially blasting the PAG for not being sensitive to the feelings of New Yorkers. Frankly, while I more than understand (I was at the Pentagon in DC) there comes a point when you have to get up and get on with it. heck, I'm disgusted that they haven't already reallocated the real estate and started building.

Arlen's Spectre

Holy Shit. What else is there to say?

Well, for starters, how about, "Why?" The only answer I can come up with is that the Senator from Pennsylvania was never a stalwart member of the conservative vanguard to begin with and now feels that he break left without undue concern for the GOP backlash. Being a more progressive legislator, he has often broken with the party line, despite the enormous political capital invested in his campaign by the elephants. It was the promise of greater adherence to party doctrine that allowed him to take the Judiciary committee chair but even here he has caused heartburn by swinging left.

Unless there's been a sudden outbreak of scruples, its hard to imagine Spectre taking this course without great confidence in either A: his election machine, or B: the enormous unpopularity of the Republican party at the moment. Considering the excellent fit of the GOP's new moniker, "The Party of No", it isn't too hard to figure the move as a way of distancing himself from the politically toxic odor of failure. On the other hand, Spectre's record of close wins suitably prepares him for what will undoubtedly be (another) political cage match, with victory and defeat running in familiar proximity. I simply cannot imaging that the Republicans are going to let this pass unchallenged and will undoubtedly be throwing everything, including the kitchen sink and any near-to-hand small animals at him.

The sure to ensue vendetta will, without a shadow of a doubt, do infinitely more to hurt the party than help it; beating Spectre as a Democrat will take vast resources from the party war chest that might otherwise have been spent more wisely in other arenas, were uncertain contests could be turned into comfortable (if not sweeping) victories. Like bulls though, elephants become terribly single minded when enraged and if they take Spectre's seat at the cost of two or three others, then they'll have gotten what they earned. Meanwhile, the Senator's unenviable task will be to convince his voters that regardless of party affiliation, he's going to continue providing the performance that they've elected for on six consecutive occasions.

Another Point

Returning to my earlier theory of energy as currency (maybe dunamis is the right word, although I still like currer).

Its been suggested to me that I need to spell out the direct connection between my theory and food. Specifically, the food supply. I've stated that all goods and services can be described in terms of the energy expended in production and distribution.

Hmm. That's the first time I've used that word in this discussion, so I'll need to remember to make a point of diving it. Pressing on.

So we'll start, as always, with first principles. I've already talked about money and how it can be used as a marker representative of the energy available in the social system. So what exactly is food then? Well the short version is that food is a medium of delivering stored energy and specific types of metabolic mass to as organism. Complicated way to describe a Twinkie, innit? Pressing on...

Food basically comes in two forms for humans:meat and vegetables (that would include anything grown as a plant, kiddies) and really, meat-food is made by feeding plant-food to animals (which is brutally inefficient, but we'll get to that later) so if we can describe plant food adequately we have basically killed two stones with one bird.

Plants are basically just self-contained factories. They take in solar energy via photosynthesis and minerals via osmosis. With these two resources they construct more plant material, growing larger, expanding their roots and foliage to allow them to absorb more of the same resources and expand their operation. So we need to know how much solar energy, measurable in joules, a given type of plant needs to begin and maintain this process. A starting point, until more specific research can be done would be to measure the solar energy that hits a given square foot of soil. Additionally, we have to know how much energy is stored in the mass of the plant itself. That covers the organism itself but any farmer can tell you that this doesn't happen (on a commercial scale) all by itself. We need to take into account the various chemicals used, manual labor contributed and the fuel expended to power the equipment used in agriculture.

The first thing you should be thinking right now is, "That's all well and good, but how do we go about it?" Pick a spot.

No, seriously, pick a spot. Any spot will do. The thing about measurements is that you have start someplace; it doesn't matter all that much where, as long as you can use it as a point of reference. Personally I recommend using what I just mentioned above; measure the amount of energy delivered to a given square meter of ground and the amount of energy extractable from a mass of vegetation. These are fairly easy measurements that even simple farmers in 3rd world countries can perform. As with all other metrics, greater accuracy and precision will evolve on their own in the pursuit of greater efficiency and profitability.

Metrics is really what this is all about. Functionally, the question, "How much is it worth?" is not substantially different from, "Where is it?" and they can both be addressed in the same manner. Consider for a minute why the questions are asked in the first place; someone wants information that will allow them to make a decision with a predictable (preferably certain) outcome. Whether its navigation or calculation, the goal is always the same; getting from A to B. As with navigation though, you can't produce any useful results if you don't know as accurately as possible the relative positions (values) of all salient points. Additionally, in the specific instance of food stuffs, knowing the energy value of your goods allows you to use it as specie in economic exchanges.

The point I'm tyring make here is that what this theory does is provide the monetary equivalent of point zero in graphing. It tells you where you're at, in a real sense. Once you've got an accurate way to measure things, financially speaking, you can start looking for the relative values (positions) of everything else. It starts small and fuzzy but because the results are universal, reliable and (therefore) cumulative you can rely on a multitude of sources for input into an ever expanding library of applicable quantities. Go a step further and you can use modern comm-tech to take the whole process of measuring energy values viral. Imagine the equivalent of a global atlas, with the vast majority of relevant latitude and longitude points. Think of how that revolutionized navigation and imagine a similar apogee in economics.

Chestnuts

It should seem simple and straight forward. Do we, the people of the United States sanction the torture of other human beings or do we not? There seem, somehow, to be two answers depending on to whom you are speaking. Some answer an unequivocal no; they say that using force to coerce another human being is simply immoral and utterly irreconcilable with our principles. Other say that any act undertaken with the purpose of saving American lives (why do they always make that stipulation?) is perfectly acceptable.

Further complicating the matter is the point raised by Mr. Llewellyn King. The prospect of Congressional hearings, frankly does smack of attainder which is both unethical and unconstitutional. Additionally the implications of executive retribution would, at absolute best, serve to destabilize the authority of the Presidency; while accountability is vital to the proper functioning of our government, we cannot allow ourselves to start criminalizing the politics of outgoing administrations. A tangled web indeed.

The only decision we can make at this point is what to do going forward. First we need to determine if the law was broken. Frankly I can't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Part 1, Article 3, Section 1, Subsection A of the Geneva Convention (of which this nation is a primary signatory) states plainly that torture is proscribed. So, yes, the law was broken. Words fail to communicate my feelings to my own satisfaction. The person(s) responsible for this, simply put, are not safe in my presence.

Moving on, we have to address the issue of what the proper course is to resolve this. Its tempting to jump on the idea of a bipartisan commission of the legislature. Sounds democratic and post-partisan, etc. but the fact of it is, while such a commission might (I cannot sufficiently stress that word, might) be useful in generating investigative results, using the legislature to punish the players in this drama would be patently illegal under the constitution and set a very dangerous precedent for criminalizing the policies of political rivals after the fact.
What is it with me and drawn out sentences lately?

The proper place for any prosecution is, as Fearless Leader has stated, with Justice. That said the DoJ doesn't exactly have a pristine reputation at the moment and furthermore, Sec. Holder is a personal friend of Fearless Leader. I don't want to question either man's integrity but only the king of all fools would pretend that the supporters of the previous administration won't. There is also the little matter of the recent scandal regarding the mishandling of the Steven's prosecution. A favorite defence tactic of many attorneys is to attack the prosecution, undermining their credibility.

Assuming a successful prosecution, what the hell do we do with the guilty parties? I'm not certain they fall under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ and I'm unaware of any civilian conviction precedents. So then what?

Personally, I advocate stripping of all assets and the imposition of damnatio memoriae. Then again, I've made my position known.

I called it!

For those of you just tuning in, here are two nifty facts about me.

1: I listen to satellite radio, particularly the P.O.T.U.S. channel on XM.
2: I wrote a piece a little ways back, talking about the stimulus benefit of developing mass transit systems in the U.S.

Today, Fearless Leader addressed this very issue, in exactly the same context and in exactly the same spirit. My joy and satisfaction are boundless. I'm not ashamed to admit, I spent the day in a state of perpetual giggles.

The only thing which irritated me over the whole affair was that apparently the FNC elected to ignore the entire bit, instead spending the time of the announcement talking about some British talent show winner. Now I don't doubt that they'll be on the air tonight to edit, spin and attempt to demonize this most excellent revelation. That isn't surprising. What is rather interesting though, is that it seems that the FNC were the _only_ news outfit avoiding the issue. It was a major point of discussion for several of the radio jockeys and I expect they'll be in the paper tomorrow.

Fox Pas?

I usually prefer to believe that the people claiming to be the 'loyal opposition' are in fact that. I also prefer to believe that they are not the crazy people that several media outlets portray them as.

And then I encountered this little beauty. Make sure you watch the whole thing.

Words fail me. Anyone who knows me can tell you exactly how hard that is.

These are the people who want us to trust them? Correct me if I'm mistaken, please, but wasn't the last person to call for book burning Adolf Hitler? Come to think on it, he also got his start in a pub...

Personally, I'm wondering how or even if the boys and girls over at FNC will run this. Apparently it was all over CNN...who Fox claims weren't giving the whole 'teabagging' thing any attention. Frankly, if these people are the alternative, I'm now more inclined than ever to stick with Brother Obama's plan.

Astroturf!

This is my new favorite word. AstroTurf. Say it with me...

Alright, so why is this my new favorite word? Well, whilst Fox News and Friends were fomenting their so-called 'Tea Party Movement' they continually referred to this mental masturbation (apologies, but it fits) as a "grass roots" movement. Considering how much effort they put into it, the sheer ingenuousness is...well, staggering. In any case, this silliness did not escape the notice of a certain New York Times Op-Ed columnist and the man coined what I think is beyond a doubt the single most important new socio-political term of the decade. He referred to the antics of the 'teabaggers' (their own term, insanely enough) as an AstroTurf movement, meaning, obviously, fake grass roots.

Taking the importance of words into full consideration, this is a perfectly elegant and appropriate term to describe this sort of idiocy. Say it with me now, "AstroTurf!"

That taken into firm and full consideration, let us move on the content of this...I hesitate to call it a movement. 'Motion' seems infinitely more accurate. Specifically, lets examine the people involved and their erstwhile cause. Why 'erstwhile'? Perhaps I'm uncharitable but I rather doubt that the majority of the rabble involved actually understand what they've been roped into and I have my doubts about the faculties of at least two of them, but we'll come to that fetid little gem elsewhere.

To be completely fair and forthright, I understand completely the argument against large, powerful, intrusive, pervasive central authorities. On the one hand it is the tendency of power to corrupt and on the other, artificial mechanisms left to their own devices (pardon the pun) have a habit of failing spectacular. First, lets examine the matter of power.

Obviously we mean official, governmental power, as vested by the state in an individual. The Romans called it Imperium and it is the root of many of the most frightening words in the language. Central authorities have historically used their power to control, exploit and otherwise run roughshod over The People. Ultimately only one, imperfect method has been found for preventing this sort of thing and that my friends is what we call democracy.

It started with Greeks; the roots of the word we know are 'demos' (people) and 'kratie' (rule). The principle is simple and was adopted by the Romans later on; power must be divided and renewed with votes. As a matter of historical honesty, neither Rome nor Greece were what we'd call free, democratic societies. Women did not vote, slavery was commonplace and gaining access to the franchise was difficult or impossible if you weren't a native. Still, you have to start somewhere and this was the beginnings of the end to the absolute authority of tyrants, even if it took a few thousand years and repeated periods of imperial or feudal totalitarian despotism.

The other major gripe against central authority comes from the rather recent creation of vast, mechanistic bureaucracies. As always, I chose my words. When I say 'mechanistic', I am referring to the volumes upon volumes of regulations, directives, instructions, rules, guidelines and other behavior/action determining constructions that have little or no actual human decision making involved. They are to thoughts and deeds what holes are to a punch-card. In many ways these are good and useful things; they ensure a more-or-less unbiased and equitable execution of justice. Unfortunately, by taking the thinking out of action they can also reduce people to bits in a vast mechanistic process without regard to extenuating circumstances and subjecting them to all manner of cruelty simply because, "those are the rules."

A brilliant writer named Frank Herbert once said, through a character in his stories, "Man must never submit to machines." He was referring there to science fiction robots and artificial intelligences. The same can and must be held true of the mechanisms we craft to help manage our increasingly complicated societies.

So now we have addressed the two primary (and very much valid) arguments against the large, powerful, etc governments suggested above. So why would our national Founders create such an entity then? Because a diverse, widespread, interdependent society requires an underpinning of laws to give people a stable framework for dealing with each other, without resorting to constant, petty, interfamilial warfare. Sound ridiculous? Consider the Italian city-states of the Renaissance.

The fact is we did try it the other way. We started off with a weak central government that had little scope, less power and it proved completely ineffective. With most power in the hands of the states, the federal government couldn't get anything done, in part for want of money and in part because the states would frequently just refused to comply with its instructions. As a result, nothing useful got done and commerce was difficult between the states and all but impossible beyond them. So the Founders got back together again and started over. The second effort was what we call The Constitution and was a much greater success. It empowered the central government, without striping the states of all authority, balancing them against each other. Most importantly was the clause which stated, exclusively that those power not explicitly granted to the federal government were granted to the states, instead of simply being assumed. Important distinction here from the rest of the world at the time.

What so many of the people presently calling themselves 'teabaggers' seem to have trouble with is that, part and parcel to our Constitution, the whole shebang includes the ability to change the rules. Who has the power to do so? Our elected officials.

This is the crux of it; these people are 'protesting' a government that they voted for. Either A: you voted for the losers, or B: you voted for the winners who are now not doing what you want. In the first case, you were outvoted. It happens and is the basic principle of democracy. In the second, you need to remind your horse who's really in charge. Failing that, you might consider putting your money where your mouth is and run for office yourself.

Fit to Print?

Would somebody please explain exactly why in the name of Poor Richard's Almanac the cable news shills seem to be having so much trouble staying on-topic and up-to-date? What exactly is it that has convinced them to stop doing their bloody jobs and engage in what can, at best be described as "infotainment" and at worst as malicious, partisan, disinformative propagandizing? Why have I suddenly taken asking tortuously long, complex questions in the form of run-on sentences? Get the full story, and weather, at 6.

Or now, maybe.

Frankly its insulting, but lately the cable news types seem to be having trouble telling us useful and important things, instead focusing on photogenic celebrity gossip and supposed protocol gaffs. When they do finally get on page again, they seem to be A: late, B: repetitive and C: more concerned with providing "analysis" than useful, hard facts. Worse, the excuses they give are mealy mouthed, disingenuous and obviously self-serving, "Well, this is what people want to hear about. We're just trying to run a business."

Earlier today, whilst scanning the extra-terrestrial waves I caught a discussion between the dependable Joe Mathieu and MediaMatters' Karl Frisch. Short version? Not only are these buggers not covering the actual news (like what happened at the G20 conference and the NATO summit) but they aren't even getting the facts of what they are covering right. For one thing, there is no "protocol" against touching the Queen and secondly, she specifically asked for the iPod the Obama's gave her. Apparently hers was an older, no-video model.

The conflation of information and entertainment has been underway for some time and has begun to really become visible as the previous multitude of media outlets have been increasingly centralized under the sway of a half-dozen or so corporate owners. Why? Because corporations exist purely to generate a profit and so they direct the media operations they own to engage in whatever practices generate the most profit; this primarily manifests itself as sensationalism and yellow journalism.

Making a M*A*S*H of things...

How can I put this gently? ...I can't.

People need to calm the fuck down. To hear certain persons in the media tell it, the North Koreans are fixing to re-enact Red Dawn, for real. I've heard the current situation described as "Obama's Cuban Missile Crisis." Why is it that conservatives can't seemed to described anything without referencing the past, scaring the hell out everyone and/or insulting the competition?

I understand all the arguments about proliferation and the threat to Alaska (I suppose Sister Sarah could quite see Pyongyang from the porch) but frankly, people, you need to keep something firmly in mind. Actually about 1.3 billion somethings. And, really, more like 1.3 billion someones. I'm talking about (did you guess?) China.

What has China got to do with it? Aren't Beijing and Pyongyang commie BFF's? No. No they aren't.

In terms of realpolitik, North Korea is China's excruciatingly immature younger brother; they are getting sick of watching out for them and really want them to grow up and stop embarrassing them in front of the cool kids. Let me spell this out explicitly. China has only recently managed to transform itself into an economic giant and they are collectively enjoying themselves and their new wealth. While still a brutal, centrist regime the Chinese have liberalized a bit and are enjoying the fruits of commerce, particularly world trade. That centrist part is important, because Beijing is basically run by a clutch of old, humorless, gray-faced, bureaucratic Chinese hard-asses with a standing interest in keeping things quiet and orderly and a 2000+ year old bias towards Stability. Note the Capital Letter.

Now keeping that in mind, lets add the following nuggets of information; China's population is mostly male, the unemployment rate is climbing and The People, having gotten a taste of Western style prosperity aren't keen to go back to fish-heads and straw sandals. So, in short, China is ripe for a revolution and the aforementioned bureaucrats are painfully aware of this. Now, think really hard; just exactly how good for stability (aka business) do you think a Second Korean War is going to be?

So here's why I'm not worried about the Kims: The Chinese will oust them before anyone else gets a chance to, if they disrupt business, thus risking Chinese revolution. Also, with roughly 50 million men potentially under arms and almost certainly looking for wives (and don't forget the millions of married soldiers) , North Korea will last exactly as long as it takes them to run out of bullets. About four days, IMO.

Faux News

I hardly know where to begin. Let's cut to the chase, my head hurts thinking about this too much.

First and foremost, let me simply state that Glenn Beck is a dick. I usually refrain from such terms and personal attacks (even against the deserving) leave a bad taste in my mouth but, BUT here is a man who's commitment to zealotry, fear-mongering and sensationalism go so far above and beyond (below and beneath?) the norm that I cannot help but comment. There are other talking heads that irritate me on the basis of their general misrepresentation of fact and shameless spin doctoring, warping words and deeds to fit an agenda; Glenn Beck has however succeeded in surpassing the usual standard.

This sort of carrying on is symptomatic of a mind either unable or unwilling to concede that A: there are some problems too big to be resolved by individuals or their local communities and B: that we are all, in fact, in this together. Personally, I think Beck believes his rhetoric (if it's deserving of the name) and consider him a genuine, if idiotic, ideologue. The case has been made to me though, that he's a phony, a hired shill who can and would be bought for a sufficient quantity.

It doesn't matter which of the numerous talking heads we're discussing, they all have the same basic modus operandi and they all are guilty of the same crime; they present themselves as legitimate journalists, as legitimate sources of information when what they are, in fact, is a bunch of politically and/or financially motivated spin doctors. The best of them are simply crossing the line between news and entertainment; the worst are knowingly and with malice of forethought exploiting the tendency of people to accept that which is entertaining or reinforces existing conceptions and the tendency of people to admire the intelligence of people saying things they already agree with or are entertained by. Long sentence, sorry.

In honesty, I've used the gambit myself. My preferred method of gaining consensus or changing minds is to make people laugh. It isn't always easy and it doesn't always work but in general people are more likely to look at something favorably if you can get them to laugh. Is it manipulative? Absolutely. It also works. So what makes me better than the likes of Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly or Limbaugh?

Well for starters I don't use my power to deride anyone else's ideas. I build my own up, I don't try to tear down others'. That said, it's worth noting that there is a difference between attacking someone or their ideas and pointing out the flaws in those ideas. The latter is potentially constructive, enabling a refinement and improvement of ideas while the former just tries to silence dissenting voices.