The Detritus of Life
We all accumulate “stuff” and we justify this accumulation by saying that we may use it “later.” Have you ever noticed that the words Later and Now do not even share the same letters? Later never arrives, yet Now never leaves. Is it not best to put something to use now rather than wait for the Later that will never occur?
The stuff this essay is about is not the physical, the stuff you throw in the junk drawer in the kitchen. The stuff this writer discusses is the mental junk that accumulates over the years. The memories of past tragedies and triumphs that, over time, become much more significant in our minds than when they occurred. The minor slight by a clerk in a store that gets magnified in our minds to the point where one makes the decision to never shop in that store again. The constructive criticism by the boss about how a particular procedure is done that becomes in our psyche a severe questioning of our competence. The tiff that evolves into a lovers’ quarrel that becomes a full-blown argument that ends up in divorce court. Then there are also the times when things go your way. The time your high school team beat the crosstown arch-rivals, the perfect comeback line to some idiot’s remarks, the perfect attendance award you won in grade school or the certificate of recognition by your employer, club or community.
What good does all this stuff do now? Does having perfect attendance in the third grade mean anything when it comes to the forty years of your working life? Does that certificate of recognition prepare you for the future? Will that win against your rivals result in a better family life or a job promotion later? Of course not, yet we want to revel in the triumphs for as long as we can and find some lesson that may help us in the future from the tragedies, but we all must move on with our lives. Finding lessons to live by in the wins and losses we experience are good. Knowing what to do right the next time you are faced with a situation makes it much easier to get through it. This writer argues that it is best to suffer major disappointments and experience major success early in life so as to be better prepared the next time they occur. Just don’t sit on your laurels, or the thorns.
It also helps to observe how other people handle similar situations properly and improperly. For example, observing Donald Trump who took his inheritance of a few million dollars and parlayed it into multiple billions versus the lottery winner who squanders his winnings and is broke in five years. An argument could be made that Mr. Trump observed how his father made his wealth and just followed the template whereas the lottery winner could not benefit from such as role model. Pshaw! There are hundreds of books written by or about wealthy people to use as object lessons, some by Mr. Trump himself. This is true for any successful endeavor whether it’s starting a business or sailing around the world.
You may have heard that organizing experts, or even your mother, say to get rid of anything you have not used in six months. We even have mini-celebrations such as Spring Cleaning or Yard Sales to recognize the importance of getting rid of the stuff that occupies to much space in our lives. Let’s do that for the old memories. Learn the lessons, apply them them Now in your current endeavor, and you end up with a new memory of success that will hold the lesson until the next time you can apply it, and that next time is . . . Now.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Does it really mean anything?
I have not been posting lately for a particular reason. I've been asking myself if it really matters . Who changes their lives just because someone was voted into office (other than the newly elected officeholders and their staffs, of course). I bet even the Virginia Tech students who returned this year are still doing the same things as before the shootings.
I've started to always refer to September 11th as The Terrorist Attacks. I believe we have been refering to the tragedies that day just as another date on the calendar for so long that it has dulled the memory. My parent's generation always called a similar tragedy they suffered as The Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor, not December 7th.
Anyway, getting back to my original point. Politicians, all elected officials, have very little power over our lives. And they have absolutely no real power, and that pisses them off. they naturally want to control us regardless of party affiliation. That is why our tax system is set up the way it is, that's the reason why our laws are written the way they are, that's the reason for government! They want to control you, simple as that. They can't . . . unless YOU let them.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Florida
Today I am in the beautiful state of Florida. Nope, no political spiel today. Just gotta wonder why I never get here in the Winter . . . Also, I just completed another class towards my Bachelor's degree. Yippee!!!
Thursday, August 9, 2007
756. I bid 800.
San Francisco Giants right fielder Barry Bonds on occasion, about once every four at bats, hits a baseball. Tuesday night he hit his 756th home run of his career. This puts him in first place as the leading home run hitter in Major League Baseball. Congratulations, Barry, er, Mr. Bonds. You have my highest regard for your achievement, and, no, I do not believe it "deserves" an asterisk* You've truly earned this.
Some want to accuse you of being juiced, being loaded on steroids to make you a more powerful hitter. I ask those who state this, when was he tested positive? Ever since MLB started banning certain performance-enhancing chemicals, such as Andro and steroids, Bonds never tested positive. Not once. Accusations are one thing, proof is another. If he was using steroids before it was banned but stopped afterwards he must still be given the full honors the greatest baseball player deserves. One cannot be found guilty of a crime before it was illegal. In legal terms that is called ex post facto legislation, or in the case of MLB, regulation.
Steroids cannot make a person's hand-eye coordination better, and it certainly does not make the brain work faster in the split second it takes for a batter to make a swing/no swing decision. Barry Bonds is the oldest, most experienced person on the team. He has been educated well in the nuances of baseball by his father, the late, great Bobby Bonds, and by his godfather, Willy Mays. That education and his 21 years in the Big Show has made him the powerhouse of the game. Some want to look at his body size after Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa broke the single season home run record in 1998. Was it steroids? If so, were steroids specifically banned by MLB then? Could it be a better off-season training regimen that all veterans in every sport must do to keep some rookie from taking their job?
What we've been seeing over the last several years are baseball players being more fit with careers lasting much longer than when Barry entered the game. Pitchers are lasting twenty years or more when they typically had a career of ten years or less. Injuries that may have been career-ending a decade ago are now just putting players on the DL for a few weeks or months. Conditioning has improved on both the science side and on the players' side.
I hope Barry Bonds stays in the game past his 800th home run. I also hope that, when his name is placed on the ballot for the Hall of Fame, he is elected. Whatever allegations against Bonds should not keep him out unless it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he took steroids or other performance enhancing chemicals after they were banned.
I am not a fan of Barry Bonds nor of the Giants. I am a Colorado Rockies and Los Angeles Dodgers fan (and any baseball fan knows about the rivalry between the Dodgers and the Giants, even when they were in New York), so do not call me a homer. However, if one wants to say that his record still deserves an *sterisk, then maybe it should be for the number of home runs he hit in Denver's Coors Field before the Rockies put in the humidor.
P.S.--As of this time Barry Bonds has a career 757 home runs, just 43 away from 800!
Some want to accuse you of being juiced, being loaded on steroids to make you a more powerful hitter. I ask those who state this, when was he tested positive? Ever since MLB started banning certain performance-enhancing chemicals, such as Andro and steroids, Bonds never tested positive. Not once. Accusations are one thing, proof is another. If he was using steroids before it was banned but stopped afterwards he must still be given the full honors the greatest baseball player deserves. One cannot be found guilty of a crime before it was illegal. In legal terms that is called ex post facto legislation, or in the case of MLB, regulation.
Steroids cannot make a person's hand-eye coordination better, and it certainly does not make the brain work faster in the split second it takes for a batter to make a swing/no swing decision. Barry Bonds is the oldest, most experienced person on the team. He has been educated well in the nuances of baseball by his father, the late, great Bobby Bonds, and by his godfather, Willy Mays. That education and his 21 years in the Big Show has made him the powerhouse of the game. Some want to look at his body size after Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa broke the single season home run record in 1998. Was it steroids? If so, were steroids specifically banned by MLB then? Could it be a better off-season training regimen that all veterans in every sport must do to keep some rookie from taking their job?
What we've been seeing over the last several years are baseball players being more fit with careers lasting much longer than when Barry entered the game. Pitchers are lasting twenty years or more when they typically had a career of ten years or less. Injuries that may have been career-ending a decade ago are now just putting players on the DL for a few weeks or months. Conditioning has improved on both the science side and on the players' side.
I hope Barry Bonds stays in the game past his 800th home run. I also hope that, when his name is placed on the ballot for the Hall of Fame, he is elected. Whatever allegations against Bonds should not keep him out unless it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he took steroids or other performance enhancing chemicals after they were banned.
I am not a fan of Barry Bonds nor of the Giants. I am a Colorado Rockies and Los Angeles Dodgers fan (and any baseball fan knows about the rivalry between the Dodgers and the Giants, even when they were in New York), so do not call me a homer. However, if one wants to say that his record still deserves an *sterisk, then maybe it should be for the number of home runs he hit in Denver's Coors Field before the Rockies put in the humidor.
P.S.--As of this time Barry Bonds has a career 757 home runs, just 43 away from 800!
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Minneapolis bridge disaster
Last Wednesday the I-35W bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed for no obvious reason. The problems with disasters are the instant experts that make claims as to what happened. Much of this sounds like the black helicopter/alien abduction crowd. My position is let the investigation be completed in peace. Having said that I want to take a look at some of the assumptions already made.
The bridge was overloaded and could not hold the weight.
From what I understand the four-lane bridge was narrowed to one lane due to construction. Therefore, there were fewer vehicles and thus less weight on the span than when it is fully opened. As for the weight of the construction equipment their total weight was likely less than the total weight of the traffic when it is fully operational. The only question was the weight and concentration of the raw materials the construction company had on the bridge at that moment.
The vibrations of the traffic caused the bridge to collapse.
This one is easy. The traffic was at a standstill. Traffic induced vibrations were virtually nil. The bridge was also constructed so no part of it touched the river so the vibrations of the current could not be an effect.
Extreme temperature variations made the steel weak.
For forty years this bridge has gone through extreme temperature variations with no apparent damage. Sub-zero Fahrenheit temperatures in the Winter to nearly one hundred degree heat in the Summer. Yes, all metals contract when cooled and expand when warmed. However, the southwest deserts have Summer temperature variations that encompass a 70-80 degree range daily! It is not uncommon in southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, west Texas to have mild frost on the bushes in the pre-dawn darkness then be 110+ within twelve hours. I used to live in the Mohave Desert in southern California and experienced it. My point is that the temperatures in the nineties last week were extreme only for humans and other sentient beings. Considering how hot one has to get steel to soften it, the temps probably were ineffective.
The ground shifted.
I give credence to this one. The anchor points were in the river's embankments. Considering that the ground there is naturally soft, else the river would not be able to cut a channel through it, the original builders had to anchor it in bedrock from the side. If that bedrock shifted cracked or weakened, the anchors could have moved.
In spite of my admonishment about letting the investigators do their work, I do have one possible theory that should be investigated. In recent years many states have switched from salt to magnesium-chloride for ice and snow mitigation. Mag-chloride has been shown to corrode wires on vehicles. If the state or city used mag-chloride on that highway it may have corroded the steel enough to weaken it.
In closing, I just want to say that I have not been able to post recently due to computer issues. They are finally resolved and I can blather on about the issues of the day. Yippee! :-)
The bridge was overloaded and could not hold the weight.
From what I understand the four-lane bridge was narrowed to one lane due to construction. Therefore, there were fewer vehicles and thus less weight on the span than when it is fully opened. As for the weight of the construction equipment their total weight was likely less than the total weight of the traffic when it is fully operational. The only question was the weight and concentration of the raw materials the construction company had on the bridge at that moment.
The vibrations of the traffic caused the bridge to collapse.
This one is easy. The traffic was at a standstill. Traffic induced vibrations were virtually nil. The bridge was also constructed so no part of it touched the river so the vibrations of the current could not be an effect.
Extreme temperature variations made the steel weak.
For forty years this bridge has gone through extreme temperature variations with no apparent damage. Sub-zero Fahrenheit temperatures in the Winter to nearly one hundred degree heat in the Summer. Yes, all metals contract when cooled and expand when warmed. However, the southwest deserts have Summer temperature variations that encompass a 70-80 degree range daily! It is not uncommon in southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, west Texas to have mild frost on the bushes in the pre-dawn darkness then be 110+ within twelve hours. I used to live in the Mohave Desert in southern California and experienced it. My point is that the temperatures in the nineties last week were extreme only for humans and other sentient beings. Considering how hot one has to get steel to soften it, the temps probably were ineffective.
The ground shifted.
I give credence to this one. The anchor points were in the river's embankments. Considering that the ground there is naturally soft, else the river would not be able to cut a channel through it, the original builders had to anchor it in bedrock from the side. If that bedrock shifted cracked or weakened, the anchors could have moved.
In spite of my admonishment about letting the investigators do their work, I do have one possible theory that should be investigated. In recent years many states have switched from salt to magnesium-chloride for ice and snow mitigation. Mag-chloride has been shown to corrode wires on vehicles. If the state or city used mag-chloride on that highway it may have corroded the steel enough to weaken it.
In closing, I just want to say that I have not been able to post recently due to computer issues. They are finally resolved and I can blather on about the issues of the day. Yippee! :-)
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Annie, get yer gun!
I knew it was going to happen. I just didn't think it was going to be so quick! Within minutes of the Virginia Tech slaughter the anti-gunners were out in force saying we must get rid of the guns. Even Bill O'Reilly of Fox News said we must strengthen (make more restrictive) the purchase laws for guns. The murders were tragic. What is just as sick is that the gun grabbers are not even waiting for the bodies to be identified or buried. It was as if, and I believe, they were waiting for just such an event to occur so they would have a "reason" to whine, moan, and complain about the ease of getting a gun. I even heard someone say it was easier to buy a gun than to buy a loaf of bread! How stupid and idiotic can one get?!
I do not understand why people are so afraid of an assembly of springs and levers. That is what makes a gun a gun. There are no motors, no fuel, no electronics, no radiation, no greenhouse gases used or created by a gun. It's just an assemblage of springs and levers.
The ammunition uses the same type of technology that the power stroke on your car's engine uses. The firing pin strikes a primer that emits a small spark just like the spark plug on your car. This spark lights a fuel, gunpowder, just like the spark plug lights the gas in the cylinders. Both fuels burn, not explode, creating superheated air that quickly expands. This superheated air must find some way to escape and will naturally push against the "weakest" point. The weakest point is designed to move: the piston in the engine and the projectile (bullet or shot cup) in the ammunition. Whereas the piston is limited in it's travel by the connecting rod as it travels down the cylinder, the projectile travels down the barrel and escapes out the end. Now, the superheated air escapes and cools and is no longer pushing on the projectile. Therefore, the projectile travels only due to inertia. Drag and gravity are now working against it. All bullets and all shot do not have any ability to go around corners, nor do they have any propulsion nor lift or directional control. One the energy of inertia is expended all ammunition falls to the ground. The only way for an object or target to get hit is by being in a direct line of the round.
Imagine, if there was just one person on the VT campus who had a gun and was able to stop the assault once it started there may be dozens of those victims alive today. But there is a regulation that no firearms will be carried on campus. Apparently one who is intent on killing is not going to worry about violating some regulation.
If we need a new gun control law it should be this: All persons eighteen years of age MUST take a firearms shooting and safety class. Then, once they have been exposed to firearms and can make an informed choice, they can reject or accept owning a firearm for their own personal use. But everyone can do so even without a law. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has developed an excellent training system for anyone regardless of level of expertise. You can use the link above or call (877) NRA-2000 [(877) 672-2000] to find a training facility near you.
Next: What the NRA really promotes.
I do not understand why people are so afraid of an assembly of springs and levers. That is what makes a gun a gun. There are no motors, no fuel, no electronics, no radiation, no greenhouse gases used or created by a gun. It's just an assemblage of springs and levers.
The ammunition uses the same type of technology that the power stroke on your car's engine uses. The firing pin strikes a primer that emits a small spark just like the spark plug on your car. This spark lights a fuel, gunpowder, just like the spark plug lights the gas in the cylinders. Both fuels burn, not explode, creating superheated air that quickly expands. This superheated air must find some way to escape and will naturally push against the "weakest" point. The weakest point is designed to move: the piston in the engine and the projectile (bullet or shot cup) in the ammunition. Whereas the piston is limited in it's travel by the connecting rod as it travels down the cylinder, the projectile travels down the barrel and escapes out the end. Now, the superheated air escapes and cools and is no longer pushing on the projectile. Therefore, the projectile travels only due to inertia. Drag and gravity are now working against it. All bullets and all shot do not have any ability to go around corners, nor do they have any propulsion nor lift or directional control. One the energy of inertia is expended all ammunition falls to the ground. The only way for an object or target to get hit is by being in a direct line of the round.
Imagine, if there was just one person on the VT campus who had a gun and was able to stop the assault once it started there may be dozens of those victims alive today. But there is a regulation that no firearms will be carried on campus. Apparently one who is intent on killing is not going to worry about violating some regulation.
If we need a new gun control law it should be this: All persons eighteen years of age MUST take a firearms shooting and safety class. Then, once they have been exposed to firearms and can make an informed choice, they can reject or accept owning a firearm for their own personal use. But everyone can do so even without a law. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has developed an excellent training system for anyone regardless of level of expertise. You can use the link above or call (877) NRA-2000 [(877) 672-2000] to find a training facility near you.
Next: What the NRA really promotes.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
The Virginia Tech shootings
Yesterday morning a tragedy struck the campus of Virginia Technological University in Blacksburg, VA. A lone mass murderer, a student, killed 32 people then himself. At this time they do not know why. All we know is that he used a gun.
No doubt this will renew calls for a ban on guns. With a Democrat-controlled Congress it may just happen. They love to glom onto such tragedies as an excuse to micromanage our lives.
Think about this; what if someone else had a gun and had been able to return fire? Of course that is not practical. It is against Campus regulations to have a firearm. Sure stopped that student, didn't it?
No doubt this will renew calls for a ban on guns. With a Democrat-controlled Congress it may just happen. They love to glom onto such tragedies as an excuse to micromanage our lives.
Think about this; what if someone else had a gun and had been able to return fire? Of course that is not practical. It is against Campus regulations to have a firearm. Sure stopped that student, didn't it?
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Liberals: The New Politburo
A couple of days ago Carl Rove, President Bush's political adviser, was harangued, hassled and threatened by a group of "peaceful" demonstrators at Columbia University. Soon-to-be graduates of Brigham Young University are going to protest, nay, even have an "alternate" ceremony when Vice President Cheney gives the commencement address. Back at Columbia a few months ago some protesters charged the stage when the founder of the Minutemen Group came to speak. Their punishment? Letters of reprimand in their records. (Is that the same permanent record that my teachers threatened me with when I was in grade school?)
Liberals HATE when someone who has a differing position speaks out loud. They would rather that we not speak at all. If they have their way, we would be shackled and brought before the "free speech" court for our mere thoughts.
All the years that Conservatives had to suffer through commencement speeches by Liberals without making a scene. Laura Ingraham has mentioned on her radio talk program about the Liberals who spoke at her college graduation. Conservatives suffer gladly when they must politely listen to some idiotic Liberal massage his or her ego with inane statements. I wonder how many Liberal speakers have spoke at Columbia or BYU? I wonder how many were protested by Conservative students? I wonder when the last time a Conservative speaker was able to speak at any university without being protested?
I wonder where the Liberals are going to place the Re-education Camps for the Treatment of Conservative Thought?
P.S--Sorry for taking so long to post again.
Liberals HATE when someone who has a differing position speaks out loud. They would rather that we not speak at all. If they have their way, we would be shackled and brought before the "free speech" court for our mere thoughts.
All the years that Conservatives had to suffer through commencement speeches by Liberals without making a scene. Laura Ingraham has mentioned on her radio talk program about the Liberals who spoke at her college graduation. Conservatives suffer gladly when they must politely listen to some idiotic Liberal massage his or her ego with inane statements. I wonder how many Liberal speakers have spoke at Columbia or BYU? I wonder how many were protested by Conservative students? I wonder when the last time a Conservative speaker was able to speak at any university without being protested?
I wonder where the Liberals are going to place the Re-education Camps for the Treatment of Conservative Thought?
P.S--Sorry for taking so long to post again.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
An Open Letter to President Bush
Dear President George W. Bush,
I am not a big fan of yours. It's not your fault, but your dad's. I am just telling you this so that you understand where I stand. I am a member of the Libertarian Party. I and many other Conservatives were very disappointed by your father's
dismissal of the Reagan Revolution. When you were inaugurated in 2001 I
was certain you would prove yourself to be a RINO (Republican In Name Only). I still expect that and with a Democratic (or Demo-critic) Party in power in Congress I really do expect you to go that way.
Having said this I am also dismayed by the vitriol that is levelled at you and the members of your administration for the handling of the Iraq war. It is unfortunate that most of the members of Congress have never served in the military for they would have learned that NO military activity goes without mistakes, particularly something
as massive as a war. Unfortunately they think that this is just a game with referees, not unlike a football game.
You would think that they would not be so critical if they just realized that they can't even run a political campaign without mistakes. I am reminded of a
story my dad told me when he was a surveyor for the Los Angeles County Road Department (as it was called then). During his survey of a new street an error crept into the calculations. This was when slide rules were used. That error resulted in a minor misalignment of the road with the easement centerline . One of the workers criticised my dad about the mistake. Dad grabbed a pencil out of the man's pocket, pointed to the well-worn eraser, and told him that apparently he was not perfect
either.
The differences between mistakes and failures are merely if one corrects or is allowed to correct a mistake. Perfection is impossible with such a large task as conducting a war. When imperfections appear then you must be allowed to correct them. If anyone prevents you, sir, from making the corrections then it becomes THEIR failure. Right now the Democrats are trying to make you fail. Just put it back on them. Do you remember, during the budget battle in 1994 (sic), when President Clinton shut down the government and then blamed the Republican-controlled Congress? Do the same thing to them. If they force you to stop the war then we get hit again it's their fault.
The American people are frustrated. Time after time they saw situations come and go which they believed were signs that we were about to be done with this. Hussein deposed. The temporary government in place. The Constitution ratified. The permanent government installed. Each of these seemed to be signals that we could begin to leave. Yet it seems as if we are in mission creep and now there is nothing else to look forward to for a sign we are out of there. I get the feeling that it will be just a few more months for the new Iraqi government to take full control.
In the meantime, Mr. President, I recommend to you that you talk to the American people showing on a map of Iraq where the safe areas are and where it is still unsafe. And, if you can do so, get the troops that are doing infrastructure
rebuilding into the areas of turmoil and hand over infrastructure to the Peace Corps. Americans are visual. They need to see a whole picture, not just the little bit that the networks show, but the whole darn thing. Once they see how much of Iraq is stable then they can renew their belief that the war is almost over, at least in Iraq.
Gary the Brave
P.S-Could you please instruct all the members of your administration to quit using the phrase, "At the end of the day..."? That sends an unintended signal that everything will be wrapped up after the next commercial break. Thank You
I am not a big fan of yours. It's not your fault, but your dad's. I am just telling you this so that you understand where I stand. I am a member of the Libertarian Party. I and many other Conservatives were very disappointed by your father's
dismissal of the Reagan Revolution. When you were inaugurated in 2001 I
was certain you would prove yourself to be a RINO (Republican In Name Only). I still expect that and with a Democratic (or Demo-critic) Party in power in Congress I really do expect you to go that way.
Having said this I am also dismayed by the vitriol that is levelled at you and the members of your administration for the handling of the Iraq war. It is unfortunate that most of the members of Congress have never served in the military for they would have learned that NO military activity goes without mistakes, particularly something
as massive as a war. Unfortunately they think that this is just a game with referees, not unlike a football game.
You would think that they would not be so critical if they just realized that they can't even run a political campaign without mistakes. I am reminded of a
story my dad told me when he was a surveyor for the Los Angeles County Road Department (as it was called then). During his survey of a new street an error crept into the calculations. This was when slide rules were used. That error resulted in a minor misalignment of the road with the easement centerline . One of the workers criticised my dad about the mistake. Dad grabbed a pencil out of the man's pocket, pointed to the well-worn eraser, and told him that apparently he was not perfect
either.
The differences between mistakes and failures are merely if one corrects or is allowed to correct a mistake. Perfection is impossible with such a large task as conducting a war. When imperfections appear then you must be allowed to correct them. If anyone prevents you, sir, from making the corrections then it becomes THEIR failure. Right now the Democrats are trying to make you fail. Just put it back on them. Do you remember, during the budget battle in 1994 (sic), when President Clinton shut down the government and then blamed the Republican-controlled Congress? Do the same thing to them. If they force you to stop the war then we get hit again it's their fault.
The American people are frustrated. Time after time they saw situations come and go which they believed were signs that we were about to be done with this. Hussein deposed. The temporary government in place. The Constitution ratified. The permanent government installed. Each of these seemed to be signals that we could begin to leave. Yet it seems as if we are in mission creep and now there is nothing else to look forward to for a sign we are out of there. I get the feeling that it will be just a few more months for the new Iraqi government to take full control.
In the meantime, Mr. President, I recommend to you that you talk to the American people showing on a map of Iraq where the safe areas are and where it is still unsafe. And, if you can do so, get the troops that are doing infrastructure
rebuilding into the areas of turmoil and hand over infrastructure to the Peace Corps. Americans are visual. They need to see a whole picture, not just the little bit that the networks show, but the whole darn thing. Once they see how much of Iraq is stable then they can renew their belief that the war is almost over, at least in Iraq.
Gary the Brave
P.S-Could you please instruct all the members of your administration to quit using the phrase, "At the end of the day..."? That sends an unintended signal that everything will be wrapped up after the next commercial break. Thank You
Monday, January 29, 2007
Global Warming
So what causes global warming? I am not a scientist (nor a Scientologist) but I would like to forward a theory.
First, I am not convinced we are having global warming. I am also not convinced we are having global cooling, either. But I do believe that, just as the human body has different tempedratures under differing conditions, the Earth's surface temperature also changes. I do not believe that we will suffer a catastrophe. However, if the Earth did cool down into an ice age or heat up to melt the polar caps, humans will be long gone. We can't handle extreme temperature changes. We thrive at 65-70 degrees F. Much colder and we have to put on extra layers of clothing; much warmer and we're dying of thirst. I think the animals will outlive humans while plants will survive long after the animals.
The Earth's crust is about 30 miles thick. Yep, the Earth is pretty thin-skinned. The atmosphere is only about 50 miles thick and that's on a good day. So the atmosphere is just about the same thickness, if not density, as the crust. Yet there is a hot, molten core of magma and molten iron that lies just under the crust. The core is about 8,000 miles in diameter! My theory is that any significant changes to the surface temperature will be effected by the core. It may be heating up; it may be cooling down. But it will be the key to the future of this planet. Either way, we will all be dead before it happens.
Also, even if the polar caps melt, there are significantly fewer cubic feet of liquid in all of that ice than cubic feet of water in the oceans. If it is hot enough to melt the ice caps then there will also be significant evaporation so as to keep everthing equal. And since water vapor cannot escape the atmosphere it will just recondense and fall as rain possibly in desert regions.
One thing that makes me curious about the traditional global warming crowd: if we're damaging the atmosphere so severly that the sun's rays are gonna cook us then how come spacecraft outside of the atmosphere have cold skin temperatures even with full solar exposure?
Nest time: An open letter to President Bush.
First, I am not convinced we are having global warming. I am also not convinced we are having global cooling, either. But I do believe that, just as the human body has different tempedratures under differing conditions, the Earth's surface temperature also changes. I do not believe that we will suffer a catastrophe. However, if the Earth did cool down into an ice age or heat up to melt the polar caps, humans will be long gone. We can't handle extreme temperature changes. We thrive at 65-70 degrees F. Much colder and we have to put on extra layers of clothing; much warmer and we're dying of thirst. I think the animals will outlive humans while plants will survive long after the animals.
The Earth's crust is about 30 miles thick. Yep, the Earth is pretty thin-skinned. The atmosphere is only about 50 miles thick and that's on a good day. So the atmosphere is just about the same thickness, if not density, as the crust. Yet there is a hot, molten core of magma and molten iron that lies just under the crust. The core is about 8,000 miles in diameter! My theory is that any significant changes to the surface temperature will be effected by the core. It may be heating up; it may be cooling down. But it will be the key to the future of this planet. Either way, we will all be dead before it happens.
Also, even if the polar caps melt, there are significantly fewer cubic feet of liquid in all of that ice than cubic feet of water in the oceans. If it is hot enough to melt the ice caps then there will also be significant evaporation so as to keep everthing equal. And since water vapor cannot escape the atmosphere it will just recondense and fall as rain possibly in desert regions.
One thing that makes me curious about the traditional global warming crowd: if we're damaging the atmosphere so severly that the sun's rays are gonna cook us then how come spacecraft outside of the atmosphere have cold skin temperatures even with full solar exposure?
Nest time: An open letter to President Bush.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Why are Progressives against progress?
The United States is a great country. So many innovations and inventions that have benefitted people all over the world. I do not believe it is the geography, but the people we have here. Yet those that call themselves Progressives apparently want to turn back the clock to the, what, the stone age? Every single invention, even those by Liberals, are now anathema to Progressives.
Progressives are really Liberals in a different wrap. They believe that some Liberal ideas are good unless it involves building a structure, using a natural resource, advancing a technology, or allow people to ease their burdens.
For example, Progressives want us to sign the Kyoto Treaty. This treaty would force the United States and certain other signatories to reduce pollution and other emissions to pre-1990 levels. Other signatories are considered "developing countries" and they would not be required to meet these pollution levels. Yet according to Live Science.com two of these developing countries, China and India, are home to some of the most polluted places in the world!
Okay, maybe I am being a little harsh. Maybe I'm misreading Progressives. Maybe I'm painting all Progressives with too broad of a brush. Yet it seems as if every Progressive is a Luddite. So I ask you, Mr. & Ms. Progressive, please tell me what advances in technology, in resources, in infrastructure you find as being really progressive.
My list is simple: the internal combustion engine, the skyscraper, lumber orchards, energy development, agriculture, limited-access highways, aircraft, radio, space flight, medical therapies (chemical and surgical), education, photography and videography, the internet, computers, digital communications, and the greatest progress--LIBERTY!
Next time: Global Warming.
Progressives are really Liberals in a different wrap. They believe that some Liberal ideas are good unless it involves building a structure, using a natural resource, advancing a technology, or allow people to ease their burdens.
For example, Progressives want us to sign the Kyoto Treaty. This treaty would force the United States and certain other signatories to reduce pollution and other emissions to pre-1990 levels. Other signatories are considered "developing countries" and they would not be required to meet these pollution levels. Yet according to Live Science.com two of these developing countries, China and India, are home to some of the most polluted places in the world!
Okay, maybe I am being a little harsh. Maybe I'm misreading Progressives. Maybe I'm painting all Progressives with too broad of a brush. Yet it seems as if every Progressive is a Luddite. So I ask you, Mr. & Ms. Progressive, please tell me what advances in technology, in resources, in infrastructure you find as being really progressive.
My list is simple: the internal combustion engine, the skyscraper, lumber orchards, energy development, agriculture, limited-access highways, aircraft, radio, space flight, medical therapies (chemical and surgical), education, photography and videography, the internet, computers, digital communications, and the greatest progress--LIBERTY!
Next time: Global Warming.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Liberals are like a woman suffering from PMS
I've been listening to Liberals a lot lately (ever since the Dems stole
the election) and it seems they are never happy. They're acting as if
they have cramps, are retaining water and bloating. Yes, no matter the
sex, Liberals are suffering from PMS! Political Madness Syndrome
usually affects only one person at a time and rarely is as massive as
we've seen the last several years.
When the Republicans first
won control of Congress beginning in 1995 the first throes of PMS were
seen. Many conservative commentators merely assumed it was just the
Democrats suffering shock that they were now out of power. How wrong
they were! The fact is that Liberals truly believe that only they have
any ideas. Not just the great ideas, but all ideas. The rest are too
stupid to think independently.
Often, however, Conservatives
have ideas that reminds people of the freedom that used to exist in this
country. Freedom. Rights. Liberty. Ideas one rarely hears from
Liberals. When Liberals speak about rights, for example, they usually
use a modifier--gay rights, women's rights, minority rights, animal
rights. One thing that you must remember is that all rights apply equally to
all persons regardless of status. When a modifier is applied to a
"right" it is no longer a true right, but a privilege.
Privileges
are usually earned. Rights are automatically granted and may be
exercised at the discretion of each individual. Freedom is a state or
status of a person or people and it does not change (except for certain
circumstances). Liberty is the result of a free personexercising their rights.
Alas, many Liberals attempt to prevent people from enjoying liberty by preventing them from exercising
their rights. They think that only specific rights and specific
freedoms and specific liberties should be enjoyed by people. If one
does not want to use a specific right, such as using firearms, that is
theirprerogative. Yet, Liberals will do whatever they can to prevent others from exercising those rights. Why?
Next time, Why are Progressives against progress?
the election) and it seems they are never happy. They're acting as if
they have cramps, are retaining water and bloating. Yes, no matter the
sex, Liberals are suffering from PMS! Political Madness Syndrome
usually affects only one person at a time and rarely is as massive as
we've seen the last several years.
When the Republicans first
won control of Congress beginning in 1995 the first throes of PMS were
seen. Many conservative commentators merely assumed it was just the
Democrats suffering shock that they were now out of power. How wrong
they were! The fact is that Liberals truly believe that only they have
any ideas. Not just the great ideas, but all ideas. The rest are too
stupid to think independently.
Often, however, Conservatives
have ideas that reminds people of the freedom that used to exist in this
country. Freedom. Rights. Liberty. Ideas one rarely hears from
Liberals. When Liberals speak about rights, for example, they usually
use a modifier--gay rights, women's rights, minority rights, animal
rights. One thing that you must remember is that all rights apply equally to
all persons regardless of status. When a modifier is applied to a
"right" it is no longer a true right, but a privilege.
Privileges
are usually earned. Rights are automatically granted and may be
exercised at the discretion of each individual. Freedom is a state or
status of a person or people and it does not change (except for certain
circumstances). Liberty is the result of a free personexercising their rights.
Alas, many Liberals attempt to prevent people from enjoying liberty by preventing them from exercising
their rights. They think that only specific rights and specific
freedoms and specific liberties should be enjoyed by people. If one
does not want to use a specific right, such as using firearms, that is
theirprerogative. Yet, Liberals will do whatever they can to prevent others from exercising those rights. Why?
Next time, Why are Progressives against progress?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)