Page 27
E S S A Y S
By the NUMBER
Fig. 1. Credit: www.playbuzz.com
e71
You say, "Ecoli," I say, "Ebola," and some say, "Eboli."
As someone who watches a lot of movies, and owns a lot of movies, I must have at least twenty-plus sci-fi/horror films (some from over 20 years ago) all dealing with dread diseases and plagues overtaking the world in one form or another. In each and every one, the CDC (Center for Disease Control) is shown to be incompetent, unprepared, and lying to the public. That's where the two heroes, handsome Harry and lithesome Linda, come in and save the day.
So does art imitate life, or vice versa? There's also a best-selling book to go along with each of the movies. Notably Dr. Robin Cook's Outbreak comes to mind, which used the little known disease of ebola as the model virus for his "fictional" story.
In a distant future where an ultimate assessment is made of the human race, at the top of the list will be some comment about how, no matter how many times it happened, these strange super-monkeys just never learned to change their ways. They just never "got it" regardless of how many times they stumbled and fell.
No matter the severity of the consequences, they could never stop picking bugs out of each other's fur long enough to see the jaguar crouched on a nearby branch, ready to pounce.
Well, it's time to put down your bananas, boys (and girls) and smell the breath of the beast that is nearly upon you. The tree within which you squat, cares not a wit whether it harbors an arrogant chimp or some ratty rodent scrounging for crumbs.
Then again, that's just my opinion and I could be wrong. Have a nice day.
It's also the opinion, however, of one doctor Gil Mobley, who was interviewed recently after he wrote his own editorial on the back of the hazmat suit he wore. Here's the headline:
'CDC Is Lying': Doc Wears Hazmat Suit to Airport to Protest Handling of Ebola Threat.
Fox News Insider / Oct 02 2014 / As seen on Your World with Neil Cavuto / http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/index.html
Dr. Gil Mobley protested the government’s handling of the Ebola threat by walking through an Atlanta airport in a Hazmat suit which read: CDC is lying.
“The CDC is asleep at the wheel,” Mobley charged today on Your World.
Mobley told Neil Cavuto that he went through international customs last night, and there was no thermal screening. He said he was simply asked whether he had tobacco or alcohol with him. "When a million people are in quarantine in West Africa right now, and 10,000 people leave West Africa a day, it’s just a matter of time before this gets to every third-world country, and it’s going to devour them," he said. "Then," Mobley said, "imported cases could happen weekly, daily or even hourly. There’s no advanced nation in the world that can handle that many clusters,” he said.
A Dallas hospital initially sent Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan home with antibiotics. Mobley said Ebola patients will be sent home more and more as flu season ramps up.
According to Mobley, the CDC is “vastly understating” the Ebola threat. “If you were to ask your local hospital system how many spare, negative pressure rooms they have, they’ll tell you we rarely have negative pressure rooms available. And that speaks volumes about how prepared we really are.”
So does art imitate life, or vice versa? There's also a best-selling book to go along with each of the movies. Notably Dr. Robin Cook's Outbreak comes to mind, which used the little known disease of ebola as the model virus for his "fictional" story.
In a distant future where an ultimate assessment is made of the human race, at the top of the list will be some comment about how, no matter how many times it happened, these strange super-monkeys just never learned to change their ways. They just never "got it" regardless of how many times they stumbled and fell.
No matter the severity of the consequences, they could never stop picking bugs out of each other's fur long enough to see the jaguar crouched on a nearby branch, ready to pounce.
Well, it's time to put down your bananas, boys (and girls) and smell the breath of the beast that is nearly upon you. The tree within which you squat, cares not a wit whether it harbors an arrogant chimp or some ratty rodent scrounging for crumbs.
Then again, that's just my opinion and I could be wrong. Have a nice day.
It's also the opinion, however, of one doctor Gil Mobley, who was interviewed recently after he wrote his own editorial on the back of the hazmat suit he wore. Here's the headline:
'CDC Is Lying': Doc Wears Hazmat Suit to Airport to Protest Handling of Ebola Threat.
Fox News Insider / Oct 02 2014 / As seen on Your World with Neil Cavuto / http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/index.html
Dr. Gil Mobley protested the government’s handling of the Ebola threat by walking through an Atlanta airport in a Hazmat suit which read: CDC is lying.
“The CDC is asleep at the wheel,” Mobley charged today on Your World.
Mobley told Neil Cavuto that he went through international customs last night, and there was no thermal screening. He said he was simply asked whether he had tobacco or alcohol with him. "When a million people are in quarantine in West Africa right now, and 10,000 people leave West Africa a day, it’s just a matter of time before this gets to every third-world country, and it’s going to devour them," he said. "Then," Mobley said, "imported cases could happen weekly, daily or even hourly. There’s no advanced nation in the world that can handle that many clusters,” he said.
A Dallas hospital initially sent Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan home with antibiotics. Mobley said Ebola patients will be sent home more and more as flu season ramps up.
According to Mobley, the CDC is “vastly understating” the Ebola threat. “If you were to ask your local hospital system how many spare, negative pressure rooms they have, they’ll tell you we rarely have negative pressure rooms available. And that speaks volumes about how prepared we really are.”
march of Ebola
walking out of Africa
one virus: one world
haiku by Lindsey Jane / Australia / 2015
Fig. 2. Credit: www.theguardian.com
e72
Smoking Gun:
A Prologue
Note to all Sector Chiefs:
Hey, when was it, exactly, that the America I grew up in, turned sick and is in pretty sad condition nowadays? I've been living under a rock for a long time apparently. Such comments are inspired by the story I just read where Arizona (and many other states) are going after unpaid online cigarette taxes; in some cases, these state tax bills amount to multiple thousands of dollars.
It's a really cool deal for money-hungry states still suffering from the depression -- uh, er, I mean, the recession. The feds declared online cigarette sales illegal in 2012. Then the IRS forced internet companies to turn over the names and addresses of all those who bought online cigarettes. The IRS then gave that info to the states. Excuse me? Where is that in the constitution? I thought there was supposed to be some difference between how the states run their affairs and how the federal government conducts itself. Welcome to a new kind of tyranny. One where the states and the feds are economic bedfellows, and the citizens are fish swimming in the proverbial bucket.
And so much for a "convention of the states" if money is involved. Not a chance. The framers never envisioned the IRS when they wrote Article five of the constitution. That's the section dealing with amendments as such. It's where congress gets a majority of the states to vote on some new rule or regulation, and when approved, it gets added to the constitution as an official amendment. Little known is the fact that Article five also provides for the populace to circumvent congress altogether and have their own convention, independent of Washington D.C. and all its politicians. The founding fathers saw the latter as a way to avoid violence in the streets if and when a president, congress, or both, became tyrannical.
In radio talk-show host Mark Levin's latest book, The Liberty Amendments, he discusses the need for this convention-of-the-states as it's called, whereby many of the ills currently plaguing the country could, in theory, be fixed via a series of amendments put forth by, and approved by, the states themselves. Interestingly , neither the president nor congress would have any control over the situation, and both would be obliged to comply with whatever amendments were passed by 3/4 of the states -- such rectifications becoming actual parts of a "new" constitution.
This essay is more concerned, however, with the hidden consequences (and potential) of what might happen should the states and the federal government collude and conspire together for mutual benefit -- an apparently unforeseen complicity which could preclude, if not nullify altogether, any legal recourses sought by the states alone. In such a scenario, a convention of the states, if organized by deceitful politicians and with the support of a complicit news media, there exists some level of threat -- and danger -- that the constitution could suffer some degree of permanent damage.
Contrary to the typical concerns of those who fear that any convention process -- whether instituted by congress or the states themselves -- could allow detrimental legislation to diminish if not destroy the constitution, it is always assumed that the diversity of ideas and opinions spread among the states, would forever prevent any particularly obnoxious amendment from acquiring the necessary votes by a majority of those same states.
Such a presumption is only true provided that the states in question remain autonomous.
Conservatives possess agendas the same as any radical lib nutcase. Conservatives are adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage, as one example, and polygamy as well. They consider it critical that marriage be defined as a sacred bond between only a man and a woman. Conservatives like to cite the fact that in every state where the people voted on the issue, same-sex marriage was defeated. Given their position, one can't help but ponder whether conservatives, if successful in establishing a convention of the states, might succumb to the temptation to put through some little extra amendment -- which just so happens to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. And maybe a word or two about polygamy.
And then slip in a nice anti-abortion bill, too? Nope. Here's where I side with my conservative brethren. It's critical to remember that 3/4 of the states must agree to an amendment in order for it to pass muster. That's a total of 38 states. Or 43 if you're Obama. The chances of getting 3/4 of the states to approve the insertion of abortion-specific legislation into the actual constitution would seem pretty remote. Even among conservatives.
Note, however, how this differs from the same-sex issue, where it's alleged that in every state where it's been voted upon, it was defeated. To carry this idea to its logical (and not unreasonable) conclusion, the suggestion that 3/4 of the states in a convention would indeed pass an amendment defining marriage once and for all, seems frighteningly reasonable. I say, frightening, because the passage of such an amendment hints at an all-too-real concept whereby any other moralistic, even religious assertion, could find its way into the constitution. All that's necessary is that states glom onto something as fundamental as marriage, in which widespread approval is assured, and whamo -- welcome to the constitution!
For instance, instead of that word, creator, let's set things straight once and for all and call a spade a spade, namely that God is God. Let's see, what else needs fixing that most of the states can agree on? Capital punishment? No, that'll never fly. Child molestation as a capital crime? Maybe. I think I got it: none of this playing God stuff. No messing around trying to create artificial people. Yeah, maybe we can sneak something in about that. I like it. Almost everyone at that convention will jump at the chance to put an end to all this out-of-control genetic mayhem. Especially since the ebola scare and the like -- where do I sign?
It's been said that the libs lost their sense of humor when JFK was murdered. I think maybe we lost our country when Reagan left office. That was, in a way, akin to the death of conservatism, especially when no successor was waiting in the wings, so to speak. Reagan needed another term, times 4 or 5. I honestly believe, even in America, the only reason you and I are having this little chat is because enough folks don't yet stand out as any particular threat, other than disorganized bullshitters. I would say paranoia is probably one of the healthiest conditions to have in the U.S. today.
Be that as it may, I'm still hung up on the cigarette thing. Although we never bought any online ourselves, we know others who did. I didn't Google it, but there has to be a way around the scam of companies turning over all our personal info to the feds -- and they in turn, then handing over that data to the states. Like I said, so much for federalism (the collective of autonomous states) -- it doesn't exit -- not anymore. Mark Levin thinks he (we) can have it both ways. Which is convincing us, on the one hand, that we're living in under a modern tyranny, then on the other, to act as if the feds (or the states) are something upon which the people can still affect change for the better. -- via that Article-five convention of the states affair.
This will seem like a first-year, school-age history lesson to many, but indulge me while I explain that a true democracy makes for a bad form of goverment. It allows for a tyranny of the majority to oppress minorities. Contrast this with Democracy's highly stable and functional offshoot known as a republic. This is where America shines and via its formation as a republic, meaning its union of soverign, individual states -- and limited central government, has grown to be the most advanced country the world has ever known.
Unfortunately, the shine is wearing thin, while rust and mold are eating away from the inside out. States short of money, weighted down with bloated entitlement programs, tax revenues drained by high unemployment, are increasingly turning to the feds for help. All while the central government, possessed of its own agendas for increased growth and an ever greater stranglehold on states' rights, is oh, so eager to accommodate, so ready to please, so anxious to tighten the noose. If the framers are turning over in their graves, it is because their beloved states are becoming little more than extensions of the very government whose largess extends itself in the forms they feared the most -- repression, oppression, and ultimately despotism.
Unless true conservatives can somehow maintain legislative power in a given state, that same state my indeed work in concert with the feds, and be an accomplice in whatever misdeeds suit the purposes of both. This is especially true in those states where liberals exert control. But in Arizona, so-called Republicans control things, yet the state is among the worst offenders. If we imagine a situation whereby liberal democrats were to command a majority of states, consider also the chances of pulling together a convention of the states, as described earlier. Worse yet, in such a scenario, what would prevent liberals from trying their luck with a few amendments here or there?
It may be too late, quite literally. Then again, maybe not. As I see it, the final disposition of the states, based on a series of upcoming elections, may well determine the future of the country. Without the states as willing accomplices, every bit as diabolical as their federal autocrats, the powers of the central government might yet remain stifled and largely impotent.
Thus the real danger to this country lies in the idea that the states will become -- either individually or collectively -- as tyrannical as any centralized government. Especially when given the blessings, assets, and assistance of that government. Arizona, to name only one, by joining forces with the IRS has proven itself as perching only inches away from the distinction between itself and Washington D.C. having evaporated altogether.
States may well become provinces, like in China, where the country is literally all one nation, and where you live makes little difference. The name of your state will be meaningless because it is nothing but an extension of the federal bureaucracy -- a suburb of an all-powerful central government.
Welcome to the Peoples Republic of America.
Hey, when was it, exactly, that the America I grew up in, turned sick and is in pretty sad condition nowadays? I've been living under a rock for a long time apparently. Such comments are inspired by the story I just read where Arizona (and many other states) are going after unpaid online cigarette taxes; in some cases, these state tax bills amount to multiple thousands of dollars.
It's a really cool deal for money-hungry states still suffering from the depression -- uh, er, I mean, the recession. The feds declared online cigarette sales illegal in 2012. Then the IRS forced internet companies to turn over the names and addresses of all those who bought online cigarettes. The IRS then gave that info to the states. Excuse me? Where is that in the constitution? I thought there was supposed to be some difference between how the states run their affairs and how the federal government conducts itself. Welcome to a new kind of tyranny. One where the states and the feds are economic bedfellows, and the citizens are fish swimming in the proverbial bucket.
And so much for a "convention of the states" if money is involved. Not a chance. The framers never envisioned the IRS when they wrote Article five of the constitution. That's the section dealing with amendments as such. It's where congress gets a majority of the states to vote on some new rule or regulation, and when approved, it gets added to the constitution as an official amendment. Little known is the fact that Article five also provides for the populace to circumvent congress altogether and have their own convention, independent of Washington D.C. and all its politicians. The founding fathers saw the latter as a way to avoid violence in the streets if and when a president, congress, or both, became tyrannical.
In radio talk-show host Mark Levin's latest book, The Liberty Amendments, he discusses the need for this convention-of-the-states as it's called, whereby many of the ills currently plaguing the country could, in theory, be fixed via a series of amendments put forth by, and approved by, the states themselves. Interestingly , neither the president nor congress would have any control over the situation, and both would be obliged to comply with whatever amendments were passed by 3/4 of the states -- such rectifications becoming actual parts of a "new" constitution.
This essay is more concerned, however, with the hidden consequences (and potential) of what might happen should the states and the federal government collude and conspire together for mutual benefit -- an apparently unforeseen complicity which could preclude, if not nullify altogether, any legal recourses sought by the states alone. In such a scenario, a convention of the states, if organized by deceitful politicians and with the support of a complicit news media, there exists some level of threat -- and danger -- that the constitution could suffer some degree of permanent damage.
Contrary to the typical concerns of those who fear that any convention process -- whether instituted by congress or the states themselves -- could allow detrimental legislation to diminish if not destroy the constitution, it is always assumed that the diversity of ideas and opinions spread among the states, would forever prevent any particularly obnoxious amendment from acquiring the necessary votes by a majority of those same states.
Such a presumption is only true provided that the states in question remain autonomous.
Conservatives possess agendas the same as any radical lib nutcase. Conservatives are adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage, as one example, and polygamy as well. They consider it critical that marriage be defined as a sacred bond between only a man and a woman. Conservatives like to cite the fact that in every state where the people voted on the issue, same-sex marriage was defeated. Given their position, one can't help but ponder whether conservatives, if successful in establishing a convention of the states, might succumb to the temptation to put through some little extra amendment -- which just so happens to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. And maybe a word or two about polygamy.
And then slip in a nice anti-abortion bill, too? Nope. Here's where I side with my conservative brethren. It's critical to remember that 3/4 of the states must agree to an amendment in order for it to pass muster. That's a total of 38 states. Or 43 if you're Obama. The chances of getting 3/4 of the states to approve the insertion of abortion-specific legislation into the actual constitution would seem pretty remote. Even among conservatives.
Note, however, how this differs from the same-sex issue, where it's alleged that in every state where it's been voted upon, it was defeated. To carry this idea to its logical (and not unreasonable) conclusion, the suggestion that 3/4 of the states in a convention would indeed pass an amendment defining marriage once and for all, seems frighteningly reasonable. I say, frightening, because the passage of such an amendment hints at an all-too-real concept whereby any other moralistic, even religious assertion, could find its way into the constitution. All that's necessary is that states glom onto something as fundamental as marriage, in which widespread approval is assured, and whamo -- welcome to the constitution!
For instance, instead of that word, creator, let's set things straight once and for all and call a spade a spade, namely that God is God. Let's see, what else needs fixing that most of the states can agree on? Capital punishment? No, that'll never fly. Child molestation as a capital crime? Maybe. I think I got it: none of this playing God stuff. No messing around trying to create artificial people. Yeah, maybe we can sneak something in about that. I like it. Almost everyone at that convention will jump at the chance to put an end to all this out-of-control genetic mayhem. Especially since the ebola scare and the like -- where do I sign?
It's been said that the libs lost their sense of humor when JFK was murdered. I think maybe we lost our country when Reagan left office. That was, in a way, akin to the death of conservatism, especially when no successor was waiting in the wings, so to speak. Reagan needed another term, times 4 or 5. I honestly believe, even in America, the only reason you and I are having this little chat is because enough folks don't yet stand out as any particular threat, other than disorganized bullshitters. I would say paranoia is probably one of the healthiest conditions to have in the U.S. today.
Be that as it may, I'm still hung up on the cigarette thing. Although we never bought any online ourselves, we know others who did. I didn't Google it, but there has to be a way around the scam of companies turning over all our personal info to the feds -- and they in turn, then handing over that data to the states. Like I said, so much for federalism (the collective of autonomous states) -- it doesn't exit -- not anymore. Mark Levin thinks he (we) can have it both ways. Which is convincing us, on the one hand, that we're living in under a modern tyranny, then on the other, to act as if the feds (or the states) are something upon which the people can still affect change for the better. -- via that Article-five convention of the states affair.
This will seem like a first-year, school-age history lesson to many, but indulge me while I explain that a true democracy makes for a bad form of goverment. It allows for a tyranny of the majority to oppress minorities. Contrast this with Democracy's highly stable and functional offshoot known as a republic. This is where America shines and via its formation as a republic, meaning its union of soverign, individual states -- and limited central government, has grown to be the most advanced country the world has ever known.
Unfortunately, the shine is wearing thin, while rust and mold are eating away from the inside out. States short of money, weighted down with bloated entitlement programs, tax revenues drained by high unemployment, are increasingly turning to the feds for help. All while the central government, possessed of its own agendas for increased growth and an ever greater stranglehold on states' rights, is oh, so eager to accommodate, so ready to please, so anxious to tighten the noose. If the framers are turning over in their graves, it is because their beloved states are becoming little more than extensions of the very government whose largess extends itself in the forms they feared the most -- repression, oppression, and ultimately despotism.
Unless true conservatives can somehow maintain legislative power in a given state, that same state my indeed work in concert with the feds, and be an accomplice in whatever misdeeds suit the purposes of both. This is especially true in those states where liberals exert control. But in Arizona, so-called Republicans control things, yet the state is among the worst offenders. If we imagine a situation whereby liberal democrats were to command a majority of states, consider also the chances of pulling together a convention of the states, as described earlier. Worse yet, in such a scenario, what would prevent liberals from trying their luck with a few amendments here or there?
It may be too late, quite literally. Then again, maybe not. As I see it, the final disposition of the states, based on a series of upcoming elections, may well determine the future of the country. Without the states as willing accomplices, every bit as diabolical as their federal autocrats, the powers of the central government might yet remain stifled and largely impotent.
Thus the real danger to this country lies in the idea that the states will become -- either individually or collectively -- as tyrannical as any centralized government. Especially when given the blessings, assets, and assistance of that government. Arizona, to name only one, by joining forces with the IRS has proven itself as perching only inches away from the distinction between itself and Washington D.C. having evaporated altogether.
States may well become provinces, like in China, where the country is literally all one nation, and where you live makes little difference. The name of your state will be meaningless because it is nothing but an extension of the federal bureaucracy -- a suburb of an all-powerful central government.
Welcome to the Peoples Republic of America.
Fig.3. Credit: nationsencyclopedia.com
The U.S. Constitution
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
If you click on the button below, you'll be taken to another page on this website where a more detailed explanation is provided (by me) as to the identity of this guy, Mark Levin, and why his books are paraded here. The essay and other materials in question begin near the top of the screen and quickly become self-evident as to what is intended and why. I hope you take a moment (or two) (or three) to review my brief discussion of Article Five of the U.S. Constitution, and the role it could play in the political future of this country.
Everything discussed is aimed especially at those persons who are losing hope or have become discouraged with respect to how we might solve the plethora of problems facing America both today and tomorrow. The message is positive, promising, and ambitious. If you want to start thinking in terms of solutions, and less in regard to how rotten things have gotten, there is light at the bottom of the pit. Now's the time to grab a shovel and start digging for answers.
Everything discussed is aimed especially at those persons who are losing hope or have become discouraged with respect to how we might solve the plethora of problems facing America both today and tomorrow. The message is positive, promising, and ambitious. If you want to start thinking in terms of solutions, and less in regard to how rotten things have gotten, there is light at the bottom of the pit. Now's the time to grab a shovel and start digging for answers.
Books by Mark Levin
|
|
|
|
|
Books by Mark Levin's father, Mark R. Levin
|
|
|
PS: Be sure to take note of Mark's latest best-selling book,
PLUNDER And DECEIT, Big Government's Exploitation Of Young People And The Future.
PLUNDER And DECEIT, Big Government's Exploitation Of Young People And The Future.
Please note the following disclaimer: The use of Dr. Levin's likeness, display of his intellectual properties and the accompanying text written by me, do not imply, nor should they be inferred as either an endorsement or approval of my not-for-profit presentation of his books, this website, and all its content therein.
Fig. 4. 30th President Calvin Coolidge. 1872-1933
Fig. 5. Credit: www.forwallpaper.com
e73
A SMOKING GUN
The U.S. Constitution Under Fire
What are the differences between tyranny imposed by one or more states, versus tyranny born of an oppressive federal government? Or as enforced by widespread collusion throughout the judicial system, including the supreme court?
The question is conditional, as you might imagine. It assumes certain facts to be true, or would be, with respect to a specific issue.
When it came to the Civil War and slavery, with and without terrible decisions by the Court, states were relatively evenly divided according to what they (and their citizens) felt was right, just, and proper.
When it came to the WWII internment of the Japanese, different states were of different minds as to whether it was proper or not. Regardless, the Court sanctified the decision and it was enforced by the feds.
When it came to civil rights, different states were again at war with one another, over what was right, just, and proper. Once again the Court stepped in and trumped what a significant number of individual states wanted for themselves. To keep the peace (and the union together) they went along with the ruling.
When abortion was the issue, different states passed different laws according to how the people voted, whether on a so-called right-to-choose platform, or a pro-life stance based largely on religious and moral objections. The states were themselves relatively evenly split. Instead of allowing these same states their own right-to-choose, the liberal courts and finally the Supreme Court, successfully enforced a nationwide legalization that many to this day still consider immoral.
Texas is among the most recent cases where the restrictions on abortion are finding increasing approval among certain states. If the feds stay out of the matter, we will eventually see a situation where things should probably have existed from the beginning: namely that the states will be somewhat evenly divided among those where abortion is legal, versus those where it is largely if not totally illegal. In such a scenario, travel to and from different states would be the norm for persons seeking relief.
Then came the game changer. When same-sex marriage became an issue, especially under Clinton, I believe, we saw the enacting of DOMA -- a first step at dealing with what, at the time, seemed a temporary issue. DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was an appeasement of sorts, which was welcomed by some states, berated by others, while still other states used the ACT to justify their own positions, both for an against.
So what went wrong? How did this particular issue veer from all others, and threaten to allow states the ability to rule with as equal an iron fist as any other central, totalitarian regime?
"In every state where the people have voted on same sex marriage, DOMA (marriage defined as between a man and a woman) has been endorsed as the ideal relationship, with an overwhelming disapproval of same sex marriage as a legal right."
The above is a paraphrasing of something I've heard said over and over by talk-show hosts Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and every other conservative. It is "their" great rationalization and argument for why both the feds and the Court have no business interfering and overriding what the folks have voted on in straightforward elections. For me, it defies belief how such otherwise great men, with brilliant, analytic minds, could be so short sighted.
So what is so wrong with what all the great conservatives of our age are advocating? Isn't this the same kind of travesty we saw with abortion and the other big, controversial issues of American history? No, it isn't. I think it's very different and deserving of special consideration. Here's why:
Imagine, for the sake of argument, that since every state which has voted on same sex marriage, has voted against it (including California) then it isn't far-fetched to suggest that all the states eventually would, could, or will vote against SSM. Think about that for a moment. Not one state where it's legal. Does that sound right, let alone fair, to you? It sure doesn't to me. It ought to scare the hell out of you. Especially when conservatives use absurd and supercilious "scare tactics" such as how people would then want to marry their dog, proposing such idiocy as a legitimate argument for banning SSM.
In theory, the same argument could be made for abortion. If left to the states, and all the states banned it, then we begin to see a troubling pattern, don't you agree? We see a situation where a central government is no longer a threat if the states themselves, presumably with the fed's approval, begin to exercise absolute power over their citizens. Not individually, by the way, but collectively -- among groups of states, or all the states working together in unison. The framers intended that the federal government and the states maintain an adversarial relationship, and not a good-ol'-boy buddy system of mutual back slapping.
An element of unethical collusion comes into play, where states collude with one another, because the majority of all their citizens feel the same way about a particular issue. Why couldn't we have a "convention of the states", Article-Five style, and make DOMA a permanent part of the constitution itself? Doesn't that idea make your blood run cold? It sure does mine. And since conservatives would, in theory, be in control of such a convention, confirming DOMA (for example) as an amendment, might be a piece of cake. With a very bad taste left in freedom-lovers mouths.
The American system only works when different ideas are allowed to exist among all other ideas. There should never be allowed to exist a tyranny of ideas -- even of morals -- when that morality is defined solely by a simple vote count. And as presently constituted, the most votes win every time, under all conditions, in every state. I believe the old saying about how part of our Republican system is in protecting the minority from the oppression of the majority -- is especially true in this situation.
Once the precedent is set that any idea, whether popular or unpopular, rises and falls solely on the notion that all states either approved or disapproved it, this country faces an enemy on two fronts: both from the feds and the states.
For example, Arizona just colluded with the feds who supplied the state with the names and addresses of private individuals who didn't pay state income tax while shopping online. Information supplied by internet companies, under duress, threats, and otherwise dictatorial intimidation. That didn't stop (Republican) Arizona from taking the info and billing their citizens accordingly. Where in the constitution is that provision? I must have missed it.
So let's get this straight: whenever states need money, and the feds offer it to them, these states can be expected to look the other way constitutionally. Is that about the sum of it? God save us. We lost America some time ago, I'm afraid.
All the more reason, I suppose, for voting in real conservatives in state races, and getting America back, at least as far as the states are concerned. That RINO, Jan Brewer, governor of Arizona, should have told the IRS to go shove it; Arizona wasn't about to take "blood" money begat from personal information obtained using Mafia tactics. What asses she her Republican confederates are. Swear to God, I've got to get out of this chickenshit party. Unless Ted Cruz or a couple of others get in, count me out.
Let me sum up, thanks.
Similar to what Abraham Lincoln told us, that you can't fool all the people all the time, history all tells us that all of the states will never agree with all other states -- on virtually anything. Let alone make themselves vulnerable to either intentional or accidental widespread collusion. Until now. Weren't we just told that in all the states where they voted, they all voted the same way? The painful answer is yes, they did. And all the conservatives think that's something to be proud of. Wake up people! Our system was never designed such that all the states would be virtual clones of one another. Yet on SSM, this would appear to be exactly the case.
Now go to sleep and wonder what other little "annoyances" might cause all the states to join ranks and pass yet another helpful amendment. You know, one they all can agree on. Like no burning of the flag. Or securing certain rights and privileges to undocumented workers -- something those pseudo Republicans are tripping over themselves trying to put into law. Let's just put in the constitution and be done with it. Only takes 38 states. 43 if you're Obama.
We need to be careful when pointing our fingers at who we think the real tyrants are. It's not only later than we think, but our enslavers may be a lot closer than we realize.
The question is conditional, as you might imagine. It assumes certain facts to be true, or would be, with respect to a specific issue.
When it came to the Civil War and slavery, with and without terrible decisions by the Court, states were relatively evenly divided according to what they (and their citizens) felt was right, just, and proper.
When it came to the WWII internment of the Japanese, different states were of different minds as to whether it was proper or not. Regardless, the Court sanctified the decision and it was enforced by the feds.
When it came to civil rights, different states were again at war with one another, over what was right, just, and proper. Once again the Court stepped in and trumped what a significant number of individual states wanted for themselves. To keep the peace (and the union together) they went along with the ruling.
When abortion was the issue, different states passed different laws according to how the people voted, whether on a so-called right-to-choose platform, or a pro-life stance based largely on religious and moral objections. The states were themselves relatively evenly split. Instead of allowing these same states their own right-to-choose, the liberal courts and finally the Supreme Court, successfully enforced a nationwide legalization that many to this day still consider immoral.
Texas is among the most recent cases where the restrictions on abortion are finding increasing approval among certain states. If the feds stay out of the matter, we will eventually see a situation where things should probably have existed from the beginning: namely that the states will be somewhat evenly divided among those where abortion is legal, versus those where it is largely if not totally illegal. In such a scenario, travel to and from different states would be the norm for persons seeking relief.
Then came the game changer. When same-sex marriage became an issue, especially under Clinton, I believe, we saw the enacting of DOMA -- a first step at dealing with what, at the time, seemed a temporary issue. DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was an appeasement of sorts, which was welcomed by some states, berated by others, while still other states used the ACT to justify their own positions, both for an against.
So what went wrong? How did this particular issue veer from all others, and threaten to allow states the ability to rule with as equal an iron fist as any other central, totalitarian regime?
"In every state where the people have voted on same sex marriage, DOMA (marriage defined as between a man and a woman) has been endorsed as the ideal relationship, with an overwhelming disapproval of same sex marriage as a legal right."
The above is a paraphrasing of something I've heard said over and over by talk-show hosts Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and every other conservative. It is "their" great rationalization and argument for why both the feds and the Court have no business interfering and overriding what the folks have voted on in straightforward elections. For me, it defies belief how such otherwise great men, with brilliant, analytic minds, could be so short sighted.
So what is so wrong with what all the great conservatives of our age are advocating? Isn't this the same kind of travesty we saw with abortion and the other big, controversial issues of American history? No, it isn't. I think it's very different and deserving of special consideration. Here's why:
Imagine, for the sake of argument, that since every state which has voted on same sex marriage, has voted against it (including California) then it isn't far-fetched to suggest that all the states eventually would, could, or will vote against SSM. Think about that for a moment. Not one state where it's legal. Does that sound right, let alone fair, to you? It sure doesn't to me. It ought to scare the hell out of you. Especially when conservatives use absurd and supercilious "scare tactics" such as how people would then want to marry their dog, proposing such idiocy as a legitimate argument for banning SSM.
In theory, the same argument could be made for abortion. If left to the states, and all the states banned it, then we begin to see a troubling pattern, don't you agree? We see a situation where a central government is no longer a threat if the states themselves, presumably with the fed's approval, begin to exercise absolute power over their citizens. Not individually, by the way, but collectively -- among groups of states, or all the states working together in unison. The framers intended that the federal government and the states maintain an adversarial relationship, and not a good-ol'-boy buddy system of mutual back slapping.
An element of unethical collusion comes into play, where states collude with one another, because the majority of all their citizens feel the same way about a particular issue. Why couldn't we have a "convention of the states", Article-Five style, and make DOMA a permanent part of the constitution itself? Doesn't that idea make your blood run cold? It sure does mine. And since conservatives would, in theory, be in control of such a convention, confirming DOMA (for example) as an amendment, might be a piece of cake. With a very bad taste left in freedom-lovers mouths.
The American system only works when different ideas are allowed to exist among all other ideas. There should never be allowed to exist a tyranny of ideas -- even of morals -- when that morality is defined solely by a simple vote count. And as presently constituted, the most votes win every time, under all conditions, in every state. I believe the old saying about how part of our Republican system is in protecting the minority from the oppression of the majority -- is especially true in this situation.
Once the precedent is set that any idea, whether popular or unpopular, rises and falls solely on the notion that all states either approved or disapproved it, this country faces an enemy on two fronts: both from the feds and the states.
For example, Arizona just colluded with the feds who supplied the state with the names and addresses of private individuals who didn't pay state income tax while shopping online. Information supplied by internet companies, under duress, threats, and otherwise dictatorial intimidation. That didn't stop (Republican) Arizona from taking the info and billing their citizens accordingly. Where in the constitution is that provision? I must have missed it.
So let's get this straight: whenever states need money, and the feds offer it to them, these states can be expected to look the other way constitutionally. Is that about the sum of it? God save us. We lost America some time ago, I'm afraid.
All the more reason, I suppose, for voting in real conservatives in state races, and getting America back, at least as far as the states are concerned. That RINO, Jan Brewer, governor of Arizona, should have told the IRS to go shove it; Arizona wasn't about to take "blood" money begat from personal information obtained using Mafia tactics. What asses she her Republican confederates are. Swear to God, I've got to get out of this chickenshit party. Unless Ted Cruz or a couple of others get in, count me out.
Let me sum up, thanks.
Similar to what Abraham Lincoln told us, that you can't fool all the people all the time, history all tells us that all of the states will never agree with all other states -- on virtually anything. Let alone make themselves vulnerable to either intentional or accidental widespread collusion. Until now. Weren't we just told that in all the states where they voted, they all voted the same way? The painful answer is yes, they did. And all the conservatives think that's something to be proud of. Wake up people! Our system was never designed such that all the states would be virtual clones of one another. Yet on SSM, this would appear to be exactly the case.
Now go to sleep and wonder what other little "annoyances" might cause all the states to join ranks and pass yet another helpful amendment. You know, one they all can agree on. Like no burning of the flag. Or securing certain rights and privileges to undocumented workers -- something those pseudo Republicans are tripping over themselves trying to put into law. Let's just put in the constitution and be done with it. Only takes 38 states. 43 if you're Obama.
We need to be careful when pointing our fingers at who we think the real tyrants are. It's not only later than we think, but our enslavers may be a lot closer than we realize.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7. Credit: www.nationsencyclopedia.com
e74
Who Speaks for the Plants?
An investigation into the mysterious world of flora.
So what is it with plants? What's up with all those bushes and trees, flowers and grasses, molds, mushrooms, fungi and lichens? Are they the truly dominant life forms on Earth? Other than microbes, which are really the truly dominant life form. And especially bacteria, which are totally the truly dominant life form.
Bacteria and viruses? What's their story? Many scientists think viruses aren't even truly alive at all; they're sometimes missing one or more of those qualifications we delineate as to what determines living from nonliving things.
The Earth is occupied by only three elements, right? Animal, vegetable, and mineral. It's what we've always been taught -- and thought.
While we're pretty sure that all bacteria are animals of one sort or another, a lot of doubt surrounds those viruses, which some believe should be put into a classification all their own -- neither plant nor animal.
Well, this essay is about plants, so we'll have to leave bacteria and viruses for another day. Unless it turns out that some viruses are plants, like some bacteria might well be also. Or are. Or vice versa. Who can keep track of all this stuff? For now, allow me to focus solely on plants; they're mysterious enough for a thousand articles. All of which I plan on getting around to -- eventually.
Bacteria probably antedate all other life forms. This assertion already lands me on thin ice, however, because they keep finding more and more primitive animals lying deep beneath the polar regions and elsewhere, like in China. Since plants were among the first to colonize dry land or shallow tide pools -- and even that's a stretch -- it's somewhat safe to assume that plants evolved, did their own thing for a long time, and eventually occupied places all around the globe.
Keep in mind that we're not talking sequoias here, but the most rudimentary kinds of stuff -- probably molds and funguses at first, all kinds of algae and other slimy growths.
It wasn't long, however, before bushes and primitive trees started rising up out of the muck. Lots of ferns and fronds. Lots. No flowers yet, though. Nope, flowers wouldn't be around for a long time yet. Possibly not until the age of dinosaurs. But I digress. Okay, maybe a few here or there, an orchid, maybe, but not many, and not anything like we have today. Or that a Brontosaurus might have chomped on.
Most flowers are dependent on a partner in their mating game. Insects. Pollinators. For lots of blooms, you need lots of tiny visitors to spread your pollen around. Not that I'm an expert when it comes to such things, but I know my bees. Now if I could just get to know my birds, things might really get interesting. But I digress.
Speaking of bees, when did they first enter the picture? Well, they were late to the party also, along with flowers. No, some of the very first guys on the block were your friends and mine -- spiders! Plus centipedes and millipedes, all rushing around gulping down whatever else was scurrying through those bushes we mentioned earlier.
It's funny, because we usually think of primitive, air-breathing fish being among the earliest to wiggle out of the shallows and slowly become the first animals to do their Columbus imitations. Nope. Those fish fellas were also late to the festivities.
Long before the first sardine with a snorkel found his way out of the water, other sea creatures, those with long, spindly legs, exoskeletons and segmented bodies, had already set up picnic tables on beaches everywhere. Small size and the ability to breathe through any number of bodily orifices, probably gave way -- and quickly so -- to agile hunters capable of preying on all the rest of those even smaller critters who had tip-toed out of the mud and multiplied like crazy.
And why not? The whole world was a vegetarian's dream come true. You're the first to arrive and the buffet table is stocked forest floor to treetop. Yumm.
Off in the distance, carnivorous spiders, millipedes and others are patiently waiting for the vegans to stuff themselves, and then be too fat to get away. Yumm.
Amid all the drama that surrounded them, the trees and plants stood as mute witnesses, seemingly unmoved and unimpressed by the antics of the more mobile forest tenants that surrounded them. And lived in them. Scampered up their branches, bore holes in their trunks, and ate them, too.
Well, some of the plants fought back. They weren't totally without some tricks of their own, up their stems. The world is full of these carnivorous plants, most of them ancient in origin, and many with which we're quite familiar. The Venus Fly Trap, or Pitcher plants, for example, are certainly among the most famous.
For the most part, however, symbiotic relationships became the order of the day, and it wasn't long before bugs (including lots of ants) had made their peace and everybody was getting along not just amicably, but to the mutual benefit of everyone. And the happier the insects were, the more they multiplied, which was just peachy as far as those spiders and millipedes were concerned.
What we begin to see is that the story of plants and trees did not take place in a vacuum. Their story is inseparable from that of the insects and spiders as well. As time passed, each grew more and more dependent, one upon the other, until today there is hardly a weed which doesn't rely on some bug or insect as part of its growth or reproduction cycle.
Well, that's all very interesting, but it still doesn't answer the core question we started out with, namely what the heck kind of things are plants? Really. Do they have minds, for instance? Not like ours, of course, but their own versions of consciousness? We know that insects think in some fashion; they appear aware of the world, in their own way. We seem to know a thousand times more about how a fruit fly gestates, than we do as to how a tree "views" its environment, let alone the world at large.
And speaking of large, ancient redwoods make blue whales look like sardines by comparisons. The largest of any living thing to ever grow on Earth, with heights measuring hundreds and hundreds of feet, how might a coniferous sequoia view the world? And while we may kick at a bothersome weed and dismiss it the same as we might a small rock, one can't help but gaze heavenward, up into the lofty, sky-borne branches of a magnificent redwood, and wonder whether some form of soul resides inside such a creation. Let alone a consciousness -- a mind even.
Still larger than any redwood forest, but more subtle, are the endless acres of soft grasses which cover immense swaths of rolling plains. Whether on the African savanna or the champaigns of Kansas, the grasses are their own nation, and among the oldest of all leafy plants. Like a scene out of the Wizard of Oz, imagine a time before the trees, where modest hills as far as the eye might see, were little more than lush carpets -- like ocean waves -- of tall grasses.
So what are we to make of all this greenery, this botanical garden and arboretum as mysterious as any tale of the supernatural? One of the most oft-asked questions is whether or not plants feel pain in some way, which further presumes a level of consciousness that is fairly advanced. Since we assume, rightly or wrongly, that ants and flies don't suffer physical pain in a manner that might tug at our heartstrings, most of us presume that plants, trees, and the like, fall into a similar if not identical category of painlessness, or numbness, or some such obliviousness to human concepts of hurting and injury.
But if sap or other plant liquids were the color of animal blood, for instance, might that not make quite a difference in how we approach the subject? If plants made sounds or responded to their environment in more familiar ways, our attitudes and ideas about our green cousins might be altogether different than they are otherwise. It is the seeming passivity, though, the very lack of perceptible reactions -- even to fire -- that leads us to view the botanical world as little more than decorative life-support.
In the absence of hard evidence that supports our understanding of how plants think -- or if they do at all -- each of us is pretty much left to decide for ourselves as to how we wish to relate to our verdant fellow travelers.
Honestly, I'm of the strong opinion that plants are such an extraordinarily different kind of life form from ourselves, that to impose or insinuate strictly human emotions upon such entities is somewhat insulting -- to them. As if, in all their sophistication, the poor things are entirely at the mercy of those nasty humans. Especially the vegetarian ones. I think plants deserve more credit than that. Personally, I consider the notion that part of a plant's life cycle -- its destiny, if you will -- is to be eaten and recycled accordingly. Until I see proof to the contrary, I dare someone to say such a theory is as crazy as it sounds.
The subject of plants probably cannot be discussed without figuring the role of time into the equation. The single most obvious difference between plants and animals are the twin dynamics of movement and motion. And how both of these factors play into aspects of growth and maturity. It's as if trees and other flora share more in common with rocks and dirt, than they do their fauna cousins. Likely distant cousins at best.
If searching for the characteristics of an alien life form, different from Earth, one could do a lot worse than consider non-motile plants as living models of how different two predominant forms might be -- and still coexist in perfect harmony, one with the other.
It's certainly not a stretch to suggest that plants operate on a time frame significantly different from Earth's other major lifeforms. Yet this is not entirely true as a statement of fact. Plants react to the sun in a multitude of dramatic and visually obvious ways. Some are aware of the moon and its presence or lack of same, in the nighttime sky.
Via time-lapse photography, we see how the world's flora moves with the same elegance and gracefulness of any other creature; it just does so at a greatly reduced rate of speed. If plants possessed eyes, they would surely view our world as a frenetic, out-of-control blur of ceaseless activity. Like a film clip from a silent movie, but sped up a hundred times faster, the whole world, clouds included, would appear to move at some unfathomably hurried pace.
Is it any wonder that philosophers and monks alike turn to the trees and flowers for a serenity of spirit, a soothing of the soul?
This essay began in the great oceans and witnessed the first plants as their metaphorical tendrils pierced the damp mud of barren land and proceeded to blanket the Earth in a new sea of green. Those same plants still wander the oceans, rising and falling with every wave the same as blades of grass bend to and fro amid a gentle evening breeze.
Whatever secrets plants may harbor, yet to be discovered -- whether they possess an intelligence or consciousness yet to be understood -- we could not imagine a world without them. Nor could we survive long in their absence. An intimate, inseparable bond exists between us and them, whoever they are.
It's also more than a bit disconcerting when we realize that those scruffy weeds were here long before ourselves. And were likely quite content to share the world without people pulling them out of the ground. And calling them weeds.
We usually think in terms of which animal might inherit the Earth should humans go the way of the dinosaurs. Whoever takes our place, one thing is for sure: they'll probably have fresh flowers sprucing up the neighborhood.
Bacteria and viruses? What's their story? Many scientists think viruses aren't even truly alive at all; they're sometimes missing one or more of those qualifications we delineate as to what determines living from nonliving things.
The Earth is occupied by only three elements, right? Animal, vegetable, and mineral. It's what we've always been taught -- and thought.
While we're pretty sure that all bacteria are animals of one sort or another, a lot of doubt surrounds those viruses, which some believe should be put into a classification all their own -- neither plant nor animal.
Well, this essay is about plants, so we'll have to leave bacteria and viruses for another day. Unless it turns out that some viruses are plants, like some bacteria might well be also. Or are. Or vice versa. Who can keep track of all this stuff? For now, allow me to focus solely on plants; they're mysterious enough for a thousand articles. All of which I plan on getting around to -- eventually.
Bacteria probably antedate all other life forms. This assertion already lands me on thin ice, however, because they keep finding more and more primitive animals lying deep beneath the polar regions and elsewhere, like in China. Since plants were among the first to colonize dry land or shallow tide pools -- and even that's a stretch -- it's somewhat safe to assume that plants evolved, did their own thing for a long time, and eventually occupied places all around the globe.
Keep in mind that we're not talking sequoias here, but the most rudimentary kinds of stuff -- probably molds and funguses at first, all kinds of algae and other slimy growths.
It wasn't long, however, before bushes and primitive trees started rising up out of the muck. Lots of ferns and fronds. Lots. No flowers yet, though. Nope, flowers wouldn't be around for a long time yet. Possibly not until the age of dinosaurs. But I digress. Okay, maybe a few here or there, an orchid, maybe, but not many, and not anything like we have today. Or that a Brontosaurus might have chomped on.
Most flowers are dependent on a partner in their mating game. Insects. Pollinators. For lots of blooms, you need lots of tiny visitors to spread your pollen around. Not that I'm an expert when it comes to such things, but I know my bees. Now if I could just get to know my birds, things might really get interesting. But I digress.
Speaking of bees, when did they first enter the picture? Well, they were late to the party also, along with flowers. No, some of the very first guys on the block were your friends and mine -- spiders! Plus centipedes and millipedes, all rushing around gulping down whatever else was scurrying through those bushes we mentioned earlier.
It's funny, because we usually think of primitive, air-breathing fish being among the earliest to wiggle out of the shallows and slowly become the first animals to do their Columbus imitations. Nope. Those fish fellas were also late to the festivities.
Long before the first sardine with a snorkel found his way out of the water, other sea creatures, those with long, spindly legs, exoskeletons and segmented bodies, had already set up picnic tables on beaches everywhere. Small size and the ability to breathe through any number of bodily orifices, probably gave way -- and quickly so -- to agile hunters capable of preying on all the rest of those even smaller critters who had tip-toed out of the mud and multiplied like crazy.
And why not? The whole world was a vegetarian's dream come true. You're the first to arrive and the buffet table is stocked forest floor to treetop. Yumm.
Off in the distance, carnivorous spiders, millipedes and others are patiently waiting for the vegans to stuff themselves, and then be too fat to get away. Yumm.
Amid all the drama that surrounded them, the trees and plants stood as mute witnesses, seemingly unmoved and unimpressed by the antics of the more mobile forest tenants that surrounded them. And lived in them. Scampered up their branches, bore holes in their trunks, and ate them, too.
Well, some of the plants fought back. They weren't totally without some tricks of their own, up their stems. The world is full of these carnivorous plants, most of them ancient in origin, and many with which we're quite familiar. The Venus Fly Trap, or Pitcher plants, for example, are certainly among the most famous.
For the most part, however, symbiotic relationships became the order of the day, and it wasn't long before bugs (including lots of ants) had made their peace and everybody was getting along not just amicably, but to the mutual benefit of everyone. And the happier the insects were, the more they multiplied, which was just peachy as far as those spiders and millipedes were concerned.
What we begin to see is that the story of plants and trees did not take place in a vacuum. Their story is inseparable from that of the insects and spiders as well. As time passed, each grew more and more dependent, one upon the other, until today there is hardly a weed which doesn't rely on some bug or insect as part of its growth or reproduction cycle.
Well, that's all very interesting, but it still doesn't answer the core question we started out with, namely what the heck kind of things are plants? Really. Do they have minds, for instance? Not like ours, of course, but their own versions of consciousness? We know that insects think in some fashion; they appear aware of the world, in their own way. We seem to know a thousand times more about how a fruit fly gestates, than we do as to how a tree "views" its environment, let alone the world at large.
And speaking of large, ancient redwoods make blue whales look like sardines by comparisons. The largest of any living thing to ever grow on Earth, with heights measuring hundreds and hundreds of feet, how might a coniferous sequoia view the world? And while we may kick at a bothersome weed and dismiss it the same as we might a small rock, one can't help but gaze heavenward, up into the lofty, sky-borne branches of a magnificent redwood, and wonder whether some form of soul resides inside such a creation. Let alone a consciousness -- a mind even.
Still larger than any redwood forest, but more subtle, are the endless acres of soft grasses which cover immense swaths of rolling plains. Whether on the African savanna or the champaigns of Kansas, the grasses are their own nation, and among the oldest of all leafy plants. Like a scene out of the Wizard of Oz, imagine a time before the trees, where modest hills as far as the eye might see, were little more than lush carpets -- like ocean waves -- of tall grasses.
So what are we to make of all this greenery, this botanical garden and arboretum as mysterious as any tale of the supernatural? One of the most oft-asked questions is whether or not plants feel pain in some way, which further presumes a level of consciousness that is fairly advanced. Since we assume, rightly or wrongly, that ants and flies don't suffer physical pain in a manner that might tug at our heartstrings, most of us presume that plants, trees, and the like, fall into a similar if not identical category of painlessness, or numbness, or some such obliviousness to human concepts of hurting and injury.
But if sap or other plant liquids were the color of animal blood, for instance, might that not make quite a difference in how we approach the subject? If plants made sounds or responded to their environment in more familiar ways, our attitudes and ideas about our green cousins might be altogether different than they are otherwise. It is the seeming passivity, though, the very lack of perceptible reactions -- even to fire -- that leads us to view the botanical world as little more than decorative life-support.
In the absence of hard evidence that supports our understanding of how plants think -- or if they do at all -- each of us is pretty much left to decide for ourselves as to how we wish to relate to our verdant fellow travelers.
Honestly, I'm of the strong opinion that plants are such an extraordinarily different kind of life form from ourselves, that to impose or insinuate strictly human emotions upon such entities is somewhat insulting -- to them. As if, in all their sophistication, the poor things are entirely at the mercy of those nasty humans. Especially the vegetarian ones. I think plants deserve more credit than that. Personally, I consider the notion that part of a plant's life cycle -- its destiny, if you will -- is to be eaten and recycled accordingly. Until I see proof to the contrary, I dare someone to say such a theory is as crazy as it sounds.
The subject of plants probably cannot be discussed without figuring the role of time into the equation. The single most obvious difference between plants and animals are the twin dynamics of movement and motion. And how both of these factors play into aspects of growth and maturity. It's as if trees and other flora share more in common with rocks and dirt, than they do their fauna cousins. Likely distant cousins at best.
If searching for the characteristics of an alien life form, different from Earth, one could do a lot worse than consider non-motile plants as living models of how different two predominant forms might be -- and still coexist in perfect harmony, one with the other.
It's certainly not a stretch to suggest that plants operate on a time frame significantly different from Earth's other major lifeforms. Yet this is not entirely true as a statement of fact. Plants react to the sun in a multitude of dramatic and visually obvious ways. Some are aware of the moon and its presence or lack of same, in the nighttime sky.
Via time-lapse photography, we see how the world's flora moves with the same elegance and gracefulness of any other creature; it just does so at a greatly reduced rate of speed. If plants possessed eyes, they would surely view our world as a frenetic, out-of-control blur of ceaseless activity. Like a film clip from a silent movie, but sped up a hundred times faster, the whole world, clouds included, would appear to move at some unfathomably hurried pace.
Is it any wonder that philosophers and monks alike turn to the trees and flowers for a serenity of spirit, a soothing of the soul?
This essay began in the great oceans and witnessed the first plants as their metaphorical tendrils pierced the damp mud of barren land and proceeded to blanket the Earth in a new sea of green. Those same plants still wander the oceans, rising and falling with every wave the same as blades of grass bend to and fro amid a gentle evening breeze.
Whatever secrets plants may harbor, yet to be discovered -- whether they possess an intelligence or consciousness yet to be understood -- we could not imagine a world without them. Nor could we survive long in their absence. An intimate, inseparable bond exists between us and them, whoever they are.
It's also more than a bit disconcerting when we realize that those scruffy weeds were here long before ourselves. And were likely quite content to share the world without people pulling them out of the ground. And calling them weeds.
We usually think in terms of which animal might inherit the Earth should humans go the way of the dinosaurs. Whoever takes our place, one thing is for sure: they'll probably have fresh flowers sprucing up the neighborhood.
You're currently on page NOU27
listed under NOUMENOMICON.
Click below to quickly ascend out
of all this depressing political stuff.
Beware of nitrogen narcosis on the
way up; there's enough symptoms
of that on the way down.
of all this depressing political stuff.
Beware of nitrogen narcosis on the
way up; there's enough symptoms
of that on the way down.
