Good way of putting it: we're just another variety

of geek.


By the way, 'indigo kids'? Really?


And yeah, if Holder & Co. had any integrity, and actually believed in that Constitution thing they swore an oath to uphold*, they'd be investigating those clowns. But they'd also have dealt with that voter intimidation crap, and not started smuggling guns to Mexico for political reasons, and...


Whoops; the approves storyline is fraying, badly:
Lastly, note that the Police Report from the night of the shooting - which took its info from his two-year-old ID - listed him as 6-0, but the Trayvon who was shot was was in fact a six-foot-two and 180+ pounds football player - not the innocent little boy being plastered all over!
among other things.


Translation: "The tech is easy; it's making the peasants, er, commoners, ah, serfspeople do what we've decided is necessary that's hard."
If I had it to do over, I’d approach the issue planning differently, my fellow editors permitting. I would scale back on the nuclear fusion and clean coal, instead devoting at least half of the available space for feature articles on psychology, sociology, economics and political science. Since doing that issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. Moon shots and Manhattan Projects are child’s play compared to needed changes in the way we behave.

A policy article authored by several dozen scientists appeared online March 15 in Science to acknowledge this point: “Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change. This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.”
...
Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. There would have to be consideration of some way of embracing head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems that are usually dismissed by policymakers as academic naivete. In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere. Some of the things that would need to be contemplated: How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow? Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries? How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?
He means 'abuse the power in ways I would not approve of', I think. And crap like this is why the trust in people who want the UN running us is, ah, 'low' shall we say? And why so many have such distrust of a lot of people in the sciences.

I'm going to go out in the sun for a while; both for the vitamin D and because I need some fresh air.