Humpty Dumpty and Compromise

God, what a mess!!

The Election is over and the new President is installed in office (yes, I know Obama won, but each 4 years a “new” President is sworn in).  Now the work of putting Humpty Dumpty back together again. No doubt about it: the country is broken. And as I see it the cause is hyper-partisanship. The Right has moved farther to the right and the Left has moved farther to the left. Leaving very little in the middle.

In the old days political parties regularly switched places in the lineup and voting districts were filled with a mix of political types such that many, if not most, districts were able to put canditates in office who were “middle-of-the-roaders”.  No more. This trend is especially seen in the Republican Party, but is growing in the Democtratic Party as well. It bodes badly for the country and is manifested in the continuous gridlock seen in recent years in congress.

The old political art of compromise seems to have gone the way of the floppy disk. We now have the art of political confrontation and brinksmanship in plain view every day. Right now the Dems have the White House so the Republicans balk and block. It the situation were reversed I have no doubt that the Dems would do the same.

It is just a damn shame to ruin a good country with partisan crap like we see now.

There is a way out though: challenge the redistricting of congressional districts in the courts and hope for a better plan. Hope. Well, when all else fails there is always Hope.

http://jonathanfosteronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/humpty_dumpty.jpg

Woody Attempts to Clarify

I think I need to clarify and redirect my comments some comments about a women’s right to choose. Abortion is not an issue in and of itself for me. Personally I think termination of pregnancy should be a last resort taken very seriously. I believe that while no woman should ever be forced to have an abortion, no woman should be denied access to the procedure either. Whether to terminate or not should be, in my view, entirely up to the woman involved. So what about the man? Which man is that? The rapist? The woman’s father? Her brother? The drunken frat boys? None of them should have any say at all. There are times when consensual sex leads to pregnancy and there may be legitimate dispute about “keeping the baby”. If the father is willing to take over 100% of the care and support of the baby and leave the woman free to move on, then there could be a case for carrying to term. This is a problematic area that I agree has no easy answers. Still, I come down on the side of the woman and her absolute right to control her own body. And the rights of the embryo/fetus? None that I can see. Life begins at conception. Or does it? Isn’t an egg alive? Aren’t sperms alive? Of course they are. In many cultures both past and present babies are considered for life or death based on circumstances. They have no natural right to live. They have value or not, and on that basis are kept or discarded.

No, the issue isn’t abortion. The issue for me is control or lack thereof. Laws that require people to have medical procedures against their will have mostly been abandoned. Forced sterilizations of “undesirables” are mostly gone. So why should there be laws that criminalize voluntary procedures? Where is the constitutional basis for such laws? Well, one party wants to put the concept of “personhood” which by their reckoning begins at conception, into the Constitution. Then laws against abortion would be “legal”, and women would lose the right to choose. The RIGHT TO CHOOSE. The basis of such an amendment is biblical. It defines life as “god given” where there is no reason at all to believe that it is, in fact, anything other than natural.

So it boils down to this in my view: Laws that proscribe behavior based on the sanctity of life are in fact religious laws. And they are laws of convenience. “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. Did I get that right? Kill what, or who and under what circumstances? Not kill animals? Nonsense. Not kill in war or time of threat? Nonsense. Not kill in punishment? Nonsense. Not kill for mercy? Nonsense. Laws of convenience. The same legislators who want to pass ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill the Unborn” want to kill enemies, and criminals and animals. Many of the very same legislators who want to limit the rights of a woman to control her own body also want government out of their businesses, out of their taxes and out of the way of “progress”. What is going on here anyway? You mean it is all right to pour millions of gallons of poisons into rivers and lakes, and all right to pollute the air, and all right to “frack” the ground without concern for the water supply but is not all right for a woman to control her own reproductive functions? Nonsense.

And yes, a lot of women want to control the lives of other women by passing restrictive (religious) laws on the control of their bodies. So what? That doesn’t make it right, does it? The other day the Taliban beheaded 17 people for dancing. Dancing offended their concept of their religion so they killed the dancers. Ordinary people having a good time at a private party. That is what happens when religion runs amok. Passing laws based on any religion is the beginning of the end of real freedom. Our founding fathers had it right: Keep Religion Out Of Government and Governance. Still a good idea today. Or, you can move to Saudi Arabia were religion trumps everything.

Image: http://stocklogos.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/logo_preview/logos/image/clarify_2.png

"LIAR!!!"

"Liar" said Gavroche!

Is a lie still a lie if you don’t know it is a lie?

Suppose someone tells you that a friend is a Republican, but the friend is actually a Libertarian. You believe the person and tell someone else that this friend is a Republican. The first person lied to you. So the question is did you lie when you passed on the information or did you tell the truth?

I suppose there is some arcane philosophical discourse about this that involves truth tables or logic trees or something, but I am looking for a simple answer. And I think I have one: Yes, you are lying too. Why do I think this? Because I believe it is up to each of us to investigate the truth to the best of our ability before repeating an assertion. This could be time consuming and difficult but necessary if you want to be truthful. In the example above you simply make a phone call or send an email and ask, assuming you give a crap. If not, don’t pass it on.

The core of the question goes to the idea of “belief”.  If you “believe” something is true and pass it around as “truth” you are a potential liar. If the belief is actually true, then you don’t lie. If not, you do. You are the person responsible to verify the facts of your assertions before you assert them. You think there is a tooth fairy? Check it out and then tell your kids. You think there is a Santa Clause? Check it out. You think there is a God? Check it out before you go around proclaiming “TRUTH”. If you can’t come up with a factual basis for your belief in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus or God, qualify yourself with “I believe this to be true, but I have no evidence to support my assertion.” Now, what you really might mean is “I know this is true but a moron like you will never see my reasoning so I won’t even try.”

It is really simple: You pass on a lie, you are a liar. You question or qualify a lie, and you might just be a thinking person.

Image: http://www.lesmis.de/pics/gavroche.jpg

Solving Hunger: Synthetic Biology Points the Way, or Does It???

I just put down a small insert article from the January 12, 2013 edition of Science News. The writer asserts that Solving Hunger by increasing the efficiency of photosynthesis would produce much more “food” from the same plants and same space. And this would in turn relieve the world hunger problem. Really?

No, I don’t think so. Decades of research has shown that increased food production in places where starvation and poor nutrition is a way of life increases the population in proportion to the food produced. In other words: more food = more people. In these times of drought and weather crisis after weather crisis what the world does not need are more people. Let them starve? No, not a good idea either.

My solution is simple: Engineer into the new food supply a birth control mechanism that either reduces fertility in men and/or women or reduces libido in men. No fertility, no babies. No libido, no sex, no babies. Hell, if science can genetically engineer plants to do all they can now, it should be no real challenge to add a dose of something that would potentially save the world from additional overpopulation and self-destruction.

Oh. I forgot. Too Late.

Image: http://openwetware.org/images/thumb/7/74/RSSE2007_ImperialCollege_SyntheticBiology_Prism.jpg/350px-RSSE2007_ImperialCollege_SyntheticBiology_Prism.jpg

Genocide, Again.

 

The United Nations estimates that 60,000 men, women and children have been killed in Syria in the last 22 months. This civil war shows no sign of abating.

Remember when the world said “Never Again” after the Holocaust? And after the Cambodian genocide? And after the Bosnian genocide? And after the Rwanda genocide? And after Kaddafi threatened to exterminate his own people? And after Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of his own people in Kurdistan?

Yeah, I do to. “Never again” my ass. The Syrian government is systematically murdering their own citizens with the entire might of its military. Helicopter gunships; jet planes bombing and strafing; artillery shot into civilian enclaves; tanks rolling over everything in their path. The only thing missing is poison gas. And Syria has tons, yes tons, of the stuff. They have Saran, Mustard, Cyanide and probably a few others. They are reputedly holding stocks of biological agents. And they have shown a chilling willingness to murder their own people.

The rest of the world arms the rebels with guns and a few other tools. Not enough to take on a powerful army and air force. What is needed now, was needed a year ago and will be needed in the future is a total “no fly zone”. That would instantly take a major contributor to the genocide out of the equation. And it would be low cost. But the lack-guts spineless politicians of the free world would rather piss and moan about how bad it is in Syria than take a real stand and following through. Let me be the first to say “Once the genocide is over in Syria, NEVER AGAIN”. If you believe that, you really have your head somewhere the sun doesn’t shine.

(Note: In looking for an image for this article I googled “genocide”. The images are appalling. These along are reason enough to doubt the existence of “God” or any real goodness in mankind. If you don’t believe me, do it and look for your self.”

Image: http://c481901.r1.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/stop_genocide.jpg

A legend is born in the Forest of Dean

A legend is born in the Forest of Dean on the mystical Welsh border. This is the land of Merlin, and the Forest of Dean claims one of Arthur's caves. On a cold and rainy day we left the cozy breakfast room at the Saracens Head Inn (1)  and took a walk along the flooding Wye river. About two and a half miles to the Arthur's cave and a quarter mile short we turned back. Wrong shoes for climbing and no hiking poles. The ground was wet, muddy and slippery.

On the way back along an old railroad bed I noticed a very large brindle hound walking beside and just behind me. I do mean large. Probably the size of a ridgeback. Muscular with a large square head. The dog was walking between us and the woods. Quiet. Keeping pace. He or she was in my peripheral vision, and when I turned to look directly the dog just was gone. It was clearly there one moment and gone the next, so what is the explanation ? Spirit hound comes to mind. This is an ancient forest where magic still can be felt from time to time, and where the shades of Knights and peasants still roam. This is an old and sacred place and not surprising has many spirits in residence.
I think the hound was a kind of shy gardian, patrolling the paths and keeping naive and unwary strangers from harm.
I could find no tales of a large brindle hound patrolling the paths of the Forest of Dean. There is one now.
1. http://saracensheadinn.co.uk/
Image: http://imgur.com/Ekl7x.jpg

"Woody, I need your opinion."

Full time presence. We need more.

“Woody, I need your opinion. A former TU student posted that they would put a gun in their classroom (hidden) in case of a situation like the Conn. school. I told her, if I had a child in her class, I would have them moved. She felt that my response was uncalled for, due to my education level. Do you have an opinion? Thanks.”

 

A former colleague sent this to me yesterday and I have been thinking about it ever since. What helps is that in the last 24 hours a few analyses of mass shootings have been done, and the results show that there is no increase in them over many past years. It seems that way, I guess, because so many have happened in the last several weeks.
Shooters always seem to pick easy targets that they know will be “soft” (no weapons to shoot back). They don’t rush police stations or banks. Schools, malls, theaters all top the list of targets. Even in “carry concealed” states, most have restrictions on where guns can be carried, and schools are off limits. Shooters are cowards. They are mentally sick. They fit a post-event set of common characteristics but defy the ability of society to profile them in advance and secure the public from them. The latest shooter was reported to be a “Goth”. So are thousands of young people who don’t even dream of killing kids in a school.
How to protect ourselves is the question. I think the answer is probably just be vigilant, have a plan and hope for the best. As for gun carrying, maybe it works and maybe it doesn’t. We will never know how many potential shooters thought about the possible guns on the street and decided they were not ready to die yet. But the ones that go through with the attacks seem mostly ready to die, and often kill themselves. Guns in the hands of civilians probably would not deter them. So what about teachers with guns? What about hiding guns in classrooms and theaters and malls so that shooters can be stopped? I don’t think it would make much difference in choice of targets. Shooters are not the rational folks the rest of us are. I think a better solution for schools and other public places would be to have enhanced security arrangements, highly visible, and a plan for everyone to follow in the event of an attack. For schools, maybe more secure entrances. Not prison grade, but something a bit more than a glass door or no fence around the perimeter. A few roving security guards who are child-friendly but vigilant. Strong doors for rooms that lock at the push of a button in the office. Make “lock-down” a really operative process.
I don’t know about arming the teachers. I have a former student, now a teacher who is a retired military man and former police man. He knows how to shoot and when to stand down. Most of the teachers I have taught probably do not.
I think the teacher mentioned above is wrong about my colleague. Her educational level is really irrelevant to the issue. Her choice as a parent is relevant. Her decision to move a child from one class to another for any reason should be hers alone. And BTW TU teacher, no response that is rational is uncalled for. No opinion should be overlooked. As a teacher you should know that.
Image: http://static.news-gazette.com/sites/all/files/imagecache/lightbox_800_600_scale/images/2011/05/19/20110519-204413-pic-837823817.jpg

Something about God I don't get.

Happy murdered children reach for Jesus

I don’t mean to get into some kind of a pissing contest with my Christian friends, but there is something about the religion or the perception of some of the religion that I just don’t understand. There have been several Christian statements on Facebook since the tragic killing of children and adults in Connecticut, some of which just ask for prayer and others get more pointed. One asserted through a graphic of Jesus holding out his hand to happy children who were killed, but now are with him. Another asserted that the Devil walks the earth and this was his work (or something close to that). Yet another simple asserted that although this was a tragedy it was God’s will.

Let’s take these one at a time.

 Prayer. No problem there except in many Christian sects God is portrayed as having started free will and won’t interfere with human affairs. So what good is done by a prayer to a God who doesn’t listen? In other sects God is seen as directly intervening in human affairs, thus prayer should help. Those Christians can pray and hope that God is listening (he is by definition) and cares enough about the specifics to do something. Many times prayers go unanswered.
Jesus wants children with him and they will be happy for ever. If that is true, why not take them all? Why wait until some madman murders them? Will they be happy if they never grow up? Who wants to spend eternity as a 6 year old? Are their parents suffering for some arcane reason (karma coming down?)? Doesn’t make any sense to me.
The Devil walks the Earth. If the Devil is a fallen angel then he should be subject to God’s will like all the rest of us. So why does God let him roam the earth doing evil things to innocents? Just so Jesus can have them to play with? Why doesn’t God just take him out?
Just God’s will. Ok, I know the assertion that we can never know the mind of God, so we can never know why he would do something completely mean and cruel. I thought God loved us so much that he can’t stand to see us suffer. Really? Cancer? War? Rape? Murder of children? This is love? I don’t get it. Really, I don’t get it. And if all those children, and the thousands of other children killed each year in wars and by diseases and by starvation and by murder are killed because it is God’s will, who wants a God like that?
Which brings me to this point: I certainly don’t want one like that.

Image: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixQuJLXiH-dUEnEfiCQ9qRE0_TDwhCN8o4O6tcu0554rrUd6CtFEB79-jbhL2jSrOcLZwNCvnXG4wWuFa7yF5vkMXr6rPZrsMdWf_G7Wn7Da_EuYhzju8AULmMfgB7aAwhw2x0Vj8Vrfo/s1600/children+reaching+for+Jesus.jpg

Not a Ball or Ovary in Sight.

 
Fiscal cliff? What a crock! Pure showmanship at work when the SOBs should be at work getting the mess in the country straightened out. Of course we have a massive problem, brought on by decades of neglect of responsible governing. Of course we have huge debts and not enough income. Nobody denies that. But we also have gutless politicians (and have had for decades) always willing to “kick the ball down the road” and instead go for the pork. For themselves of course.
Well boys (and girls) it is time to cut the crap and get it right. Cut spending and raise income. What does it take to get this simple point over? Look at your own situation: you get in debt, either on purpose or accidental and what do you have to do? Cut spending and/or increase income. The “and/or” here is important. If you cannot cut enough spending then you MUST increase income. Get a part-time job. Get a better job. Something to raise income.
So the government should cut spending but cannot cut enough spending to cover the nut. Income must be raised. How? Now that is the question. Close loop holes; raise taxes; increase tariffs; stimulate the economy to increase production/sales/jobs.
I don’t know what they should do, but my gut tells me all of the above and more will be needed before this mess is over. My gut also tells me that the mess will never really be over. My gut also tells me that the rich will make out like the bandits they are and the rest of us will get screwed somehow.
 My gut also tells me that the gutless bastards in Congress don’t have the balls or ovaries to really do it right. Very, very sad.

What is 2014 for???

An old friend reminded me that I haven't posted for a while. No worries. Just got a bit burned out from the election furor. Like everyone else, I thought that the election was over, and my guy as it turned out, won. By a pretty good margin. He ran on a few simple to understand ideas, one of which was to increase the tax rate on the richest Americans. That resonated with many Americans from both parties. In fact polls show that something like 65% of Americans think taxing the richest people at the Clinton era rate is a good idea. Remember the Clinton era? Higher taxes and growth, prosperity and a balanced budget?
So how come the Republicans in the House and Senate act like Romney won? How come they say things like "We are here to do the People's business" and then ignore the people? Even Fox news agrees that more revenue is needed to get back to fiscal safety. And cuts too. And even Fox news agrees that closing "loop holes" won't generate enough money to do the job.
I actually thought the election was over, but it is obviously not over. What remains is to kick out the remaining conservatives who insist on blocking the real will of the people. That is what 2014 is for.

Image: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwK5T7Uo8rSNJMXeoQmsBuxBwmYOXcCJ79tZO4YSNqPj5UKcWqITW3md5AFgIFhVeMTXy_3YDFj6jkYbL4T4LhhcTTGeRMuPYKpt3vS6S1B_P4QPs_-N9SWOrnGnanAT0n_fkVFhtauQ/s1600/GOP+Cockroach.JPG