Thoughts on History and the World (not Obama)

Theres two parts to this, if you get bored with the first speculations then please skip to the second part I think it might be interesting too.

A simple question in class got me swirling around in a possible today that never happened. What if the British had appeased the colonists by giving them representation in Parliament? Seriously think about that for a second. There was no way the colonists would allow themselves to be taxed if they didn't have a voice, and there was no way England could afford to not tax them. Had they given in and said ok every British citizen gets some (probably not equal) voice in Parliament. That probably would have shut us up. If we hadn't sparked the era of revolution, this might be a very very different world. Imagine us (at least the east coast and Canada), India and huge parts of the world still under the flag of England. Spain would still control Mexico and the entire western half of the country. I'm pretty sure England and Spain would have squeezed France out of North America. Slavery might have been ended earlier. I then get into the twentieth century, would we have had the world wars? Maybe England and Spain would have duked it out in a massive world war during the 19th century. Maybe not, maybe they would have had a cold war back then where they both knew the cost would simply be too great even then.

This probably would have prevented democracy from rising. But it might have made the Parliamentary system more democratic. Would one of the superpowers have completely taken over? I'm all for a world government but thats not really how I want to see it take place. The 20th century would have been very different. I'll make an assumption that I shouldn't make and assume that science and technology would have progressed at the rate it did. In reality much of the science of the 20th century was invented in the US because we had a combination of education and upward mobility that encouraged entrepreneurship which may not have happened under the British flag. Although if they allowed us the same degree of autonomy that we had enjoyed prior to the start of the revolution then just maybe it would have happened.

I guarantee WWII wouldn't have happened. Germany might have invaded parts of Europe in WWI but never would have dared to encroach upon England or Spain, and who knows France may have still been quite the world power, or have been previously taken over by one of the aforementioned powers. And without the treaty of Versailles the Nazi's never would have risen to power.

Who knows what the world would be like, but it is kinda fun to think about. I also like to do thought experiments like this because I think of them as psych experiments. The person I work with who I mentioned this too immediately shot back with slavery would have ended earlier. Theres a reason I like her, shes smart and an optimist, and I think that answer shows it.

PART 2

This also makes me think of a comment by a friend. We have very similar radical views on the world in general, but he has a diametrically different solution, that makes me take pause and think. He's old school, he wants to go back to local rule. This would dramatically increase the democracy of our system, which is really really good. I've always been of the idea that we need a true world government. A UN with teeth. But the only way you can do that is without encouraging tyranny is with a very high degree of democracy and more importantly public involvement. The problem is that the whole world under a single democratic system might become simply too cumbersome for its own good. The legislative branch might simply need to be so big in order to give representation that it simply becomes impossible to get anything done. But I think a solution could be found, and hopefully without resorting to two party politics.

Maybe there is a way to combine the two ideas. I think having significant strength at both ends of the system makes sense. The local communities can deal with their own very specific problems quickly, while the world government deals with basics like human rights and prevention of violence. But how do you define the groups under the world government, do we simply use the rather arbitrary lines of our current nations? Do we start from scratch? I don't know, but its something I'd like to think about further.

I'm curious what other people think of these ideas.

The First Fucking Ammendment / DNC protests

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Wanna see me get real angry? Fuck with my rights. Theres some shit going down outside the DNC that matters a whole lot more to me than the hot air coming out of the rich folks inside the DNC (although I heard Kucinich was good, from the Rude Pundit)

Ok I'm rewriting this, it was written originally with a lot of emotion and verbed versions of four letter words. Lets just take it slow, first off is the article that got me fired up in the first place. READ THIS SHIT PZ is a lot calmer than I would be if someone sent this letter to me.

Then there is the AP version of the story. Now this claims that the protesters were video taped charging the police, that does change matters significantly, then it is no longer a peaceful protest and the cops have the right to disperse it. I want to see the video.

So here is an example of a tense situation a couple days ago that did not end so badly, it gives a good idea of what the guy in the Pharyngula post was doing. It's worth a read.

And here is the same papers take on the events of that evening, while not nearly as harsh as the first account, it still sounds like the police were at fault. One important note here, eyewitness are not particularly credible, especially in an emotional situation, or when blinded by pepper spray. But if I was the guy who was pepper sprayed while trying to get to the bus, I would bring assault charges against the police. Then I'd probably want to move to a new town.

Here is a persons pictures from this event, they don't really tell much but they're interesting. Heres some pics from a person who agrees with the arrests. Pics from a protest without arrests.

A national Anarchist group, that's protesting at the DNC and other places. Apparently people are also pissed about the local secret prison, nick named "Gitmo on the Platte."

Heres some more, now this was a different event there was only one (or two) arrest. They claim the guy who was arrested hit a counter protester, if thats the case then fine, you can't hit people. The only problem being that the guy who was hit doesn't know if he was or not.

“If he hit me, I didn’t feel it,” Israel said. “But then again, I have a hard head.”

He is a bible thumper... nah that joke is too easy. Since its unclear if the guy hit him or not I'll just leave that alone. The more interesting question is the shouting match that led to the confrontation. Does freedom of speech include amplified speech? A normal shouting match is annoying and unproductive but perfectly legal and pretty much expected when you have protesters and counter protesters. But what about scouting matches with bullhorns? If I want to sit on the sidewalk with a freaking PA and scream about, well whatever, do I have that right? I'm really not sure. Then again I do know that the guy who cut the cord of bullhorn man was in the wrong, destruction of property, but should or can the cops tell bullhorn man to put away the bullhorn? Probably citing noise ordinances, or the need for the police to be able to be heard. I'm not really sure.

Heres a guys pics from this event, including the "assault" which the comments claim was friendly, a claim that I would doubt. Those two don't look like buddies, although there is a huge difference between touching an assault, it might be a loud place with bullhorn guy going, maybe he touched the other guys arm to get his attention so they could have a calm discussion, or maybe he swatted him, its a still photo. Actually in the picture both guys have there arms out almost to the other persons chest, to me it looks like people who talk with their hands, their obviously people passionate about their beliefs or they wouldn't be there, so they get going and their arms flail, lots of people do this, but who knows.

The cops did let people know what their rights are and what they can be arrested for, thats actually a really good idea. Some people think it was meant to discourage protesters but without reading the wording of it I'll just say that an outline of what will get you arrested is pretty handy. I wonder if it included walking past a protest en route to work? Theres one line in this that seems highly suspect to me,

Police are distributing a pamphlet reminding protesters of where they have a right to demonstrate but also warning them they can be arrested if they refuse a lawful order to disperse, even if they aren't breaking any laws.

So in other words the cops actually wrote a pamphlet that says you can be arrested even if you aren't breaking the law.... the founding fathers, real patriots, overthrew a government for shit like this.



Seattle Was A Riot - Anti Flag

Seattle was a riot, they tried to pin on us
But we didn't show up, with gas and billy clubs
An un-armed mass of thousands, just trying to be heard

Barack X

After all the talk about Obama Rob the Granola Guy left me with an interesting thought. What if Obama was a black panther? What if we really did elect a militant radical leftist who sees the world through the lens of race?

My first thought when I read that was, hmm.... that might actually be kinda cool. I'm sure they'd do some fucked up things just like every administration but who knows maybe a militant angry minority in power could straighten some things out. Can't you picture Barack X in native african garb heading to Iraq, "Hey shut the fuck up fo a sec! I know them crackas' done fucked ya. I'm sorry, they been fuckin' with colored people for a long time and y'all got it pretty bad. So what are we gunna do about it? huh? I'ma work wit cha. It's gunna take some time to unfuck this joint but we can do it, together. If that means you want me to keep our troops here to help out we can do that, if ya think they're more problems than cures then we'll get out of the way. We got ta work together on this, I'm ain't gunna tell you what to do, it your country. It's my countries fault you're in such a mess so we're willing to do whatever it take to, well not make things right, seriously I'm not even going there. Thats what them honky's would tell ya, they'd say we can fix the wrong of the past. We can't, we fucked you, hard. I can apologize but nothing I say or do can right the wrongs of the past I cannot bring the fallen back to life. What I can do is work with you for a better future for both our countries, and towards that end I will do all that I can, but I cannot do it alone I will need your help, or more accurately you will rebuild your country for a better tomorrow and if you want help the strength, wealth and good will of the American people are here, and this time we are here for you. Thank you."

Yeah thats the kind of speech I'd like to hear. Ok so some of the slang and mispronunciations at the start might sound racist, but honestly I just meant to convey the sense that this wasn't a polished speech, this was a from the gut talk about the reality of the world. How about domestic policy?

"Same shit I told the Iraqi's sorry ma brotha's but there's not gunna be any reparations. At least not in the sense of a big ass check for all the unpaid man hours of our ancestors. We do that and for one generation we won't have to worry, we'll be all set. How does that help our children? our grandchildren and there grandchildren? Who do you think is going to pay for those checks anyway? If this country was a person they'd be bouncing checks. Now all of us who've lived paycheck to pay check know that when your deep in the whole it's not the best time to take out a loan for a new TV. Well white people know that, banks don't give loans to black folks but you know what I'm saying. So lets cut down the deficit, srsly people right now every child born starts life with like 30,000 dollars of debt just for being a citizen. And thats fucked. Oh and rich people, you're not going to like me, but guess what this is a democracy any you make up less than 1% of the population so y'all can kiss my ass. Exactly how were going to do that, we're still working on. Thats not to say that I don't plan on some reparations but the reparations I seek are not in the form of cash, they are in the form of real education for all of our children. This is the richest nation in the history of human civilization, yet we have citizens who can't read, we have families living in tents. There will be other shit too, but education is key, don't believe me? go read some Fredrick Douglass, can't read? then get the fuck up off the couch turn off the god damn tv and get your ass to school. Cause mothafucka I can't help you if you don't want to be helped. Peace!"
Of course the reality is that a black panther president wouldn't be able to accomplish shit at home. They'd probably help a lot in foreign policy where the executive branch now has unlimited power, but for the domestic stuff they'd still have to deal with congress and I'm sure we all know how well that would go. Oh the other problem would be the survivability as a radical black president.

My Tribe, Our Tribe

I was just reading an old post from The Disgruntled Chemist about a meeting by a young republicans college group. It was from the time of the infamous danish cartoons that sparked the violent reaction from muslims. The event quickly spiraled into outright racism, they broke Godwins Law and even had a statement about the KKK. Cops needed to remove a couple of people from the meeting. All the while the college muslim group had a protest outside because the group inside was going to be showing the danish cartoons. None of this sounds like fun to me but the Chemist stuck it out so he could report it to us all. I bring this up because it made me think of something. In the comments there was mention of tribalism.

Humans are social creatures. In the past, which is very very recent from an evolutionary view, our community would have included many relatives, possibly being related to every other member to varying degrees. Therefore you defended your community as you would your home. Today we still have these tribal impulses which where we want to defend our tribe against outsiders. Many consider xenophobia an evil, and it is, but it needs to be understood if we wish to overcome it. It also needs to be said that it is going to take a great many generations to remove xenophobia and until then we will need to consciously work against it. My thoughts on the matter are fairly simple. We used to be small communities because we could only communicate within very limited range, with a little outside contact. Now its just as easy to talk to someone on the other side of the globe as it is to talk to your sibling who's down the street. Our tribe is no longer just those contained within the imaginary boundaries of our Granfalloon. Today we live in a global community, wither we like it or not we live in the global community, there are certainly those who would prefer to stay huddled in the safety of the known, they're scared of those with strange customs. To those people, I'm sorry but thats no longer an option, the world has changed, here we are their's no going back. what I'm saying is that tribalism is not going to leave our sub-conscious anytime soon so lets embrace it, just remember that your tribe is the Human Tribe, we are all part of the same community and when anyone threatens a member of that tribe we must all stand up to the attacker for no matter where in the world they are fighting they are fighting my brother. Be kind to your tribe. Peace.

Simple Question

I've been meeting some nice people lately of college age, many of them hover right around what I would consider my lower cut-off point. I'm just making sure my cut-off point is reasonable, I'm 25, how old should she be?

Morals vs Evolution

This is not about wither or not we can be moral without religion. My views on that should be clear. This is about how does our species continue to evolve in the modern age. First I'll say that the modern age is so unbelievably short from an evolutionary view point that its effects so far are of little consequence. But as domestication and breeding show things can happen quite quickly if given the opportunity. The problem comes from the fact that the more educated people have fewer kids while those who are least educated are still reproducing at high rates. Now I know there might be better ways to look at this but I'm just thinking in very general terms, economics might have been a better route, it doesn't matter though as they are so closely related anyway. Actually I would like to compare birth rates to intelligence but I don't think that would be easy data to gather. You probably already see where this is going. By natural selection for humans who's only survival skill in unparalleled intelligence one would expect that increasing our intelligence would be beneficial. Yet it seems that by simply evolution we are going to get dumber and probably very quickly by evolutionary standards. I don't think any of this is anything that should shock anyone, it might offend some folks but even without any research at all I think people will agree with what I've said so far and I will point out that no where has race or and factors besides education, income, and intelligence been mention or implied I do not mean this a an excuse for racism in any manner.

Ok so now to the heart of the matter, what do we do about it? The question is are we morally obliged to maintain our species or the individual? I think the argument for the individual is easy and is shown by our basic morals so I'm not really going to bother with that. I'm going to look at the other side, just for shits and giggles. So if we want to do whats best for our species we need to improve the breed, or something like that. I'm not a Nazi so I don't plan on killing off anyone deemed inferior. I should also say that this really is a pointless though experiment I'm just bored at work. I guess one option would be to return to the state of nature, hunter gatherers and shit. But our social abilities are one of the great strengths of our species so I see that as counter productive. Ok as long as we are talking about a hypothetical lets say someone comes up with a way to simply turn off the gonads of either men or women or both. Which would be a better option could be its own fun debate. So now your sex organs (but not drive, gotta have fun ya know) are off but can be turned back on. Then someone decides that the government should be the one to decide who gets theirs turned back on. So now how do we decide who is allowed to reproduce? We could start with the easy choices, easy that is from an evolutionary standpoint, people with genetic diseases that would be passed to their children would not be allowed to reproduce. And because I'm not a total dick and we generally like children those deemed reproduction worthy will in vitro fertilize those who wish to have children but are not genetically advantageous.

Shit I'm just getting to the fun/controversial part and I'm outta time for the day. expect an update tomorrow, my only fear of this type of thought is the fundies saying that "darwinists" really think this way and want to kill of the undesirables. This might also be what social Darwinism was all about I'm not really up to date on my social Darwinism because I know its a croc of shit and is often used to bad mouth evolutionary thought. Anyway I gotta run.