I think I'll do a 9-11 post a couple days early. That's my wedding anniversary, true for many. We booked the Rhododendron Garden, and although we had a backup plan, in case it rained, it didn't. That was 1993.
My parents suffered their car crash, fatal to my dad, in October, 2000. I'd been to Lesotho to help with the aftermath, Julie taking over. On September 11, 2001, I was in Portland. Dawn came to me in tears with the unfolding news on TV.
I'm respectful of all the work the science community has done, some members of which I've met (Chandler... Margulis), regarding their independent investigation of what went on that day, so tragic and still mysterious. I'm not one of those jumping up and down saying I know the answers. "A convergence of special interests?" That doesn't tell us anything.
However, I do think the Truthers may underestimate their readers and viewers. They suggest we need psychological help because we're still in denial about what they reveal. I'd say we're not in denial, by and large, just what's the next move? The Truthers are calling for a new, independent investigation, taking us to a next square beyond the NIST report. So who's really in denial?
On a board game called, Lets Do the Rational Next Thing, that might indeed be the next square. I haven't noticed we're playing such a board game though. Our shared reality defies mere rationality.
If powers that be so effectively control the storytelling, then what would move them to suddenly unroll the red carpet for those not into playing along with their preferred narratives? Just asking.
Please don't suppose I'm booing from the peanut gallery or throwing rotten tomatoes. On the contrary, I see a lot of good science. I'm just wondering why the scientists think "the rules of science" need be followed, in the sense I raise above. As Margulis suggests, PR rules, at least in the short term.
Lets hope the scientists and engineers will continue with their independent investigation, the one they've been doing. It's not like the "official" power structures have been eager to pay for it, I realize. Many would prefer to focus on other matters and find the myths more comforting, are quite content to live in fantasy-fiction, a kind of Matrix. What's the benefit of waking up? I admit that type of denial does exist.
Put another way, the fog of war is called that for a reason. I've only known a world at war, starting with the Kennedy assassinations when I was in second grade living on Capital Hwy near Multnomah Village. I've been in fog ever since. It never lifts, right? We live and breath it.
In the course of living in fog, I've lived outside the US, moved back, taught in schools, programmed computers, raised a family.
We're like so many ships passing in the night, right? Lets avoid crashing into each other at least?
I do think the general public puts a lot of trust in science and generally respects the work of those seeking more truth. That's an uphill battle, I agree.
Some brands of political discourse have gone down the figurative toilet, turned more potty-mouth, more like urine, thanks to their not being willing to communicate much science. That changes their alchemical composition. Lots of people have noticed the change in tone.
On another topic, I've recently learned that the QuakerQuaker website, where I've committed some writings, much of it discussion-oriented, might be going away soon. I'll be copying some of the content to other web sites.
My parents suffered their car crash, fatal to my dad, in October, 2000. I'd been to Lesotho to help with the aftermath, Julie taking over. On September 11, 2001, I was in Portland. Dawn came to me in tears with the unfolding news on TV.
I'm respectful of all the work the science community has done, some members of which I've met (Chandler... Margulis), regarding their independent investigation of what went on that day, so tragic and still mysterious. I'm not one of those jumping up and down saying I know the answers. "A convergence of special interests?" That doesn't tell us anything.
However, I do think the Truthers may underestimate their readers and viewers. They suggest we need psychological help because we're still in denial about what they reveal. I'd say we're not in denial, by and large, just what's the next move? The Truthers are calling for a new, independent investigation, taking us to a next square beyond the NIST report. So who's really in denial?
On a board game called, Lets Do the Rational Next Thing, that might indeed be the next square. I haven't noticed we're playing such a board game though. Our shared reality defies mere rationality.
If powers that be so effectively control the storytelling, then what would move them to suddenly unroll the red carpet for those not into playing along with their preferred narratives? Just asking.
Please don't suppose I'm booing from the peanut gallery or throwing rotten tomatoes. On the contrary, I see a lot of good science. I'm just wondering why the scientists think "the rules of science" need be followed, in the sense I raise above. As Margulis suggests, PR rules, at least in the short term.
Lets hope the scientists and engineers will continue with their independent investigation, the one they've been doing. It's not like the "official" power structures have been eager to pay for it, I realize. Many would prefer to focus on other matters and find the myths more comforting, are quite content to live in fantasy-fiction, a kind of Matrix. What's the benefit of waking up? I admit that type of denial does exist.
Put another way, the fog of war is called that for a reason. I've only known a world at war, starting with the Kennedy assassinations when I was in second grade living on Capital Hwy near Multnomah Village. I've been in fog ever since. It never lifts, right? We live and breath it.
In the course of living in fog, I've lived outside the US, moved back, taught in schools, programmed computers, raised a family.
We're like so many ships passing in the night, right? Lets avoid crashing into each other at least?
I do think the general public puts a lot of trust in science and generally respects the work of those seeking more truth. That's an uphill battle, I agree.
Some brands of political discourse have gone down the figurative toilet, turned more potty-mouth, more like urine, thanks to their not being willing to communicate much science. That changes their alchemical composition. Lots of people have noticed the change in tone.
On another topic, I've recently learned that the QuakerQuaker website, where I've committed some writings, much of it discussion-oriented, might be going away soon. I'll be copying some of the content to other web sites.
