Apple iPad To Come With 30k Free E-books, Report Says
Posted using ShareThis
Friday, March 26, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Followers, not leaders
Today I have been contemplating Plato's argument against democracy in his Republic. Basically, he felt that people en masse are not fit to make decisions for the whole of a state, country, or republic. With all of the banter back and forth regarding the current administration's decisions--I have really begun to agree.
This is an excerpt from an essay I am reading on Plato's criticism of democracy in which the author, Matt Brazil, breaks down a potential evil of democracy, "What if, as a majority, the people decided to commit a heinous act, such as an unjustified military action against another nation for the sake of resources, no matter the cost in human lives? Such an action would lead to death and suffering for a great many people. Also, consider that the majority would not judge or correct themselves, for they were the ones who agreed to partake in that course of action. As such, they inflict evil upon many more people than an individual could ever hope to; after all, as a democracy, the majority’s actions affect the entirety of the state and its citizens." We have actually seen this in recent years within our own democracy.
Plato advocated Oligarchy-governance/rule by the best. This is typically taken to mean the aristocracy, but what if it didn't? What if it meant "ruled by the smartest, wisest, most qualified?" People allow themselves so easily to be swayed and manipulated by the media. KNOWING that stations tend to be biased, why would ANYONE not take things with a grain of salt?
There was a woman at work today whose husband was an anesthesiologist. She swore that the new bill would half her husband's salary. Really? Show me the math behind that! She also said that her husband would be a government employee. Seriously, this isn't the UK, and even then, Dr.s in London still drive Audi's... or whatever your pick of luxury car may be.
If you look at the actual bill that was passed, all it does is regulate insurance agencies. It sets rate limits, prohibits denials, and will ultimate benefit ALL consumers by forcing down prices on drugs and medical services. Will people HAVE to have insurance? Yes. After 2014 anyone who does not can be fined. SO? We fine people for not having car insurance. Why do we do that? Because they are a liability to everyone else if they are uninsured! The same goes for health insurance, not only because of disease issues, but for tax purposes. When uninsured sick people don't pay/can't pay their medical bills--who foots that bill? Tax payers. Ipso facto, requiring insurance will free up some tax money for: lowering the deficit, creating jobs, fixing roads, public education... whatever!
My point in that is, people... READ the bill, and please, PLEASE stop regurgitating quotes from the press. I am not saying that people shouldn't watch the news, but check your facts people. I feel like I live in a country of conspiracy theorists! The people who are opposing the health insurance bill are the same ones who opposed civil rights in the 60's and votes for women in the early teens. Change can be, and often is GOOD!
With all of that said, I do often think that it would be better if people could not vote at all. Or, if they elected a small body of representatives, those representatives would only function as an advisory board--a national thermometer of sorts--to those governing. How would they come to power, well, that could be application to a board, similar to the supreme court, of proven officials.
More to come on this... I am off to read.
This is an excerpt from an essay I am reading on Plato's criticism of democracy in which the author, Matt Brazil, breaks down a potential evil of democracy, "What if, as a majority, the people decided to commit a heinous act, such as an unjustified military action against another nation for the sake of resources, no matter the cost in human lives? Such an action would lead to death and suffering for a great many people. Also, consider that the majority would not judge or correct themselves, for they were the ones who agreed to partake in that course of action. As such, they inflict evil upon many more people than an individual could ever hope to; after all, as a democracy, the majority’s actions affect the entirety of the state and its citizens." We have actually seen this in recent years within our own democracy.
Plato advocated Oligarchy-governance/rule by the best. This is typically taken to mean the aristocracy, but what if it didn't? What if it meant "ruled by the smartest, wisest, most qualified?" People allow themselves so easily to be swayed and manipulated by the media. KNOWING that stations tend to be biased, why would ANYONE not take things with a grain of salt?
There was a woman at work today whose husband was an anesthesiologist. She swore that the new bill would half her husband's salary. Really? Show me the math behind that! She also said that her husband would be a government employee. Seriously, this isn't the UK, and even then, Dr.s in London still drive Audi's... or whatever your pick of luxury car may be.
If you look at the actual bill that was passed, all it does is regulate insurance agencies. It sets rate limits, prohibits denials, and will ultimate benefit ALL consumers by forcing down prices on drugs and medical services. Will people HAVE to have insurance? Yes. After 2014 anyone who does not can be fined. SO? We fine people for not having car insurance. Why do we do that? Because they are a liability to everyone else if they are uninsured! The same goes for health insurance, not only because of disease issues, but for tax purposes. When uninsured sick people don't pay/can't pay their medical bills--who foots that bill? Tax payers. Ipso facto, requiring insurance will free up some tax money for: lowering the deficit, creating jobs, fixing roads, public education... whatever!
My point in that is, people... READ the bill, and please, PLEASE stop regurgitating quotes from the press. I am not saying that people shouldn't watch the news, but check your facts people. I feel like I live in a country of conspiracy theorists! The people who are opposing the health insurance bill are the same ones who opposed civil rights in the 60's and votes for women in the early teens. Change can be, and often is GOOD!
With all of that said, I do often think that it would be better if people could not vote at all. Or, if they elected a small body of representatives, those representatives would only function as an advisory board--a national thermometer of sorts--to those governing. How would they come to power, well, that could be application to a board, similar to the supreme court, of proven officials.
More to come on this... I am off to read.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Change
Transition
Rising tides, still waters of peace
Gathering clouds, raging storms
Faithful ideals.
Weakened of greed collective.
Sapping of confidence
- A nagging fear
Challenges.
Chosen hope
Fear dogmas
Reaffirm our precious gift
All are free.
Greatness earned.
Sacrificed ambitions.
Power undiminished.
Swift the sun runs
Under the ground shifts
Whether big or small
They move forward
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Fall Shows 2010
Bowler hats, waistcoats, petticoats, and pom pons... and no, this was not the cheering section for "Sherlock Holmes" at recent award 
shows--we are talking Paris fashion week. This fall, it looks like we taking it back, back beyond old-school, beyond vintage, we're talking American Centennial style.
Marc Jacobs for Louis Vuitton showed frocks with
pinched waists given ethereal buoyancy from the masses of petticoats hidden underneath. These dresses ranged in length from just below the knee to pooling the floor, but the majority flitted at mid-calf adding a decidedly 50's element to the fall aesthetic. 
The fabrics were lush and opulent but the hues were subdued: gray of all shades, aubergine, blush, deep steel blue, gold, faded aqua, lavender, and rose dominated the collection bolstered by neutrals in rich textures of leather and satin.
The accessories (of course) were fantastic, particularly the pumps, which were block-heeled and platformless. They came in every shade and fabric imaginable. Fuchsia, aqua, mustard, gray and velvet, silk, satin, ostrich skin. Each shoe was topped (or more appropriately, toed) with a
flat wide bow in a contrasting shade (and often fabric) from the body of the shoe. The bags, all variations on LV's classic Speedy bag, were offered just as much variety in color and texture as the shoes.
Now to the bowler hat. I will preface this with, this is NOT a look for everyone! Many of the models faces were overwhelmed by the hat--and if it is hard for a model, well, then you KNOW it is tricky. It looks best on those with strong angular faces on the wide side rather than thin (the face not the person). This season Jean Paul Gaultier 
created for Hermes a collection so powerful that it can not be called men's-ware inspired. It is a tailored, sexy, confident collection that is all female. The hats, umbrellas, and pocket watches now belong to the ladies! So girls, go raid grandpa's closet, and take what is meant to be yours.
The pom pon's are sadly not listed for praise. They were ridiculous, impractical, and in no way attractive when worn as head pieces during the Sonia Rykiel show.
They can be seen either as massive tumors, or as a satellite caught in the models gravitational pull. Either way, not good.
Other great shows: Balmain (channeling a very French mid-18th century look)
and Nina Ricci by Peter Copping.
Some major duds were, to my dismay, Burberry and Rodarte
(I can't even begin to describe this, see the picture to the left).
Garreth Pugh was also awful, his models looked as if they had encountered a deranged
priest on Ash Wednesday, who with no time to wash up before the show, were forced out onto the runway in the costumes from a remake of "Metropolis."
Also, Viktor and Rolf... clever concept, but too bad the clothes were... ugly.
All-in-all this season showed clothes that were pretty, nostalgic (in a refreshing way--maybe we have been pushing modernity a little to hard), and wearable. Enjoy!
shows--we are talking Paris fashion week. This fall, it looks like we taking it back, back beyond old-school, beyond vintage, we're talking American Centennial style.Marc Jacobs for Louis Vuitton showed frocks with
pinched waists given ethereal buoyancy from the masses of petticoats hidden underneath. These dresses ranged in length from just below the knee to pooling the floor, but the majority flitted at mid-calf adding a decidedly 50's element to the fall aesthetic. The fabrics were lush and opulent but the hues were subdued: gray of all shades, aubergine, blush, deep steel blue, gold, faded aqua, lavender, and rose dominated the collection bolstered by neutrals in rich textures of leather and satin.The accessories (of course) were fantastic, particularly the pumps, which were block-heeled and platformless. They came in every shade and fabric imaginable. Fuchsia, aqua, mustard, gray and velvet, silk, satin, ostrich skin. Each shoe was topped (or more appropriately, toed) with a
flat wide bow in a contrasting shade (and often fabric) from the body of the shoe. The bags, all variations on LV's classic Speedy bag, were offered just as much variety in color and texture as the shoes.Now to the bowler hat. I will preface this with, this is NOT a look for everyone! Many of the models faces were overwhelmed by the hat--and if it is hard for a model, well, then you KNOW it is tricky. It looks best on those with strong angular faces on the wide side rather than thin (the face not the person). This season Jean Paul Gaultier created for Hermes a collection so powerful that it can not be called men's-ware inspired. It is a tailored, sexy, confident collection that is all female. The hats, umbrellas, and pocket watches now belong to the ladies! So girls, go raid grandpa's closet, and take what is meant to be yours. The pom pon's are sadly not listed for praise. They were ridiculous, impractical, and in no way attractive when worn as head pieces during the Sonia Rykiel show. They can be seen either as massive tumors, or as a satellite caught in the models gravitational pull. Either way, not good.Other great shows: Balmain (channeling a very French mid-18th century look)
and Nina Ricci by Peter Copping.Some major duds were, to my dismay, Burberry and Rodarte
(I can't even begin to describe this, see the picture to the left).Garreth Pugh was also awful, his models looked as if they had encountered a deranged
priest on Ash Wednesday, who with no time to wash up before the show, were forced out onto the runway in the costumes from a remake of "Metropolis."Also, Viktor and Rolf... clever concept, but too bad the clothes were... ugly.
All-in-all this season showed clothes that were pretty, nostalgic (in a refreshing way--maybe we have been pushing modernity a little to hard), and wearable. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)