Monday, January 29, 2018

Billions and billions

Image result for billions and billions cartoonWhen Carl Sagan told us that there are billions and billions of stars in the Universe he actually said, “There are in fact 100 billion galaxies, each of which contains something like 100 billion stars.” But regardless of how he said what we think he said the number of stars in the universe is unknown.  Not that anyone is really counting, not that anyone could count that high.  The point is that when 100 billion is multiplied by 100 billion it equals 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 1e+22 or somewhere close to a sextillion.  We may not know what it is but at least we have a name for it.

In real terms, terms that we may start to understand, “The highest numerical value banknote ever printed was a note for 1 sextillion pengÅ‘, printed in Hungary in 1946. In 2009, Zimbabwe printed a 100 trillion Zimbabwean dollar note, which at the time of printing was worth about US $30.”  OK, so that was not a great example.  I for one cannot understand the reasons for runaway inflation to the extent of the currency being raised to the level of a billion times a billion.  Can you imagine buying a loaf of bread?

We all know that the number of billionaires is on rise and with this rise it seems, a widening between the very rich and the middle class.  This decline signals two events, the rise into greater wealth and the fall into the lower economic circles, duh, but the effects of losing the middle class is a loss of the inherent stability of any economy and a dedicated move toward slavery and a usurious faction of the wealthy and uber-rich.  It must be remembered that the health of any economy is directly tied to the health of those that spend the most, the middle class.  Henry Ford understood this concept, “that’s why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough, so they could buy the cars they made.” Henry Ford became extremely wealthy by understanding the needs of the middle class.

President Obama alluded to this when he argued that inequality distorts our democracy by giving. “an outsized voice to the few who can afford high priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions”.  makes you wonder what was motivating him at the time?

This governmental attitude of favoritism destroys the very fabric of a society that thrives on the goodwill, the continuity, and availability of products and services.  But what does all this have to do with the billions and billions of stars?

It’s called a perspective.  When we look up into the night sky, on a clear night, away from the bright lights of a city, you see the stars.  You rarely count the stars, there are too many to count.  But have you ever thought that there are a finite number of stars?  We may not be able to comprehend that number or the ever-changing number of stars from one moment to the next but at any given time there is a specific number of stars.  Just like the billionaire who is unable to know exactly what he’s worth at any given time, he must rely upon the knowledge that at some time in the future he might know what he’s worth…at least in money.

The less you have the more defined your ability to understand your net worth.  Start with zero, that’s the easy one but how do we gauge our worth, who determines what is worth what and what has value?  Is it only in terms of money or are there other factors at play to help us determine our worth in life? 

From billions and billions of stars in the sky to the statistical understanding of life on other planets we start to get a gist of our importance, or lack of, depending on your perspective.  Are we alone in this universe?  Are there other populated planets that are asking similar questions?  How many possible planets are there? 

Statistically, if we multiply the number of possible stars in just our Universe by anything greater than zero we have the statistical probability of greater than zero.  How many habitable planets would you say exist in our Universe?   Let’s take a very low number .0000000001 multiplied by the number of stars, in our universe, 1 sextillion or 1 and 18 zeros, remove 9 of the zeros and you have 1,000,000,000, 1 billion possible habitable planets…OK, I understand this is purely a game of speculation and guesswork but so is most of what we do when we start to think about the enormity of what we must deal with when we start down the path of statistical improbability.

What is not improbable is the loss of our middle class and the effects those losses will have on our economy, our future and the political landscape that’s regulated by those in the middle.  Regardless of political persuasion, the middle class has always maintained an even keel during the rough waters of those who like to make waves, just so they can ride the controversies and profit from the storms they like to start.

It is the middle class that softens the extremes of the revolutionaries and makes possible the visionaries, like Henry Ford, like Bill Gates and a thousand others that rely upon the buying power of those in the middle.

Our solar system is somewhere on the fringes of something called the Virgo Cluster, sounds like a candy bar.  Our Galaxy and our universe are not unique, even with respect to life.  Statistically and probability tells us that we are not alone, but the question is where do we, humans, from Earth, fit in the larger picture that is?  My guess, not worth much I know but for the sake of writing a few sentences more, my guess is that we’re part of a massive middle class and because of us and the millions of others (planets) like us the economies of the Universe, the governments, the bureaucracies, the factories of the Suns and planets continue to move and work.  They are here because of us not the other way around, just like our government and all governments should exist, to help the people thrive and enjoy life.  http://earthsky.org/space/galaxy-universe-location


The middle class is where most of us live, most of us work and eventually die but only after we have enjoyed and learned from this life, hopefully moving to a different kind of life somewhere amidst the billions and billions of stars.

Thursday, January 25, 2018

The DACA Dilemma

Image result for DACA cartoonThe logic of DACA is beyond my ability to comprehend, at least from a national perspective.  There are arguments in favor of offering support to those who were brought to this country against their will and for the time they have had to endure living here.  Our country does have some responsibility, at least from a humanitarian perspective.

But beyond these two extreme positions, the answers to the problems associated with DACA are fairly simple, when we can decide what our goals are for our country.  The problem with making a simple determination is often stalled by the complicated, political motivations that have nothing to do with the health and well being of the instituted citizenry but have everything to do with what we call forced, charitable, benevolence, a condition that for some require all of us to pay, whether we agree or not.  See current California Attorney General for a great perspective.

Year after year the United States has lead the world in allowing immigrants to enter.  Germany currently is at the number two spot.  In relation to the percentage of the population, the two top countries are Vatican City and the United Arab Emirates.  Most of the world wants to come to the America or Germany but the issue should never be who wants to come but who should be allowed to come.

In relation to DACA and the associated policy of allowing undefined families to immigrate after the acceptance of one immigrant the issues of social engineering or is it political manipulation must be considered in relation to the fundamental question of what makes an American, or German or what criteria are needed to substantiate the definition of a country. 

From the standpoint of most countries, a country has often been defined by the ethnicity of its populations.  This is not a racist attempt toward exclusion of one race or people over another but a simple statement of historical fact.  When you went to Sweden, again in the past, you expected to find Swedes on every corner, speaking Swedish.  The same is true for Peru or Chad or any other defined country of the world.  But there are some that do not follow those racist trends and at the top of the list has always been the United States.

To speak of the United States as racist is to defy the very definition of what and who we are.  We are accepting, welcoming, helpful, generous and for the most part, have had incredibly open borders to all those who needed to come.  But again, historically we have always had a reason or goal for that acceptance, we wanted those who would make us better.  We wanted skilled workers, individuals who wanted to become American, wanted to uphold our laws, love our freedoms and work together with those who came before to continue the process of creating the best country in the world.

I am not totally against DACA, but I am against those who stand in front of Disneyland and shout obscenities about how unfair America has been, or how cruel we are for not rolling over for their unconstitutional demands.  Let’s make this really clear:  1. They were brought here illegally, not their fault, but they did not come legally. 2.  They have lived here and in many cases, have been given assistance beyond what legal citizens have been given. 3.  They are involved in a greater percentage of crime and have disrupted the economic opportunities of those who have a legal right to live here and work here.

The statistics are also clear, DACA and most undocumented, illegal immigrants are a strain on our economy, our health systems, our educational systems and they will continue to be for years to come.  Not all DACA recipients fall into the same category but until the United States creates a more clear and defined immigration policy and specific criteria that let the world know what we want as a country there will be no easy solution for the DACA problem.  Once we know who we want the process of determination is simplified.  Some can stay because they are what we want but others will have to go or at least understand what they will have to learn and become in order to stay.  This process will not be an easy one. But when the United States develops a clear message to the world regarding immigration, immigration will no longer be an issue, as long as we can control our borders that is.   

America has always been a welcoming country and will continue but if we fail to define the essential aspects of who and what we want we will suffer like many countries in Europe and be inundated by the hoards who only want what they want and have no desire to become what their host countries are providing. 

Sweden is quickly losing its identity, England has tried to downplay the disruption of its growing populations, Germany is fighting to retain its sovereignty and like France is faced with increased violence and lawlessness.  There is a county that wants to retain its culture, its independence and has succeeded.  Poland has not accepted the hoards of immigration and has retained its culture and its freedoms and should be considered a shining light to the world of what it takes to fight against the evils of Islam and growing incursions into our everyday life, our moralities, and our sacred religious beliefs.


DACA was a creation of the left to increase its voter base.  We can be compassionate, we can be helpful, but we need to make all our citizens safe and law abiding.  That is impossible when those who are screaming the loudest openly defy the laws and disproportionally disregard those laws.  DACA needs to be held accountable.  Those who want to become valued citizens need to follow the law, like all of us need to follow the laws of this great land. 

Friday, January 19, 2018

Powerless, Helpless and Incompetent

Image result for emasculation of men cartoonAs a man, the idea of being emasculated is frightening.  The very thought of succumbing to the effects of such a condition is beyond my capacity to willfully consider, but even if it happens, my consciousness would protect my fragile ego by denying the effects, even as I and we capitulate our will, surrender our desires and give up our manhood, making excuses like, “we’re doing the right thing” or “it’s better for society”, or my favorite, “that’s what women want”, sealing our powerless and impotent existence to the choices of others who want nothing more than to enslave us, control us and manipulate our very essence and genetic sovereignty.

The role of man has been vigorously debated and for the most part, thrown into the dustbin of relevance as most of the issues revolve around the abhorrent actions of a few sexual predators and selfish tyrants destroying any goodwill that man used to have.

In our country and in the world, man has been forced to relinquish their standard roles of provider and protector to the enraged and willful desires of women.   Not all women.  Nature or God or whatever you think is appropriate has a plan.  If you don’t believe in God so be it, nature will suffice.  Both are working from the same playbook and both have the same goals in mind for man (and yes women too) despite what we have collectively allowed to transpire.

There is a thing called genetics that defines all that exist.  There are some exceptions but to date those exceptions are minuscule.  99.93 of all humans are genetically defined as either male or female.  Gender is a different story altogether and encompasses awareness, the developmental process and a score of variables that affect the self-identification and how an individual relates to others but in the topic of male and female, there should be no debate.

Society has clouded the reality of birth with the notion that by invoking a simple choice anyone can change who they want to be genetical.  I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but changing who you are is 100% impossible.  The confusion for many comes from the desire to be different than what you were born to be.  Failure to follow the natural course is one of the causes of man’s self-emasculation.   
Many men, and for a variety of reasons are not happy with their lives.  They then move in directions contrary to their genetic foundations, moves that not only alter their behaviors but alter their perceptions about who they are, what they are and their role in society and life. Determining the exact percentage of those who identify as gay, bi or whatever is extremely difficult, but the following link helps to define the numbers, the sources and the difficulty associated with understanding who is gay, who is straight and who is something else. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/05/10-per-cent-population-gay-alfred-kinsey-statistics

A reader posed the question to me the other day, “why do trees get it right?”  Trees spend nothing on their own behalf.  They have no specific agenda nor political motivation except to grow where they are planted.  Why do trees or nature, in general, succeed within their confined existence?  Do trees suffer from an emasculation syndrome?  There are some species that have different patterns of sexual behavior and even some like the worm that is both male and female (I think, I didn’t spend time researching the worm)

The question of why does nature as a whole succeed where man does not, keeping in mind that our lack of success is actuated toward a small percentage of our population, but the effects of that small percentage have had resounding effects on the masculinity of males in general, that’s why we talk about it.  Nature follows the rules that have been instituted and are therefore more inclined toward success as a result.

We are forced to honor women by dishonoring ourselves, and in the process, will lose all respect for womanhood.  We are forced to acknowledge the self-indulgent identity of those who have forsaken their own natural individuality and in the process, we are left questioning ourselves.  Our ability to provide for our families is subjugated by our marginalized roles as husbands and fathers and our ability to protect those we love has been sidelined by the lack of loving relationships.  Men (not man and women in this case) have been marginalized and emasculated to the point where they are forced to find love where they can protect what they can and provide whoever seems to come along.  You can buy anything in the world with money but like all things focused on money, they tarnish easily, are hard to handle and in the end, leave you broke, wanting more or dead.

Many have said that men are responsible, many are but in no greater degree than everyone else who buys into the fallacy of a marginalized family, loose morals, selfish motivations and a serious lack of spirituality.  What good is a man without a family? 

The family is the foundation of all society, it used to be the reason for why boys grew to be men.  Making a family used to be the central and singular reason for getting married and the framework that kept men home, happy and motivated toward upholding the vows of marriage but now it’s too easy to leave, too easy to separate, too easy to just give up.  You can look up the statistics on this one, in almost every category the family is in a drastic decline, taking its toll on the fabric of America and has contributed to the emasculation of men overall.

There are numerous reasons why males are failing to become men:

1.  Girls become women by simply growing up, but boys have historically had to pass a test.  There are no tests today, boys no longer must show that they’ve become a man. 

2.  Social Media has infected our boys with pornography and gaming, stripping them of their desire to achieve or be responsible. 

3.  Education has devoted its efforts to the female psyche forsaking the learning needs of boys for girls.  

4.  In his book, Boys Adrift, Dr. Leonard Sax explains that boys need — not want — to be responsible. If they are not needed, they don’t flourish.  Boys need to be responsible, they need, not want to be needed and our society has systematically destroyed those opportunities by portraying men as incompetent, immature and self-absorbed.   Hollywood has methodically enhanced the collective idea that men are no longer able and responsible and have done so very effectively.

We need our Men back.  We need our boys to grow into Men and we need our families back, two parents working together to raise their children to be Men and Women of great worth.  This will not come easy, especially now when we have allowed it to degrade, but we, all of us need to fight for what is right.  The problem is that the boys that usually go off to battle and become Men no longer want to fight.  So, the emasculation continues…

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Science Consensus

Image result for cartoon science consensusFor over two years I’ve been studying the pros and cons of global warming, cooling and in general the climate changes and specifically the anthropogenic effects on the earth.  Over that time, I’ve committed to seeking out evidence in support of those man-made antecedents that will affect and change the global weather patterns to such an extent as to create serious problems to the ultimate existence of man, not the changes that will force man to adapt due to subtle changes but cataclysmic events that will extinguish mans ability to adapt.

Throughout our existence, we have been forced to adapt to changes in weather, natural disasters, and disasters that were man-made but none, so far, have created a scenario of such magnitude that man could not survive.  This is not an either-or scenario but a serious question of the validity of the claims of those who predict our demise if we fail to perform the unknown list of do's and don't, an ever-changing list I might add.  

The doctrinal papers are extensive, the opinions even more so.  Both sides have substantiated proof with scientific data to support their claims.  There is an obvious advantage for those who sustain the belief in anthropogenic causes.  The numbers of claims or scientific papers do not necessarily generate a level of sustainable proof; nor does the limited number of sources from the opposing side guarantee vulnerability.   Even with a preponderance of evidence generally accepted the evidence from both sides needs to be confirmed and scrutinized as to the veracity of the data and the methods used prior to the initializing of any substantial conclusion.

When accepting this overwhelming task my first observation was not in the science but toward the beliefs of those who follow either side.  Those in favor of promoting the cause of man’s serious involvement in altering our planet believe (I use the word belief because of the numbers of followers who espouse acceptance without sufficient understanding of the basic components required to move beyond a simple rudimentary hope)  that man’s misuse of fossil fuels, aerosols and the increased production of CO2 and its effects on establishing an overactive greenhouse scenario causes the earth to warm and also causing extreme weather conditions.   They do have science to back their claim.  They have extensive studies, renowned names of high repute to bolster that belief.

The same is true on the other side as well with most falling for the belief scenario over substantive data.  They have their studies as well, reputable scientist (32,000 signed a pact of support that they do not necessarily agree with the current consensus, the other side has 100,000 plus) with very conclusive findings.  The issue is not with those that are informed but with many who are not and who act as if they are informed, they espouse their beliefs and promote their dogmatic views without virtue of self-awareness.  These pseudo prophetic narrators run their mouths, repeating facts not understood and retorting with practiced verbiage without virtue of any self-discovery or personal inquiry, satisfied with the idea that they know enough to argue their belief never concerned with the reality of having to know.

The first issue of belief creates a serious dilemma.  When a person believes, truly believes, the nature of science is immaterial to the conscience outcome of that belief.  Both sides have fallen prey to this human frailty, espousing feelings through an emotional connection that defies the logic that is ultimately required in order to seek the truth, learn the truth and accept that truth.  It is very important for both sides to understand the difficulty of learning the truth.  The complexity of this issue can be illustrated simply by taking a pillow full of feathers to the top of a windswept mountain.  Open the pillow and let the feathers go.  Now with any means possible try to predict the outcome of each feather, where will it land, what will they come in contact with, what will the effects be and now try to predict these same questions into the future for 100, 200 or even 1000 years. 

The complexity of our weather system, our planetary gasses, and the effects of the sun and ocean warming or cooling, the changes in cloud cover and rainfall and how they interact with each other is one billion times more profound than the simple feathers lost in the wind.  Scientist have had some success in creating models that duplicate past events on the premise that hindsight is much easier than future predictions but the problems with conveying past modeling to future outcomes forces scientist to upload preset parameters, parameters that by virtue of their limited scope provide only a limited view of one possible scenario from a grand scheme of an almost unlimited scope of possibilities. 

Is seeking the truth through a belief wrong or ineffective?  Not necessarily but often a belief will alter the neurons of one’s mind to such an extent as to make rational thought very difficult, especially if those beliefs are not rooted in an unknown truth.  We have to admit that there are truths not yet discovered, truths that might very well be formed out of the beliefs currently held.  

Definition:  Rationality is belief based on reason or evidence. Faith is the belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority.  The word faith generally refers to a belief that is held with lack of, in spite of or against reason and evidence. (Wikipedia) 

Is one process more correct than the other?  Not necessarily, it depends on your level of faith in relation to your desire to believe in reason or evidence or through faith and inspiration.  Both have volumes of evidence to show veracity and reliability.

To the devoted Christian, neither facts nor rational reasoning can alter the mindset to dissuade from that fundamental belief.  The same is true in a variety of held beliefs, once a belief is established and cauterized that belief becomes a conscious reality, right or wrong that reality becomes an established norm.

It’s these “realities“ that must be understood in order to assemble the tidbits of true science associated with both sides of this contentious issue.  There is truth to be found but particular beliefs cannot be applied in forming a cogent hypothesis or in drawing logical conclusions based on specific, non-altered scientific data. 

The second issue of belief is in the area of science and the acceptance of scientific facts not necessarily vetted in relation to the scientific process, accepting findings that would not be repeatable or drawing conclusions from previously accepted misrepresentations.  Both sides are guilty of these horrendous shortcuts in order to garner support and political favors.  There is a huge disparity of funding between the two camps with Pro funding dollars nearing the 50,000,000,000 mark while those against have raised an estimated 65, 000,000, that’s .13% of the total dollars in favor and in support of Man Made Global Warming. 

These two numbers, divergent as they are, do not proclaim nor give credence to the legitimacy of one or the other, all it shows is the level of support for one over the other.  It does, however, give some credence to the idea of a consensus:  Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. A scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method. (Wikipedia, Webster’s)

The Groupthink project was extensively studied by Yale psychologist Irving L. Janis and described in his 1982 book Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.  It postulates over the ever-increasing phenomenon of how the best and brightest minds screwup, creating monumental mistakes, that when reviewed caused those not involved to scratch their heads in wonder at the sheer absurdity of those precious decisions.   There are three basic reasons why smart people continue to create or do stupid things:

1.    Overestimatatuin of the group’s power and morality, including “an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their actions.”

2.    Closed-mindedness, including a refusal to consider alternative explanations and stereotyped negative views of those who aren’t part of the group’s consensus. The group takes on a “win-lose fighting stance” toward alternative views.

   3.  Pressure toward uniformity, including “a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view”; “direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes”; and “the emergence of self-appointed mind-guards … who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.”  Irvin L. Janis, Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982.

A consensus in many cases does support the ideal in scientific cooperation.  In many instances however that level of cooperation has only promulgated a farce of scientific chicanery.

1.       Age of the Earth: The first example is the controversy surrounding the age of the earth. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the science of heat transfer was well established. One of the leading luminaries of physics, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), concluded that the Earth could be no more than about 20-40 million years old.
2.       Belief that saccharin causes cancer,
3.       Belief that dietary fiber prevents colon cancer, and
4.       Confidence that nuclear fusion is just around the corner.
5.       1970 consensus that the earth was entering a new Ice Age…

Related imageHistory is filled with examples of consensus and failure to recognize the limitations of science. 
Science is the vehicle that man needs in order to formulate the questions of why or how.  Faith, when used properly, regulates the desire toward consensus and maintains the hope that answers are available to those that diligently seek and strive. 

The bottom line is quite simple, consensus does not guarantee science fact.  Faith cannot prove what is true or not true.  We need to utilize both faith and science in order to more correctly learn the truth of all things.  Faith because it establishes foundational principles of action and behavior and science because it is the process of discovery and experimentation.