Sunday, July 02, 2006

1,099,511,627,776

1,099,511,627,776


Now, that's a large number. No, it's not the daily national debt, it's the number of ancestors you have in 40 generations. At 25 years per generation you'd have that many "grandparents" in 1000 years. Since the number above (which represents 2 times 2 and that number times 2 for a total of 40 cycles) is more than all humans alive, ever alive, and probably ever to be alive, there is either a lot of incest going on or the average years between generations is more like 60. Since we know that the average age of child bearing has been less than 25 years over our the history of humans, something is amiss. Yet, we have just been told that the "original ancestor" has been genetically located and is at least 2000 years in our past and possibly as much as 5000 years back. If we try to find how many ancestors we would have had in 2000 years at a 25 year birth cycle, the number is totally impracticable and must be bogus somehow. Considering a lower birth cycle, each of us will have more than 2 trillion "grandparents" over the last 1000 years. The only way to tighten this up to real terms is to inbreed at a very high level. Sounds like Abraham and Sarah (she was reported as his half sister) is not an unreasonable hint about the breeding system of our past. To marry someone reasonably unrelated to you it might be required that you marry a Bushman (or woman) from an isolated tribe in Africa. Even then.....


To have a "family pedigree" hanging on the wall that shows you have great thinkers, leaders, kings, queens, or even notorious criminals in your past seems simple. Just go back about 800 or so years, choose whomever you wish and you'll be grabbing an ancestor. That is unless inbreeding, incest, and so on has been the norm. As I suppose it must be. It's either that or there were a few trillion people running amock on the planet that we are unaware of and it's possible that this was true and aliens simply have been feeding on the excess and covering up the evidence. Hmmmmm.


According to the "science" of the reports on our ancestors, if you go back a few thousand years, the first person you would meet (no matter who or where) would be an ancestor. So, I'm a relative of all those people that Moses lead out of Egypt as well as all of the people of Egypt at the time. This would make those fleeing related to those chasing (and ultimately drowned in the Red Sea). Family problems don't seem to have been any better then than now.


The whole thing is such a mess when the numbers are taken into account. I'm not ready to believe that the original ancestor was from the China/Malasia area any more than I'm ready to believe I've got about 2 trillion "grandparents" a thousand years ago. I'll just consider this work on ancestors a "work in progress" and wait for more reasonable information.

Monday, April 24, 2006

Leaglize Drugs, PLEASE

Legalize Drugs PLEASE


One would have thought the United States of America have learned the lesson of making any recreational drug illegal after the debacle over Prohibition. It was clear from that horrible episode that prohibiting alcohol simply expanded the criminal gang element and put money in the pockets of such as Al Capone. Organized Crime reaped a bonus of unimaginable income and power that has never gone away since. While many of these crime gangs have evolved into semi-legitimate business such as banking, these organized crime businesses are still making huge amounts of income from laws that make even a (formerly) common weed an illegal substance.



Currently, drugs pour hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars into the economy of the underworld and a number of countries who are either not friendly or are being torn internally by the Drug Lords and their economic status which in some cases rivals the very economy of the government of their country.



To this economic ruin to our culture and society let us add the economic price we pay for trying (very, very unsuccessfully) to enforce these ridiculous drug laws. But wait! There's more! The economic ruin brought about by the courts doing what they must do with any law, penalizing wrong-doers, in this case, our fellow humans caught using, selling, transporting, growing, making, and so on, a large number of recreational and addictive drugs. Does this remind us of the days of "bathtub gin" and country whisky stills? Is alcohol any less addictive than these drugs? Is alcohol any less dangerous to our society?



Yes, drugs of the recreational and addictive type are dangerous to the individual. Yes, alcohol use and abuse costs our economy billions. With alcohol we have a heavy tax which returns a sufficient amount to defray the cost to our economy. That is, if it were actually used to help defray the problems alcohol causes. The government, however, simply sucks up the tax money from alcohol and tobacco without returning it in a proper manner to alleviate alcohol and tobacco harm. Money from such taxes is used for many other programs and most particularly to pay government salaries, government benefits to government employees, and many other government needs. Not the needs of the people, the needs of governing. A cycle shown from virtually all tax, fee, or other monetary sources the government can access. Remember Social Security? Absolutely sacrosanct and untouchable? You bet!



Legalize drugs and sell them in a manner similar to alcohol. Lots of taxes to feed the Fat Cats of our government, lots of people hired to inspect, control, and collect on the drugs sold. Safe drugs. Yes I know that sounds like an Oxymoron but certainly safer than the old country stills were when whisky was a backyard business and safer than the Columbian Gold being sold and grown under who knows what circumstances and chemicals. Safer than the "garage meth" currently all over the streets of America. Control? What a joke. Drugs grown under proper supervision, reasonably tested for impurities and graded for strength, drugs produced in clean, inspected laboratories, drugs sold and taxed with the money going to the American People rather than Columbian drug lords is what we need. And NEED is the appropriate word. Let us get this mess under control, release those imprisoned for use of drugs, reduce the sentence for sale of drugs, and get this blight on our society into a cultural controlled situation.



No one needs to lose their job. The current "enforcement" people can be retrained to supervise the production, growth, and sale of these drugs. Some drugs will probably always be so dangerous that they will need license for purchase and that's a good thing. However to try to eradicate a common weed and spend a countries life blood over such a thing must stop.

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Education Abuse

I have said for a long time: "The worst thing we do to our children is send them to public school." That is more true now than when I said it years ago. Public school education is governed by the government (pun intended) and at the whim of the various directing bodies which tell the teachers what they are allowed to teach and what books they are allowed to present to the student. The learning process has joined the 1984-style governing actions of the American Police State.


We are pretty much aware that there is an abundance of knowledge available to teach children and even adults. After all, it is mostly adults attending University classes. There is far too much knowledge available to begin to teach all of it even in the "normal" 16 years we are expected to attend formal schooling. By the time we have finished schooling we are each expected to be an "expert" in some segment of the knowledge pool.


In order to reach a reasonable level of awareness of the world around us and our role in that world, we need a well-balanced education that gives us a basis for the continuing education that extends throughout our lives. Children are not getting that balanced education at present and the educational processes throughout the world appear to be increasingly ethnocentral and restricted, representing a polarization of cultures and a rewriting of history to suit the various governmental agencies in charge of educating the children of our world.


Polarizing one culture from another brings a level of de-humanizing of any opposing culture, leading invariably to separation, antipathy, violence, and war. Just what we need, as if we don't have enough already. Given an education containing a cultural bias that is strong enough, the adult cannot make "educated" decisions involving world affairs. Just what the government needs; citizens that are stupid and will believe what the government says is true. Such as, for example, the Iraqi government has weapons of mass destruction and is planning to use them on the United States and other countries that are not strong enough to take care of themselves and that it is all the fault of one man, Sadam Hussien. Well, did the American public believe that sufficiently to allow the war in Iraq to begin? The answer is certainly. Not all the public but enough. There are many examples of such polarity creating false causes for war, violence, and more.


The school environment is totally unrealistic and supports levels of separation that begin the de-humanizing of other humans and the violence becomes possible. Gangs are the common character of public schools. These are divided into the jocks, the geeks, the popular, the academic, the nerds, and more. There are no classes on the value of each human, the value of community involvement, the value of other cultures, the value of kindness and so on. The strict emphasis is on teaching the government line and rewarding the children representing the school in sports: Rah, Rah, go Tigers.


Once this harm has been done to our children and the gang levels have pushed each child into a niche, the elitist move into higher schooling to become the, so-called, leaders of the communities while the lesser lights look for jobs and continue their educations "on-the-job" and usually closer to home. And that's an imteresting point. Most of the "elite" move to higher degrees and another community. Few of the "elite" stay home. Most of the "lesser lights" stay home and are the real leaders of the community. The child that is poor in math and not a good reader will be the one making $65 dollars an hour fixing your Beamer or Caddie. The child that couldn't become popular and didn't have the money to get to a university will become the factory foreman running the production of the very goods you will use in your expensive home. Some will fall by the wayside and be lost, homeless, miserable and not usually still in the community they grew up in. These will have migrated to a larger or different community to dive into drugs, alcohol, or just plain poverty. The actual community will be mostly made up of the "average" guy/gal from the local schools. The "hotshots" and the "notshots" will be gone.


What do these "average" humans bring to the community? A warped vision of the world around them and a fostering of continued warping of our educational system. The United States of America was built on an educational system that was pretty loose and involved people leading our growth with as little as no education (such as my grandfather) to those with far too much education. In nearly all cases, the education was provided by the community and did not require government restrictions. The community was the arbiter and actually allowed a more varied educational experience, a more practical educational experience than our government directed education. Very few of those leaders of our growth learned their ABC's in gigantic centers of babysitting that we now call "schools."


Thanks to a basic law of governing, we are less safe with more laws than ever before. The basic law involved is: "A government either governs by consent or by law." When a government is run by consent and cooperation, there is little need for law. When a government rules by law, there is more and more need for police, law enforcement, and laws. This also applies to education. The more government regulates the educational process, the more need for policing the education and enforcement of the education given our children. There is only one way this can end; in a 1984-style governing of the citizens by an increasingly dictatorial government.


What do I suggest? It's simple: Legislate don't Educate. The government should not be in charge of education. The government is in charge of governing. The act of governing involves creating laws that keep the citizens safe and allow the reasonable function of the country. With that in mind, we need "sunset" coverage on all our laws. All laws should require renewal every 5 to 8 years or the law ceases to have validity. In the educational area, we need to shut down all the babysitting "schools" and require parents to educate their own children. Simply set up a testing for all children at ages 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 to ensure education in general subjects (the three 'r' of classic education, reading, 'riting, and 'rithmatic). If a child flunks the test, the parents are given 6 months to bring the child up to the test level. If the child flunks again, the parents will pay for tuition of the child by outside educational contractors. If the parents cannot pay, they can do community service to the equivalent level of the taxpayers burden. Problem solved and each child has an education the parents can be proud of and the community will benefit in every way. The money saved the taxpayers can be used to support and supply health care for all.


Let's get our children out of government education and indoctrination (brain-washing, really) and into the home environment where children belong. Yes, some will use it as an excuse for religious education but that will happen no matter there is public school or not. With children back in the home and away from the gang environment schools foster, we can regain our position in the world as a progressive, educated society. One we no longer have.


Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Super commercials

From the Super Bowl 40 (egad, and I saw the first one), the ads were fair to excellent. Not any really bad ones although the 5-blade cutter came close. My personal best? It was the Bud Light office hidden beer. Totally zany and fun. Next was the "magic fridge" which I'd seen the first part in previews but the last part made me laugh out loud with the surprise. After that it's some toss-ups: The Clydesdale colt, the Airplane Ooops, the inventive burger king strange. Maybe the Diet Pepsi ad was the worst. Got no satisfaction from that.


Speaking of "no satisfaction" I really didn't get much from the "Stones" or the, so-called, half time "entertainment." Mick was off-key all too often with horrible voice. No amount of prancing made up for that and the lead guitar was about as unimaginitive as I could imagine. Totally worthless and didn't qualify for "entertainment."


The game? The best team lost. That happens a lot and it's just the way it goes on a given day. On the subject of controversial calls, I have to agree with the referee in most cases. For example, the football did cross the white line by, maybe an inch. That's all it takes. Other calls were a bit more touchy. Speaking of touchy, the call that said "no fumble" was strange to me. Ok the player was touched (although probably not enough to cause the fall) but what in the world does it take to call a fumble? From the interpretation, I assume the ball must come loose before any part of the ball carrier touches the ground, except, perhaps the feet and I'm not so sure of that.


Over all, a poor showing for both teams and the halftime. Now the three and a half hour pre-game-show just might have been the best of the whole episode.

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Diplomatic reasons for Lee invading North?

Diplomatic reasons for Lee invading north?

So, you say that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee hatched a scheme to invade the north and win recognition from England and/or France, and/or any other country. Is that how you'd go about it? Not likely.


To win recognition you must win a battle, take a city, occupy territory. The easy way to get noticed is to take a city. In this case Harrisburg would have been a real plum ripe for the taking. You can see the headlines, "Confederacy occupies Pennsylvania capital." Or "Lee takes Harrisburg - - - State assembly flees." Or many other headlines. All it would have taken was a day or two and move west to, say Pittsburgh and grab the steel mills, then into western Virginia (now West Virginia) and back home, with the Army of the Potomic panting along behind the whole way like a bunch of Keystone Cops (pun intended).


A fast move on Baltimore as another example might have gotten a quick and easy occupation, crippling the nation's capital by cutting it's communications and supply. All Lee had to do was keep moving, avoid major battle, and occupy a few major cities, strew destruction behind his army and make the Army of the Potomic and the federal government look incapable of confining the confederacy. Start thinking and you'll find many more examples of what could have been done with the Army of Northern Virginia to help gain recognition for the confederacy.


Instead, Lee did none of the above, and split the army in enemy territory, avoided a needed occupation (how would Meade have gotten him out of Harrisburg?), and finally threw the army away in totally inept generalship.


Yes, Lee was on the side of Union. How can one think otherwise.

Robert E. Lee Choose the Union @ Gettysburg

Robert E. Lee choose the Union side at Gettysburg.


The opportunity arose for Robert E. Lee to reunite the United States of America at Gettysburg. In an egregious act of poor generalship, Lee sent fifteen thousand doomed men against an impossible, entrenched position. How do we know this to be the case? The amazing list of facts Lee was aware of at the time make it clear that Lee chose this time to try to sacrifice his army for the cause of reunion. While Lee had attempted to destroy the Confederacy many times prior to Gettysburg, the opposing generals were too inept to take advantage of the opportunities Lee presented. At Gettysburg, Lee finally found the situation he needed to create the win for the Federal army required to end the war. In fact, it appears Lee intended to have the whole of the Army of Northern Virginia destroyed, creating a much quicker end to the war than actually happened. Let's review a bit.



Lee has taken the Army of Northern Virginia into a Union State, Pennsylvania. This was not a long journey, Virginia and Pennsylvania are separated by only a few miles of Maryland at present and, in fact were border states in 1861 when Virginia seceeded from the Union. Lee had made this effort before, even arranging to have a complete set of his plans found by the Army of the Potomic (I wonder how many other sets were planted to be found). That effort resulted in the battle at Sharpsburg, Maryland (Antietam) and a subsequent tie rather than the defeat he had planned. The great battle of Antietam was interpreted by the North as a victory even though it wasn't simply because it was the first time Lee had been stopped, or seemed to have been stopped, from accomplishing his goals and the Federal army was not totally beaten. With the full plans of Lee in his hands, McClelland should have easily defeated Lee but was unable to because of the poor quality of the generalship involved. Further opportunities were given each general who succeeded McClelland and each in his turn failed to take advantage of the openings provided by Lee to be defeated by the Federal army. Ultimately Lee seemed to be the greatest general alive simply because his efforts to be defeated looked like daring genius. Astounding when you look at it.



So, what is the situation leading up to Gettysburg? Lee has recently fought a major battle against Hooker at Chanclersville, one he should have lost and tried desperately to lose. Lee has lost his right hand general, Jackson and has not appreciably damaged the Federal army. Hooker is still in charge of the Army of the Potomac and, while he has had his nose bloodied, is still the dangerous "fighting Joe" Hooker. Lee now abandons Richmond, uses J.E.B. Stuart to screen a move north, something that only lets Hooker know that Lee is moving north and Hooker follows, keeping on the inside of the circle, between Washington D.C. and the Army of Northern Virginia as is appropriate.



Now, things get interesting. As Lee enters Federal territory, Pennsylvania and Maryland, he allows his cavalry screen to wander off with orders to disrupt the supply areas of the Federal army, ostensibly causing the Federal army to move slowly and allowing Lee to resupply his army from the riches of south central Pennsylvania. With little cavalry, Lee will not know the situation of the Federal army and can be surprised, defeated piecemeal on Northern land, and the South will not rise again (so to speak). However, the Federal army now changes leaders and the impetuous "Fighting Joe" Hooker, the general Lee could count on to attack, attack, attack is no longer in charge. The more cautious but more competent general Meade is now in charge. Lee knows Meade will be more difficult to draw into a major battle than Hooker so Lee split up his army even more, discounts all cavalry reports on Federal army positons and continues with the separation of the Confederate army into resupply groups in south central Pennsylvania. Rapid movement at this time by Meade would totally defeat the Confederate army piece by piece. In spite of his bloodied nose, Hooker may have done exactly that. Meade, however is much more cautious and the Federal army is "screening" Washington D.C. for no good reason. The defenses of Washington D.C. are such that it is inpregnable to an army the size of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. More than 400,000 troops are on hand nearly constantly around Washington D.C. with entrenched positions, an inside line of movement and reinforcement, abundant supplies and weapons. If these troops had been released to the field army, the Army of Northern Virginia would have been quickly overwhelmed by sheer numbers in spite of poor generalship.



So, Lee baited Meade to move quickly to smash the Confederate army. Lincoln urges Meade to do exactly that. Meade is in a tough spot. He has just taken over the Army of the Potomac and is well aware of the level of incompetent generalship available. He must have thought the Confederate army was larger and more concentrated than Lee was making available. Pinkerton seems to have kept their job as information specialists by exaggerating the enemy situation to frighten the generals into keeping them on a "just in case they're right" basis and it worked. The Union generals constantly got exaggerated reports of enemy size, weapons, and potential. This alone had created defeats in the past and surely slowed Meade at this point along with the reorganization Meade was required to do "on the fly" so to speak, as the army was following Lee.



At the same time Lee is baiting Meade to attack and win, Lee further separated his army, further ignores his advisors, and has the Army of Northern Virginia spread out over more than a hundred miles. He is on the outside of the supply line, has crossed a major river that could easily flood to impede passage, trapping him in the north, the Army of the Potomac could block passage to the south, trapping the Army of Northern Virginia to the death, he is in hostile territory, on less well known territory, and cannot be resupplied or reinforced from Richmond or any other southern area. Lee has deliberately walked into a trap and it only takes a small effort on the Union generalship to close the door on him. Was Lee trusting in the stupidity of northern generals to ignore the facts? Not likely. Lee was too aware of the potential the huge army the Federal had available to think he could just set this trap and not have it close. Incredibly, even at this level, the Federal leaders did not close the trap he so carefully set and he had to make an obvious error to "create" a defeat. Good grief!! Lee might as well have sent a written message to the newspapers saying "come and get me, I'm available" and all these signals were, and still are, ignored.



Now, knowing he is greatly outnumbered by the closing Federal army, Lee continues his separation of the Confederate army and will wait to be trapped. When this does not happen, he moves even further north along the Susquehanna river, creating a better trap. Just let the Federal army entrench south of Lee and remove the ability to return south. Then, close on the Confederate army and keep them in position, much as Grant did later starting with the Wilderness and ending at Appomatox Court House. Lee continues to wait. The ostensible argument for being in the north is that he will resupply his army with shoes and other consumer goods. Very few weapons are available for resupply here in south central Pennsylvania but there is food and shoes. Kind of a weak arguement isn't it. The other arguement was that he would draw Hooker (and later Meade) into a battle on Lee's choice of ground. Yet when the battle began, he threw this away and took what Meade and circumstances offered even when it was certain the Confederate position was not as strong as the Federal defensive position. Longstreet confronted Lee over and over on this and Lee changed the reason from finding a strong point to defeat the Federal army to the opinion that "they are there and I will attack them" as if that were a good reason. You have to remember, that the Federal army was "there" any time Lee wanted. He always knew where the Federal army was even though at Gettysburg, he could pretend he did not know. Stuart did not have all the cavalry with him and Lee had sufficient to know where the Federal army was and what it was doing. He pretended to have no confidence in the reports in order to continue with his plan of a defeat.



This time, Lee could not play the game of "lost plans" and was required to reach new levels of seeming arrogance and "ability" to create his defeat. Waiting patiently for the Federal army to close, Lee spread his army. When the clash finally came, Lee allowed the Federal army and circumstances to create the battlefield. Unfortunately for a lot of lives to be lost in the next year and a half, the Federal generals also allowed circumstances to create the battlefield. Even the most rudimentary evaluation of Lee's position shows the trap he has offered. Ultimately, he had to play a trump card of stupidity to create the win for the Federals he was working on.



Of course, it was important that Lee not appear to be actually causing a defeat. Once the battle began to be joined, he had to follow with what he had created. Cavalry off to the west someplace, disjointed units up the river and roving the countryside for forage, and a large, very large Federal army to the south, almost but not quite blocking a return to Virginia. Try playing that card for a win. Pretending Lee is a masterful tactician falls apart at this point. Pretending to go into Pennsylvania to gain a great win, destroy the Federal army, and occupy Washington or Baltimore disregards all reason and the facts of manpower and entrenched weaponry. Lee has set a trap alright, but it is for the Confederacy, not the Federal army. However, now Lee began to pull in the Army of Northern Virginia for the fight. A fight that should clearly have been the finish of Lee's army.



Once the armies are heavily engaged and positions solidified, Lee can see now that the Federal army is not going to take the bait and close the trap on the Army of Northern Virginia. Now, he creates disjointed attacks from first one side then another side, supposedly coordinated but actually handled in such a manner as to create nothing more than threats with much ammunition expenditure and loss of units available for fighting. As Lee gradually weakens the Confederate forces, he is faced with the problem of a major section of the Army of Northern Virginia that is fully intact, fully armed, and relatively unbloodied. A dangerous core of the Confederate army that he cannot keep available or the Federals will not be able to finish the job of destroying the Army of Northern Virginia. In order to destroy this solid core of his army, Lee came up with a plan that even the lowliest privates knew could not succeed. Lee took this flower of the Confederate army, 15,000 strong and sent them across one mile of open field and fences, uphill, directly in the face of the center of the Federal army which was well entrenched behind stone fences, had short interior lines of reinforcement, and were fully ready for the attack. Even a first year student at West Point would understand in advance the results of such an endeavor. When all else failed to get the Federals to destroy his army, Lee choose to destroy the Confederate army himself.



Now, trapped against a swollen river, out of ammunition for the big guns, deeply wounded and weakened, Lee is finally in the trap he has arranged. Lee now leaves the field slowly, taking his time, waiting at the Potomac until it can safely be crossed, not putting his army in battle array, simply stringing them our for destruction. A strong move by the Federal army will end the Army of Northern Virginia. Not without a fight, of course, but an end it will be. Casually, Lee waited for the final blow, arranging for it to be as painless as possible, given the circumstances of battles as bloody as they were then. Lee virtually offered the neck of his army to the sword. Meade, however, sat in place and allowed Lee to go back to Virginia. The next opponent Lee will face is Grant, a general of a different stripe. Grant would never have allowed Lee back to Virginia. Possibly even Hooker would have followed up and had blocked the way south. But Grant! Allow Lee to walk back slowly to Virginia? Not likely.



Nonetheless, Lee got his "high water mark" and the defeat needed to end the Confederacy. And it was close. The north was ready for one more loss to allow the south to go their way. There was a lot of sympathy with ending the war for a great many reasons. The south was a poor agrarian society, riddled with slavery (and the majority of the northern population cared not a whit for the plight of the slaves or blacks at all), the north was now experiencing great abundance, increased trade with the world, even increased trade with the Confederate States. There were many more reasons to let the southern states go their way and, after so much bloodshed, difficult to see that it was worth the continuation of such misery for such small stakes. However, Lee provided the impetus to bring on the end of the war and the reunion of the states. Gotta give him credit as the father of the rebirth of the Union.




Monday, January 16, 2006

Save Money, track Criminals.

With simple GPS technology known as V-TRAC the criminal system could save huge amounts of money, need many fewer Law Enforcement Officers, and keep better track on the many criminals harvesting money, goods, harm, and lives from our society. ZDNET newsletter of January 16, 2006 includes an article on "Where's my trash now?" Here's an exerpt:


Where's my trash now?


And you thought the hydraulic arms that picked up the trash cans were high-tech. Garbage collection in San Diego's Environmental Services Department (ESD) can now track trucks and manage the fleet using a GPS technology called V-TRAC, reports Government Technology.


Along with GPS technology, V-TRAC has server-side vehicle management/fleet tracking software, database management, and Automated Refuse Tonnage System (ARTS), designed in-house and used daily by supervisors to assign drivers to routes. By employing V-TRAC the city saves an estimated $1 million per year.


Source



If the city of San Diego can save a million dollars a year with such a system, imagine the savings to the criminal justice system, to say nothing about the savings in lives, property, and stress to our society. Come on people, let us stop hiring more police and have more efficiency.



Wednesday, January 11, 2006

One in a million.

If someone or something has a "one in a million" chance of happening today, then it will happen about 400 times today in the United States alone and about 6,000 times world wide. How about a "one in a billion" chance. That would happen about 6 times today in the world. One in a Trillion? Probably happen 2 or 3 times this year. So, why do we blame god for unusual happenings or call them miracles?


Perhaps it is comforting to have some one else in charge of our lives, of our fate. Maybe we find it difficult to think these unusual occurances might be in the control of a "god of probablilities." Or, it's possible we just don't want to take responsibility for our actions or for the random level of many outside influences. In any event, what it comes down to is that "If it can happen, it will."


Will the bird flu jump to humans? Yes. That one is really a no-brainer. It has jumped to humans several or many times already but either not in the mode required to replicate or in such a way as to be isolated and allowed to die without infecting other humans. With the many, many trillions of opportunity for human infection with the proper mutation, there is little chance of such a jump not happening. The best we can hope for is that the jump is done by a mutated virus that is less deadly than the original strain. This may already have happened and we haven't noticed simply because people get sick and recover in a similar manner to any other "ordinary" flu.


There is some thought that something similar may have happened with the 1918 bird flu. Studies seem to show the 1918 bird flu popping up nearly simultaneously in areas that it is nearly impossible to allow for human transportation of the virus. The idea is that the flu was a "two stage" flu. In this manner, many people caught a lower level of flu, something which most survived but, similar to the chicken pox/shingles virus, the flu virus of this strain may have sat around in the body and, like an alarm clock set to a certain time, erupted almost at the same moment all over the world.


As a side note, this could be used to bolster the "Intelligent Design" argument in that we have computer virus that are similar and are timed to erupt on certain dates or within a number of days of the original infection and the "intelligent Design" supporters may say that the medical virus (1918 flu) was "designed" to do the same by some, perhaps not-so-benign god but one intelligent enough to design such a virus. I bet it could be done by humans right now.


If it's a one in a many trillion chance the deadly form of the bird flu (OK, AVIAN flu for those picky ones), no matter the many trillion chance, the deadly form of the bird flu will make the jump if you do the statistics. Just ask youself how many individual virus are out there, how many individuals are carrying about a hundred billion of these individual virus right now (count all the pretty birds), how much interface between these infected individuals and all the ways each individual virus can have an opportunity to reach a human, and the results are mind boggling.


Of course, you can use the idea of a "one in a million" chance happening as an opportunity for good. After all, someone actually does win the lottery. Someone does actually buy an acre or so of waste land for next to nothing only to find it was the last piece of property needed for a new, up-scale shopping mall and is suddenly worth a few million and the developers are begging to give those millions to you. It does happen. You might also remember that there are some airplanes flying right now that have peoples names written across their nose and those planes will somehow, some way seek out those people to kill. One in a million? Happens all the time.

Saturday, January 07, 2006

UFO trends

After looking at all the photos on www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures1 to 7, an interesting trend shows. The early photos, when photography was actually easy to manipulate (in spite of the web owner's comments) tended to be detailed and sharp, showing a lot of focus. As time trended, and the web owner has been good enough to time-list the photos, the photos moved into more light-emission and finally into principally fuzzy dots. While this trend is not as simple as that and I haven't run a statistical compilation, the trend from detailed UFO's to energy-emitting UFO's into fuzzy UFO's is pretty obvious.


If you ever wanted a quick look at a time span of UFO photo's and a pretty nice job of commenting, give http://www.ufocasebook.com/ a look.


Now, what would cause such an interesting trend, given that there are many more cameras with many more features and better lenses and film (or image capture methods, if you will). Well, better lenses might be an exaggeration given the new throw-away plastic lenses but in general better is appropriate. I believe the trend is caused by a move from faked photos to real photos. Of course a died-in-the-wool UFOlogist will say it's because the UFO operators have gotten cautious and more aware of cameras (probably a tool they never developed---puzzle that on out on your own) or because of changing technology of the UFO society, bringing better UFO vehicles to earth.


Is there a reason UFO's would be interested in Earth? Are we edible? Potentially a bio-crop? Was Douglas Adams right and we're an experimental computer and the rats are running the maze, not the scientists? Hmmmm. I don't see any reason for the UFO's "buzzing" the planet that is a good one. Mostly it seems they would help us stop the mess if they were friends. Since they are not giving us direct aid (and I don't see any sign of indirect aid, either) then they simply are not friends and can "bugger off."

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Faith

If faith were all it takes, our puppy would have walked across the goldfish pond. Perhaps there is a problem with the separation of faith and physics. I will admit it was glorious to watch the absolute faith the little guy demonstrated as he confidently stepped out onto the water. After we pulled out the puzzled puppy, dried him off, and put him down again, he went back and looked at the water with much less faith and more understanding. Carefully placing a paw or two on the top of the water, he began to learn about the characteristics of water. Now, the faith is gone (didn't work anyway) and knowledge has taken over. Water is something you drink, watch goldfish swim in, and don't walk on.

Monday, October 31, 2005

Big Oil: Big Sneak

Exxon has just announced profits of nearly 10 billion dollars in a quarter. That's roughly 40 billion dollars in a year if extended to the year. The other big oil companies have also ripped off the public in a similar manner, raising prices on the pretense of natural disaster, not enough refinery ability, rising crude prices, and many more excuses. It's clear that none of these excuses can be considered legitimate.

First, let's consider the problem of not enough refinery ability. You might recall that a few years ago, Exxon was allowed to buy Mobile. The first thing Exxon did with Mobile was to close down the Mobile refineries stating that they were "not profitable" and this wasn't even commented on by news, congress, watchdogs, or much of anyone. If I hadn't been watching, I wouldn't have ever known. Of course, now we can see it as a set up for future price increases and excuses for those increases. Not enough refinery production? Then why close them in advance? Clearly to gain the enormous profit already in the bank.

Crude oil prices? The crude oil prices are not out of line with the normal level of inflation and production costs. Oh, the crude prices are well into enormous profits, yes, that's true. However, since most of the oil of the world just happens to be elsewhere, we might have to pay the price. That doesn't make the actual pump price go up double in a year as we've seen. Just because crude oil costs twice as much to buy as last year, doesn't mean pump prices are doubled. It's not the same as lettuce. Oil is refined and the refining costs are actually a small portion of the final pricing (or were before this latest cost rip off).

Then there are the "highway taxes" in which we pay a dollar or so per gallon to fix our highways. At the cost of a few million per hundred feet of highway, someone is getting very, very rich. Yes, there's a lot to do to get a highway properly built. Talk to any good landscaper and they'll tell you it's essentially a landscaping job. Shape the ground, put in a good base, and the proper top material, dress it up, and open it to the public. Yet, every time I go past a road building job, there are twenty people standing around, two driving something or other, and one using a shovel. Hmmmmm. This needs rethinking.

Not enough oil? And, the Artic will only give us a year of supply even when totally sucked out? None of that is very believable. We have many sources of fossil fuel within the control of the United States of America. Natural gas in great abundance, oil shale, coal, oil sands, actual oil fields, off shore oil, north slope oil, gas, and even methane off shore in such abundance we don't have any idea how much is really there. There's a huge source of energy in the Yellowstone area and other hot underground areas of the west. There's wind, solar, tidal, wave, and so much more energy going to waste.


Nuclear power for all our electrical needs is safe and there needs be no problem with safely keeping the nuclear waste products for future use. Put the nuclear waste in glass and store it in old salt mines. That will give us a few million years to decide if there is some use to that energy we are setting aside in the salt.

Alternative energy patents have been gobbled up by big oil. Now they are just sitting on those patents with the excuse of "the price is still too low for economical use" and they can keep making huge profits from oil sales. It's not so much that there should be a cap on profits as that there should be more competition. We really have a Sun Oil-style lock on prices and production. Did any one see BP (British Petroleum) keeping prices down to attract customers and build loyalty? Or Shell (Dutch company) holding prices down and beating the others with higher sales? Were any of these companies responsible enough to stockpile supplies in case of a natural disaster that might keep refineries from production? Any of these companies care about anything but profit? No wonder they get nationalized. Maybe Mexico has it right.

This is a subject that can be written about for ever and ever, amen. More for later.

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Flock: Web Browser delux.

Well, I couldn't resist it. A "WW2" web browser with lots of extras, under development, might not work, might crash your system, definitely an alpha, use at your own risk, and so on. Just had to try it. After a few hours of surfing and rustling through it's features, it really looks good. Flock is a clone of Firefox and is trying not to be a "branch" so that it will remain open source and compatable with Firefox users. But, oh my, the features.

Here's a list of thirteen things you really should try with Flock. We're bragging, of course, but at the end of the list you'll also find a few warnings about things we're still working on.


Flock

This blog and the above quote and link were made using Flock. While there's not really a lot of extra features, there are some really unique features and they work. Most of all, it connects with YOUR blog and YOUR del.icio.us accounts, makes remembering where you've been on the net easier, makes favorites and bookmarking a snap (well, actually a click), and keeping up with rss easily is right up front.

All in all, this is one alpha product I'd advise giving a try. Right now I'm using it on a Debian Sarge, Linux-only computer. It is fast and acts like it was designed for my system. Go get it here: http://www.flock.com/developer/


Monday, October 17, 2005

Wind Power Problems.


It seems wind power is actually under attack by environmentalists. Believe it or no, wind power has been shut down in at least one case by environmental concerns. You ask; "How can wind power cause environmental problems?" The blades kill birds. That's it in an egg shell.


At Altamont Pass, east of San Francisco, there are thousands of wind generators. Many of these are older, fast-spinning blade types. These tend to be deadly to birds. Environmentalists have objected and the company has decided to shut down a portion of the field during peak migration and plans to replace the older units with newer, safer to birds units.


Environmental groups have blocked a wind power project in the Mojave Desert, objected to one in Nantucket Sound, and noted the death of bats from blades in the Appalachians and are encouraging increased care in selection of sites and use of bird-safe blades.


While more than a million and a half homes are powered by electricity generated by wind power in the United States, it makes one wonder what environmental concerns will come up as we try to protect the environment by getting off fossil fuel.

Bleach power in your fuel tank!

Hydrogen from sodium chlorate manufacture? Yup. Canada has begun an investment in this byproduct of manufacturing sodium chlorate (link from: Vancouver, B.C.) Here's the salient quote:


"The project will develop and demonstrate clean energy solutions that make use of an existing but untapped source of hydrogen fuel: hydrogen emitted as a byproduct of a sodium chlorate manufacturing plant in the North Vancouver area. Through this project, purified hydrogen could be used to fuel a fleet of up to 20,000 vehicles in the Vancouver area, greatly reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the use of fossil fuels."


While there's more, that's the crux of the project. Sodium Chlorate is used in the manufacture of bleach and herbiicides, among much more. By some estimates there could be enough hydrogen generated as a waste byproduct from sodium chlorate manufacture to fuel up to half a million vehicles in North America. That might be a very low estimate. I wonder how many manufacturing processes generate hydrogen as a byproduct or could easily produce hydrogen with a small or easily installed addition to their manufacturing plant. Here's a link to sodium chlorate manufacturer's in North America for comparison.


It's time to wake up and use our resources. I could add so much more to that but what more is there to say? Let's get out and talk about using our resources wisely until the governing powers begin to notice and take appropriate action.


Thursday, October 13, 2005

OK, NOW is Alternative energy in the price range?

Alternative energy wasn't possible at .37 cents a gallon of gas. It wasn't feasable at 78 cents a gallon and just not quite worth doing at $1.47 a gallon of gas. Now, guys. Take a look. Gas is more than $3.00 a gallon. So, bring out the alternate energy sources. Come on. Where are these wonderful, gas-saving, energy-crisis rescue resources? Ooops! We didn't get them going, did we?


That's right folks. We had a chance to get ready for the energy crunch and what did we do? We built SUV's, we advertised SUV's, we made owing an SUV a status symbol, we bought SUV's at an incredible rate. Even Lincoln and Cadillac built SUV's and then there was the Hummer. Instead of getting ready for the energy crunch everyone knew was going to happen, we dived off the deep end of the oil patch and sucked up the energy as though there was no end in sight. Talk about grasshoppers when we should have been ants.


So now there's no alternative. Now there's no refineries converting potatoes or corn to methane. Now there's no natural gas (no matter the amazing abundance of it in the ground and being wasted). Now, there's no alternate energy resource sitting in the closet ready to ease the crunch. Are we really that stupid as a nation? Looks like it.


We could be converting natural gas to methane. Yes, we lose 30 or 40 percent of the energy in doing so but we are getting a useable resource at a needed time. We didn't get any refinery set up for that. Even though we are pushing cubic miles of natural gas back into the ground in the Alaskan North Slope and using a lot of energy to do so, we still won't (didn't) take the foresight to prepare for the actual use of the natural gas. We could use that natural gas to alleviate the heating costs of those in the northern US this winter. Won't happen, we didn't do it.


We could simply open up the strategic resource stockpile of methane (you remember that, it works like gasoline) that we SHOULD have been producing over the last 20 years to make sure we could weather an oil price hike or an Arab boycott without crashing our economy. The farmers would have profited, more jobs would have been produced, and we wouldn't have to fret over the Islamic-governed oil of the Middle East. We don't have the methane, we didn't do it.


We could have spent billions on battery storage capacity to provide battery power for vehicles that actually work and are low cost for any replacement. Nah! Why bother? We have all this gasoline. Let's buy another SUV. It's difficult to believe we can improve computer storage at the expanding rate we are doing but cannot improve battery storage at a similar rate - - - if we wanted to. Well, folks, we didn't want to. We don't have battery power that is cheap and effective. We didn't even try.


Hydrogen powered vehicles? It was mentioned. George the Second actually made a pitch for it. I guess we can quit blaming him for all our ills. We've made our own ills and now we can't stand up for what we've done to ourselves and have to blame someone else. Ok, George II has been blamed for everything else so go ahead. The real problem has been the American People. We didn't get ready. We didn't even try. Now, our whole economy may crash and we'll make George Bush a new Hoover. It wasn't him, it was all of us.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Dream teams.

Clinton/McCain and Rice/Powell would get voters out and moving. I've been voting since John F. Kennedy was president (Wow! Talk about OLD!) and have never voted for anyone that actually got elected. As a registered Libertarian, my votes tend to go as protest rather than mainstream. Once, I voted for a main party representative (Hubert Humphrey) again, mostly as a protest against Richard Milhouse Nixon. Egad! What a crook yet what a good foreign representative as a president. A real mix of good and bad was Mr. Nixon.


Clinton has been a "marked" candidate for the Democratic Party since First Lady days. Yes, it's my (not so humble) opinion given here. However, for those that actually paid attention to the second presidential candidacy of (again) President George Bush the second, you would have noticed that Kerry had little or no help from prominent Democrats. It was too soon to put "our Lady" forward and she has had to wait these four years and set up her Senatorial leadership and presence before going in as a presidential candidate. The Democratic Party really wants to be known as the party of the people by bringing the first woman president to the people.


Not a bad idea at all, Ms. Clinton as president. A real shark, that lady. Capable, self-serving, works within the rules, plays the Good Ole Boy network like a Good Ole Boy, and is smart enough to listen to those who wield the power. Not bad qualifications for the supreme leader position. A real question of electability will stand with her choice of running mate. If John McCain ever wants to be president, it's his best chance of getting close to the position. It's hard to conceive of a better set of "tough guys" running for election. Well, maybe not. There's Rice and Powell.


Rice is tough as nails and smarter than a whole bunch of sticks put together. Powell is smart and nice. While Clinton/McCain would be tough/tough and cunning/smart, the Rice/Powell duo would be tough/compassionate and genius/pleasant. A nicer man than Powell would be hard to find. If you were looking for a "man of the people" who still was capable of functioning at higher governing levels, General Powell would be the one to fill that bill. If you wanted the country run by smart, tough, capable, experienced, determined, and the list goes on, then Ms. Rice fills that bill. I only hope the Republican Party has leaders smart enough to put that combination together for the people.


The Democratic Party has shown it's accumen in grooming Ms. Clinton for the presidency. An election combining only women presidential candidates from the two major parties (why not jump in Libertarians?) would assure a woman president. About time, too. Ok, so I'm a male, even an alpha type, and, obviously old. That doesn't equate with stupid (at least not in every case) and it certainly is time for more representation "at the top" and that includes women and minorities (of which minorities I'm now a member, too).


Yes, it's a dream election year I see. One of the presidential candidates will certainly be Ms. Clinton. Please, please, Republicans get Ms. Rice to be the other. The people of America need something better than the same thing over and over. We made it to a great nation by our diversity. Let's keep it going. John McCain, get together with Hillary and "make a deal" and Collin Powell get together with Condoliza and "make a deal" also. I have to tell you that I'd vote for someone that might actually be elected for the first time as might a lot of other discouraged voters.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Changing fuels.

Calculations show there is abundant fossil fuel for the world for many decades or even longer. Calculations also show that the world will run out of fossil fuel and that fossil fuel supplies will become both more difficult to recover and much more expensive to use. In addition, we are damaging our environment by the massive use of these fossil fuels. It's time to change fuels.


There are abundant, even a plethora, of options for alternative fuels. The Governor of Florida recently stated approval for returning to building and using nuclear power plants to generate electricity. He noted that nuclear power generation is the safest, cheapest, most environmentally friendly method of producing electricity known (other than natural hydro-electric, or wind, or solar, or.....). For the massive generation of electricity, nuclear power is, indeed a safe method. Three Mile Island showed the actual safety of these light water plants rather than the danger. A bunch of bozo's doing everything possible wrong still couldn't contaminate the State Capital. Pretty good safety drill.


Electric power generation for homes aside, what about the electric power generation for vehicles? Using hydrogen is nice but it takes electric power to create the hydrogen in the first place. Why the secondary method with all the attendant losses? Iinstead of working on methods to use hydrogen why not work on methods to use electricity directly. Batteries have become smaller, last longer, and have more storage capacity than ever before. Break throughs occur at least weekly on battery storage and usefulness. It seems that would be a much better way to go than to use the electricity to generate hydrogen and lose so much of it on the way.


Then there's home heating methods. Wood stoves are certainly not the answer (no matter that I'm using one) in that they pollute more than you'd believe. Our wood stove smokes and smokes and smokes. I can just imagine every other home in the area smoking away on a cold morning. Talk about pollution! But, wood aside, there are many methods of storing heat and generating heat that avoids using fuel oil or natural gas. All right, that's got me. Natural gas is one of the fossil fuels I do approve of to some extent. There is an abundance of natural gas in our world and the gas only damages our environment and the world when released. Burning natural gas improves it. On the north slope of Alaska, the oil producers are using many large jet engines to pump the abundant natural gas back into the earth to avoid the pollution created if they just let it into the atmosphere. We could use that natural gas either as the gas or as a methane additive to the fossil fuel we are using so prolifically. Why are we paying to pump it back into the earth? Also, under the Escalante Wilderness is cubic miles of natural gas. Now, it can't be gotten because of Wilderness rules. It isn't difficult to get natural gas out of the ground and any damage to the area would be offset by the lives saved with abundant natural gas for heating. Since when does a rock come ahead of a human?


Other methods of producing electric power include wind (kills birds), solar (have to polish them mirrors, costly), tide (but who has an ocean nearby?), and zero-point energy (yeah, sure, "free" energy) among many potential methods.


The point is that there are many methods and opportunities for producing energy to heat/cool homes, generate electricity, motivate our vehicles, and more but we keep moving in "traditional" directions. We don't look carefully or deeply at electric for the vehicles because we want hydrogen to "burn" in our engines so they can rotate and go up and down and "putt putt" as we are used to hearing. Also, we want to have a "0 to 60" single digit second statistic for bragging rights. Time to grow up. As Tom Wolfe said "Look Homeward, Angel" and it's time to look at what we have and make it work.

Saturday, October 01, 2005

People are Pack Animals

We seem to have descended from some sort of pack animal and have genetically increased that tendency greatly. We don't call our groups "packs" any more. We call our packs, neighborhoods, cities, states, countries, and so on. But, it's still a pack. I suppose that's why people are always looking to be lead and begging for a leader. We even take leadership from those we know to be bad leaders and often re-elect that same bad leader to more of our misery. Can you think of an example? Hmmmmm.


Communities are useful. The group stays better fed, better protected (well, I might amend that one), have better communications, indeed, a networking of humans working together to create a supportive environment for survival and better living. Not a bad genetic code to bring along or so it seems.


Now, about that "better protected" thing. That might be so when talking about wild animals or even wild weather such as the cold winters. However, any group of humans instantly seems to be an envious target of opportunity by any other group(s) of humans who will slaughter every man, woman, and child simply to gain better survival opportunity and better living for themselves (until the next group slaughters them for the same reasons). So, this pack thing might have some downer to it. Also, it's not always healthier to be in a pack. The Aztec civilizatons may have had immense problems with disease in such cities as Tikal when overcrowding created unsanitary conditions. Of course, catching the Spanish Zealots disease did the rest of the job as the Conquistador disease robbed the natives of all ability to continue their civilization and they were infected with the "church flu" to their great loss (and ours too).


Being a pack animal, people have extended that to the god level. I am not totally conversant with wolves but I don't think they consciously have created a god. We have. Many times over, and over, and over. I used to wonder why we needed a god to tell us what to do, to pet us and say we're OK, to keep bad things away from us, and to "take us home" when bad things don't stay away. Why so many gods? Why such angry and jealous gods? "Retribution is mine, saith the Lord" and so on. My god is bigger and better than your god and my god will beat your god up and give me everything you own, give me you for a slave to be sold, your wife to be used and sold, and your daughters to be used and kept (that is if the sheep . . . . ).


Pretty strong stuff and unfortunately quite real. For those of us humans who can't quite stomach the idea of one of these privately owned gods destroying others who worship the wrong privately owned gods, there are Aliens. Now Aliens seem a good idea and we can blame it all on them. They genetically altered the pre-human race (but, according to ancient writing, we "screwed" that up and made them mad), they have visited and given advice, they have shown high-tech vehicles and equipment to the locals (now and then, and only to those no one is likely to believe), and are on the way back to do more (when we can be trusted to . . . . well, I don't know what).


And, that's the problem I see with the Aliens as a form of god. If they do exist and are visiting and did alter us genetically, and so on, they are certainly not our friends. No friend would let a friend drive a planet like this. Any "alien" who has the technological skill to visit this planet from nearly 40 light years away (more or less) also has the technological skill to assist in lowering the pack animal lust for killing that currently exists. Certainly, if we were genetically altered by aliens, they did a poor job and should come on back and do the job right. If the aliens are buzzing about, examining how we're doing, it's not to a good purpose. It might be that the aliens are watching to see just how badly their genetic alteration turns out and to "write a learned paper" about why not to do that again or maybe to show that the latest planet cleanser really works (gets queen, eggs, and all). Meanwhile, we sit here in our anger, vindictiveness, in our "my god is better than your god" and kill, kill, kill, in the name of god, country, home, and environmentally protected species (at least). We seem to have been infected with some kind of colony virus that makes us build giant colonies that actually kill us off. Are we just a test zone? I say to the Aliens (if they're there and if they're listening) "bugger off, if you can't fix or help, get our of our space and stay out until you're willing to show yourself and help properly." Take THAT you bug-eyed-monsters.

Friday, September 23, 2005

San Andreas Wriggling

In all the depth of news about hurricanes for the second year in a row, most have missed taking note of the small earthquakes along the San Andreas fault line in southern California. Several in the Central Valley, Salton Sea area and at least one small one noticed in Los Angeles have been recorded lately. Possibly precursors to a "big one."


Would the USGS seismic center be on top of this? Certainly. Would they announce these small (4.5 magnitude and below) earthquakes as possible precursors? Not likely. It is most likely they would document these and plan a "paper" to be presented after the large earthquake. It's touchy business predicting a major disaster when dealing with so much unknown. Not like a hurricane which you can see coming days ahead. Earthquakes can be even more devastating and much less predictable. It still might be precursors to the "big one" and worth keeping watch.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Big Bang - - - I wonder.

Musing again, this time about a collapsing universe falling into a dimensionless singularity and exploding into the present universe that we are, at least partially, aware of. I began to envision the collapse, not the "bang." It seems to me the mechanics of the collapse are difficult at best and improbable at least.



What happens as all this matter begins to get close and jostle for room? Well, first off, heat. So much heat that the whole thing stands the risk of never collapsing. There was once an argument put forth that the heat from our sun is created by the collapse of solar matter upon itself. I'm not certain this has been totally disproven. While much of the heat of the sun comes from the fusion process, I wonder if there actually is a portion of the heat formed by collapse and shrinking of the sun. Measurements of the solar disk have been made at Greenwich observatory for a couple of centuries. That is not enough time to determing solar radius changes. It's like trying to determine if a child's temperature is falling by taking their temperature ten seconds after you first determine they have a temperature. Solar events may have a rate that is not very easy to determine in human time spans.



So, the sun may have a portion of it's heat produced by shrinking. Certainly the shrinking universe would and it would be a lot of heat. Heat, as we all know, produces expansion and would delay and even prevent further collapse. Then, assuming we get past the heat of collapse, there is the heat formed by the chemical interaction of this molecular soup being squeezed tighter and tighter. In addition, there would be the heat formed by further fusion reactions from the masses of hydrogen and other light elements, creating one super nova after another and recreating a universe repeatedly, even if smaller than the one we now think we know. I'm sure others may come up with even more "events" on the way to a big bang if such a bang were even possible.



Where did all this matter come from? Dunno. Does it really show that it all comes from a single point? Hmmmm. Tricky. Are there other options? Too many to count and the mind boggles at just trying to think that matter even exists in the first place.



Now, I have doubts about the methodology of the "big bang' and the thinking that goes along with it. I'm not happy with "Divine intervention" either. Or with Aliens. Or with some kind of random event. However, the matter is there and must be explained (if you like to know, and I do). Where ever it all came from and however it was created, I'll be happy to have it not get a second universe created anytime soon or anywhere near where I'm at (that is if it's a Divine or random event). Afterall, if the Divinity could kill off all but a handful of humans simply because that Divinity had "regrets" over creating humans in the first place, perhaps the same Divinity might decide to "have regrets" and start over. If it's random then who knows if it might just break out all over again, pouring super-heated matter all over our poor little solar system and even more importantly, you and I. Maybe we'd better start being nice to each other to avoid Divine intervention, at least.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

What did I say?

Remember when I said our electrical system is totally vulnerable and easily disrupted? So, now a single worker accidentally cuts a single wrong line and half of Los Angeles loses power. Can you imagine a dedicated effort? Even by one person? Blackout city!


And, electric is not the only soft spot. Pipelines, communication towers, highway overpasses, water supplies, bridges, you-name-it, and it's all there, wide open. Look around you and THINK.


I certainly don't want to end any of the small list of freedoms we have left, not even those we have not yet realized we've already lost but keep our rose-colored glasses on to avoid knowing. However, there's a rule of life that applies: "The guys with the swords always win." Ok, Ok, I don't want to fight over that. You might have the bigger sword. It's just the way it has always been and still is.


You can sit in your home and ooooHHHHMMMM all you want while a couple of gang members trash your possessions, rape and murder your spouse and children, and, when they turn on you, of course your ohm'ing will protect you. I suggest that if you believe in that kind of fairey tale, you remember that the Bible explicitly states that "Faith without works is dead."


If we don't do something, our joy of an open society (however messed up it might be, it's still better than...), our very joy of being able to cross bridges, have electricity, park openly at a public lot, walk down town, that and more might be not only lost but become both a hazard and a distant memory. We are not prepared for the few hundred dedicated-to-death and misguided religious fanatics willing to do anything to disrupt society. And, it's not just the United States, no country is prepared for such an attack.


Chairman Mao told them and showed them how to take over any country, society, culture, group of people, and so on. We can be thankful that, at present, the fanatics have been more interested in converting their own countries and mostly attack Americans as targets of opportunity. The troops in Iraq are "targets of opportunity" and a chance to practice and train for increased prowess in following the methods outlined by Chairman Mao in his "Little Red Book."


So long as these activist-fanatics are more interested in taking over their own countries and societies, our homeland will be less threatened. What would happen if all of the Islamic countries (and that includes those countries with more than 30 percent Islamic) united under the power of these fanatics? Would the present Islamic move to take over all of Africa increase and the pace quicken? Certainly. Would the move to take over areas with significant Muslim (but less than 30 percent) population quicken. Would force be used to accomplish this? Most definitely. Would WE be victims of increased violence from religious fanatics? Beyond doubt.


As we watch our world continue to move into more and more disarray and polarity, one of the keys to keeping our country safe from such fanatic attacks is to keep them interested in a different target and watching, watching, watching for them to have a safe harbor such as a group of Islamic countries ruled by the fanatics which would be a certain sign of trouble ahead. Is Bush right in pushing for Democratic reforms in Islamic countries? Couldn't be more right. Democratic style reforms will help keep not only us safe but those citizens of the Islamic countries safer and better economically than under fanatics.


Keeping an army in Iraq doesn't suit me at all. BUT!!! There are options. We could let fanatics take over, gain a safe harbor, and become targets in our own homes. I feel for the army targets we have sent to Iraq in order to be safer in our own homes. I especially feel for them because we don't seem to understand what they are doing for us there. Without them (our boys in Iraq) my electric might be a victim of fanatics, my water supply lost, I might not want to go to the store or flea market or football game or, or,or.


The guys we've sent to Iraq are the visible targets for the fanatics to gather and attack. Not the Sears Tower, not the Empire State building, not our electrical, water, communications and more, systems. Nope, we go to our dinner tables without a thought that we might not have any of those without those guys at risk in the front line at Iraq and Afghanistan or elsewhere. So, next time you drive safely to work, have lunch, buy groceries, watch TV, and go to bed in safety, thank those guys who do none of those things safely over there, in the front lines.


Monday, September 12, 2005

Greatest assets

New Orleans greatest assets are it's people. Now they are gone. The quickest way to return the city to any level of "normal" (if that could ever have been said of Carnival Town) is to get those people back.


Remember the scenes from WW2 of the Germans cleaning up totally devastated cities? Even if you're not as old as that, you've seen the pictures. The people who lived there were the asset required to bring those cities back. Did they evacuate the cities and wait to find all the bodies? Or remove the toxins dropped from the sky or the toxins blasted throughout the cities? Nope. Didn't have the resources.


For New Orleans to begin recovery quickly, the Mayor should post a notice in all possible ways of the addresses "cleared" and get those people back. FEMA can support this by paying a bit for the locals to repair and finish the cleaning job. What do you want to bet the people are eager to return and clean up. As soon as the water is down and people won't drown, allow the people back. If you have to have them sign a "release" of liability, fine. Just get the people back quickly.

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Tropical Depression

I'm inundated with bad news and can't do anything about it except shut off the outside world and pretend it isn't happening. Talk about depression. New Orleans is all about bad. The city wasn't ready, the people weren't ready, FEMA wasn't ready, nothing was ready, nothing was right, and it's all a depressing disaster.


Now, it's the blame game. Our (soon to be) first Female President wants it all changed and "corrected." Egad, I suppose it will be as "corrected" as her vision of how to fix the health care system was. Everyone else is jumping in too, so it's not fair to stop with the former First Lady. Heads are rolling from top to bottom to get out from under the axe. Probably the sacrifical goat will be the FEMA director, whether or not he did or didn't (fill in a blank or hundred blanks here).


Now, as of this moment of writing, there's Ophelia about 100 miles away from this keyboard. Nothing bad at present, just rain and breezy. Of course we can now predict weather activity with considerable accuracy. The "computer models" are all in agreement or should I say disagreement. In fact, the computer models are all over the map with one sending Ophelia southwest, two of them sending Ophelia generally northwest, and one sending Ophelia north east, 180 degrees away from the first mentioned and 90 degrees away from the other two.


But wait! Don't buy yet! There's more!


Just about everyone in the United States watched Katrina grow in the Gulf of Mexico. I, too, watched and said, "That's perfect storm condition." Then, when Katrina turned into the perfect storm it was clear where it was going. The strike zone might have varied within a few miles and the intensity (if they were lucky---and they were) might drop some, but, for a full 24 hours even I could see the disaster on the way. I'm sure that was the case for virtually everyone in America or anywhere the weather system was available and shown for all to see. Where were the needed agencies at this time of obvious impending disaster? They make the big bucks, let them perform.


We saw with the Great Tsunami that education of the public would have saved many lives. Did we not learn from that? Obviously not. Was there any "real" preparation? Obviously not. The list goes on. You're welcome to add to it.


How smug we in America were with our attitude toward the "backward" countries that allowed a Tsunami to kill hundreds of thousands. WE are above that sort of thing. Oh yeah, sure. Was the lesson long in coming? Less than a year and we are on the list of stupid, backward, third world, disaster areas. How smug do we Americans feel now?


Earlier I thought it would take 30 or 40 billion to repair the mess. Now, it looks like even 100 billion won't do it and we are dealing with a trillian dollar disaster. Perhaps even more when the total economic stress to the system is resolved. Then there is the loss of life, lives in disarray, people who owned much now owning less, people who owned some now with little and people who owned little now with nothing. The disarry has spread from the Katrina strike area outward like ripples in water.


Much as when a rock is dropped in a pool of water, some water immediately splashes all about, even far away. Then, the ripples begin to spread. Such is the case with the Katrina disaster. The immediate splash sent gas prices soaring. The area under the rock has been squashed and made unliveable. Just outside the strike zone, there is damage and repair underway. Further out, the ripples have brought refugees, shortages, and there will be crime reported soon. What else can some of these refugees do? As the looters said, "You gotta stay alive." Well, at least the ones who took food and clothing, not the ones taking out the gocart and other expensive but usless "stuff" that didn't support life.


Now, the vision of the rock drop continues with the water rushing back to the drop zone. We had that immediately with the drowning of New Orleans, the ultimate removal of the refugees, and now the final removal of even the holdouts. An astounding vision of destruction and "tropical depression."


Is there a fix? Certainly. If the people of the United States can afford to spend a few hundred billion here and there (Iraq, Katrina, foreign aid, you name it), then we can afford to stop that sort of idiocy and spend the trillion dollars taking care of OUR citizens, OUR cities, OUR welfare. If a city or area is at risk to a "natural" disaster, flood, wind, earthquake, snow, ice, whatever, then spend the money up front to make it actually ready.


If you lived in Florida last year and you lost your home, roof, or other portion of your house, FEMA "gave" you money to fix it. Why not GIVE that money for needed upgrade so there wouldn't be a lose of home and security? As it was, FEMA handed out money to individuals with little or no control. Where that money went and if it went to home repair is unknown. Get the people, train them, hire the workers and supervise the upgrade so there won't be a need for FEMA to throw money off the back end of a "natural" disaster. Doesn't "preparedness" actually mean something in FEMA?

Thursday, September 01, 2005

N.O. NEW.

New Orleans has an opportunity few cities have ever had in recent times. The city can be rebuilt to future standards and it can become the "future city" of this century. No more above-ground wires, the best waste and waste water removal, citizen facilities modernized and fully available, total broadband access, public transportation that actually functions and keeps the automobile away from the city, and so much that can be done.


Yes, it's a disaster. Yes, it's an opportunity. The bad did it's job well, now let's hope the good does even better. Please take this opportunity to become the finest city in the world and show the world what good can accomplish.


In a city just waiting for a disaster to come to town, there seems to have been little actual preparation for the disaster everyone said would come sooner or later. Is YOUR city safe? Yes, New Orleans is a city living below sea level, in a swamp, surrounded by water higher than the city streets, protected by the work of humans, dependent on the vagaries of nature to "not happen," and they were not ready. Is San Francisco ready for a 1906 level earthquake? Or Memphis if the New Madrid earthquake zone repeats it's 1812 event? Or Charleston, South Carolina if the earthquake of 1876 repeats? Not only do I doubt it, I'm certain they are not. Is any Gulf Coast or East Coast city ready for a category 5 direct hit from a hurricane? The answer here is a resounding NO. Can a city be prepared for such an event? Yes and New Orleans can show us the way.


How much would it have cost to get New Orleans and the other devastated cities and towns ready for a catageory 5 hurricane. Speaking here of minimizing loss of life first, continuation or return of public services second, and property protection third. There's more and you can make a long list of preparation requirements. How much would such "real" preparation have cost? Twenty Billion??? Maybe more? Ok, how much is this lack of preparation costing? Thirty or forty billion??? Certainly is and the actual cost will certainly be much higher in human values such as loss of life, injury, economic stress, you name it.


With that in mind, let's get busy and fix our cities. the benefits are enormous. Jobs, economic development, better living conditions under normal circumstances, protection during extreme conditions, and a use of FEMA money about to be thrown from the stern of the great ship Katrina. Imagine what that money would have done over the last five years if applied to protecting these same areas.


Well; the well that signifies the ending, it seems we never will learn. Perhaps it's cheaper to just throw money from the back end of a "natural" disaster than to prepare to make "natural" not a disaster.

Sunday, August 28, 2005

Spinning cores.

Finally earth scientists have announced that the earth's core is spinning at a different rate (faster) than the rest of the earth. That's a "duh." With an intense electromagnetic field that changes polarity and intensity with time, it simply had to have an "engine" and that engine has to be the (partially) liquid, iron core. Intuitively, we know that the magnetic field would be very stable if the core simply rotated at the same rate as the rest of the earth. Another intuitive awareness is that if the core is "liquid" (and we may have to redefine "liquid" for this intense heat and pressure zone), if the core is liquid, it is not "affixed" to the rest of the earth and might spin at the rate the earth once was spinning, or some measure of that spin. In earth science geo-speak, there once was a "big drop" of a lot of the iron in the molten ball now called "earth" and that group of heavy, molten metal (mostly iron), "fell" to the center and has remained molten. Since the geo-speak scientists generally agree the earth was once spinning faster than now, it stands to reason that the engine at the core is spinning faster than the outer shell. As I said, "duh."


It reminds me of the story of moon exploration. In the Kennedy years of "we're number two, Oh My Gawd" the dedicated race to beat the Russians at "something" produced a lot of moon debate. One of the big questions was whether the astronauts would be safe from moonquakes and some sort of moonquake might not knock over the lunar lander, preventing the people from a safe return. A large number of earth and astro scientists were gathered for a conference on this point at great expense to NASA. As learned papers were being delivered and much though given to moonquakes and possible fault zones on the moon, a not well known earth scientist from the back asked a simple question that was also an observation: "If there were fault lines on the moon creating moonquakes, wouldn't we see displacement of the pretty circles caused by meteor impact?" The learned group of scientists went silent for a moment and then began to laugh at the obvious that had been totally overlooked. Afterall, the moon would act similarily to the earth and an earthquake zone is accompanied by a fault line that displaces the surface, in some cases by many hundreds of miles. Any moonquake would also have such a surface feature and we would readily notice any displacement of those circles caused by meteor impact on the moon. It was one of those "duh" moments. Question answered, conference dissolved.


The next big scientific discovery about the earth core spin will be that the spin axis is not the same as the outer earth spin axis. That's another one of those "duh" moments. Of course we already know that. The magnetic pole is not at the spin pole. Gee, guess what that means. It means the object creating the magnetic field (the molten core) has a slightly different axis than the rest of the earth. Also, the fact of the reasonably regular flip flop of polarity would indicate a precession of spin/axis that slowly (in human terms) moves the polarity from north to south and back again.


Another "discovery" will be that the molten core represents a "fossil" energy. The spin is what the earth once was spinning at but our old earth has changed it's rate with time. So has the core, but the core responds slower to rotation changes. That gives us some evidence that the earth was once spinning faster than it is now and had a different spin axis orientation. Interesting. Using the data on core spin and axis, we can backtrack to see conditions relating to earth spin and axis in the past. I wonder how conditions on earth might have been with the faster spin and different axis. This fossil energy might even help us understand ancient events that helped form the earth and moon, even the solar system.


There are so many "scientific discoveries" that we already intuitively know. Many more than these few examples. Think. Don't believe only scientists know these things, you already know more than you pay attention to or realize.