Saturday, October 9, 2010

Constant contradictory

They're helping us from themselves.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

About my other post...

One is the government, the other is capitalism. The left wants government to have more power, so those who're rich will not have absolute power. The right wants capitalism to have more power, so those in government who're corrupt will not have absolute power. What both don't realize is that, no matter what, the banks and Government have absolute power. The government works with the banks intimately to control money and its distribution and allocation. So if the government is given power directly, they do what ever they want. If businesses are given power directly, they are controlled indirectly by the government who funds and limits them.

What you need to know about water

Monday, October 4, 2010

You never thought about it

One affects you directly, the other affects you indirectly, all controlled by the same source.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

I love this picture

An interesting article I read

"A take-away restaurant near my house offers customers free home delivery or a ten per cent discount if you pick up. It sounds much better than saying you get no discount for picking up and suffer a ten per cent fee for delivery – this is the power of ‘framing’. Now David Hardisty and colleagues have dug a little deeper into framing, to show first, that these kinds of effects can interact with people's political persuasion, and second, that they can act by altering the order of people's thoughts.

Hundreds of online participants chose between various flights, computers and so on. In each case they could plump for a cheaper option or a more expensive, greener option, the latter including either a 'tax' to help reduce carbon emissions, or an 'offset' to do the same – depending on how the choice was framed. Whether the expensive option was framed as a tax or offset made no difference to Democrat (left-wing) participants. By contrast, Republicans (right-wing) and Independents were much less likely to choose the more expensive option when it was labelled as a tax.

In a second study the researchers added a technique known as 'concurrent thought listing', which involved the participants sharing their thoughts as they made their product choices.

This process revealed that when the expensive option was labelled as a tax, the Republicans and Independents, but not Democrats, had a consistent tendency to weigh-up the advantages of the cheaper option first before they considered the benefits of the greener choice. This is significant because past research shows that when we appraise options in sequence, the first item we consider tends to be favoured. Consistent with this, the tax frame led Republican participants to not only consider the cheaper option first but also to generate more supporting evidence for it. By contrast, when the expensive, greener option was labelled as an offset, political affiliation was no longer associated with the order in which options were considered, nor the weight of evidence generated for each option.

A final study tested whether the order in which we consider options really does have a causal role in our decision making. Participants of all political persuasions were instructed to consider the benefits of the greener, more expensive option first, whether it was labelled as a tax or offset. Despite this instruction, 54 per cent of Republicans failed to comply (showing just how averse they were to the 'tax' label). However, among those participants who did comply, this instruction had the effect of eliminating the interaction between framing and political affiliation – that is, the Republicans were no longer repelled by the greener, expensive option even when it was labelled as a tax.

‘Policy makers would be wise to note the differential impact that policy labels may have on different groups,’ the researchers concluded. ‘What might seem like a trivial semantic difference to one person can have a large impact on someone else.’"

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Uncomprehensible Understanding

Understanding is to the human as its hard shell is to an oyster; a long neck to a giraffe; high speed to an antelope; cunning to a fox. True understanding is our only protection when we can't run from danger; our only hope of a meal when food is beyond our reach; our only safety when we can't fight. It is, in truth, our main means of community survival and the only asset we can accumulate in life that cannot be easily lost or taken from us.With out true understanding of life we have little control of our lives or future. To just react blindly - to act, protest or praise without understanding - is to be no more than leaves blown in the wind. The bliss of ignorance is the bliss of stupidity. Understanding of what is outside of ourselves separates the human from the animal.

Without understanding of life we are no better than animals and behave worse. We are a buyer at life's auctions who doesn't understand values; a cook who doesn't understand flavours; a musician without rhythm..Understanding brings wisdom to knowledge and is of greater value than money or possessions because these can be easily gained with understanding and easily lost without it.
It is often said that "life was not meant to be easy", if that saying is to have any useful value it has to be understood.

In fact, life WAS meant to be easy. Life becomes 'not easy' when we lack understanding of it. Without some basic understanding of life we become controlled by negatives such as greed, selfishness, feelings, pride, prejudice and influences which can be beneficial only so long as controlled by understanding. When we do not understand these influences they cause us to behave without human restraint.
Without understanding, behaviour is mindless; we create pain and trauma for ourselves and others. So, to have logical meaning, the phrase "life was not meant to be easy "has to be understood in the sense of "easy" being the easiness of irresponsible behaviour. It is very appealing to the adolescent mind to want to live without responsibility. Life was not meant to be that kind of easy.

When people understand and take responsibility for their actions, life will not only be easy but also satisfying. Knowledge without understanding can be a very dangerous thing.
However, to achieve the good life, we have to care enough about life to put truth ahead of ego, pleasure, pride, prejudice, etc., and, in conscience, search for, and help each other regain, social understanding.
The reason (as originally stated) for ending this newsletter is because the massive flow of information and comment that is produced by F & L and other newsletters is treated as if some kind of TV serial-entertainment. TV has created a world of uninvolved information junkies.
You may recall a case in the USA a few years ago where boarding house people, watching their favourite serial, were annoyed by police and ambulance attending a real-life drama taking place on the floor above. People now tend to value fantasy more than reality.

Many people have followed the exposure of cultural subversion with great concern for years, but without serious attempt at involved understanding. When we see life as a survival movie it is not so obviously important that information be true or realistic. Without involvement each new claim, credible or incredible, is just part of a new 'traumatic but exciting' episode.

When suddenly the world we accept as our own seems changed and violent we are dismayed, "How can such things happen we ask each other?" "We must change the law!" We do not see that law without understanding will not change our attitude to life.

Most crime is not the result of failure of law or because criminals are not human, but because of lack of human understanding.