I Am Not Alone

" With so many conservatives watching only Fox people are wearing blinders; they hear no fact that conflicts with their world view. All day long their views are reinforced that Obama is a socialist crackpot." ~ Bruce Bartlett. Bartlett served in the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations.


"We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped...By mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead." ~ David Frum. Frum was a former speech writer for W. Bush.


“... a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed.” ~ Scott McClellan. McClellan was W. Bush's press secretary from 2003-2006. This comment was referencing the administration's "biggest mistake", the Iraq War. McClellan openly admitted to voting for Obama.


"I think it was the right thing to do (leave the GOP) at the time or I wouldn't have done it. And the reason I did it was because I felt the country needed some Florida common sense." ~ Charlie Crist. Crist is the former Republican Governor of Florida from 2007-2011. 


"As I look out at the political landscape now, I find plenty of slogans on the Republican side, but not very many ideas." ~ Bob Bennett, former Republican Senator of Utah to a Republican think tank (oxymoron). Bennett ran no television ads in 2004 and won reelection for his third term by capturing 69% of the vote. He was ousted by the Tea Party in the last election.


"They (the Limbaugh crowd) don’t have an explanation on why the party is shrinking and how you can reach out, how you can reach people who care about personal liberties. How we can take our philosophy and translate it into real policy. We talk about personalities and balanced budget. The Republican Party lost credibility because it didn’t do any of that. It violated the privacy of individuals; it flaunted the spending and ran up this huge deficit; got us into wars that are not winnable, and that was the real issue. That’s why it’s been translated into personality squabbles and who’s running what, because they’re not really talking about why the Republican Party is a minority party and why they lost. And I think as long as they do that, they’re not going to solve their problem." ~ Dr. Ron Paul Republican Congressman from Texas in 2009. The following year he faced three challengers in his primary, more than all his challengers in his previous six primaries combined, all from Tea Party candidates.


"It' also not true that he's (Obama) a Muslim. It's not true that he wants to take over as a dictator... we need to get rid of these things so we can build on credible, solid information." ~ Congressman Bob Inglis (R). Inglis served in the House from 1993-1999 and 2005-2011 before being challenged in his primary by a Tea Party candidate and being ousted. 


 "If you're going to lead these people and the fearful stampede to the cliff that they're heading to, you have to turn around and say over your shoulder, 'Hey, you don't know the half of it.'" ~ Inglis to Boehner talking about the Tea Party.


"It took only the single tap of a computer key, and just like that I’d exited the Republican Party after 30 years of active membership... I’m not sure if I left the Republican Party or the party left me. All I know is that I no longer feel comfortable...The national GOP is a party of exclusion and litmus tests, dominated on social issues by the religious right, with zero discernible outreach by the national party to anyone who doesn't  fit neatly within its parameters. Instead, the GOP has extended itself to its fringe while throwing under the bus long-standing members..." Michael Smerconish. Smerconish is a radio and television personality and states he voted Republican in every election in his life except for voting for Obama. 

Kukulkan In The Sky With Diamonds

Here in America it seems religion has separated itself from science.  It also seems religion has separated itself from math as well.  So on my quest to make the world a better place I thought I would look into this phenomenon and see why it happened and when it began.  It didn't take long before I found myself sidetracked.

Each year thousands of people from all over the world travel to the Mexican state of Yucatan to witness the "Shadow of the Equinox".  There are actually several dates throughout the year that make up the complete "Shadow of the Equinox" but the one that occurs on the spring equinox, March 21, is the one that draws the largest crowd.


The Mayan civilization lasted over two thousand years and went through several different eras. The Classic era occurred between 300 A.D. to 900 A.D. and resulted in huge accomplishments. The Mayans provided Mesoamerica with the first form of written language, measured time using two different calendars, grew vegetables in the most unlikely of places, designed amazing and elaborate cities, and discovered the number zero (the number had been used several hundred years before but the Mayans learned of it on their own in Central America, far away from the other places in the world that used it). Pretty wild considering they were also very religious.

During one of their religious ceremonies about 3000 years ago they combined a rubber tree and a morning glory plant and discovered the process of vulcanization (the process of combining rubber with a different material to make it more durable). That's pretty impressive considering we didn't discover this process until the mid 1800's. They built incredible cities and monuments without access to metal or use of a wheel (the wheel had been invented in another part of the world but the Mayans didn't have this knowledge). And because of their religious beliefs they gained great knowledge of the stars which is demonstrated in their temples and pyramids.

Like most religions, the Mayans have a story of creation. Without going into much detail I will say they believe Snake Mountain is where it all began. The chief Mayan deity was Itzamna and the name of the site where they built some of their most amazing monuments is called Chichen Itza. The Mayans had also allied with other cultures around 1000 A.D. and incorporated some of the Toltec religious beliefs. That is why one of their most amazing constructions is known by several different names: Kukulkan's Pyramid, Quetzacoatl Pyramid, or as it is called today, El Castillo. It is Chicen Itza in the Mexican state of Yucatan where thousands of people today travel to watch the spring equinox event that centers around El Castillo.

The pyramid in Mexico is different from the pyramids in Egypt. Even though we now believe the Egyptians must have understood the world was round by our current understanding of the pyramids designs, slight curvatures and the shadows they cast, the Mayans understood much more about the stars and their place in the galaxy. The photo below demonstrates just how much they knew.


The colored lines represent the sunrise, sunset, moonrise, and moonset as they occur on March 21. This structure was built sometime between 900 A.D. and 1200 A.D. (the above photo is a combination of a satellite photo and a computer program from Google Maps taken on March 21, 2010).

Flashforward to 1616 on the other side of the world where the Roman Catholic church issued a decree suspending De Revolutionibus, Copernicus' book that stated the Earth orbited around the Sun, until it could be "corrected" because it was contrary to Holy Scripture. Four hundred copies were originally printed and it failed to sell out. Four years later, after nine sentences that dealt with the relationship between the Earth and the Sun were omitted (corrected) the decree was lifted. When Galileo followed Copernicus' ideas he was convicted of heresy for "following positions that were contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture" in 1633 and lived out the remainder of his days under house arrest. They should have built a pyramid instead of writing books.

Back to the Mayans. The Prime Meridian used by the Mayans was slightly different than the one we recognize today. This meridian is an arbitrary line that divides the Earth into two hemispheres using lines of longitude and our current one that runs through Greenwich, London was decided upon in 1884. The Mayans meridian differed from our current one by 31 degrees, 8 minutes, and .8 seconds. By our modern day measurements we place El Castillo at 88 degrees, 34 minutes, and 9.716 seconds. If you add our measurement with the variance to adjust for the Mayans longitude it comes to 119 degrees, 42 minutes, and 10.516 seconds. If you multiply 119, 42, and 10.516(including the long string of decimals that I rounded off) it totals 52,560. El Castillo is constructed of 9 terraces, 365 steps, 4 sides and 4 stairways. When these four numbers are multiplied together they total 52,560. Heresy.

Each staircase consists of 91 steps representing the days of the seasons. Each side of the four sided structure has a staircase that leads to one shared step at the peak. Four times 91 plus the additional step at the top equals 365 representing all the days of the year. Each side of the pyramid has 52 panels, equal to the number of solar years in the Mayan calendar cycle. The terraces are nine levels high with the stairs separating them into two different tiers on each side. These 18 segments represent the 18 winals (similar to months) that comprise the Mayan year. On the exact day of the two equinoxes of the year the Sun hits the pyramid in just a way as to create 7 light triangles and are contrasted with 6 shadow triangles adding up to the sacred Mayan number of 13.




I'll show this a little better in a video but I want to point out what to look for. On the above photo a serpent's (snake-remember Snake Mountain) head is at the bottom of the pyramid on the left wall. Running up the wall  from the head are the seven light triangles. Between each light triangle is a shadow triangle (hard to see in this photo). As the Sun moves across the sky the light appears to make the serpent climb down the structure. This is what thousands of people come to see.

The full effect takes about thirty minutes. There are many more videos on You Tube with much more detail and length. 

What an amazing relationship between religion, science, math and astronomy. What a legacy. What a testament to their higher power.

The Mayan calender completes its great cycle on the winter solstice in 2012. As we all know there are many theories as to what this means exactly. What it means is simple, the great cycle is complete. The only thing of real significance is how the galaxy would have appeared to the naked eye of the Mayans at this moment. The Earth and the Sun will be in alignment with the arbitrary line we have concocted as the equator of the galaxy. Without getting too deep into the 2012 topic I will say it really doesn't mean much other than it is truly amazing that this civilization could even possess this knowledge. We won't be in the center of the galaxy, nor will the Sun. A black hole sits in the middle of our galaxy and everything in the galaxy orbits it. This event happens once every 25,800 years (it's happened plenty of times before). Still it seems remarkable this civilization could have based a calendar on it. Some completely dismiss it as coincidence. Seems hard to do with the amazing structures the Mayans built and their display of great knowledge of how the Sun and planet relate to one another and the entire galaxy. No one can say for sure.

Even though I began this essay with the intent of figuring out how our modern day religion became at odds with science and math, I think it's irrelevant as to the when and why at this point. One thing should be clear to those that don't think these fields are compatible, the Mayans proved they most certainly are. 

You Have A Dirty Mind

It's a lamp


It's a book


Girls in bikinis

Same girls in bikinis


It's her arm


A clever ad for flooring and carpet laying

Same ad upside down (I said it was clever)


These are the sexiest chubby arms I've ever seen


I saved my favorite for last. An ad for a massage.

Times Are Tough

We can no longer afford to explore space. Or can we? From 1958 to 2008 we spent about 9 billion dollars a year on NASA. For the most part that has averaged less than 1% of our Federal Budget. During the 1960's NASA was funded the most at any time during it's history, anywhere from 2-4% of our budget, and what do we really have to show for it except for some American flag on some rock that orbits around our planet. Hardly worth such a huge investment. In the most recent years we have budgeted roughly 7 billion dollars to the program.   There are so many other things we could spend our money on and things of much more importance.

• We spend $10 billion in Iraq each month.
• Americans spend over $150 billion on alcohol each year.
• The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs spends $175 million on vacant buildings.
• Taxpayer dollars used $1.8 million dollars toward a "museum of neon signs" in Las Vegas.
• The U.S. Census Bureau spent $2.5 million on one Super Bowl commercial (remember it?).
• The National Institutes of Health was given $800,000 to study the "genital washing program" of men in South Africa. 
• The U.S. Department of Agriculture gave $700,000 to the University of New Hampshire to study cow farts.
• We granted $3 million dollars to UC Irvine to play and study video games.
• We spend over $7 billion a year arresting and prosecuting people for marijuana offenses.
• Americans spend over $100 billion on fast food each year and $1.7 billion on vitamins. 
• We spend $18 billion on coffee each year.
• Americans spend $225,000,000,000 on gas (so strange I actually had to do the math on this. Every other items or things I could just Google "how much do we spend on x each year" and I could easily retrieve an answer. But not for this one. I had to find the average of one American, $1,500 a year, and multiplied it by 150 million, less than half of our population, just to come up with some ballpark figure. Totally not scientific and probably not accurate but isn't it odd I couldn't find this amount? I mean, I found out how much we spent on cow farts with relative ease. Maybe it's just my lack of searching skills.)
• We spend over $45 billion on our pets each year.
• Americans spend over $80 billion on tobacco products

Each American contributes mere pennies each year toward NASA. Times are tough and we need to save wherever we can. What do we really have to show for NASA anyway? 

“We see the transformative effects of the Space Economy all around us through numerous technologies and life-saving capabilities. We see the Space Economy in the lives saved when advanced breast cancer screening catches tumors in time for treatment, or when a heart defibrillator restores the proper rhythm of a patient’s heart….We see it when weather satellites warn us of coming hurricanes, or when satellites provide information critical to understanding our environment and the effects of climate change. We see it when we use an ATM or pay for gas at the pump with an immediate electronic response via satellite. Technologies developed for exploring space are being used to increase crop yields and to search for good fishing regions at sea.” ~ Micheal Griffin

Space Exploration

Four years ago someone asked this question on Yahoo Answers....

Is the knowledge gained from space exploration worth all the money that is spent on it?

This was chosen the best answer...

1. NASA's annual budget is 0.8% of the total annual Federal budget. NASA spends less in a year than the military spends in a day.

2. When the Apollo program was canceled, its funds were transferred to social programs. In 1962 Kennedy challenged NASA to send a man to the Moon and return him safely to the Earth by the end of the decade; NASA accomplished that goal on time and on budget. Today, more than thirty years after the Apollo program’s funds were channeled into social programs, there is still war, disease and hunger. In other words, as Neil Armstrong said, a program that worked was punished, it’s funds allocated to programs that don’t work.

3. There will always be war, disease, hunger, and other problems on Earth. They will never go away. At least space research helps to solve those problems, as opposed to billions of dollars of government waste, porkbarrel spending, and an out-of-control military budget, which help no one and harm many.

4. Space flight provides a unique and transcendent perspective. I have had the privilege of meeting half of the Apollo astronauts, and the experience of speaking to them imparted to me some small sense of their extraordinary adventure and the cosmic sense of perspective that Earth is only one small and fragile planet. Their voyages to the Moon changed their lives forever in a positive way, and we can all benefit from such an experience in a way that far surpasses the value of money.

5. Medical research and food production are among the scientific priorities of the space program.

6. We are running out of fossil fuels on this planet – and even if we weren’t, we know now (thanks to manned and unmanned space flight) the damage that fossil fuels are doing to this planet. We must look outward into space for new resources, whether it be Helium-3 on the moon, or a solar power station at one of the Lagrange points, or some unforeseen by-product of space research which will provide totally unexpected energy needs.

7. We are fortunate to live during one of Earth’s brief calm periods. Catastrophic disasters do happen and have happened. Whether it be global climate change, asteroid or comet impact, or even nuclear war, we cannot count on the ongoing stability of our planet. As of now, we have nowhere else to go. Mars has as much land area as Earth, it represents a whole new world.

8. At the height of the Apollo era, the vast majority of research and development were done by NASA and the Department of Defense. Today, with NASA’s stripped-down budget, the Department of Defense does most of the R&D, and they keep what they develop; the rest of us don’t benefit. We benefited greatly from NASA’s work; from the comfort of your bed to health benefits to infrastructure to the Internet.

9. It is at the heart of human nature to explore. Space is the last frontier. Unless we continue our exploration of the universe, we will shrivel up and die inside.

Coen Brothers

                                Two weeks from everywhere

                                             He was funny looking

                                          This ain't no coon hunt

                                          You think that's a Schwinn

I Dig

I love this video. It's called ARK and someone put Billy Thorpe's Children of the Sun to it. Enjoy.

Yeah, But We Won The Mid Terms

Freedomworks' Goal: Stop Mitt Romney in 2012

by Jon Ward

WASHINGTON – A top goal of the nation’s most influential national Tea Party group is to stop Mitt Romney from winning the Republican nomination for president.

Interviews with top officials at FreedomWorks, a Washington-based organizing hub for Tea Party activists around the country, revealed that much of their thinking about the 2012 election revolves around derailing the former Massachusetts governor.

“Romney has a record and we don’t really like it that much,” said Adam Brandon, the group’s communications director.

FreedomWorks is led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) and Matt Kibbe, an economist and former Capitol Hill aide. More than 30 employees, as well as a fresh class of several interns, work out of spacious seventh floor offices near the U.S. Capitol. The group knows they cannot impose their will on the fiercely independent conservative organizers fueling the Tea Party. But they say the activist base is just as anti-Romney as they are.

Kibbe said in an interview that FreedomWorks has no plans at the moment to endorse an opponent of Romney’s in the primary. But others in the organization made clear they will devote considerable resources toward helping whoever emerges as the most viable Republican in the primary other than the putative front runner.

Brendan Steinhauser, who travels around the country meeting with activists as FreedomWorks’ top liaison to the grassroots, said most people he talks to are “definitely trying to stop Romney.”

“I don’t think I’ve met any groups or any local activists that like him or want him to be president,” Steinhauser said. “They just don’t believe he’s authentic. That’s the biggest problem in addition to the health care thing.”

America's Debt

Shame on Them

From The Economist, July 7

IN THREE weeks, if there is no political deal, the American government will go into default. Not, one must pray, on its sovereign debt. But the country will have to stop paying someone: perhaps pensioners, or government suppliers, or soldiers. That would be damaging enough at a time of economic fragility. And the longer such a default went on, the greater the risk of provoking a genuine bond crisis would become.

There is no good economic reason why this should be happening. America’s net indebtedness is a perfectly affordable 65% of GDP, and throughout the past three years of recession and tepid recovery investors have been more than happy to go on lending to the federal government. The current problems, rather, are political. Under America’s elaborate separation of powers, Congress must authorise any extension of the debt ceiling, which now stands at $14.3 trillion. Back in May the government bumped up against that limit, but various accounting dodges have been used to keep funds flowing. It is now reckoned that these wheezes will be exhausted by August 2nd.

The House of Representatives, under Republican control as a result of last November’s mid-term elections, has balked at passing the necessary bill. That is perfectly reasonable: until recently the Republicans had been exercising their clear electoral mandate to hold the government of Barack Obama to account, insisting that they will not permit a higher debt ceiling until agreement is reached on wrenching cuts to public spending. Until they started to play hardball in this way, Mr Obama had been deplorably insouciant about the medium-term picture, repeatedly failing in his budgets and his state-of-the-union speeches to offer any path to a sustainable deficit. Under heavy Republican pressure, he has been forced to rethink.

Now, however, the Republicans are pushing things too far. Talks with the administration ground to a halt last month, despite an offer from the Democrats to cut at least $2 trillion and possibly much more out of the budget over the next ten years. Assuming that the recovery continues, that would be enough to get the deficit back to a prudent level. As The Economist went to press, Mr Obama seemed set to restart the talks.

The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical.

A gamble where you bet your country’s good name

This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note.

Biggest Mistake Made By Prosecution

The piece below was found on the Ob Populus blog. The author provides his background in the bio section.


I am originally from the Philadelphia region, one of eight – as you get to know me, this will explain much.  After attending Pennsylvania State University, I moved to NYC for work and I eventually joined the NYPD, recently retiring from the police department in the rank of police captain. Over twenty years, I saw and learned a lot. While in the NYPD, I attended law school (Brooklyn Law School, class of 1998) and I have been a practicing attorney since graduation, being admitted to practice in NY, NJ & PA.

Most of the nation is up in arms over the Casey Anthony verdict of not guilty in the murder of her two-year old daughter Caylee as all signs point to her as the culprit in the little girl’s death. However, the prosecution overlooked one basic legal concept and their failure to address it insured an acquittal from the very start of the trial; and that is the Corpus Delicti requirement.

Simply put “Corpus Delicti” requires in order for a conviction to be obtained, all essential elements of the crime must be proved. In murder cases, a popular misconception with Corpus Delicti is that a person could not be prosecuted for murder if the body was never found. That is not so as one can be convicted for murder without a body ever being recovered. A case can be made as long as you know how the person died. So if a person is pushed out of a plane at high altitude over the Atlantic Ocean and the body is never recovered, a criminal case can proceed against the murderer. However, if you find a person’s remains and cannot establish the cause of death, one cannot pursue a murder case. This is the elemental mistake made by the prosecution in the Casey Anthony homicide trial as they had theories about her daughter Caylee’s death but no proof as to the actual cause.

The prosecution believed that Caylee was murdered by the use of duct tape and chloroform. There was evidence of Casey Anthony searching for these items and even purchasing them. The prosecution had an excellent theory and in all likelihood was correct in their assertion about Caylee’s death. Yet, their case was bound to unravel because they could not link their theory to the child’s death.

Yes, she was dead but the cause remained a mystery. She could have been murdered as the prosecution suggested or she could have died in a terrible tragic accident as the defense implied. With the burden of proof upon the prosecution (and a high burden at that as the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt) proving Caylee’s death a homicide at the hands of her mother, the jury’s decision although mind-boggling to many was just under the circumstances as the prosecution did not establish the cause of death, an indispensable requirement under Corpus Delicti.

Knowing the fatal weakness in their case, one wonders why the prosecution decided to proceed at this point in time. Homicide cases generally do not have a statute of limitations issue – the time period a case must be brought under – so outside public pressure, there was no glaring need to bring these charges forward. Sometimes time is your best friend.

Casey Anthony was not going anywhere. Besides, the prosecution had ancillary charges to bring against her that would insure she was locked away in prison while they continued to build their homicide case – lying to investigators about her child’s disappearance, charges that she was ultimately convicted on. Those charges could and should have been brought separately against her. With Casey safely housed in prison for misleading investigators, the murder case against her could have been further developed either through the advancement of technology to tie down the manner of death of Caylee or through tried and true police investigatory methods.

One such method is the use of the prison snitch, the person who reports what an inmate tells them in exchange for a reduced sentence. People talk and reveal things that they should not be revealing. Murderers are no different. There is a chance that Casey would have spilled the beans as to what really happened. Now, no matter what is learned about Caylee’s death, her mother cannot be retried as that would violate the Constitution’s provision against Double Jeopardy, being tried twice for the same offense. And, again, the real shame is that there was no compelling need to proceed to trial at this juncture.

There is a legal saying that justice delayed is justice denied. Well, conversely, a rush to judgment can be similarly debilitating. Knowing how Caylee Anthony died was an essential element to the charge of murder against Casey Anthony, the Corpus Delicti. And not knowing how the child died was a fatal flaw to the prosecution’s case.

Which begs the question, why the rush to charge and try an unwinnable case?

Jurors Begin To Talk

Barbarians At The Gate

"Do you think that it (her husband's gay bashing) has the potential to derail her politically?"
Derail her? I think this has the ability to cement the Republican nomination for her. She's perfect: kind of sexy, stupid, bunch of offspring, doesn't understand evolution, creates her own version of American history as she goes, and now she gets to add married to a homophobe to her resume.  I'm sure I probably missed a few things but those mentioned are more than enough to accurately represent her constituents.

On a Scale Of 1 to 3 We Are a 0

Immigration Laws

Prove you're not a Mexican Prairie Dog.

Look - Colorful Pics

Spin it however you wish, it is what it is.


This is a graph of the gap between the "rich" and "everyone else"




The blue line represents the pay of CEO's, The green is corporate profits, and the red is production workers pay


Our real earnings have hardly moved over a fifty year period. This comes from The Bureau of Labor Statistics




Damn socialist Nazi's

Shared Sacrifice

Taxes from 1812 to 1815 that targeted retailers, sugar, carriages, and other items helped fund 40% of the War of 1812. 


The Civil War saw the nation’s first income tax--from the Union in 1862 and then the Confederacy a year later. 


The tax rate for an income of $10,000 with four exemptions (about $140,000 in 2003 dollars) went from 1.2 percent in 1916 to 7.8 percent. For incomes of a million dollars the rate went form 10.3 percent in 1916 to 70.3 in 1918.


World War II incorporated about 35 million previously untaxed citizens into the tax structure.


During Vietnam a 10-percent surtax was added to the federal income tax.


Today, while we have been involved in two wars for many years and engage a third country, it is considered "unpatriotic" to even consider raising taxes.  In fact, the leading Republican plan to address our debt presented by Paul Ryan even lowers taxes.  Why even teach history in school if we aren't going to learn from it?  Why even teach math if we're not going use it? 

This Ain't Your Mom's GOP

David Brooks writes for the New York Times representing conservative views. He has worked for The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, The Weekly Standard, and NPR.  Call him a RINO all you want but his credentials don't back the claim.  Below are some of the highlights of his piece today.


Over the past few years, it  (The Republican Party) has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.


The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms.


The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities.


The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency.


The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. 


Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation.


The struggles of the next few weeks are about what sort of party the G.O.P. is — a normal conservative party or an odd protest movement that has separated itself from normal governance, the normal rules of evidence and the ancient habits of our nation.


If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.

Casey Anthony Verdict

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011560/Casey-Anthony-trial-Not-guilty-verdict.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
The Casey Anthony verdict came down and she was found not guilty of murdering her own child.  She was also found not guilty of child abuse.  She was found guilty on the charges of lying to police officials during the investigation.

I followed the trial fairly closely and I didn't find this verdict surprising.  It seemed the prosecutors made some enormous leaps and asked the jury to make the same leaps while seeking the death penalty against Anthony.  Yet, if they would have found Anthony guilty that wouldn't have been that surprising to me either.  The immediate public reaction was shock.  Within the first few minutes I've seen people respond to the verdict with  "bullshit, unbelievable, shocking, what's going on, stunned."  What I find shocking is our response to this verdict.

We have an incredible justice system in place.  If there is reasonable doubt in the jurors mind then they have no choice but to find the defendant not guilty.  How can we, people that weren't privy to the vast amounts of evidence, know better than the jury?  We want closure and not guilty isn't closure.  We think she got away with it and that bothers us. We've been down this road before with other high profile murder cases where not guilty verdicts were the outcome and we found ourselves shocked in the past.

We have no way of knowing the truth, just like with most things in life. We have set up a system that tries to evaluate all of the evidence and make the best decision possible. When twelve people come to a unanimous decision in a courtroom I'm comfortable with their judgment.  Even if it doesn't resolve this particular case, it ensures our system isn't based on emotion and wishful thinking.  If we are going to punish a person by incarcerating them for the rest of their life or even put them to death then we need to be certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, we are correct.  In this case twelve people all came to the same conclusion, not guilty.  It's hard to celebrate a system that works under such circumstances at the present moment but I implore the people that are stunned to step back and reevaluate why you feel how you feel.  Your emotions are clouding your judgment.  We make this mistake all too often in life.

United - made one

"Then join hand in hand, brave Americans all! By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall." ~ John Dickinson


"In union there is strength." ~Aesop


"In all things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress." Booker T. Washington


"Our success as a nation is not measure by how many years we have governed or how many wars we have won. It is measured by the quality of life which we have created for the society that our ideals were founded upon." ~ Mathew Morgan


"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for the brethren to dwell together in unity." ~ The Bible


"The Constitution in all its provision looks to an indestructible union disposed of indestructible States." ~ Salmon Portland Chase


"We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang separately." ~ Ben Franklin


"Liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable." Daniel Webster


"There are no problems that we cannot solve together, and very few that we can solve by ourselves." Lyndon B. Johnson


"I am stronger because you are stronger. I am weaker if you are weak. So we are more alike than we are unlike."  ~ Maya Angelou


"There can only be one state of mind as you approach any profound test; total concentration, a spirit of togetherness, and strength." ~ Pat Riley

Common Ground

I have a friend that is fairly religious.  Actually, I have many friends that are religious but I was just referring to this one because we are prone to having frequent and lengthy discussions on the topic.  He is not an in your face, jam it down your throat fanatic and he often challenges his other religious friends to think about some of their commonly held notions about God and their specific religious denomination.  He is very knowledgeable about his religion and for that I am appreciative.  Nothing is worse than someone that claims to be something yet knows very little about their self proclaimed identity.  

Since many of my friends, and even the majority of people I encounter in public settings, are religious, and more specifically Christian due to our demographics, I have studied a lot about their belief systems.  For many years of my life I held the exact same views as my friend about the nature of the universe.  I truly believed in the same God as him and shared his faith.  Over the years my take on religion has changed and I no longer share his view.  There was no traumatic moment or disappointment that caused this shift, I just saw the world and the universe differently than I did when I was younger.

I am very appreciative of my friend because he his willing to have honest and meaningful discussions on this topic and doesn't take it as personal challenge when I ask questions about his belief.  I have found this isn't the norm with most people.  We all have heard the old adage that it is taboo to discuss religion and politics and most people adhere to this suggestion.  I have been "unfriended" by many people on Facebook over the years because they hold strong religious views and don't want to hear from someone that isn't just like them.  This is exactly my issue with religion.  It isn't open to honest discussion and it has little desire to take in other views.

There are a lot of things going on in the world and religion is involved in most aspects of our decision making process simply because the majority of people on the planet are religious.  Obviously, politics is usually involved in the process as well. So I find it ironic that it is taboo to discuss the two topics that are responsible for molding the direction we take as an individual, a nation, and even a species.  We have to be able to discuss things of this nature if we have any desire to work together to make this life as good as possible for all on the ride.

Because I do not proclaim to be a Christian many of this faith feel the need to assign a label so they can understand me.  This seems an anomaly as far as labeling goes: I don't believe in astrology, alchemy, or Islam and no one feels the need to label me a nonastrologist, a nonalchemist, or aislamic.  It seems along with this label others believe I claim to know things or am certain about the workings of the universe.  I'll be the first to admit I have no idea how it all works and it is probably stranger than I could ever imagine.  It also seems that people often make the mistake of assuming I don't want to believe in a higher power.  Nothing would make me more happy than to have a higher power that watches over me and reunites me with my loved ones when I no longer exist on this planet.  I think it would be great to ask for things and have my higher power grant my requests.  And beyond my personal and selfish desires I think it would be wonderful to be able to have my higher power heal others that I pray for and cure them from sickness and disease or lighten their heavy load that life sometimes places on their shoulders.  Life is tough at times and it is very comforting to know someone or something is in your corner, feeling alone sucks.  So the fact that I don't share this religious view with my friends has nothing to do with a lack of desire to hold this belief.  And if I truly and sincerely could have my wish granted as to how the universe operates I would choose the God scenario over one without a God.  However, it seems the universe doesn't function according to my wishes.

Simply because others don't share my view of the universe doesn't make me think less of them (not inversely true of their thoughts about me).  And I certainly don't think a person's intelligence is in question simply because they believe in a higher power, contrary to popular belief.  The only time I ever question a person's intelligence or reasoning skills in when they display conduct that makes we wonder how they draw conclusions.  This isn't to say that the conclusion is the thing that gets my attention, it is the process in which one comes to a conclusion that has my interest.  The grounds I find it important to make reasoned, logical decisions is simply based on the fact we all have to live together, get along, and make the world a better place and we have to share some common ground.

While engaging in a very lengthy discussion with this particular friend he claimed, even boasted, to have comprehension of scientific principles.  We were discussing his reasoning skills and I was challenging them.  It was my belief, based on many discussions, that he didn't have as much knowledge in this area as he claimed and many of his conclusions have been based on faulty logic.  And finally after several hours of dialogue my belief was confirmed as he exposed the fact he doesn't even understand basic principles in the area of science.  That one has no knowledge of certain things isn't a major concern of mine.  There are many things that are beyond me and I confess my ignorance.  However, when I take a stand and profess to have great knowledge and understanding on any specific topic I usually do.  The good news is I rarely do this because the ultimate "truth" about anything is hard to know.

The point of this essay isn't to chastise my friend.  He truly is a friend and he challenges my notions about life and makes me sharp.  He brings a different perspective to things and for that I am always grateful.  The deeper message is centered around the lack of common ground we all seem to operate on.  He believes his taxpayer money should be spent on teaching our children "competing" theories in our public education system.  He has wrongly concluded there is a "market place of ideas" and things that are "just" theories should be challenged with other theories.  This is a gross misunderstanding of how science functions.  A theory that has withstood the test of time is greater than any law that has ever been discovered.  Theories encompass laws and provide a working model for us to move forward.  Whether or not a law is discovered doesn't change the fact that it would still be a law.  Gravity happens whether or not you understand the law of gravity and it would still exist if Newton hadn't "discovered" it.  However, why it exists, how it exists, and how it operates is explained in the theory of gravity.  The law simply makes an observation: when I let go of this apple it drops to the ground.  The theory takes this law into account and provides us with an explanation.  A theory won't go on to become a law, they are two different things.  And it is called a theory because science understands that it is nearly impossible to understand the "truth" about our reality.  Theories that have been around a long time are revered in science because they have provided the best working model, the best explanation of how things work, for all of us to move forward.

If one is brazen enough to dismiss a universally accepted theory that is fine, but at least understand what that means.  That means you are going against the smartest minds on the planet that have devoted their entire lives to trying to explain things in the most accurate and concise ways possible.  Because a consensus of scientists believe something certainly doesn't make it true.  One man shattered the consensus about our universe within the last one hundred years by explaining his ideas about time/space.  His theory is still around and we think he is one of the smartest people to ever walk the planet.  However, someone else might come around someday and shatter his theory.  But until that day his explanation is the best we have to go on.  If we fail to use the best working model available we perform a major injustice to our species (and quite possibly all of the other species on this planet).

Science isn't a god to me, it is fallible.  That's the beauty of science.  And there are things I believe in my gut that science has wrong.  I can't help but feel our understanding of time is off.  I've held this notion for the majority of my life.  However, simply because I feel it or believe it doesn't make it so.  And many great minds have provided an amazing working model of time and it is the best we have to offer as far as how it works and effects everything within its fabric.  As I continue to absorb all the information about time available I'm always trying to figure it out more, what it is, what it means to me and everything else.  I even question whether or not it's real.  As science has introduced the idea of many more dimensions I feel strengthened in my belief that we are missing something about time or are measuring it incorrectly.  And even though science has created devices that can track time for a billion years with incredible accuracy, eventually the devices still fail to measure time precisely.  This only leads me to believe even more that we don't have it right as far as time goes.  Yet, these are just my beliefs.  Should we teach them to our children?  Absolutely not.  We should teach them the best explanation possible at the moment.  That explanation is nowhere near my explanation (even though mine isn't really an explanation, more of a doubt about our understanding).  If something in the future comes along that changes what we know of time then we should teach that.  However, this doesn't diminish the fact that our current understanding (working model) is less valuable to us.  If something better comes along it will certainly have benefited from our current understanding.  And  how could something better come along if we weren't using the best working model available to us at all times?

I don't suggest people challenge their belief system simply for fun.  I suggest we do so because of the stakes involved.  What we pass on to our children is the only true measure of our greatness.  If we pass on the lesser of two (or four or twelve) ideas we are performing a major injustice to the universe, let alone our offspring.  No doubt there is a "market place" of ideas but there is almost always only one that is accepted as the best.  The acceptance isn't based on personal want, or wishful thinking, or it sounds cool, it is accepted as the best because it is the best way to explain things, even if it's only temporary.  If one chooses not to accept the consensus working model of any given topic then one must certainly expect to be challenged.  This challenge isn't about the great knowledge someone else has and a feeling of being threatened, it is about the audacity of the one who professes a better understanding than the one most accepted.  It's not even about right and wrong per se because these things seem unknowable most of the time, if not all.  We have to have common ground.  And what better place to find common ground than agreeing to use the best explanations of things available at the current moment.  One is still free to have doubts about the explanation, I have my doubts about many things.  But one shouldn't have the right to impose their beliefs on others by teaching it in our schools and retarding the growing brain of a young child simply because of their particular stance.  We have to agree on these most basic of ideas.  Yet, this is where we seem to disagree the most.