h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Speaking of economic stimuli...

I wonder what kinda gas mileage an aircraft carrier gets. I once heard that an F-18 burns more fuel in one short flight than the average car does in a lifetime.

I wonder what part of America's enormous defense budget is going straight to the oil companies to fuel the war machines. And just how much more have they been consuming since 9/11? How much more since the recent call-ups and deployments?

I do know that fuel consumption will have increased dramatically even if they are only sabre-rattling. George could back down and still have a lot more money in the bank.


~jwf~ caught between Iraq and a hard place

I think you'll find upon careful scrutiny that about the only people on the face of the earth who are actually benefitting from any of this are Bush and Company, and that would include Big Oil of course. Which has made me suspect recently that the whole pretext has been and is being orchestrated by Bush and Company.

Nevermind the byzantine intricacies of international finance. There's a monster running amok in the world and it ain't Saddam or Bin Laden or the Taliban. It calls Texas home and I think it just managed to blow up the space shuttle, because somehow I don't think a Stinger missile, even in the hands of an Islamic fundamentalist zealot, carries that high.

Forgive me if this seems petty and irrelevant, but I would like to comment on Analiese's use of the phrase 'byzantine intricacies'.

First let's agree that we all know what the word means. The last couple of meanings listed below are typical of its most common current usage.

From dictionary.com:

" Byz·an·tine: ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bzn-tn, -tn, b-zntn) adj.

Of or relating to the ancient city of Byzantium.
Of or relating to the Byzantine Empire.
Of or belonging to the style of architecture developed from the fifth century A.D. in the Byzantine Empire, characterized especially by a central dome resting on a cube formed by four round arches and their pendentives and by the extensive use of surface decoration, especially veined marble panels, low relief carving, and colored glass mosaics.
Of the painting and decorative style developed in the Byzantine Empire, characterized by formality of design, frontal stylized presentation of figures, rich use of color, especially gold, and generally religious subject matter.
Of the Eastern Orthodox Church or the rites performed in it.
Of a Uniat church that maintains the worship of the Eastern Orthodox Church or the rites performed in it.
Of, relating to, or characterized by intrigue; scheming or devious: “a fine hand for Byzantine deals and cozy arrangements” (New York).
Highly complicated; intricate and involved: a bill to simplify the byzantine tax structure. "

There are several negative aspects implied by the term. It is more and more becoming a perjorative. And I have the feeling Ana meant us to think in those terms when she used the word. I'm sure if they were any Byzantine's among us they would protest most strongly. And an army of political correctors would chime in admonishing Ana for her racist remark.

I tease somewhat, but as the word now carries a lot of negative baggage, its use (to me) is much like 'Jerry built' or 'Indian giver' or any of a number of racist and ethnic slurs I shall refrain from mentioning. I would never ask anyone to refrain from using them; no, I could never suppress expression.

I only ask that we open our minds and hearts a little and not be so quick to judge others who may use such expressions, since they may not really know the source or the background of such phrases and intend no offense.

The whole misconception of 'indian giver' for example is a failure by white men to understand any 'property values' or 'property rights' other than their own need to possess and hang on to things, even what they do not hold dear or have any use for, denying anyone else its use or pleasures, so long as it is possessed.

~jwf~

Oh, come on, Mr. Fulton. That's a little thin, don't you think?

I used "byzantine" for the same reason that the term became perjorative in the first place. Because it would appeal to the grand prejudice of Western Civilization that as you move east, perfection rapidly decays into perfidy.

There's actually no practical reason to suppose the term roman shouldn't be just as perjorative as byzantine. Because there's no reason to presume they substantially changed their ways just because they moved the capital to the Dardanelles from the banks of Tiber.

Yet, "The roman intricacies of international finance," just doesn't have the same punch does it? Romans are always thought to exemplify strong character and probity, but those dastardly Greeks? Now, that's the pernicious Oriental influence again isn't it?

So instead of trying to cast this into some sort of pointless politically correct light, answering objections that haven't even been raised and probably wouldn't be if you hadn't brought it up, why not examine the word's perjorative connotation in the light of the present discussion in which a whole segment of world culture is cast in a perjorative light by the American government? And try making note of their using the same old worn out prejudices that have plagued us since the Athenians sent Xerxes fleeing back to Persepolis?

which you probably suspected anyway, so just go here,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A953796?s_fromedit=1

if you want and see what else I had to say on the subject. That's not all but it'll probably keep you gritting your teeth for a full 15 minutes, which will probably give your orthodontist hives.

>> ..answering objections that haven't even been raised and probably wouldn't be if you hadn't brought it up..<<

Fair enough. But I did preface it all with 'forgive me' and later on I said I was 'teasing'. But if the shoe don't fit, Cinderella, so be it. I prefer barefooted women, anyway.

On the other hand it did give me a chance to introduce the phrase 'indian giver' which I hoped 'someone' might address in an informative way. By offering everyone a chance to ventilate on that one, I hoped to guage just how offensive it might really be as well as confirm my understanding of its cultural origins.

Unlike the dumb Persians I don't always come forward along the narrowest mountain passages, preferring a broader tactical approach.

~jwf~

The Persians weren't dumb, Mr. Fulton. They quickly took advantage of the broad tactical approach when they became aware it. That's something Leonidas had anticipated too, but his Phocian allies just couldn't execute the play when they needed too.

I hope I didn't come off as too critical of your intentions. They weren't exactly clear in the context after all.

As for "indian giver", that's kind of laughable when you consider it applies accurately only in the context of a trade where the white man fails to fulfill his end then complains when the indian takes back what he in good faith rendered to the white man as part of the trade.

That frequently happens. The MAN makes promises but fails to pay his bills then vilifies the collectors when they show up to repossess his toys. It never seems to be his fault does it?

In its current usage therefore it properly should be termed "white man giver". That ought to stir up the hornets nest don't you think?

Since we're sort of on the subject of international finance, it might be worth noting how this actually works.

There are whole classes of people in the developed countries who produce absolutely nothing for their provisioning. Everything they need or want to survive, they buy. And since you can only push the old credit card limit so far, it's important that prices be controlled to some extent.

So in the Third World both, outside and inside the developed countries, there are classes of people who actually work for a living, actually produce something for their sustenance, but they are compelled to share a subtantial portion of it with the people who don't work for a living. This is because they either labor on big agribusiness farms, usually 2500 acres or more, or they try to get by on their own little plots, usually five acres or less when averaged worldwide.

In the latter case, getting by isn't usually feasible. They have to render up more to Caesar than they can ever produce, so inevitably they either starve or they end up working somebody else's land for subsistance wages.

In this way, the people in the developed world can enjoy all kinds of produce out of season and winter, which is usually a lean time for the rest of the inhabitants of the natural world, is a time of feasting and obesity in the developed world.

In fact, I read recently that a local police department is having trouble finding recruits in good enough physical shape to pass a very easy physical agility test involving running a mile and a half in 15 minutes and doing like 27 pushups or situps in a minute. This shouldn't be hard folks, but apparently it is for nearly half the potential recruits. They've even started trying to recruit out of Baly's Gym thinking the buffboys can be convinced that police work is more satisfying than selling airtime for cellphones.

Many of the physical ailments, such as heart disease, in the developed nations can probably be attributed to this sorry lack of physical conditioning brought on by a sedentary lifestyle allowed by an economic system that allows a few people to survive providing meager allowances to the many real laborers. Fortunately those laborers proliferate like bunnies so there's never a shortage, unless aids or ebola get the upperhand as the bubonic plague did in the 14th century.

So the leisure class, supported by credit, sends a meager allowance of funny money to the laboring classes in return for the basic necessities of life and among themselves concentrate on producing luxury items for the consumption of the really wealthy people. This is known as trickle down economics I think.

The debts mount up though. Currently the consumer debt in the United States is just shy of 40 billion dollars. That doesn't include all the obligations imposed by the government for such things as "defense" (hah hah), indigent health care, welfare, agricultural price supports, etc., etc.. This debt, as long as the interest is paid promptly, can be deferred indefinitely unless somebody actually needs the wealth it represents, then there's a big panic, because of course the wealth ain't there.

The bottom line is you'll probably do better playing in a casino. They let a few people win occasionally just to keep the suckers coming back. It's pretty much the same in the land of opportunity, but I think the odds are little worse.

It was my understanding that it came from cultural practices that were in many ways more socialistic than the white man's sense of property and possession.

I realise that natives too had 'personal possessions', but that need, convenience and practical usage were considered more important in regard to most things other than the most 'personal' or 'sacred' objects.

In other words, most tools, shelter and food were considered available to those who required them, when required. If it snows (to pick an odd example) the first shovel that came to hand would be the one to use, whether it was yours, mine or someone else's.

This interpretation was told me by my maternal grandmother and I was scolded for thinking that 'indian giver' meant that indians were thieves or went back on their word. Rather, they considered usage and need as the primary reasons for 'possession' and could not understand why white men got angry if they 'borrowed' things back, especially things that were not being used or appreciated.

I should tell you I always suspected my granny was a half-breed, but no one in the family ever spoke of this.

peace
~jwf~

On further thought (funny how many old ideas are evaporating from my mind) it might refer to the claims of the Mississippi tribes that they had not signed away all their land in 1804, when white men under "Indiana" Governor William Henry Harrison got a bunch of them drunk and asked them to sell an area equal to the six or seven of the states thru which that great river flows in exchange for a few bottles of whisky and a promise of $1,000.

"Here, for the first time, I touched the goose quill to the treaty-not knowing, however, that, by that act, I consented to give away my village. Had that been explained to me, I should have opposed it, and never would have signed their treaty ..." - Black Hawk, Autobiography

Once the legitimate chiefs got wind of this they of course quite rightly claimed they had made no such deal; that those who had been there were not authourised to make such a deal. The whites of course had the 'marks' of a few braves on paper and the empty bottles to prove they had been paid, but settlers were still just trickling in until well after the war of 1812 (when Black Hawk fought with Tecumseh on the British side) and it wasn't until 1832 that the issue was pressed.

The result was a series of Mississippi Indian Wars or 'clearances' including the 1832 Black Hawk War which resulted in genocide and removals. The last of the Mississppi Indians were displaced by the much lamented trail-of-tears march of 1838 when the Cherokee were removed from Georgia under direct order from President Jackson who was defying a US Supreme Court judgement that they be allowed to stay.

~jwf~

I'm not saying your granny was wrong. There are plenty of instances where she would be entirely correct, but it depends.

In the east where there's usually a shortage of nothing, it might be exactly as she said, but in the west, in the desert, where everything's kind of scarce, you asked first. You asked if you could camp next to the band that usually inhabited the region and harvested its bounty.

They would be known by their eating habits and you would be welcome most of the time because being isolated much of the year, they would welcome your company if nothing else. But if you stayed on you would be expected to follow their rules and listen to their headmen. And you would also be expected to provide for your own sustenance and not be "borrowing" somebody else's baskets of seeds and or roots all the time.

Even so, the degree of selfishness was much less than exhibited by the immigrants.

Those people moved in, took over, and pushed everybody and everything else out. That's how they operated, so when they'd hire the men to hoe their corn, the men would take the hoes home with them, sort of compensation that didn't even come close to covering what had been taken from them. Then the farmer would have to go to the hovels and collect his hoes periodically. Or keep hiring the same hands.

Consequently, the indians knew how to share alright. They also knew what was or wasn't personal property and personal property was and is still respected. But property rights should never take precedence over human rights. Whatever I may make out of the things I find on the earth, ultimately the earth created those things. I'm just using them and like me they'll go back to the earth by and by.

Well those drunken sales parties were really at the root of a lot of misunderstandings. The art of the deal, right?

Well, that's called flim flam or con or fraud or worse if you do it to white people. The state attorney general looks into the matter and concerned investigative reporters flood the media outlets with warnings or caveats or whatever.

The problem arises from people selling what they didn't own and people buying from people they sometimes knew didn't own anything, but they did it anyway just to get a pretext for calling in the coercive power of the government if things got too combative, which they usually did.

It's easy to sell somebody else's stuff and collect a commission aka bribe, especially if you don't figure they'll ever notice. Indians have always had their share of opportunists who would allow themselves to get suckered into that game.

But that still doesn't make it right. In practically every con game on record the victim's greed has contributed to the scheme's success, but that doesn't make the operation any less illegal or immoral, especially when it's committed against white people.

if the iss is shut down we have to suspect and work out more, right?

such melodic songs the choir sings ... to itself ... on just why it is so in the world of today.

the day is too lovely to be under the spell of the one eyed demideamon.

be well.

If I see it as a war of wizards, would that make sense to a muggle?

Just a couple of facts as I am in no condition to formulate entire concepts. The Dow Jones lost about 1000 pts in 14 days. The free market system hates a war, especially when it is it's own nation that is the aggressor. Really tough on the export market.
The other fact is actually heresay and may be wildly innaccurate. The estimate on how much mobilizing our war machine each day while it is not engaged in combat is $294 million. That's a lot of gas money.

Wait until they find out there's no money to pay the troops. What they'll be using to pay the troops will probably become more worthless than it is already.

after the sitzkrieg comes 40 acres and a mule or maybe just a cupla handfulls a salt...!

Yes, the salt seems more likely, although they might have to substitute a substitute for people on low sodium diets.

who be they?

They be the people passing out the salt substitute of course.