This is Matt Buckley-Golder's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Matt Buckley-Golder's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Matt Buckley-Golder
Recent Activity
I think it's more of a reactionary "don't tell me what to think", which is a great feature of American culture. I think it's more of a divisive issue in the US, too... i.e. saying you don't believe in evolution identifies you as someone who isn't one of those wimpy left-wingers. Do you really think many people spend a lot of time thinking about this? Ask the average person who believes in evolution how a plane manages to make it from point A to B consistently and in safety (or even how a car does it) and they won't be able to tell you. Everyone who takes a plane or drives a car believes in science to some degree... and it is a belief without foundation, other than evidence that it works in a very abstract way. Can anyone who believes in evolution tell you how the seed of evolution was planted, other than some vague notion of a big bang for which they are likely to be congratulated for repeating without getting much probing in return? It's only when you invoke God that you're probed. It's safer to say you believe in global warming or evolution because nobody will question you. You don't have to know why. Evolution isn't even incompatible with Christianity. Evolution could be the work of God. It's incompatible with Old Testament teachings, but Christianity is supposed to see the Old through the prism of the New. There is nothing wrong with America being an outlier. They are an outlier in many excellent ways.
1 reply
You should stop this spiral thing. You are going to end up like that guy in The Chumscrubber who wants to paint dolphins everywhere :) The spiral keeps growing bigger, right? The fractals only grow and never go back to square one. People already know about this. It works for some things but not others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_model
1 reply
I think you know that the new technologies don't matter, though. People could take their degree online and save a lot of money, but they don't. Why? Because they want to experience campus life and be around other smart people in person, where things happen that have no online equivalent. Many don't want to even live off campus. And the people who are most tuned into the these technologies... where do they want to live? They want to live downtown and be right in the middle of the action. Why? Well, they're not retired and they want some excitement in their life that's removed from the damn TV and computer screen. Try telling someone ambitious that they don't have to go and live in New York City because they can just connect by Skype to whoever they want to talk to. Technologies are bland and cold. And PEI is a basket case because there are very few competent people living on that island, as anyone who's had to get service while on vacation there probably realizes. They move at half the speed. Maybe this is quaint but it makes you look lobotomized and like you can't get anything done. Tourism, potatoes, lobster. Is there anything else? It's like the Portugal of Canada, except that they don't have Ronaldo. They don't even have wind energy to look forward to. PEI is good for vacations and old people. They should do an Elliott Lake-style push to get retirees to go and move there. If Skype and other "network communication" is so great, tell them they can connect with their kids by Skype and see how well that goes down.
1 reply
Fair enough, I had forgotten about Android. But that's reaching for straws, right? It's not being used because it's open source. It's being used because it's free and Google is doing all the development in exchange for getting their tentacles into your data. At the top of the pile, you have Google deciding what will and won't be accepted into the project, essentially using contributors as volunteer labour. Apps are generally closed source, written in a closed language, and sold for profit. Fact is, if you're not Apple you can't use iOS; if you're not RIM, you can't use Blackberry OS; if you weren't Nokia, you couldn't use Symbian; and Microsoft didn't have a competitive smartphone OS until very recently (Nokia has since dropped Symbian and adopted the Microsoft OS). So if you're Samsung, LG, HTC, or some other would-be smartphone manufacturer, you can either develop your own OS (expensive and not a good idea because of the ecosystem issues), adopt Microsoft's (some are starting to, but it's early days), or get a free one from Google. Anyway, true enough, it's open source... but I don't see how this type of open source ties into your community-driven view of things.
1 reply
Most of the food you eat is bad for you? I don't know how you can say this with a straight face. I don't think you even believe it... unless you are starting to go senile.
1 reply
Software didn't go digital, though. There is no analog equivalent to software. And it took a long time before software was shared. It still hasn't taken off... as evidenced by your preference for Apple despite your repeated references to Open Source. Your vaunted Apple ecosystem (and I agree with you -- it is the reason they are unique) would probably not be possible with Open Source. They would be unable to organize sufficiently and durably. Apple's mobile and desktop OS are deriatives of UNIX, which is also the foundation of Open Source systems like Linux. Linux still has not accomplished what Apple accomplished very quickly many years ago -- getting a cohesive and usable interface good enough for amateur end users running on top of UNIX.
1 reply
Was it writing the book that made you start to try and sound like John Michael Greer? :) I appreciate your response, though -- it sounds fair. Especially the part about unresolvable debate. It's true. For now, I'm happy with the tension. But I have some considerable years ahead to get tired of it. I think that's probably the part that made Dave Pollard crack. At some point you just get tired of it and go and tell a story that fills in the gaps and shack up with other people living with the same story. But that point is still in the future for me. I'll probably go mental.
1 reply
But what exactly do you agree with her on? Just the part you posted? You say grains are bad. She says grains are good if you soak them. You say milk is bad. She says whole milk is fine. You say carbs are bad. She says only refined carbs are bad. You say beans are bad. She says beans are fine. You may both agree that fat and cholesterol are not an issue? There seems to be a mainstream extract forming from all of this -- the "fat and cholesterol are bad" part is rightly slowly being accepted. The carbs/grains thing is rightly not being accepted. You did the same thing with the "Fat Head" documentary -- only posted the parts you agree with. So enough about whole foods -- what about whole arguments? Can you cherry pick pieces of peoples' arguments and leave behind the stuff you don't agree with? i.e. I'm not Christian but I think Jesus had a few good messages (even though he was a nutbar who claimed to be the son of God). That is what Gary Taubes did with his book, by the way -- science-based, sure... but he left out the science that didn't fit his thesis. The only part that seems to be on solid ground is the fat/cholesterol part.
1 reply
Wow... Sally Fallon. Not biased or anything like that. By the way, she says soaked/fermented grains are fine. I have her book.
1 reply
Congratulations Rob -- it's interesting to see the before/after. Although I don't buy into the Paleo stuff, following it has had an impact on my thinking. For example, this story in today's Toronto Star evaluates the suitability of a meal from Ikea's cafeteria for a diabetic... and although it is not bad, not once does it mention carbs in the evaluation (just calories, fat, and sodium): http://www.healthzone.ca/health/dietfitness/thedish/article/1024860--the-dish-ikea-stuffed-salmon-plate-a-standout?bn=1
1 reply
Right, and I realize that boomers are a large chunk of the population... but I find it hard to believe that they cannot understand what is afoot this late in their game. The final nail comes, I guess, when they realize that most of their net worth is in their houses and they all try to unload at the same time. Even a reverse mortgage may not save you then. But what are they going to do about it, anyway? By the time it really hits, they will be out of power and from what I can tell they don't have much sympathy from the generations behind them. Re: me having my eyes wide open... my whole generation does. They may not know what they are going to do, but they know not to expect much outside help. As long as expectations are in line with what's provided, I don't think we have a problem. And as long as downward mobility happens slowly, I don't think we have a problem.
1 reply
Want to add... one major difference between now and then is the 1950s realization that propaganda can be used to support peace and not just war -- Bernays, etc. with a new application. The efforts since then to understand crowd psychology and keep it under control has been massive and unprecedented. Obviously, I don't have 100% confidence in it and your scenario could pan out, but the above is a very significant development that has never been present in the past and it is something I see at work whenever this subject comes up. People are a bit disillusioned, but they're not about to do anything about it, and many see it as something within their own control.
1 reply
Obviously, lots of what you said is true. But what makes you think people have a problem with it? A lot more people I talk to are starting to recognize that the past was unsustainable and that things need to change with respect to entitlements and expectations. And I don't hang around in peak oil circles -- it has entered the mainstream. I don't really understand how you can say that, on one hand, our system is unsustainable and, on the other hand, that we should feel injustice when someone tries to tell us it's unsustainable. But that type of thinking does explain the current US budget predicament, preceded by California's experience. So the system is unsustainable and we have to plan more for our own future and be a bit more self-sufficient and cut back on our expectations a bit. People my age weren't planning on relying on getting a pension as much as 10 years ago, so we are saving for it ourselves. Most sensible people will come to realize this. We'll question bits and pieces of it, and cut big chunks out probably, but they wouldn't say we don't still need "the system". As your friends keep saying, crime is going down and not up and we don't need more prisons. Something must be going right somewhere.
1 reply
I don't understand the purpose, other than to be a human science experiment. There are plenty of examples of average people with average genes living healthy lives on a balanced diet including grains, beans, etc. I don't see the purpose of training your body to reject perfectly valid foodstuffs. It sounds more like anorexia to me, just not one that leads to starvation.
1 reply
I agree with you that the information should be made available, and people should be left to their own devices to decide whether or not they want to follow it. So, gather and dispense the information. But that's when we remove the teat from the mouths of consultants and bureaucrats. If you are not interested in effectiveness, they don't need to do any more.
1 reply
How do you justify butter, cheese, coffee, and wine under this Bull? Or maybe you don't. I am just assuming. On "we are all dead by 40", I get that you're talking about averages... but how was this caveman census performed, and what surviving tissue is around to determine cause of death? I don't have a problem with Paleo -- I have taken some useful points from it, such as a general reduction in carbs. But I'm not going to live like a caveman because I have tried but don't feel good on this diet. In fact, after a few days I start to feel bad and it's a few helpings of grains that get things back on track. I eat grains less frequently and feel better because of that, though. And what about sprouted grains that neutralize some of the harmfuls? Soaking kidney beans takes them from toxic to edible, too.
1 reply
I don't really understand the front yard stuff (although, in some neighbourhoods, it WOULD decrease the value of surrounding properties so I can understand it from that perspective). Grass is a lowest common denominator type of thing that most people can agree on, creating peaceful neighbourhood relations... which is what we want. But, isn't it a stretch to say that the government doesn't want us to be able to grow our own food? You left out the part that it was a consensus decision at the latest meeting of the Bilderberg Group. Well, except Michelle Obama of course. You can grow all the food you want... in your backyard. There is a guy around the corner that grows vegetables in his front yard. Nobody complains. If the neighbourhood agrees, chances are it'll go unpunished.
1 reply
Are you saying that the colour of the yolk indicates a good vs. bad egg? Conestoga Farms eggs are produced by the Grey Ridge conglomerate. Beautifully-coloured yolks... because they feed marigold extract to the hens, which is pretty close to a natural food dye. http://www.aspajournal.it/index.php/ijas/article/view/ijas.2010.e67/html_9
1 reply
So putting 6 billion people on a meat-based diet is actually good for the planet? It wasn't long ago that we were being told it'd be an environmental catastrophe.
1 reply
MBA is a whole different story, though... most people go into those things wanting to network and make connections. It's a purely utilitarian degree that is a vehicle from X to Y. The courses I mentioned were not toward an MBA, but it was set up as you described -- most are, to the best of my knowledge. That is, you are forced to discuss amongst yourselves and learn from the garden of life, talking about experiences and mandatory response to other peoples' comments, in addition to getting guidance from the prof, who would jump in as appropriate and guide the discussion in a correct way. What most people do is use the mandatory participation to post some form of "I agree" combined with a restatement of what the person they are replying to said originally. And, of a class of twenty, three or four regulars get involved in meaningful discussion with those who are willing. The same as it is in physical schools. These were Masters-level courses at a regionally-accredited school in the US. But, like I said, MBA is a completely different story. You could present nothing and they'd be sending the feelers out to try and win influence and line up a sweet gig.
1 reply
I want to add... it's ironic that you're saying it's the learning and not the institution that's important, while that graphic seems to be focusing on the medium as the message. Who cares if a course is delivered via a Facebook app? Or how many students are enrolled where? Or that iTunes U has some massive number of lectures? These are all things easy to accomplish with an online approach but say nothing about the results.
1 reply
I have done courses through both methods and they each have their own pros and cons. Off the top of my head... In-school pros: easier to collaborate with fellow students; sense of shared culture/experience In-school cons: synchronous communication makes it difficult to address questions as they arise without slowing down the whole class too much; physical presence costs time and money Online pros: you get the benefit of seeing everyone's questions and the prof's response and can engage with people you might not otherwise meet; Online cons: difficult to collaborate toward a non-trivial project; most participation is forced; no increased engagement. Personally, I found the collaboration in online courses to be fake. It was required because you had to demonstrate understanding; most people did the bare minimum. On the other hand, some physical classes are so large now that questions are impractical. There is very little peer-to-peer learning going on in these things, and group assignments are very difficult to accomplish. They water down the expectations as a result. It's the same few that will succeed no matter what that are engaged. I don't really see a big difference. Online courses are provided by institutions that are respected (if you have career aspirations) and the main difference is the derivative benefits of online communication and the lack of required physical presence. To me, university learning was always an individual effort. The school just gave a reason. The online courses copy the model, too -- slides are given, prof notes are added, readings are done, and questions are answered. The difference amounts to something small in my mind. The online experience was easier, but I have few memories of it. In contrast, I have many memories from my campus days. Maybe it was because I was required to be there. It was a bit like trying to get more people to go to the theatre by removing the dress code.
1 reply
That's why I found it strange -- I was eating plenty of low-carb vegetables. Lettuce, tomatoes, apples, bananas (ok, this one isn't low-carb), spinach, cabbage, and broccoli -- most of these daily. When I noticed the problem and wondered about vitamin C, I picked up some vitamin C tablets to see if it would "recover" -- used those for a few days and started eating citrus and kiwi again... it went away. It could be something else. I wasn't being scientific about this... but it was enough to put me off the idea of leaving out citrus, since I didn't notice any pro/con health or weight-wise with or without it. If anything, I felt better with it.
1 reply
You don't have any problems getting sufficient vitamin C? I tried it for a few weeks, too, but I noticed something wasn't right when I started getting cuts that wouldn't heal properly. I had stopped eating most fruit. The problem went away when I started eating citrus again, but they are high in carbs as per your list.
1 reply
Rob, why do you think Heart & Stroke and the Diabetes foundations continue to persist with this message if it's not true?
1 reply