Saturday, September 29, 2012

...i told you all!: Dawkins is my hero in the realm of the Wolrd of illogic thought made logic!

[[["...09:52 AM ET
Share this on: Facebook Twitter Digg reddit MySpace StumbleUpon Dawkins: Evolution is 'not a controversial issue'
Atheist. Biologist. Writer. Thinker. Richard Dawkins has developed an international reputation of spreading the word that evolution happened and that there is no "intelligent design" or higher being, as you might gather from the title of his book "The God Delusion."

But no matter what you think about his convictions, his ideas have gone viral - including the word "meme."

CNN caught up with Dawkins while he was passing through Atlanta earlier this year. His next U.S. tour is in October.

Here is an edited transcript of part of the conversation. Watch the video above for a more focused look at Dawkins' ideas about evolution vs. intelligent design.

Today, a lot of people think a "meme" is a LOLcat or a photo that's gone viral. How do you feel about that?
In the last chapter of "The Selfish Gene," I coined the word "meme" as a sort of analog of "gene." My purpose of this was to say that although I'd just written a whole book about how the gene is the unit of natural selection, and that evolution is changes in gene frequencies, the Darwinian process is potentially wider than that.

You could go to other planets in the universe and find life, and if you do find life, then it will have evolved by some kind of evolutionary process, probably Darwinian. And therefore there must be something equivalent to a gene, although it may be very, very different from the DNA genes that we know.

I wanted to drive that point home. And rather than speculate about life on other planets, I thought maybe we could look at life on this planet and find an analog of the gene staring us in the face right here. And that was the meme. It's a unit of cultural inheritance, the idea that an idea might propagate itself in a similar way to a gene propagating itself. It might be like catchy tune, or a clothes fashion. A verbal convention, a word that becomes fashionable, like "awesome," which no longer means what it should mean.

That would be an example of something that spread like an epidemic. And the word "basically," which is now used just to mean "uhh." That's another one that's spread throughout the English speaking world.

These are potentially analogous to genes in the sense that they spread and are copied from brain to brain throughout the world, or throughout a particular subset of people. The interesting question would be whether there's a Darwinian process, a kind of selection process whereby some memes are more likely to spread than others, because people like them, because they're popular, because they're catchy or whatever it might be.

My original purpose was to say: It's not necessarily all about genes. But the word has taken off.

There are people who use meme theory as a serious contribution to the theory of human culture and I’m glad to say that the idea of things going viral has also gone viral.

How do you think evolution should be taught to children?
You can't even begin to understand biology, you can't understand life, unless you understand what it's all there for, how it arose - and that means evolution. So I would teach evolution very early in childhood. I don't think it's all that difficult to do. It's a very simple idea. One could do it with the aid of computer games and things like that.

I think it needs serious attention, that children should be taught where they come from, what life is all about, how it started, why it's there, why there's such diversity of it, why it looks designed. These are all things that can easily be explained to a pretty young child. I'd start at the age of about 7 or 8.

There’s only one game in town as far as serious science is concerned. It’s not that there are two different theories. No serious scientist doubts that we are cousins of gorillas, we are cousins of monkeys, we are cousins of snails, we are cousins of earthworms. We have shared ancestors with all animals and all plants. There is no serious scientist who doubts that evolution is a fact.

Why do people cling to these beliefs of creationism and intelligent design?
There are many very educated people who are religious but they’re not creationists. There’s a world of difference between a serious religious person and a creationist, and especially a Young Earth Creationist, who thinks the world is only 10,000 years old.

If we wonder why there are still serious people including some scientists who are religious, that’s a complicated psychological question. They certainly won’t believe that God created all species, or something like that. They might believe there is some sort of intelligent spirit that lies behind the universe as a whole and perhaps designed the laws of physics and everything else took off from there.

But there's a huge difference between believing that and believing that this God created all species. And also, by the way, in believing that Jesus is your lord and savior who died for your sins. That you may believe, but that doesn't follow from the scientific or perhaps pseudoscientific that there's some kind of intelligence that underlies the laws of physics.

What you cannot really logically do is to say, well I believe that there's some kind of intelligence, some kind of divine physicist who designed the laws of physics, therefore Jesus is my lord and savior who died for my sins. That's an impermissible illogicality that unfortunately many people resort to.

Why do you enjoy speaking in the Bible Belt?
I’ve been lots of places, all of which claim to be the buckle of the Bible Belt. They can’t all be, I suppose. I enjoy doing that. I get very big audiences, very enthusiastic audiences. It’s not difficult to see why.

These people are beleaguered, they feel threatened, they feel surrounded by a sort of alien culture of the highly religious, and so when somebody like me comes to town…they turn out in very large numbers, and they give us a very enthusiastic welcome, and they thank us profusely and very movingly for coming and giving them a reason to turn out and see each other.

They stand up together and notice how numerous they actually are. I think it may be a bit of a myth that America is quite such a religious country as it’s portrayed as, and particularly that the Bible Belt isn’t quite so insanely religious as it’s portrayed as.

In situations such as the death of a loved one, people often turn to faith. What do you turn to?
Bereavement is terrible, of course. And when somebody you love dies, it’s a time for reflection, a time for memory, a time for regret. I absolutely don’t ever, under such circumstances, feel tempted to take up religion. Of course not. But I attend memorial services, I’ve organized memorial events or memorial services, I’ve spoken eulogies, I’ve taken a lot of trouble to put together a program of poetry, of music, of eulogies, of memories, to try to celebrate the life of the dead person.

What’s going to happen when you die?
What’s going to happen when I die? I may be buried, or I may be cremated, I may give my body to science. I haven’t decided yet.

It just ends?
Of course it just ends. What else could it do? My thoughts, my beliefs, my feelings are all in my brain. My brain is going to rot. So no, there’s no question about that.

If there were a God that met you after death, what would you say?
If I met God, in the unlikely event, after I died? The first thing I would say is, well, which one are you? Are you Zeus? Are you Thor? Are you Baal? Are you Mithras? Are you Yahweh? Which God are you, and why did you take such great pains to conceal yourself and to hide away from us?

Where did morality come from? Evolution?
We have very big and complicated brains, and all sorts of things come from those brains, which are loosely and indirectly associated with our biological past. And morality is among them, together with things like philosophy and music and mathematics. Morality, I think, does have roots in our evolutionary past. There are good reasons, Darwinian reasons, why we are good to, altruistic towards, cooperative with, moral in our behavior toward our fellow species members, and indeed toward other species as well, perhaps.

There are evolutionary roots to morality, but they’ve been refined and perfected through thousands of years of human culture. I certainly do not think that we ought to get our morals from religion because if we do that, then we either get them through Scripture – people who think you should get your morals from the Old Testament haven’t read the Old Testament – so we shouldn’t get our morals from there.

Nor should we get our morals from a kind of fear that if we don’t please God he’ll punish us, or a kind of desire to apple polish (to suck up to) a God. There are much more noble reasons for being moral than constantly looking over your shoulder to see whether God approves of what you do.

Where do we get our morals from? We get our morals from a very complicated process of discussion, of law-making, writing, moral philosophy, it’s a complicated cultural process which changes – not just over the centuries, but over the decades. Our moral attitudes today in 2012 are very different form what they would have been 50 or 100 years ago. And even more different from what they would have been 300 years ago or 500 years ago. We don’t believe in slavery now. We treat women as equal to men. All sorts of things have changed in our moral attitudes.

It’s to do with a very complicated more zeitgeist. Steven Pinker’s latest book “The Better Angels of Our Nature” traces this improvement over long centuries of history. He makes an extremely persuasive case for the fact that we are getting more moral, we are getting better as time goes on, and religion perhaps has a part to play in that, but it’s by no means an important part.

I don’t think there’s a simple source of morality to which we turn.

What might come after humans in evolution?
Nobody knows. It’s an unwise, a rash biologist who ever forecasts what’s going to happen next. Most species go extinct. The first question we should ask is: Is there any reason to think we will be exceptional?

I think there is a reason to think we possibly might be exceptional because we do have a uniquely develop technology which might enable us to not go extinct. So if ever there was a species that one might make a tentative forecast that it’s not going to go extinct, it might be ours.

Others have come to the opposite conclusion: That we might drive ourselves extinct by some horrible catastrophe involving human weapons. But assuming that doesn’t happen, maybe we will go for hundreds of thousands, even million years.

Will they evolve? Will they change? In order for that to happen, it’s necessary that a reproductive advantage should apply to certain genetic types rather than other genetic types. If you look back 3 million years, one of the most dramatic changes has been in the increase in brain size. Our probable ancestor 3 million years ago of the genus Australopithecus walked on its hind legs but had a brain about the size of a chimpanzee’s.

Will that trend continue? Only if the bigger brained individuals are the most likely to have children. Is there any tendency if you look around the world today to say that the brainiest individuals are the ones most likely to reproduce? I don’t think so. Is there any reason to think that might happen in the future? Not obviously. You can’t just look back 3 million years and extrapolate into the future. You have to ask the question: What kinds of genetically distinct individuals are most likely to reproduce during the next hundreds of thousands of years? It’s extremely difficult to forecast that.

What are you working on next?
I’m thinking of working on another book and it might be some sort of autobiography, but it’s very much in the planning stage."...]]]

...i am a ardent follower of Dawkins ! Not because of his fame, but because of how, partial ideas and partial logic, which occupies most all Academia Science influenced by Evolution !

...lately he decided to be more general in his books of evolution! to make evolution more and more a kids fable with nice wonderful pictures "in color"[the greatest show on earth] that do not make sense correctly to most humans, even though these pictures are true !

...well i suppose the billions of dollars which is today's Academia of Evolution and Bible theology, plus big religions, will dominate in their triumph of controlling minds under "dumb or inferior logic, or non-logic"...!


NEVER LOOSING FAITH WHICH IS A COMPONENT OF PURE LOGIC AND HUMAN MIND PSYCHOLOGY, i still have faith in better things, and in better ways of this progress in pure logic, to have a niche in my life time, in humanity and academia!

MEANWHILE I HOPE THINGS DO NOT GO AMISS WITH IRAN AND the atomic nuclear weaponry mere "source and existence" !

I HAVE TO CONFESS AS MOST HUMANS I HAVE BIG DREAMS, and non-achieved dreams, that come from plenty of reasons for these dreams to become mostly reality, could be vanquished! And that your rights be above mine!

But no fears, the fountain of this logic displayed in my Book of Pure Logic, is above previous occurrences in my life, as it was fully started to develop after year 2005!

And even though most humans have limits and red lines, mine demand a best existence as posible and as long as i and others can find this to be!
I doubt the logic of those that cross red lines and limits even in Canada, with complete back-up of Governments!

Again the logic is: "...when you enter into my rights, your rights are being left behind...! self expression does not enter into your rights, unless you let it affect you! of course all has limits in the realm of normalcy!" i will not sacrifice my rights because of yours! you can exert your rights in your realm of personal action as a person, as i should be able to like wise in mine!
So as to life, i have the right to self defense. As to being made fun of or humiliated from my rights, you can be so too in like manner!

Friday, September 28, 2012 anybody scared ? i did not know Iran was such a fromidable enemy ? folks this is another prophetico on IRAN !

How to Help Iran Build a Bomb
Published: September 28, 2012

ADVOCATES of airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities have long held that the attacks would delay an atom bomb for years and perhaps even buy Israel enough time to topple the Iranian government. In public statements, the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, has said that an attack would leave Iran’s nuclear program reeling, if not destroyed. The blow, he declared recently, would set back the Iranian effort “for a long time.”

Quite the opposite, say a surprising number of scholars and military and arms-control experts. In reports, talks, articles and interviews, they argue that a strike could actually lead to Iran’s speeding up its efforts, ensuring the realization of a bomb and hastening its arrival.

“An attack would increase the likelihood,” Scott D. Sagan, a political scientist at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, said of an Iranian weapon.

The George W. Bush administration, it turns out, reached an even stronger conclusion in secret and rejected bombing as counterproductive.

...some times they say, you can never misjudge a foe or enemy...!

...other times they say, no foe or enemy is too small to ignore...! never has happened in our time, that the foe or enemy has completely won over the good...!

...and never doubt that to do nothing many times is as bad as doing something...! nor doing something can be worse than doing nothing...!

...generally you doubt in a modern military World, with the way things are in Iraq and Afghanistan, that there is never a complete victory...!

...but believe me, you can do anything to an English peasant, they have not done anything in 2,000 years...! and the negro slaves thought oppressed, at least they had occupation ! now a lot of Negroes are peasants rusting away with nothing much to do, but fill the drugsters and landlords coffers...!



...a delay to wait and see what they really can do, is not feasible in a nuclear arms treaty treason...!


Again I did not know they were becoming such a formidable foe and enemy ...! Nobody "feared" to attack Iraq two times, nor Afghanistan, nor Libya...! I wonder what it will take to find out what "punch" do the Iranians have ?

Galaxy Note | White or Black - OVERVIEW | SAMSUNG

Galaxy Note | White or Black - OVERVIEW | SAMSUNG 

  • Android™ 2.3 Operating System
  • Android Browser


  • Standby Time: Up to 600 h
  • Talk Time: Up to 9 h


  • WMV and DIVX Video Player Format Support
  • 1920 x 1080 p HD Video Recording Available


  • SMS and MMS Available
  • Email Available


  • 178 g Weight
  • 146.86 x 82.95 x 9.65 mm Device Size

User Interface

  • Touch Input

Music & Sound

  • MP3, AAC, AAC+, eAAC+, WMA, WAV, AMR-NB, AMR-WB, MIDI and OGG Music Player Format Support
  • Polyphonic Ringtones Available
  • MP3 Ringtones Available


  • Bluetooth® 2.0 Supported
  • MicroUSB Supported


  • Super AMOLED Display
  • 800 x 1280 Resolution
  • 5.29" Display


  • 8.0 MP Camera Resolution
  • Digital / Optical Zoom Available
  • Auto, Daylight, Cloudy, Incandescent, and Fluorescent Photo Quality Settings Available


  • 16 GB User Memory Available
  • 32 GB MicroSD External Memory Available 
...i want one all of my own ! please donate 700$ now !
...this is sure making APPLE go on the run !

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

...1-is-to-100 . com ! "usury" is a form of "fraud" that causes "harm"...!

...1-is-to-100 . com ! "usury" is a form of "fraud" that causes "harm"...!

DEDICATED TO THE "English wood house - witch burners - piro-maniacs" that do not believe in the "dignity" of government funded property housing for peasants or the poor ! Rental housing is the negation of "a persona and self" amongst many other self rights negations ! IT IS ONLY A SMOKE SCREEN of the worst slavery principles since 2,000 or more years ago !

The saying 1-is-to-100, goes as follows:

1 is to 100 as whatever number is to 1 or to 100.
If we use as whatever number is to 100, then it is as to 100% percentage !

So the mathematics is:

If 1% percentage is 100% percentage, how much would 10% percentage be
as to proportion to 1% percentage ? :

10% x 100% / 1% = 1000%


Today Canada has mortgages rates at around average of 3.5% !
And anything bigger than 100% increase would be "USURY" !

So the Mathematics of 3.5 is to 100 would be:

If 3.5% is 100%, how much would 4.5% be ? :

4.5% x 100% / 3,5% = 128.57% which is over the 100% increase mark !

6.5% x 100% / 3.5% = 185.71% which is too close to 200% increase mark !

If you are paying a 800$ monthly mortgage, and interest rates go by "no real
sane reason" to 6.5%? You would have to pay around 1.8571 x 800$/month
more, if not more compounded ! This gives around 743$/month ! NORMALLY



Canada and the Bank of Canada have listed interests rates over their recent
history of and up to 10%. Which is "usury" ! And the latest President of the
Bank of Canada [ David Dodge ], was recently con-decorated as a top citizen
of Canada ! This guy and the government of Canada made a few more million
peasants and foreclosures and landlords in the last 20-30 years ! What an
accomplishment !

If you want to go to Court on this ! I do not have to ! You do ! 


Saturday, September 22, 2012

...the sum of all fears ! or the military methodology in an accidental atomic nuclear strike !

...the sum of all fears...!
...the strategic methodology of accidental nuclear warfare...!

Intercontinental ballistic missile
Submarine-launched ballistic missile

[[[..."Russia, the United States and China are the only countries currently known to possess land-based ICBMs.[20]

The United States currently operates 450 ICBMs in three USAF bases. The only model deployed is LGM-30G Minuteman-III.

All previous USAF Minuteman II missiles have been destroyed in accordance with START, and their launch silos have been sealed or sold to the public. To comply with the START II most U.S. multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs, have been eliminated and replaced with single warhead missiles. The powerful MIRV-capable Peacekeeper missiles were phased out in 2005.[21] However, since the abandonment of the START II treaty, the U.S. is said to be considering retaining 800 warheads on an existing 450 missiles.[22]

The Russian Strategic Rocket Forces have 369 ICBMs able to deliver 1,247 nuclear warheads, 58 silo-based R-36M2 (SS-18), 70 silo-based UR-100N (SS-19), 171 mobile RT-2PM "Topol" (SS-25), 52 silo-based RT-2UTTH "Topol M" (SS-27), 18 mobile RT-2UTTH "Topol M" (SS-27), 6 (15 in December 2011[23]) mobile RS-24 "Yars" (SS-29) (Future replacement for R-36 & UR-100N missiles)

China has developed several long range ICBMs, like the DF-31. The Dongfeng 5 or DF-5 is a 3 stage liquid fuel ICBM and has an estimated range of 13,000 kilometers. The DF-5 had its first flight in 1971 and was in operational service 10 years later. One of the downsides of the missile was that it took between 30 and 60 minutes to fuel. The Dong Feng 31 (a.k.a. CSS-10) is a medium-range, three stage, solid propellant intercontinental ballistic missile, and is a land-based variant of the submarine launched JL-2. The DF-41 or CSS-X-10 can carry up to 10 nuclear warheads, which are maneuverable reentry vehicles and has a range of approximately 12,000–14,000 km.[24][25][26][27]

Israel is believed to have deployed a road mobile nuclear ICBM, the Jericho III, which entered service in 2008. It is possible for the missile to be equipped with a single 750 kg nuclear warhead or up to three MIRV warheads. It is believed to be based on the Shavit space launch vehicle and is estimated to have a range of 4,800 to 11,500 km[10] (2,982 to 7,180 miles). In November 2011 Israel tested an ICBM believed to be an upgraded version of the Jericho III.[11]

India has a series of ballistic missiles called Agni, of which the latest is Agni-V. On 19 April 2012, India successfully test fired Agni-V, a three stage solid fueled missile, with a strike range of more than 8,000 km.[12]"...]]]

...we all believe what we have been told or have seen in many movies enacting a nuclear war scenario...!

SO LETS DO THE PURE LOGIC OF IT FOR THIS DAY, day of rest of the Jewish God JHWV or Jehovah and of all "his" wonders and love on Earth:

[*] We all believe that U.S.A. might hit with a small nuclear weapon in any preemptive strike, and ever since the preemptive theory became practice in the two Gulf Wars, Afghanistan, and Libya, etc. !
[*] As to a Intercontinental nuclear atomic ballistic Missile attack on the U.S.A., regardless of it being accidental or not, we believe or have been made believe that U.S.A. would strike back regardless, and very soon after, the explosion on U.S.A. soil, unless they could stop it before hand !
[*] What we do not know is if they could determine soon enough from where the attack had come from ?
[*] Would you start a World conflagration over one atomic attack on the U.S.A. ! Or wait and take the damage, and then determine to hit back with only one equivalent atomic missile, those to blame !
[*] Can anybody believe that U.S.A. would wait for the explosion to happen in a time frame of more or less 30 minutes ! What if it caused problems for them to respond, or be able to defend themselves properly and take control ?
[*] This then highlights the idea, that can the U.S.A. be "tricked" into a major Nuclear Atomic War ? As they might not sit back and take the accidental blow !
[*] What if the military technique and attack be just this one: to hit accidentally with one from a submarine or mobile location, and then in the aftermath, hit with a second one, etc. ?
[*] Anyway we cannot believe that any accidental nuclear hit may occur ever ! All living humans are "sane" enough, even though they are not very good "environmentalists", and they are slowly destroying the Planet, and they believe in human hunger, local wars, sicknesses, poverty, and capitalism !
[*] Much less could we believe that any major country would want to do a half a World destruction in a nuclear war !

So folks, the only guys menacing with destroying a country are the Iranians, and they are trying to develop an atomic bomb !

What is going to happen, is easy to determine ! Who is going to defend or involve themselves with Iran ? 

And what will Iran be able to do in a conventional war response before there is not too much damage done !

THAT IS ALL FOR A PROPHETICO ON Nuclear Wars and Iran for now !

-. Simply that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had to go to the United Nations meeting September 2012, to show he is not showing fear or plans of anything real bad, even though his rhetoric is quite violent ! 

-. And we all know that Obama would not go to Iran as it being pointless and too dangerous to do so !

-. There are soon elections in Iran, and nobody thinks there might be any policy changes !

AND I FORGOT TO MENTION: Does anybody think 450 to 1000 active nuclear warheads is enough...?
Just in case ! They decide to flatten the whole World ! And what would it take for them to do such a thing !

Friday, September 21, 2012

...the logic about Jesus's chastity !

09:28 AM ET
[[[..." My Take: I don't know if Jesus was married (and I don't care)

Editor's Note: Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of "The American Bible: How Our Words Unite, Divide, and Define a Nation," is a regular CNN Belief Blog contributor.

By Stephen Prothero, Special to CNN

A few years ago I wrote a book about Jesus in the American imagination. What I learned along the way is that the American Jesus is a Gumby-like figure who can twist and turn in almost any direction.

Our Jesus has been black and white, gay and straight, a socialist and a capitalist, a pacifist and a warrior, a civil rights activist and a Ku Klux Klansman. Over the American centuries, he has stood not on some unchanging rock of ages but on the shifting sands of economic circumstances, political calculations and cultural trends."...]]] fear Batman and Robin is here...!

...the logic of Jesus's chastity is wrong !
it is completely wrong that chastity makes you more a saint!
the logic of a man that knew sex and had a wife, would have made Jesus more real and complete and normal, as an example to us all !
hence Jesus as a single man because of a religious saintliness, makes the Bible story questionable as to its divine better logic origin, and is a mere orthodox religious "mans" book !


THE VIRGINITY of her Holiness Mother Mary ....! and her bodily ascension/resurrection to heaven recently...!


...i did not know you cannot abort in Canada legally for no reason !

...i did not know you cannot "abort" in Canada legally for no reason !

Motion 312: Stephen Woodworth And Group Of Tory MPs Argue For Study On When Life Begins
CP  |  By The Canadian Press Posted: 09/21/2012 2:55 pm EDT Updated: 09/21/2012 3:53 pm EDT

[[[..."OTTAWA - A group of Conservative MPs is arguing in the House of Commons that Parliament should study when life begins.

Tory Stephen Woodworth's private member's motion would create a committee to review the legal definition of what constitutes a human being.

Woodworth is being backed during the final debate on the issue by a handful of his Conservative colleagues, who say the definition is outdated and not based on current scientific knowledge about the fetus.

Some Liberal and New Democrat MPs are accusing the Conservatives of using the motion to reopen the abortion debate in Canada and set back women's rights.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he will vote against Woodworth's motion.

The debate is being closely watched by women's and pro-life groups across the country."...]]]

When does life start, and why go to a abortion clinic in the USA? .

Because the World is in -over-population problems! .

And Religions are wrong on "contraception" and "legal abortions"! .

Nobody that wants to have children will have abortions! And those that do generally should!.

There is not work for all in Canada anyway!.

Crude reality over-rides sometimes more humane definitions on when does life start in the womb! For that matter "sperm" and "eggs" are life forms! HOW STUPID CAN YOU GET in a draconian minded tendency Canada?!.


Thursday, September 20, 2012

...welcome to the future World of: !

...welcome to the future World of: !

book of pure logic - the logic of everything !

 ...what is not known in life is defined in pure logic as abysses of knowledge !

...could it be that many of these abysses are bridged ! let's wait until my Book 2 for this !


Tuesday, September 18, 2012 you android ? i do and it is the best ! troubles ? dolphin browser and kingsoftware word !

...other than Apple that are very costly and you go nuts trying to "text" on a touchscreen !

...i would not change Android for nothing and a nice keyboard of HTC Status, that they do not want to sell openly in Canada !

AS TO MUSIC SALES AND imusic, and free downloads or ripped music from you-tube ! the problem is the availability online and not what i do ?

NOW DID YOU READ MY ELECTRONIC BOOK illegally distributing a copy? that is different!

There is old music and good music you cannot buy easily that you can rip from you-tube! the lack of cheap availability this time, is the question!

...the blue gene human brain project !


"...forgive me: project in preparation...!"

The brain, with its billions of interconnected neurons, is without any doubt the most complex organ in the body and it will be a long time before we understand all its mysteries. The Human Brain Project proposes a completely new approach. The project is integrating everything we know about the brain into computer models and using these models to simulate the actual working of the brain. Ultimately, it will attempt to simulate the complete human brain. The models built by the project will cover all the different levels of brain organisation – from individual neurons through to the complete cortex. The goal is to bring about a revolution in neuroscience and medicine and to derive new information technologies directly from the architecture of the brain.

The challenges facing the project are huge. Neuroscience alone produces more than 60'000 scientific papers every year. From this enormous mass of information, the project will have to select and harmonise the data it is going to use – ensuring that data produced with different methods is fully comparable.

The data feeding the project's simulation effort will come from the clinic and from neuroscience experiments. As we try to fit all the information together, we will discover many of the brain's fundamental design secrets: the geometry and electrical behaviour of different classes of neurons, the way they connect to form circuits, and the way new functions emerge as more and more neurons connect. It is these principles, translated into mathematics that will drive the project's models and simulations.

Today, simulating a single neuron requires the full power of a laptop computer. But the brain has billions of neurons and simulating all them simultaneously is a huge challenge. To get round this problem, the project will develop novel techniques of multi-level simulation in which only groups of neurons that are highly active are simulated in detail. But even in this way, simulating the complete human brain will require a computer a thousand times more powerful than the most powerful machine available today. This means that some of the key players in the Human Brain Project will be specialists in supercomputing. Their task: to work with industry to provide the project with the computing power it will need at each stage of its work.

The Human Brain Project will impact many different areas of society. Brain simulation will provide new insights into the basic causes of neurological diseases such as autism, depression, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. It will give us new ways of testing drugs and understanding the way they work. It will provide a test platform for new drugs that directly target the causes of disease and that have fewer side effects than current treatments. It will allow us to design prosthetic devices to help people with disabilities. The benefits are potentially huge. As world populations grow older, more than a third will be affected by some kind of brain disease. Brain simulation provides us with a powerful new strategy to tackle the problem.

The project also promises to become a source of new Information Technologies. Unlike the computers of today, the brain has the ability to repair itself, to take decisions, to learn, and to think creatively - all while consuming no more energy than an electric light bulb. The Human Brain Project will bring these capabilities to a new generation of neuromorphic computing devices, with circuitry directly derived from the circuitry of the brain. The new devices will help us to build a new generation of genuinely intelligent robots to help us at work and in our daily lives.

The Human Brain Project builds on the work of the Blue Brain Project. Led by Henry Markram of the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), the Blue Brain Project has already taken an essential first towards simulation of the complete brain. Over the last six years, the project has developed a prototype facility with the tools, know-how and supercomputing technology necessary to build brain models, potentially of any species at any stage in its development. As a proof of concept, the project has successfully built the first ever, detailed model of the neocortical column, one of the brain's basic building blocks.

Please note all information in this website reflects the Human Brain Project – Preparatory Study.


The Human Brain Project presents a huge challenge for computing. The project will need massive computing power but this, on its own, will not be enough. Simulating just one neuron requires the full power of a laptop computer and the human brain has billions. As researchers come closer to simulating the complete human brain they will need ever more powerful computing resources.

Jülich, a partner in the project, will host the main supercomputing centre. In the project, Jülich will work with industry to design and set up the necessary infrastructure. In the later stages this work researchers on the project will have access to a computer a thousand times more powerful than the most powerful computers existing today.

To simulate the complete human brain, the project's computer engineers will design new techniques of multi-level simulation. In this approach, highly active neurons will be simulated in great detail while simulations of less active neurons will be less detailed - making the best possible use of the available computing power.


...IN PURE LOGIC, what is ignored as something more complex than a human mind can perceive or conceive as such, or is being realized as very complex and the complexity level is unknown, demands a verdict !

...THE VEREDICT is as most realize so far in Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence, that a human made mechanical/electronic "robot", cannot be more complex than what it's human maker is, or as what the human maker knows !

TO DEVELOP  a "robot" inorganic, demands the verdict, that if it be made capable of becoming more "complex" and thus feasibly more "intelligent" than humans, which is conceptually "a too big abyss to bridge", it would be too dangerous for human existence ! And no human structurally is made to want in competition mentality, something better than self ! At least as most humans function in modern society !

...THE FURTHER VERDICTS ARE: in this joint venture in logic, now having become a World "negative" inquest of logic, going foul, with ancient logic wanting to remain in precedence, over better logic, is as follows. Additionally this inquest of logic has and always will have, the normal usage of analysis and study of advance in logic, as to pure logic and myself! How others use logic or react negatively to pure logic, is their own responsibility, and not mine! Your self rejection and denial is not my problem!

[*] Most humans are consequent users of their brains and minds, and do not have full knowledge of themselves!
[*] Nobody can study the mind and brain of themselves or others, without external help and instrumentation!
[*] Nobody perceives the need or importance of the need for the knowledge of the human brain and mind! Simply because the World can or could go on for ever with the way they are today!
[*] Pure logic, establishes that what is more complex than what yourself can perceive, demands a more intelligent approach to life and origins!
[*] We are as perceived selves inside a organic machine more complex than our own selves! This is a form of definition of consciousness!
[*] Is this self, more than normal organic matter or energy?
[*] What is finally perceived by Science as the "huge challenge for computing", as thus hence, "a abyss too big to bridge", in logic defines the impossible of Biology Evolution in Origins! Clearly makes way to the definitions of pure logic, of what is not super-natural, but infra or supra natural! Ancient Religions and theology, might have some basics in logic right, but mostly are mere superstitions! How can a World obscure pure logic over mere Religious superstitions and Illogic of Biology Evolution? Because a mind has the capability to obscure itself willfully and not so willfully!


Monday, September 17, 2012

Why war with Iran would spell disaster - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Why war with Iran would spell disaster - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Murtaza Hussain
Murtaza Hussain is a Toronto-based writer and analyst focused on issues related to Middle Eastern politics.

Why war with Iran would spell disaster
US politicians are ratcheting up calls for war without being honest with the public about what it would really mean.
Last Modified: 12 Sep 2012 08:44

[[[".....This reticence is reflective not of goodwill towards the Iranian regime, but of a recognition that such a war would be catastrophic to American interests and would have serious implications for continued global stability. Americans are being goaded and misinformed by cynical political maneouvering which is attempting to steer them into another disastrous and assuredly bloody war for the sake of interest group politics and short-term political expediency.

If there is to be another pre-emptive war of choice, this time with Iran, American politicians must openly and honestly acknowledge what this would mean for Americans and for the world and allow them to make their decisions thusly.

War is never a choice to be taken lightly, but the potential consequences of a war with Iran would be unprecedented - the dangerous game being played at present by many US politicians is one which could take Americans down a ruinous path without their informed consent....."]]] pure logic a War with Iran, according to mentioned data, could be the last straw on the "camels" back...!

...USA did IRAK first, then Afghanistan, with the bogging down aftermath guerrilla local warfare...!

...Nobody seems to realize that data suggest IRAN to be more powerful militarily, and of having a Geographical position of worse World economical consequences !

...i do not think an attack on Iran can be done as easily and with less amount of power and military than the 2nd Gulf War ! might mean a Japan Hiroshima, with less military cost, but worse, civilian lives loss and World judicial costs !

...all i know is, IRAN might not be as easy, as a full blown conventional war...! 

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

...inquest of logic - nothing to do with "holy inquest"...!

 Inquest of Logic - Inquisitoria de la Lógica

Language of Europe was more simple with fewer words.
By the 13th Century judicial and human legal rights were developing more.

For Joint/United - Quest/Venture/Saga, of the study and analysis of Logic in all most it's fields in Academia and human knowledge and practices, has been a life fulfillment.

The results as to my acceptance has been as all through out human history of, ignorance, inquisitional tendencies to my person, and outright self denial from most everybody.

I hope my Quest and now Inquest and not hopefully formal Judicial Inquiry, will not have put an end to any human progress to better ways of living and life!

As this is what has been the inferred answer I have received: "Pure Logic, is too ahead of it's time, or simply human will not be much better than they have been so far!

The amazing thing is that most humans pay and donate to worse logic activities, and live in like manner. And the World can go on for ever, in this sense, with not much more progress!

To live reality with the best knowledge and logic, is of true pure logic adults! We will establish centers of pure logic, with the ethics and moral teachings of normal humans and established laws.

What is, is and has been established. But was isn't and is better, is for all those that want to. And what is better cannot be detained, and has a place in World Academia and New Theology.

You can be what you want to be in whatever belief, study, and logic.

[C13: from Medieval Latin inquēsta,  from Latin in- ² + quaesītus  investigation, from quaerere  to examine]
late 13c., an-queste "legal or judicial inquiry," from O.Fr. enqueste "inquiry," from fem. pp. of V.L. *inquirere "inquire" (see inquire).

Monday, September 10, 2012 assault on reason - huffingtonpost . "ca"...!


It seems to be a way History goes. The sacrifice of each ones rights for a common alleged good! But it is not exactly our good! Though they would try and convince us, it is for our good! Well the truth is that "peasants" are increasing, un-employment, and Government cuts make this more a reality! Who said Government is not the cash cow that does not want to provide employment? The similitude of a adult-child this time is that a child does not have rights or freedoms of an adult! And not because "mental health" and the RCMP took them from you, in their draconian "public behavior" control of their doomed society!

LEST WE forget and i mean it![we archive it here too]:
[[[[["...“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities” – Voltaire

In his novel 1984, George Orwell paints a portrait of a nightmarish future where rights that we now take for granted – the freedom of assembly, speech and to trial – have all been suspended. Acceptance of this totalitarian state is justified by the interests of stability and order, and by the needs a perpetual war. But what makes 1984 endure where other dystopian novels have been forgotten is that Orwell removed one more right that is even more unimaginable in a modern context – the right to think.

Instead of reason and rational discourse, Oceania is ruled by doublethink – “to know and not to know. To be conscious of complete truthfulness, while telling carefully construed lies … to use logic against logic: to repudiate morality while laying claim to it”. As Orwell summarizes…. “In Oceania the heresy of heresy was common sense”.

Emblematic of the regime is Big Brother’s slogan, repeated constantly as a means of thought control….

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

Even by the standards of the time in which he was writing, the juxtaposition of these concepts is so ludicrous, many believe that Orwell was using satire to wage his war against authoritarianism and the assault on reason. Anyone who has been to war knows it is anything but peaceful. Anyone who has been enslaved is more than aware that they are not free. But what about those who are ignorant? Do they feel weak … or strong?

Throughout history there has been a need to explain the unexplained. And for the greatest part of history, the bulwark against not-knowing has been superstition, dogma and orthodoxy. Can’t explain droughts? Blame God’s wrath. Why are we suffering from mysterious diseases? Witchcraft. And of course, economic downturns could be blamed on ethnic minorities. The response to these beliefs has been human sacrifices, burning at the stake and ethnic cleansing. This is the linkage that Voltaire made when he wrote … “those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities”.
Understanding the world or explaining phenomena through superstition, dogma and orthodoxy – instead of facts and reason – invariably leads to some very ugly and uncivilized behaviour. The reason for this is fairly straightforward – namely, beliefs that are rooted in superstition, dogma and orthodoxy are not sustainable … sooner or later their veracity will be tested by facts and evidence. Those who need these beliefs to sustain their interests and power therefore must enforce at the point of a sword or remove those who might prove them to be untrue.

Orwell’s claim that “Ignorance is Strength” might have been the clever writing of a satirist at the height of his talents but it was also much more than that. It is his most dire warning. Abolitionist and newspaper publisher Fredrick Douglas said that it was illiteracy more than the lash that gave slaveholders power over black men and women. Orwell was making a similar point… the suppression of knowledge and reason is the tyrant’s most powerful tool… and the greatest threat to freedom. “Orthodoxy,” he said, “means not thinking – not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness”.

Of course, the opposite is also true. The greater the knowledge and education of a population, the more difficult it is to oppress them. As Steven Pinker notes in his new book “The Better Nature of our Angels” … “The subversive power of the flow of information and people has never been lost on political and religious tyrants. This is why they suppress speech, writing and associations and why democracies protect these channels in their bills of rights” (p. 179).

In fact, in a triumph of his own research and command of reason, Pinker makes a compelling case that the hallmark of modern history has been a progressive decline in violence, accompanied by a steady upward trajectory of civilized, humane and peaceful behaviour. More than anything else, it has been the embracing of reason and enlightened thinking that has moved civilization forward.

In his 2007 best seller, “The Assault on Reason”, Nobel Prize winner and former Vice- President Al Gore made his own case for the protection of reason as the foundation of democracy. The basis of his argument is that the marketplace of ideas is open to all and the fate of those ideas is based on their merit (rather than birthright or finance). In this sense, reason reinforces equality. Moreover, when we engage in public debate, armed with reason, by definition, we are prepared to compromise and find common ground with those who might otherwise be our opponents. In this way, conflicts between individuals are resolved through words and ideas rather than the barrel of a gun. In the same way, it was only when ordinary citizens began to govern themselves using common sense, logic, and the best available evidence, that governments began to change and evolve without resorting to raw power and violence.

So it is important to remind ourselves why we value reason and why we should be very concerned when it comes under assault.

Pinker, like others, notes that democracies rarely, if ever, declare war on one another anymore and that the idea of one nation invading another to control sovereign territory has virtually become an anachronism. He explains the line between democracy and peace in this way … “Democratic government is designed to resolve conflict through consensual rule of law and so democracies .. externalize this ethic in dealing with other states. Also, every democracy knows the way the other democracies work, since they are all constructed on the same rational foundation rather than growing out of a cult of personality or messianic creed or chauvinistic mission” (p. 278). This mutual trust between democratic nations therefore mitigates against the need for any pre-emptive strike against one another.

And as important as peace and democracy are, reason also leads to a series of other beliefs and behaviours we now associate with our prosperity and fortunes.

Reason has taught us that it is cheaper and more efficient to enter into a commercial arrangement with our neighbours than to invade, plunder or colonize them. Trade of goods and services between nations, in turn, inflates and widens our empathy beyond kin and tribe and encourages immigration and pluralism.

Beyond empathy, science has revealed that all races and peoples share common traits and therefore deserve to be treated equally. This humanism and the placement of the rights of the individual on an even plane, above the rights of states, draws us inevitably towards concepts such as the responsibility to protect. While the scriptures might tell us we are all each other’s keepers, it is reason that compels us to behave in this way.

In fact, our entire notion of progress has reason at its core. As Ronald Wright reminds us in his brilliant lecture series, “A Short History of Progress”, this is a relatively modern concept. For most of civilization, people believed their station in life would be pretty much the same when they died as when they were born. And they believed this because it was true – mortality, health and wealth improved little for most of human history. It was only when we began to imagine that man and society was, if not perfectible, certainly improvable, that optimism and scientific endeavour sought to propel mankind forward.

And more than anything else, societal progress has been advanced by enlightened public policy that marshals our collective resources towards a larger public good. Once again it has been reason and scientific evidence that has delineated effective from ineffective policy. We have discovered that effective solutions can only be generated when they correspond to an accurate understanding of the problems they are designed to solve. Evidence, facts and reason therefore form the sine qua non of not only good policy, but good government.

I have spent my entire professional life as a researcher, dedicated to understanding the relationship between cause and effect. And I have to tell you, I’ve begun to see some troubling trends. It seems as though our government’s use of evidence and facts as the bases of policy is declining, and in their place, dogma, whim and political expediency are on the rise. And even more troubling …. Canadians seem to be buying it.

My concern was first piqued in July 2010, when the federal cabinet announced its decision to cut the mandatory long form census and replace it with a voluntary one. The rationale for this curious decision was that asking citizens for information about things like how many bathrooms were in their homes was a needless intrusion on their privacy and liberty. One might reasonably wonder how knowledge about the number of toilets you have could enable the government to invade your privacy, but that aside, it became clear that virtually no toilet owners had ever voiced concerns that the long form census, and its toilet questions, posed this kind of threat.

Again, as someone who had used the census – both as a commercial researcher and when I worked on Parliament Hill – I knew how important these data were in identifying not just toilet counts, but shifting population trends and the changes in the quality and quantity of life of Canadians. How could you determine how many units of affordable housing were needed unless you knew the change in the number of people who qualified for affordable housing? How could you assess the appropriate costs of affordable housing unless you knew the change in the amount of disposal income available to eligible recipients?

And even creepier, why would anyone forsake these valuable insights – and the chance to make good public policy – under the pretence that rights were violated when no one ever voiced the concern that this was happening? Was this a one-off move, however misguided? Or, the canary in the mineshaft?

Then came the Long Gun Registry. The federal government made good on their promise to dismantle it regardless of the fact that virtually every police chief in Canada said it was important to their work. Being true to their election promises? Or was there something else driving this decision?

Then, came the promise of a massive penitentiary construction spree which flew directly in the face of a mountain of evidence indicating that crime was on the decline. This struck me as a costly, unnecessary move, but knowing this government’s penchant to define itself as “tough-on-crime”, one could see – at least ideologically – why they did it. But, does that make it right?

Then came the post-stimulus federal budget of 2012 which I eagerly awaited to see if there would be something more here than mere political opportunism.

It was common knowledge that this government had little stomach for the deficit spending that followed the finance crisis of the previous years. And knowing that the public supported a return to balance budgets, it was a foregone conclusion that we were going to be presented with a fairly austere budget document. That the government intended to cut 19,000 civil servant jobs – roughly 6% of the total federal workforce – might have seemed a little draconian, but knowing what we knew, not that shocking.

As part of this package, it was also announced that environmental assessments were to be “streamlined” and that the final arbitration power of independent regulators was to be curtailed and possibly overridden by so-called “accountable” elected officials. Again, given the priority this government places on economic, and especially resource development, this was not necessarily unpredictable either.

But when then the specific cuts started to roll out, an alarming trend began to take shape.

- First up were those toilet counting, privacy violators at Stats Canada – ½ (not 6%, but 50%) of employees were warned that their jobs were at risk.

- 20% of the workforce at the Library and Archives of Canada were put on notice.

- CBC was told that it could live with a 10% reduction in their budgetary allocation.

-In what was described as the “lobotomization of the parks system” (G &M – May 21, 2012), 30% of the operating budget of Parks Canada was cut, eliminating 638 positions; 70% of whom would be scientists and social scientists.

-The National Roundtable on the Environment, the First Nations Statistical Institute, the National Council on Welfare and the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science were, in Orwell’s parlance, “vaporized”; saving a grand total of $7.5 million.

-The Experimental Lakes Area, a research station that produced critical evidence that helped stop acid rain 3 decades ago and has been responsible for some of our most groundbreaking research on water quality was to be shut down. Savings? $2 million. The northernmost lab in Eureka, Nunavut awaits the same fate.

- The unit in charge of monitoring emissions from power plants, furnaces, boiler and other sources is to be abolished in order to save $600,000.

- And against the advice of 625 fisheries scientists and four former federal Fisheries Ministers – saying it is scientifically impossible to do — regulatory oversight of the fisheries was limited to stock that are of “human value”.

- To add insult to injury, these amendments was bundled in with 68 other laws into one Budget Bill, so that – using the power of majority government – no single item could be opposed or revoked.

- On the other side of the ledger however, the Canada Revenue Agency received an $8 million increase in its budget so that it had more resources available to investigate the political activity of not-for-profit and charitable organizations.

Ok, so now the facts were beginning to tell a different story. This was no random act of downsizing, but a deliberate attempt to obliterate certain activities that were previously viewed as a legitimate part of government decision-making – namely, using research, science and evidence as the basis to make policy decisions. It also amounted to an attempt to eliminate anyone who might use science, facts and evidence to challenge government policies.

And while few in the popular press at home belled the cat quite this squarely, the pattern did not go unnoticed in other quarters. The editorial in the March issue of Nature criticized the Harper Government for muzzling and tightening the media protocols applied to federal scientists. Two weeks earlier, the Canadian Science Writers Association, The World Federation of Science Journalists and others send an open letter to the Prime Minister calling on him stop suppressing scientific findings and let them be freely shared, in keeping with the best practices of the discipline. And in July, in an unprecedented demonstration, lab-coated scientists marched on Parliament Hill to protest what they viewed as a systematic attack on evidence-based research by this Government.

In 1984, the abandonment of reason is twinned not simply with unthinking orthodoxy but also by the wilful dissemination of misinformation. Orwell makes this point in part by using ironic names for various government departments: the Ministry of Love is responsible for war. The Ministry of Plenty is tasked with parsing rations.

Again if this is satire, I can pretty much guarantee that Orwell’s intent was savage. Written in the shadow of the war, Orwell had seen this kind of misdirection used to mask evil intents, in real time and in real life. When Hitler circumvented the German Parliament and seized power in 1933, he did so under legislation named “The Law to Remedy the Distress of the People”. When the horrors of the holocaust were revealed, they were accompanied by the unforgettable image of the gate into Auschwitz with its Orwellian slogan “Work Will Set You Free”.

And today, more and more, we see this same kind of misdirection and news speak in the behaviour of our legislators.

A quick review of the some of the Bills passed or on the order paper of this session of Parliament gives you the sense that this government might have studied under Orwell.

Bill C-5 is entitled “The Continuing Air Service for Passengers Act”. Substantively, it offers no such guarantee but unilaterally extended the contract of the National Automobile, Aerospace, Transport and General Workers Union of Canada and removed any prospect of a lockout or strike.

Bill C-10 is “An Act to Enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism” and sub-titled “The Safe Streets and Communities Act”. Again forgetting for a moment that there are more victims of swimming pool drowning than terrorism, this is an Omnibus Bill which, among other things, stiffens penalties for possession of pot and builds more prisons.

Bill C-18 is called the “Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act”. It dismantled the Canadian Wheat Board.

Bill C-26 boasts that it is “The Citizens Arrest and Self-Defense Act” and it is the closest we come in Canada to replicating Florida’s odious Stand Your Ground legislation.

The purpose of Bill C-30 is stated to be “The Protect Children from Internet Predators Act” and it, among other things, forces ISPs to hand over their user names to police without a warrant. When opponents protested this deliberate obfuscation, Safety Minister Vic Toews famously countered that “you are either with us or the child pornographers”.

The thing that is disconcerting and unsettling about all this is not just the substance of these Bills, but why a government would want to disguise that substance. Maybe dismantling the Wheat Board; or pre-emptively squashing collective bargaining; or sending more potheads to jail is a good thing. But before we make those decisions, let’s look at all the facts; have a fulsome and rational debate; and make a reasoned decision of what is in the best interests of all the parties involved. For voters to determine whether these are measures they support or oppose requires that they know what is at stake and what the government is actually doing. Moreover, for the rule of law to work, the public must have respect for the law. By obfuscating the true purpose of laws under the gobbledy-gook of double speak, governments are admitting that their intentions probably lack both support and respect. Again, the lesson here is Orwellian … in the same way that reason requires consciousness, tyranny demands ignorance.

Raising this is not a question of right versus left. It is rather- in the words of Al Gore – a question of right versus wrong. And also make no mistake that this is not simply an attack on, or a claim that the sole practitioner of masking intent is The Harper Government. Jean Charest, introduced Bill 78 as “An Act to Enable Students to Receive Instruction from the Post Secondary Education They Attend”. Under some fairly benign circumstances, it basically bans the freedom of assembly. And under the pretext of another perpetual war – the so-called War on Terrorism – the President of the United States not only routinely orders the execution of foreign nationals, on foreign soil, without any semblance of due process whatsoever, but boasts that this as one of the greatest accomplishments of his Presidency. And the American media routinely applauds him for it. Now I know it’s not comfortable to offer suspected terrorists due process, but isn’t this exactly the kind of behaviour Orwell was warning us about?

Having conceded this, I DO believe that this particular government is pursuing a not-so-hidden agenda. It starts with the premise that the Canadian political pendulum has over swung in the direction of liberalism – that the political agenda and discourse of this country, for too long, has been hijacked by urban elites who do not represent the voice of hard working men and women who live in the burbs, shop at Canadian Tire and take their kids to the hockey rink every week. And I DO believe that Stephen Harper and his colleagues have set out to systematically right what they see as this wrong.

This view holds that parks are for tourism and campers, not for the flora and fauna that must be protected by scientists. Policy should be based on conviction and not bloodless statistics. Governments should be guided by what is morally right and not by reason and rational compromise. From this view, science, statistics, reason and rational compromise are not tools of enlightened public policy, but barriers to the pursuit of swing that pendulum back.

The problem is, notwithstanding a fairly widespread consensus around the orthodoxies of balance budgets, market economies and open trade, Canadians, by and large, still believe in tolerance, compromise, egalitarianism. We tend to see ourselves as each other’s keeper with a responsibility for those who are less fortunate. So to realize this agenda, it becomes necessary to pursue it by stealth and circumvention rather than through transparency and directness. This too explains the apparent obsession with secrecy, message control and misdirection.

But even if you accept this thesis, it still begs another question …. if Canadians are essentially enlightened liberals, and are not prepared to offer wholesale buy-in to this vision of politics and the nation, why do we not hear a hue and cry in protest over the direction we are being led?

At root, I think a big part of the problem is cultural. For decades following the Second World War, a progress ethos dominated North American thought. The next car was going to be faster, the next paycheque fatter and the next house bigger. This notion that progress was both normal and limitless, generated a series of beliefs that were universally embraced. Anyone of my generation will remember being told … “You my child, deserve more than I had when I was growing up”…. “If you work hard and put your mind to it, you can be anything you want” … and “A good education is the key to success”. This value system – and an experience that closely corresponded to it – created not only a sense of well-being but also a sense of good will. If the prospects of progress and success were limitless, then whatever success you enjoyed in no way threatened the amount of success that might be available to me.

Today – in sharp contrast – we seem to be living in a zero sum society, where the prevailing wisdom is that the rich are getting richer while the poor or getting poorer; that whatever prosperity might be available is being unequally shared; and for many, opportunity is actually shrinking. In the same way that feelings of well -being can generate good will, feelings of threat spawn envy and recrimination. This not only explains the anger of the Occupy Movement or the students protesting in the streets of Montreal but also the disdain that the middle class has for “pampered” public sector employees or the excessive obsession the rich seem to have about the poor “ripping off the system”.

Once the population starts to segment itself into “us versus them,” anyone with a vested interest in exacerbating the rift can easily till that soil. And that is clearly what is happening in the political process today. On one hand, political parties no longer see the need to reach out and expand their base beyond their core constituency, because their core constituency is often at odds with the voters whom they otherwise might want to attract. To the contrary, it makes more sense to vilify these voters, as a way to motivate your core.

A vicious cultural wheel therefore is turned by a political one. A fearful, divided citizenry fights off uncertainty by protecting its own turf; politicians exploit this division by choosing sides and offering simplistic solutions to address these fears; and the population seeks solace in the simplistic solutions. So instead of trying to bridge these differences through consensus and finding compromise based on reason, what we see all too often today is the politics of polarization, over-torqued partisanship and dogma.

Here is how the perfect trifecta of a zero-sum society, the politics of division and the assault on reason plays out in the real world of politics. In his acceptance speech to the Republican National Convention, this is the rationale that Mitt Romney offered as the most compelling reason to vote for him instead of his opponent …. “President Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family?”

What the f**k? As if the two are mutually exclusive? As if healing the planet means you can’t help families? Or that helping families means ignoring the planet?

Yet this was the biggest applause line of his entire speech. I guess for many, when you fear for your family, it is comforting to think that all you have to do to protect them is ignore rising ocean levels and everything will be alright. Once again, in the most perverse way, Orwell was right … Ignorance can feel like strength.

Many – from Noam Chomsky, to Neil Postman to Al Gore – have also laid the blame on the media. Either through sloth, sensationalism or the very pacifying nature of the medium itself, a culture saturated in trivia has become anesthetised to the larger needs of the world in which we live. Indeed, as Chris Hedges asks in his brilliant screed, The Empire of Illusion, when we come to believe that we are all only one audition away from celebrity, why concern yourselves with picayune problems like the homeless, let alone some arcane concept like the assault on reason? Most of this analysis however has been limited to the effect of television – the equivalent, of the ubiquitous telescreens of Orwell’s 1984. But instead of monitoring citizen activity, media today portrays an outside world that often in no way reflects reality beyond the sensational, the trivia and the pacifying.

But for whatever role television may have played in amusing ourselves to death in the past, we now live in a digital world where there is “evidence” for every and any view one might want to embrace. If I believe the world is flat, the internet now puts me in touch with legions of fellow flat earthers and reams of pseudo science to support that belief. As importantly, if I am so inclined, I never have to be exposed to any contrary views and can find total refuge in my community of flat earthers. The Internet therefore, offers me the opportunity to have a completely closed mind and at one in the same time, fill it full of nonsense disguised as fact. In a brand new way therefore, the internet democratizes not just individual opinion but legitimizes collective ignorance and spreads a bizzaro world of alternative reason. When this occurs, prejudice and bias is reinforced and the authority of real science and evidence is undermined or even more likely, never presented.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. History shows us that, over time, science’s authority always undermines dogma’s legitimacy and the persuasive power of reason will always trump ideology’s emotion. It’s true that if you want to follow a course based on dogma or ideology, it becomes necessary to remove science and reason. But the corollary also holds true – the best defense against dogma and ideology continues to by reason and science. And if it’s increasingly hard to find these qualities in the media or the political process, what better place to take a stand than in a University? This is where you come to seek intelligence; not belittle it. Where ideas are born; questions are asked; and thoughts collide. This is why so many have fought so long to protect academic freedom – to ensure that reason, inquiry and science cannot be assaulted by dogma and orthodoxy.

While the circumstance in Canada 2012 is obviously nowhere near as dystopian as what Orwell depicts in 1984, I really do think that there are some unsettling parallels going on here that we ignore at our peril. I also think it’s time to gather the facts….and fight back.   ..."]]]]]

...believe me: there are still a few "not-brainwashed" by the systemists, etc., that believe in reason, rights, and logic in Canada...!

...some theories about advancement of human civilizations!
[*] the industrial revolution helped us escape from the dark middle ages, where knowledge and information acquiring or new ideas, was a privilege or prohibited and controled by the inquisition and other methods !
[*] the electronic revolution and computers has brought us further to today ! but the inquisitional religions and minds are still present !
[*] how can things get better from the best of times we have lived after the World Wars I and II ? some think that things cannot get better but worse ! meaning a better that was not the best, was reached , and will never return ! i can bet on it, as numbers and World over-population guarantees this !
[*] what else guarantees thing to never be better than we have known them or those previous times to us ? preservation as relevance ancient Religions and Academia Bible Theology, of sin, eternal damnation, and World destruction prophecies! ; draconian mentalities; and the use of Biology Evolution as an accepted Academia logic!
[*] capitalism and World markets will keep human greed guiding world destruction and wars!


Thursday, September 6, 2012

...U.S.A and Canada are not "humane" and "loving"! THEY MAKE THE SUB-HUMAN conditions they claim to not be!

U.S.A. "crazy" Bank Foreclosures

Surrey, B.C. "Peasant Food Bank"

MORE RENTALS, MORE LANDLORDS, AND more "English" people without their "own" homes!
The feeling though ignored of "human-degradation" and "self respect" is rampant!
Housing is a social classes "privilege" !

Fault Lines
For sale: The American dream
Owning a home has long been integral to the American dream, but since the foreclosure crisis that dream has turned sour.
Fault Lines Last Modified: 05 Sep 2012 13:59

[[["...The US' housing bubble burst nearly six years ago, but the worst may be yet to come.

After a landmark settlement, the major banks have lifted a freeze on foreclosures and government relief has been too small to make a difference.

"We are often portrayed as the bad people, like we basically just come in and make all the money from people who are in bad situations. But the fact is, if we don't buy the property then the bank [will] take the property back."

- Amy Chen, a real estate investor

Public housing budgets have been slashed, leaving larger numbers of people with no place to call home.

The line between home ownership and homelessness is growing ever more blurry, but neither President Barack Obama nor Governor Mitt Romney have made housing a major campaign issue.

Meanwhile, popular anger is rising over the perceived impunity of the banks and some have found innovative ways of fighting back in an age of austerity.

Fault Lines travels to Chicago and California to see how people at the frontlines of the crisis are confronting the collapse of the American dream.

"If you ask people who have been foreclosed upon, whose fault is it? They often they say it's mine. It's my fault, I did the wrong thing, instead of kind of saying this is a systemic problem," explains David Harvey, a social theorist and a professor of anthropology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.

"Capital is always producing surpluses, at the end of the day if you have got a profit, you've got a surplus and the big question is what do you do with it.

"[So] what you do is that you take part of that surplus and you reinvest it in something. And in United States, housing and urbanisation in general has been a vast field for expansion of profitable opportunities."..."]]]

...more peasants, more government poor barely sustained by Government, 2nd hand clothing, old canned food, no health care or very little of it, food banks, rental landlords who get most of the government check, is what U.S.A. Bernanky, Canada-David Dodge, and Queen Elizabeth II, have achieved in her 60 years!


U.S.A has another BANANA republic of 37Million inside of their American dream country...!

Canada has nearly 10Million of "dodo" birds!


WHEN THEY WILL PROVIDE "EMPLOYMENT" FOR SO MANY government maintained humans?

And folks, "immigrants" welcome to NORTH AMERICA!

They are not "humane" and "loving"! NOOOOOooo ! They make sub-human conditions and then claim they help!