Tuesday, November 13, 2018

The Convenient Multiverse

A video from PragerU by an astrophysicist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymajOjVQPm4

The Multiverse Theory takes advantage of the same convenient logic that Evolution by Natural Selection does: given enough time, anything is possible. Except in this case, instead of time, we are presented with infinite universes to address the impossible odds that had to be overcome to produce the life we know here on Earth.

I have always found it unsettling that a theory with no physical evidence could be so popular and accepted by the scientific community. The convenience it affords those seeking any explanation sans God is obvious. Those same scientists might claim that Intelligent Design is poppycock, but in truth ID is no more or less valid than any other interpretation of the evidence, and that includes Darwin's.

In my opinion, be it correct or not, the glaring dearth of transitional fossils after 159 years should be cause for reasonable skepticism if scientists truly relied on falsification procedures to establish scientific truth. To this, the evolutionary biologists respond by pointing out that it's only been 159 years (!) and that there are plenty of examples of transitional fossils. What they leave out is how Darwin himself elucidated that based on his theory of incremental changes, there would have to be a panoply of fossils that demonstrated limbs growing or disappearing, for example. If Darwin were alive today and saw the conspicuous absence of most of these fossils, he would likely withdraw his theory, and pronounce it sufficiently falsified by lack of physical evidence.

But the Darwinian narrative has gone on so long and is so firmly entrenched that I suspect it will take much longer than 40 years (the length of time necessary to accept the Big Bang) to finally abandon the theory. Although many scientists love to deny it, most people recognize that Darwin's theory, and now also the Multiverse theory, give powerful fuel to the engine of atheism. Richard Dawkins himself admitted it in his now famous quote, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Origin of life research has not been able to sufficiently prove an evolutionary explanation for life, and it's been many decades since Miller and Urey's experiments. I find it fascinating that evolutionary biologists will loudly insist that evolution by natural selection says nothing about the beginning of life on this planet, as though the same theory that allegedly explains the billions (perhaps trillions) of biological structures and processes we know of today is somehow magically allowed to take a pass on proof of how the first cell came about.

Either all life in the universe is a result of mindless, random chance events, or it is not. People need to get real.



Saturday, November 10, 2018

Ignoring the Media

I hadn't had cable TV for years before I met my wife, and she didn't either. Then we got married, have been married for almost ten years, and we still don't have cable.

But due to all the political sensationalism in our country, I decided to start watching the news via YouTube. It didn't matter which network I watched, there was always plenty going on to make me angry.

I'm a conservative, so I'd prefer to watch Fox, because I didn't trust CNN. Then I found out that CNN's ratings go way down when they don't report negative things about Trump and his constituency. That highly suggests that CNN feels compelled to run with all these defamatory stories because there's a significant population of people in the USA who want to believe Trump is an evil racist. Sort of the kind of pandering that Jerry Springer does for his viewers.

That realization made me less inclined to fear the Leftist destruction-of-western-civilization directive that may be true in certain small circles, but it's a directive that certainly doesn't reflect the ethos of the average democrat in the USA. Whether democrat, republican, libertarian or independent doesn't matter; only mentally unstable people scream at others in public, destroy property and threaten or harm those who disagree.

So now what? I was getting pissed and indignant all the time, exactly like the people who were vilifying the president. I had no desire to take to the streets and harass others at dinner or at their homes, but then again, neither do most of the liberals out there who just want to live in a country where their president isn't so bellicose.

Because of the way knowledge of these controversies only serves to make my view of the world darker than it actually is, I'm now going to stop watching the news again. That's it. I've had enough. It just isn't worth the emotional aggravation, and if I continue to consume this political dreck, my quality of life, like everyone else's who consumes it, will continue to fall.

Yes, I'm a Trump fan, but there are qualifiers that haters refuse to acknowledge. For example, I like Trump because he is a strong leader who is making the world respect the USA again. He's a strong leader who wants to protect the citizens of this country first and foremost, at our border and within our borders, by rebuilding the military that had been previously de-funded until it languished. He's a shrewd businessman who has managed to bring back companies to our soil, lower unemployment to record levels for people of all skin colors, and revitalize small business and the middle class with tax cuts.

I'd rather he wasn't so disagreeable, but I think casting him as evil is a desperate attempt to take one's attention off the fact that despite his apparently weak public relations skills, he has managed to break down political barriers between North and South Korea, and reduce ISIS controlled geography by ninety-eight percent in the space of four months, as opposed to the "generational struggle" we had allegedly been facing. Those are quite significant accomplishments, even for someone who can be a jerk sometimes.

In either two or six years, he will be gone from office. What will people do with all their anger then? Being angry is sort of like a drug, you can't just go cold turkey when you've been used to raging for years. People of all political stripes need to reconsider what value they think they're getting out of hating others who think differently, and automatically scrutinizing every sentence spoken or written in a judgmental manner.

Just ignore the media, and perhaps they'll start behaving responsibly again.



Friday, November 9, 2018

Finally, a very real inroad for Linux desktop domination

I may have just witnessed the straw that eventually breaks the Windows and OS X monopoly back.

I've long thought that if some big entrepreneur like Ted Turner or Elon Musk were to promote Linux, then the Linux revolution would finally extend to the desktop home user market, in effect insuring eventual OS legacy status for MS and Apple.

Today I opened up the free special section of the Minneapolis StarTribune that they send out as junk mail, and right before I tossed it as usual, something caught my eye.

It was an article about something going on locally that I had never heard of. The article was long, and packed with promise for the future. To make your consumption of the article speedier, I found this video online that references the article and expands on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfmku16Ib20

What would happen if this idea catches on in other schools, churches, et al? It would mean that at a grass roots level, which is the best way to side-step MS and Apple marketing propaganda, the population of the United States could eventually be effectively exposed to Linux in a lasting and permanent way.

Who could deny the power of a non-profit that provides free computers to people who can't afford them, and loaded with Linux? It's not a big stretch of the imagination that eventually people who can afford their own computers will do the math once they've been exposed to the Linux OS on other people's machines.

The Asian Penguins have their own YouTube channel and this is the featured video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpH60tB2yDI



Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Legal Marijuana Now party?

I voted today.

I noticed on the ballot, and then as I've been watching returns, that there is a "Legal Marijuana Now" party.

It sort of reminds me of the "OWL" party from years ago. OWL stood for "Off With Logic, On With Lunacy," and was a fun joke complete with goofy candidate nick names, ala contemporary Roller Derby.

So I'm thinking, sure... I realize there is a constituency out there who would like nothing better than to be able to go out and legally buy weed at a tattoo parlor, head shop, liquor store, or perhaps even a Target. A small, younger constituency, but it exists nevertheless.

I've heard all the arguments I care to listen to regarding how medical statistics are suspect if they question the long term safety of marijuana use. I've heard the tenuous comparisons to alcohol and its abuse, which never seem to take into account the more serious behavioral or mental problems possessed by those who also may happen to drink too much.

Don't get me wrong. I'm the typical American, in that I think as long as you're not doing something to someone against his or her will, and if you're an adult and it's in the privacy of your own home or other non-public place, I say have at it. I think people should be free to smoke themselves into lethargic oblivion if that's how they wish to treat their bodies and minds while they "live in their parents' basement."

But a political party? Come on. Getting to smoke or ingest all the marijuana you want with no fear of legal reprisal is not the only issue being handled by the people running for public office.

Do the candidates and supporters of the Legal Marijuana Now party truly believe that those running on a platform for recreational pot legalization have any qualifications for public service other than opening a window to air out the stench?

I think perhaps a portion of our country has forgotten that there is more at stake at the polls than personal gratification. Things like the future of our country and survival of western culture are a couple that come to mind.



A simple warning to the Left

I was looking around YouTube tonight, and happened upon Bannon's documentary called "Trump At War." Not sure how I never knew of its existence until last night, the night before the 2018 midterms. You can see the video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_enCwAbaGU

As I watched it, I grew sick to my stomach. I watched Trump supporters being beaten, windows being smashed in, flags being burned, police being attacked with bottles, rocks and bricks. "No Trump, no wall, no U.S.A. at all." Don Lemon and others, shame on you for your spiteful venom.

Then as I continued to watch, I grew angry. How is it that there were wonderful things accomplished at home and abroad by Trump and his administration that I didn't even know about? What kind of twisted media alliance would withhold that sort of inspiring and hopeful information just to maintain their corrosive narrative?

I completely understand the effect of two persons looking at the same glass of water, and one seeing it half full, the other seeing it half empty. Two people looking at the optical illusion of the young girl/old woman and seeing only one or the other. I get that different world views can produce different philosophies and conclusions based on the same evidence. Those are aspects of being human.

What I can't understand is why so many people can have such intense hatred for a man who has been intentionally improving life in this country for every man, woman and child regardless of skin color. The worst thing that Trump has done as president is say or tweet things on occasion that some people find offensive. He hasn't done a single thing that has harmed anyone or anyone's freedom if they are a law-abiding citizen of the United States. So much for the ridiculous Hitler references, as Hitler was physically harming people long before he took absolute power in Germany.

Do the people acting out against Trump and his supporters truly believe that their actions are justified? If so, this country indeed has serious problems, and if these people don't stop their violent and slanderous activities, I don't think they will garner much sympathy from the public at large when they eventually come face to face with harsh reality.

Back in 2016, before Trump even got to the bottom of the escalator, the media began their relentless efforts to destroy him, and a sickening truth is that a significant amount of people wanted to buy into the mainstream media's smear campaign.

A message for the Leftists who have been behaving so badly:

The conservative and Christian ethics of those you are attacking are why there hasn't been any violent backlash. If you don't like Trump, that's fine. If you want to elect candidates other than Trump, go ahead. But if you don't stop this disgusting, immoral and evil campaign to destroy Trump and instill fear in his supporters, you will eventually reap a whirlwind from those outside of Trump's influence who don't care about civility.

Wake up, shed your ingratitude, and start loving and respecting the country that provides you the freedom to work, live and thrive. If you persist in your hatred and violence, you will meet an unfortunate circumstance. God is watching, and it isn't the conservatives that you hate who are tempting fate, it is you.


Monday, November 5, 2018

A simple test to see if Trump and his supporters are racist

I've witnessed mainstream reporters and other guest pundits calling President Trump evil on CNN and MSNBC. Not hinting at, or using hyperbole, but literally calling Trump evil, a pathological liar, a white supremacist, hater of immigrants, etc.

And even more disturbing, I've seen not only Hillary Clinton call Trump supporters "deplorables," but many others have used this term as well. The claim is that since Trump-haters think Trump is a racist, then he must be leading a bunch of racist sheep as well. Everything related to Trump must just be one huge orgy of racism.

Disappointingly, even our former president Barack Obama has publicly referred to Trump, Trump's administration, and Trump's supporters as racist.

I realize not everyone left of center believes everything they hear on CNN and MSNBC. I don't believe everyone who votes democrat is seething with irrational rage. That would be ridiculous. However, I find it very strange that more people don't stand up and call out the two major networks (and the New York Times, et al) on their relentlessly negative, and in many cases venomous, narrative concerning President Trump.

So, I've come up with a simple test for truth that anyone can do, and it takes very little effort.

All you have to do for this test of truth is simply pull up any of the Trump rallies that have been covered by the networks and uploaded to YouTube over the last several weeks.

Skip to the section where Trump talks about all the great things he has accomplished for America as our president so far.

Now look for the part where Trump cites the record-breaking low unemployment for Blacks, Hispanics and Asians.

Now take a look at the audience (or at least the tiny part of it the media cameras allow you see). You will notice that there are minorities present, but the greatest majority of the crowd are white people.

So here's the question you should ask before you continue believing the narrative the Left is selling you about racism, white supremacy, Trump and his supporters:

Why are all these allegedly deplorable, racist white supremacists loudly cheering for the record-breaking employment numbers for minorities?



Thursday, November 1, 2018

The DNC's latest pre-election trick

So I received something in the mail today, and lo and behold, it's from an unbiased-sounding organization called "Center for Voter Information."

Before I opened it, I got a slight twinge from a two year old memory of a bad taste in my mouth left by another allegedly unbiased organization that thought it clever to publicly shame voters to others in their districts by showing who did or didn't vote in the previous election.

Surprise, surprise! This allegedly unbiased source of "Voter Information" lists three contrasts in two local candidates on either side of the political fence. But how interesting! Apparently in all three issues, the Republican candidate just happens to be supporting positions that apparently are detrimental to the welfare of voters.

The one page letter attempts to engender my trust by pointing out that "We have done our best to represent each candidate in a fair and reasonable way." The letter also states "The Center for Voter Information is a nonprofit organization that is not endorsing any candidate in this race."

But a simple search on the Internet reveals that the Center for Voter Information is listed with NTEE (National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities) status of R24 (Women's Rights).

While I'm all for women's rights in the sense that they should have pay commensurate with their labor and skill level, and that they should be treated equally under the law, and that as a man I should respect and protect them, let's ask a relevant question:

How does an organization that is classified as a Women's Rights nonprofit end up providing everyone with allegedly relevant "Voter Information" that's not connected to Women's Rights issues?

Next, another search reveals that the signee of the letter, Lionel Dripps, just happens to have held the following professional positions:


Managing Director for Program and Digital at The Voter Participation Center
Located in Washington D.C.
April 2017 to present

Vice President of The Pivot Group
November 2015 to present

What is The Pivot Group? Well, it just happens to be a professional organization whose sole purpose is to win campaigns:
http://www.thepivot.com/

Executive Director of the Democratic Senate Campaign Fund
October 2011 to January 2013
Located in Denver, Colorado

Regional Director of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin
2011-2011 less than a year
Located in Green Bay, Wisconsin
Ran the Nancy Nusbaum (Democrat) campaign

Deputy Campaign Manager for Cynthia Neff (Democrat)
March 2009 to November 2009
Located in Charlottesville, Virginia

Lead Organizer for the Virginia Democratic Coordinated Campaign
June 2008 to November 2008

Field Organizer for the Virginia Democratic Coordinated Campaign
May 2007 to August 2007

A gander at that list provides a decidedly biased political affiliation.

I wouldn't be surprised if The Pivot Group were also the brainiacs from two years ago who thought they should print neighbors' names and their voting records for all to see, in effect violating individuals' privacy and prompting angry voters who did the research to vote against the Democratic Party shills who dreamed up such a bad idea.


Marxism: The Politics of Envy

I just finished reading the famous (or infamous, if you will) work of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, published in 1848 (a mere eleven years before a similarly impactful work by Charles Darwin), originally entitled "Manifesto of the Communist Party." These days it's simply known as "The Communist Manifesto," perhaps because that title sounds more like idealism than partisan politics? Who knows.

You can find it yourself here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

I was led to believe by someone recently that Karl Marx wasn't such a bad guy, that it was Lenin and Stalin who took Marx's good ideas and used them to their own evil ends.

However, upon reading the work myself, I found what I had expected, in terms of the vilification of the "ruling class," based on what many contemporary public speakers have long elucidated regarding the adoption of Marxist ideas in the corruption of Western Culture by the Left.

From paragraph to paragraph, the work is a nearly non-stop barrage of manipulative imagery designed to anger the reader and make him or her believe that there is no justice in the world as long as some have more wealth than others. These are the politics of envy, and have absolutely nothing to do with the real-life factors surrounding workers getting proper compensation in a free market economy.

I'll be the first in line to observe that it does appear unfair that many CEO's, for example, have salaries so immense that they seem hard to justify as compared to the lowest tier workers for the same company. But I'll also be the first to point out that Bill Gates, for example, doesn't owe me a penny just because I bought Windows Whatever and paid what I thought to be too high a price. How Gates amassed his wealth is certainly up for debate, but I refuse to agree with the concept of forcing him to give me some of it, even if he is one day successfully identified as a criminal for his past business practices.

While I'm spiritually inclined to side with the underdog, there is a difference between seeking justice and fairness for all, and instilling hatred for those who actually create wealth, jobs and power in a free society protected by a Constitution such as ours. Power that, for a country, equates to safety if it is a democratic republic, and not a totalitarian regime.

To top it all off, the cherry on Marx's and Engel's pernicious sundae was to be found within the final paragraph:

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."

That particular ethos is exactly why decades of Leftist propaganda on our college campuses have resulted in the academic support of, and collegiate involvement in, aggressive protests against a seemingly infinite collection of imaginary manifestations of oppression that the vast majority of Americans, regardless of color, sexual orientation or payscale, don't actually experience in their day to day lives.

How is it, that in terms of violent resistance, Karl Marx is seen as an altruistic visionary who is the champion of the downtrodden proletariat, and Ted Kaczynski is relegated to murderous madman status? They embody opposite ideologies, yet believe the same violent means are justified by their disparate ends. And while it is true that Kaczynski is considered a madman for injuring and killing people, and not for his political ideologies, it is also true that Marx's ideologies did give Lenin and Stalin the framework from which they could murder millions.

Does that give Marx himself murderous madman status? No. But it does reveal the fact that it is historically demonstrable to take Marxist ideas to a malignant extreme.

Before it's too late, such needlessly aggressive behavior must be strenuously rejected by all who wish to maintain freedom for ourselves and our progeny. We are at a genuine crossroad in our history, and tomorrow's freedom is guaranteed to no one, especially while some try to physically force their dreams of a Thought Police Utopia on a country full of individuals who are not currently slaves to the collective.