The Pundit Master

Diversity: What does it really mean?

2009-11-30T21:31:00.000-08:00

I just caught a snippet of a commercial espousing the virtues of diversity and it occurred to me just how bass ackwards the whole concept has become.

Suppose you have three people in an office. One likes hard rock, one likes hip hop and one likes country music. Each hates the other two types of music. That's diversity. They may agree to tolerate the other types so that they may have their turn to select their music, but a general mish-mash of the three would satisfy nobody.

Everyone pretending to like everything is not diversity. It's conformity. Conformity breeds mediocrity. The pursuit of one's passion breeds excellence. You can't excel at anything if you adopt the mindset that everything is just as interesting as everything else.

Diversity in a society is a healthy thing. Allowing others to indulge their likes so long as they allow you to indulge yours is tolerance. A willingness to try new things is good. Being compelled to accept everything as equal in value is not.

Maintaining diversity doesn't require convincing everyone that everything is great. It just requires that everyone accept that you don't have to rid the world of something just because you don't like it. For example, if I live to be 5,000 years old, I will never understand why some people will pay $2,500 or even 25 cents to go see Barbara Striessand in concert. However, I don't feel compelled to put a stop to it, unless I were forced to attend such a concert in the name of some convoluted diversity training.

Diversity also means that you don't define someone by a single aspect of their character. I may get along great with a big country music fan in other areas that we agree on. Once I know a whole lot more about somebody, I can assess the pros and cons and determine the extent to which I can tolerate or enjoy their company.

Of course, diversity is often used in terms of race and sexual orientation. Disliking someone because of their ethnic make-up is stupid. Pretending to like someone because of their ethnic make-up is equally stupid. Hating someone, or denying them equal rights because they're gay is dumb. Expecting me to march in a parade in celebration of their gayness is just as dumb.

If you want to celebrate diversity, be yourself. Let others be themselves. If someone else being themselves is really getting under your skin, leave. If it's your house, ask them to leave. If you're in a situation where neither of you can leave and you can't come to some mutually acceptable accommodation, well, that's when diversity gets entertaining for the rest of us.

Are women getting a raw deal in the U.S.?

2009-11-12T17:43:00.000-08:00

The discussion on the O'Rielly Factor, in the culture warriors segment, started out as whether or not conservative women were under attack in the media. Both women expanded on the idea and made the case that women in the U.S. of every political brand, face a tougher time than men in the way they are scrutinized and judged in general. I agree, but I think a good deal of it is self-imposed.

Before I get too far, please don't shoot the messenger. This is not how I believe things should be. It's how they are. When people attack or praise an individual, they do so in a manner that's optimized for that individual. In other words, they try to push your buttons. How do you get under a woman's skin? Criticize her clothes, her hair, her physical features. Professional women wear a wide variety of clothing in a rainbow of different colors from day to day and from person to person. Professional men generally wear the same uniform; slacks, shirt, jacket and tie. The big expression of individuality among men is the tie, and that's usually red, blue or yellow. There just isn't much to criticize.

Of course, I'm generalizing. But generally speaking men don't care much about their hair either. You're not going to traumatize the average guy by criticizing his doo in front of the whole office. Remarks about guys' weight and/or physical appearance don't carry nearly the impact that the same remarks about a woman would make.

Men don't face this type of criticism because it's simply not that effective against them. They face different types of attacks. If you want to denigrate a man, you call him a wimp, say he's not good with money, or with women. More generally, you imply that he is not in control of his own destiny or area of responsibility.

If women don't want to be subjected to superficial judgments, it's up to women to place less emphasis on it. "Society" doesn't tell women how to dress or what to look like. For the most part, other women and gay men do. If you don't want to take their direction, just stop. As long as you seek the approval of the fashion Nazi's, you are at their mercy. Superficial attacks can't hurt you without your full cooperation.

From health care to slavery

2009-11-07T10:14:00.000-08:00

One thing I've found very discouraging amid the uprising of some of the citizenry against government bailouts and takeovers is that many still don't seem to grasp the core issue. As they protest one bunch of programs, they express a different wish-list of other things the government should do in terms of directing the behavior of individuals and markets. We're on our way to hell in a handbasket and most people are concerned about the brand of the handbasket.

Consider this; if you make well above average earnings, you're already working about half the time for government when you add up all the various taxes and fees. If you make average wages or lower, you're not a threat to the game plan. Most of your earnings are going to subsistence. You don't have the time or the resources to do much more than maintain, maybe a bit of recreation, but nothing that would constitute game-changing activity.

Many of the very wealthy are working with our top government officials to create their own little Utopia. As they're "feeling your pain", being very compassionate, "fighting for the little guy", they're traveling the world with their entourages attending various conferences, forums, summits, think-tanks, staying at the finest of hotels, enjoying the finest of foods, wanting for nothing and taking several "well-deserved" vacations every year.

It didn't come about with the Obama administration. It's been in development for decades. First one divides people into interest groups, highlights everything negative, convinces folks that nobody "deserves" any misfortune or misery in their lives and that it's up to the government to eliminate it. At the same time, demanding relief for yourself is very selfish. Your concern should always be for "others" (everyone except you). So while your personal quality of life may be on the decline, it would be horrible of you to bring that up when so many others will obviously be helped by all the lofty new public assistance programs, safety regulations and planet-saving policies.

All this has come about in a democracy. The people have successfully been sold on the idea that security and mere survival are more important than individual freedom. We voted for this. We are creating a far better world...for the less than one percent of the people who happen to be in charge. The rest of us are increasingly becoming worker ants; expendable labor providers. Government's takeover of health care is the final nail in freedom's coffin. We have tasked the government with taking care of us. If you have kids, you know that with dependence comes submission. "As long as your under my roof....". We're about to get everything we demanded. All it will cost us is our selves. Congratulations.

Presidential down-time

2009-10-29T20:24:00.000-07:00

It hadn't occurred to me before, but when I heard Bill O'Rielly once again defending this President and Presidents past for taking recreational time, it really hit home that these guys really don't work that hard.

I had been in agreement, not having given it much thought. After all, he's the President of the United States. That's a very demanding job right? Then I thought about when the last time was that I had 3 free hours to go golfing, take in a show, play some hoops. I took the family on a weekend trip to visit my son in Kansas recently. That was our first family "vacation" in 20+ years. There's no time during the week and rarely a weekend that I don't put in a few hours at the shop. But that only takes away from time I need to spend working around the house and getting other things done.

The top dogs in Washington D.C. seem to have a tremendous amount of down time. When they are working, they aren't exactly shoveling coal. It's mostly speaking, strategizing about how best to manipulate the rest of us and delegating any real work to their extensive staff.

They don't have to sweat things like mortgage payments or grocery bills and all this "down-time" is in addition to the many vacations they take every year. When they retire, which can be as little as 8 years into their career, it gets even better!

All in all, I'd say it's a pretty sweet gig.

The Incredible Shrinking Universe?

2009-10-20T21:25:00.000-07:00

I'm going to get all sciencey again for a few minutes. I just watched an episode of the Universe series on Discovery channel. It never ceases to amaze me how so many geniuses can often miss the coolest implications of their own conclusions.

Okay, here's the Cliff Notes version: Galaxies come together in clusters, over time the clusters cluster into super-clusters. Eventually, they merge into one big super-galaxy, but the various super-galaxies continue to move away from each other so that, in umpteen bajillion years or so, if you were in our supergalaxy and had no record of the past, as far as you could tell our supergalaxy would be the entire universe. You would not be able to detect the others. They would be too far away.

While they commented on the possibility that future sentients might not be aware of the real size and scope of the universe, they seemed to miss the distinct possibility, or extreme probability, that neither do we. Especially given the recent discovery that our universe seems to be getting pulled toward something ultra massive beyond the cosmic horizon.

Why would one assume that we are at the beginning of such a cycle? It seems more logical that what we know as the universe was once part of something much larger and that when our neighborhood becomes this "supergalaxy" it too will separate into clusters which will go their own ways.

No need for panic though. For one thing the time spans involved are unimaginably long and for another, there really is no limit to how small a universe can get. Everything is relative.

The Big Bang Blown to Bits?

2009-09-26T17:11:00.000-07:00

A study released in 2008 revealed what appears to be a movement of galaxy clusters toward a point beyond the visible universe. The phenomenon has been dubbed Dark Flow.

Side note: whenever cosmologists come across data that doesn't jive with currently held theory, they simply put the word "dark" in front of it and attribute to it whatever mysterious properties they need to, to make the math work. Hence we have "dark matter", "dark energy" and now "dark flow". These mysterious entities save the scientific community from having to reevaluate their basic premises.

The Dark Flow seems to be converging on some kind of object or force that is over 46 billion light years away. This seems to present a problem for the Big Bang theory of the beginning of everything. If the universe is only 14 billion years old, and nothing in it can surpass the speed of light, how can there be a massive object 46 billion light years away?

Another problem: none of our physics takes into account any input from gigantic objects outside the known universe. If it's acting on one group of galaxy clusters, it's affecting everything in what Douglas Adams called "the general mish mash". And if there's one, there's a good chance there's a lot more. What other forces, objects, energy could be entering and affecting our system that we've been totally unaware of?

Scientists should be excited about this find. When a good scientist sees everything they thought was true thrown into disarray, they see a chance to dispense with a falsehood and acquire truth; a great trade! Yet, I haven't seen any blockbuster headlines about this, just a short story in Popular Science and a few posts on the web.

Hopefully, this will finally break down some mental blocks within the cosmology and physics worlds. The purpose of science is not to defend currently accepted formulas and theories through the use of mental gymnastics. It's to learn the truth. How about setting aside the 11 dimension approach, just for a while, and taking a close, objective look at what's actually going on. Even Einstein said, "If you can't explain it to a 12 year old, you're probably wrong." or words to that effect.

Ted Kennedy's death; the week the world stood still

2009-08-29T13:41:00.000-07:00

For the past 72 hours and for who knows how much longer, the news media has focused almost exclusively on the death of Senator Ted Kennedy. Even when they bring up another subject, it's only to somehow connect the topic to the Senator's passing. How will it effect the health care debate, the auto industry, the price of rice in China?

I didn't know Ted Kennedy. I'll take the word of those who did that he was a fantastic human being. I didn't like his politics and I've never been into celebrity worship, so all this attention seems very odd to me. Even FOX News, not exactly a liberal media outlet, has been on 24 hour Kennedy watch.

The discussion about his replacement in the Senate is not fostering questions like "Who could best deal with Massachusetts' failed medical insurance program?" or "Who can fix the budget mess?" or more generally "Who is best qualified to find solutions in a crisis situation?". Rather, the speculation is more about which Kennedy would be willing to take the job. Who can perpetuate the air of majesty that surrounds the Kennedy phenomenon? If that's what Massachusetts wants, so be it. It just seems very bizarre.

I caught a few minutes of the memorial service on two separate occasions. Both times, the speaker was an aide or friend, not a professional performer, yet they told tales of breaking into song whenever they got together with the Senator. This seemed perfectly normal to them, in fact, they demonstrated by belting out one of their favorite tunes. Personally, I was reminded of Larry Hagman's interview on a night time talk TV show, where he related that he and whoever happened to be hanging out at the mansion at any given time, would often hold impromptu parades on the beach for no reason. It's not bad behavior, but it seems indicative of someone who lives in a world very detached from that of most of us. It seems a bit creepy to me and would not prompt me to want either individual in charge of anything that might in any way have a significant impact on my life.

The fact that the major media outlets are assigning far more importance to the passing of a 77 year old man who was in poor health, than I assign to it myself just points out how very different I perceive the world around me as compared to those who think they are providing me with useful information. If I'm the only one that feels this way, the major media outlets have nothing to worry about. However, if a lot of other people see the situation as a bunch of aristocrats emoting for the cameras, opportunity is knocking for their replacements.

Are we negotiating with terrorists?

2009-08-27T17:35:00.001-07:00

The Obama administration has decided to re-investigate the "enhanced interrogation" techniques used by the CIA in obtaining information from terrorists like those involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks. The question is, why?

I don't think many Americans are outraged that the masterminds of the September attacks may have been sleep deprived, water-boarded, or even had their lives or their families lives threatened in a bluff to obtain information about more attacks. Obviously the administration is not responding to some big public outcry. So what's going on?

Is it possible that the administration has some kind of line of communication to the terrorist hierarchy? Is this part of some deal to avoid future attacks? Is the administration relying on the good word or Al Qaida for our security? Naaaa, there must be some rational explanation for their behavior. I hope it comes to light soon.

There's no such thing as nothing

2009-08-24T21:39:00.000-07:00

Space, time and matter continue to amaze scientific minds. Space and time in particular. Where did space come from? Where did time come from? What existed before time began?

The mystic nature of these questions is based in a flawed perspective. The answer could be stated "It just doesn't matter" because without matter, the other two don't exist. To make this case I have to include in the term "matter" as used here, all types of particles, energy and radiation; anything that is not space or time.

Conceptually speaking, you can't have no apples until you have at least the concept of an apple. Concepts are things. You can't have no thing before you have a thing.

Time is a description of the relative motion of things. Even a single thing requires energy, which means something, no matter how small, is in motion relative to something else. No things = No time. The only place no thing can exist is in no time. We don't live there. Never have, never will.

Space is a description of a volume. To have volume it must envelope something. Otherwise, it's not space, it's just a point. Even a point needs some context. No thing = No space.

Space/Time is not some mysterious rubber sheet-like entity. It's just the relative motion of objects in a given area.

Space and time are characteristics of matter. Separating them from the physical is like pondering the meaning of inside and outside with no container as a reference. They are positions relative to nothing. Totally meaningless.

Could the information explosion erode the power of spin and celebrity?

2009-07-21T16:01:00.000-07:00

Some have said that journalism is dead or dying because it has become saturated with the opinions of the broadcasters. While that's not a value added situation at present, it could very well evolve into one as the number of broadcasters explodes.

Take the case of Susan Boyle. She was an unknown, solitary woman living a very modest lifestyle. Then she sang in front of a worldwide audience and instantly became a star. She was not groomed, she didn't choose the right stage name, she didn't "pay her dues". In other words, the content providers didn't create her, they found her. How many more Susan Boyles are out there?

What if you didn't have to be a billionaire, or even wealthy to create and broadcast commercial quality information? What if sites like YouTube, MySpace, Blogger, Facebook and other free venues, allowed talent and wisdom to bypass the gatekeepers? As more individuals command the attention of more people, politicians and hollywood stars would garner less of it. They'd have to make every appearance count.

In such an environment, an aspiring politician couldn't afford to be vague and leave him or herself lots of "outs". If spin doctors couldn't count on speaking to millions of people, every day, they'd have to be more concise and more precise. There would be more than a handful of reports on any particular issue, there would be countless volumes of information from countless sources, and people wouldn't be married to any one of them.

Holding people's attention would require more than a contract renewal with the network. One would have to be consistently good to maintain a career.

For content providers this could mean a lot more short term or piece-meal contracts with producers. When you have an enormous number of suppliers to choose from, tying up your broadcast time and resources on exclusive committments makes sense in only rare cases. There will be premium content providers that can command lucrative broadcast contracts, even among the freebies, but they'd have to do better than "Big Brother 12" or "Rock of Love".

This is not necessarily bad for producers either. You wouldn't be contractually obligated to be productive at any particular time, or for any particular duration, beyond one project at a time. Currently, artists are pressed to produce x number of albums over a time span. What if that doesn't happen to sync up with their artistic metabolism? We get "contract filler" instead of their best work.

We are a short time away from going from 150 cable channels to thousands of internet channels of the same or higher broadcast quality. We are just as close to being able to carry all that content around in our pockets. It may not be a year, or even five years, but likely within 10 years. There is a tremendous amount of talent in the world that has never caught the attention of the tiny number of gatekeepers between the individuals and the rest of the world. Not only will the gates be thrown open, the whole wall will come down. It may sound like "Tower of Babel" in the short run, but it's a good thing in the long run.

The End of Days

2009-05-26T16:36:00.001-07:00

You've probably heard scientists speculate that the most crucial point in the development of an intelligent society, universally speaking, is just after they learn to split the atom. They gather that a great many of them learn to release great amounts of energy before they learn how to properly control it and hedge against disaster. This would lead to the extinction of such societies.

I think there's another crucial point, that has nothing to do with atom splitting, that occurs before then. One that we've already crossed. The more communal a society becomes, the less "survival of the fittest" goes on. After all, we'd be pretty cold-hearted beasts if we allowed people to suffer and/or die, if we could prevent it. But it goes beyond just keeping people alive. We lower the bar in education, to make it more fair. We insist on equal opportunity for all, regardless of ability. We attempt to "level the playing field" economically by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. We elect people to high office based on how nice they are and what logo they sport, rather than any kind of competence for the job they seek. Fierce competition is frowned upon because it makes the losers feel bad. Striving for excellence has been replaced with striving for order and mere survival.

There are already signs that this has lead to the dumbing down of the population as a whole. We accept as fact, just about anything the media's favorite go-to experts put in front of us. We have the ability to transfer thousands of generations of knowledge to and fro at a moments notice, but we're too busy watching cat videos to be bothered. We actually believe that spending more than twice what the government takes in and borrowing 8 times revenue, will lead to a robust economy. It must be true. The experts told us so. We take steps to make our most common energy source more expensive because it's leading to catastrophic global warming, as the average global temperature drops. We stuff ourselves with carbs because the food pyramid says to, while we scratch our heads at the "obesity epidemic" and the increased rates of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. We see images, provided by Hubble, of what look to be galactic offspring of larger, older galaxies, but the differing "red shift" tells us that they must be billions of light-years apart. Who you gonna believe? The theory or your own lying eyes?

As we continue to accommodate the lowest common denominator, the species will get increasingly stupid. This may well result in our own self-destruction due to nuclear annihilation, but it wont be because we knew too much.

We Don't Need Another Hero

2009-04-15T18:58:00.000-07:00

For years, a certain constituency of Americans has been vastly under-served and under-represented. While they may disagree on a number of issues, the members of this constituency agree on a few fundamental things. One is that massive government debt will be a severe burden on future generations and that it is immoral to attempt to improve our short-term circumstances by knowingly jeopardizing our children and grandchildren. Another, related idea is that it is not the role of government to shield us from the consequences of misfortune or poor judgment, but to uphold our rights as we sort it out ourselves. It's a constituency that believes government's role in the life of the individual should be limited, as should it's budget. Issues thus far not involved in this coalition include abortion, gay rights, global warming and other hotly contested subjects that are left for another venue and another group.

This constituency has been left asking "Who will champion our cause? Where's the next Ronald Reagan? Who will defend our position?" Well, on April 15th 2009, they stopped asking and started defending themselves.

The problem with putting your fate in the hands of a political party is that they are really not sets of ideas, they are infrastructures for accomplishing a task; winning elections. As a party, they don't promote a limited scope of ideas or single issues, they adopt a number of issues and positions based partly on commonly held beliefs and partly on political expediency.

The Republican Party has spoken up for limited government and fiscal discipline, but has not lived up to the hype. Also, people who believe in capitalism, limited government and fiscal restraint, but don't tow the party line on other issues are ostracized. The same dynamic takes place in the Democrat party. You have to buy the whole package.

Whether you're liberal or conservative; capitalist, socialist or communist, you have to admire a group that refused to give up when a leader failed to emerge. The followers have become the leaders. This is in clear evidence as conservative politicians and pundits are now falling all over themselves trying to connect themselves to this movement.

I would caution members of this coalition not to allow it to get hijacked by a political party or to try to expand it to cover more issues. This is a unique movement of individuals promoting a specific set of ideas upon which they agree. At stake is whether future generations will work for the state or the state will work for them. Other issues can wait for another day, another rally, a different coalition, a different movement. No one who believes in ensuring the freedom of our descendants need be excluded because they also believe in something else. If we protect and respect each others individuality, we can work everything else out in time.

Obama's new Afghanistan strategy

2009-03-27T08:27:00.000-07:00

President Obama today announced his new strategy for dealing with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Al Quaida.

As someone who has not been a big fan of the administration to date, I must say I didn't hear anything, policy-wise, that I didn't like.

The President is continuing to increase troop levels, with an emphasis on training. The goal is to build up and train the Afghan army and police until they are ready to handle their own security. There will also be funds provided by the U.S. for things like schools and infrastructure for Afghanistan. I do believe in the strategy of "give them something to lose." when it's done correctly. Mr. Obama also stated that the U.S, Afghanistan and Pakistan will engage in continuing talks and strategy sessions regarding security as well as economics and long term stability. He emphasized the need for civilian efforts as well, saying we need an "army" of agriculture specialists and engineers to not only erradicate the poppy production that fuels terrorist funding, but to find viable, alternative cash crops. This is something I have suggested in my own blogs in the past.

He seemed to have a real grasp on the danger posed by instability in the region and of the clear and present danger posed by Al Quaida and its allies. That was refreshing to hear.

The one thing that was a bit annoying about the presentation was the multiple referrals to Afghanistan being "denied the resources necessary due to the war in Iraq." Mr. Obama has won the election. He's the President. It's okay to acknowledge that we actually accomplished something good in Iraq and it wasn't a complete waste. Oh well, that's just politics. History wont pay much heed to snide remarks in the long run, just results.

I do like the strategy that was laid out today. Let's hope the execution is as good as the plan.

SNL News - No Joke, Feb 7, 2009

2009-02-08T07:03:00.000-08:00

There was a lot going on in D.C. this week. The debate raged over the stimulus package and some key Obama nominations went down in flames. You'd expect the writers on Saturday Night Live would have some great material for the SNL News segment at the President's expense.

Here's what they came up with: Seth Myers reports that two Obama nominees had to withdraw because of tax problems and President Obama says "I screwed up." The punch line from Myers? "That was your screw up? This guy broke the world" (picture of George W. Bush).

They couldn't bring themselves to lampoon our Glorious Leader. Instead, they tried to make him feel better. These are strange days indeed. Particularly at NBC, where an entire network has become a cheerleader for a political agenda. We're used to comedians and news outlets being cynical of, suspicious of and sometimes even hostile toward our politicians. I've never seen anything like the partnership that seems to have been reached between NBC and this White House.

It's sad to see the poison has spread to otherwise talented comedians. If praising the powers that be in the highest of terms were funny, I'd say go for it. It's not. It's pathetic.

Is Yellowstone about to blow its top?

2009-01-02T22:45:00.000-08:00

Photo by Austin Post, courtesy of USGS

Scientists are puzzled by the recent spurt of seismic activity in Yellowstone. Swarms of tremors in the park are not that unusual, but the number and proximity of this event definitely is.

James Pethokoukis did a Splunk search and discovered that during the entire decade of the 80's there were 128 Yellowstone area tremors measuring 2.5 or greater on the Richter scale. There have been 30 in the past four days centered under and around Yellowstone Lake alone, some measuring as high as 3.8. The number of 2.5 or higher tremors in the Yellowstone Lake area for the entire decade of the 80's was 4. I did post a comment on the article asking the author why he did not include data from the 90's. I haven't got an answer to that one yet.

The AP reports: "Several hundred quakes centered under the northern end of Yellowstone Lake have now occurred since Dec. 26. No damage has been reported. Earthquake swarms happen fairly often in Yellowstone. But scientists say it's unusual for so many earthquakes to happen over several days. Yellowstone lies mostly in northwestern Wyoming and is the caldera of a volcano that last erupted 70,000 years ago. Scientists have not concluded what is causing the earthquakes."

From LiveScience.com: "Scientists wonder if the shaking might presage a larger event. This month's swarm is the most intense in this area for some years, scientists said. It is centered on the east side of the Yellowstone caldera, a giant basin created in a colossal eruption some 620,000 years ago. Researchers have long predicted that the Yellowstone supervolcano will eventually erupt again, with devastating consequences for much of the United States. Half the country could be covered in ash up to 3 feet (1 meter) deep, one study predicts. But those same researchers say nothing suggests such an eruption is imminent. They point out, however, that Yellowstone seems to blow its top about every 600,000 years."

The Yellowstone Volcano Observatory is a bit more conservative: "The December 2008 earthquake sequence is the most intense in this area for some years. No damage has been reported within Yellowstone National Park, nor would any be expected from earthquakes of this size. The swarm is in a region of historical earthquake activity and is close to areas of Yellowstone famous hydrothermal activity. Similar earthquake swarms have occurred in the past in Yellowstone without triggering steam explosions or volcanic activity. Nevertheless, there is some potential for hydrothermal explosions and earthquakes may continue or increase in magnitude. There is a much lower potential for related volcanic activity."

This story may not have stirred my interest so much had it not been for the 2005 BBC/Discovery Channel docudrama, "Supervolcano Caldera". Being in Colorado, I'm not close enough for a super-eruption to kill me instantly, but not far enough away to avoid eventually freezing to death, starving to death or at best, living the rest of my life in desperate squalor. Still, it might be better than living through the constant drip, drip, drip of ever increasing socialism.

This will likely turn out to be just a seismic oddity that will be of great interest to scientists in years to come. Still, for the rest of us, it's worth keeping an eye on for now.

A dark cloud over dark matter?

2008-12-27T20:22:00.000-08:00

Astronomers working with the Chandra X-Ray Observatory have announced the results of new research that they say confirms the existence of dark energy. They speculate that the findings could lead to new insights into the beginning and perhaps the eventual end of the cosmos. But, there's a fly in the ointment. Its name is Halton Arp.

The universe started with a big bang and is constantly expanding. That expansion is accelerating. We know this because the redshift of the light from far away cosmic entities tells us how fast they are moving away from us (remember the train whistle analogy in high school). The model has run into some problems over the decades, such as the fact that there wasn't enough matter to account for galaxies staying together and that there was no explanation for accelerated expansion. Don't panic. New forms of energy and matter were called into being to fix those problems: dark energy and dark matter.

The expanding universe model is no longer open to debate. It's an established fact and indisputable....or is it? A man named Halton Arp has a different idea. He has done extensive and very convincing research aimed at demonstrating that the redshifted light from far away objects is not a measure of velocity, but of age. He proposes that galaxies occasionally eject matter, which may become a new galaxy. The new galaxy is formed of newly formed particles, as a result of the explosive expulsion, which are lower in mass than their older counterparts. The particles in the new galaxy increase in mass as they age. It is the difference in the mass of the particles between the parent and offspring galaxies that accounts for the difference in redshift.

Mr. Arp has produced volumes of research, including observational evidence, that I will not go into here. Please visit the site for more detailed information.

The importance of the proposal is that, if it is correct, everything we think we know about the cosmos suddenly changes. A galaxy that is observed alongside another that has a much higher redshift would be assumed to be far away from its apparent neighbor and rapidly accelerating under the current model. Under Arp's model, the higher redshifted galaxy would be adjacent to, and the offspring of the other galaxy. The currently accepted relative positions and motions of all far away cosmic objects would suddenly be thrown into disarray, along with any research based on them. You can understand why the scientific community in general is not clamoring to support Arp's work.

Whatever the truth is, either Arp is wrong or the scientific community at large is wrong. History has proven that it is indeed possible for the broader scientific community to be dead wrong, even in the face of compelling evidence, for decades and even centuries at a time.

"But there is research, even brand new research that supports the dark energy/dark matter scenario." When you establish a false premise as an absolute truth, any observation you make must be made to conform to your premise. The research being done into dark energy and dark matter is heavily dependent on redshift being an indicator of the relative location and velocity of the objects being studied. If those "facts" are not facts, much of the data derived from them is meaningless.

I'm not a physicist or an astronomer, but I do believe in Occum's Razor. When faced with two plausible possibilities, the simpler one is usually correct. When you have to develop new particles and new properties of existing particles to explain what you are observing in the context of your established premise, check your premise.

Algae, Solar Power and the Electric Car

2008-12-07T19:04:00.000-08:00

The lobbyist for the algae to fuel industry will be on Capital Hill this week, trying to convince lawmakers that their industry should be included in any comprehensive, long term energy strategy. They've got the support of the airline industry behind them and at least one company, Sapphire Energy, has actually produced a viable fuel.

Ascent Solar passed a major milestone recently when the Department of Energy officially certified that their thin film photovoltaic cells achieved nearly 10% efficiency at converting sunlight to usable power. Ascent hopes to have commercially available building products, incorporating their cells, on the market in 2010.

The electric car has gotten a lot of hype recently, but there is one major problem I haven't heard anyone address yet. No matter how much range they get and at what efficiency, people are inevitably going to overdrive their charge. What do you do when you're stuck on the side of the highway and out of juice? With gas powered vehicles you can at least grab a gas can and hitch a ride. I've heard of no counterpart to the gas-can for the electric car. Before they can go mass-market, they need to come up with a portable device one can carry to a charging station or outlet. You would charge the device with enough juice to get you at least 20 miles or so and return to your car with it. I suppose an alternative would be the emergence of an industry based on cars or trucks driving the highways and byways with enough power to sell stranded motorists a quick charge. But what if one doesn't happen to be patrolling your area? It's not an insurmountable problem. In fact, it's probably a simple fix. I'm just surprised none of the egg heads at the automobile companies have though about it yet.

Who's to blame for our economic situation? I blame Star Trek!

2008-11-29T19:31:00.000-08:00

In a free market environment, people try to better themselves by finding ways to create value for others. That is, they create something, be it a product or a service, that is of more value to someone else than it is to them. Then they trade. Some ideas succeed. Some fail. It's an evolutionary process of natural selection that brings to market the things people most want at prices they're willing to pay.

In the United States today, we increasingly look to the government to provide the things we want. We also look to them to take the pain away from trying and failing. We've subverted the evolutionary process. Even politicians who once championed capitalism and limited government have gotten on the bandwagon. The government now owns stakes in banks, insurance companies and soon, the auto makers. In exchange for the cash infusions, government will have a say in how the companies are run, who they hire, what they produce and how much they'll make. There is no longer a debate as to whether or not the government should ensure everyone gets health care. There's just some disagreement as to the terms. Worrying about the national debt is not even on anyone's radar in this new paradigm.

How did we get here? Well, I blame sci-fi, at least in part. Science fiction has the ability to stir our imaginations. Some of the nifty devices used on shows like Star Trek have actually been produced and are in every day use (automatic doors, "communicators"). There have been many positive influences. But one thing most every popular science fiction drama has in common is a view of the future built by the government. Nobody uses cash in Star Trek. Everyone simply does their duty and is happy to do it. We see the dozen or so folks who get to go on the occasional adventure, but I can't help but wonder about the other 400 who simply do their jobs, day in and day out, and never get paid. All their needs are met by the Federation. Once in a while a "capitalist" type will appear on an episode, but they are backward, goofy, greedy and usually ugly comic relief.

The Stargate series is no better. The government is engaged in inter-gallactic trade and diplomacy on the taxpayers dime. Not only does the general public not know anything about it, they have no direct access to any of the benefits or technology. Yet the government forces that carry on this clandestine operation are the heroes.

There wasn't much mention of the common man in Star Wars, outside of the bar scenes, but there again the main characters who were engaged in private commerce were depicted as selfish, greedy, unreliable and eventually saw the error of their ways.

We have been sold a vision of a Utopian future without free markets, without capitalism, without the free association of independent individuals. Of course the message is subtle and packaged with lots of explosions and drama sprinkled with comedy, but it's there and it's effective.

We are reaching for Never Never Land; a future that will never come to pass because the fact is that an economic system based on resource allocation determined by an elite group, even a democratically elected elite group will never achieve the efficiency and genius of a system based on resource allocation by the cumulative effects of free individuals making voluntary decisions in a free market.

If we truly want to go where no man has gone before, we're not going to get there in a government chartered bus.

What's the next phase? Reinstate the Draft?

2008-10-27T22:28:00.000-07:00

I'll save the preface for the novel. Since this is blogworld, I'll just give you the trailer.

I believe what Biden was referring to in his statement that the world will "test" Obama and it may not be immediately evident that his response is right, means they're planning on reinstating the draft. They have the solution. Now they just need a crisis. If I had to take a guess, I'd say center stage will be Indonesia (again, I'll save the why for the novel).

Why the draft? We've got to instill in the young'uns a sense of duty to country, a cause bigger than themselves, discipline, respect for authority, etc. You can't run an efficient collectivist state with everyone running around looking out for themselves all willy-nilly. But what about those who are opposed to violence and the military? No worries. They can sign up for mandatory community service. They'll still get uniforms and serve society as directed by their superiors.

It will be sold as an essential for national security as well as a jobs program to "get the economy back on track". Education credits will be part of the package as well as helping to re-establishing traditional values in the young people.

Think I'm nuts? Maybe, but just for yuks, bookmark this and check back around June of 2009.

RIP Capitalist America

2008-10-14T17:53:00.000-07:00

I don't think I'm being melodramatic when I say we're witnessing the end of the United States of America as a capitalist country. The recent action of our government, lauded by both major parties, reveals a total lack of faith in the free market. They all say they hate to do it, as they drive the knife in deeper.

Instead of investigating and prosecuting the culprits in the sub-prime loan debacle, taxpayer money was used to bail them out. The government took control of the two largest mortgage companies in the country, the company that insured them and is now taking ownership in the banks. They already control your utilities, your access to information, in some places, even your trash disposal. No worries, you can still go to Walmart and buy something nice with the allowance you'll be left after taxes. Barak Obama is 14 points ahead in the polls with just 3 weeks to go and has made no secret of his plan for wealth redistribution. A liberal controlled House and Senate are chomping at the bit to help him implement it. Not that John McCain is any kind of champion of free enterprise. At best he may have slowed the train down a bit.

Next the government will take control of health care. Why? Because the American people are screaming for it. Once your neighbor's premiums and benefits are directly tied to your personal behavior (through nationalized health care) there is no limit to the regulation and restriction that can be justified in the name of the greater good.

Politicians have been dividing us into groups and buying our votes with more and more promises of free stuff. We've been lapping it up like faithful mutts. Now we will get our just deserts: A new world order. A system in which failure is not allowed is a system in which excellence is not possible, and for the foreseeable future, that is the new American way.

Second Presidential Debate - Who Won Debate '08 Belmont?

2008-10-07T20:42:00.000-07:00

Belmont University's Debate on October 7th, 2008, held in Nashville, TN had a clear winner.

John McCain won this won handily in two catagories. On style points, he had Obama on his heels the whole time. McCain's answers were clear, concise and included plenty of jabs at Obama. Barak seemed like a politician trying to kill 90 minutes.

But McCain also won in another catagory: Most outlandish new economic proposal. He suggested that he will direct the treaury to buy up "bad mortgages" and renegotiate them with the home owner, or more accurately, the current resident. Merry Christmas!

This may well get him some votes. But lets look at the Freakonomics at play here. It would actually benefit you, if you believe that McCain will be elected to not only get behind on your mortgage and make as little money as you can get by on, but it would also behoove you to do whatever you can to diminish the perceived value of your property. After all the governments going to forgive your current mortgage in favor of one at the current appraised value. You want that appraisal to come in as low as possible. For Pete's sake don't fix anything! In fact, you might want to throw a baseball or two through your own windows, stop mowing the lawn, park a car on blocks in your driveway, or better yet front lawn, create a few paint chipped areas, whatever you can do to make your home less appealing.

Obama's policies of tax increase on higher incomes, mandated insurance programs and a wide assortment of spending initiatives will strangle an already struggling business community. McCain's Christmas in November to home buyers will decimate an already decimated real estate market. Choose your poison.

The health care solution. Are you pondering what I'm pondering?

2008-10-06T21:08:00.000-07:00

Ladies and gentleman, I've asked you here today because opportunity is knocking once again. The public is clamoring for affordable health care and the politicians are pining to give to them. Everyone is looking for a system that will enable each participant to contribute $5 and draw out $500 and by golly we're going to give it to them.

First, we'll get legislation passed that requires everyone to purchase health insurance. We don't want to have the government provide the insurance directly. That would look too much like socialism. We've got to dress this thing up so it looks like a free market. We'll have private insurers sell the policies. They'll have to cover everyone, regardless of income or pre-existing condition. The government will provide subsidies to those who can't afford it. In order to reduce the risk to insurance companies we'll set up a Government Supported Private Entity, a Health Care Insurance Funding Authority. We'll give it a catchy name like Hannah Fay.

Hannah will buy up policies from the insurers. The insurers will simply sell policies and administer claims, which will paid by Hannah, through them, to the providers. Hannah will bundle the policies together and sell bonds backed by the premiums to raise operating capital to pay claims and subsidize more low income policies. We'll sell the bonds to a new kind of financial institution, which we will help create: Health Care Investment Banks. These HCIB's will bundle the bonds and sell shares in them. We'll call those Health Care Backed Securities or HCBS's. These HCBS's will be sold to other financial institutions, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and the like. The risk will be spread so thin, it'll hardly be noticible.

Our roles? Advisors, consultants, investors. Keep away from the cameras. Stay out of the news. I know what you're thinking. This can't possibly work. Well, that depends on your definition of work. There will be Congressional oversight, but don't worry about that. Politicians are elected on emotion. Most of them wouldn't know a proper balance sheet from the supply side of a mule. Just make sure they get their due in contributions. As for the Wall Street boys, the important ones know the game. They'll get out in plenty of time. Their replacements will be lulled in by huge salaries and bonuses. It's kind of like executive hot potato. It'll be many years before anyone figures out the HCBS's aren't worth the paper their printed on and the health care system doesn't actually have any money. I'll have you out well before then.

Alright, we've got work to do. Set up meetings with your respective politicians, activists and friendly media and let's start leaking this idea out there. Remember, don't attach your name to anything. Present it as something you heard from someone else that you think could be worth looking into. Let the camera junkies do the rest. This meeting never took place. Good luck everyone. This could be the greatest thing since Cap and Trade!

What's Russia Up To?

2008-10-05T23:00:00.000-07:00

Was Georgia just a test? The behavior of Russia in the aftermath of its invasion of that country is anything but conciliatory. Now Russian state television is airing a documentary promoting the idea that the U.S. government was behind 9/11. Why would they go the extra mile to stir up anti-American sentiment among their own and around the globe?

If Georgia was a test, the Russians have to be very encouraged at the results. The west made a lot of noise, but in the end, did nothing. The world is facing an economic slow down. US forces are spread thin, Russia has made a bundle on soaring oil, but prices are dropping and the whole world is looking for alternatives. If they were dumb enough to make some sort of outlandish land grab, now would be the time. I'm confident they're dumb enough.

I'm not well versed enough in the current geopolitical situation in their neighborhood to have any idea what they have their eyes on, but my "spider sense" is tingling. Maybe they'll just go after the rest of Georgia. Maybe something bigger. Ukraine? Poland? Alaska? I just hope our spooks are working over-time on this.

Bi-Partisan Robbery

2008-10-01T18:51:00.000-07:00

A parade of senators, Republican and Democrat are congratulating themselves and each other tonight for passing the $700 billion giveaway to "save the economy". They did throw the common folk a bone in the form of some tax relief. I guess that makes it all okay.

You may be unfamiliar with the meaning of some of the terms and phrases being tossed around in reference to this crisis. Let me clarify some.

"Sub-prime mortgage" - Loans made to people for more than they could possibly pay back, secured by assets that are now worth much less than the loan.

"Mortgage Backed Securities" (MBS) - Essentially, shares of the above mortgages, sold to banks and investment institutions in large bundles.

"The credit markets are clogged" - The banks have no cash. They spent it on these MBS's which had been carried on the balance sheet as "cash equivalents". The problem is, nobody wants to buy them so they aren't really cash equivalents.

"We must free up the credit markets" - We're going to buy these shares of subprime mortgages at a price pulled out of thin air by Henry Paulson.

"We will sell these MBS's back to the open market to redeem the taxpayers' investment" - We're going to sit on these things until the heat is off.

"Doing nothing is not an option" - Doing nothing would cause the markets to take their natural course, exposing the whole convoluted scheme that caused this mess. Politicians would be voted out. Lawsuits would be filed. Voters would be very angry if the truth were to come to light. Best to let it fester for as long as possible.

Yes, Republicans and Democrats have come together in an unprecedented manner to cover their collective behinds. Some voted against the bill, but only after its passage was assured. No member of either party made a serious effort to put a stop to this. I for one will no longer vote for the most competent stooge or the lesser of two evils.

Let me make this absolutely clear for those of you who haven't yet caught on. Your money will be given to banks, so that they can loan it back to you. You will pay your money back to the bank with interest. After the shareholders, employees and execs get their cut, some of the remaining net will be paid back, not to you, but to the government who brokered the transaction. They are, at this moment, on national television praising themselves in the highest terms for pulling this thing off (assuming it passes the House) because they are now 100% convinced that we are indeed, just as stupid as they've always hoped.

The Day the World Didn't End- No Bail Out, No Worries

2008-09-30T08:15:00.000-07:00

Well, we were told two weeks ago that we were days, maybe hours from a total collapse of the world's financial systems if we didn't immediately cough up $700 billion to overpay for bad loans. The bill failed and the world continues to turn. The market is actually up 450 points today, bringing the day net reaction so far to a 3% drop in the Dow, which, given current economic conditions, is probably still a bit over priced.

Maybe traders believe a bail out is inevitable. Maybe the reality is that credit's going to be tight for a while, some companies will fail, some wont, but we'll get through this with or without a raid on the treasury.

Pundits continue to spew that the public just doesn't understand. The public understands, they just don't care. The bank that's been raising their rates and putting the squeeze on them for months is begging for a bail out. Excuse me for not panicking. Alternatives have been put forward. Some have suggested offering a capital gains and income tax holiday on homes purchased in the next six months. That actually makes sense. It's lack of home sales that's at the base of the problem, so stimulate home sales by increasing the potential profit margin. It wouldn't cost the government a dime, since they weren't going to see any tax revenue from unsold homes anyway.

We have to clean up this mess before we rebuild. This is not 1929. Information, ideas, resources and talent flow more freely now than at anytime in history. We are well prepared and able to deal with a market downturn. As long as the system is perceived as fair, just, transparent and consistent, we can weather this storm and come out stronger. If the government steps in and changes the rules every week, all bets are off.