"We have, each of us, enough energy to make this world into anything we wish it to be." (p.217)
Since then the world has changed to include the Islamic Caliphate sweeping through the Middle East beheading journalists; Algerian maniacs beheading a tourist; Russia invading parts of Ukraine; Israel bombing the shit out of Gaza; ebola threatening to depopulate Africa; Boko Haram threatening to do much the same; a 777 disappearing and several governments collapsing.
Who made these choices? Certainly not me. Mike Bara himself? I doubt it. Seems to me that entire book can be consigned to the bin marked POPPYCOCK.
Here's a link to my original point-by-point critique. 24 documented factual errors, and I'm sure I missed some.
Perhaps it was 55% who voted, consciously or subconsciously for the choice of having a Bad World and 45% who opted different was not enough to undo all those horrible evil-wishers? Of course Bara would belong to the 99% of the 1% within that anonymous 45%.
In my opinion people who are so bad at science should certainly stay away from philosophy and start with psychology 101 instead, right through the chapter "How to Gain some minimal Self-knowledge in my Lifetime?".
"We have, each of us, enough energy to make this world into anything we wish it to be."
Is that a definition of "make-believe?" Pretty telling. In a make-believe world you can be an "aircraft structural engineer," expert image analyst, and NASA historian with just a snap of your fingers or a twitch of your nose.
Dee: The way I read it, Mike doesn't give us all a vote -- instead each one of us has the total power to change things to suit ourselves.
I suppose this is no more illogical than his idea that NASA waits for star alignments to be right before launching.
So, why doesn't Mikey have his own private harem of strippers and future ex-wives? Surely he has the power to make it happen.
Well, he doesn't seem to be doing too well himself on the dating front. He's still lamenting the fact he can't find a girl friend! Not following his own advice, methinks.
" Since then the world has changed to include the Islamic Caliphate sweeping through the Middle East beheading journalists; Algerian maniacs beheading a tourist; Russia invading parts of Ukraine; Israel bombing the shit out of Gaza; ebola threatening to depopulate Africa; Boko Haram threatening to do much the same; a 777 disappearing and several governments collapsing.
Who made these choices? Certainly not me!
I didn't make these choices either! So indeed poppycock and horsecrapadoodle.
Except....for the part you stating that Russia invaded parts of the Ukraine. do you have some solid intel which proves that statement?
"We have, each of us, enough energy to make this world into anything we wish it to be."
in commercial terms his premise seems to be working :-) [fade in hilarious laughter]
- a 27-year-old New York artist has invented something called "invisible art" and she is making millions selling it to people who absolutely must have it.
A documentary team from the Canadian Broadcasting radio network traveled to Lana Newstrom's empty studio to learn more about her art that isn't there.
"Just because you can't see anything, doesn't mean I didn't put hours of work into creating a particular piece," Newstrom told the CBC. "Art is about imagination and that is what my work demands of the people interacting with it. You have to imagine a painting or sculpture is in front of you."
The most amusing aspect of the story is the image of snobby art collectors walking through an empty studio studiously staring at blank walls with track lighting properly illuminating the nothingness on display. Some of the art afficianados actually stop and soak in the lack of art that is not hanging on the blank wall and tilt their heads in a deeply thoughtful way as if to project their profound understanding of the message sent by the brilliant young artist and her stunning ability to not create anything.
Newstrom's agent, who is undoubtedly raking in a nice commission by his client's ability to not do anything, says, "When she describes what you can't see, you begin to realize why one of her invisible works can fetch upwards of a million dollars."
still hilarious laughter :-)
Expat: "instead each one of us has the total power to change things to suit ourselves."
Although I haven't read the book, it seems just another reiteration of the litany of the new thought movement.
Here's an excerpt of the Choice, including a few failed predictions on the solar eclipse of 2012. But before the "each of us" remark it reads: to use our own power, the power of spiritual thought, to set the intent of the planet for the future. So it's the individual power to align with some universal intent planet wide? But of course then it's not individual anymore, really....
What we're seeing here is I believe the usual muddled and sloppy writing of Bara, full of emotional appeal and little internal logic. It's like we can take any random sentence or paragraph of Bara ever written and shake it a bit up, making it all fall apart into contradictions. Each and every time!
It's like shooting slippery fish in a word barrel. Addictive like flappy bird I suppose....
>>Except....for the part you stating that Russia invaded parts of the Ukraine. do you have some solid intel which proves that statement? <<
Perhaps "annexed" would have been more accurate than "invaded."
"Perhaps "annexed" would have been more accurate than "invaded."
Following the referendum
[ The official result from the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was a 96.77 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 83.1 percent voter turnout ]
the Supreme Council of Crimea and Sevastopol City Council declared independence of Crimea from Ukraine and requested to join the Russian Federation. On the same day, Russia recognized Crimea as a sovereign state
question...since when is such a process called annexation?
>>question...since when is such a process called annexation?<<
I think since the concept of a "nation" first arose. The general idea is that Nation A may not start administering part of the territory of Nation B without the consent of Nation B's central government. Sending troops without insignia into Nation B's territory definitely exacerbates this crime under international law, these days.
Here's an opinion from NATO.
I highly suspect that Bara wrote, "The Choice" simply to broaden his speaking engagement territory to include new age type "consciousness" conferences and so forth. Not only can he speak with great authority about alien artifacts on the moon and mars, but "The Choice" sets him up to stand in front of yet another crowd of true-believers and pontificate about another brand of pseudoscientific nonsense.
That's a very good point. Bet you're right.
"I think since the concept of a "nation" first arose. The general idea is that Nation A may not start administering part of the territory of Nation B without the consent of Nation B's central government"
So under the same argument I believe you fully agree then that the US of A committed a crime under law from the period of July 2 1776 until September 3 1783 acting as it did without consent of nation B[ritain] headed by king George :-) using troops with and without insignia declaring such a silly thing as a declaration of independence (not my words btw....king George's thoughts on the matter :-)
I say.....give it a couple of years..let's say seven :-) before jumping on the bandwagon singing "when we do it, it is a freedom fight for democracy and therefore right....and when they do it....well...bomb them out their pants if you can"
Speaking of which in terms of your argument that the original nation A always has to consent in matters of outside intervention from a nation B which is clearly regulated under international law as you correctly pointed out
please shed your light in these terms on the following short list of countries A who have been invaded by a single country B without their consent to see how nation B is administering parts of their territories after the aforementioned intervention for political, military and or commercial reasons?
country B[eing] USA
since 1776 - 70 A countries [and counting]
and of that number
since 1945 - 50 A countries [and counting]
some of the A countries in recent times
1. Grenada (1983-1984)
2. Bolivia (1986)
3. Virgin Islands (1989)
4. Liberia (1990; 1997; 2003)
5. Saudi Arabia (1990-1991)
6. Kuwait (1991)
7. Somalia (1992-1994; 2006)
8. Bosnia (1993-)
9. Zaire/Congo (1996-1997)
10. Albania (1997)
11. Sudan (1998)
12. Afghanistan (1998; 2001-)
13. Yemen (2000; 2002-)
14. Macedonia (2001)
15. Colombia (2002-)
16 Pakistan (2005-)
17. Syria (2008; 2011-)
18. Uganda (2011)
19. Mali (2013)
20. Niger (2013)
21. Yugoslavia (1919; 1946; 1992-1994; 1999)
22. Iraq (1958; 1963; 1990-1991; 1990-2003; 1998; 2003-2011)
23. Angola (1976-1992)
Therefore this particular nation B certainly should be in your list of malign world changers don't you think?
>>Therefore this particular nation B certainly should be in your list of malign world changers don't you think?<<
Well, you're right, the USA is on my shitlist. I particularly scorn the way in which nationals defending their nations against US invasion are described as "insurgents."
However, you've made a false comparison. In no case has the USA declared part of these nations as its own sovereign territory. You'd have to think Mexico for that.
Adrian has a point though here.
Expat: "The general idea is that Nation A may not start administering part of the territory of Nation B without the consent of Nation B's central government".
That would depend on a nation's constitution of course. But in case of Texas seceding from Mexico in 1836, the US did actually annex Texas in 1845. It doesn't seem that different from the process in Crimea, only condensed in a few months instead of years.
If there's something like a "Right of Revolution" available to people of a state or region to separate from a government not seen as acting (anymore) in their interest.... that's a matter of debate.
Crimea is perhaps a bad example all over because it already was ruled as largely autonomous republic before the annex and historically they have little to do with Ukraine. One could suggest that without the hasty move by Russia, a future change on that scale would have become impossible or way more costly or bloody with an unwilling and defensive Ukraine as partner at the table.
Considering the opinion of the people living in Crimea the word "annexation" is only justified because of the speed and military actions to secure the borders. But apart from that it might just as well be called hasty reunification IMO.
Given that one half of the Ukraine speaks Russian instead of Ukrainian, and self-identifies as Russian, an eventual schism is an obvious possibility.
And yet -- compare with Belgium. France doesn't seem to be in any hurry to declare Wallonia part of its territory (they've already done plenty of that in the Indian Ocean, Caribbean and Guiana).
AFAIK it's more often the Walloons who don't seem to desire France at all while some of the Flemish were thinking out loud about joining the Netherlands during the recent crisis in government.
Russia, perhaps like France, doesn't seem to be in any hurry to declare any part of eastern Ukraine as its territory. Like Wallonia it's not exactly a price. But if for example Belgium would declare a pact to join Germany (and it would more like early 20th century again) France might make some kind of move to prevent that.
Ah well, all speculation of course. It's difficult to compare really these things as the context always appears to be rather different when it comes to the details, the emotions, the specific histories and the economical realities of a region.
Where is Rosetta?
I just found this link. I think we should show it to Mikey. It shows just how "eccentric" Mars' orbit really is. Ya know, REAL SCIENCE.
Awesome graphic and it details just how complex it is to launch an orbiter to a comet.
Then again, he'll probably tell me I'd make a good masseuse for Tom Cruise.
That's absolutely beautiful work -- thx for finding it. I have notified Bara but he may not read my e-mails these days.
Here, check this one out. Here's the dastardly people responsible for photoshopping out the alien bases, ufo landing sites and Vegas strip clubs on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
I especially got a laugh out of the message at the end. Maybe someone's read Hoagie's work and is trying to tell us something. :)
Yikes, the comments are so juvenile, they're embarrassing.
RT comments are so juvenile they're legendary. That's why I surf the web with Firefox and NoScript installed. Otherwise I might just kill somebody.
Works on youtoob too.
Post a Comment