I've camped all over northern California, preferring the quiet, out of the way places to the crowded RV and boom box camp cities. While I've had many nights alone, near a stream in some scenic spot, one place stands out, for several reasons, as my favorite.
The first time I visited was on impulse. Taking a very leisurely trip up the coast, I decided to explore the Mattole River, turning off the 101 near Garberville, on the road to Shelter Cove. Then, turning off on a side road, I drove through Ettersburg, a very small community. Just outside of town, in the mid afternoon warmth, I opted for a swim in the Mattole, a wonderful little river in an almost unspoiled part of Northern California.
I continued on to Honeydew, a store and a wide spot in the road, and then on to Petrolia.
It was there that my map and curiosity led me, as a side road runs five miles down to the beach, a section of the coast rarely visited. At the end of the road, paved part of the way, dirt the rest, I found a lovely BLM campground, twenty sites, right on the beach. Only two other sites were taken, so I took my pick.
The first thing that impressed me and actually brought tears to my eyes was the sign, indicating that this beach was adopted by the second and third graders at Petrolia school. There were wonderful paintings of beach and sea creatures and a caption: We love our beach; please take care of it." I wiped away the tears and took a photo before exploring.
There is another parking lot, just south of the campground, the jumping off point for the 25 mile backpack along the lost coast to Shelter Cove. So, within a few yards walk, I'd left civilization behind, along with the normal trash one expects to find on the beach. I walked a couple of miles in total solitude, accompanied only by the sound of breaking waves and the cries of sea birds.
The mouth of the Mattole is a mile to the north, and just south of the campground is Punta Gorda, slightly east of Cape Mendocino, the westernmost place in the lower 48, just a dozen miles north.
After spending one of the most quiet nights I can remember, I drove back to Petrolia and started north, along the private lands along Cape Mendocino, which I wish was open to the public. And the road twisted steeply up and away from the beach. After miles of narrow road winding through the hills, I came back once again to civilization at Ferndale, the little Victorian town south of Eureka.
Yes, this campground is an hour and a half off the main road, so if you are in a hurry to get somewhere, it's not for you. But, if you want peace and quiet and an unspoiled beach to wander, and you don't mind slow, winding roads, you will be rewarded.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Rethinking Nuclear disarmament
Intellectually, I know what President Obama is doing about reducing nuclear arms is a good thing. Yes I know that nukes are bad, cause lots of destruction and radioactive fallout and all that. But...
You see, there's a part of me that feels that once I've bought something, spent good money on it, I should use it, like the electric blanket that feels like I'm sleeping in a waffle iron. But, what the hell, I can't return it, so suffer with it for a short time before dumping it.
Well, I spent good money on nukes, as did my parents. In fact anyone who paid taxes from the 1940s through the 1980s paid something toward developing and building nukes. I hope you can see where I'm going with this.
Who knows how many millions or even billions were spent building enough bombs to blow the earth half way to Uranus. And now we have them stacked up, in ICBMs, in silos, perhaps even under our downtowns. In all these years, we've only used two of them. Two out of how many thousand? We proved in WW2 how effective these babies are. Put an instant end to the war in the Pacific. And that beautiful mushroom cloud. Remember the final scenes of Dr. Strangelove? Awesome.
But I digress. Now, before we toss all these potent reminders of what a bad ass America really is, we should remind the world again. Our government has identified a number of international bad guys, nasty dictators, genocidal maniacs, political leaders without a sense of humor. Why not, and take a moment to consider this before reacting, drop a few on some really nasty folk?
Perhaps a half dozen of these big 100 megaton fusion bombs, not those wimpy fission firecrackers we used on Japan, would get people's attention, reminding them to behave or else.
After that, when our state department sends the message, "Don't slaughter your own people," they will undoubtedly listen.
So, if I've convinced you, write our President and tell him to bomb someone. After all, that's what made this country great.
You see, there's a part of me that feels that once I've bought something, spent good money on it, I should use it, like the electric blanket that feels like I'm sleeping in a waffle iron. But, what the hell, I can't return it, so suffer with it for a short time before dumping it.
Well, I spent good money on nukes, as did my parents. In fact anyone who paid taxes from the 1940s through the 1980s paid something toward developing and building nukes. I hope you can see where I'm going with this.
Who knows how many millions or even billions were spent building enough bombs to blow the earth half way to Uranus. And now we have them stacked up, in ICBMs, in silos, perhaps even under our downtowns. In all these years, we've only used two of them. Two out of how many thousand? We proved in WW2 how effective these babies are. Put an instant end to the war in the Pacific. And that beautiful mushroom cloud. Remember the final scenes of Dr. Strangelove? Awesome.
But I digress. Now, before we toss all these potent reminders of what a bad ass America really is, we should remind the world again. Our government has identified a number of international bad guys, nasty dictators, genocidal maniacs, political leaders without a sense of humor. Why not, and take a moment to consider this before reacting, drop a few on some really nasty folk?
Perhaps a half dozen of these big 100 megaton fusion bombs, not those wimpy fission firecrackers we used on Japan, would get people's attention, reminding them to behave or else.
After that, when our state department sends the message, "Don't slaughter your own people," they will undoubtedly listen.
So, if I've convinced you, write our President and tell him to bomb someone. After all, that's what made this country great.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Frames and definitions make all the difference
Any argument, theory or line of thought will be indelibly shaped by how you frame it and define terms. Therefore two people can cite the same idea, using the same words and mean something totally different, perhaps even opposite meanings.
A illustrative example of this is the once highly popular "behaviorism." Starting with Pavlov and his classical conditioning and through Watson and Skinner, the theory was framed to depict the subject as a passive reactor, rather than an active actor. Pavlov's dogs were conditioned to salivate when a bell was rung, the bell having been associated with giving the dogs food. Skinner went so far as to claim that linguistic acts are conditioned responses to stimuli, and his definitional ambiguity earned a critical rebuke in 1957 from linguist, Noam Chomsky.
In behaviorism, the subject simply responds to stimuli and can be conditioned to respond to secondary stimuli, such as the bell. This makes the subjects, dogs in Pavlov's case, passive agents, responding but not initiating. This theory rejected something we all are personally aware of, the inner condition of our consciousness, yet, in spite of that, many philosophers and psychologists were enamored of it for a long time.
Pavlov could have framed his experiment another way. By ringing the bell in conjunction with food, he allowed the dogs to construct a chain of expectations, where they first expected him to feed them, and then learned to expect the bell to indicate that food was shortly to follow. Then when the bell no longer was paired with food, the dogs would have started to suspect that the bell wasn't a reliable indicator of food and eventually that the bell was irrelevant. The same kinds of reframing could have been applied to Skinner's boxes, with his rats and pigeons.
At the purely observational level, both frames would look exactly the same: Man rings a bell, dog salivates, then food arrives. However, looking at the dogs as either active or passive agents creates opposite psychological scenarios. Had this been framed the other way, whatever psychological theory would have arisen, it would not be what we now think of as behaviorism.
Now substitute any political or social theory for behaviorism and you can see the foundation of much current misunderstanding.
A illustrative example of this is the once highly popular "behaviorism." Starting with Pavlov and his classical conditioning and through Watson and Skinner, the theory was framed to depict the subject as a passive reactor, rather than an active actor. Pavlov's dogs were conditioned to salivate when a bell was rung, the bell having been associated with giving the dogs food. Skinner went so far as to claim that linguistic acts are conditioned responses to stimuli, and his definitional ambiguity earned a critical rebuke in 1957 from linguist, Noam Chomsky.
In behaviorism, the subject simply responds to stimuli and can be conditioned to respond to secondary stimuli, such as the bell. This makes the subjects, dogs in Pavlov's case, passive agents, responding but not initiating. This theory rejected something we all are personally aware of, the inner condition of our consciousness, yet, in spite of that, many philosophers and psychologists were enamored of it for a long time.
Pavlov could have framed his experiment another way. By ringing the bell in conjunction with food, he allowed the dogs to construct a chain of expectations, where they first expected him to feed them, and then learned to expect the bell to indicate that food was shortly to follow. Then when the bell no longer was paired with food, the dogs would have started to suspect that the bell wasn't a reliable indicator of food and eventually that the bell was irrelevant. The same kinds of reframing could have been applied to Skinner's boxes, with his rats and pigeons.
At the purely observational level, both frames would look exactly the same: Man rings a bell, dog salivates, then food arrives. However, looking at the dogs as either active or passive agents creates opposite psychological scenarios. Had this been framed the other way, whatever psychological theory would have arisen, it would not be what we now think of as behaviorism.
Now substitute any political or social theory for behaviorism and you can see the foundation of much current misunderstanding.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
custom conspiracy theories for nut case fringe grp.
Filling imaginary needs has been the key to the Eclectic Press business plan. Recently we've identified a definite psuedo-need in our society, and we are rushing eagerly in to fill it. In addition to our other questionable services, we're introducing something new, something your organization could profit from.
Are you a member of a nut case fringe group? If so, is your group small and unsuccessful? It's probably because you don't have a good conspiracy theory. Every highly respected nut case fringe group has a conspiracy theory that captures the imagination and brings in those nut cases who are desperate to belong. And remember, more members mean more dues, so the money you invest will be returned many times over.
Eclectic Press will custom-make a conspiracy theory that fits your group's unique brand of paranoia. Here's a brief outline of a scenario we put together for one successful client. "The American Dental Association has been taken over by aliens from outer space, who have snatched the bodies of member dentists. Now, the amalgam they put into your teeth contain miniature transceivers, controlled by the aliens. After everyone has a filling, the aliens will turn humanity into robot worker who will
assemble useless merchandise for the galactic black market. "
The organization that purchased this conspiracy theory increased their membership from 7 to over 100. We can do the same for you. All you need to do is provide us with some basic information on your group and give us cash. We don't take checks from nut case fringe groups.
Now, we can't promise to make you as successful as America's two biggest nut case groups, the Democratic and the Republican parties. These groups attained mainstream status without losing their quirky, nutty roots through decades of constructing complex and convoluted conspiracy theories. While this level of sophistication takes generations, one of our basic theories should be enough to let you become at least a minor religion.
Just log on to www.baymoon.com/~eclecticpress. Remember that if you're nutty enough to think you need a conspiracy theory, you're nutty enough to pay us money for it.
Are you a member of a nut case fringe group? If so, is your group small and unsuccessful? It's probably because you don't have a good conspiracy theory. Every highly respected nut case fringe group has a conspiracy theory that captures the imagination and brings in those nut cases who are desperate to belong. And remember, more members mean more dues, so the money you invest will be returned many times over.
Eclectic Press will custom-make a conspiracy theory that fits your group's unique brand of paranoia. Here's a brief outline of a scenario we put together for one successful client. "The American Dental Association has been taken over by aliens from outer space, who have snatched the bodies of member dentists. Now, the amalgam they put into your teeth contain miniature transceivers, controlled by the aliens. After everyone has a filling, the aliens will turn humanity into robot worker who will
assemble useless merchandise for the galactic black market. "
The organization that purchased this conspiracy theory increased their membership from 7 to over 100. We can do the same for you. All you need to do is provide us with some basic information on your group and give us cash. We don't take checks from nut case fringe groups.
Now, we can't promise to make you as successful as America's two biggest nut case groups, the Democratic and the Republican parties. These groups attained mainstream status without losing their quirky, nutty roots through decades of constructing complex and convoluted conspiracy theories. While this level of sophistication takes generations, one of our basic theories should be enough to let you become at least a minor religion.
Just log on to www.baymoon.com/~eclecticpress. Remember that if you're nutty enough to think you need a conspiracy theory, you're nutty enough to pay us money for it.
Henry 8th and a lesson in war
In 1523, Henry 8th, one of England's more despotic kings, decided to go to war with France. To pay for this adventure, and in the wake of his wasteful spending, he sent Cardinal Wolsey to scare up 800,000 pounds in taxes. Wolsey met with much resistance, not unlike the reception new tax plans get today. Henry relented on the taxes and cancelled his war.
So, almost 500 years later, why do we care?
Even Henry, who was used to getting his way, when advised that he didn't have the money to pay for a war, abandoned the idea. He certainly didn't borrow an amount of money that would be billions in today's dollars. Wars, like other governmental activities, have budgetary constraints. Well, at least they once did.
Presidents Bush and Obama probably regard Henry as a political wuss. Over the last nine years, these two presidents have spent hundreds of billions in two countries, fighting... defending... creating... doing high cost military stuff. Unlike Henry, they didn't send a modern Wolsey out to collect taxes for it. In fact, they both seem to claim that we can have bigger, better, more expensive wars and still cut taxes.
These two presidents will be footnotes in the history books before these wars are paid for, if ever.
So, almost 500 years later, why do we care?
Even Henry, who was used to getting his way, when advised that he didn't have the money to pay for a war, abandoned the idea. He certainly didn't borrow an amount of money that would be billions in today's dollars. Wars, like other governmental activities, have budgetary constraints. Well, at least they once did.
Presidents Bush and Obama probably regard Henry as a political wuss. Over the last nine years, these two presidents have spent hundreds of billions in two countries, fighting... defending... creating... doing high cost military stuff. Unlike Henry, they didn't send a modern Wolsey out to collect taxes for it. In fact, they both seem to claim that we can have bigger, better, more expensive wars and still cut taxes.
These two presidents will be footnotes in the history books before these wars are paid for, if ever.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Scott Roeder and Venn diagrams
I was trying to understand Scott Roeder, the man who murdered the abortion doctor and is still defiant even though sentenced to life in prison. To me, this is a totally alien mindset. Then I started thinking about those Venn diagrams we used to work with in jr. high math, and that gave me some insights.
There is between a large or very large, depending on your point of view, group of nut cases in this country. While these people aren't technically psychotic, they are at the least quite reality challenged, often having trouble distinguishing between the voices in their heads and their telephone answer machines. So, make a dot for every 10,000 of these folks and draw a circle around them.
Then, there is a group as large, if not larger, in this country that, and there is no suitable euphemism, are assholes. They seem to have no problem with reality, just with people who interpret that reality any differently than themselves. So, again, a dot for every 10,000 and circle those.
Now, like in any good Venn diagram, there is an area where both circles overlap. This area represents people who are both nut cases and assholes, exhibiting the worst characteristics of both groups.
Finally, I'm beginning to understand Scott Roeder.
There is between a large or very large, depending on your point of view, group of nut cases in this country. While these people aren't technically psychotic, they are at the least quite reality challenged, often having trouble distinguishing between the voices in their heads and their telephone answer machines. So, make a dot for every 10,000 of these folks and draw a circle around them.
Then, there is a group as large, if not larger, in this country that, and there is no suitable euphemism, are assholes. They seem to have no problem with reality, just with people who interpret that reality any differently than themselves. So, again, a dot for every 10,000 and circle those.
Now, like in any good Venn diagram, there is an area where both circles overlap. This area represents people who are both nut cases and assholes, exhibiting the worst characteristics of both groups.
Finally, I'm beginning to understand Scott Roeder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)