It's about sex, stupid!

I would love to hear this elucidated by even our more controversial megaphones, but I don't know if anyone is ready to stand on this particular soap box.

I postulate that the vast majority of liberals owe their philosophy to sex, and the control of it. Guys (particularly in college as it represents those formative, hormone-ridden years, though anyone 16 to 24 is dangerously susceptible to this manipulation) all too easily adopt whatever attitude is required to get in good with the girl (or as many girls as possible) in order to score. Guys want to score. No matter what they're thinking in their own minds, or what answers make sense to them, if a hot (or even moderately attractive) woman sends signals she wants a certain answer, it will be delivered on a velvet pillow in hopes the favor will be returned. Girls have been conditioned to believe it is not only a "man's world" but they can only make it in this "man's world" by controlling a man.

Examining this argument for a moment, let's say it is true. Control through sex manipulation will only work so long as the reward continues to appeal to the manipulated. This leads down obvious roads that either require a woman to do things she simply doesn't want to do (and not because she loves her partner - but because she is prostituting herself) or ends up in separation (because the woman decides, through simple market economics models, that the price for control has become too high). Part of what has happened is that the man has been led to believe that he can have whatever he wants so long as he says what she wants to hear. Whether it be unusual acts, multiple partners, a partner with an "augmented" athlete's body, or simply more of this "good thing" than his partner can stand. When the blessing is denied, the manipulated looks elsewhere, or becomes bitter. Abuse of one kind or another follows.

Examining this argument for another moment, let's say it is false. We would find ourselves in a world where women can support themselves, if necessary, without men. That they can not only do so effectively, but can actually excel. I do not talk about personal fulfillment, but simple economics. This does not mean that a woman must support herself, but she could if she wanted to.

Kind of sounds like where we are: a lot of people have bought into the lie, so we have a high rate of wrecked relationships (all I have to do there is look at my own street) but yet the women in those wrecked relationships are the ones on my street, in nice apartments or homes, with children, driving newer and more expensive cars than the one I bought as a man with income, and going on vacations (I know, because I am often asked to care for pets left behind).

Why did I go through all that? Because I believe young women have been deliberately sold a host of lies that are designed to convince her that she must dominate a man through sex. The pivotal fulcrum is abortion. Whether you support abortion or not, the issue here is that women have been convinced (wrongly) that only one ideology (liberalism) will allow her to make any abortion decision whatsoever, and that this is the ultimate (almost only) leverage that the woman has to control the man. This is achieved by suggesting that the woman is therefore free to use sex as a manipulative reward because if something goes wrong, she can always abort and continue with her life unaffected. (Never mind that women might have to deal with emotional issues if they actually do become pregnant - don't warn them about that, though it is likely to happen - just beat it home that they can have one and "everything will be okay", attempting to preempt this potential life-altering snag).

In addition, men have been manipulated to believe that abortion is their get-out-of-jail-free card. Not only can they have the sex they crave (and it is a serious craving, folks, I am not about to deny that) without fear of the consequences, but they don't even have to be involved in the decision making process - after all it is completely up to the woman only! He has no rights, so why should he bother or worry?

As it is now liberal to have this attitude or approach to sex - and realize I do not mean that conservatives don't approach sex as recreational, we certainly do, we simply don't approach the consequences of sex in such a destructive, ignorant way that leaves people unprepared for reality when it hits them - liberals go further to claim that anyone who wants recreational sex must therefore be a liberal, and with all the other liberal issues attached. Naturally, craving sex goes hand in hand with saving the environment through the destruction of capitalism, raising taxes on everyone (especially the middle class), regulating health care an insurance, deciding banking policies, reducing or eliminating our military, ignoring aggressive nations or institutions, etc. etc. etc. Don't you think? I mean, come on - don't you really think about all those things while you're horny?

Um. No. I tend not to think about much of anything else. In fact it becomes difficult to concentrate at all.

Liberal policies reduce or destroy families (welfare for unmarried women, more money for more out-of-wedlock children, but not married women; promotion - instead of simple tolerance - for alternative lifestyles that do not produce children; abortions on whim; etc.) They face a huge problem. Conservative policies nurture and salvage families (tax benefits for families; religion to counsel and help those in need; encouraging adoption instead of abortion; etc.) Political ideology, if allowed to run its natural course, is handed down smoothly from parents to children. The only places where this can be routinely interrupted is when parents and children are separated - which happens mostly through educational institutions. It becomes imperative that liberals therefore attack this section of children's lives. They aren't going to produce enough liberals to keep up with conservatives, therefore they must find ways to steal them.

The irony is that they have chosen the very policies which so dangerously retard their growth to be their champion, their defining issue.

How many men do you honestly think would be liberal if there weren't liberal women willing to sell their sex to manipulate them? How many liberal men would remain liberal if their partner(s) refused to give them sex just to have them toe the party line?

Don't even try to turn the tables on this one. How many conservative women do you honestly believe are using sex to manipulate men into becoming conservatives, particularly for control over their men? Yeah. That one fits. Conservatives believe women ought to dominate men.

Try again. We believe men and women should work together, overcoming the challenges they face, finding mutual support and comfort (yes, that kind of comfort too, often especially) in their relationship. These people, rooted in solid relationships, will not require government assistance programs designed by liberals to keep them in misery and poverty. They will learn from their mistakes, or absorb their challenges, turning them to good, possibly even advancing their own standard of living.

Listen guys, I'm not letting us off the hook here. It's our impatience and insecurity in the first place that enables this whole dangerous, manipulative, destructive cycle. Yes. That means we need to learn to be patient and we must be confident in ourselves. The rewards will follow, and there will be no strings attached - in fact the rewards and the mechanisms for achieving them will be wings strapped to our feet and back. Sounds an awful lot like "seek ye first the Kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you" doesn't it?

But that leads down another road liberals can't stand.

Inevitable Iraq

Quite a lot has been said about Iraq, and justly so because it is a defining issue of our times, and a great deal of political hopes have been pinned to it (all across the spectrum). The arguments have been made, and as I am no expert in the field, I cannot refute them, that the Bush Administration succeeded in the military action but did not plan for the aftermath. They fall into one form or another of "win the war and lose the peace" slogans and dialogs.

The fact is, this is the only place where politics can debate on Iraq, because we have gone there and our military was not going to lose that fight. The argument about whether or not we should have gone happened, and was overwhelmingly supported by Congress. Twice, and then several times again. The numbers are staggering that suggest, not only here in the USA but around the world, Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with.

Even the latest chicanery by political detractors in an attempt to wildly distort Alan Greenspan's words actually highlights the fact that Hussein was a global disaster actively trying to happen. When people claim he said the Iraq war was for oil, what he was saying was that he advised the Bush Administration that Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with in order to secure the world's oil supplies or there would be worldwide economic meltdown. So he wasn't saying the war was for oil, but he was certainly making a case that it could be, and that he would have supported it.

So the accusation today (because detractors are fast running out of enemy ground upon which to stand) is that the Bush Administration rushed to war without a plan for securing the victory. That we won military objectives in no time but managed to create a political and social vacuum in which atrocities and terrorism spread. Whether or not we are making some progress now and whether or not Iraq becomes a peaceful, supportive democracy in the future (hopefully near) is beside the point.

The "elephant in the room" (a phrase I happen to love now, despite my general dislike of clichés) is that we had to go in there, and we had to act fast. Whether or not the intelligence reports were correct that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (some were found, but not the hoards that the media expected) or Saddam Hussein was looking to buy weapons grade uranium from Niger (and Joe Wilson's own report claiming that he found no evidence of the attempted deal actually increased non-USA intelligence estimates that Hussein actually was seeking uranium) or that oil was in danger of being globally destabilized (though how you call a resource in the hands of Iran and Venezuela "stable" is beyond me) the votes were in from a huge coalition (larger than World War II) as well as massive numbers here in the USA (especially in Congress) and we had to act.

Just how does one plan to help a country become stable after a war? I would love to hear more about how it was done after World War II. Germany and Japan are amazing countries well worth extolling for where they are today.

First and foremost, in my humble opinion, the problem today is with the immediacy of media and their vapid, rapid need for higher ratings through controversy. In the aftermath of WWII there were journalists, and doubtless on the scene in Germany and Japan, but their ability to affect public opinion with sensational headlines was diminished by the technology of the day. Not to mention there was a Democrat in office during and immediately after the war. Not a modern day Democrat, thank God, but a Democrat nevertheless.

As a result I believe we were forced to appear too nice, too hands off, and there was a powerful microscope watching our every move lest we attempt to turn Iraq into a little mini-USA, or puppet state. Due to this public sentiment, we attempted to turn too much over to the Iraqis too fast. The accusation that we were occupiers was everywhere. Well, we occupied Germany and Japan, and last I checked they were doing pretty well, were very independent of the United States, and certainly did not do whatever the White House told them. Yes, we might have had to control the country for a year or two, and we might have had to appoint people to certain positions, and we might have had to make stronger recommendations about what should and should not be included in their constitution, but the result would have been a stable Iraq faster and more reliably than we have seen.

In short, the Bush Administration was told not to have a plan for the peace, because it could have only been a Puppet Plan, and then was accused for not having a plan when the people of Iraq didn't magically fall into place and create a beautiful, sparkling, model democracy overnight.

Where did peace happen, and quickly? Where there was martial law, or military control over areas. Those places have been handed over more quickly, and with better results, than the places that were told we couldn't help them set up their politics.

Well duh. Maybe it was a little much to ask people who had been oppressed by their leadership for decades to suddenly become elder statesmen. They needed guidance, they still need help, and we're going to be there longer because we "didn't do it right the first time". Why didn't we? Because the decisions would have been unpopular with the people who (politically) needed us to fail.

Will Iraq become a peaceful democracy, or at least a country that isn't hell bent on our destruction? I can't say. I believe so, and I believe we're seeing great progress over there. I do believe the human spirit yearns to be free, to make its own choices, to succeed on its own merits. It may be a bumpy road, but let's face the ultimate fact, people: while we like to believe (and I do) that God created everyone with equal value, not everyone's path is, or challenges are, the same.

Frogs and Voters

There was an assertion made, when I was in high school (I don't know what the official label is now, but most people still know what high school means), that a frog does not notice water is getting dangerously hot if it is heated slowly. Apparently, my grizzly friends assured me, the frog couldn't tell the water was too hot until it died, boiled to death (though this implies that it can tell after it dies, but let's not get into grammar, this was a biology lesson - another reason I'm glad I never took biology). Just what the point of the biology lesson was supposed to be (if it was indeed factual and not an urban legend dreamed up by kids sleeping in boring biology classes) I couldn't tell you, but I am glad I heard it. The principle applies so well in other parts of life.

As a side note, I must confess I believe most of my teachers would be shocked and dismayed that I was able to take practical, conservative value lessons out of a grizzly biological lesson that no doubt is part of the underlaying Hollywood assertion that they can make movies based on nothing but disgusting gore "because that's what we want".

So, what is this wholesome goodness that comes from such an icky concept?

The idea was that a frog's natural instincts were to avoid other dangers. They could see motion and jump away from it. They could feel direct or sharp pain and try to avoid or evade it. They had survival instincts and could live in water or near it (probably better than we can). But if you came up on them slowly, if you increased the danger a step at a time, they were incapable of recognizing their peril until it was too late. Patience and small steps won the day (at least if you wanted boiled frogs-legs for dinner)

It seems to me our politicians (and I will not spare any other country, though I am speaking mostly of my own - the United States of America) have figured the basics of this principle out. They had been, for ages, able to simply strong-arm us into whatever agenda they wanted to push. Unfortunately, the more success they had in pushing their agenda, the easier it was to see not only what that agenda was, but the horrible, misguided effects of that agenda could be, and furthermore that most of us did not want those agendas or their effects.

To wit, the politician's new tack is to ratchet up the heat slowly. Some might argue (and I hope they are right) that politicians are reduced to no other power - that we have successfully disarmed them from major movements (by proving that they are, actually, held accountable - at least enough of them that the rest can't accomplish their radical agendas) and therefore all they have left are smaller movements.

I may have a more jaded, cynical point of view when it comes to politicians - particularly those whose opinions and agendas are so far removed from the average American. I think they've just come to realize that we won't go for sweeping, massive liberal changes any more. Yes, liberalism used to be the core of American freedom and conservatism was associated with monarchy, theocracy, and other totalitarian concepts. The reversal has been stunning and complete.

Another side note: I believe this is why they cling so desperately to abortion, it is the last issue upon which they can rest any claim to offering choice, even if it is a horrible one.

Anyway, it takes some sharp eyes and connect-the-dots mentality now (sometimes leading down the dark, frightening road of conspiracy theories, and I am not guiltless there) in order to uncover the true agendas behind seeming innocuous legislation, rulings, or actions. You have to think several steps ahead - to when the water is uncomfortably hot or even scalding as opposed to hot-tub warm - to see the ghastly effects of these agendas.

Their outright stated concepts are boiling water. Their hidden double-speak is the slow raising of temperature. Be careful that you're an informed voter and not a frog.

Holy War over Schools

I have been hearing a lot about possible terrorist attacks on children, using our school system. The general idea is that Muslim extremists wish to cause a holy war because "their side" is not fired up enough, they don't have the support they need in order to win against the infidels. Their concept is to do something so horrific that the people of the United States will over-react, causing such division between Muslims and Infidels that they cannot avoid a world-wide holy war.

What is this horrific act? Apparently it has to do with hijacking and/or blowing up school busses packed with children, taking over elementary-level schools and doing the worst things you can imagine to the boys and girls before killing them, and even blowing up entire schools or releasing poisons or chemicals near the hijacked schools because people will "come to watch" and will be added to the death toll.

If this is not just a crackpot conspiracy theory, then the Muslim extremists are quite right: much of America will go completely animal. The extremists aren't actually targeting the young boys and girls who will be direct victims of brutality we would like to think doesn't exist in the world. They're targeting moderate Muslims. They're targeting those of Islam who actually believe it is a religion of peace. Those on the fence who are not strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up civilians, but who won't come out and condemn these acts. They want enough of those Muslims killed by wound-up Christians (not to mention atheists) that the rest of the moderates will join the holy war for their own protection. They aren't counting how many American children need to be raped and killed, they're counting how many Muslims need to be beaten to death by vigilante parents.

This scenario, again if it isn't just total mind-blanking fear tactics (and let me tell you I am afraid due to some things I will outline below), has three possible outcomes, two likely and one unlikely. The unlikely outcome is that infidels will cave in, implode and Islam takes over the world. The likely outcomes are not so good for the Islamic Extremists.

Outcome One: the lesser of two evils. I call this the lesser of two evils because in order for this to happen, the Extremists must have actually carried out such an unthinkable horror that nothing associated with it can actually be called "good". In this lesser of two evils case, the terrorist-extremists have finally crossed a line which the rest of us believe they crossed long ago: they so alienate their own Muslims that they lose all support and are hunted down by Muslims who see the possibility of Outcome Two. I admit I do not have much of an opinion of "moderate" Muslims. They should have spoken up long before now. They are either living in fear, which should make them question their own faith, or they are secretly supporters of these terrorists, which makes them extremists in sheep's clothing.

Outcome Two: they get the holy war they want. This will not go well for them. The world has a mistaken impression of the United States. Beyond that, Muslim Extremists have a mistaken impression of the non-Muslim world outside the United States. If there were one way to unleash, to actually remove all restrictions and inhibitions this country has against retaliation, it would be to attack our children. Not just attack them, but abuse them in the most horrifying ways first. The result would be genocide. And it would not be the elimination of the Christian faith. Mecca would be 20,000 degrees for 56 years. Medina? Gone. Islam would be eradicated from the world. If they actually succeed in igniting a holy war, it will be their complete and total end. Nobody but their own deluded selves could possibly believe they could win that war. Some of them are, actually, seeking the "end of the world". I do not believe they would get it, but I do believe an entire religion would be completely and violently erased from the face of the earth.

Please, Muslims, please wake up. Please pay attention to what is being done in the name of your religion. Yes, there were horrible things done in the name of Christianity, and there are places in the world where that is still a battle cry. There is a major difference: Christian nations and peoples denounce and work actively against those horrible religious crimes, and we shook off the dark ages. Please, please shake off your dark ages. Please wake up. It was hard, bloody, and often called for martyrs and sacrifices, but we managed to do it. Please, don't drive us down the path to Option Two.

Why am I actually afraid about this?

The Innocuous Beginning: "Foreign Nationals" (is that an oxymoron?) getting involved in bussing.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259168,00.html

An alarmingly written article telling us not to worry while stating it is a threat
http://www.safehavensinternational.org/SchoolBusTerrorism.php

School busses and school bus radios stolen - but don't worry, the drivers are being trained to watch out for suspicious behavior
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2007/08/27/school-bus-thefts-concern-houston-authorities/

And this one is the Mac Daddy of the concept:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_id=54975

Think about yourself. If you got a call saying your child's bus or entire school had been taken over, the children had been raped and brutally murdered by men proudly proclaiming to be middle-eastern terrorists, all of whom were Muslim, what would your reaction be? How about if you only heard that the bus had been taken over - how would you react as you were forced to pay attention to the story? I suspect here in Texas there would be civilians with high-powered rifles trying to snipe the terrorists themselves, then shooting anyone with a tan or scraggly mustache/beard who looked 'Muslim enough'.

I sincerely hope they're not stupid enough to mess with our kids. We might kill atheists/Christians simply for opposing retaliation. The world would find out we're not 'bullies', we can be enraged bulls when our children are in danger.

The Pre-Report Card.

Imagine: you are in school. The end of the term is coming. You've not always been a great student, but you have been trying hard. You think you've done well, but the actual grades are not in. You're waiting to hear how you've done.

Your siblings, concerned because your standing with your parents has been on shaky ground, yet they're often in even more trouble, are pre-broadcasting your grades (though they have no way of knowing them) to your parents. There is a reward being offered for the kid with the best grades, and they know you're trying harder than them and that your study habits are going to pay off. They're going to lose. "He's always playing games - he is okay playing PlayStation, but his grades? They suck. You should see how bad things are - teachers are always talking to him, he's always getting stopped in the hall. It's disgraceful.

The fact is that you have been studying, you haven't been playing games excessively, teachers are talking to you because they're telling you how well you're doing, and you're being stopped in the halls because people are impressed with you turning your life around.

The report card comes back. Three As, two B+s, and a B.

What happens? Do your parents question you, thinking you've gamed the system? Do your siblings get in trouble or are they believed over the teachers? How does everyone's position change on this result?

Very shortly now we will be getting General Petraeus' report on how things are going in Iraq. Democrats are pre-broadcasting that not only is the war lost, they are attempting to make it impossible to believe the Commander in Iraq. We must believe them and their news more than the actual people on the field whose job it is to assess risk and determine how we're doing. Yes, the General is going to be optimistic-bias, but he is going to be realistic and practical. No general wants to be recorded in history as having lost their war. They want to win it.

By contrast, the Democrat Party has based their whole foundation on the fact that President Bush is incompetent, a bungler, and a liar. They have done this by investing all their political future on the failure of the Iraq war. In short, they can't afford for us to win this war. If they are to gain more power in our government, we must lose.

What I see as most likely is that we are winning. That the "surge" has done exactly what it was supposed to, and that we are going to get very good news from General Petraeus' report. I may be wrong, and I am willing to take that advice and work with it, but I am going to wait for that advice - the source before making my decision. The only reason to pre-guess publicly and loudly is if you want to influence someone else.

It disgusts me that one entire political party in this country has not only bet everything they have against America, against the best among us at that, but is actively attempting to undermine us in order that they gain power politically.

I have little to no hope that President Bush will take the gloves off and battle like I so desperately wish he would, but soon we will elect a new President. A strong President. One who smokes big cigars and acts in movies. One who will put an end to flippy-wristed whiners in the legislative branch.

One can hope, anyway.

My message to President Bush:
Please, kick ass. If you refuse to do that, at the very least, just talk to us, tell us more often how things are going, so that there is no place for these horrid, undermining tactics.

Socialism, Dictatorships, and Universal Health Care

I believe socialism is less sustainable than a dictatorship.

I am going to trust that you understand capitalism is incentives based: you do more, you get more. On the contrary, socialism (a mild form of communism which leads to that end) has no incentives: do more or do less, you get the same. Dictatorships sound as though they should be the least sustainable: do what you are told and get what you are given.

Here's the basic problem that makes socialism the least sustainable of those options. Socialism provides the illusion of freedom and the realities of dictatorships. It plays to the absolute laziest elements in human nature. While there is enough capitalism left in socialism that someone who tries to get ahead can actually have some things that others don't (rich people with nice cars, etc.) the process is so much more difficult, and such a larger piece of the hard-worker's profits are taken away, that hard-workers and achievers are severely discouraged. Instead of offering incentives to those people to achieve, discover, expand, and do great things, it becomes easier to live a smaller, easier, hand-fed life.

In socialism, the leaders must still be elected, and the products must still come from the willing. If the leaders are no longer "fairly" elected, and the people are forced to produce, socialism becomes dictatorship (and dictatorships are ultimately unsustainable - witness the vast change in global politics since the 1700s - though the dictatorship model lasted far longer than socialism has to this point).

If, therefore socialist leaders are going to remain in power and not become dictators (who have a habit of dying horrible deaths at the hands of other wannabe dictators, in coups, or in revolutions) they must continue to keep the populace happy. Unfortunately, as life becomes boring, or as people look around and see that other people have things they don't (government leaders with private jets flying all over the world, going on cruises, eating expensive food, driving nice cars or being driven in them) people start to want to have those things too. Socialism goes from offering the needy something they really need to offering what people want to people who don't really need it, to inventing things people "need" (but don't) in order to provide them.

This causes a massive, out of control spiral of resource consumption. If everyone can have free medicine, where is that medicine going to come from? Who is going to make it, and at what price? Most important of all: who is going to pay for it?

In the original model, the "first hand-out" of socialism - someone who desperately needs assistance is given something they couldn't have otherwise afforded. The rest of us split the cost, and the cost is minimal. One person requiring $100,000 of surgery split 300,000,000 ways does not cost much. However, if everyone needs $500 worth of prescription drugs, everyone has to come up with $500 to pay for them. Meaning, if ten people are covering the cost for ten people's worth of drugs, it comes out to the same as one person covering the cost of one person's worth of drugs.

Where does the fairness stop? Should everyone have life-improving drugs? How about life-improving transportation? What about life-giving food and water? How about life-improving internet connectivity? In today's society, couldn't you make an argument that cell phones can save a lot of lives - being able to contact police or medical services in an emergency? Do we move on from there into laptops? Should it be one per household? One per adult? One per person?

Where are all of these products going to come from? If there are only a limited number of drugs to be had - only so much of the chemicals to go around, who decides who gets what is available? What happens when enough people are expecting their drugs but don't get them because there is a shortage? In that case, they don't have the option of selling their house and living in their basement for treatment because MONEY CAN'T BUY IT. Not even a sad, sob-story case where we all cringe and wish we could help because it truly is awful. NOTHING we do could help it, because the resources simply aren't available at any price.

In that case, the populace begins to rise, to throw out the politicians (by electoral process or military) who got them there, or the populace is repressed. The very fact that the people feel some entitlement (which is the name of most of these social programs) entices them to, at last, take some action. Unlike in a dictatorship where they are already living in physical and political fear and are easier, therefore to control. In a socialist government, enforcement (internal as well as external) consists of the very citizens who are starting to feel cheated. In a dictatorship, enforcement consists of those people who are where they are because the dictator compensates them and improves their lives over those of the other subjects.

In a perfect world, all people who need help would get it. The question is, how do we get to that perfect world?

Socialism will result in the absence of resources, due not only to a lack of incentive to produce those resources, but an artificial demand for those resources. Dictatorships result in the supply of those resources only to the ruling class (except in a "benign dictatorship", a difficult concept on its own to sustain). Capitalism, on the other hand, results in the distribution of those resources to the achievers.

Here is how these systems affect the needy: Socialism eventually can't provide resources to the actual needy because they are being used by those who don't need them, but who have been convinced they must have them and only the government can provide them fairly. Dictatorships could provide the resources, but the resources are in the hands of a select few who hold on to power by denying it to others - not exactly an environment that fosters charity. Capitalism makes resources available to those who can earn them, and because those resources are in the most hands possible, there is a greatly increased chance that one of those people with more resources will feel charitable and help those who do not have them. Capitalism also has the side benefit of reducing the number of needy without resources (though elimination of the needy would require global capitalism).

The Mathematics of Hypnosis

I once heard, from a source I trust completely, that during one of the stretches where Britain controlled India, the Royal Navy had difficulties with Indian hypnotists. The story goes that sailors would come back from shore leave, appearing quite normal (for sailors that were coming back from shore leave anyway) and would act normally until suddenly they were discovered doing strange things, even treasonous acts like preparing to hand over information. The concept was this: the sailors would be hypnotized while on shore in India, and would return with instructions to act more or less normally except for some specific instructions (generally, to find and prepare information they would deliver next time they were on shore leave).

Stay with me here, this is the story, and I will certainly research it more now (as you will see why). When the Navy figured out what was happening, they figured out how to combat it because apparently, when one is in a hypnotic trance, it is nearly impossible to do math. What the officers did was to subject returning sailors to a series of math tests. Those who couldn't do even the simple math were the ones under hypnosis. Furthermore, the hypnotized sailors had a near-violent reaction to the math tests, despite being horrified when they were released from the hypnosis (it being a rather large offense to be even verbally violent around, let alone to, an officer).

Another source I tend to trust claimed (in the late 1800s) that humanity would go through three major wars: a chemical war, a physical war, and a mental war. I have heard it said that World War One was considered the chemical war, due to the emergence of chemical weapons, and World War Two was the physical war due to the development of nuclear, atomic weapons.

It is not too difficult to believe that we are in the midst of the mental war. Battles are still being fought conventionally (as they were in WW1 and WW2) but the biggest blows in the war appear to be all mental: waged through the portrayal of information. The information doesn't have to be true, doesn't have to be a lie, it's just information, packaged (as this blog) with the intent to appeal to mental warriors on either side.

What becomes more than a little troubling is, of course, the thought that great groups of people may be unwittingly hypnotized, or its counterpart - mesmerized. How easy it is to be sucked in by powerful personalities on either side. Wielding their charisma, people produce written, audible, or even visible words or concepts designed to motivate us to advance their agenda.

Does this sound like I am perhaps attacking both sides? If I stopped there, yes I would be. However, I believe there is a difference between arming minds with information and hypnotizing them with dangerous instructions. Both sides are likely, at this point, to claim the other side is brainwashing their followers. How are we to be able to tell which side is providing compelling truth and which side is using alarming manipulation?

For me it is simple, and it comes back to mathematics and hypnotism. Mathematics is the embodiment of logic. Objects and operands interacting to set rules, producing the right results when applied correctly. If you find one side of an argument having a violent reaction to logic, it is almost a certainty they have been hypnotized. Perhaps not by some classic hypnotist with a fob watch and fuzzy words, but speeches, movies, images, lyrics, music, and other emotional and mental manipulation - generally reinforcing each other. This phenomenon has been widely observed - the way speeches can be written to play out upon our minds, what we expect in the ebb and flow of well-spoken words - can greatly influence not only our support or opposition to a concept, but our very actions (and the intensity thereof).

I beg you, nobody will know but you, but next time you are feeling wound up about something, or perhaps just feeling strongly about an opinion or a political stance, an agenda or anything that brings contention into the world, see if you can do simple math. Start with the simplest, 2+2=4, 4+4=8, etc. Then move on to something more difficult 4*4=16, 2*11=22, 100/20=5, etc. See if you can hold on to what you believe about the subject - be it war, abortion, global warming, gun control, whatever - while doing math in your head. Not that you think about it at the same exact time, but see if you can remember why you feel so strongly about your political beliefs between math operations. Nobody needs to know except you, but I do hope that, if you find it difficult to concentrate, you will consider the very real possibility that you have been hypnotized. If you can't expound on your beliefs while calm, you had better reconsider the beliefs.

If faced with someone who seems completely unhinged about a political or global problem or concept, ask them to do simple math (not if they are holding a dangerous weapon). Tell them you will not argue with them, you will not listen to them or believe them until they can reiterate their argument after doing the simple math problems I have included above.

Don't do it for me, don't do it for the person you're arguing with, do it for yourself. Consider how much of your life you could be wasting because someone else has hypnotized you.

Conservation Exemptions

I couldn't help it. A few things happened today that snapped me back to politics. I hope the stay is brief because I have been having so much fun with cosmology.

In order to be successful, conservation must be a function of the free market, not government mandates issued by people who intend to exempt themselves from those mandates. (Note the ideological paradox that it is the liberals who are claiming to be conservative with the environment, and you will have most of the answer right there.)

Conservation works when you decide that, due to the cost of printer ink and paper, you are going to become selective about what you print out - preferring to keep documents stored electronically and print them only at need. Conservation works when, in order to be more competitive, you make your farm so efficient that you feed twice as many people with half as much land.

It is not regulation that has turned around forestry in this country, it is industry. In the 1800s our country's forests reduced at tremendous rates. In the 1900s this trend slowed to a stop, despite population explosions, and since 1985 our country's forests have actually grown. This was not due to the government mandating that forests must grow, but to the fact that industries are using less wood to achieve the same goals. They had to - competition required it. The company that could reduce its overhead could lower its prices, increase its profits, and leap ahead.

Environmental movements face one major, underlying problem. They cannot get people to change their hearts and minds, and therefore their habits.

They discovered this at their conception, and began with attempts to argue with the individuals. This is, frankly, the only place where they can be ultimately successful, but when they were not, they did not face the fact that perhaps they were wrong, they chose the explanation that people were too ill-informed, outright stupid, or malicious to accept environmental "truths".

They left the attempt to change the hearts and minds of the masses on the back burner, and turned instead to institutions. Institutions affect many people, but are run by few. Target those few, and you can affect the many. Institutions such as governments and schools have a vast effect on the populace. This has had alarming success, despite the fact that environmentalists would still claim it is too little. What they have done, however, is create environmentalist-dependent careers, a whole industry of people whose very livelihood requires the environmental movement. With money behind them, they forge ahead. Still, however, they meet resistance. Not enough of the people's hearts and minds were changed, and as a result, there have been just enough politicians to retard (though not eliminate) their agenda.

The latest attack has been the logical outcome. Change of heart and mind did not occur when the appeal went to individuals. Change did not occur 'enough' when the appeal went to leaders, certainly not enough to keep up with the new dependence on this movement - now environmentalists have more mouths to feed, more offices to support, more jobs that require funding. Change of heart and mind is now being attempted through Celebrity.

The latest weapon in the arsenal of the environmentalist is to pick popular personalities, get them to spread the message, and hope that hearts and minds of the people will follow. This is having even more alarming effect than going through political leaders (though, in many cases, the celebrity is a political leader or tries to become one).

It can only be hoped, however, that the seeds of environmental-movement destruction are finally beginning to bear fruit. As each level of attack has been ramped up, more exposure to the fallacy of Enforced Environmentalism has been risked. I bear your attention to three high-profile examples:

1) It turns out that Al Gore's family, while he put on his biggest push for us to change our lives, used, consistently, more electricity in one month than the average American household used in one year. Under tremendous pressure, he is having solar panels installed at his mansion. We'll see how helpful that is, and if it has any affect whatsoever on his use of large, private jets, SUVs, and other carbon-emitting tools. When it was uncovered that he uses much more than his "carbon footprint" allows, he claimed to be purchasing carbon offsets from a brokerage firm that buys them from companies and individuals who use much less than their carbon footprint. Not only is this concept ludicrous (you conserve or you don't, and he wasn't - meaning no matter how well other people did, he was still going to have his big impact on the environment) it turns out he owned the carbon-offset brokerage firm.

2) John Edwards' mansion proves the concept of the Two Americas. The breezeway between his "house" and his "recreation center" has more square footage than the typical, large, suburban home. Two typical apartments could fit inside the breezeway. Why we call it a breezeway I'm not 100% sure. It is fully enclosed, heated, and air conditioned. Perhaps it's the breeze of the ventilation system that keeps out the fresh air that allows us to call it a breezeway? I would have called it a hallway or a corridor, but perhaps that sounds too industrial. I can't imagine the power consumption comparison between his family and mine.

3) Sheryl Crow came out in the last few hours and proclaimed that we should use only one square of toilet paper per visit to the bathroom. I have heard that she amended her statement to say we could use three squares for "pesky" visits to the bathroom. While I would love to say that this statement itself needs no comments, there are some I cannot keep myself from providing (though I bet any reader could outdo me on this one). First, when I was in college there was a joke sent around campus (we actually had "eco-heads" in many of the student houses) that one eco-head wrote up suggesting that we could do a lot to help the environment if we used only three squares of toilet paper per wipe. The flack this girl got was astounding, and it came from the very granola-heads that established the eco-head position in the first place. The fact that she had to explain it was a joke is just sad. But look what we have come to. Not three squares per wipe, but one square per visit. The other comment is, of course, that Sheryl Crow's own "rider" (the list of demands she has for her touring conditions) is on display on the internet. It hardly reads like someone who uses only one square of toilet paper per visit to the bathroom.

All the while, average people like you and me, and yes, our President, use less electricity and fewer resources to go about our business, whether that be to account for corporate taxes, make candy, deliver packages, or run the whole damned country than the self-appointed leaders of the environmentalist movement.

It can only be hoped, as I stated above, that the seeds of destruction for this movement have finally begun to flower and the full blossom will be revealed as we examine just who is leading this movement, how they behave in their own life compared to how they want everyone else to behave, and how they intend to exempt themselves from the very regulations they would like to impose upon us.

If not, I fear we are going to have a rather bloody revolution. And no offense, we have the guns.

Paradox of Compressing Expansion

I admit this came to me last night, after writing my last post. It is therefore a little raw, but it does not surprise me that more and more thoughts about this whole thing are coming to me.

The quick background is that the theory of the big bang, as mentioned, relies on a few things: the speed of light being constant (therefore red-shift can only be a Doppler Effect of the source moving away from us), and the discovery of background radiation in the universe (they were specifically trying to find it and when they did, they claimed it was exactly what they were looking for - kind of like assuming someone is a pessimist because they said "no" to your first question) are the two that seem to me the biggest claims.

The assumption, therefore, is that the universe itself is expanding. The reasoning behind this is that if the galaxies are all moving away from each other, and the further galaxies are from each other, the faster they are moving away, there can be no "center point" from which they are moving - every point in the universe would appear to be the center from its own perspective. The illustration (which evolved into another "interesting" assumption) is that what we perceived as three-dimensional space was like the surface of a balloon. A picture (the galaxies) is painted on the balloon. You blow the balloon up, and the picture expands. Not from some central point, but (basically) at all points somewhat evenly. The claim is that space is therefore curved like the surface of that balloon and expanding just like that balloon does. Some creature that lived exclusively on the surface of the balloon and had no knowledge of the inside or the outside - only the surface - would think that space was simply expanding and would not be able to explain where it all came from.

The only way this makes sense (and therefore that I don't contradict much more accepted theories and brains than my own) is if the universe is actually four-dimensional. Just like the creature on the balloon, who thought the universe was two-dimensional and expanding, the expansion was actually due to a third-dimension - the "inside" of the balloon being exchanged for some of the outside of the balloon. Three dimensional space did not change or expand, it simply moved from the outside to the inside, pushing the surface of the balloon out.

This is why I thought the universe must be four-dimensional, something that I am beginning to argue myself out of (though I am a stubborn hold out simply because I like the concept).

However, in order for this to be supportable, everything inside the three-dimensional universe must be contracting or collapsing at exactly the rate of expansion of space itself. Why is this? What did I just say? Huh? Can he stop typing now and let your dumbfounded head implode? Guess that was a bad choice of words considering what I'm saying... let's return to the balloon illustration.

The picture on the balloon expands at the same rate at all points. It appears to get bigger, right along with all the empty surface of the balloon. This does not happen in our universe. The galaxies move further apart from each other, but the individual parts of the galaxies - stars, solar systems, planets, mountains, houses, people, atoms - are not growing larger. Remember, the analogy of the balloon will break down because I chose a material object to be expanding. The claim in relativity and Big Bang is that space itself is expanding. This would mean the space between planets, the stars, and even between electrons and protons would be expanding. The suggestion that local forces hold local pieces together seems a lame afterthought. They would all have to be balanced perfectly against the force of expansion - all atoms, all planets, all solar systems, all galaxies all acting identically against this force of expansion - or some of them would shrink and some of them would expand as one force or another proved the stronger. Either that or the expansion of the universe would have to be uneven, miraculously choosing only (and evenly) the space between the galaxies.

Oh, and by the way, that bit about all galaxies moving away from each other based on how far apart they are? We have pictures from the Hubble (ironically) telescope that show galaxies colliding. And, I believe, there is some talk that our own galaxy is headed for a collision (or at least near miss) with Andromeda. So much for all of them moving away from each other. Again, what seems to me a lame, quiet afterthought, we are told there are exceptions to this "Hubble's Law" (Is it therefore really a law of nature? Sounds more like a law of politics!) and that sometimes local forces (just how local is Andromeda??) overcome this "law".

The contradictions between these theories come from observed and observable phenomenon. The problem is not with the observation, it is with the assumptions. As near as I can tell (again, rank amateur that I am) if you remove one assumption from the pile, that the speed of light is constant, the contradictory theories must be discarded and something resembling logic returns to the galaxy.

Wouldn't it be ironic if after all this study we found out "You know what? The universe just sorta makes common sense." How many times has that happened? A simple concept is totally messed up by people who want (because they make a handy living doing it) to make it more complex only to find out that no, it really is a simple concept and easy enough to understand.

Perhaps, as Einstein theorized, if you travel far enough in a straight line, you'll eventually go through the entire universe and come back to exactly where you started.

A Light Bombshell...

I believe that current, widely accepted theories do not explain light to my satisfaction. Additionally, I do not believe light travels at a constant speed.

I remember when I was going through physics in high school and college, it was explained to me that we don't seem to know what light is. In certain experiments it acts like a wave, and in certain circumstances it appears to be comprised of particles. The problem is that it does not make logical sense that particles would travel in waves. It appears to have energy, it appears to travel in a ray from its source. It certainly moves quickly. It definitely acts like a wave.

It seems to me there are two possibilities (please feel free to point out I'm a dope and there are others). Either there is actually something in the so-called vacuum of space that can then move in wave patterns (such as the "dark" or "transparent" matter mentioned in other theories), or light itself is comprised of something capable of moving like both a particle and a wave.

In either case, and I do hope to talk about each more, I find it easier to believe that light changes speed (and in specific that it decelerates) than to believe that it remains at a constant speed. I will go into these things more, but the ramifications are immediate (and I will explain these too). First, Hubble's assumption that the universe is expanding was based on his assumption that galaxies are traveling further away from us due to the concept of red-shift (basically, the Doppler Effect of light). Because he believed light traveled at a constant speed (as was suggested by Einstein's Theory of Relativity) that could only mean that the source of that light was moving away from us. If, in fact, light does not travel at a constant speed (and that it decelerates over time/distance), it would also explain why the further away a galaxy appears to be, the more its light is red-shifted. This simple assumption of my own manages to contradict not only Einstein and (the conclusions of) Hubble, but Stephen Hawkings himself - because it removes the major support for the Big Bang theory. I am certainly entitled to my own theories (whether they make sense or not) but it is going to be hard to be taken seriously if you contradict, in one sentence, all three of those men (and how many others that support their theories).

There are several observable phenomenon that would be clearly and easily explained/reconciled, along with other "powerful" theories trashed by this one, simple assumption. One such is this:

The study of red-shift as applied by Hubble and others to determine the motion of galaxies suggests that galaxies would have all intersected approximately twelve to fourteen billion years ago (the Big Bang). Unfortunately, the underlying spectrography (the study of element fingerprints in light) also suggests that there are stars that have been burning for seventeen to nineteen billion years. (Yes, these two concepts are irreconcilable). For this and many other reasons (perhaps I will detail them in my next post) I cannot help but believe more in the age of stars than the Big Bang. As the irreconcilable discrepancies are all based on the constant speed of light, I choose to go with what is observed and re-think what is theoretical.

As for myself, at present I must admit it seems more logical that light is actually a wave, and not a specific thing unto itself that travels like a wave. I am certainly willing to be found wrong, but it seems to me much like making a noise, something generates this vibration, and it travels through its medium just like a wave of water or sound. It would seem to explain sight, and it would turn out to be very much like hearing. Our optical sensors would be "vibrated" by this wave, just like our eardrums, and translate that vibration into different frequencies and intensities, just like our ears. This would explain to me how this phenomenon is absorbed (as it is by our eyes or photoelectric cells or film, etc.), and also suggest (again) that light decelerates (in that absorption).

This would mean there is something out there that is being vibrated, even in what we think of as the vacuum of space. Many theories suggest there is "dark matter" or "dark energy" (some of them suggest a better word is transparent, not dark). Since even theories that have nothing to do with light believe that there are massive amounts of matter unaccounted for in observable space, again there is the very real possibility that there is some sort of transparent or dark matter between the sun, the stars, and the atmosphere of the earth. A heady concept, one that begs the question "why, then, does it not produce friction?" but there are many possible answers to that, including the possibility that it is so small, massless, or out of phase with non-dark matter that it does not collide with it, but as I am already disbelieving in major, accepted theories of the Big Bang and the constant speed of light, perhaps disbelieving in the traditional concept of the vacuum of space should be kept for another post.

Experimentally Challenged

I know one of the largest faults with what I am posting here is that I have no observational evidence to support my theories - that is, I do not have sufficient mathematics, or access to physics or cosmology equipment, to perform experiments or produce formulas to "prove" or at least agree with my theories. On the other hand, nobody is required to read any of this stuff (and perhaps nobody does).

Furthermore, there is no immediate, practical application for this knowledge. However, I believe it is possible that a further understanding of the phenomenon of our universe may produce new technologies or discoveries that can change our lives. The devices we dream up in Science Fiction tend to require technologies that don't yet exist, but I suggest they are possible.

Consider electricity, or even before that, magnetism. These are used in our every-day life, but before people were producing magnets, imagine a primitive farmer or hunter-gatherer even imagining the possibilities or uses of magnets. Before electricity was in common use, who would have dreamed what it was or what could be done with it? What other amazing things are ready at hand which we will be able, eventually, to manipulate and utilize to do things currently impossible?

Illustratively: the average household (wherever the free market is in effect) can now produce color images on paper, watch movies on various screens, listen to recordings of music made years or seconds ago, freeze water into ice, illuminate the dark, cool the air in summer, be sixty (or more) miles away within an hour, and (thank God) brew coffee.

We can even write down our thoughts in an easy-to-read type and publish them in an internationally-public manner such that other average people throughout the world can read them seconds later. In fact, it is even possible to translate those thoughts instantly into other languages (though the translation is often amusing rather than useful).

With all that said, I now press on, experimentally challenged though I am, with my theories.

Cosmic Overview.

I have been fascinated, lately, with various theories of cosmology. I have been watching documentaries, reading books, and studying online to try to understand (as well as possible) theories such as the big bang, relativity, and quantum physics.

The general acceptance of our time is that the universe had a beginning - the theory of the big bang - and has been expanding ever since. Through the theories of relativity, we also get the explanation of space being bent by mass, which simulates gravity. Also, we have the idea that the speed of light is a constant, always observed the same no matter how fast you are traveling in relation to the object that produced the light.

Several of these concepts are mind boggling, and I admit that I do not understand how these conclusions are reached (only that the theories are explained as having reached these conclusions).

Just as it took tremendous amounts of work and thought to come up with these theories, I cannot sit here and tackle each one and propose my own theories in a single blog entry. Therefore I shall try to keep it to one or two concepts at a time, even though they all interrelate. After all, the concept is to try to come up with some formula or theory that encompasses everything - some explanation that does not require exceptions.

That is the beauty, but also seems to be one of the major flaws of how we are going about explaining the cosmos, and I'm really not going to be much different, so no help there. The problem is that we are trying to come up with the theory that has the least holes, and as we find each explanation, put forth by truly spectacular and hard working minds, we latch on to and accept it until a theory with fewer exceptions earns enough adherents.

The bottom line is that for practical purposes in the every-day life we don't really need to know these things, though for deeper satisfaction we always seem to turn to greater questions - be they physical or metaphysical (or, as so many claim, some mixture of them both).

I am going to give the punch line at the beginning of the joke, so to speak, because I must do this in a disjointed (and probably interrupted) fashion. I will continue posts on politics, begin posts on hockey, and will be posting regarding science as well.

My belief is that the universe is actually four-dimensional, and I do not consider time a dimension. I mean there are four spatial dimensions. Most of us are familiar with the three dimensional terms length, breadth, depth. We can picture three dimensional objects, even render them in two-dimensional drawings. The question of where the fourth dimension goes, or the direction of the fourth axis, is somewhat more difficult to imagine. It can be imagined through extrapolation, which will be one of my next posts (if not the very next.

The difficulty in establishing this theory of mine is a lack of understanding about four-dimensional physics. Perhaps my hope is that through some of these posts, some of the physics can be figured out. Unfortunately, our experience appears to be largely limited to three dimensions, often simulating two or even one, but rarely (outside of Science Fiction) approaching four.

I believe, however, that even with some very basic and acceptable assumptions about four-dimensional physics, extrapolated from the growth from one-dimensional to two-dimensional, and from two-dimensional to three-dimensional physics, will allow us to produce very logical and simple explanations for how our own universe works - and make some interesting predictions about what we may find "out there".

I must also (laughingly) admit that I may, through these very posts, convince myself I am completely wrong. After all, Einstein convinced himself he was wrong even when he wasn't.

Blog's Cosmic Shift

Grab something heavy, or strap yourself into a stable chair.

This post is not about politics.

Other than to say it is not about politics, and to explain why.

I have told many people (including, I believe, this blog) that politics is my spectator sport. What I had not told too many people, though most of my closer acquaintances already knew this, was that politics became my spectator sport because I lost my other two sports right about the time I got really interested in how politics, from local to global, worked.

Well, I'm not exactly burned out on politics, as my blog will prove, but through a totally unrelated cosmic accident I rediscovered one of my other sports: Ice Hockey.

While I cannot claim to be a native born Texan, I have been naturalized by the authority of several native born Texans (based largely on the fact that I owned a pickup truck longer than most of them, have been in this state for a long time, and can out BBQ - the real kind, not grilling - most of them). I have also been given naturalization papers from several members of the Texas State Judiciary for services rendered to the State (it was tongue-in-cheek, but all the more precious to me because of it - I did some computer work for the state and we all had a blast).

Why is this important? Because I moved to South Texas, where there is very little in the way of NHL hockey. I have watched (and enjoyed) some of the local teams, but the players (if they're lucky) change rapidly and I couldn't get into the team as a whole, not to mention NHL hockey is the best of its kind. Just recently, and largely by complete random chance, my family and I tuned into a Dallas Stars game and got re-hooked on hockey. With only three games to go in the regular season, alas. We are doing well, but I doubt we will get very far through the playoffs. I want us to badly, but no doubt my positive energy is balanced out by other teams' fans who want their teams to advance just as badly.

Okay. Massive digression, but important, as you will see. Hockey is fantastic, but it takes a lot of time in the evenings (mostly) and due to the nature of the sport, you don't win every game (nor, with the exception of whoever wins the Stanley Cup, do you win all the playoff series). While this is good, and part of what makes the sport exciting, it means that while you are in the playoffs (which we now are) your team is likely to lose some very important games, leaving you feeling all grumpy and down.

So, rather than go to bed feeling disgusted with everything because some boob on the other team got a lucky bounce or break and scored a goal after a hard-fought overtime, proving that you've got the better skill but they've got the more frustrating luck, I decided to haul out some of my more interesting documentaries.

I downloaded some documentaries from the internet one year, burning them to DvDs as presents for friends and families (this was not the year I worked for the State of Texas - I could actually afford more expensive presents that year). I didn't get to watch them all, other than a quick scan through to check for quality and content, but they looked interesting.

While this post is now pretty much too long (it is all digression, to some degree, how bad is that?) I plan to post a little bit of my random, amateur thoughts about The Cosmos (I can't say that word without hearing James Wood's voice as Hades in the Disney version of Hercules). I have actually read several works about Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, and about various parts of quantum physics. I have a decent mathematic and physics background. However, everything I am going to say is amateur.

That disclaimer aside, I feel compelled to point out that several major breakthroughs in our understanding of the universe have come from people who were considered amateurs at the time they had their breakthroughs, and even "established minds" were considered completely off their rocker when claiming new theories about How Things Work.

I expect to find myself contradicting some of the greatest scientific minds of our time. I am not asking anyone to think that I am smarter than they, because I do not think I am smarter than they. But like the simpleton who solves the complex problem because it needed a fresh perspective, I do have some thoughts to share on these Cosmic Concepts.

Advice:
- Concepts covered can be confusing. Skip if they bore you, return to the comments section if you ask a question (I often reply to comments on this blog - I recommend returning to comments any time you leave one).
- I recommend lots of coffee while reading these posts.
- Not to be mixed with narcotics.

How Gasoline Burns my Cookies

(and I don't even eat cookies)

The Liberal double-whammy is going to be a new phrase of mine. Here is an example (as brief as I can keep myself).

Today's gas prices. They're up another 11 cents even here in the Great State of Texas in just one week alone. Why? Because there is more and more demand in this country, and no more supply. Let's look at both sides of the equation, because liberals are screwing us both in supply and in demand.

The supply side is easy to see. First of all, liberals hate supply. Supply gets goods to the poor, the downtrodden, the very voters they depend upon. If people are supplied with what they need, they don't require government hand-outs.

How are they screwing us over gasoline supply? By the incredibly frustrating stance regarding our own oil. This country has tremendous oil reserves, and the ability to get that oil efficiently and with little to no damage to the environment. Despite this, we take as little advantage of our own natural resources as Mexico. For the same basic reason: corrupt government with a vested interest in keeping the poor in their poverty. Again and again liberals use "well meaning" cover stories such as protecting the environment (and they have to misrepresent both the environment and the damage in order for those stories to fly) to deny us our own oil. The net result? Poorer people can't afford gasoline. Poorer people like ME. My family falls into the Largest Tax Bracket (not paying any because we don't make enough money). Tell you what. Make me pay flat taxes, but let us drill for our own oil. I may even end up behind - but I will be blissfully paying my taxes as I sail through the gas station where it's once again below a dollar a gallon for 87 octane unleaded.

How are they screwing us over gasoline demand? Oh, you really shouldn't get me started on this one, but while they love to lambaste oil companies for record profits, they ignore the way those profits are made. Stay with me here:

Al Gore Style "Diet Coke" Illustration
I will try to make this as simple an illustration as possible. Let's say you make a fantastic drink. Let's say it has a snappy name that rhymes with Frapple. It's delicious, and it's expensive. Like, $2.50 a bottle (one serving). People everywhere are buying it. You crank up production, making more Frapple. People would rather drink it than Poke, Repsi, or even water. You have a fantastic quarter, selling one Frapple to every American, or 300 million Frapples. Congratulations, you just made $750million in gross receipts. Let's say you make $1 profit on each bottle (simplified for number purposes, make it as small as you want). You made a record-breaking 300 million dollars. Next year, the population has grown to 305 million people. You didn't change anything, except now you made $305 million dollars. Record breaking. Obscene? No. The result of greater demand.

"Diet Petrol"
When was the last time you used less gasoline? Honestly looking at it, how often have you driven less, used less electricity, heated your home less, etc? Not to mention: if you used fires to heat your home, aren't you belching more carbon into the air than a power plant would to provide you with heat? That digression aside, let's say there are 280 million people in the United States (as there were about two decades ago). Let's say the average person bought 10 gallons of gasoline a week. That's 2.8 billion gallons of gasoline a week. Let's assume there are 52 weeks even in a liberal's year. That's 145.6 billion gallons of gas a year. Let's divide that up into quarters, as "big oil" must report quarterly to the government. We're at about 36.4 billion gallons of gasoline per quarter. Over a decade ago. With fewer people. And no truckers. Just 10 gallons a week in your hybrid. Let's say (just for argument's sake) "big oil" makes about 20 cents per gallon (which is, I believe, a reasonably accurate estimate from what I remember reading from oil-antagonistic sites.) Set aside the fact that the government typically makes over a dollar per gallon, which is therefore five times what "big oil" makes on their own product (remember, the government doesn't do anything to earn that money, just taxes it) and let's say that was $7.2 billion for that quarter. What happens if Americans use the same amount of gas, "big oil" makes the same amount of profit per gallon, yes the F****N' government taxes the same amount per gallon, but we add Americans. Now there are 300 million of us instead of 280 million. The numbers run like this: 3 billion gallons a week, 156 billion gallons a year, 39 billion gallons a quarter, and $7.8 billion in profits. It sounds huge, and it certainly is a record, but it is because more people are buying the product, not because the amount per gallon has increased. I haven't even touched inflation, which points out we are paying half what we paid in 1979 (who was President then? was he a liberal?) if you adjust for inflation, so yes the numbers look huge, but due to inflation they should always go up!

See this chart for research:
Historical Oil Prices

How does this relate to liberals? Besides, of course, the pointed barbs I have used in the past couple paragraphs? They themselves estimate more than 20 million illegal immigrants are here in this country. Aside from the fact that they're using our schools, our social security, our medical systems, they are driving cars (whether they carpool or are driven by someone else) and using our resources. Yes, they may very well add to our economy, but they are also adding to the cost of goods because, just like us, they consume. They are people, not statistics, and they eat, drink, sleep, drive, etc. That increases demand.

I am not suggesting that you can simply remove 20 million people from our economy (though I do believe something must be done, even if it is not easy or politically correct) but if you did, demand would go down.

Liberals are 180 degrees out of phase with reality. They do damage at both ends of the problem, they are never the solution, and they would do more damage if they could.

Why Democrat Candidates Boycott Fox

It's the Clinton, stupid.

This article is a little more specific than most of my others, so I hope you don't get lost. Here is some quick setup:

In case you don't follow these things, Democrat candidates are refusing to show up on Fox News for debates. The debate is scheduled, Fox is chosen, time goes by, and when it's politically ripe, the candidate declares they will not show up for anything broadcast on Fox.

The first issue is what everyone focuses on: The fact that Fox is actually centrist, not conservative, and that the largest audience of Independent voters watches Fox News over all other news outlets. The candidates are therefore screwing themselves out of a chance to appear before the very swing voters they're going to need in order to secure the White House (a distant chance anyway, and growing fainter with every stunt).

The second issue, nobody seems able to answer. This stuns me because I believe I have the answer, and it is two-part.

The first part is obvious and disappointing. We're in the primaries. The candidates do not need the swing voters. They need only registered Democrats. Not only that, they need the insane, anger-addict Democrats that, like so many conservatives, want to see their candidates act boldly. They want to see them denounce President Bush, they want to see them canceling appearances on perceived conservative networks, they want to hear tough talk on the war or any other issue that takes their fancy. Independents (and this is why I will probably never be one) do not vote in primary elections. They do not belong to the party in question, so they can't vote for those candidates. After the primaries are over and we have a specific candidate (and my money is still on Hillary winning her nomination, though I would love to lose that bet) they will appear wherever a microphone and a camera are set up and running, regardless of whether or not there is a FOX placard on the side.

The second part is less obvious, and I could be wrong about this. However, we must dig back into the recent past and dredge up two names: Bill Clinton and Chris Wallace. The fact is that Bill went on Fox, and he was not only asked the questions Independents and Republicans want asked (or at least a very few of the tamer ones) but he looked terrible in the eyes of regular Fox viewers.

Remember, Bill Clinton is the brightest star in the Democrat universe. He's not only the pinnacle of their dreams (frightening thought) but considered their slickest talker, their smoothest guy, and unassailable. Slick Willie. The Teflon Man. He was slick and smooth through everything. If he appeared on Fox and looked that bad, there isn't one Democrat candidate that can show up and do better.

The Democrat candidates are in a tough spot, and I don't pity them in the least (they have made their own bed, dug their own hole, etc.) They are going to need to reach the very audience that tunes into Fox. While it is true that some of us are going to watch presidential debates no matter what network they're on, if Fox does get that network, their own base is going to want them to boycott - even an actual presidential debate! But they won't be able to. They may refuse interviews, or not show up on Fox shows, but they're going to miss the swing voters. Unfortunately, they are right - if they do show up on Fox, there is a good chance they're going to have to answer the very questions we want asked.

Sucks to be them.

The Underpsyche of War

Some random thoughts on the State of Things.

I believe the problem with current American politics is that:

1) Nobody particularly likes the concept of war. People die naturally and by accident every day, and they're even murdered every day. Things decay over time or are subject to fires, floods, earthquakes, etc. However in war the actual point is to kill the enemy and break their things.

2) Americans (and I would assume almost everyone) hate having enemies. We like to get along. Even our local squabbles, we'd rather not have confrontations, we'd rather get along.

3) Despite this, even the people who are against the war in Iraq know it is the only thing we can do, and that it is only a part in a much larger war. This causes a lot of problems, semi-consciously, for those who won't admit that they understand this. They hate the necessity enough that they're ignoring that it is a necessity. "Necessary Evil". They know there are no other solutions at this point - not that we aren't willing to try them, but that the other side isn't going to accept them. Anyone who thinks they will is either a moron, or has really buried the truth deep inside their psyche.

4) Politicialns are determined to exploit this fact for their own political gain. They play upon the fact that we don't like war, and that we wish there was another solution - they even perpetuate the false impression that everyone is like us - that we all think about life and solutions the same, so our enemies must (by the way, they do this while trying to tell us that diversity is our greatest strength). By so doing, these politicians are doing the opposite of their duty. They are not leading, they are not protecting us, they are confusing us and making it more difficult to solve our huge problems.

Open Letter to Sears

The following is a letter written to Sears based on an experience I had with them. Please note that the content has been changed to make the store and people involved anonymous in this more public venue.

I am writing to you today to express my concerns about the service and attitude I have received from Sears. I went to my local Sears. I was warmly received and worked with a good salesman. He helped me, and seemed knowledgeable. There was, however, a problem with my purchase - due to confusion about relative sizes, the wrong oven was ordered. My range hood, installed at the same time, fit nicely. The contractor took the old oven, the old range hood, and the wrong sized oven away.

So far, so good. However, everything began to unravel. I went back to the store to approve the purchase of the correct oven, which was the same price. I was informed that I would be paying a $40 trip charge due to the fact that the contractor had to go out a second time. I agreed, feeling I was partly responsible (though not wholly) for the wrong sized order.

Before the correct oven had arrived (in fact, it still has not been installed) I heard what I thought was my brand new range hood coming on all by itself. Bemused, I tried to figure out what was the problem. It turns out the contractor did not disconnect the old range hood fan, nor remove it (which I thought was part of the service - at least it says so on my contract). Since that time I have been unable to use my new range hood (needing to switch it off at the circuit breaker to keep the old fan from running loudly and continually). I contacted the contractor who said he would gladly come out and disconnect the old fan (but not remove it) when my new oven came in so they could do both things at once.

Trying to be a helpful customer, I agreed although I now have no oven and no range hood and have not for some weeks. I did, however, call my sales rep back and ask that, since the contractor was going to wait until they were coming out to install the oven to fix my range hood (and by my logic that meant they were going to make the trip to fix my range hood anyway) they shouldn't be charging Sears (who then shouldn't be charging me) for the trip charge of $40. I was told that, because they were going to be taking a big hit for the incorrectly ordered oven, my salesman's manager was unlikely to approve removal of the trip charge.

At this point I felt it only prudent to point out that it really wasn't a trip charge, it was a restocking fee. If I had been originally told it was a restocking fee I might have complained, but I would have seen the honesty and logic about it. Now that it is a trip charge for a trip the contractor had to make anyway in order to fix a problem, I feel more than a little cheated.

In addition is the fact that the contractor has no intention of actually removing the old fan from my old range hood. I can understand the attitude, because it is in a difficult place to reach and it has to be gross, but I paid the installation charge for this, which was supposed to include removing the old equipment.

I have purchased, to date, a vacuum cleaner, lawn mower, two refrigerators, an oven, a range hood, two different washers and three different clothes driers, and a dishwasher from sears, and these are the things I can just think of off my head. I believe I have purchased two televisions, various small appliances such as irons, clothing, and many other items from Sears.

At this point, I do not feel like shopping at Sears again. There are many other places to get my appliances, from Best Buy to Home Depot. I chose Sears because I believed you were the biggest outfit, one I could expect professional, inclusive, helpful installation and service from. I did not check prices, I did not shop around, I simply operated off customer loyalty. At this point I do not know what can be done to change my mind. I should not have had to write this letter at all. I do know I am going to want a new dishwasher soon, another microwave, a big-screen TV, a new lawn mower, and who knows what other things I haven't thought of yet that are going to need replacing. I doubt any of them are going to be purchased at Sears.

Musicians playing Fear Instinct Instruments

Liberal messages work on most people by striking emotional chords and instinctual reactions on the knee-jerk level. By this very definition I must admit that there is something behind them. If we didn't have these emotional chords to play or these instincts, the messages wouldn't work.

What must be done is to examine why we have these chords and instincts, and how they are being used. It was said well by libertarian author Frank Herbert in his classic book Dune (paraphrase) Your awareness may be capable of controlling your instincts. Your instinct is to free yourself from a trap. An animal will chew its own hand/paw off to escape the hunter who laid the trap. A human will wait for the hunter, eliminate a threat to its kind, and use the proper tools to free itself from the trap.

A quick (sorry, I know they never are) aside into emotional chords. There are many chords to be played. You can play someone's emotions to soothe, to excite, to please, to arouse, to incite, etc. Most often chords are played in an impersonal group setting in order to incite someone or a group of someones into action. This can be done in any number of ways, from pleasure to fear. For political activism, positive emotions rarely spur people into extraordinary action, so negative emotions are used. Successful campaigns have been waged by playing on emotional chords that make us feel intellectual, informed, and reasonable - and they have had stunning success (smoking, for one). Unfortunately, once the professionals, those who are really good at this kind of manipulation, have been successful, amateurs who haven't got the patience or talent of professionals attempt to emulate them. Since they lack the skill, they go for more direct, offensive, bullying methods and switch from a passive fear with a lot of intellectual debate (whether based on fact or not) to active fear with no intellectual debate and made-up facts.

So, when I talk about emotional chords, I'm talking about the far-end negative chords that are being played upon so regularly today.

By and large, most of us like to avoid uncomfortable confrontations. We'd rather start from a position of strength and through the power of reason and our own oratory skills convince the other side we are right and have them join us. Preferably without raised voices, making friends rather than enemies, gathering supporters and allies so that people look around and say "wow, he's a real persuasive guy."

Activists play upon the assumption (and I believe they're right) that most of us would be terrified out of our wits (and possibly out of our bladders) to find ourselves in an actual combat situation. I was nearly mugged once, and I still feel shaky about it even though I escaped the situation unscathed, without loss, and without actually running away. I can't imagine what it would feel like to know that within range there were people with guns, rockets, and explosives who would love nothing better than to kill me, and that to defend myself I couldn't just find a clever way out of the situation, but might have to actually shoot someone dead. I don't know how I would react, and I am thankful it is unlikely I will ever be in that situation.

It is only natural to assume most people think as we do, and to be probably right. But I also believe that, if push came to shove, if I were a young, strapping man again, I would gladly take up arms, find that strength within me, and defend my country. I can easily see myself picking up a gun and deliberately shooting someone in the head if they were threatening my wife or children with direct, immediate, believable harm. And I don't even have to be young and strapping to see myself doing that.

The fact is that we have these animal instincts and emotional chords because it may be vital, in the first instant, to do whatever it takes to buy a second instant in which to think. Unfortunately, the instincts and chords that are being constantly played are always fear-based, and we're being asked to form opinions about (or even make decisions in the voting booth upon) long-range issues that require more than our first instant, instinct-driven, knee-jerk reactions and fear-based emotional chords. It is important for us to calm ourselves, let the fear wash over and through us, until only we remain and we can look at a situation with reason. It may be that the first course of action that presents itself to our panic-stricken mind is only going to lead to something worse. Not until we actually absorb the facts and the greater situation can we see the danger that lurks down that path (or recognize that there is no danger so we can take that path safely).

So the next time someone causes a fear-based, instinctual, knee-jerk reaction, realize you may be the unwitting instrument under someone's skilled fingers. Come to peace with yourself and see if there isn't a still, calm voice within that represents a higher, more intellectual, more honest and encompassing instinct.

Yes, I am saying that it is actually the liberals who are the fear-mongers. They are selling it in wholesale onslaught, and they're aiming for your knees.

Open Letter to Yahoo

Please note: this is the letter mentioned in my previous post (the one below this one).

I was an early acquirer of internet technology (1994) and one of the first users I knew of Yahoo. I registered my own websites when Yahoo was a "directory service" instead of a search engine and you submitted your links to a live person who reviewed your site. You had to choose categories in which you wanted your site listed. When Google came along, I refused to switch. When everyone says "just Google blah-blah and you'll see what I'm looking at" I've been telling them that I use Yahoo, and I'll find it just fine. I have been, since I have been looking things up on the internet, a huge Yahoo fan.

I am leaving Yahoo today, and I felt it only fair to tell you why. I may be lost in the background noise, nobody may ever read this comment, but I sincerely hope someone does. I am taking the time to do this only because I have been such a die-hard Yahoo user. Your service is not inferior, in fact I like the way things are laid out on Yahoo and that the home page contains more information. I will miss that every time I have to stomach that stupid word "google" (I mean, what lame, lucky ass thought that name up? It should be a laughing stock but somehow they managed to make it hip with half the world. I don't get it).

However difficult it may be to choke down the silliness that is Google, it will be easier than the anger I have been putting up with due to the so-called "stories" that someone at Yahoo has been not only deciding are factual (when they are at best a lopsided misrepresentation of someone's political agenda) but are crucial for me to read. I can understand Yahoo trying to get more clicks, trying to get more page views, trying to draw attention, but I am here to tell you that I used Yahoo as my home page, my work requires me to be on the Internet more than 8 hours a day, and it was not uncommon for me to have six simultaneous browsers open - all to Yahoo searches or the sites I found by searching on your service. I followed up on advertised links, I listed Yahoo as "how I found you" on websites, and I promoted you to my friends.

I sure hope you're getting huge benefit from parroting the political bile spewed up by acidic propagandists who hate this country, portray the miniscule minority (by that I mean less than one hundredth of one percent) as more important than the massive supermajority, who aren't interested in the facts, only in sensation and manipulation, and who are oblivious to the fact that they themselves are the reason people (and whole cultures), hate this country in turn. Not because of what they're saying about us, but the lifestyles they themselves choose and promote.

If you had chosen to break through "journalistic" lies and portray stories about the truth (by that I mean actual facts, not emotionally-driven feel-good drivel that goes so far away from solving problems that it makes them worse) and highlight the massive stacks of stories trying to find a voice, that site their sources, examine both sides of the issue and settle on the truth based on how things actually work or what numbers are being ignored by the other side, you could have been a champion for the millions and millions of us worldwide who KNOW something is wrong with what we're being told and would flock (as we do in greater numbers than ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN combined) to whatever outlets provide it to us.

I do not know what you can do to get me back. It is highly unlikely I will ever so much as look at your home page again. If you do manage some miraculous, whole-hearted change in your policy away from misrepresentation, my e-mail will not change - you can reach me there (note to readers: my e-mail was included during the process of contacting them). I would love to hear it and would go back to my unending, tireless campaign to get people to "switch back" to the originals.

Until then, look for me at Google.

Political Mixing Colors

I must confess myself confused this morning. Yesterday, across the top of a search engine (alas, I believe I am finally going to make the same switch everyone else has made, for this search engine has almost daily blasted headlines that annoy me - who wants to be annoyed before they even type in their search criteria?) a loud story about troops speaking out against the war seemed to be begging me to assume Bush is the bad guy, I'm wrong about everything, and there are no troops anywhere who like what they're doing.

Pardon me while I change my favorite search engine link... be right back...

Okay, that went poorly. I ended up giving them feedback they're never going to read, and blog-length. In order to appease my soul I shall make it an open letter by posting it here next.

Here was my point today, before I got carried away. It is similar to my earlier post about how the polls are completely wrong on Iraq (and there have been recent polls, apparently - though I'm having trouble tracking them down despite hearing about them on national radio - from polling companies not associated or affiliated with major news networks that support my theory completely).

The other side is desperate. They're seeing that their lies aren't working, that we are reading between the lines or getting our news somewhere else. They're doing everything they can to repair their damaged credibility, and they're doing it by changing their "sources". They are now going to the military to find people who are against the war. They've been trying to do this all along, but their sources have been discredited - retired generals who are die-hard liberals, discontented generals who were shunted aside because someone else could do the job better, generals who were denied their own war because they were promoted at the wrong time, etc. Now they've gone after the troops themselves.

I'm not denying that there are troops out there who dislike this war (and some of them any war is worth disliking). I know one of them myself, someone who joined the armed services and was taught Arabic before 9/11 (someone was on the ball) and who sent e-mails around about being against the war. Admittedly, I received ongoing and frequent e-mails from soldiers who were amazed about what good they were doing and begged us not to believe what is said on the news and only two from her, but they were disheartening. I replied every time that I was proud of what she was doing and sorry that it was stressing her out. So, I am not denying that there are legitimate members of our armed forces who actually are stressed out - or outright frightened - and I believe it is only natural to want to speak out from that fear.

However, while this story is running (from notoriously liberal sources) another story is getting grudging headline status, meaning it was on the home pages of news outlets everywhere, but they're not putting it as a "big four" story or something like that - you have to scroll down to the "other things we thing are important" section.

It states clearly that the Democrats in congress are backing off their plan (and campaign promise) to limit the President's wartime authority, or to outright repeal their vote to support the Iraq war. Not only has talk of "de-funding" the war died out, but now they're not even going to try to limit what President Bush can do.

I do think a lot of this has to do with the fact that, while the Democrats are definitely looking for ways (as they logically should) to increase their power and standing in government, they're actually not totally stupid. They can see the glowing symbols on the wall with Iran, and I believe in the back of their mind they'd love to see President Bush take care of that problem for them, or at least get it started, so they don't have to make the unpopular decision to take military action - yet they know it has to be done.

However, the link I am making is that if these stories about disaffected troops were really meaningful - that is, I believe it is heart-wrenching to think of anyone being thrust into a war zone who is terrified of being there, but let's pay attention to what percentage of the troops they really are (not how many they SAY are being them, but the actual, real numbers - how many of us have said "well, all my friends and I, and there are tons of us, agree") and whether or not their opinion is better or easier to support than other people in the same location and situation.

Perhaps put simpler, it is good to hear both sides of the story, but when you do that, keep in mind one side of the story may be told by a 3 to 12,401 ratio, and those three may be speaking without straight facts or any facts at all. I'm suggesting that we can tell which side is right by what the people in power, the decision-makers, are doing. Despite their own rhetoric that clearly supports the concept that the 3 are right, their actual actions are grudgingly in support of the 12,401.

Why is it we must read so hard behind the lines to find this truth?