Alex Schneider takes a moment's notice from the heaving windward rail as 70 years old Alraune thrashes up the first leg of a race at the XI Veteranen Regatta, Laboe, Germany, August 1999. Most of the 250 classics from the north that took part were leaving harbour for their last race of the year. Among them was the Giles/Five 12-Metre Flica II having arrived from the Mediterranean.
A rough sea confronts us, darkly reflecting the low clouds that have rolled in from the north. Under a grey sky, in the pale morning light, we are treated to a cold and fierce north-easterly wind that turns the water white at times.
Proud, stirring waves jump at us and get split beneath the forefoot. The bow lowers into the rushing dark green to lift up again for the next forward thrust. I feel a wet smack on my neck: "Hold on to the deck - the battle is on!"
The elements are awake and Alraune is in her element as she carries us onwards to the first mark, her sails tensed to the gusty wind. Another wave hits the bow, scattering into jets of spray over the deck. Although the water is surprisingly warm, fingerns work slowly, numb with cold. But you keep your wits about you, washed clear and alert.
The vagueness of morning falls from us as soon as we realize our boat's vigor today, offering us a chance to dash along in front positions. The groove is found quickly at 8-9 knots. Soon our green crew sweaters cling to our bodies, limp and soaked. I glance back and notice some crew already slipping into their oilskins. I wait for a chance to reach down for mine, only if the thrill of speed allows for a second.
Now in full motion, we feel our quest is clear, all of us bound to the same emotion, clutching to the same craft, the hull being heeled by the forceful genoa, with the leeward side awash already.
"All crew up to windward!"
Back on the little bronze pedestal the sheet is being trimmed in anticipation of an approaching puff. It passes: a hard sweeping blow. In the cockpit they are deciding whether to shorten sail; the jib alone would do better now. But the first mark is not far off, so we take our chance with the genoa despite the increasing obligation to pay off to avoid stalling - until the next puff hits. The siren cry of the only female crew aboard, always aroused in extreme situations, makes us move: "Let's reduce canvas!"
Two men drag themselves forward; a third is already at the halyard. I involuntarily slide down the deck but pull myself back up through the spray to reach the forestay. As sheet and halyard are paid out six hands leap and struggle to gather. First the sail pops open then falls quickly until it has to be hauled down the last few metres. For a moment the overpower that had dominated is reduced to a vacuum as it apparently takes a long time until the jib sets and draws.
Leaving the lashed bundle of sail I catch first sight of those who had maintained way on during the change of sails. "Good going," our helmsman's grin indicates. A quick survey of our position in the dispersed fleet shows: many behind, less in front.
]]> The bay is vibrating under the slicing keels, vibrating mainly in adoration for the heavy load of history and inspiration those yachts carry. A puzzle of large and small, old and earlier designs. We are crewing a prototype, Alraune, the first of its type ever.From shore it must seem both pleasurable and somehow rather surrealistic to watch this play of protagonists from the past in such a lively setting of wind and water, but no pleasure is comparable to being amidst the action, right here and now, on the wet deck while racing.
Every neck is stretched further, and every eye strained wider now. Across the bay to seaward the mark grows more distinct, more sharply defined. Our effort's goal is in sight.
The clouds thicken and curdle to the southward while pouring out showers now and then. The wind holds steady, dashing the bay while we plough our way through, spray constantly stinging the face.
The crew is different today, motivated and more flexible in the company of a seafarer aboard who has known Alraune since childhood. The original good times seem present with him. You see the light of joy glimmering in the corners of his eyes while tobacco smoke fumes from the side of his mouth. Occasionally he glances beyond the main to the jib to assure himself it's pulling well. On an inspection amidships he moves carefully, almost unnoticed. You wouldn't imagine an old bone like him daring to crawl about a small ship in these conditions. One hand always reaches up to his chin, for the pipe. His other had touches this and that detail before suggesting better trim on the jib.
His experience is not read easily, as from an open book, and his speaking voice is low. But without doubt he poses the guidelines today, he carries the code; and his son is the executive power, acting quickly, swiftly, trimming in time, synchronising sail area to wind. Indeed we climb up on our course; Alraune is striving hard, rising and falling in the approaching waves, somehow succeeding in finding a balance between the rough sea and her tender motion.
Rounding the mark a quarter of the course is over. But whereas this calculation refers to navigation, on deck every moment is accomplished; they come and go with the waves. The mark rounding means a change of rhythm. Now the waves carry us on pulsing beats of strike and withdrawal, strike and withdrawal.
Anew we haul up and go for the next mark.
]]>Did Bill Gates maybe lie a little bit in his closing statement at TedTalks, which was an echo of his opening statement? Didn't he lie, because he denied the world a potential to battle deseases with sufficient effort, and to provide a desirable level of education to its children?
Well no he didn't lie, because he acknowledged upfront that he is optimistic, because the world without him has achieved amazing things: a strong reduction in child mortality, and an increase in the average lifespan.
Well he did lie, because here is an accomplished man, a man who emerged from the private sector, who did more for the world than any charity could claim, who competed in exchange for wealth, and who now continues to compete in exchange for wealth. The difference between the wealth he now pursues, and the wealth he amassed, is that the latter is a moral stature expressing his value to the world. The businessman Gates is the cause enabling him to be the holier-than-thou Gates. His cause is not selfless, but an expression of his success.
That's why I think he lies when he claims that his ability cannot be found in the private sector. His own was found there! He counts himself among the creed of brilliant minds, not among the marketplace that rewarded his brilliance. His own action, in his words, is not the result of the system that allowed his brilliance to emerge. Read his statements and judge for yourself:
Opening statement:
There are some very important problems that don't get worked on naturally, that is, the market does not drive the scientists, the communicators, the thinkers, the governments, to do the right things. And only by paying attention to these things, and by having brilliant people who care, and draw other people in, can we make as much progress as we need to.]]> Closing statement:
I'm optimistic, I think people are beginning to recognize how important this is and it really can make a difference for millions of lives if we get it right. Well, I only have time to frame those 2 problems. There are a lot more problems like that.... The skill sets required to tackle these things are very broad. The system doesn't naturally make it happen. Governments don't naturally pick these things in the right way. The private sector doesn't naturally put its resources into these things. So it's going to take brilliant people like you to study these things, get other people involved, and your helping to come up with solutions.
His words remind me of the concept of negative externalities. Yes, there are important things in life undersupplied by the market, but he himself is living proof that that must not be the case! He himself, the product of the marketplace, is naturally tackling a problem he denies others the ability to tackle. The brilliant people he wants to encourage cannot be brilliant unless their shining light is framed by the night sky of the marketplace. His mind made him brilliant not without the freedom of the American dream. The private sector does tackle important problems - naturally.
Is Bill Gates doing the right thing for the wrong reason? No, but he is not above the market, he is rooted in it.
]]>Well no, you wouldn't. Why make such a compromise? Why chop your brain into a fusillade of verse that only poets would normally wrestle with by choice? It's an art of speech you say. That I tell myself too, but the cause for it is unsettling: Twitter is plumage. The handicap of twittering, as compared to superior tools for chat, is accepted willingly in order to belong to the world.
Twitter is wonderful in a pre-chat, or loose-chat mode, but once your brain demands more, where do you go? Well, you stay, chopping your brain, grinding along.
At first, a limit of 140 characters elicits a mode of utterance otherwise muted, and therefore makes it easy to belong to the world. A reply tweet is less invasive, less bulky, than posting a blog comment (psychologically, not technically). Twitter is neutral space, where contact can be made as lightly as brushing past somebody on the street.
But then, once a chat develops, it is held bondage, bizarrely stuttering forward, in a motion that can only be familiar to people used to stop-and-go driving. The mode of exchange changes abruptly, as your brain squeezes through tiny blotches of space. This is your plumage, your art of mainfesting existence, your demonstration of worth, your brain hack. The more you surrender to the stanza, the more you can apparently afford to be wasteful with your time.
I'm talking about incessant twittering. There are people spreading their mind over hundreds of tweets to do what?! To splice into the flow the spit of their minds, wholeheartedly. Twitter is great for blobs of thought and a few repercussions, but for chat? Isn't Twitter a bit ugly for chat - ugly for your brain, to be more precise?
No, it's the handicap we love; the irresistable pull of boasting a staccato of tweets, for the sake of it, and the esthetic of it. If you can afford to blitz your mind over and over to pounce on the air raid of voices, you must be the man! Full lips, tight skin, and clear eyes could be your reward.
]]> As your voice ripples through the concert hall of human awareness, being slavish is a cost you can afford. You're the man. Once you start breaking your thoughts down into one or more tweets, you are giving up reason in favor of plumage. You're slavish, I mean, cool.A limit of 140 characters means there is more you can say, because you don't have to say much at one time. An exchange is all right, but the form makes me pensive. When two or more people circle a topic, they should have the freedom to jump out of the flow and onto the tarmac of unfettered talk. On a cocktail party, there should be rooms for retreat where dialogues can unwind.
We do have the freedom to jump, but organizing that action takes effort. Applications that allow you to jump out of the flow into superior forms of chat - do they exist? Will they be made?
Not that I am talkative, but I think an option to trigger a group chat on Skype (for example), where brains are permitted more leeway, could be useful. If Twitter would allow that option, I could then maybe send, not an @reply, but mark a tweet to indicate that I'm interested to expand on a particular topic with a different tool/software.
Should you make a fortune with this idea, cut me in.
]]>High salaries are simply high. This is simply a fact, and what others think about it should not matter, unless you think that somebody should rule over our salaries. Do you? Do you want the government, or anybody else to legislate salary caps? Based on what rule would you decide what an acceptable salary is? Based on justice? Ok. Then tell me, what is more justified than giving you the freedom to negotiate your salary and granting others the same freedom? What is acceptable to you must not be acceptable to others. Maybe you are willing to work for 1.000,00 USD a month, because nobody really needs more than that to survive, right? Right! Why not forbid salaries higher than 1.000,00 USD then, right? Right! Everybody will continue working as though they could earn more, right? Right, go on deceiving yourself!
The only acceptable rule is your choice, made for none other than yourself.
Why do people pay 0,99 USD for fart apps. Isn't that obscene and unfair? Why don't you give that little money to charity instead? Because you want that fart app!
]]>Interessant ist auch die Meinung von Marco Nink, Strategic Consultant bei Gallup Deutschland:
Vielmehr sind die Ursachen für den relativ geringen Anteil emotional hoch gebundener Arbeitnehmer in Deutschland hausgemacht und gehen auf Defizite in der Personalführung zurück.
Aha, die Personalführung ist also dafür verantwortlich, dass Menschen einer Beschäftigung nachgehen die sie glücklich macht? Wofür ist dann der Mensch verantwortlich? Diejenigen die erwarten, dass andere für sie zu sorgen haben, sind Möchtegern-Tyrannen. Wer nicht selber für sich sorgen will oder kann, plädiert dafür, ein Recht zu haben andere für sich zu verpflichten. Wo kommt diese Vorstellung her? Abgesehen vom Spiel der Personalführung, gibt es in Deutschland einfach sehr viele indoktrinierte Sozialisten, die sich dessen nicht bewußt sind. Darin liegt der Hauptgrund dafür, dass in den Köpfen deutscher Arbeitnehmer der Arbeitgeber zum Feind gemacht wird. Employee Engagement wird zu Employee retaliation. Das ist ungefähr so, als ob ein Kind seiner Mutter (dem Versorger) in den Bauch tritt.
]]>I say no. What do I mean by reasonably? By that I mean thinking about conventions, in contrast to thinking inside conventions; thinking with logic, instead of culturally and politically conditioned thinking; thinking: why can I be happy, while others can't, and not: Gosh, life is a miracle.
It is not.
The 3 women, all of them mothers with jobs, would be a sensation if delivered to prying, enlightened eyes via webcam. I think they would, because they're so humorous in an apparently good-natured way. Chatter and laughs? Lots. Sneers and smirks? Lots. From recipes to politics, there is nothing they would not talk about. They're a bunch of seasoned, smart, sensible, grinding girls, taking it easy. What alarms me is that below the shield of apparent interest in the world, below the comic, superficial judgements passed on each and everyone, there lurks a horrible mistake. Here is the story of the beggar, as told by the most talkative of the three women:
I passed a beggar on the street. He asked me for some money, saying that he is hungry. I gave him two oranges. The beggar, unthankful and derisive, took the oranges, but would have preferred the money. So I told him (mockingly) that he should give the oranges back, because he obvisouly wasn't as hungry as he had claimed.
The other 2 women joined her by relating their own experiences with beggars. "How dare they be so unthankful?", said one. "There you go, giving your old, worn clothes to charity, thinking that it's right to do good, and all they do is to tear the stuff out of your hands. They're rude," said the other.
]]> I know what they mean. I gave to beggars, thinking that somehow they ought to appreciate it.Hell, no! They don't because there is no reason. How dare you expect a beggar to be thankful for giving him alms? How dare you expect anybody to accept alms willingly? How dare you think that someone has the capacity to be thankful when you highlight his need? Do you really think it's good to engage somebody's need to wrench from him any sort of appreciation? Need provides no basis for expectations.
Somebody in need is unable to be thankful, because what you give is not treat nor reward; because your gesture of pity is merely a stab into an unreflective form of self-worth. Reminding somebody of his plight is not help at all. It only stoops him further into knowing that he is needy, and unable to return value for money.
They'll take what you give, not because they volunteer to deal with you, but only because they're in need of whatever. They won't grant you the illusion that you're merciful. You're not. You will only meet indifference when faking generosity. If you give in order to receive thankfulness, choose people who can earn to be your trading counterpart.
]]>What does Spiegel do with the news?
They talk down on it. With mockery, arrogance, and pretense, the book is presented as something that contradicts the Zeitgeist. Thinking like a journalist for Spiegel, the unquestioned assumption seems to be that failing banks are the result of capitalism. Therefore capitalism must be bad, and a book like this is rather scratchy.
In line with Spiegel's implicit reproach of Merz's book, one would ask: How could someone dare to argue in favor of capitalism, in times like this?! How could someone argue in favor of self-regulating markets, at a time when governments need to step in to clean up the mess? "The holy ghost of unsullied capital" cannot be permitted to undermine our moral duty. At least Friedrich Merz is not a "blind fanatic", according to Spiegel.
WTF! This reasoning is just too plausible, just too upside down - and the reason I can't stand Germany's hypocrisy - the nation of do-gooders. Ha! Greed is to blame, and government is our only hope?! Of course all this is lame and wicked reasoning.
]]> I wonder, when do kids first learn that greed is supposedly bad?One of my economics professors once said that the first step in solving a problem, is to accept the facts. So, what is given? What is our nature? How do markets work? What are the facts?
To analyze the movement of an object, you have to accept gravity as a fact. To analyze the movement of a market, you have to accept greed as a fact.
Greed is an empty argument. Greed is a fact. There is nothing to argue about it. To say that some people are more greedy than others, is to say that some people love life more than others. Should they be prevented? Really? Should we run the economy on indifference instead? Indifference is exactly the result of too much government, of too much socialistic pretense. Greed is the thorn of freedom. Spiegel's irritating article is freedom's enemy.
]]>I couldn't think of a more unwelcome time to highlight human shortcomings with regard to rational thinking.
]]> Amidst the economic turmoil, in a world that French Prime Minister François Fillon describes as "sitting on the edge of an abyss", we shouldn't be told to question our judgement. Cautioning people can only lead them to stay home. By staying home, we're giving politicians our silent consent to interfere with the economy. We shouldn't question our judgement and reign ourselves in, just because humans look for patterns. Minds are beautiful. We should question the information that influences our judgement. Scaremongering politicians should be questioned!If rationality is the goal, then the only useful news would be to encourage individuals, including their illusions, because a free mind is most likely to exhibit good judgement. Negative information causes feelings of waning control, and is used deliberately to manipulate opinion. Not our response to bad news should be questioned, but rather the perceptions of information makers, the politicians, who usher our world away from free markets and toward an evil growth of government.
That's the thing that is bad. Our minds are all right.
]]>The streets are quiet. Nobody raises a voice. Any public display of emotion needs orchestration and supervision – demonstrations, carnival, soccer matches, theatrical performances. I am itching to get out of this trap.
]]>If you're the strongest shepherd, wouldn't it be rational for both you and for all shepherds to let you use up the remaining water? If there are more intelligent children in your family than in the families of the other shepherds, wouldn't that also justify that you use up the water? By giving priority to the strongest shepheard, at least one of them could have a chance of surviving long enough to find a new place to live. The other shepherds would sacrifice their own lifes for the benefit of any life at all, after the waterhole has dried up. In comparison, a sharing agreement seems to be less rational, because the waterhole would dry up faster, everybody would die slowly, and the agreement would not be binding anyways, in the face of death. Ultimately, it might be wise for them to fill up their bottles and to start off into different directions immediately, rather than risking aggression against each other.
Of course, no individual can be expected to give up what he values most: his own life. No individual would have reason to believe that somebody else is definitely more able to find a solution. Hence, rational individualism would compell you to fight for yourself, and to place higher value on your life, the life of your family, and the life of your livestock, before giving any concern to other shepherds. Each shepherd, acting in his own self-interest, would act rationally. Individual rationalism would lead to a struggle for individual advantage. This could play out in the form of violence, displays of authority and oppression, with a randomn winner as the result. It could also play out in the form of sharing agreements, with compromise and inequalities as a result. Anyhow, the prisoner's dilemma precludes a solution that is best for all of them, that is, for the shepherds as a group.
If there is a long-distance runner among them, it would be rational for the group to let that shepherd use up the remaining water, rather than risking extinction of them all. But it would be irrational for any one sheperd to sacrifice his life for that purpose. It would be more rational to risk eventual death in search of a new waterhole.
How would Ayn Rand look at this situation?
Now extend this example to our human species. We don't (yet) have another alternative but to share our planet among us. We are growing at a rate of 80 million people per year. 840 million people are starving. 1,3 billion people live on less than a dollar per day (I bet the number is much higher). Europeans spend 11 million dollars on ice cream per year. That money could be used to save 11 million people from starving to death.
]]> Does more equality serve us on the level of the human population? Isn't this question irrelevant, because we have allowed the state to own the power over the answer—the state that is intervined with our economy? Can't we just seperate politics from our economy—please? How can we know what works, if we let some people, who think who know what's right, rule over our behavior?I think there is nothing inherently good or bad about living next to starving people, if this situation were the sole result of individuals competing with individuals. However, the situation is actually bad, because something we call "government" is involved in managing people and their priorities. Things are being "corrected" all the time and the interventions are justified by expedient explanations. When something goes wrong, the people are blamed and carry the burdon. The question who should get what would be completely irrelevant, if forces were left to themselves on the level of the individuals. It would be irrelevant, because it would be answered every day a million times by millions of interactions between people.
Implementing equality from the top down doesn't serve rational egoism, unless it also serves the individual working for it. People think for themselves and care about the groups they belong to. We don't care about the whole, the other group, and the truth. This means that special interests get a free ride—they do what they want and we elect the officials that support these groups, not the people. Starvation is not failiure, it is a symptom of our human nature. Allowing evil powers to deceive use and to intervene in our economy is the true failiure. Poverty would resolve itself, if individuals were left to seek advantage by working together against each other. Yes, together against each other. That's better than working against each other for a government that does everything but to identify and protect the timeless properties of our human nature, that allow us to prosper together.
]]>This and other videos should be an eye-opener for anybody still under the impression of the official 9/11 story. In 9/11 and the American Empire, members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice reveal the inconsistencies and lies that are part of the war game. Physicist Dr. Steven Jones has proven that all 3 towers were brought down by explosives. Watch his presentation. Even without scientific evidence, any layman, any person, can see with open eyes that the so-called collapse of the towers was rather an implosion, a blasting operation, a controlled demolition, a pulverization. Eye witnesses have reported explosions and even a countdown prior to the WTC7 collapse. Videos such as 911 Mysteries include footage exposing the explosions typical of controlled demolition.
On 9/11, about 3000 people were murdered. In addition, tens of thousands of rescue workers are dying today, from the consequences of being exposed to toxic substances.
As the truth is unfolding, it is clear that the official story is wrong. It is obvious that those responsible for 9/11 are trying to conceal the truth. It is obivous that the government tries to prevent further investigation. Therefore it is up to us to investigate — to the people who have not been directly affected by 9/11, who basically have no incentive to fight themselves against crime and deception. It is completely up to volunteers to break public incredulity and bring important details into awareness:
Beginners' Guide to 9/11 Truth
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
9/11 Truth Movement website
Infowars
Rebuilding America's Defenses — A Summary
911blogger.com
aldeilis.net - Events of 11 September 2001
Radio du Jour interviews with David Ray Griffin
We Are Change
NYC 911 Ballot Initiative
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - Web Ressources
Terrorism and false flag operations
CBC News - 9/11: Truth, Lies And Conspiracy
9/11 Komplott Weblinks
911 Truth Germany
What if flexible pricing had been there on day one, when the first shops appeared on the Internet? Look at my flexible pricing scheme. It was not hard to implement and is easy to administer. I believe this should be the norm for shops on the Internet, rather than the exception. ...(continue reading at the Shufflesome Blog)
]]>Ludwig van Beethoven:
Musik ist höhere Offenbarung als alle Weisheit und Philosophie. Wem meine Musik sich verständlich macht, der muß frei werden von all dem Elend, womit sich die anderen schleppen.
In the context of Moody, I consider a good tag to be one that doesn't get in the way—one that doesn't obfuscate the colorspot I initialy choose. Of all the things that a color, say red, can stand for, it can be either more specific than a word, or more generic, and therefore more flexible. Music is too rich to be subsumable under a single, lowly, word. Yet, the words are essential, as if I wouldn't be able to pinpoint a feeling (or to ensure that one exists) without them. Our emotions are enslaved by our brain.
I feel orange.
]]>