posted by jim | September 23, 2009

photo by RachelH; some rights reserved.
Okay it is not a study, but to me it captures some sense of truth. A friend of mine was telling me something he heard: “They say in the U.S. the people are afraid of their government, and in France the government is afraid of its people.”

So who are the freer people? Je ne sais pas, je pose la question.

Category: Utopian Economics | No Comments »
Tags: democracy, equality, freedom, Healthcare, liberty, socialism, tea bags

posted by jim | September 22, 2009

photo by ClickFlashPhotos; some rights reserved.
If you have my luck, your apple orchard is all suburbia. The first apple tree I came across was on abandoned property. I found two more on the unused lawn of a corporate office next to our apartment building and one more on our apartment building’s grounds. They were remnants from the rural farm country that used to be here. I’ve lost these trees but I’ve found others. It takes a certain amount of audacity to collect these and good judgement, but I’ve never had a problem (in fact, people usually make positive comments).
The best way to collect apples is to shake the branches. This works fine for dwarf apple trees, but most of the trees I find require climbing. Shaking the trees means you can collect 2 to 3 large grocery bags (depending on the yield) of apples in just 5 to 15 minutes.
These organic (by neglect) apples are usually not the best for eating. We save the best for eating and the rest we chop up for apple sauce-removing the wormy or bad parts. We also core and slice some (again removing the bad areas) for drying and/or freezing. We use an apple peeler and corer. Just one apple tree can yield and extraordinary amount of food. I have never tried apple cider or hard cider, but these are also options I hope you have a chance to try. I often see neglected apple trees in rural areas, as well. Happy hunting.

Category: DIY Food, Food | No Comments »
Tags:

posted by jim | September 16, 2009

photo by Jarrod Trainque; some rights reserved.
Ayn Rand had difficulties with (and perhaps did not believe in) evolution. I first realized this when reading some of her more obscure material (The Ayn Rand Letter or perhaps, The Objectivist Newsletter). Rand made reference to an ancient primate find that indicated that primate hands had evolved for tool making before primate brains had enlarged (kudos to the person who can email me the reference). Rand was quite hostile to this idea and, it seemed to me, the idea of evolution, in general. Later I read in Nathaniel Branden’s (associate, former lover of Ayn Rand) autobiography Judgement Day that she indeed was hostile to the idea of evolution-Rand, the atheist.
But why is this so important to understanding Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Rand’s philosophy and the birther movement for Libertarianism)? Branden, himself seemed mystified by Rand’s position.
Evolution qua evolution undermines the idea of teleology and objectivism as a black and white, yes or no, either-or,moral philosophy. Rand built her philosophy on an Aristotelian model and skipped the 19th century all together. While Nietzsche and Marx were student’s of Darwin’s work, Rand ignored it and purported herself the throne of criticizing modern philosophy. But that’s the real key to understanding Rand’s blind spot. Rand was one of the most vitriolic social critics of her time. She, to this outside observer, seemed pleased to be condemning people: as moral cowards, or anti-life (not the abortion kind), or moral obscenities, just to pick out a few. She did it with great confidence in her judgement.

A moral code is a set of abstract principles; to practice it, an individual must translate it into …particular goals and values which he is to pursue. This requires that he define his particular hierarchy of values, in the order of their importance, and that he act accordingly. Thus all his actions have to be guided by a process of teleological measurement.

Rand smuggles teleological into an otherwise clear definition of a moral code. It displays both Rand’s brilliance and pettiness. She clearly states what a moral code is but by smuggling teleology into the definition she gets to define what the proper purpose of morality is.
Consider this statement by Rand: “It is much easier to acquire an automobile in New York City than a meal in the jungle.” Really? I suppose if you lack a certain sociological and anthropological (Rand loathed them both) and even economic knowledge you might make that statement. But more to the point, now you get to make hierarchical judgements yourself: a city dweller is superior to a jungle dweller (savage was a common epithet of Rand’s). Many people have and do live in comfort affluence in jungles and places we consider marginal because they have a technical knowledge and sophistication about the place they live in that we lack.
But really, this thinking just rolls over the humility that the 19th century taught us. Yes we do have to make moral judgements as Rand suggests. But if we are lazy thinkers, if we believe we can make judgements with absolute certainty and that those who disagree with us are evil or anti-life, we do it at our own peril. We diminish human creativeness, particularly in the area of morality. Consider another way:

“I would rather say that because morality appears to be a human invention, we should esteem it as we esteem such inventions as language, art and science. This esteem…does not mean uncritical adoration. Rather the reverse; I believe we express our esteem for the great moralist, poets, artists and scientists of the past by imitating their creativity rather than parroting their ideas, and by creating our own unique voices and visions and contributions to humanity’s accumulated wisdom and folly. (I always hope to add to our wisdom, but realize that the probabilities are that I am, just as often, adding to our folly.)”

Robert Anton Wilson; Natural Law: or Don’t Put a Rubber on Your Willy (Sorry this book is out of print).
Not surprisingly, what is left of the Objectivist empire realizes this is an important concept in the face of modern evolutionary thinking. Harry Binswanger has a book called The Biological Basis of Teleology Concepts. The book is rather low on my rather large book list. Here is a description of a Binswanger lecture on the 9/11 attacks.

The war on terror represents, not merely a clash of civilizations, but a clash of fundamental ethical premises: the premise of life and the premise of death. America was attacked, Dr. Binswanger argues, because it upholds and embodies the value of life, while its enemies scorn life and worship death.

What brilliant insight Dr. Binswanger brings to understanding 9/11! (I’m being ironic if you didn’t catch that.) Life or death ladies and gentlemen, or maybe something a little bit more complex than that? Maybe a lot more complex than objectivist philosophy is capable of providing.

Category: Knowledge, Utopian Economics | No Comments »
Tags: Ayn Rand, Barbara Branden, evolution Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, objectivism, Robert Anton Wilson, rubber on your willy

posted by jim | September 13, 2009

“Basically, I think, the heckler fears his opponent. He thinks that the opponent’s ideas are a ‘clear and present danger,’ as it were, and they must be drowned out before they seduce anyone. You generally know when you have trodden upon somebody’s deepest prejudices because their civility deserts them and they begin interrupting excitedly and adopting a ‘heckler’ persona.”

Robert Anton Wilson, Natural Law: or Don’t Put a Rubber on Your Willy.

via Wilson Says He Won’t Apologize Again – The Caucus Blog – NYTimes.com.

Category: Body Health, Body Health DIY, Community & Mutual Aid, Do It Ourselves Health, Health, Utopian Economics | No Comments »
Tags: heckler, Joe Wilson, Robert

posted by jim | September 3, 2009

Some rights reserved.
I made a recent trip up the northeastern corridor. Having to make several stops it seemed to make good sense to take our Hybrid Honda Civic for flexibility, but one 3 day stay at a hotel cost $105 just to park the beast (not to mention gas and tolls). Maybe there is a better way. Buses are rivaling car, train, and plane travel. Check bus deals in your area. Add a zip car or rental car (if public transportation doesn’t suffice) and you can build a flexible trip at less cost than using your own vehicle (if you are unfortunate enough to have to own such a money pit). If you travel the Boston, New York, Washington D.C. corridor review this excellent review of bus service from the Washington Post to get a Economic/Ecologic review of bus travel from $1 to $30 each way. Beat that!

The little perks mattered immensely and were a sweet tonic on what could otherwise be a mind-numbing journey. (With heavy traffic, the trip can last up to six hours.) But the more I rode, the more I understood the wider picture of bus travel. Overall, the industry has shaken its sordid reputation, emerging as a shiny chariot with a solid track record. The bus resurgence has been “a remarkable recovery of an industry,” said Joe Schwieterman, a professor of public service and director of DePaul University’s Chaddock Institute for Metropolitan Development. “Intercity bus travel is back and is now part of mainstream travel.”
According to a study by Schwieterman, in 2007-08 the economic downturn, the spike in gas prices and airline cutbacks led the intercity bus industry to post “its biggest one-year gain in service in a half-century.”

Credit goes mainly to the new convoy of buses, which appropriated the Chinatown model, then gave it a substantial upgrade. This new species offers curbside pickup and drop-offs, cheap fares, clean restrooms, express service, online reservations, free WiFi and loyalty programs. Neither Amtrak, currently exploring WiFi service on trains, nor my car can make such declarations.
The bus fares undercut Amtrak and, depending on the number of passengers, personal vehicles. One-way fares on the train start at $49, compared with $1 to $30 on the bus. As for my car, Townsend determined that gas for my make and model would add up to $43.78, plus about $20 for tolls. The buses also earn hugs from carbon-emission watchers. According to such experts as Schwieterman and the ABA, one bus can potentially eliminate 55 cars from the road. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ “Getting There Greener” guide notes that a couple can halve their carbon output by taking the bus and leaving their hybrid car in the garage.

@ Back on the Bus: D.C.-N.Y. Travelers Line Up for Low Fares, High Value.

Category: Knowledge, Transportation, Travel | No Comments »
Tags: bus, buses, carbon footprint, economical travel, flexible travel, green travel, Travel