Guesses At Nothing

Saturday March 28th, 8:30PM -- where ever you live.  http://www.earthhour.org/home/

I'm going to do it which is a tall order considering that will coincide with the elite 8.... 

Seriously though, could the organizers of the event considered the amount of people (in the U.S.) who will be glued to their T.V.'s at that hour (depending on timezone) ?  Can I still claim participation if I shut off everything in the home and head to the bar? 

From the guest blogger at BoingBoing, Paul Spinrad:

In politics, I think there are two competing motivations for voters to support a cause publicly. One is to influence the majority to agree, to make changes that you believe in, and the other is to distinguish your opinions as superior to most other peoples'. These two motivations generally cause people to act in similar ways, but I've found some "tells" that reveal the underlying elitist motivation:

• Leaving up losing campaign stickers and signs long after the election is over. (I passed a Ron Paul window sign today...)
• Dressing and behaving at political demonstrations in a non-respectful way (partying, trying to "shock people out of their complacency," etc.).
• Saying that it requires superior knowledge or compassion to arrive at the views you hold.
• Saying that it makes you "uncomfortable" or "scared" that a group you don't identify with actually agrees with your view.

That first bullet point rings especially true.  I take the same commute home everyday, one that coincides with the a fore mentioned Ron Paul nut, and frankly the person (gender's mute) freaks the crap out of me.  Among the Ron Paul paraphernalia, is a hand-spun bumper sticker that claims that this individual "Makes Frequent Stops" then in a small font "For Tailgaters".  Benign you say? Well, this person consistently drives aggressively and tailgates other drivers.  (Hypocrisy is a blood-type).  And as much as a like to try to be a live-and-let-live kind of guy, it irks me.  I feel like sticking my head out the window and saying, "Hey Jerk, no one cares what you think!" but I don't not only partly because of a fore mentioned jerk's the-second-amendment-is-my-gun-permit-bumper-sticker.  I'd argue that this second kind of political motivation is not just elitist, but perhaps a bit dangerous as well. 

I love this that I heard of just today via Accordian Guy:

Baader-Meinhof is the phenomenon where one happens upon some obscure piece of information– often an unfamiliar word or name– and soon afterwards encounters the same subject again, often repeatedly. Anytime the phrase "That's so weird, I just heard about that the other day" would be appropriate, the utterer is hip-deep in Baader-Meinhof.

Most people seem to have experienced the phenomenon at least a few times in their lives, and many people encounter it with such regularity that they anticipate it upon the introduction of new information. But what is the underlying cause? Is there some hidden meaning behind Baader-Meinhof events?

The phenomenon bears some similarity to synchronicity, which is the experience of having a highly meaningful coincidence… such as having someone telephone you while you are thinking about them. Both phenomena invoke a feeling of mild surprise, and cause one to ponder the odds of such an intersection. Both smack of destiny, as though the events were supposed to occur in just that arrangement… as though we're witnessing yet another domino tip over in a chain of dominoes beyond our reckoning.

I am of the camp that expects this when I learn a new tid-bit, or at least I am not surprised when it happens.  (Relatively recently I learned about the pileated woodpecker, and they still follow me around to this day.) I will say this though, that for as much as it is just coincidence, it may also be the keen eye's detection of new items in the collective unconscious.