My new thought for today. It came to me through the somehow tranquil state of laundry, folding the pants, coming to grip with the facts of order and chaos, the entropy that I was folding out of my clothes, expending my own precious metabolized potential energy, balancing systems. The real thought is that at any moment the options of possibilities are limited by the history of a moment ago. History is the cement locking in all past chosen options. Even perfect in its order. And then we have the next choice to make by reaching out into the sea of infinite, though currently limited, choices. This of course is the dillema, even the oxymoron, of limited infinity. Must not an infinity have no limits, isn't that the definition? A conunudrum, a system that within itself presents boundless choice, yet which itself is bound in a moment of historical timespace. I think of an atom. Every particle within the atom exists at every moment, but the farther we break down the scale, the more we are unable to define the precise location of any individual particle. The more precise our measurements the more indeterminate our readings become. Now back to our systems, representing the infinite options limited by the previous history. The individual particles (whatever they might be, ie: quarks, electrons, gravitrons, alpha particles-every year we find more) represent our choices that we can make. And, just as we know that they exist and are found in this specific location (within one atom/proton/electron/etc.) we are unable with any precision to map the coordinates. It seems as if they are existing at no one space and every space at the same time. How this fits in is that there seems to be an infinite variety of choice these particles have at every moment as to where they are, though they are limited to existing within a single atom. Again, infinite but limited choice. Bound at the macro end of the scale but having no limit on the micro.

Where along the number line does infinity begin? If we start drawing the first line at 1 and go forever, then start another line at 2, is the first line longer than the second?

Or if we take our number line and begin one line at 1, direction positive and another at -1 direction negative, do these lines ever touch?

Yet aren't they both infinite in length. Which leads us to the knowledge that there is not just one infinity, rather an infinite number of separate infinities. From here, we can go anywhere; multiple universes, universes within universes, fractal universes! But it also means that though our reality is constantly being shaped by our actions, every moment gives us an infinity of possible choices. Choose wisely, you only have one chance.

So recently Bush, while in the Oval office standing next to the Chinese prime minister, declared his support of Taiwanese non-action and fence-sitting. Taiwan is, of course, ruled by China (I'm not sure what the official nomencalture is, maybe protectorate or something) though it operates somewhat autonomously on domestic affairs. Recently the new president of Taiwan was popularly elected, running largley on a platform of Chinese independence. Well, now he's started to act, starting the process of calling for a national referendum on the subject of Chinese ballistic missiles targeted at the island, as well as generally moving towards ultimate independence.
In his statement bush says, "the comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally to change the status quo, which we oppose." Of course this is a democracy chilling pronouncement from the supposed leader of the free world, but this is to be expected. What is more surprising and ironic is his focus on Taiwan's president's decision to act "unilaterally to change the status quo". Hello? Maybe he's forgotten when he stood opposed to popular world opinion and its head body, the UN, on the issue of Iraq. Oh, and that little ole Kyoto Protocol, the ICBM treaties... In fact when it comes to leaders acting unilaterally, without the support of world opinion, often without even domestic popular opinion, our President has to top the pack. I guess when it comes down to it, none of this is surprising, our foreign policy is always aimed at supporting those who make business good, regardless of their oppresive regimes (when not because of their oppressive regimes). Bush is just doing that, caring about America's (at least the top 1%'s) interests, so why can't he see that Taiwan's president has the same responsibility (probably with more equitable aim)?

So anyways today at work this 70 year old woman is complaining about a bill that she has to pay because she paid late and there is interest due now. The broad makes like a million dollars a year (no joke) and actually says to me, "okay, i'll pay. I'll just have to eat canned corn beef and hash, but I'll be brave." Can we say unmitigated gall?! To a worker that has made like 1/20th of her annual income in his entire life. Sheesh, reaffirms my belief in the rich elite conspiracy theories and why it's okay to hate and/or eat them, though who wants gout anyways.

Apparently we raised about $7,000. Whoopie! Huge success for democracy and freedom of the press right here in B-lo.

The Washington Post, and Democracy Now!, report on 37 military linguists, fluent in Arabic, discharged for being gay. It seems ironic that at this time of terror anyone who speaks Arabic (the language of terror) would be let go. Of course we know what happens to all those good ole boys in the army once gays are around. Yup, they get gay themselves. And who wants more gays? Apparently the supposed gay pheromone is responsible for the quick grasp these gay soldiers have taken on Arabic. Military scientists at DARPA have begun tests to analyze, sparate, and reengineer this miracle language enhancing trait, which apparently is only secreted from those who refrain from telling when they aren't asked, but can't get those damn wrists straight.