Off Shore Wind Power: Something I've been promoting for a long time

The Salon article linked below is not surprising to someone who has been an off shore wind advocate for nearly twenty years now. The only gripe that I would have here is that we give consideration to approaches other than standard, shaft mounted, big propeller turbines.

In fact, within a more comprehensive, fully integrated, big picture approach, the type of turbine ought to be only one part of the consideration. I say that because producing power at sea provides the seed process around which we can build new, floating cities; especially if one structures the design goals properly.

And lets be clear here. As another article in today's news has indicated, sea levels are rising faster than originally thought. The slow moving train wreck that inundation of coastal areas represents is going to require some very out of the ordinary thinking to address. As in: Where are the tens of millions, if not hundred of millions, of people displaced going to live?

This gets me then to the sea based hydrogen production approach that I came up with way back in the eighties; an idea I pitched to Seattle City light while I was working there in the mid nineties. This approach centers around the Yen Tornado turbine technology, as well as a new way to do modular, composite material, scaffold structures strong enough to withstand ocean stresses.

There is an essay within this blog that describes this approach in more detail so I won't go into it any further here. My purpose at this juncture is to simply remind everyone that the dangers we face also offer some amazing opportunities for innovation; especially if we dispense with the idea that one must expect vast amounts of counters before they are motivated to get on with it (some things, as with the production of energy, simply cannot be left in the hands of markets and the profit motive).

The thing to remember here is that time is not on our side. These sorts of things require significant lead times to implement properly. A lot of things have to be checked out, played with, and optimized before they are put into production. That means we need to get started now, even as we begin to debate what an alternative to Capitalism should look like, and how we go about making it happen.



Report: Offshore wind holds twice the promise of offshore drilling

Systems Theory and Electrified Networks

After reading the Salon article from Alternet I am struck by their surprise at the rise in the ratio of debt to GDP. It seems to me that there would, I believe, be a great deal more understanding of what is occurring in the global financial system if economists would read the works of Fritjof Capra. And then throw in a good dose of Marshal McLuhan.

What we have now is a mind boggling network of information flow, and the translative nodes that depend upon that flow. A system that self evolves to increase the rate of flow because of the spiral of global competition, mutated within the linear accelerator of technological advancement. You need only tick off some the consequences to see why this cannot be a Dissipative Structure.

1. Translative production always challenges consumptive capacity.

2. Feedback systems are inherently constrained by the necessity of node net gain; as each node must limit what it puts out into the network of information flow in order to accumulate future translative power.

3. Accumulations of counters are also a commodity and therefore must be rushed into net gain translations.

4. As ever increasing knowledge makes for an ever increasing rate of gain of new knowledge, new technique flows into possible new modes of translation. These can't be applied, however, without first making use of existing nodes, and counter accumulations, to make new node types. This then feeds into the already existing dynamic expressed in number 3 above.

5. All of this rapidly increasing flow of information, and translation, becomes ever more impossible to understand, let alone control. Any attempt to mitigate for whatever reason, whether for human need, or operating environment, become increasingly problematic for precisely this reason. Things either become more inhuman, and and/or anti-environmental if nothing is done, or even worse if changes are attempted with vastly incomplete understanding.

Of course debt is blowing the doors off of normal. Money and information are the same thing, and Debt creates more Money, which creates the need for more to be consumed, which creates more debt, and so on...

It is as ridiculous now as it is uncontrollable, or sustainable. In terms of holistic thinking it is a nightmare made incarnate. The sooner we recognize that the better off we will be.

The perfect financial storm: Why we’re headed for future global economic crises

Gaining wealth slide of invisible hand

What is interesting for me in articles like the the Atlantic piece linked below is the absence of what ought to be the real focus for ordinary working people; namely what is the value of human skill as a commodity, what protects that value, and lastly, what percentage of your gross income goes towards supporting not only absolutely fundamental social structure, but also fundamentally necessary, minimum needs to support more than simply surviving as a human being.

When you look at these questions in the contrast between human skill commodity, as well as a more realistic consideration of what denotes success for an individual life as an enterprise, juxtaposed against various commercial enterprise entities, you see a glaring discrepancy; a discrepancy both in the protections afforded to each as a distinct commodity, as well as what each is expected to contribute towards fundamental supports as a percentage of gross return from their commodity's market exchange value.

We do not have the middle class we used to have precisely because human skill as a commodity has lost a tremendous amount of value because it competes not only with other humans, but with technique itself. Human enterprise must also compete within "the who pays and who benefits" arena of fundamental support determination and allocation. Because of inherent disadvantages in the first competitive set mentioned here (against each other and technique), being able to compete in the second suffers tremendously. Commercial enterprise entities grow stronger as a result.

The bottom line here is that if you are structurally ingrained to receive less for your commodity, while at the same time required to shoulder more fundamental support costs, what comfort should you reasonably hope to expect from revised strategies on where to put dwindling discretionary funds into? Is this not more akin to simply rearranging ever more rickety deck chairs on a ship that always seems to find more ways to go under. Never quite sinking completely so far mind you, but always going down enough for everyone on your deck to founder, and/or drown.

#CapitalisIsObsolete


The Slow Strategy That Might Rebuild Middle-Class Wealth

National Service in the right context

As I have said many times within various other social discussions, woe be to those who allow themselves to become too separated from that which sustains them. And it was this contention that I was reminded of by the Daily Breast article linked below.

The last time I made this reference, in fact, was from another, recent, web piece on the growing trust divide between police forces and the policed. 

The real problem here is that we are not allowed to be fully involved in what our national needs ought to be. As such it becomes quite difficult to answer the question "service to what exactly?"

Not surprisingly, given my bias, I see the primary issue here being one of our nation's inability to properly prioritize within a host of competing priorities. And whether people realize it or not, the problem is compounded by the fact that we have moved well past the point where "Crises Triage" should have been implemented. 

Very little of this can be addressed adequately, however, precisely because the power structure in today's American runs within the play of the money game. Which is to say the game of information control; as in accumulating it, restricting is distribution, and using its translative power only in as much as it allows for the net gain of various, limited centers of self interest.

Thus do we see government bound up in the play of these interests who's goals, beyond their own needs to accumulate more than the other guys, are quite often at cross purposes. And the only other thing  they have in common is that ordinary working people are not meant to rule themselves. They certainly need as many trappings, and as much lip service, as can be managed to allow them to think that they are in charge, but that is all.

The only way people are going to be able to be certain they have a real voice in determining what our national interests are is to stop playing the money game. We need to realize that applied information has made human skill as a commodity a complete absurdity, and thus, Capitalism quite obsolete. As such an alternative is mandatory.

I have outlined what I think is a good starting point for the debate on what that alternative ought to be. I won't go into all of those details here. What I will do, however, is to point out that one part of what I have proposed is mandatory national service. A commitment that all of the City States of a new Republic would have to agree to. I did this because I believe national service ought to be an important part of the socialization process of any society; not only because of the need to share the load of securing our nation, but also for the opportunity to instill a sense of collective connection, as well as the laudable goals of discipline, honor and a sense of duty to the thoughtful, loving social structure one has been brought up in.

If we are truly allowed to govern ourselves, as well as to be intimately involved in the management, and maintenance, of our productive processes, we will have the ability to know exactly how to answer the question "In Service to what exactly." National Service in that context will come to mean something quite profound.

#CapitalismIsObsolete

Why National Service Won’t Save America

The real problem with humiliation

Wow. So many things going on here that guys have a hard time dealing with (see the Salon article link below.

I was definitely a nerd all the way through K-12, but I'm pretty sure it was a lot different back in the early 50's. Shy is shy I would think so there's at least some commonality here.

The essential element involved here, in my view, is the risk of humiliation. Smart, sensitive men tend to have significant imaginations. Not only can these provide for empathy to a fault, they can lead to over thinking everything before it even begins to happen. And in that is there unbelievably fertile ground for high fidelity consideration of all of the excruciating scenarios of looking like a clueless fool.

As a side to this is another aspect that I was particularly susceptible to. With such a huge imagination comes the ability to see too many things as you wish to see them. In that context, the behavior of ordinarily nice girls being cordial and outgoing, as any friendly person might be, can be blown way out of proportion as it relates to what you might interpret it to mean. This discrepancy, as it gets corrected by crash and burn results to overtures way out of sync with what the sender was sending, can tend to result in a person who comes to not trust his own perceptions when it comes to women.

My situation was a bit more unique in that I was also the product of an alcoholic mother who was both a mean drunk, and unbelievably perceptive of other peoples faults. If you had a weakness should could spot it and come back at you with it to take your skin off. As often happens in such dysfunctional families one of the children becomes the comedian to keep the drunk amused, and thus distracted, as much as possible; which is exactly the role I filled. I also had to become pretty glib and, at least sort of witty, to keep abreast of her perceptive abilities.

The upshot of all of this was that I gained the ability to be quite personable around women, I just gave up trying to determine whether they were interested in me or not. As such I was quite reticent in ever initiating anything other than friendly contact. This, in concert with the empathy, allowed me to have a lot of girl friends who liked being around me precisely for this reason. It is also why I have been thought of as gay on more than one occasion.

The other unique aspect was having a non-alpha male man as a father; one who also had this thing for being a salesman even though he was an amazingly technical person. The Navy trained him to be a full engine and air frame mechanic during WW 2, from which he transitioned quite well into the jet age. As such he could have continued making very good money with the airlines, or Boeing, but chose to rather be a seller of surplus aerospace parts instead. It was a choice that had him immersed in a sea of not only debt, because selling this stuff could be quite difficult, but also out in the deep of humiliation; a process for which I was made to bear witness of as he liked having me along when I was still quite young. It gave me a special appreciation for the characters in the movie "Glenn Carry, Glenn Cross."

I point all of this out mostly to give some feel for the complexities of what can go into making a man afraid to risk being humiliated; even though I know for a fact that hardly any woman ever knowingly seeks to have that affect when she corrects a mistaken overture. This is hard form them as well because they empathize too. They also have to endure the unthinking, not very sensitive guys who take their desirability for granted. That there can be a thin line between that extreme and the ideal of the balanced, confident man, doesn't help much either.

The real question is: What are to do about this? How are we to go about better socializing men to have a better sense of the duality of their emotional and physical make up? We are, after all, both women and not women genetically. Even more important, however, is the fact that, in both sexes, there are alpha personalities and non alpha personalities. Both sexes are put into difficult stereo typical role reversals when they are, or are not alphas. How does a man, who is not an alpha, not only approach, but live with, a woman who is an alpha. How does she handle having a man who does not necessarily fit the profile of a "trophy" man? Someone loving, giving, and even good in bed, who is otherwise not all that macho, or career/success driven? How do we instill confidence in men whether they are alphas or not?

We better start thinking about these things soon. And we better also realize that a good part of the problem lies lies in the overly competitive, abstracted, and disconnected, form of social organization we are presently saddled with. Such a system makes men just as much a stereo typical commodity, with all of the ridiculous behavioral and physical standards attendant therein, as it does of women. The two do, in fact, feed off of one another. As such this issue is just as much political as it is sociological. And it must be addressed as such.

#CapitalismIsObsolete


The plight of the bitter nerd: Why so many awkward, shy guys end up hating feminism

Your work rights are what Big Money says they are

The NBCNEWS.com story linked below is another indicator on how things work to make you work. Changing the number of hours that define a full work week gets Big Money off the hook for helping in providing healthcare to the people who are the grit in what holds production of anything together. And since Big Money has already figured out how to avoid much of any responsibility for paying their share in taxes, the newly uncovered workers become more budget burden for states and the federal government. And when they get around to talking out of the other side of their mouths you can be sure that they will be lamenting the awful state of our deficit riddled spending. Whereupon they will demand more cuts to social programs to pay for them.

If nothing else you have to hand it to them for the sheer audacity of such a blatant "heads I win, tails you loose" modus operandi.

#CapitalismIsObsolete


The GOP Bill to Define the 40-Hour Work Week Explained

For the Walking Dead who go rogue.

The walking dead I refer to here is the loner, brought up on a diet of "Little Murders" (see Jules Feiffer) both literally and figuratively, who finally breaks, and lashes out from whatever inadequate socializing that might remain internalized, to make that horrible play at finally being taken seriously. (please see note on gun ownership below)

Now, to further fuel the one-ups-manship of body count publicity, this rabid beast can upload it in real time to all of the rabid wanna-be's, and whatever niche site of hate on the web there to serve them. The wonder is that this hasn't been done already with an IP camera and a hand held, hot spot device.

I want to be clear here, however. Capitalism is not directly responsible for such acts of violence; the people who perpetrate them are. At the very least, they chose not to get help.

That being said, though, doesn't change the fact that an argument can be made to place a good portion of why we create walking dead in the first place at the feet of this system. It's very nature of disconnection. It's ingrained penchant for instability, as well as this insane desire on the part of Big Money to destroy any semblance of a middle class, or for making the "pulling up" from one's own boot straps such an inhumane process. All of this.

It all adds up to a society obsessed with things, and the means to get them. A society of separated interests that clash on the abstract field of information accumulation; where counters, and the ability to translate counters, become the same thing; and for which must not only horded, but expended only on the grounds of plentiful net gain.

#CapitalismIsObsolete

The Internet of Things now has a gun

*Gun Ownership Note:
 For the purposes of full disclosure, I must also add that I would love to possess a Hi-Cap, .45 ACP, carbine. Not for hunting mind you (as should be obvious by the caliber), just for punishing wayward stumps, and non functioning pieces of tech hardware. I cannot indulge myself thereof because of a felony conviction for growing pot way back in 1976 (who knew it would finally be made legal. I moved on to alcohol in the eighties, but don't do anything now, other than coffee, and haven't for more than ten years because of the depression medication).

I know, its a contradiction for a Progressive to want to own firearms.

What can I say. I am a part of the culture that loves to blow sh_t up. Inanimate objects for the most part thankfully and I relieve most of this desire vicariously via video games.

There is, however, a significant Libertarian streak in me, and as such, I would no more make guns completely illegal than I would drugs (who's war is costing far more than it pretends to want to protect us from). Having regulations for background checks, though, ought not be a problem for anyone just to make sure we're clear on where I stand here. I broke the rules and I therefore accept that I don't get to have one. That's the way it should be.