Acording to a placue in Mt. Tabor Park, Portland has more volcanos with in it's city limits, than any other city in the world (it also have the largest park, Forrest Park, and the largest book store, Powells). Mt Hood, approxamitly 40 miles east of Portland is a volcano long over due for eruption. The the plate techtonic movements moving the subduction zone (and magma chamber) west, when will these little in town volcanos blow? The after effect would be staggering. As the airport and most of down town are build on fill, they would slide into the Columbia and Wilamette Rivers. The Oregon sides of the bridges along the columbia and most of the bridges on the Wilamette are like wise built on fill (the on and off ramps, that is. The supports are built into the bed rock), which would leave the bridges unaccessable. This would trap all of North and North East Portland trapped between rivers and lava. Or perhaps it would be a pyrotechnic blast like Mt. St. Helens, flattening all of Portland, and then flooding it, the the ash clogging the rivers until they were just huge mud flows.
They say the same thing about Tacoma, with Mt. Rainer also being over due for an eruption. Rainer is poised to have huges mud slides that will flatten everything for hundreds of miles around it.
The real question is, will either mountains eruption be something on the scale of Mt. Mazama? When it blew, it covered almost all of Oregon, some of Northers California, Idaho and Washington with it's lava flows and ash fall. There are still, thousands of years later, huge lava and obsidian fields where nothing will grow. Mt. Mazama is now better knows as Crater Lake.
My prediction? With in my life time, one of those two will erupt.
Martin Luther King jr was a great man. A man to be honorred. Having his man on something should be a badge of honor. Why is it that towns and cities take the most run down, drug, crime, and prostitue ridden street and name it after this great man? They say it's to inspire the people to have pride in their street and clean it up. But rarely, if ever, does this work. As it stands now, if you want crack or a prostitute, you could go into any major city and just ask where MLKjr BLVD/ST/RD/AVE is, and you would be hooked up. Why not do increased police patrols, community policing, and general increase community involvement, and then when the street was cleaned up, name is after Dr. King. Why not make his name a reward for success, and not a branding of failure.
My problem with the anarchist movement...
People are untrust worthy bastards, who would rob you blind if they had a chance.
That about sums it up.
The anarchist movement claims we do not need laws or an enforcing body because people are basicly nice and that morals can and are enforced through social pressures. Like, if I stole some ham from the butcher, he would never deal with me again, so I would screw myself out of getting any ham ever again. And that business men would act fairly and keep their deals as to have a good reputation and keep business coming.
Perhaps I'm rather jaded, but these ideas seem rather naive.
Let's go back in history at an earlier age of anarchy. Such as pre-mideval europe. It boiled down to "might makes right" and there were few morals to be had. Life was very keep in those days. Sure, you could try to deny someone service of they ripped you off. But then they got their friends together, robbed you of everything and smacked you around a bit. Then you might try to get some friends together for defense. Things esculated until you had warlords, kings, and roaming gangs of thugs on all sides.
Laws to protect people from such things didn't start becoming vogue until two or three hundred years ago. Anarchy in the past has, on a broad scale, lead to three things. Raping, looting, and pillaging.
It boiled down to, it's easier to just take something than grow it or build it, and people will always take the easy way out if they can.
Does this mean I support a lot of laws? No. I think our currents legal system is far to top heavy and complex. I think over 200 years of loop holes and finagling has lead to a legal system that needs a near complete rewrite.
This is a very republican view, and I'm sorry, but I think we need a much smaller fedral governement, and power returned to the states. I think we have a lot of regional differences in this nation and a one size fits all approach does not work. Look at California with it fights with the federal governemnt over medical marijuana. Or Oregon's fight with the Federal Goverment over assisted suicide. Or look at abortion. If the bible belt and mid west are so opposed, perhaps the legality of it should be restricted on the state level.
I think the federal governments primary concerns should be the defense of the country, encouraging trade with other countries, and regulating intrnal trade practices. And maybe regulate some national standards to ensure that the enviroment and a few other things are not harmed by states eagerness to be over competitive. I'm pretty sure the individual states can deal with the rest on their own.
States should have exclusive souvernty over what people can do to themselves or with other people.
I think the nation does have a moral code. But I think it should be up to the states to decide on the how to enforce such a code.
But back to anarchy. I think that anachy is just as flawed as a society completely regulated. There should be a balance. You should have all the freedom you want, as long as it doesn not limit someone elses freedom. Murder would limit someone elses freedom to live, so it's bad. Smoking pot in your own home does not limit anyone elses freedom, and is okay. Holding someone against their will, is not okay. whatever sort of kinky consentual sex you want to practice in your own bedroom is just fine.
Maybe I'm the naive one. Who knows. I think think that no matter what system you have, there will be abuse, but I think that when you go to the etremes, be it extreme freedom or extreme control, that the abuses become far worse.
My old boss had an interesting theory concerning conservatives.
He felt that America, with it's Puritan origins and traditions forced a long out dated moral code on a lot of Americans through the years. The gist of this moral code is, "If it's fun, it's a sin." Now, if these conservatives want to deny themselves fun, go right ahead. More power to ya. But they see other people having fun and they have certain responses. Envy. Fear. And bewilderment. They have these morals so ingrained that they don't under stand these other peoples love of fun. They fear it. They fear fun will destroy their society as they see it. They fear it will corrupt their youth and take them away from their traditions and heritage. They envy the fun, and I think that scares them the most.
So they lash out to destroy they fun. To remove the temptation. To try to force everyone into their moral code.
You know something? I think I'm going to have to start a "show a conservative a good time" group. Take some rightwinger out for something fingie and wild. Let them see that when they go home, they had a fun carefree time, and when they got home, the world had not ended because they enjoyed themselves.
The trick is, how do you get the conservatives to take part?
With the Running of the Bulls happening all week, in Spain, I had one over riding thought. How long until we are treated to "Horn Cam"? How hard would it be to afix a small camera to a bulls horn, and strap a transmitter to the bulls back?Or have the camera and transmitter on it's back?
Just think of the camera view as people flee for their lives? Or the the scenes from when stupid American Tourists get gored?
I think this will be the next big leap in sports television.
Truthfully, though, I would love to go do the Running of the Bulls. Don't get me wrong, I hate bull fighting. I think it's a cruel sport. But I've eaten enough hamburgers. It's only fair that a bulls get's a chance to go after me.
I would also love to do that thing (you know... that thing), I think in France, where the whole town erupts into one huge tomato fight.
TNN is now known as "The First Network for Men". So, if it's for men, why do they have tampon ads?