The Bigger Picture, Where Our Attention Should Be

A Guardian story about scientists prediction that they will soon be able to create matter from light spurred me to revisit a theme. Why is it, especially in this age of discovery and scientific developments, why do we still see so much focus on mundane arguments and unsolvable conflicts?

Researchers have worked out how to make matter from pure light and are drawing up plans to demonstrate the feat within the next 12 months.
The theory underpinning the idea was first described 80 years ago by two physicists who later worked on the first atomic bomb. At the time they considered the conversion of light into matter impossible in a laboratory.
But in a report published on Sunday, physicists at Imperial College London claim to have cracked the problem using high-powered lasers and other equipment now available to scientists.
"We have shown in principle how you can make matter from light," said Steven Rose at Imperial. "If you do this experiment, you will be taking light and turning it into matter."

E=MC². So many implications in that equation, and the only one the vast majority of people consider is whether we should have the bomb; and even that is less discussed these days than it was in my youth.

 Knowing, even the concept is not well known by the majority of the population, or often researched. Even the urge to know is not followed as well and as frequently as our times allow. We are more likely to act like idiots than we are to contemplate and understand. And patience be damned, right.

Sure, if Heisenberg had it right there is no satisfaction in seeking to know, (he never said that, but I can imagine today's thoughtless hoards employing such an excuse), still we have reached a level of progress that makes the old understandings passe:

Quantum mechanics is generally regarded as the physical theory that is our best candidate for a fundamental and universal description of the physical world. The conceptual framework employed by this theory differs drastically from that of classical physics. Indeed, the transition from classical to quantum physics marks a genuine revolution in our understanding of the physical world.
One striking aspect of the difference between classical and quantum physics is that whereas classical mechanics presupposes that exact simultaneous values can be assigned to all physical quantities, quantum mechanics denies this possibility, the prime example being the position and momentum of a particle. According to quantum mechanics, the more precisely the position (momentum) of a particle is given, the less precisely can one say what its momentum (position) is. This is (a simplistic and preliminary formulation of) the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle for position and momentum. The uncertainty principle played an important role in many discussions on the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, in particular in discussions on the consistency of the so-called Copenhagen interpretation, the interpretation endorsed by the founding fathers Heisenberg and Bohr.
This should not suggest that the uncertainty principle is the only aspect of the conceptual difference between classical and quantum physics: the implications of quantum mechanics for notions as (non)-locality, entanglement and identity play no less havoc with classical intuitions.

But, never mind expanding your minds when the time for consumer goods on sale rolls around.

Smart TV Is Not Having Any Effect

I finally broke down and bought a flat screen, even a "Smart" television, and spent the last two days asking acquaintances if they see any difference in me, so far there seems to be no increase in my smarts.

Sure, you are gagging on the crudeness of that joke now, but just wait, soon a prominent stand up comedian will be using that gag to great acclaim; and I will receive no credit.

A Question To Women

I wonder, the maternal bond is reputed to be strong; after an abortion do you forget you had once made a baby?

Today's Gun Joke

Joe: Wanna hear a joke?

Sue: Sure.

Joe: A gun walks into a bar.

Abigail: I get it. Guns don't walk, ha, funny.

Sue: (internally) Unless Obama is running Fast and Furious, again.

Those Who Join ISIS Believe They Are Acting In Islam

Our Democratic/progressive sperior beings are continuing to spout off about how calling it radical islam is the same as making war against all Muslims. Not true, but it is impossible to get them off a meme once they find one they can believe stalemates the true enemies of America; conservatives/Republicans.

So, only for the record, and without any hope it will change minds, let us state a fact. Those who join ISIS are fighting in the name of Islam. The killers believe they are Muslim. The killers believe their fight is Islamic.

Yet, instead of joining the fight against ISIS our Democratic/progressive superiors continue to tell us what we can not do, and they continue to more likely join ISIS than to join with their fellow Americans if those fellow Americans happen to be conservatives/Republicans.

Soon the Democratic/progressives will be telling us that sharia law is necessary in the ol' USA in order to preserve the American way.

Moderate Muslims are helpless within their own countries against the onslaught from radical islam. The tenets of the religion are used to recruit killers and those killers are used to dominate the population of peace-loving Muslims. Adherence to the radical view is demanded on threat of death. If you want to help moderate Muslims then speak directly against the version of Islam used by the terrorist elements of the religion.

Start in the ol' USA by outlawing Sharia law, or any other religious tenets of Islam which violate our standards of freedom. Do it today. Do it directly toward Sharia, which means doing toward Islam, (think of it as banning yelling fire in a crowded theater, free speech ends where harm to others begins, the same for freedom of religion. right?). Do it in writing. Speak out against it at every turn. Stand up. Act like you care, not like CAIR.

The bottom line, the facts on the ground, the suppressed truth; radical islam is a real thing, those who fight in its cause know why they are fighting. Excusing their affiliation is a corruption of the religion, is dishonest, and does no good.  Such excuses ignore the actual motivation, (it is not what the Democrats/progressives keep telling us), and such excuses make it harder for moderate Muslims to defend themselves.

Islam needs a reformation. That reformation must come from within the religion. It is neither the place of the United States government, (separation of Church and State), nor an effective defense of the American people for our government to attempt such reformation or to impede its actualization by denying the problem. Yet, our government denies the problem and directs blame at us instead of keeping the focus where it belongs, on Islam and its infantile development within the community of man.

We need to take the fight to the radical elements of Islam, radical islam, on the battlefield, in the arena of ideas, at the doors of moderate Muslims who seek a life well lived in their homelands, in favor of any who seek to allow Islam to grow up.  The easiest step should be here at home and consists of making it perfectly clear that the radical ideas within Islam which cause so much homicidal confusion in the minds of their masses are not allowed within our Republic. Those elements of Islam violate so many of our creator-granted Rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Ignoring those elements does not protect us, does not make us liked by the enemy, does not advance progress among Muslims and within Islam. Defend the Bill of Rights by denouncing all tenets of Islam which are in contradiction to those freedoms each of us own at birth.

If you are for women's rights, you have to be against tenets of Islam. If you enjoy freedom of expression, you have to be against tenets of Islam. If you believe in separation of Church and State, you have to be against tenets of Islam. If you really want to live a good life, or, perhaps any kind of life, you have to be against tenets of Islam which are inspiring these killers and threatening to wipe all other cultures out of existence. The promise of a flourishing radical islam is that each of us who is striving for a good life is on the endangered species list. Stand up. Speak up. Hashtag end Sharia in the USA. Do it today. Do it legally. Do it clearly and permanently. Do it while you can.

Recommended Reading: John Hawks On 3D Fossil Printing

From his "weblog" anthropologist John Hawks reproduces an interview he gave on the subject of the Homo Naledi discovery team's publishing of 3D printing specifications for the public use.

How 3D printing fossils will change the way we look at human evolution

The Vice Chancellor of Wits University, Adam Habib, spoke at the announcement of Homo naledi last month, and he really said something that I think resonates widely:

We often talk about science as having no boundaries, but in our world scientific knowledge has become commodified, and too often, what should be the bequest of the world, the bequest of a common humanity, is locked up under paywalls that postgraduate students and researchers cannot get access to. So what we did when we made this discovery, was we put cameras in the cave, and we streamed it live from day one.

"We partnered with eLIFE, an open access journal, to make sure that the discovery was available to all of humanity. And what we did in that practice, is create the first elements of a common global academy….We are not simply going to be beneficiaries of open access, but we are going to be contributors to open access, to the knowledge of a common humanity."

I’ve been sharing that quote a lot, because it expresses something really central. South Africa is stepping forward to lead in the area of open access, and this is not just one team of scientists, we have tremendous support from every level of the scientific enterprise and government. Our team has gotten a lot of attention for this because people aren’t used to seeing significant new discoveries published in such an open access way. But this is the future.
Paleoanthropology is about uncovering the history that all humans share. People are curious about it, they want to encounter that history, they want to explore their origins. As scientists we have the tremendous privilege of discovery, and it gives us a responsibility to enable people to understand our common past.

 

Inappropriate Satire Of Whatever This Event Is Deemed To Be

A Shooting In Colorado Springs.

I first heard of this happening from Fox News, others are also guilty of providing content which may offend some and thus should be banned.

At this moment it is not clear who did the thing we should not mention, but reports say the shooter is now inside a Planned Parenthood Clinic. Unclear too is whether the killing of any babies has been delayed or if the the dissection and harvesting of baby parts has been interrupted by the individual who has migrated to the PPC seeking sanctuary.

It is on record that the Black Lives Matter crowd has reason to hope though, at this writing it is only said that police officers have been wounded, if they pull through the demonstrations begin asap.

The White House has not yet decided if this is only a set back, or if black people were shot or looked at funny thus elevating this to a national crisis.

It is understood that whatever the facts on the ground and whoever has been or will be harmed the real culprit is of course global climate change.

Be aware too that even though the Governor of Colorado has opened the State to the Syrians any connection to that collection of peoples and the events currently transpiring is both mere coincidence and the fault of the Republicans for shutting down the government.

If more details become available we may decide to tell you what you should think and will of course remind you that we care and it is someone elses blame.

And, lastly, remember this is Colorado, so, smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Related, Kate explains it all with just a few lines...

Syed Farook is one two killers from an attack in San Bernardino, California yesterday. He, along with his "wife" is dead now. Before the authorities would release the Muslim sounding names of the killers they went to extreme measures to be certain they had correctly identified the pair. Why? In one respect it is a normal matter; but in these times it is done to assure that Muslims are not falsely accussed, because, after all, President Obama is dong every thing he can to establish Islam in the USA, (and everywhere), so naturally the Feds would pressure the locals to hold the names secret until it was impossible to keep them secret. The US government put out a release, before the names were public, stating that the shooter was an American citizen. Why would that be important, so that once the names were released people would not make the natural assumption that a killer with a Muslim sounding name was killing in the name of Allah. The killers were GoPro cameras during their day kil.., er,  at the beach, which the White House will surely remind us could have nothing to do with the propaganda videos ISIS has been issuing. It will be interesting to know if the couple began their rampag, er, wading into the deep end, by yelling allahu akbar. Expect this to be hushed up by use of the label, "workplace violence".

Btw, the details from the Colorado Springs shooting, still out there in the ether; they must not fit the narrative either. Though all on the left are eager to associate that shooting with an attack against Planned Parenthood, even to the point of accepting as fact a rumor that the killer said something about no more baby parts. Somehow they jump to their conclusion forgetting the example set by John Kerry recently when he talked about the Charlie Hebdo murders, he said they were rational, basically saying those folk had it coming. If the shooter in this place went after the baby killers, while John Kerry's logic would mean it was a rational, excusable, reaction I would disagree. Killing all these babies, nation wide, is a sad testament to who Americans are, but nothing is to be solved by killing a few when 40% of the population believe in killing babies. That 40% is sick because an even smaller minority of our population has successfully convinced the weakest among us that killing the truly weak before they are born is okey dokey. Having convinced the weakest living among us that those killing are okay, it is now easy for them to push the envelope and to kill after birthing the child, and then too to cut up the victim for profit. But, we are talking about all of this when we have not been told that any of the shooting victims were inside the clinic, some reports have that all of the shots were fired to the outside of the building. The Press lets us down day after day.

Ramos' Illegal Behavior Gets Trumped

The cute headline aside, what Jose Ramos did during last night's Donald Trump press conference was hateful.

As I just put it in an email to Fox and Friends, Ramos  acted just like the border dashing illegals he came to defend, he broke all the rules why claiming he had the higher ground.

The Trump/Jose Ramos incident is a perfect metaphor for the immigration problem, like the illegals he supports. Ramos broke all the rules,demanding he had a right while ignoring the rights of others and disobeying the rules. Trump correctly refused to acquiesce to the illegal conduct by Ramos. We need leaders who refuse to bend to the will of those who break the laws.

The answer to these law breakers is not capitulation, not if we intend to remain a country, the answer is in letting them know the rules matter and their illegal behavior will not be tolerated.

About That What IF Question They Are Asking All Those Candidates.

"Knowing what you know now...", Megyn Kelly's question to Jeb Bush has ignited quite the discussion. Jeb has had to amend his answer, other Presidential candidates, (or, possible Presidential candidates), are being asked to posit, and the media is frothing at the mouth over this perceived 'gotcha angle'.

The intelligent witness realizes this is all much ado about nothing.

The question is absurd, so, of course any answer taking it as a serious query is also ridiculous. On inspection it reminds one of the apples and oranges idiom, though, knowing what we know now, we would accurately call it the apples and oysters idiom; call it the mixing the past and the present idiom, but devolve the present into prescient and voila it all makes no sense but man oh man does it put people on the spot. Life does not happen like a Nicholas Cage movie, you can not see what actually happens when you make choices and then reset time back to before so that you can try another choice over and over again until you get an outcome you like. Instead, we take the best information we can get and we act, later we find out if we had the right answers and a successful response; unless we are Hillary Clinton in which case, the truth, our choices, and the history of both can fall into an abyss for all we care because looking back and learning from our past just does not matter, not to us, and by her command, not to those affected by her decisions.

Back to Kelly's question. "Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?" Jeb Bush clearly misunderstood the question, and answered it as if the prescient option she offers him was not part of the equation. But, then, why would a sane person expect to be presented with an impossible opportunity; unless Megyn is hiding a time machine somewhere without telling us, in which case, after she reveals its existence I wish to amend my reaction because knowing at that point about her temporal possibilities there are so many things I would do differently, including criticizing her question. But, until she deigns to grace us with proof of its functionality, and only then if she shares its powers for our, and Jeb's, use, I maintain the question makes no sense, and I hold no wonder that Jeb failed to grasp that he was supposed to pretend he could do something none of us can, yet, do.

If she intended to discern from Jeb whether he was a war hungry individual who would use any pretext to send our best and brightest into harm's way, just for fun, even if he knew the reasons presented to the public would later be proven dubious and that his domestic enemies would successfully maim him image and would position themselves so that they would be forced to make it appear that they are reversing his actions even if it meant they took actions of their own which were demonstrably ineffective and against the best interests of mankind in general, she should have just said so.

Jeb, for his part could have answered the question much more artfully, even his follow up responses, after he knew that he had not heard her completely, are not on mark. But, given how ridiculous the question only the Monty Python comedy troupe could cross the "Gorge of Eternal Peril" which such inquisition threatens, and then only the ones who answer correctly the first time can make it across.



Megyn's question also makes assumptions that we are all dealing with the same set of knowns, "knowing what we know now...?", who is this we of which you speak? And, the fair maiden is flung into the chasm. For, there is no assurance that we know all there was believed known at the time, or, all there is to know now. That is to say, I highly doubt that this collective we knows all that was known at the time, (national security), and can separate what was believed known from what was politically advantageously proffered by domestic enemies.  I doubt too that the we knows all that was learned by going in, and, I especially doubt that the we will acknowledge the parts of the now known that verifies the fears that led to the invasion.

I doubt too that Megyn, and the others now asking her question of other potential candidates are interested in hearing the complex answer it demands. I do not mean to assign an agenda to their method, just that in today's television news/entertainment format there is little room for substantive response and labored thoughtful analysis void of reactionary repositioning by the viewer; everything must happen fast and fit the expected model or the viewer changes channel. We all know that, then and now.

Knowing what I know now, there is no reason to answer as to whether one would have done what has already happened. We picked those apples then, we are harvesting oysters now.

Some of them apples had worms. Some of the oysters will not be safe, flesh and pearls or vibrio vulnificus. To tell the difference between good harvests and bad we need reasoned leaders, not Nostradamus or Nick Cage.

There are better questions for sorting out the candidates. Direct questions about real possibilities. Questions that are worth asking.

Update: Occurs to me that another excellent response to the question would be to ask if, rather than would I have authorized the invasion then, considering the way that Obama has lost Iraq after George W Bush won that war, the more pressing question is will I have to authorize another invasion to clean up the mess Obama created by pulling out too soon.

Starbucks Races In And Out

Perhaps you already heard of Starbucks' decision to have their employees engage customers in discussions on race?

While many have found ways to mock the idea, I went to work on what I would say.

The best answer so far came as the result of an off-color joke I recently heard. Not an insulting or even, by traditional standards, (though certainly by wacko progressive standards), racist joke; poignant. Forget the joke, you have probably heard it already. The value I pulled from it is in how differing groups deal with adversity. Thus my question would be all the conversation I would permit, were I to go into a Starbucks, and, on said unexpected visit, were I to be drawn into a conversation on race.

My question is simple. Why is it that even though the Irish have suffered all manner of discrimination they have managed to get everyone wanting to be Irish on St. Patrick's Day?

It is a thought question. Not readily answered. maybe even rhetorical and seeking no spoken answer. The answer is in the heart of all sincere people.

On Standing Up To Islamofacism

Are we really all Charlie? No, no and shamefully no 

Sadly, as the article illustrates, we are not all involved in showing up as absurd those who use Islam as a terror tactic. And, most of the world's leaders refuse to admit that Islam is a problem. Instead, they shield the role of Islam deflecting blame on all manner of other descriptions and excuses for the killings which take place in the name of Allah, in the defense of a non-peaceful religion.

They lie. The Islamist terrorists are winning, and the coordinated attacks on the Charlie Hebdo magazine and kosher shop will be just one more success. One more step to our gutless surrender.

 It is one thing for the man on the street to be nervous about how loudly he proclaims Islam's defects, for the man on the street is dependent for security on the leaders of his government and they are more nervous and less likely to call it for what it is than is that man on the street who needs the backing of his own government in order to protect his right to say what he thinks, it is another thing altogether for our leaders to cower when they have chosen a role for which courage is demanded. You may say, well, it isn't so much that the leadership is afraid, they just view the problem differently, and believe that the matter can be resolved if we demonstrate to the murders that we really, really like them, in which case, I say you are so far from facing reality that you are a hindrance on achieving success against this threat. You, most certainly, are not Charlie if you think we can convince these bastards to be nice. You also are not Charlie if you think you have to care what these Islamist bastards think of what we do and say; they are the ones who do not fit in modern times, they need to change to progress into the 21st century.

A carrot to: Instapundit

Message In A Blog Bottle

Time For A National - Draw A Mohammad Cartoon Day?

Consider it an homage to free speech, consider it a memorial to those killed today in Paris by Muslim extremists, but consider it a necessity for the future; the future belongs to the bold. Do not capitulate in the face of death threats, that sends the wrong message to these animals.

Non-Muslims are not bound be Muslim laws. We get to choose when we act with respect, and when we mock someone who is acting in an absurd manner.

Actually, with this publication, the first threat I will likely face is from my own President's misguided administration who will possibly blame me, proactively, for any future attacks from these inhuman creeps. Well, let me be clear, it is not my fault. Do not lock me up like you did that videographer who had nothing to do with Benghazi. Learn from me that we will not win their hearts and we will not get peace from them by giving them what they ask for; they are wrong in thought and action, it is our place in the world to set them right. It is not right for us to change to their whims out of fear.