Thursday, June 30, 2011

What Chemistry can teach us about Relationships by Louis Evan Palmer

People crave analogies and like magic, they find them everywhere. Most adequate or even instructive; however, some analogies are so compelling that we base our life on them.Our tireless search for answers never stops, whether the questions are valid or not, because we have convinced ourselves that we are on a search for illumination. We turn here and there, this way and that. And now, let us turn to chemistry for guidance - turning to our understanding of the physical world as manifested in its chemistry.

The key underlying principle of these bonds, both personal and chemical - is that they are powerful over short distances but weak or non-existent over longer distances. In the personal realm, various technologies can be employed to reduce the perceived or effective distance. Communication technologies are one of the important ways of reducing the perceived distance between people.

Memory is another means of diminishing distance by increasing presence. This seems to show that the perception of presence can be a solitary experience. Or possible, that its true nature is solitary but because the perception is simultanaeous and similar, we take it as common and shared. Thus, in personal relationships, anything that increases distance decreases the strength of the relationship.

In chemistry, there are three main types of bonds with one type having two subtypes: ionic, covalent (non-polar, polar) and hydrogen bonds. To equate these to people relationships, we will look for aspects that analagous to the chemical bonds.

First, ionic: this would be a relationship that involves a person (or persons) with a low "something" bonding with a person (or persons) with a high "something". This "something" can be almost anything - money, charisma, knowledge, skill, energy, connections. In chemistry these are weak bonds. By analogy then, we would expect these type of relationships to be weak. For example, a rich man befriending a poor man; a smart woman befriending an unintelligent woman.

Next are covalent bonds which involve sharing something important - in chemistry, electrons; in relationships, something important to both partners in the bond. One type of covalent bond is non-polar while the other bond type is called polar.

In a non-polar bond, we have equal sharing. In personal relationships, this would manifest as two parties sharing something that is equivalent in value or importance (not necessarily the same). For example, two people putting in significant and equal shares of capital into a venture.

In a polar bond, we have unequal sharing. In personal relationships, this would manifest as two parties sharing something that to them is significant but is not equal in value. For example, the partner with experience and contacts and the silent partner with a large investment. This highlights the time aspect of investments in a relationship - some of the value of the bond only comes into play later but is needed from the start.

In chemistry, covalent bonds are the strongest. In relationships then, the strength of the relationship is highest where each party gives and receives something significant with the other party. This would be true whether the sharing is equal or unequal as long as its significant and needed.

The last chemical bond to consider is the hydrogen bond. Like the ionic bond, it is relatively weak. It contributes to the polarity of the bond which affects its ability to bond.
In personal relationships, this would manifest itself in the person who plays a supporting role. The person who provides necessary but peripheral bonds that enable larger bonds that could not have formed on their own. For example, the introduction or recommendation that establishes one person's bona fides with another.

If the overarching and specific analogies are valid then the strongest personal relationships involve giving and receiving something significant from another. Weaker but still important relationships consist of the bonds formed between "haves" and "have nots" and "supporting" relationships. Some of these types of relationships will occur on their own but others will require an effort and, in some cases, a conscious exchange of "something" to cement and strengthen the bonds. And, the more bonds the better for those relationships one values most.

A bond that is typically considered separately is the metallic bond. This bond is not a single bond but rather a lattice of bonds. It is collective bonding - commonly thought of chemically as a matrix of positive ions held together by an ocean of negative electrons. By analogy, in personal relationships, this would be the crowd bond - for example, cheering for a sports team, or a large crowd of political or social protesters or supporters, or a rioting mob. This collective bond can range from weak to very strong.

What Chemistry can teach us about Relationships, Louis Evan Palmer, The Way It Can Be,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright 2011 Louis Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have appeared in numerous publications.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Nortel all over again! Economic Warfare now directed at RIM by Louis Evan Palmer

Objectivity and independence are incidental bystanders in this war while deliberate campaigns of espionage, propaganda and financial maneuvering are the constant companions. Canada had better wake up to the fact that warfare, especially economic, is being waged against it and its companies.

There is no way that what happened to Nortel was natural just as there's no way that what's happening to RIM is natural. RIM was sued by an American filing cabinet company known as NTP. This tied RIM up in expensive litigation for years and resulted in an assessment of $450 million dollars in damages. This was pure out-and-out piracy and economic harassment. Then Dolby decided to try it as well. These were patent infringement suits. A so-called investors suit went public in May of this year, Who started it? Who really started it?

Anyone who has a smidgen of awareness of how intelligence agencies work will recognize the mark of the economic hit men. The CIA, NSA and other of the Amercian alphabet agencies spy full-time on their economic competitors. So do the British, French, Russian, Chinese, Israeli and others.

These operations run the gamut from simple data collection all the way to murder and huge market manipulation. CSIS should be used to investigate these type of economic actions against Canadian companies. And the results should be published and malefactors punished if possible!

For example, who are the owners and managers of NTP? What is their relationship to other high-tech communications companies, the US government, or American agencies? What about the alleged impartial analysts who are perpetually disappointed in such-and-such economic numbers? Who plays the journalists and business writers to start campaigns against this company or that. You can make money when the stock goes up and when it goes down. You can orchestrate a campaign to drive the stock price down so you can steal the company later. And its patents, its technology and staff. Or just cannibalize it and run.

RIM's numbers this quarter were good. RIM's year over year numbers could be better but then again, the whole sector is down. RIM is moving from a growth company to a legacy company. Analysts know this but are joining the feeding frenzy initiated by the few. Who's analysing which business writers are leading the charge against key companies every now and then. The ones the CIA boasted about having on every major newspaper and media outlet. Some of them are part of the ongoing economic war that's devouring entire sectors and countries. There's nothing free about the markets at the macro scale. It's out-and-out war on every front.

Where's our investigative journalists and our intelligence service? Identify and root out these attackers. Or, let the nation be picked apart for the benefit of the few and the foreign. In the meantime, hands off RIM!

Nortel all over again! Economic Warfare now directed at RIM, Louis Evan Palmer, The Way It Can Be, http:/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright 2011 Louis Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have appeared in numerous publications.


Sunday, June 12, 2011

The Coming Radicalism by Louis Evan Palmer

The coming radicalism will issue from the approximately half-billion baby boomers globally but especially from those in the so-called advanced world - Western Europe, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The counter-culture will re-emerge and a new disengagement philosophy will take hold based on an eco self-realization approach and new and emerging technologies that will support a vast decentralization and "groupization" - the creation, destruction, and modification of groupings for specific or broad purposes - which will start to replace parlimentary democracy with direct democracy and the allegedly free markets with truly voluntary currency and economic and exchange systems.

Although police and intelligence agencies like to define radicalism as associated with violence, it is not necessarily so, and in the early phases, definitely not. In addition, the progression, if there is one, varies among peoples, subgroups and cultures. In most instances, there is no progression.

The coming radicalism in the "First World" countries will feature a sustained drive for getting "more for less", being content with less and the formation of technology-enabled groupings based on compatible goals and approaches.

One of the key points of conflict is in the differing tangents from the status quo to a radical state or violence. If the forces of the status quo progress more quickly to violence versus the counterculture forces, then avoidable unjustifiable state violence will occur. All violence will serve to radicalize the parties involved. For some groups, this is the objective. For others, avoiding this is the objective. Of course, objectives can change over time.

The coming radicalism will studiously avoid violent confrontation and seek revolutionary change via technology-enablers and through the conscious acquisition and control of the required assets like internet networks and delivery companies.

Violence against property, which does not in turn endanger people, should not trigger a violent response. But, often, especially when other agendas are in play, they do engender violent responses from the police or other state forces. When violence against property occurs that does not, or cannot, harm people or living creatures, the state response must be non-violent. If it is not, it points to other objectives and agendas.

The coming radicalism will see massive and successful campaigns against corporations that oppose or impede the new emerging boomer world. GMOs and Nuclear Power stand prominently in the sights of the coming radicalism. Sophisticated non-violent techniques will develop to re-shape the economy and the media and the means of production.

It is beginning and my prediction is that it will be in full-view by 2020.

The Coming Radicalism, Louis Evan Palmer, The Way It Can Be,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright 2011 Louis Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have appeared in numerous publications.