Posts
For those of you thinking that the previous two post contradict each other: They don't.
The article from 11-29-07 deals with intolerant behavior toward another for perceived inequality.
The article from 12-03-07 deals with ... well it's about ... and they were dumb and ...
Okay, so I'm intolerant of stupid acts by otherwise intelligent people. So I'm addressing the outward actions of the people and not making judgments about their inherent inferiority at all.
- - -
Aw, hell! Yeah, you're right they do contradict each other. A little. I did say I was guilty of it, didn't I?
Monday, December 03, 2007
A year inna Tree? Holy CARP!
It's been an entire year now that some U.C. Berkeley students(?) decided to save some trees by climbing into them and refusing to come down. The trees are happy, I'm sure, with all that free fertilizer - coming out of both ends.
"I like this tree, so to save it I'm gonna nail some boards to it." Um.....DUH!
This article is about a year old now as well, but it speaks plainly of the soft-headedness that pervades supposed "right thinking" people. Not the religious right, not the Republican right, heck, not even the right coast. Just, "I'm right and you're wrong. Nyah!"
These children weren't allowed to fall down enough onto concrete from high enough places when they were children. If they had been, maybe we wouldn't be wasting even the minimal amount of pixilated bits I'm producing right now. These are the kind of people that also advocate replacing sand with rubberized flooring in exterior parks. Anyone ever tell them what that material is made from?
Okay, I understand why they want to save the trees. I also understand why Berkeley wants to build a new stadium. Both sides are stump dumb, though. The kids for thinking their opinions mean much, and Berkeley for making such a big deal out of building a structure that has absolutely nothing to do with education, but has everything to do with how many "donations" the school can obtain.
The trees in question are, in fact protected. That's fine. However, one of the responders to the linked article states, "The current oak grove is a complex functioning ecosystem." Really? I don't think the odd squirrel, nesting bird, creeping crud, or a few lichen constitute much of an ecosystem. Especially now that for a year the apes in the trees have scared them all off. I have a couple of questions:
Current building codes of California are extremely strict about the redesign, refit, or rebuilding of any structure that lies directly on, or is sectioned in any way by an inherently active fault. At the time the building they are trying to "fix" was originally built, these codes were not as strict. They can build it, but it's going to cost a whole lot of money. Last figure I can recall was somewhere in the order of half a billion dollars (for those using British measurements, think 10x10^12 not 10x10^9) for studies, permits, consultants and (maybe) some construction. Heck, these are the guys who, in 1995, spent $1.5 million just to put real grass back into the stadium. Just grass. Which gets painted, trudged on, burnt with petroleum products, hammered, ground into mud, and ripped up, for all of which reasons it must be replanted every season. Probably at the same cost.
Hey, Dean, how many books could you buy for $1.5 million? How many students' educations could you completely pay for with $1.5 million?
Both of these groups should never be allowed near money. Heck, neither of these groups can think past their own ideologies enough to see what money is. And these are supposed to be the best and brightest. If they are, we are doomed.
I would have solved this thing in about a week. I'd give them that long to get the heck outta the tree. If they didn't, I wouldn't wait for the courts. Why? Well, ya see, we have this wonderful thing called a, "tranquilizer dart." We also have these things called, "foam mats." (Don't worry, Dean, the kinesthetics department can help you out with the mats. I know it's complicated for you.)
What? Too Violent for you? Think about that the next time you applaud the killing of a mountain lion simply because it's in someone's neighborhood. Or maybe the next time someone vilifies that same mountain lion when it attacks after being cornered by Joe red-neck and his beer-swillin' ape buddies building fires where they shouldn't and wondering what that rustlin' is inna bushes...
"I like this tree, so to save it I'm gonna nail some boards to it." Um.....DUH!
This article is about a year old now as well, but it speaks plainly of the soft-headedness that pervades supposed "right thinking" people. Not the religious right, not the Republican right, heck, not even the right coast. Just, "I'm right and you're wrong. Nyah!"
These children weren't allowed to fall down enough onto concrete from high enough places when they were children. If they had been, maybe we wouldn't be wasting even the minimal amount of pixilated bits I'm producing right now. These are the kind of people that also advocate replacing sand with rubberized flooring in exterior parks. Anyone ever tell them what that material is made from?
Okay, I understand why they want to save the trees. I also understand why Berkeley wants to build a new stadium. Both sides are stump dumb, though. The kids for thinking their opinions mean much, and Berkeley for making such a big deal out of building a structure that has absolutely nothing to do with education, but has everything to do with how many "donations" the school can obtain.
The trees in question are, in fact protected. That's fine. However, one of the responders to the linked article states, "The current oak grove is a complex functioning ecosystem." Really? I don't think the odd squirrel, nesting bird, creeping crud, or a few lichen constitute much of an ecosystem. Especially now that for a year the apes in the trees have scared them all off. I have a couple of questions:
- The law that prohibits the cutting down of live oaks: it applies to the city or the county?
- If either, is the campus properly within either?
Current building codes of California are extremely strict about the redesign, refit, or rebuilding of any structure that lies directly on, or is sectioned in any way by an inherently active fault. At the time the building they are trying to "fix" was originally built, these codes were not as strict. They can build it, but it's going to cost a whole lot of money. Last figure I can recall was somewhere in the order of half a billion dollars (for those using British measurements, think 10x10^12 not 10x10^9) for studies, permits, consultants and (maybe) some construction. Heck, these are the guys who, in 1995, spent $1.5 million just to put real grass back into the stadium. Just grass. Which gets painted, trudged on, burnt with petroleum products, hammered, ground into mud, and ripped up, for all of which reasons it must be replanted every season. Probably at the same cost.
Hey, Dean, how many books could you buy for $1.5 million? How many students' educations could you completely pay for with $1.5 million?
Both of these groups should never be allowed near money. Heck, neither of these groups can think past their own ideologies enough to see what money is. And these are supposed to be the best and brightest. If they are, we are doomed.
I would have solved this thing in about a week. I'd give them that long to get the heck outta the tree. If they didn't, I wouldn't wait for the courts. Why? Well, ya see, we have this wonderful thing called a, "tranquilizer dart." We also have these things called, "foam mats." (Don't worry, Dean, the kinesthetics department can help you out with the mats. I know it's complicated for you.)
- Put foam mats under trees
- Use either a blowgun or a tranquiler rifle (both of which the Department of Fish and Wildlife can loan you) to pick 'em off
- They fall onto mats
- Anyone trying to get in the way gets a dart, too
- You arrest them
- Problem solved.
What? Too Violent for you? Think about that the next time you applaud the killing of a mountain lion simply because it's in someone's neighborhood. Or maybe the next time someone vilifies that same mountain lion when it attacks after being cornered by Joe red-neck and his beer-swillin' ape buddies building fires where they shouldn't and wondering what that rustlin' is inna bushes...
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Ineffective Management - Not overcoming intolerant behavior
This is what I wanted to post on the forum of a very popular family history site. It was in response to a poster who wrote a letter to the CEO of this company and had gone unanswered for more than a month. However, the only thing I was able to post was the last line. Gosh, I wonder what I said.........
For those offended easily: this is not a religion bash, so don't read it that way. It is simply a reminder of mindset and psychological action/inaction.
In the letter did you mention that you were or were not a [church deleted] member? I'm thinking the actual owners [corporate identity of church deleted] of these sites don't really care much about their customers because most are not members. It's the same kind of head-patting "toleration" that was practiced by slave owners and is now getting the Muslim world in trouble.
When a person sets out believing that their religion is the only right and true religion, and that all Others that do not believe as they do are inferior, that person begins treating Others as such.
It can't be helped. It is in the biology of humans to act for the good of the social group to which they belong. Even if there is cooperation among differing social groups, humans easily ignore most complaints made by Others because of their obviously (because they are not of that social group) inferior moral, social, and mental status. Everything that you do for those Others, by ignoring or acting on a complaint or request, is for their benefit. Any complaints about not being heard or understood is therefore due to that Others' inferiority.
The striving of the world for toleration is in direct violation of biology. We are an inherently intolerant species, and we can only overcome that biology by a conscious act of will and only in individual situations. Everyone is guilty of intolerant behavior. I am guilty of it. Everyone I have ever personally known is guilty of it. Anyone who denies ever having done it is also guilty of lying.
The fact that this CEO is refusing to react, in any meaningful way, to people who have, until now, supported him and his company's products through 16 iterations, just highlights the fact that he is doing it.
It's time for the executives and directors of this corporation to overcome biology and answer this man's questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)