Enforcing a contradiction

I am fortunate to have a workplace near a small national park. Therefore, I run at lunch hour into the park, something I have been doing since the late 1970s. I notice that recently they have been closing trails due to water damage, ice storms, and the like and I notice that when they do that they often do it inconsistently. That is, they will put up a sign saying that it is prohibited to enter that trail, but it will still be possible to get to the other side of that sign by other ways that have not been signed. My feeling is that I should not cross such a sign or tape from the outside to the inside, but there is nothing wrong with going the other way, from inside the "forbidden" area to outside. Indeed, if I can do this, there is something wrong with the signs. They are not consistent. If they are going to bar certain trails to the public, then they should do so everywhere and consistently, so that the only way to cross a sign from behind is to have crossed a sign from in front, defying its wording.

Isabel uprooted hundreds of trees in the park, so they closed most of the trails. But I notice that there is one way to enter the park without encountering a sign or tape, in such a way that the signs are inconsistent. But I found out that not only did they put the signs up inconsistently this time, but they are also enforcing it by having a ranger at some of the places. Yesterday, I ran into the park through a trail that had no signs on it. Someone in a truck stopped me and said it is open, but look out for the workmen fixing things up. I turned left towards the main road of the park, which was open. Today I ran to the same spot but turned right, towards the part that was taped off. There the officer was, asking me if I parked there, and telling me that I should be heeding the yellow tape. I told him that I saw no such signs or tape when I entered the park. I don't know if he got the message.

For inconsistent signs make me feel uneasy. The reason is that the sign that prohibits tell me that -T, where T is the statement that I may enter the park at that point, and that nothing at all tells me I can enter, which is T. This means they are enforcing T and -T, which is a contradiction. A contradiction implies any statement, so this implies that they can enforce any law or rule, even one that they dream up on the spot. That is Gestapo or 1984 law - a law of men rather than of words. They should put up signs that prohibit entering the area at all possible places, or they should tear them all down. But don't enforce a contradiction.

Globalization is a bad name

I hear that "globalization" of the world economy, and the enforcement of a free market, hurts poor people and countries, because all the goods go to the rich. There are protestors whenever globalization meetings meet, in Seattle, in Europe and other places. For a while I did not understand this. These people are apparently against freedom. Why should we oppose a free market? Then I read that globalization is not globalization after all. When "globalization" is used without adjectives, it means ALL globalization, or global globalization. However, the anti-globalization literature make it clear that they oppose it because the corporations benefit. If so, then it should be called "corporate globalization". If it is expressed in this manner, then yes I am opposed to it because I believe in freedom for all, not just corporations and their leaders. So don't say "globalization". Say "corporate globalization".

Transgender Hurricane

I have been looking at the hurricane map to see if any more storms threaten our neck of the woods. Juan formed but then went north to hit Nova Scotia. Kate formed; she headed north, then northeast, then back to the southwest, and now west. She is heading first for Bermuda and then for the Carolinas. But the weather forecasters say this big beautiful too cold for this time of the year air mass over us is going to block Kate and make her go north, about now. So we don't have to worry about her.

Then there's Larry. He formed deep in the Gulf of Mexico near Honduras, and has been sitting there the past few days. Then they said he was going to cross to the south and get out into the Pacific, where it will climb up the coast as a Pacific hurricane. This means supposedly that he gets a new name, since the Pacific has their own system of hurricane names. Hurricanes have changed names before. Fifi changed her name to Orlene after causing thousands of deaths in Honduras. That was back when they named all hurricanes after women. Himmicanes did not come into existence until 1979. But when they did, that brought up the possibility that a hurricane will undergo a sex change. The latest attempt at this was Himmicane Cesar in 1996, which was going to become Chantal or something like that when he crossed Central America. But some other storm became Chantal instead, and so Cesar merely changed his name to Douglas. But now Larry wants to get into the Pacific. If so, the latest tropical storm in the Pacific is Olaf, near Cabo San Lucas. The next name is Patricia. So will Larry become Patricia? Will a tropical storm change gender? Is Larry transgender?

Then I read in the 12 noon hurricane report that if Larry retains tropical storm strength as he crosses Central America, he will retain the name of Larry in the Pacific, but if he dissipates (I suppose become depression or lower), then regains strength as a tropical storm in the Pacific, then it becomes Patricia, provided another storm hasn't appeared first in the Pacific. Besides, the latest predictions call for Larry to dissipate and stay dissipated. That's that with transgender hurricanes; apparently it won't happen.