jrm&aWebFLUX Newz&Viewz Archives:Technical how-to's, intriguing links, bargains in PCs, Macs, TV, and internet access, and speculation on the past, present, and future of mankindby J.R. Mooneyham_________This page last updated on or about 7-24-2003_________ (Free JavaScripts provided by The JavaScript Source)
Please help us keep this site online |
       (Translate this page)
| ESPAÑOL
|
FRANÇAIS
|
DEUTSCH
| |
| Search this site | | Site map | Site author | Site store | >>> | Latest site updates | <<< | Access Google's cache of this site |
|
Alternative (mirror site) links | Translate this site | | Site search | Site map | Site author | | Access Google's cache of this site |
|
8-3-02: Why is it easier for many to find things to die for than to live for?If you look around, you find almost everyone is constantly trying to persuade you that their particular agenda or idol or idea is worth dying for-- even if it only means a drawn out death, reached via one pinprick at a time. For as your free time is the most valuable asset of anyone alive, and most of us must give up great gobs of that time to earn money, then everytime we pay money for something we're trading a bit of our life for it-- and so dying a little.
Thus, Madison Avenue advertising is constantly pushing different brands and speeds of death upon us, not much different from the worst illegal drug pushers-- at least from one perspective.
The developed world is now inundated with such death merchants, with the overall level of advertising becoming almost subliminal now, as it pervades our internet experience, TV viewing, radio listening, theater visits, taxi cab rides-- practically any aspect of human experience you can name, today.
At the same time we're drenched in violence in our media, and urged to act on impulse and make more money ever faster so we can spend more faster-- and die faster. Apparently the ideal consumer would be one who frenziedly works their butt off for a lifetime so that they can buy as much stuff as possible, and never ever stop to contemplate any other aspects of their lives or the world.
Today's America seems the epitome of this, as the entire economy appears structured to minimize conscious thought or financial independence on the part of individual consumers, while also draining them in every conceivable way money-wise in order to keep them running the treadmill in their cage. America does little or nothing to train children how to resist this bombardment, or even how to manage their own budgets in order to protect themselves from financial ruin when they grow up.
We're all pretty much on our own, with 'every man for himself'. No wonder some foreign observers often comment on the short-sightedness, selfish and self-centered nature of certain Americans. In broad societal terms, we're raised that way.
I wonder though, if there's no way we could turn this around? Help one another find things to live for, rather than die for? Of course, some would sneer that such a philosophy smacks of cowardice, as it would dilute the urge to find just causes for death, either for onself or others, in pursuits like war or terrorism, etc. But life itself is often no picnic, as even we sometimes pampered Americans know from first-hand experience.
Indeed, choosing life over death is often the more difficult course for many of us, as death would release us from all sorts of obligations, uncertainties, and suffering, while life tends to do only the opposite.
We Americans effectively rule the world at the moment. But find ourselves aghast when our emphasis on essentially glorifying death saturates the globe, and helps result in things like suicide bombers and the use of airliners as manned missiles.
Just look at the Hollywood blockbusters we feed upon and export to the rest of the world. Often brimming with extreme violence, and focusing on heroes who can find something or someone worth risking their life for around every corner.
What can we do about all this? That's hard to say, as glorifying extreme violence, suicide, and murder is very profitable for our media elite and large shareholders, as well as very useful to our politicians when they want to elicit emotional responses from us in support of various wars, candidates, or passage of new laws, and our employers when they wish to motivate us to be as ruthless as possible in business dealings-- since American brand capitalism seems to have degenerated into something like a perpetual war footing itself, since the end of the Cold War. They've got us locked up tight in support of death and violence in so many ways that it's mind-boggling.
How might we break this vicious cycle, before it possibly results in the end of us all? Well, the best 'big picture' ideas I personally find for this I post at places like Civilization's best defenses against war, terrorism, technological stagnation, and economic ruin and How to live well on very, very little.
7-28-02: Who declared war, against who, and why?
|
-- War Against What
-- U.S. agencies cannot define terrorism -- THE WAR ON WHAT; The New Yorker |
Well, how about declaring war against bin Laden's terrorist organization? Or even against all terrorist organizations worldwide, for good measure? Well, that's pretty much the same as declaring war against organized crime, since these 'terrorists' are really just gangs of violent criminals who prefer political power or change to financial rewards.
But again, so far as I know, no great nation has ever elevated a band of criminals to such a high global profile by officially declaring war against them. Not even the USA, as of mid-2002-- because again, only the US Congress can officially declare war. The US President can yell about it a lot, and pretty much do what he wishes so long as Congress doesn't tug on his legal leash regarding the subject, but that's about it (at least according to a little thing some of us recognize as the Constitution). Bush's 'war against terror' has so far been unofficial, like the 'war on drugs' of the past 20 years (if Congress ever made the drug war an official, fully ordained war, I missed it).
So, in truth, as of mid-2002, the USA is decidedly not at war, in legal terms.
But how about in real, or physical terms? Haven't we performed a massive mobilization of troops and materials and sent them overseas in the past year to fight our enemies?
Not really. Mostly we've just moved existing troops from among the 140(!) nations we already had a military presence in prior to 9-11-01. Folks, we only have around 6000 troops in Afghanistan-- the very center of Bush's so-called war-- at last check. That's a little more than half the number we had in that awful war zone called Great Britain during late 2001, and considerably less than we have in Bosnia and Kosovo, according to the latest figures I've run across (of course, maybe Great Britain is becoming a bigger terrorist haven than Afghanistan, according to the Pentagon? Beats me). And of what troops we do have in Afghanistan, quite a few seemed destined to guard oil pipeline construction for big business concerns, rather than chase terrorists (some folks even suggest our invasion of Afhanistan was done because the Taliban wouldn't offer us a good deal on a pipeline project, rather than any terrorist presence; and the fact the Bush Administration had drawn up invasion plans for Afghanistan before 9-11-01 (as well as warned the Taliban about their stubborness in pipeline discussions) seems to support that theory). So even the physical reality of any present 'war' situation is pretty hard to discern from America's foreign military/business stance as it stood on 9-10-01-- the day before the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
Of course, like most all US presidents, Bush continues to move his military game pieces about the world board as it suits his fancy. And surely some US troops are being shifted out of certain areas and into those surrounding Iraq, to match Bush's threatening rhetoric in that regard.
|
-- U.S. Expands Military Ties Worldwide by Sally Buzbee, Associated Press, 1-15-2002
-- Troops Aside, 'war' effort is expanding by Jonathan Weisman, USA TODAY, 6-17-02 |
But actually the closest thing for the USA to an obvious and real change to war footing lately has occured inside our own borders, rather than elsewhere. American citizens have lost a mind-staggering chunk of their civil liberties and privacy-- though it's going to take a while for the extent of that to sink in. The fondling and strip-searching of women at airports, seizure of toys from children, harassment and detention of political opposition members and anti-war protesters, arrest and subsequent disappearances of US citizens for indefinite periods based on zero evidence or judicial oversight, and surprise FBI interviews of your neighbors and family concerning books or other items you recently bought (or claims made against you by your neighbors, co-workers, plumber, electrician, mailman, UPS man, cable TV man, etc.), has only just begun, after all.
|
-- 80-year-old woman strip-searched
-- Your Grocery List Could Spark a Terror Probe -- Soldier toy disarmed at airport -- Tighter airport security targets toys -- Humiliation greets visitor at airport -- A Prison Where Detainees Disappear -- FBI targets protest groups -- The Washington Times -- Governor Campaigner Arrested - for Participating in Democratic Process -- Magazine accuses State of intimidation -- The Washington Times -- US finds strange bedfellows in UN vote on torture csmonitor.com; Christian Science Monitor -- Justice Dept. forges ahead with TIPS, despite Armey ban -- Bush wants a country of full informers - politics - MIRROR ON-line ONE -- Some TIPS for John Ashcroft; Businessweek -- Here's a TIP We don't want police state -- The National Snooping Network -- George W. Bush channels George Orwell -- US threatens to block torture convention -- Green Party USA Coordinator Detained at Airport; Prevented by Armed Military Personnel from Flying to Political Meeting in Chicago, CounterPunch Wire; November 2, 2001 In some cases high school students, priests, and nuns who wish to travel to join in peaceful protests are being significantly delayed or prohibited from such activities by government constraints on their freedom to fly to their destinations. -- Are You on the No Fly List? by Matthew Rothschild; McCarthyism Watch; April 27, 2002; The Progressive Chicago is initiating a new policy: having reporters fingerprinted. -- Press Pass? I'll Pass BY WENDY COLE; Currents: Access ; Cjr.org; May/June 2002; found on or about 6-5-02 -- Press freedom being tested by Bush Administration's anti-terrorist policy; 05.23.2002; Reporters Without Borders -- GOP Monitoring Lobbyists' Politics (washingtonpost.com) By Jim VandeHei; June 10, 2002; Page A01 -- RNC Targets Liberal Interest Groups (washingtonpost.com) -- The GOP's Wacky War on Dem Lobbyists; Businessweek It appears the US legislative process failed during the recent passage of the anti-terror bill. And the nation will probably regret this failure in the long term. Apparently Congress was too fearful of another terrorist strike to adequately perform their legal duties here. Much of the bill was passed without the members even having read it. The new law throws the judicial system and its oversight out of the loop for many critical procedures, and makes historic changes in other government processes as well. The bill seems to be overzealous in its efforts to combat terrorism, and thereby possibly creates new and unnecessary dangers to society as a byproduct. -- A Panicky Bill (washingtonpost.com); October 26, 2001; Page A34 -- Freedom flees in terror from Sept. 11 disaster By Paul McMasters; pmcmasters@freedomforum.org; Ombudsman; First Amendment Center; 09.19.01 -- U.S. On Verge Of 'Electronic Martial Law' - Researcher By Kevin Featherly, Newsbytes; http://www.newsbytes.com; 15 Oct 2001 -- Security vs. Civil Liberties By Mike France, Heather Green, Jim Kerstetter, and Dan Carney; BusinessWeek Online; The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.; OCTOBER 1, 2001 A gargantuan new intelligence collection system is being born from recent passage of the anti-terrorism bill. The FBI's main priority will no longer be bringing criminals to justice, but rather collecting intelligence within the borders of the US. The Treasury Department will collect financial intelligence (like the banking activities of Americans), and provide it to the CIA. The CIA will also now have some say in FBI operations. The bill looks to remove many of the safeguards put in place after Watergate against abuses of presidential power, in matters like using intelligence resources against political activists. -- An Intelligence Giant in the Making (washingtonpost.com) By Jim McGee Washington Post; November 4, 2001; Page A04 |
Our President is making a historically stunning grab for power which threatens to upset the balance of powers crafted by the founding fathers to protect us from despots. Even if you personally trust Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and company not to abuse these powers, you must also consider that these same powers will be in the hands of their successors a few years down the road-- and you may trust them less. The President's Administration, along with Congressional complicity, has also been encouraging and broadening secrecy for government, business, technical, and scientific matters, nourishing anti-competitive business behavior and stripping US citizens of long-held intellectual property rights at the same time, all of which seems sure to reduce future innovation, competition, entrepreneurial activity, and so jobs and potential rises in living standards too.
With each passing day, Bush is not only stripping American citizens of powers they previously enjoyed to limit government's intrusion in their lives, but also making it harder for us to even know what our government is really up to, from day to day-- or what they'll do next.
|
President Bush is assuming what are essentially dictatorial powers on the advice of his panicked attorney general.
-- Seizing Dictatorial Power by William Safire; www.commondreams.org; December 13, 2001 [November 15, 2001 in the New York Times]
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator"
-- US President-elect George W. Bush, December 2000 -- Bush's Hill tour comes to a close By Mark Sherman/ Cox News Service;12-19-2000 -- BusinessWeek Online: WASHINGTON WATCH A Gentleman's "C" for W By Richard S. Dunham; Edited by Beth Belton; JULY 30, 2001 |
Indeed, American citizens and their civil rights and future happiness would seem more in the cross hairs of this Administration since 9-11-01, than any foreign-born terrorists.
Amazingly, there's been almost no public outcry about all this. Or at least, none that the mass media like Fox News is willing to give much coverage to. Instead, the media has been bought out by big business interests more concerned with controlling the American consumer's buying habits than reporting the news. And so the nation's course looks to have been pushed towards a much darker future than almost anyone could have expected, only 12 months ago.
Folks, for some years now I've mixed in some outright fiction with my other speculations about the future course of America and the world, in my timeline. I'd even wrote about the inevitable terrorist attacks upon New York City and other places which were sure to cause worrisome shifts in US government behavior.
But even I was stunned by the US President's response to the attacks. Much more stunned by those than the attacks themselves. I was stunned too by the US Congress' total lack of backbone in opposing the new police state measures demanded by the Administration. Even the majority of Republicans, which for at least a decade have said they opposed increasing the power of the federal government, simply gave the President virtually a blank check in the USA Patriot Act, with many of the politicians not even reading the new laws before they passed them wholesale.
|
It appears the US legislative process failed during the recent passage of the anti-terror bill. And the nation will probably regret this failure in the long term. Apparently Congress was too fearful of another terrorist strike to adequately perform their legal duties here. Much of the bill was passed without the members even having read it.
The new law throws the judicial system and its oversight out of the loop for many critical procedures, and makes historic changes in other government processes as well. The bill seems to be overzealous in its efforts to combat terrorism, and thereby possibly creates new and unnecessary dangers to society as a byproduct. -- A Panicky Bill (washingtonpost.com); October 26, 2001; Page A34 |
I've been surprised as well by the continuing acquiesence of the Congress and the Courts to the Administration's continuing grabs for even larger and more sweeping powers over the American citizenry, even after passage of the USA Patriot Act itself. As a result of all this, it appears any US citizen can now be legally arrested and held indefinitely in secret locations, without benefit of legal counsel or even a notification to family of their whereabouts and why, if only the President, Attorney General Ashcroft, or anyone acting on their behalf wants to do so. No evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever is required. In many circumstances such indefinite detentions will never ever be subject to judicial review. If they want you, they'll get you, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Can this really be happening in America?
All this brings to mind some of the very worst aspects of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Heck, I may be endangering myself for possible 'disappearance' just by writing this. But this stuff has to stop, before it's too late.
|
"...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering, Hitler's chosen successor for ruling Nazi Germany during World War II; quote from the Nuremberg Trials 1945-1946 |
But anyway...to be realistic, I personally can't change the course of my native land. I don't have the wealth or influence required. I'm also now realizing that my wildest political speculations on the future fate of the USA cannot match the present reality in terms of darkness and potential terror. Our future is going downhill far faster than anything I could make up.
So in future weeks and months I'm going to be purging various obvious political speculations and opinions from my site, and trying to refrain from adding new such items. I don't wish to waste my time and energies where they'll do no good. Plus, it looks to become increasingly dangerous in America to voice any dissent against the status quo. I don't have the resources to become a successful fugitive, nor the desire to become part of an underground resistance. It's hard enough in today's America just trying to "live long and prosper" as Spock might say, without trying to fight the government too.
|
"Americans ... need to watch what they say..."
-- White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer -- White House whitewashers By Jake Tapper; Salon.com; Sept. 27, 2001 Ari Fleischer's stunning comment was missing from the official transcript afterwards, though the White House said that was due to an error. As of October 4th however the transcript still hadn't been corrected. -- Spin-Off by Ryan Lizza; The New Republic; Posted date 10.04.01; Issued date 10.15.01 -- Rhetoric Check By Josh Gerstein; Oct. 11, 2001 "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, US Republican president, 1918 -- http://www.americanpresident.org/kotrain/courses/TR/TR_In_His_Own_Words.htm |
I'm simply flabbergasted by what's happening to my country. And hope somehow Americans regain their healthy skepticism of (and rebellious independence from) big government police and domestic spying power, before it's too late.
For the reference of readers, I don't consider myself a republican or democrat. I'm even uncomfortable with the 'independent' label. In the past, I've been known to vote for any one of the three tickets, depending on the candidate and issues. I preferred the elder Bush against Reagan, when they were competing in Republican presidential primaries, but voted for Reagan anyway in the later general election-- and then was disappointed and dismayed by many of the things he did or presided over afterwards. More recently I preferred Clinton over Dole, for both candidate age and moderate politics reasons. As for Gore and Bush, I didn't vote at all there, as it was too difficult to see much difference between them, and both seemed to tout various extremist views with which I didn't agree. I personally would have required another candidate in the race to have participated in the polls (like McCain or possibly others).
Even in regards to the events following 9-11-01, I am unsure if Gore would have performed any better than Bush. Indeed, Gore, like Bush, may have followed his own extremist reactionary path, and been in his own way just as bad. It would seem only the details might be different.
Overall, I've been disappointed with just about every president we've had since I reached adulthood, both republican and democrat. And I suspect many of my American baby boomer peers share this view.
But so far this latest one is alarming me the most of all of them.
I just thought I'd share this before I begin to gradually 'go off the air' in direct political commentary on this site.
Good luck to all we Americans. We're going to need it, for what's coming.
7-27-02: America's political trapA Washington Post columnist recently said to understand US politics you need to know that conservatives think liberals are dumb and/or naive, and liberals think conservatives are evil. What a shame that there's much truth in the reporter's observation.
To get fast traction on various issues and poll ratings US politicians and the media often do their best to polarize every issue big and small into either 'liberal' or 'conservative' extremes, to try to make everything look like a dramatic fight between good and evil, and as simplistic as possible. But very little of the world is truly composed of purely 'good' and purely 'evil' folks and simple, easy to figure out issues-- almost everything is usually some shade of gray, with some good aspects and some bad, with the best, most optimal choice typically being the selection of a shade of gray at least a bit more on the lighter side than the dark.
Such shaded choices are called 'compromises' of course, and are what business and government decision-making has to be among a diverse and dynamic people. But this works best when there's at least two opposing factions of roughly equal power, to insure that the compromises don't get too extreme towards either end of the spectrum.
The minimal number of two opposing parties probably isn't the optimal number for this process-- logic would seem to suggest the larger the number, the better. Simply because if there's only two sides, powershifts between them are unlikely to be small and incremental, even as the propaganda excesses from both sides tend to inflame both-- thus insuring that whichever side is dominant at a given moment will likely go overboard in their attempt to reshape society to their own ideal. This makes for big mistakes, scandals, corruption, fraud, waste, and a wrenching whipsawing of the citizenry and their institutions, which makes life harder for everyone and uncertainty about the future considerably larger than it has to be.
Think about it from a business point-of-view. Say government was a market, and political parties business operations, or companies, within that market. Pretty much all economists agree that having only one company dominant in a market is usually bad for competition and the consumer. Two big companies competing against one another is much better, but still does not a truly healthy and competitive market make. And yet that's been the status of American governance for almost our whole history, with only two political parties dominating everything we do. A thorough research project could probably find plenty of evidence to suggest this two-party system has resulted in far more mistakes and problems than a strong three or four party system likely would have. American health care (compared to that of other developed nations) would likely be an excellent place to start such research.
This consistently small number of dominant political parties over centuries likely stems from some deep flaw in the original system of governance as set up by the founding fathers-- but heck, they did so many other things right we can surely forgive them whatever error led to this particular circumstance. After all, they arguably dealt successfully with far more than their share of future political, economic, and military contingencies than anyone could have ever expected of them.
But regardless of all that, we Americans are today stuck in this perpetually polarized political environment, which seems way too prone to lurching from one extreme to another, mostly in response to immense scandals or disasters or uprisings by the populace-- or even to whichever major group can simply outshout/outspend the other most often in our media.
Whenever there's no 'big' events to drive our decisions, we all too often degenerate even further, into politics effectively driven by bribery, and business driven by a greed almost totally bereft of any ethics or long term perspective whatsoever.
I dearly wish we could run our country in a calmer, more objective, and rational manner than this. Our present methods make us (and the world too) far more vulnerable to war, economic turmoil, disasters both natural and unnatural -- and even mass extinction-- than we should be, in an age saturated with dangerous weapons and technologies of all kinds, and soaking in passions and desperation stemming from ignorance, intolerance, and abject poverty.
If you'd like to see some of my own recommendations for how things might be improved, please CLICK HERE.
7-27-02: Apple's currently running a promotional campaign trying to persuade PC users to switch to Macs. But this long term Mac user is switching to PCsI've initiated the next stage in my switchover from Apple Mac products to Microsoft Windows PCs. The Compaq Presario 5151 has joined my personal retinue of machines now. I'm presently transferring files from my iMac to the Compaq, and in general getting more acquainted with Windows style editing.
I'm testing HTML-Kit on the PC as a possible replacement for PageSpinner on the Mac. There's some annoyances involved here, such as the Compaq running Windows98 and an older version of MS Works than my Windows ME HP. The newer Works acts more like MS Word in underlining mis-spelled words as you type, rather than forcing you into a modal spell check box. I must learn new keyboard shortcuts for both applications and OS too.
But there's some new advantages as well-- a much bigger and better quality of free software downloads is now possible, compared to the Mac OS-- and even in some cases Windows ME. For example, I believe there's some free versions of some 3D software I can try in W98 that I couldn't in either of the other two operating systems. The Compaq brings with it a bigger display (17 incher) than my iMac, plus a much better keyboard (it's beige rather than black, so my old eyes can see it better, plus it's more roomy and comfortable to use). The Compaq's also more expandable than the iMac by a good margin-- as well as more modular and easily/cheaply repaired if necessary. Some extra peripheral and software wares came with the Compaq too, which I can pick and choose among for configuration, such as a scanner, printer, camera, CD-RW, etc. A ZIP drive is built-in, as is a slow Ethernet port.
Speaking of Ethernet ports, at the moment this is one of the annoyances involved in the switchover/configuration process. In a nutshell, at the moment I don't have a working Ethernet port on the machine and so will have to work on that, in order to get it connected to the LAN and internet. In the meantime I can download items on my HP and transfer them via ZIP disk for installation on the Compaq, but that's not optimal for many matters.
I'll be writing more on this later.
7-20-02: The glaring bioterror hole in US Homeland security plans UPDATED 7-24-02Schizophrenia, depression, chronic fatigue syndrome, miscarriages, male infertility, Tourette's syndrome, obsessive compulsive disorder, arthritis, heart disease, mad cow disease, Alzheimer's (and other brain-related afflictions), multiple sclerosis (and other types of nerve ailments) and perhaps a large percentage of all known forms of cancer may in fact be capable of spreading through the population in various infectious ways (refer to the original entry for references supporting this statement).
Plus there's all the injuries to others due to accidents, mistakes, or violence stemming in some way from the afflictions listed above, wherever they exist untreated in an individual solely for reasons of lack of insurance. These injuries 'to the rest of us' must also be added to the overall societal costs of not attending to the uninsured.
But there's another factor to consider. Namely, bioterror attacks.
Any nation with a large percentage of its population uninsured health-wise is far more vulnerable to a bioterror attack than those countries with fully insured populations.
Why? Because uninsured folks on average will resist seeing a doctor when they get symptoms (even serious ones) for much longer than the insured. Since such uninsured folks are typically poor, they'll also tend to continue going to work, shopping, and running errands when sick, under circumstances wealthier folks would not. All this delays a nation from being alerted that a bioterror attack has begun, and allows the infection involved to spread much, much further than it otherwise would. Maybe even to you and I. Or to our kids or grandkids.
|
"Their lack of insurance is a known risk to their own health, but it must now also be recognized as a risk to the nation's health,"
-- Dr. Matthew Wynia of the American Medical Association and Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University -- Health experts worry uninsured may spread bioterror germs; The Associated Press/Nando Media /Nando Times; May 30, 2002 Even when a sick uninsured person does seeks help at a US hospital, they tend to receive a lower quality of care and less attention than the insured, both in cases considered routine or as emergencies-- and so a dangerous contagion from an as yet unreported bioterror attack would have that much more opportunity to spread throughout a community. -- Lack of Insurance Hurting Americans' Health: Report By Todd Zwillich; May 21, 2002; Yahoo!/Reuters Health
--Myth challenged: uninsured adults not receiving needed care; 24 OCTOBER 2000; EurekAlert!; US Contact: John Lacey john_lacey@hms.harvard.edu 617-432-0442 Harvard Medical School -- Safety Net Just Isn't There For Health Care Uninsured; [Contact: John Lacey, Judith Montminy] 25-Oct-2000; UniSci Daily -- Many uninsured adults do not receive needed medical care; 24 OCTOBER 2000; US Contact: John Lacey 617-432-0441 Center for the Advancement of Health; Eurekalert! 30 million US workers don't possess health insurance. 40 million total Americans don't have health insurance. -- Study: Uninsured Don't Get Needed Health Care By Ceci Connolly Washington Post; May 22, 2002; Page A03 Many of the those who are themselves uninsured actually pay thousands in taxes which end up paying for the health care of others. -- Harvard Medical School study concludes: 'We pay for national health insurance but don't get it' by Frances M. Beal; July 17, 2002; San Francisco Bay View |
Ironically, Americans already pay enough in taxes to get the universal health care virtually all other developed nations already possess. But we've let our politicians and big business simply pocket huge chunks of it rather than provide us with the services we've paid for. At some point this may become a far bigger scandal than the other schenanigans of US business accounting fraud and government waste. After all, eventually a research study will offer a good idea of how many Americans (both insured and uninsured) are unnecessarily dying or being permanently crippled in some way due to the actions or inactions of our politicians and various others involved.
|
"We pay the world's highest health care taxes, but much of the money is squandered. The wealthy get tax breaks, and HMOs and drug companies pocket billions in profits at the taxpayers' expense."
-- Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard "...politicians claim we can't afford universal coverage. Every other developed nation has national health insurance. We already pay for it, but we don't get it." -- Dr. David Himmelstein, of Physicians for a National Health Program. "Other nations provide comprehensive health care to everyone without spending any more than the amount that we already pay in taxes to fund health care. But in the United States, we keep in place flawed policies that prevent tens of millions from having any health care coverage at all." "We have an abundance of data to show that we can provide truly comprehensive health care benefits for absolutely everyone and actually reduce our total health care costs by adopting a program of universal health insurance." -- Dr. Don McCanne, president of Physicians for a National Health Program -- Harvard Medical School study concludes: 'We pay for national health insurance but don't get it' by Frances M. Beal; July 17, 2002; San Francisco Bay View |
Compared to other countries, Americans are charged too much for just about everything health or medical-related. For example, we typically pay twice as much as other nations do for the same exact drugs. We pay our doctors twice on average what other OECD nations do too. We also pay lots more in administrative costs than most other OECD countries, wherever they use universal health systems compared to our private health care insurance system.
|
-- Health Insurance Premiums; OUTSTANDING STORIES OF THE WEEK; Economic Reporting Review By Dean Baker; July 15, 2002
-- Pills, Profit and the Public Health with Peter Jennings; ABC News Internet Ventures; Bitter Medicine: Pills, Profit and the Public Health aired on ABC, May 29, 2002 at 10 PM ET -- Health Care in a 'Death Cycle' (washingtonpost.com) By David S. Broder; April 17, 2002; Page A15 |
Why should we suffer and pay so much for so little, compared to the citizens of other modern nations? Plus put ourselves at greater risk for bioterror attacks at the same time?
7-20-02: Increasing the vitality, accessibility, profile, and convenience of this site for myself and others (for minimal extra cost and effort)Please click here to see this item.
7-19-02: Are those dark clouds on the horizon a gathering economic and political 'perfect storm'? UPDATEDThe mainstream media has concentrated on the bursting of the speculative telecom/internet bubble, plus the business accounting scandals as being the main drivers of such selling. Very little has been said of other possible sales motivations, such as the uncertainties regarding the US government's own accounting practices (i.e., can budgets and economic stats from the US government be trusted any more than from US business?); increasing unrest in the Middle East; the Bush Administration's constant drumbeat for war with Iraq (despite opposition and/or misgivings from virtually the entire rest of the world, including allies); and the still substantial and ongoing risk of nuclear war between Pakistan and India.
Beyond all the above, long term investors also must be pondering what the backlash to an increasingly unilateral USA throwing its weight around worldwide might be-- could full-fledged trade wars erupt? Might the US find itself engaged in armed conflict not with some dirt poor banana republic or rag tag group of Afghan tribal men, but a force much closer to peer status in technology and training? It's been so long since the US military fought against a truly competent enemy that the results of such a battle wouldn't necessarily be as predictable as many might think. And what course would the present US Administration follow, if a humiliating military defeat appeared imminent? Escalation to nuclear and/or biochemical weapons seems almost a certainty in light of recent Bush Administration pronouncements. Indeed, foreseeing possible failures with conventional arms against such foes may be the reason for the recent change in nuclear use policies.
America's change in official nuclear posture also seems likely to encourage the proliferation of technologies for weapons of mass destruction worldwide, as virtually every nation may now feel the need to possess such items as a tool to fend off excessive US economic and military pressures, and interference with local affairs. Plus, as the US now says it might use its nuclear weapons even against states which have none, being defenseless nuclear-wise would appear to offer fewer benefits than ever for a sovereign state.
Of course, since many smaller nations will find it too expensive to go nuclear, they will often develop much cheaper biological weapons instead, thereby greatly increasing the risk to the whole world of a killer plague escaping from a lab, being stolen by terrorists, or expanding beyond a local war zone to kill millions or even billions of innocents worldwide. Ironically, the large population of folks without health insurance in the US will make America considerably more vulnerable to these runaway plagues than most other developed countries.
An EU increasingly uncomfortable with recent US behavior is seeking to establish its own global positioning system to make it more independent of the US military-wise. The major remnant of our previous superpower opponent, Russia, may be down at the moment, but retains tremendous potential for making a roaring comeback if just a relative few structural problems are resolved. India is very similar to Russia in some respects; it wouldn't necessarily take many structural and policy changes to make for enormous future strides there. Japan is in somewhat similar straits to Russia at the moment, but would have considerably fewer repairs to make, and could start afresh after such reforms with a much stronger financial and industrial base than either Russia or India possesses. China is biding its time and so far making few mistakes as it embraces its own superpower mantle-in-the-making. It's also considering a bid to perhaps free itself of the Microsoft software yoke, and even offer competitive products in this vein worldwide.
Meanwhile, there are things happening in the US and those nations following the US lead in matters like increased surveillance, intelligence, and police powers legislation and business practices, which could lead to widespread technological and economic stagnation in those states. Things like the US government's encouragement of anticompetitive, monopolistic business practices by entities like Microsoft, and the expansion of monopolistic intellectual property powers in general for big business. Entrepreneurship, innovation, and competition cannot help but be reduced by such measures. And so economic growth as well. Items like the USA Patriot Act and related legislation and policy changes which are throwing a thick blanket of censorship and secrecy over a wide swath of public and private issues, making for less accountability in general and more errors of ignorance in design and planning of all sorts of projects and policies, look sure to skew future US policies and economic performance towards the downside of expectations. Increasingly sophisticated quashing of internal dissent by both business and government and a huge growth in widespread surveillance of the population looks to make USA economic and political processes even more inflexible tomorrow than they are today.
The US is also at present throwing huge sums of money into persuading nations like Pakistan and others to go along with various short-term wishlists of the US Administration, as well as on domestic boondoggles like a so-called ballistic missile defense shield-- which won't defend against ballistic missiles. Still more money is being poured into institutions like the NSA, CIA, and FBI so that an additional huge store of documentation of spied upon phone calls, emails, and shopping lists a day can be warehoused with the enormous quantities already being stored away each day. Although these mostly unexamined-in-realtime records likely won't help prevent many terrorist attacks, they will most certainly provide US intelligence and law enforcement agencies with copious information by which to embarrass, discredit, or coerce selected political opponents and dissenters among the US citizenry, as well as silence potential defense witnesses and cause the concealment or destruction of evidence which might exonerate anyone the US government chooses to persecute and imprison for whatever reason. Hopefully such abuses of the US government's new post 9-11-01 powers will not occur-- but past history is not comforting in this regard. Thus, more corruption in US business and government actions-- not less-- would seem virtually guaranteed by the sweeping new government powers now going into place in America.
While a few US business execs and corrupt foreign leaders will get to add another several hundred billion dollars to their personal fortunes from all this-- and it might even add a point or two to US GNP estimates for a few quarters-- at some point the debt hangover would seem sure to lead to a lower valued US dollar, higher inflation and interest rates, and recession (as well as perhaps a substantial rise in unemployment).
If more than a handful of all the items listed above comes about, it could become a 'perfect storm' in economic terms, for the US and any nations emulating its policies (i.e., global depression, market crashes, trade wars, etc.). This potentiality has already been mentioned in various news media sources.
Thus, even if somehow investors can be convinced that US business accounting practices have been cleaned up, and the excesses of the internet/telecom bubble have been completely wrung out of the system, there'll remain gobs and gobs more such stuff to concern them-- if they're paying attention.
Below is just a sampling of recent news reports and US and world opinion relating to all the above.
7-17-02: Timeline fiction getting more plausible all the timeDo-It-Yourself Virus recreated from synthetic DNA Science News Online, July 13, 2002 looks like a good citation for the plausibility of such things.
7-17-02: I personally don't hold out much hope that we can reverse the USA's current slide into a Nazi-style police state anytime soon, but a few brave folks are tryingNo cooperation with the U.S. Stasi Petition (Note: as of 7-24-02 there were some reports that TIPS program plans had been killed. But only time will tell for sure)
Petition for Impeachment Process of George W. Bush Petition
Folks, note that I'm personally of the opinion that President Bush simply doesn't grasp the larger implications of many of the actions his advisors (like Attorney General Ashcroft) urge upon him. His sense of history, the American Constitution, and the inherent dangers to American democracy of concentrating ever more power in the executive office and various domestic security and intelligence agencies, etc., all seem ill-developed. Unfortunately, the quality of his Administration's decisions regarding issues relating to these may thus often be no better than those of his worst advisors.
7-14-02: A possible tally of star-faring civilizations alive at this moment in our galaxy UPDATED 7-24-02A possible tally of star-faring civilizations alive at this moment in our galaxy (the given age spans only started ticking when a particular civilization reached the equivalent of humanity's technology circa 1900 AD):
As many as 4,125 super-advanced civilizations older than 10,000 years each, could have arisen sometime since around 200 million BC, and survived in some form up through today (gamma ray bursters likely killed off most or all possible alien civilizations arising before 200 million BC).
But it'd be pretty much impossible for us to tell if any of them were still around, as they might be indistinguishable from the forces of nature in the cosmos.
Note many of these civilizations may have each converged into something resembling a single super-powerful entity, or handful of same. So rather than 4,125 societies of billions of individuals, there might actually just be 4,125 super-beings of various sorts.
Note that by super-being I don't mean something like 'Superman' out of the comics-- although such entities could get that small if they wished I guess. No, I'd expect that actual beings of this sort would usually be pretty large-- and almost always inconspicuous. A single such entity might look like an immense cloud of gas or dust floating in space. A nebula perhaps. Or they might be a dark, solar system-sized Dyson sphere capable of independent movement across space, and hard to detect but for its small perturbations of gravity in the local vicinity. There's a myriad of forms such beings could take.
These unimaginably ancient races may have originated as either biologicals or the artificial aids of biologicals. The technological prowess of these entities could make them appear god-like to us. These sorts of entities may sometimes migrate either towards the galactic core or out of the galaxy entirely, into intergalactic space. They could also go elsewhere, to realms unattainable to lesser beings.
|
Hundreds of somewhat anomalous clouds of gas (overall "an inhomogenous mixture of different phenomena") in the galactic halo (a huge, mostly empty spherical region surrounding our galaxy) appear to be moving considerably faster than they should. Scientists have yet to fully explain the characteristics of these clouds.
-- Clouds lift on source of fast galactic clouds By Robert Roy Britt, explorezone.com . 11.29.99 |
As some of these old timers fade out of existence or move away for various reasons, they might be replaced in the galaxy by new, younger races reaching this pinnacle from the lower technology classes. This level of beings could accidentally eradicate our whole solar system as easily as we kill single insects by not watching where we walk.
Seven advanced technological civilizations younger than 10,000 years, possibly still somewhat organic in composition, perhaps still recognizable to us as living, physical beings, and able to relate to us in some coherent fashion. In theory we could communicate with or locate such races by various means. Interaction with these beings would be completely unpredictable in consequence.
47 long-lived but struggling civilizations, younger than 10,000 years, likely mostly organic/biological in composition. These peoples would possess superior technologies to our own, and resemble humanity in perhaps too many ways, motivation and behavior-wise, making them likely more dangerous to us than beneficial. In theory we could communicate with or locate such races by various means.
Possible ruins and artifacts distributed about space from as many as 28,000+ 'dead' civilizations, which possessed technological capacities equivalent to somewhere between 1900 AD and 2600 AD humanity's when they collapsed, sometime within the past million years. These relics are pretty much insignificant technology-wise to anyone who already has the means to reach and find them. But there may be some interesting biological, social, and historical aspects to them for scholars. In some cases biological survivors of these races may still exist, but living in primitive conditions equivalent technology-wise to humanity's past, somewhere between one million BC and 1900 AD.
Well, it appears that we could find recognizable relics or remnants of a dead/collapsed alien civilization only some 178 lightyears away.
Approximately 1,506 lightyears away we could run into the nearest struggling alien civilization, typically commanding a volume of space not much larger than their own solar system.
Still further away, at some 2,840 lightyears distant, would be the central world of the nearest rich and powerful technologically advanced civilization, possibly exploiting dozens of solar systems, and perhaps even possessing some form of faster-than-light transport or communications.
These numbers are still subject to change as I work through the piece and all my compiled information (my references will be disclosed with the updated article when it's published). But I personally find the substantial changes in numbers since my last update to be intriguing.
One particular downside of the new estimates: It appears less likely than ever that we might get help from alien intervention if we screw things up too badly on Earth via pollution, nuclear or biological warfare, a mass extinction cascade, or economic ruin.
7-12-02: Dirty bombs: Made with loving care in AmericaWith the hundreds of thousands of such 'dirty' shells stored away for military use throughout the US, it seems the most likely dirty bomb scenario Americans might face is that of our own shells being used against our cities and suburbs (much like our own military anthrax was used in the mailings after 9-11-01). YIKES!
So just how dangerous are the typical US dirty bombs used for tank ammo? Apparently as dangerous as any dirty bomb a terrorist might build of similar size (if not more so).
|
-- Depleted uranium may cause kidney failure "in days" by Rob Edwards; 12 March 02; NewScientist.com news service
-- Uranium weapons health warning By Ania Lichtarowicz; BBC News Online; 12 March, 2002 |
7-11-02: Healthcare and wholistic accounting#1: That using government funds to insure the survival and health of citizens is a net drain on the government budget, and thus on the larger economy itself.
#2: That it's more efficient (read: costs less) to allow private enterprise to manage a large part (if not all) of the health care industry-- plus citizens will get a better quality of service too (read: live longer and healthier than they might with a single payer government system, plus pay less for it).
But where's the evidence supporting these assumptions? I see the assumptions themselves touted frequently, but not any proof of their validity. Rather, the case seems to be quite the opposite. That private enterprise is not necessarily more efficient than government in such matters, and private concerns do not necessarily provide quality of service superior to non-profit institutions.
|
It may be that just as economic growth allows health improvements in a given population, the opposite may also be true: that health improvements themselves can lead to economic growth.
Improvements in health increase productivity and energy on the part of a population, as well as reduce down time. Health improvements boost life expectancy, which may bring with it a greater demand for education-- since the longer the lifespan the more useful an education can be. More education leads to more productivity and higher incomes. Longer lifespans also make for increased investment, since people must plan for retirement. This expanding investment pool itself allows for more economic growth in a nation-- as well as further improvements in health... -- Healthy nations more likely to become wealthy, Reuters Health/Yahoo! Health Headlines, February 17 2000 The world's healthiest people are the Japanese, while France appears to possess the best health care system overall. The United States spends more per person on health care every year than any of the other 190 countries in the study, yet ranks only 37th in terms of health care quality. The World Health Organization studied health care quality and cost in 191 countries worldwide, announcing their conclusions around mid-2000 AD. Among them were these items of note: WHO's study focused primarily upon the cost-effectiveness of each nation's health care, compared to all others. Important factors included the health of a country's native population relative to others, the treatment of the nation's minorities and poor, and how well a country's public health system does at preventing sickness in the first place. The people of Japan were judged to be the most healthy population overall, living on average 4.5 years more in good health during their lifespan than Americans. Japan spends an average of $1,759 per person in health care. France was judged to possess the best health care system overall, with Italy coming in second. The French live on average three more years in good health than Americans. France spends an annual average of $2,125 per person on health care. Japan, Singapore, and Spain ranked among the top ten best health care systems in the world. Britain and Canada, which offer a free national health service and a widely acclaimed system respectively, came in 18th and 30th on the scorecard. The United States came in 37th in ranking, despite spending more per person on health care every year than any of the other 190 countries in the study ($3,724). Professionals commenting on the study pointed out that Italy probably benefits from the advantages of the so-called Mediterranean diet, which includes substantial amounts of olive oil, known to help maintain good health. They also said the USA was good in the area of expensive, high end health care-- it's in the realm of low cost prevention that it does poorly, compared to some of those countries scoring higher on the list. Other observations were that government-run health insurance isn't necessary to have a good system, according to the study. Some nations perform well with combinations of public and private programs. -- Controversial study finds France has world's best health-care system By LAURAN NEERGAARD, Associated Press, June 20, 2000, http://www.nandotimes.com The total healthcare monies spent in the US annually per person around 2000 amounted to $4,187, by one measure. By contrast, Costa Rica spent only $226. The US also enjoyed twice as many doctors per person as Costa Rica. Some results of this vast resource disparity include higher life expectancies at birth for Costa Rican men than US men-- with expectancies for women just a bit less in Costa Rica than the US. Why? Perhaps because basic healthcare services focused on prevention are available to most Costa Ricans, and the Costa Rican economic policies allow most everyone sufficient income for food and housing for themselves and their families. The biggest healthcare difference all the extra money spent in the US seems to bring is the addition of a bit more lifespan via advanced technology to old folks near the end of their lives. -- The slowing pace of progress By Phillip J. Longman, US News & World Report, found on or about 12-30-2000 -- For-Profit Hospitals Present Greatest Risk Of Dying; unisci.com -- Despite resources, at-risk infants in US fare no better, researchers find; eurekalert |
7-8-02: Some quotes that should have lots of Americans squirming in their seats-- Hermann Goering, Hitler's chosen successor for ruling Nazi Germany during World War II; quote from the Nuremberg Trials 1945-1946
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt, US Republican president, 1918
| -- http://www.americanpresident.org/kotrain/courses/TR/TR_In_His_Own_Words.htm |
"Preventative war ... I don't believe in such a thing, and frankly I wouldn't even listen seriously to anyone that came in and talked about such a thing."
-- Dwight Eisenhower, US Republican president and Allied military chief in World War II , 1954
| -- A TIME FOR DISSENT IN AMERICA By Richard Reeves; Jun 29, 2002; Yahoo! Op/Ed |
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, one of America's most important founding fathers, 1,759 AD
| page 348, Benjamin Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 15th edition, by John Barlett, Little, Brown, and Company, 1980 |
7-6-02: Mounting pressures for acceleration in the timeline-- and not in a good way UPDATEDRecent events and trends are building a case for substantial American economic malaise gathering strength already, in mid-2002, to bring about surprisingly difficult problems much sooner than anyone expects. The number of items pointing in this direction is so jaw-droppingly large I'm not going to attempt to list them here, but rather just direct you to the various news sources available in my What's New and News & Magazines pages. You'll find plenty there over the weeks and months to come.
I feel pressured to pull the prediction dates for bad news still closer to the present. But hopefully normal fountainheads of American dissent and debate will return to save us from the madness, before we sink too deep, and prevent such near term calamity. I can't believe our collective intelligence as a nation has simply evaporated in the wake of 9-11-01. There must be more to us than simply a knee-jerk, panicky reaction to everything. Over-reacting to events can often lead to much worse consequences than those brought about by the original events themselves. Examples of over-reactions worsening problems rather than solving them abound, from people over-reacting in scary driving situations and thereby causing themselves to lose control of their autos, to people taking drugs in an effort to cope with life's problems and ending up in the hospital or worse. Over-reactions in war result in more innocents being killed, not less. And more in-justice (rather than justice) being served. Remember the internment camps for thousands of innocent Japanese-American citizens in World War II?
Keep in mind that we've really been extraordinarily lucky for decades-- and even the 9-11-01 strike could have been much, much worse than it was. We've never yet had to deal with any individual terrorists of relatively large IQs (except perhaps for the lone Unabomber? And it appears he only got into the game because he was genuinely deranged). And the terrorist organizations we've faced have averaged even lower on the intelligence scale than the individuals.
What happened on 9-11-01 was simply this: After decades of trying all sorts of ways to get our attention, one particular terrorist group from among many simply got very lucky. Keep trying at anything enough times, and eventually you'll just get lucky. Even bin Laden, I'm sure, never dreamed a single WTC tower would pancake all the way to the ground-- much less both of them! His greatest ambition was probably that the top 10-20 floors of the building might tip over and fall to the ground, like the top of a tree being cut off. Note they tried the tree toppling scenario for a WTC building years before, with a bomb in the basement. But bin Laden and his minions would likely have been thrilled at achieving nothing more than causing twin towering infernos, plus putting a hole in the Pentagon and the Capitol building dome (or crashing flight 93 into the Three Mile Island nuclear plant).
In addition to simple luck for the terrorists, we played into their hands by training airline passengers over decades to simply follow terrorist orders during such events, no matter what. And lastly, we had a Presidential Administration at best asleep at the wheel, more intent on censoring the internet, pushing the drug war, building a missile defense system, and criticising Iraq than attending to counter-terrorism initiatives. At worst, the Administration (at minimum) outright encouraged 9-11-01, with their hands off policy in regards to Israel in the preceding months (I remember in the summer of 2001 often thinking that sooner or later that was going to cause immense trouble for someone), and by ordering the FBI to cease their investigations of bin Laden family members, as well as forcing the FBI to back off on other counter-terrorism measures and investigations at the time. Rumsfield even shifted something like $800 million away from counter-terrorism programs to shore up the so-called missile defense system he and Bush want so badly, prior to 9-11-01. The Bush Administration, strongly alerted to likely terrorist strikes using airliners for suicide bombings against US landmarks in the weeks prior to 9-11-01, also neglected to take the sort of extra security measures the Clinton Administration did years before in response to similar threats against the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta. Faced with alerts at least as substantial and detailed as what Clinton had earlier received, Bush took little if any discernible action to protect the public.
But you don't have to take my word for it. I have a growing list of references supporting all this and more at America's crisis in governance, 2001-2003. The sources include just about every major and credible US and international news organization you can name. Check it out.
UPDATE: Debunk the myth of Al Qaeda, FBI: Just 200 hard-core Al-Qaeda, overhyped terror threat, Terror threat overblown, says expert, and West Overestimates al-Qaida's Reach are some of the few articles I've seen pointing out that the US government sure has built up a flimsy (and tiny!) rag tag group of thugs into something resembling a glittering James Bond film villain. What's amazing is that most Americans seem to be swallowing the party line wholesale, even when they see over and over again the dire living conditions these villains were living in (video from Afghanistan caves and "training camps"). These guys might be considered valiant rebels against America in some Arab/Islam enclaves, but they're basically nothing but common murderers in their actions-- little different from our own home-grown killers. And yet we're touting these foreign criminals as some sort of superhuman threat to us all-- just because after decades of repeated attempts, and our own failings in many related matters, the criminals finally struck it lucky and did something that caught our attention. Perhaps the worst thing about all this is how the current US Administration is using this as justification for turning the US into a full-fledged police state. END UPDATE.
7-6-02: New pages on siteAmerica's crisis in governance, 2001-2003
Leads to Recent Medical and Health Related Articles and Like Resources
Stream of web consciousness snapshot log
True love, soul mates, relationships, inspiration, job burnout, depression, and more
7-5-02: Scientists can create 'electronic' black holes. Real black holes may actually be gravastars. Are electronic gravastars possible? What about electronic Q-balls? UPDATED 7-24-02
|
Sources regarding Q-balls include New Scientist (date stamp 8-30-97)
As of early 2002, humanity may have found natural variants of Q-balls or quark stars in space. -- Quark stars point to new matter By Richard Black, 10 April, 2002; BBC News Online -- Two Stars Defy Current TheoriesBy PAUL RECER, Associated Press; April 10 2002, Los Angeles Times -- APOD: 2002 April 14 - RX J185635-375: Candidate Quark Star by Robert Nemiroff and Jerry Bonnell, NASA -- Collapsed Stars May Aid Understanding of Matter; April 15 2002; Los Angeles Times -- Strange Stars Odd features hint at novel matter Science News Online, April 20, 2002; www.sciencenews.org Could there be 'mirror' star systems and life forms among the outer rim of our galaxy which are practically invisible to us? These entities, which seem to resemble Q-balls in some ways, may exist under a set of physical laws somewhat removed from that to which we are accustomed. That is, they still are affected by gravity, yet may not exude photons like normal star systems as they burn (and other differences could exist as well, such as a far faster burn-through of fuel and shorter lifespan overall; most mirror stars may well have burnt out and collapsed into black holes long ago throughout the universe). It appears the maximum stable mass of such a mirror star would be around half that of our own Sun-- and this determination seems to match nicely with the phenomenon known as MACHOS (which is the label applied to these bizzare mirror masses). The mystery of MACHOS may well continue for another century, due to the difficulty involved in resolving the questions they raise. -- "There Could Be Whole Worlds Of Invisible Matter Out There" Author: Hazel Muir New Scientist magazine, issue 13th Feb. 1999 It may be possible to create medicine ball-sized electronic black holes in the lab-- and relatively easy, at that. Such black holes in theory would not pose a danger to ordinary matter or light, but only electrons-- i.e., electrical energy brought near the beast might disappear into it forever, but nothing else. The more familiar matter-eating type of black hole created in the same setting could devour the entire Earth in less than an hour after its birth. -- BBC News | Sci/Tech | The home-made black hole By Dr David Whitehouse, November 16, 1999, http://www.bbc.co.uk/ The traditional notion of a black hole may be wrong. Another explanation for the phenomena may be gravastars. Gravastars could be strange bubbles of very dense matter: shells of cold, dense matter, filled with an exotic type of space. The exotic space would repel any matter falling into the shell, forcing it back into the shell itself. Outside the shell, an enormous gravitational field emanating from it would pull mass in just like a theoretical black hole. So the outer shell would be like a strange porous windshield-- some things might splatter on the outside, while things with greater momentum might get inside for a bit, then bounce back to splatter against the interior side of the shell after all. The shell might be much like a standing wave of gravitational shock energy in space-time, separating the normal space outside from the exotic space inside. The idea of gravastars may pose fewer unsolved mathematical and physical problems than the concept of black holes. The creation of gravastars might also be an explanation for the source of gamma ray bursters. The entire visible universe could possibly be inside one enormous gravastar. One difference between black holes and gravastars would be gravastars would allow the escape of more energy than black holes, as matter fell into them. -- Black holes fact or fiction? by Hazel Muir; 16-Jan-2002; New Scientist; Contact: Claire Bowles; claire.bowles@rbi.co.uk 44-207-331-2751; New Scientist; 19th January 2002 ; RELATED URLS: www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0109035 and http://www.newscientist.com |
And while we're on the subject of black hole derived power sources, it appears a future entrepreneurial opportunity for tapping such sources may exist within the vicinity of our solar system in the form of microscopic black hole remnants left over from the Big Bang. Such power sources may also be available along deep space interstellar exploration routes to power long range probes and other vessels.
|
The very brief (lasting under 100 milliseconds) gamma ray bursts we detect may stem from microscopic-scale black holes exploding throughout space. As of 2001 these made up around 1.4% of the total bursts detected so far, and appeared to maybe be local in origin.
These tiny black holes could be left-over relics from the Big Bang, only now evaporating away into nothingness in gamma ray burst 'pops'. The 'pops' appear to be somewhat concentrated in the Orion arm of our galaxy. There could be 10 billion such micro-holes distributed within every few cubic lightyears of space-- which means one could pass through our solar system any time. If this theory is correct, several of these will detonate-- each with the force of a 100 billion megaton nuclear bomb-- every year in this same volume of space. Fortunately these particular gamma ray sources and their blast effects shouldn't much effect Earth unless they occur very, very close to us. -- Black holes in the neighbourhood by Marcus Chown; 28-Nov-2001; Contact: Claire Bowles claire.bowles@rbi.co.uk 44-207-331-2751; New Scientist issue: 1 December 2001; http://www.newscientist.com |
7-5-02: Could diamonds become an important future fuel for starships?Might a spacecraft be able to sweep up enough diamond grains to run one or more cells during voyages?
If a carbon-fueled craft couldn't get by indefinitely with only the diamond space dust, it might be able to do some refueling at dead or dying white dwarf stars along the way, which may possess an outer shell of solid diamond, and central cores composed of diamond metal.
If they wanted easier and maybe more common refueling stations than dead/dying white dwarf stars, they could try gas giant planets like our own Uranus and Neptune, where diamonds may regularly fall like icy hail does on Earth. Brown dwarfs may also possess such diamond factories.
(You DO realize that diamonds offer so little real world utility, are so common in the universe (and on Earth), and so easily made artificially as to be intrinsically worthless, don't you? Only the power of Madison Avenue advertising and tight artificial control of as many Earthbound diamond sources as possible by the DeBeers virtual monopoly props up prices to ridiculous levels among early 21st century humanity. What price would diamonds go for naturally? Probably about the same as glass marbles. The precise moment a critical mass of consumers figures this out, the diamond market will crash hard, never to recover again. And children everywhere will suddenly discover they have lots of new and pretty baubles to play with)
Of course, you could derive carbon from lots of other substances found on gas giants and other bodies too-- it's just that diamonds would be a highly concentrated source.
|
Carbon from a variety of sources can be converted directly into electricity electrochemically. The other product is a stream of carbon dioxide, which may be put to other technological or biological uses. The carbon fuel is not consumed, but transformed. "Molten lithium, sodium, or potassium carbonate" is another substance utilized in the reaction. The thermodynamic efficiency of this type of fuel cell already exceeded 70% as of mid-2001.
The preferred form of carbon for cell use is fine dust (10 to 1,000-nanometers in diameter). The gas produced by present-day cells might serve as the expendable gas propellent for ion engines. -- S&TR | June 2001 by JOHN COOPER; S&TR | June 2001; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; UCRL-52000-01-6 | July 23, 2001, and other sources Diamond dust may make up 5% of the carbon floating in interstellar space. Individual particles "...measure just a few nanometers across". -- inScight - 7 May 2002: Diamond Grains Waft Among Stars Dying white dwarf stars may at least sometimes develop a thick outer shell of pure, blue-green colored diamond. -- A Star Encased in Diamond by Lee Dye; ABCNEWS.com; April 29, 1998 (found on or about 1-16-2000) White dwarf stars may have cores of diamond metal. -- Scientists Turn Diamond Into A Metal by Charles Seife; 31 MARCH 1999; New Scientist issue 3rd April 1999; Contact: Claire Bowles claire.bowl |