I’ve gotten away from writing on conspiracy theory and political structure. My more contemplative posts have been moved here:
Seeking the Whole, in latin. The site is both to help me feel out my philosophical views as well as test and expand them with the ideas of others.
So twas another boring day until a friend of mine decided to IM me, frantically going on about the end of the world and it all making sense. Eventually she linked me to a video called The Horizon Project, which I watched hoping it would explain why she was talking about ripping up her social security card. It doesn’t, but I’ll talk to her soon enough and hopefully clear that up. No, the movie discusses the possible large scale loss of human life could be realized though gravitational forces. It gathers what seems to be an interesting and more or less sound hypothesis, and does a little bit of talking on the topic of past civilizations having had more technology then the historical account.
The Movie opens with an introduction to history, talking about gaps and ancient technology. He attributes these gaps to ‘world catastrophes’ and while the disappearance or displacement of ancient societies has been linked to possible climate change or sudden events, these theories are just a few of many possibilities that we don’t actually know definitively. He also draws parallel between the collapse of ancient society with loss of technology, which is a fair parallel but its used to imply we might not be as advanced as we’d like to believe. Citing artifacts such as the Dendera Light, Bahgdad Battery, and the Antikythera mechanism and Egyptian medical arts. These things are interesting but don’t really show any clues to what happened to the people that crafted them. Its a fair assumption that if the people who know how to do something die, that process can no longer be passed on and must be rediscovered. However it seems as if they are trying to imply that we’ve taken multiple steps backward due to these world shattering events, but the events aren’t really world wide in some of the cases.
It goes on to present the idea that Polar Shifts are responsible for these strange events. As they delve further into this idea, it would seem as though they have a decent idea to how the world could end, but fill their video with a mix of both basic and complex geological ideas. They however fail to ever give details into how often these proposed cycles of gravitational shift take place, though it should be easy to approximate date ranges if arctic ice samples, geological samples and civilizations record these traumatic events. Now the potential for a polar shift is more or less proven but the movie makes it sound as if it happens every few Milena which I didn’t come across.
As they further develop the idea of polar shifts and the possible cause, they eventually introduce a Dr. Brooks Agnew. He claims to be a physicist and engineer with writing on a large number of complex scientific topics. However a google search of his name results in far more pseudo-scientific results. From his appearance in Holes in Heaven (a conspiracy film about the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program and ties to weather control as a weapon), leading a new Expedition to Inner Earth[google video] (Assuming the Hollow Earth theory is true, I believe he’ll first have to locate Middle Earth before continuing on to Inner earth..), to his Two volume book: The Ark of Millions of Years. These results do not link to a person engrossed in scientific study, these are things you expect in your everyday conspiracy lunatic.
On their site the third person on the team page (first is the host, second is Dr? Agnew), is Michael Tsarion. Unlike the companies that made the film (Remote Viewing Products and Intuitive Design Corp) and Dr. Agnew; Mr Tsarion has a Wikipedia page. However it reads equally as well as Agnew’s accomplishments. When it says Alternative Historian they aren’t talking, Terry Jones re-educating us on what history really was(Terry Jones’ Medieval Lives), but the possibility of alien visiting earth and impacting our lives and other some such non-sense.
Now certainly they present their idea quite well, and it might even have validity as a possible hypothesis; but I’d caution viewers to be skeptical of their claims since many of their other claims are less than proven or even in the face of facts otherwise. The problem with films or books of this type is that they are written in such a way that they introduce ideas to build toward a set picture. Without checking their facts its easy to begin to believe that they’ve come to the logical conclusion because they’ve set up the proverbial dominoes to fall that way. This applies to most conspiracy theories; 9/11 myths, creation science, etc. They take legitimate information and present you with bits of fact, it doesn’t have to be in context because the majority of people aren’t going to check them out and the idea begins to spread like a virus. No matter how many melons you shoot with a gun to see it rock backward, someone will still claim there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll once an idea has taken hold.
Jewish Scholar Samuel Sandmel is often quoted in the discussion of origins for Judeo-Christian Mythology, for his idea of Parallelomania. He wrote:
“We might for our purposes define parallelomania as that extravagance among scholars which first overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying a literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction.”
His warnings about the use of parallels stand true in more than just those pre-biblical pursuits. They are a major source of how theorists can go from on idea to another, and make it seem like elementary education but may link ideas with no true relation (Zeitgeist the Movie is a good example here IE Horus the Egyptian god is not the source of our word Horizon despite the similar spelling to Greek for boundary, Horos; which it did evolve from).
I might very well edit the post when I get a chance to talk to her about how this movie relates to Bush being the Antichrist (I really need to knock some sense into this friend of hers), or it might be a discussion within itself. Until then, I hope you’ve at least become a little more skeptical of this and other conspiracy films/writing.
Update:
From what I can find, we pass through this Galactic Plane roughly every 30 or so Million years. If it did take place during the record of human history, it would likely have only been experienced once. And If so, we aren’t due for another any time soon. It does not explain these cultural disappearances over different time periods.
The more I learn about the history of the United States government the more it strikes me that we need to listen to the past in this country. Perhaps the most prominent ideal I’d like to bring to light is related to how our Electoral College works. This won’t be over state representation or possible issues with the voting processes themselves. Rather I’d like to suggest we modify the 12 amendment determining how the President and Vice President are elected, as it modified Article II of the Constitution.
We’ll start off with a little history.
Washington is considered by most the greatest president this country has ever had, and it should perhaps be noted that he took to position reluctantly. In his Farewell Address he advised against the establishment of political parties; however with Adams and Jefferson differing heatedly on many topics it was all but inevitable.
Under Article II, the Electoral College cast two votes for president. Majority won or in the case of a tie the House of Representatives voted to decide. Vice President was decided by whoever had the next highest number of votes; and in case of a tie here, the Senate would choose. To me this style was innately balancing to the upper executive branch. In the first election after Washington stepped down Adams won Presidency and Jefferson took Vice Presidency, both leaders of opposing parties.
The reason for the addition of the 12th amendment lies in the issue of casting two votes for one position. In both the 1796 election and the 1800 election the college members attempted to use their second vote to give the suggested vice president a small lag behind the candidate for president. Poor communication and planning ultimately allowed Jefferson to take VP over the Federalist Pinckney in 1796. The issue in 1800 was a bit different. Again they tried to have the candidate for vice president from the party lag behind the candidate for president but through some fluke Jefferson and Burr tied. The vote was in the hands of the House, but lacking a Federalist candidate many of those representatives choose to vote Burr to block Jefferson. It stalemated there until Hamilton decided to give his vote to Jefferson.
Its suggested that the two votes were cast (at least one had to be for a candidate from a different state than the elector) to reduce state electors from favoring candidates from the same state. Now it seems to me that this system isn’t necessarily bad until you add the undermining of it by the parties. The goal was to elect a president and a vice president, were you to ignore party affiliation it meant that the two most popular candidates took office. The parties introduced a second candidate of their own for the purpose of taking vice presidency, which of course spread their votes. This is actually a rather nice effect as it gives a strong 3rd party room to step ahead of the others for office if the main parties spreads themselves too thin.
Duverger’s Law rather nicely explains why we will always lean toward a two-party system, as well as demonstrating the (albeit limited) possibility for emergence of a 3rd party such as how Republicans became successors to the Whigs. Due the the high probability of two leading parties I believe it is important we maintain opposing views at the top of the executive branch. Were we to impeach Bush we’d be giving Cheney executive control of the country; no matter how much distrust you have for Bush odds are your doubt Cheney even further.
Were we to only allow one electoral vote for a presidential candidate and remove the separate vote for Vice President things might prove better balanced. Parties have to decide between giving up a vice presidential candidate to back one person or split their efforts amount two strong candidates for the presidential position. To me this gives a little bit better representation of the people and gives us faith in the replacement should we consider impeachment processes.
My suggestion to modify the 12th amendment:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President
and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President,and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President,and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President,and of all voted for as Vice-President,and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the SenateThe President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the
Vice-President shall act as the President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.Speaker of the House, Acting President of the Senate and Acting President of United States; shall choose, by ballot, the President.
The person having the second greatest number of votes as
Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President,if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, andif no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
The reason I abandon the state limitation is that its so simple to move these days, parties can plan ahead and its not an issue. Also state favoritism can further divide the vote rather than the likelihood of it will draw a secure winner. A change of this type may also warrant discussion as to how the electoral college calculates what number of votes go to who, but I’ll get into that another time. The text in green is my own addition, Honestly I’m a little undecided on how to to deal with a deadlock in the House. The vote for a Vice president rests in the leader of the Senate should there be a deadlock; however the position of President holds much more power, than that of VP, and leaving it to the Speaker might be giving the position too much power. So for now I’m leaving it as a joint decision by the heads of the House, Senate and Executive Branch.
If you feel this is a valid idea, though perhaps needs work, I ask that you share it with everyone and discuss it here. Perhaps we can come up with a fair compromise as our forefathers once attempted. If there appears to be a positive following for this idea I’ll will give details and make an effort to get this proposal before the congress with the aid of the community.
Update:
As no one has commented yet, I decided to do some reading to make sure I was correct in the information presented here. The internet being what it is, of course I was able to locate people who’ve expressed similar thoughts long before me.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2007/07/the_irrationality_of_the_veep.html
