Easter Fun

One of the more difficult tests I've ever taken occurred when I was seeking entry into the police academy. Coincidentally it was the day of my college graduation ceremony and I chose not to attend so I could take the exam for the police academy. There were many different parts to the process but one particular section was very challenging to me. It wasn't impossible and obviously a ton of people pass it, but I was surprised to find such a quiz for a profession in law enforcement.

Anyway, because I enjoy trivia type stuff I decided to create my own and share it with you. The instructions are easy: fill in the blanks. You must fill in every blank space; for example, if the sentence looked like this, "My favorite NFL football team is the _ _ _ _ _ _ Cowboys", then the answer would be Dallas. It's not correct simply because the word chosen by you is contextually accurate, it must also be the right amount of letters.

The topic for your quiz is Easter facts. Enjoy. Oh, and don't spoil it for others by giving away the answers.

********************************************************************************

1. The term Easter _ _ _ _  its source from Eastre, _ _ _  Anglo-Saxon goddess which represents hare as well as egg.
2. Easter _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  occurs somewhere between March twenty two and April twenty-five.
3. Pysanka _ _ _  be a special expression used for the _ _ _ _ _ _ _  for Easter egg decorating.
4. During the quite _ _ _ _ _  times, eggs have been _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  as a very important symbol associated with rebirth.
5. The first containers of Easter _ _ _ the look of bird's nests.
6. The chocolate eggs formulas have been _ _ _ _ _ _ _  in Europe _ _ _ _ _ _  the 19th century.
7. _ _ _ _  and every year witnesses the creation almost ninety million delicious _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  bunnies.
8. Close to Halloween _ _ _ _ _ , Easter time holiday paves opportunity for confectionery companies to thrive.
9. On the subject of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  chocolate bunnies, it will be the _ _ _ _  which are chosen to get eaten very first by as much as 76% of people.
10. Within the brochure regarding children's _ _ _ _ _ _ _  Easter food stuff, Pink jellybeans _ _ _ _  up top rated placement.

Easter was _ _ _ _ _  to take the place of the pagan Feast for Ishtar, the fertility goddess, which took _ _ _ _ _  during the time of the Springtime Equinox. That _ _  just how Easter time took its title and also the _ _ _ _ _ _  why dyed eggs and rabbits, emblems of love and fertility, came into existence. _ _ _ _ _ _ _  of the pagan traditions repulsive to God have been a _ _ _ _  of the Feast of Ishtar.

As soon as Christianity had _ _ _ _ _ _  the acknowledged faith in the Roman Empire they just exchanged this pagan celebration with Christian _ _ _ , retaining several of the pagan customs. (The Romans performed exactly the same thing with Christmas that was the Feast of Saturnalia.)

The actual time of Passover is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  accomplished through counting off fourteen days and nights right after the 1st day of Nisan, a 1st month in _ _ _  Jewish calendar. The Months happen to be structured upon stages of the moon, every single month _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  along with the crescent moon.

Goose and Gander

The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments against the health care law that was passed by the Obama administration. The right wing labeled it Obamacare from the get go and every candidate running for President in the GOP primary has vowed to repeal the law the first day they win the presidency. The main crux in the law for the "conservatives" is the individual mandate.

Back in the early 90's President Bill Clinton was taking on the issue of health care. One of the big issues the Republicans didn't like about Clinton's health care ideas was the fact he wanted employers to pay for their employees health care. They objected to this idea and actually came up with their own plan.

Bill Clinton introduced the Consumer Choice Health Security Act (SB 1743) on November 20, 1993. Here is the main portion of the bill:
"Subtitle C: Employer Provisions - Requires employers to: (1) withhold health insurance premiums from employee wages and remit such premiums to the employee's chosen insurer; and (2) notify employees of their right to claim an advance refundable tax credit for such premiums."

Three days later the Republicans countered and introduced a bill by Senator John Chafee and Senator Chuck Grassley. It was called Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act (SB 1770). Here is the main portion of the bill:
"Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005. Provides an exception for any individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including those who rely on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone."

Here are what some of the Republican congressman had to say about the individual mandate, a better alternative to the Democratic plan of having employers pay the premium, back in the early 90's.

"I and the majority of Republicans...strongly believe the route to go with is an individual mandate." ~ Bill sponsor, Senator John Chafee (R)

"Well, we have an individual mandate in our plan. We have an individual mandate as opposed to the employer mandate." ~ Senator Bob Dole (R)

"Well, there's a big difference. What we do, the plan that I'm looking at and really going to be pushing, we do have an individual mandate. We do say everybody in America has to provide insurance for themselves." ~ Senator Don Nickles (R)

At the Atlantic Information Services Inc. Conference a reporter asked: "You have an individual mandate where all persons would have the responsibility to coverage? Is that correct?"
"That's correct." ~ Senator Kit Bond (R)

"I believe there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates." ~ Co-sponsor of the Republican bill, Senator Rick Grassley (R)

This behavior, beyond being hypocritical, is down right dangerous. We have peoples lives at stake and these guys, and the people that chant their rhetoric without one ounce of thought, play games. They understand their constituents are so ignorant and only filled with hate and fear that they can lie to them and completely do a one hundred and eighty degree spin on their position and no one will know any better.

At what point is it no longer a game? When someone you know dies? At what point do we demand reason and logic and honesty and integrity when addressing our nation's problems? If we allow these politicians to act this way, to get away with lying and changing their stance simply because the "other" guy is in charge, then we are to blame, not them.

Gaseous Product of Burning Materials and Smooth Surfaces That Form Images by Reflection

There are things that happen in life that leave me completely bewildered from time to time. The buzz behind the Trayvon Martin death has me puzzled at so many levels.

If you really haven't heard of the Martin incident then you must live in a box. Maybe Martin doesn't sound familiar. George Zimmerman ring a bell? Zimmerman was a Florida man that shot and killed a seventeen year old boy last month and claimed it was self defense. The police department responded and came to the conclusion there was no evidence to go against Zimmerman's claim and he walked away a free man. I'm really going on the basis most people have knowledge of the details of this case moving forward so if you don't I recommend Googling it and getting up to speed.

The discussions that are taking place surrounding this sad event are completely mind boggling to me. The first thing I read on Facebook about the incident was a post that was fascinated with the race issue of the story. One person insisted race couldn't be a factor because Zimmerman is Mexican and not white. I'm not trying to sound to cliche-ish but what the fuck? There is absolutely no sound reasoning in that argument at all. I've listened to many of the 911 calls and it seems to me (and many others I might add) that Zimmerman says "fucking coons". I don't care what race Zimmerman happens to be, if he went after another person because of the other person's race that's what makes it racially motivated. The race of the person committing the assault is a non factor. Even if Zimmerman were black it would still be racially motivated if he was motivated because he didn't like "coons". The absurdity of this argument is embarrassing to intelligence.

Secondly, this entire ordeal has spawned an attack against the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida which seems to be "lighter" on the self defense claim. This perplexes me. The law, in essence, makes it legal for people to claim self defense without first trying to flee from the danger. Over 60% of our States have some form of Stand Your Ground already. The courts, for many decades, have been distancing themselves from the idea that one must retreat prior to defending himself. The precedent of retreating began before the public started carrying guns. Over time most people have gravitated toward the thinking that it seems reasonable to defend your life whenever you feel it is threatened without check offs (running away) being mandated.

Critics of this law label it a "shoot first ask questions later law". That's like calling the insanity defense the "eat twinkies ask questions later law". If I went out and hunted a seventeen year old boy and shot him and then claimed insanity would you be worried I would go unpunished? The insanity defense almost never works, even when the person is actually crazy. Who cares what the defense tactic is called? But that's exactly what we're focused on, the self defense law. Eating a box Twinkies and claiming I went crazy doesn't mean the insanity defense will work for me. Just like if I instigated a confrontation and then shot the other person and claimed self defense. Why would my defense matter? What matters is the facts of the case. What I say I did isn't really evidence. If I say I defended myself that's not a fact. I could say I didn't rob a bank, that doesn't mean it's true. If a bank got robbed and there are things that show I did rob it, me saying I didn't doesn't matter at all. That Zimmerman claims self defense and then we focus on the Stand Your Ground law is absurd.

The most maddening thing of all is what we fail to actually focus on: how we make sure to execute justice. There are many definitions of justice but I think the word "fairness" seems adequate for this essay. We, society, hold the idea of fairness in high regard. We've made it a fundamental right that everyone receives this fairness in many facets of life, and even death. We give authority to government agencies to make sure everyone is playing by the fairness rule. We just assume the agency granted this tremendous power operates using the fairness guidelines as their own standard for carrying out their various procedures and investigations.

I was a deputy for eight years. I patrolled the streets and responded to numerous and various calls for service. I was dispatched to shootings, stabbings, cut them up in pieces and put them in the trash can calls. I'm not knocking Tulare County at all when I talk about our rank among the other state law enforcement agencies. We were one of the poorest counties in California. We struggled to hire quality deputies simply because we were broke and couldn't afford it. We had dead air spots in the county where I would be dispatched to a call and know I couldn't communicate with any of my back up (radio towers are really expensive and Alpaugh isn't that important). Again, I'm not setting this up to rip on my former employer. I'm mentioning this to demonstrate we weren't solving crimes CSI fashion. We were a bunch of hicks that just tried to put all the pieces together and make the best decision based on the law.

I mention my former job so I could tell you from experience I just can't imagine a scenario where I (or any of my partners) respond to the Zimmerman call and he walks away free. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming he is guilty. I'm simply saying I can't comprehend how I could respond to a call where a seventeen year old kid, weaponless, lay dead on the ground and I decide he was the perpetrator and tell the guy that shot him, "have a good evening". I (most likely detectives would take the case over) would listen to the 911 calls. I would interview witnesses. I would take a blood sample from both people. The Sanford Police took a sample from only the kid that was shot. That's just wrong. There is no way this decision to let Zimmerman go free would rest in my hands, it's simply inconceivable that would be the case. It would surely go up the chain of command. I would be derelict in my duties and my commanding officer and his commanding officer would be negligent and liable if they didn't pass this on. They certainly know there are ramifications to follow from letting this man walk away free and they don't want to be the one to "make the call" if they don't have to. That's why they pass it up the line.

A month later Zimmerman is still free and Martin is still dead. The Chief of Police for Sanford "temporarily" and "voluntarily" stepped aside today. After a month of the story gaining traction on the internet the national media (that really liberal group that constantly searches for things to show the evils of conservative thinking and publicly ridicule their positions) finally picked up coverage of Martin's death. It's mind numbing how we aren't outraged at how the system has failed us.

I challenge you to perform one simple task. Truly try to become a blank slate for a brief moment. Imagine you have no position on guns, self defense, political party, you're just blank and all of those ideas are foreign to you. Take a moment, get to that point. Now just take what we know in this case and examine it at its most basic of levels. A boy was approached by a man with a gun and was shot and killed. That happened. That's not disputed. Now imagine what it would take to convince you that man shouldn't be in jail. Did you answer "if the man said he feared for his life so he shot the kid"? Truly, would that be enough for you? Would you demand the man's background be looked into? Would you demand the man's blood be taken to be tested for drugs or alcohol? Would you want to know if the man was diagnosed as mentally unstable in the past? Would you want to know what everyone in the neighborhood had to say about it? Wouldn't it take an amazing amount of evidence for you to let that man go free? Seriously, an adult man that confronts one of our youth and shoots him. Wouldn't you have to have an incredibly bizarre circumstance to excuse this man's conduct?

When the people that have the duty to perform these tasks fail to do so then we're all in trouble. Trayvon Martin getting killed is terribly sad, I mean that sincerely. I absolutely feel for his parents whenever I see them. I grieve for them and couldn't imagine what a hell they are living through. But people get shot and killed all of the time and it's not a national story. So when this actually becomes a national story and then we squander away the chance to examine our system, our beliefs, our ideas about how we should coexist, only to gravitate toward our side, our camp, our right all of the time company, then I can't help but wonder why I see things so differently.

Senator, You're No Jack Handy

Conversations In My Head


"Where are my keys? Where would I have put them? I only put them in a couple of places and they're not there. When was the last time I had them? Did I lock my truck with them? Did I leave them in my truck? Did I turn my truck off? Dude, you're freaking out. You have never left your truck on accidentally. You're right, but where are my keys? They have to be in my truck. Why would they be in my truck? I don't know but I at least have to go check to make sure. They're in your hand. Hah! They are in my hand. That's funny shit. Weren't they in your hand the last time you went through this? Yes. Then why don't you start by looking in your hand? Well, when I get the feeling that I can't find my keys I suppose some internal mechanism just assumes I've already ruled out my keys are in my hand. You should check your hand first next time."

***

"Switch it to channel two and see what song is on. It's One by Metallica. I really like this song. Switch it over to channel four and see if there's a better song on. I really like this song. I think I'm in the mood to hear it. It's coming up to my favorite part ... Landmine has taken my sight, taken my speech, taking my hearing ... Yeah, but just switch over really quick and see if it's a better song, if it's not just switch back. Ok, I switched and it was a commercial, happy? Switch to five. I just switched and it was a commercial. I really like this song and I'm going to listen to it. Common, just switch to five real quick. Oh, it's the Pina Colada song. It's actually called Escape and it's by Rupert Holmes. No one ever knows the name of that song and they've never even heard of Rupert Holmes. I always share this information with anyone standing near when this song comes on. It makes me feel smart. Leave it on this channel and let's listen to this song. I really think I like One better than Escape so I'm leaning toward switching back. Yeah, but you hear One more often than the Pina Colada song so you should stay on this channel and just listen to it. I think I'm going to switch back and at least listen to the good part of the song ... Taken my arms, taken my legs, taken my soul ... Ok, do that and then switch back to the Pina Colada song when that part is over. Sounds good, I'll do that. Real quick, before you do that switch to six. No way. Just do it. It's TOOL. Good call. Damn, I missed almost all of this song."

***

"You need to find an atm and get some cash. There's one over there. I don't like that one. Why not? It's hard to reach, I have to open my door to get to it. Just go over there and use it to save time. See how I have to open my door? This is bullshit. Do they not test for stuff like this when installing these things? Four dollar transaction fee! Fuck that. No way. Two bucks is fucking nuts but I'm used to it. Four bucks is ridiculous. I can't pay four bucks. Fuck them. If you don't make a stand now then this shit will never stop. Cancel this transaction. Flip off the camera. Keep on keepin' on."

***

"Man I'm tired. I'm almost asleep. Don't think anymore thoughts. That was the last thought to go through your head. Shut it down. Sleep. (LOUD, HUGE, BANGING, BLAST SOUND) What the fuck was that? I don't know, did you imagine it? Imagine a huge bang noise that jarred me out of the early stages of sleep? Yeah, did you imagine it? I don't think so. Well then what was it? I don't know. Well what could have made that noise? A huge piece of metal falling on top of an aluminum surface. Maybe a very large firecracker. Exactly, none of that just happened. You imagined it. I imagined a noise. Yeah, I think so. Kind of like when you're just falling asleep and your body does that jerky move like your chair tilted back too far and it wakes you up. Yeah, but everyone does that, not everyone wakes themselves up with imaginary noises. Deal with it."

***

"What did that guy just say? I don't know, I didn't catch that last part. Rewind it. Life doesn't have TiVo dude. Oh yeah, I forgot."

***

"How in the world could that kid want to wear his pants like that? I know it's in fashion and it makes him cool and it makes him fit in. But, seriously, how could he wear them like that? Well, you're paranoid about your crack showing so that's probably why you feel like that. That has nothing to do with it. I think it does, it's your shadow talking to you. You hate thinking about the idea of your ass crack showing so you despise the fact these kids wear their pants below their ass. Totally not it at all. Then what is it? It's the fact their pants are drooping below their ass, they have to hold them up with one of their hands when they're walking around. How in the world could they want to do that? Shadow, dude."

I Wonder, Did I Blunder?

Super Tuesday is nearly upon us and it would seem that things should be fairly clear as to who will win the GOP nomination to challenge Obama in November once this event takes place. There are really only two possibilities, at least in my mind, about how we will view the results come Wednesday morning. More than likely (and I'll be the first to admit this cycle is very nontraditional and hard to predict at the micro level, not so much at the macro level) Romney will continue to do what he has done, rack up the majority of the delegates. This Tuesday a huge amount of delegates are at stake, way more than any event thus far. That's what makes it Super. Santorum will have to perform amazingly well to make any of us feel like he really has a chance to beat Romney. I'm not ruling it out, just saying it doesn't seem like he can realistically do what he needs to do to change the mathematics of it all. If Santorum manages to pull it off then things will be more clear, we would know we seriously have ourselves a two man race, something we've longed for all along but something that never really materialized. However, if Santorum doesn't make these huge gains after Tuesday then most people will be able to accept Romney as the inevitable candidate at that point. There will be dissenters, there have been all along, but it won't matter as much.

Seems like a good time to go over some of the biggest strategery errors in the Republican race.

The first mistake was made by Tim Pawlenty and his team. They played by the old, proverbial "book" and this wasn't the year to do that. They completed in Iowa, didn't do well, and bowed out way too early. He certainly would have gotten his fifteen minutes of fame if he would have just hung around, everyone else did. It seems apparent there is a large chunk of the Republican party, in fact the majority of them, that really don't want Romney. However, they honestly weren't given any alternative. Maybe he would have faded just like the rest, it's very possible, but he definitely got out of the race too early. Blunder number one of the race for me.

A lot went on as far as jockeying for the positions, excluding Romney at number one, for several months. However, there were no huge blunders that affected the course of the race. Naturally, the field dwindled but that's just how it has to go. It's crazy it is still four large at this point in the game. But once it started to narrow the race heated up to try to be the "not Romney" guy. The first real guy to emerge, after everyone's fifteen minutes faded, was Newt. It seemed Romney had won the first two contests and was on a roll. Then Newt stepped up in South Carolina and said, "I'm you're man", to a large group that wants to vote for someone they believe might be able to beat Obama but not be Mitt Romney.

It was always a long shot for Gingrich to really pull it off but it is undeniable he got himself in a position to control his own destiny. That's considered an achievement in my book. Newt's inevitable mistake was his ego. He believed people were flocking to him because of some "fundamental" message he was delivering. That's just not the reality of it. Simply using the principles of Occam's Razor, it would seem more likely it was just good timing for Newt when his opportunity surfaced. Just prior to the South Carolina primary, a Southern state that favors Gingrich, Iowa told us Santorum actually won their earlier contest. Gingrich probably wins South Carolina without this news, but it really makes it easier to rally people to come out and support his non Romney campaign.

Then the ego just took over. He believed we were at a place in time where his voting base was looking for "grand" ideas and "deep thinking" people with knowledge of history and ties to Ronald Reagan. He was so wrong. They just wanted him to not say dumb things that would make them believe he could possibly defeat our current President. They liked that he was bucking the system by not running attack ads. They liked that he was "smarter" than Obama. Then he started changing their minds. He railed on Romney for running negative ads and then did just that when he got his hands on some money. He had a moment, where he was in the lead, where he had serious financial backing, where he had momentum, and he employed the wrong tactic. He took that moment and did nothing with it, in fact his planned worked against him and he lost Florida, the next contest, convincingly. He's never been a serious contender since. And if he sincerely wanted someone to beat Romney, someone that is closer to his views and way of approaching the world, then he should have bowed out and let his supporters gravitate toward Santorum. Again, his ego prevents all of this.

Next, chronologically, comes Romney. For quite some time I have said how impressed I was with his campaign team. They have handled the grueling process pretty well. If this were any other "ordinary" election cycle they would have had this thing wrapped up months ago. It's not their fault it isn't and they've done remarkably well adapting to a very tumultuous race and always been at, or very very near, the top. And more than likely come Wednesday morning they will finally sow some seeds of their disciplined and lengthy harvest. At some point the numbers will actually mean something (this is the Republican primary, they think college is for snobs, deny climate change, vote to take away their own entitlements they use more than anyone else in the country, think the federal government should control states water rights, and creationism should be taught equally with evolution) even to this bunch.

Having given Romney and his team that praise, I still find fault in his inability to seem normal. This certainly isn't the first time we've seen this: Gore, Kerry, McCain to name some recent ones. At some point the weight of the entire ordeal, the pressure from all angles, the advice about what and what not to say coming in twenty four hours a day, seven days a week changes these people, it must. W. Bush and Clinton were performers, people liked them when they were around them. They charmed people. They had the ability to seem like they were cool dudes we could hang out and have a beer with. In reality we aren't anything like these guys. They both were governors. One owned a major league baseball team. These guys were rich and don't lead the lives we do. But it seemed like they could relate, even if it was just an act. Romney doesn't have this talent so perhaps I'm being too hard when I label it a mistake.

The reality of the situation is Mitt Romney is very rich. He has always enjoyed money and we can't envision him ever worrying about paying the bills a day in his life. He has photos of him and a bunch of guys all wearing suits with money draped from him, coming out of his pockets, his belt line, pockets in his suit. I don't know one of my friends or family that have ever taken a picture like this. Most people don't. The problem Romney makes is he is trying too hard to seem like one of the guys and we know he isn't. Just give it up. You can't talk about the size of trees and the color of grass to convince us you're one of us, it's kind of insulting at some point. So this quality isn't on your resume, deal with it. There are a lot of things I'm sure you're good at, there are a lot things on the table that are legitimate issues you could address, there is an amazing climate for the incumbent to lose, yet you have spent months trying to seem down to Earth. Who cares at this point? People have made up their minds about your richness, Mitt. They only hold it against you when you try so hard to convince them you're not rich and you're just like them. If this wasn't even an issue anymore, it should have been dealt with months ago, then things like saying, "I'm not a big fan of NASCAR but I do have friends that own teams," wouldn't be viewed as negative.

Why didn't his team just say to him, "Look, we tried to convince them you're one of them but they just don't believe it. So now we just let you be you. You do have money. You have been successful at many things. You have a good family. You have been a successful governor. Just be who you are." This would have been settled months ago with some good advice. Then when he makes that exact same comment amount having friends that own NASCAR teams it could actually work for him, people like rich people if they're cool. Knowing people that own NASCAR teams is pretty cool to most people. Instead, because he and his team insist on playing this no win game of trying to be "normal", these comments work against them. I genuinely think Romney's campaign shot callers have been impressive over the long haul, they are disciplined and don't make unnecessary mistakes for the most part. That's why this long continual mistake about trying to fit this square peg into a round hole theater is puzzling, it's just out of character for this group that rarely makes blunders.

Doesn't the above picture explain a lot?

The next huge gaffe to occur during the GOP primary race belongs to Rick Santorum. As I mentioned earlier about Gingrich, obtaining a position of controlling your own destiny is a worthy feat. Santorum achieved this pinnacle. It is hard to deny that Rick had everything going his way and had picked up huge momentum at a very crucial time. He managed to win three primary contests in one night when no one saw it coming. If Santorum would have actually sustained his position at the top after winning this surprise trifecta then I certainly would have called that moment, the moment where Romney's team got a little sloppy and didn't invest enough time and money to at least win one of those primaries on that night, the most critical and costly mistake made by anyone during the cycle. However, it appears Romney overcame that setback and managed to get the train back on the rails. Not because of anything he did, but mostly because of what Rick Santorum decided to do.

Instead of just assuring the 40 to 50 percent of the Republican primary voters that want to vote for someone that can beat Obama and not be named Mitt, Rick decided to make social issues his top stumping priority and it, most likely, lead to his demise. Santorum had a legitimate chance to win Michigan (Romney's "real" home state - that it's described that way in the media is absolutely hilarious - a guy that can't shake the deserved label of a flip flopper has five home states and Michigan is the "real" one - that says it all). I can't say for certain that would have been a death blow to Romney's hopes but it would have been damaging and would have catapulted Rick going into Super Tuesday. It would have given him a real possibility to cut into Romney's delegate lead.

However, Santorum decided he would double down and try to get "more" Tea Party backing. The guy is pretty much an ideal candidate for the Tea Party and he doesn't need to prove it any further. But he thought he did, obviously. Instead of talking about relevant issues when he arrived on the national scene, leading most reputable polls, he opted to talk about issues that were important forty years ago. He didn't choose to boast of hope and a brighter future, he preached doom and literally said America would lose its "essence" if Obama were to be reelected. He said in a nationally televised debate in 2012, while he was the favorite to win the nomination, sex should only occur for the purposes of procreation. Just like Newt, Rick only needed to not freak out. In the end the scorpion is just a scorpion.

I don't really think Dr. Paul ever had a chance of winning the nomination but with a different strategy it might have been different. Paul's current strategy is the gather up all the "unbound" votes and show up at the convention and have David Copperfield announce him as the magical winner of the Republican race. If I were on the Paul campaign squad I would have offered a dissimilar tactic. Paul's biggest Achilles with the "conservatives" is his foreign policy approach. The other three grapefruits want to bomb Iran and Paul is the banana of the bunch. He believes we should disengage in our occupancy approach and shut down military bases all around the globe, bringing our troops home and saving us trillions of dollars. Ironically, this message resonates with the soldiers and young people. But it is sacrilege to make such comments and win a Republican primary.

This is where I would have advised Paul to not make those remarks at the debates. I would have told him to say he would bomb Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan all at the same time. And while everyone was looking at the mushroom cloud hovering over the Middle East we would bomb North Korea. Lastly we would infiltrate Kenya and expose the secret plan to take over America. Then I would have Paul wink at the camera (the secret code to the troops and youth that he is just saying what the "base" wants to hear to win and he really has no intention of upholding any of his promises, like the other candidates do) and smile.

Lastly, I would like to point toward the moderates in the Republican Party for their mistake in this election: apathy. They have allowed their party to be hijacked by an extreme fringe. Romney will more than likely prevail (nothing is certain in this race) and the apathetic will believe "it all worked out". Not the case. That apathy wounded their candidate. Not because tough primaries harm a contenders chances, Obama is very recent proof they don't, but because they never rallied around "their guy". They left him out there hanging and he was forced to try to break through his ceiling and gain more support. Instead of picking up those numbers from independents and moderates he finally had to try to steal them from the far right. The Tea Party crowd is anything but apathetic. They are energized, motivated by fear. They are active, motivated by incompetence. They are demanding, motivated by misinformation. To allow them to continue to guide this vessel is reckless, irresponsible, and lazy.

Tomorrow is a huge day is you have an interest in politics. It's very similar, ironically, to the beginning of the NASCAR season. Super Tuesday is The Daytona 500 of races. There are many more to follow but this one is special, it's huge, it's super. The winner wins more in this collective contest than in any other. The race will shift gears after tomorrow and the crew that made the best pits, the most timely passes, and ran the best line will prevail.

Know When To Hold'em

Most people are familiar with the term "bluff" when it comes to poker. However, what most people don't understand is the nuance of stealing a pot when you don't have the cards worthy of getting paid. A true bluff, one performed by a professional, is a lot more complicated than simply betting big and trying to scare the opponent.

Stealing the pot isn't just a one time bet that happens right before the other player folds. Almost always there were several moves that transpired earlier that allowed the bluff to be successful. Another key component for any savvy player that tries to pull one off is the understanding that the other player understands the game. You can't bluff someone that doesn't know how to play, they don't do what they're supposed to do and their play is unpredictable. But when you know your opponent understands the game and plays according to the best strategy available then it becomes easier to pull off a bluff.

In the end, you're really just playing the odds and assuming the other player understands the odds and will fold their hand based on the probability that they can't win, whether they really can or not. The bluffer puts the pressure on the other player and makes them make the hard decision. In the end it really isn't a bluff at all, it's simply playing the game. Imagine I'm dealt pocket aces and raise before the flop. I get one other player that calls my bet and the hands proceeds. The flop comes and there are three low to medium cards and two of them are the same suit. I bet big and the other player thinks for a while and then finally makes the call. The next card comes and it's the third card of the same suit. I don't like it because at this point I just have a high pair and could be beat by several hands and can't even draw out against other hands like a flush. I bet and get raised immediately by the other player. Who knows what the other player has at this point, but they're putting the pressure on me and that's what matters. They've made it look and feel like I am losing, whether or not I truly am. If I decide to fold and the other player couldn't beat my hand then I was bluffed.

Prior to exiting the race Governor Rick Perry claimed President Obama was waging a war on religion. Today three of the candidates running for President all claimed Obama was waging a war on religion and some even specifically stated he was targeting the Catholic Church.

Mitt Romney promised to "reverse every single Obama regulation that attacks our religious liberty" if he is elected President.

"What's left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we're a long way from that, but if we do and follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road." This statement was made by Rick Santorum just yesterday.

Today Newt Gingrich decried President Obama wants to "declare war on the Catholic Church after his reelection." 


This move has been set up long ago. Immediately upon winning office the right wing began attacking the credibility of Obama's faith. They challenged it so much they convinced people he wasn't even born in this country. It doesn't matter if they have the best cards, they're putting the pressure back on Obama and placing him in a difficult situation. It should be no surprise this is the tactic they're employing at this moment because they have been playing this hand all along, waiting for the moment to push their chips in and enact the "bluff". 


The right wing is no longer worried about issues, they simply have convinced their base we've "lost" our country and the guy in charge is the worst thing on the planet since Hitler. They continue to lie to their base every time they talk about anything. They've accused Obama of shrinking our military, creating more government jobs and shrinking private jobs, and now, since it doesn't matter if what they say is true or not, they have gone all in on Obama's war on religion.  They want to paint him as a bad guy and by aligning him against faith there is no better way to anger this crowd. 


Pretty genius really, despite the lack of moral integrity. They launch an attack in an area that is taboo to discuss, religion. They get to strike at people's emotions and don't have to make sense. They can lie and lie and say all the key words that incite the rebels to fly their Confederate flags and it doesn't matter what the facts are. To this point the turnout for the GOP primaries has been very low (except in one state) and it appears the conservatives just aren't excited about their candidates. Along comes this ace up their sleeve, the war on religion. 


Just like the guy that called my pocket aces all along, knowing he would make a play at the pot when the opportunity arose, the right wing has been setting this move up for three years. And shame on Obama for making a gaffe with the contraception mandate allowing this to unfold. Now it will go on and fuel a base that wasn't that fired up. What will be interesting to watch unfold is how the left deals with it. Will they "respect" the faith of others and ignore this issue, the politically correct way to handle it, or will they try to take over a hand they've been outplayed on all along? I suspect they will sit with their head in the sand, much like they always do when it comes to this subject of religion. They will play by the rules of the fringe right, not counter attacking outrageous claims of "war" and "overt hostility" because that would look bad if they engaged on such a topic. 


This is why this subject is too important to never address. I'm not suggesting we need to hold debates on the existence of God or not, I'm simply stating we have to be able to honestly discuss the role of religion when it comes to politics. We allow people to claim this is a "Christian nation" despite the fact our Founding Fathers did every thing in their powers to make sure we couldn't be labeled like this at all. We allow people to soap box the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance and claim our country has lost its moral standing because of a court case that didn't change anything many years ago. We allow people to claim the President of the United States is waging a war against religion and we can't call the bluff.


In the end the right is simply playing a game. And they're playing it well if we just judge the end and not the means. They are winning a hand they have no business winning, they have the worst cards. While one player has integrity and respect for faith and should be the winner, the reality is the player with no fear of pushing in all their chips, even when they have the worst cards, is taking down this hand. The right has out maneuvered the left on this hand and they've been setting it up for quite some time. And as long as the left is predictable and the right understands how they will respond when under pressure they will continue to lose.

Extra! Extra!

Republican Presidential Hopefuls Boycott Superbowl

by

Barry Blue

This Sunday Super Bowl XLVI (that's 46 for those of you that believe in English only numbers) takes place in Indiana. Yesterday Indiana became the 23rd state to pass "right to work" legislation, essentially an act of busting up labor unions. Governor Daniels stated it was important to pass such legislation in order to bring jobs to the state.

In late July of last year the NFL ended its lockout by coming to terms with its players. One of those terms was the players reestablish their players union that had been decertified when the lockout began in March of 2011. To be clear, the term was issued by the owners; they demanded the 1,900 players in the league vote to put their union back in place. Ironically, two of the most active owners in helping end the labor dispute will be facing off in the Super Bowl this weekend: Robert Kraft of the Patriots and John Mara of the Giants. 

Kraft receiving a hug from Jeff Saturday while accompanied by Players Association Chief DeMaurice Smith (the black guy, of course)

The Indiana primary doesn't take place until May 8th, Puerto Rico's primary takes place earlier, but the Republican Presidential field wants to make sure (Indianans? Indians? Indianapolitans?) Hoosiers know how they feel about unions. Here are what some of the candidates had to say about the most watched event in the history of the world taking place this Sunday:

Newt Gingrich, while holding a press conference at the Bunny Ranch, stated, "The NFL stands for Nazi Fascists Liberals. We are at war with any group that succeeds by allowing revenue sharing and supports unions. Totally unpatriotic and right after I'm elected, but before I attend any 'I control the world balls', I will repeal the NFL and everything it stands for."

Mitt Romney assured voters he thought it was alright for the league to make whatever rules they wanted to make, and if he were the Commissioner of the NFL he would have unions and revenue sharing, but if he were President of the United States he wouldn't think that would be a good policy for the federal government. When asked what he would doing during the Super Bowl airing Romney added, "This Saturday afternoon my wife of 42 years and our five children will be hunting squirrel and singing America The Beautiful until the game is completed." 

Santorum stated, "Besides the socialist regime of the NFL, the deeper problem is the moral decline witnessed in the locker room. Grown men walking around in jock straps, patting each other on the ass, rubbing up against each other, smiling, having a good time, bodies all sweaty and buffed out, it's disgusting. No wonder homos think they can marry each other. When I am President I will do the conservative thing and the Christian thing and make a Constitutional Amendment outlawing such pornography on television." When asked if he would participate in the boycott like the other candidates he quipped, "I'll probably just watch it for the commercials but I swear to God I will close my eyes when they show the guys in the locker room, half naked, with their dongs dangling down low to the ground, jumping on one another in total excitement."

Paul's camp released a statement on the wire that read, "What's good for the goose is good for the barber and mama always liked spinach pie. Go Tallahassee." 

When asked about the fact the Super Bowl will generate $3.5 million a minute in television ads, lead to the purchase of 1.25 billion wings and 71 million avocados, bring thousands of people to the area increasing revenue by the millions to the city, the candidates each had this to say:

Newt said, "That's just a nonsense question and totally lame stream media at it's finest. This is our last chance to save the world. If Romney wins then Obama will be President again and the world will be taken over by the Europeans. People will get their medical bills paid for, enjoy eight weeks of vacation a year, and move their foreign grandmothers into our churches. China owns the moon and Russia has a base on Nibiru. This is your last chance to save the world, vote for me or live a miserable existence. Reagan, Reagan, Reagan, Reagan. Nancy Reagan loves me."

Romney said, "Those numbers, the ones where all the records are set this year, the ones where more people spend more money than ever before, the ones where more people make money at any other time in the history of the Super Bowl, just show how bad Obama really is. Our navy would be bigger if he cared more about freedom than avocados. Ten million people wouldn't be losing their job each day like they are now under Obama. Six million kids wouldn't die every minute like they are now under Obama. A car wouldn't explode every four seconds for no reason like they do now under Obama. The Illuminati wouldn't control MSNBC like they do now under Obama. Obama has his priorities in the wrong place and those numbers prove it."

Santorum said, "When the deal was reached in July of 2011 the leader of the Players Union stated, 'we didn't get everything that either side wanted but we did arrive at a deal we think is fair and balanced.' That is exactly the kind of mentality we can't have. These guys compromised and worked together to come up with a plan to make the NFL better. That was the beginning of their moral decline. They treated the blocks like white people. And by blocks I mean blocks. I know it sounds like I mean black people but I really mean blocks. The blocks weren't willing to wait in line to get rich. The blocks just wanted to go from slavery to being rich, that's not how it works here in America. But I have nothing against black people. I just don't like block people."

Early polling shows a giant ratings boosts to all candidates in states with a direction in their title, where Jerry Springer is watched more than sports (excluding NASCAR), and more people have experienced an alien abduction moment than have graduated high school. More coverage when it unfolds. 

Timeline

Facebook was scheduled to unleash its new Timeline for everyone right before Christmas. It allows people to voluntarily switch to Timeline prior to the mandatory conversion, whenever that might be, already and a small percentage of people on my friend's list currently have the new look. When I first posted about Timeline I stated that I love it but suspected most people would hate it when they finally got it. And from reading others comments on the site I can tell the majority of people don't like it and advise others not to make the change until they have to.

I stand by my claim and still love Timeline. I can't wait until Facebook makes everyone have it. Visiting someone's wall is so much more enjoyable and exciting. I have clicked on a ton of my friends to see which are using it and have loved every wall I've seen from the one's that have it. The gigantic photo is such a cool introduction to the person. I truly haven't seen one I haven't liked.

Beyond that, just visiting the wall and seeing what the person has been up to is way more user friendly and gives a much more coherent view of what's been going on. Retrieving posts from months or years gone by is as easy a few clicks. Previously it was almost impossible to go back and view something from 2009, and if it could physically be done who would want to do it? I love seeing what I posted on each day one year prior, or two years. Sometimes I don't even know what I was talking about (that probably doesn't surprise some of you and something you've already discovered) or what motivated me to post. I love seeing what was going on in my friends life last year at this time.

There are gripes that others have that I share. However, I had gripes about some of the features on Facebook prior to Timeline. And the bonuses, at least to me, far outweigh the negatives, exponentially. Others complain they don't like the fact they feel like they aren't getting everyone's posts. I agree. Sometimes when I visit a wall I know I didn't see the original post. If it just happened a time or two I could dismiss it, however, it occurs on a more frequent basis. But the ticker is very good about showing what is going on and what is "trending" at any given moment. At first I didn't really care for the feature simply because I thought I wouldn't use it and it took up space. But my feelings have changed and I think it compliments Timeline quite well.

I know we all have different uses for Facebook. For me, I'm not particularly interested in the mundane things many people choose to post. I don't mean that to be callous, I sincerely care about many people on my friends list. But when I visit Facebook I want to be entertained. That doesn't mean everything has to be funny or amazing or the best thing ever, but I want to be interested in the post at some level.

This is probably why Timeline suits my fancy more than the average user. I think I demand more when visiting the site than most. I try to provide more to my viewers in return. I used to log on to Facebook and scroll down and catch up on all of the posts that occurred since my last visit. I no longer feel the need to perform this task with Timeline. Don't get me wrong, I still do from time to time, but I don't really have to anymore. My routine has changed to only scrolling down a little bit and seeing what's been going on recently. If something has been posted earlier that still has traction and activity then I'll notice the comments on the ticker. If I'm going to be on for any length of time then I'm going to make my rounds on some friends walls to see what they've been up to.

The fact of the matter is most people don't like change. Timeline is a pretty noticeable difference from the old look (the actual "home" wall where you see everyone's post is the same, good news to many of you) and that means big change. So it's only natural that it will get negative reviews in the beginning when everyone has it. And it might sustain negative reviews from those that want to be kept up to date on every detail of everyone's daily activities, but I love it and it works for me. There are those out there that have shown me their wall is worth a visit and it is me that is missing out if I don't take the time to visit it. And for those people I love how Timeline tells their story to me, so much more colorfully and presented to me by a theme of their choosing. Good stuff.

A Donkey, An Elephant, And A Horace

Have you ever heard anyone state they believe English should be our official language? If you had to guess their political affiliation, liberal or conservative, what would you guess? It has been my experience the majority of people that demand English only laws usually claim they have "conservative" views.

My point of contention has nothing to do with whether or not the claim at hand is "right" or "wrong", I can see benefits from having an official language and I can see unnecessary problems being created by enacting such a position. I'm more concerned on the notion of this idea being consistent with conservative views. Currently there is nothing making banks place Spanish on their ATM's, nothing that makes a company purchase a billboard in Spanish, nothing that makes my phone provider prompt me to select my preferred language. These things are all in place because these private industries choose to put them in effect. They profit because of them or they wouldn't do them.

A true conservative position would stand on the side of less government and regulation. If we decided we wanted our government to make English our official language how would we do it? Would we make a law, add an Amendment to the Constitution? This is more government and it takes away liberties of private companies to operate how they choose. Pure and simple, it's regulation. Again, I'm not arguing the point of whether or not we should do this, I'm simply addressing the fact that the idea isn't conservative.

Recently I posted on a story in the local newspaper that covered a weekend DUI checkpoint where over one hundred vehicles were pulled over and one intoxicated driver was located. Meanwhile, fifty five citations were issued to drivers that weren't pulled over for probable cause, rather a mandatory search of their property by the police. I'm not bashing police. And I'm not bashing people that support checkpoints. I'm pointing out this type of thinking isn't conservative. In this case it's just the opposite, it's quite liberal and very progressive.

Our Founding Fathers believed the government shouldn't have the ability to get into the private business of the citizens if those citizens weren't breaking any laws or causing any harm. If you believe times have changed and drunk drivers pose a serious enough threat to the public at large that we need to have police officers set up operations to randomly pull vehicles over and check for intoxication, so be it. Many people would agree with you. However, this isn't conservative by any means. In our Founding Fathers eyes they viewed things as people and the property of people. A car would be no different than a home, or a gun, or painting to the drafters of the Constitution. If I could prove more people were killed each year in their home due to a gun than by a drunk driver on the road, would you be cool with police officers randomly checking your house for guns. And on top of that, if they didn't find any illegal weapons, just go ahead and write you some tickets for your pot plants or your prescription Vicodin that belongs to a family member that you borrowed or your illegal cable box or cite you for throwing recyclables in the wrong side of the trash? Maybe times will change someday and we'll get to this point. But if we do it won't be considered conservative.

Mitt Romney, prior to being the Governor of Massachusetts, helped create a company called Bain Capital. The company basically consisted of some pretty rich people pulling together $37 million dollars to invest into other companies to, obviously, generate revenue for Bain Capital in the long run. The company was formed in 1984 but found itself reluctant to pull the trigger on investing any of its capital because they found almost every opportunity too high risk. Eventually, in 1986, Bain found a small business they believed offered the potential they sought for their investment, a store by the name of Staples. In 1986 when Bain pumped millions into Staples they were one store big. By the year 2011 Staples had grown to over 2000 stores. Romney served on the board of directors for Staples for over a decade.

Bain Capital was originally created to invest in start up businesses. After Bain was able to establish itself and enjoy returns on its investments it ventured into new areas to seek profit. One of those avenues involved buying out troubled companies. Most of the time the buyout led to the failing company surviving and going on to turn profits again. However, some of the time the companies didn't make it.

Now that Romney seems to be on track to winning the Republican nomination other candidates in the field are attacking him for his involvement with Bain Capital. Some have even called his venture capitalism "vulture capitalism". Newt Gingrich claims he is more conservative than Romney because of Romney's business of buying out failing companies. Right now in South Carolina (next on the docket for primaries) Gingrich's crowd are showing commercials of regular people that lost their jobs "because of Bain" and their lives are now in ruin. The people then go on to blame Romney personally.

I can't stress this enough, I'm not arguing for or against this type of conduct. To be candid, this type of business venture seems very legitimate to me and isn't as "evil" as it's made out to be, but that's here nor there. I'm addressing the fact there are millions of people that claim "conservative" values that look at Bain Capital and see it as un-American. I have news for these people: it's American as apple pie. It's the freedom of private entities to conduct business freely, without regulation, with the intent of gaining profit.

The conservative party is hardly conservative anymore. When W. Bush was President he spent money like it was going out of style and left us with record deficits. He started a "pre-emptive" war. He pushed the Patriot Act. None of these things are conservative by any means. Ironically, anyone that calls out any of these people for their inconsistent views is deemed a RINO (Republican in name only).

I admit I might not be "hardcore" conservative, mostly because I'm not hardcore anything, but I do believe most of my views are pretty conservative. That's why I find it so frustrating that the Republican Party finds itself in such a confused state. I know there are those on my friends list that think I've turned liberal and simply enjoy bashing Republicans. That's not it at all. It only has to do with the fact the party that is most likely to promote my conservative views has been hijacked by people that aren't conservative at all. They don't even understand what it means to be conservative. They get fired up over one issue and then swallow the pill on everything else. It's embarrassing.

We're so divided and worried about image and power that we are reluctant to admonish our own crowd when it is needed. Priests molest children and it takes atheists to demand criminal justice take place. People are so invested into their own agenda they can't have it tarnished. My church will look bad if I report this so I'll just keep my mouth shut. Penn State doesn't report child molestation because it will make the school look bad. Cops can't admit pepper spraying non-violent college students isn't a wise tactic. BP can't come forward with safety violations and hazards. Republicans can't spank the crowd that has hijacked their party and trampled on the idea they regard as sacred: conservatism. We no longer yearn for honest dialogue, based on fact and reason and integrity. Instead, we opt for the easy option, no matter how detrimental it may be in the long run. We lie to ourselves about what we are. We label ourselves something and it doesn't matter if we meet the criteria, it's easy and feels good. We are a strange creature.

"We should not care much whether those thus united (against slavery) were designated 'Whig,' 'Free Democrat' or something else; though we think some simple name like 'Republican' would more fitly designate those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery." ~ Horace Greeley

If It's Not Broke Don't Fix It

I consider myself a sports fan. I'm not a fanatic but I do enjoy watching the best of the best duke it out in competition. I watch Major League Baseball, The College World Series and some of the playoff rounds prior, The National Football League, and college football, The National Hockey League when the playoffs start, World Cup Soccer, The Olympics, and college basketball to name a few.

If you noticed in the above list I didn't mention the National Basketball Association. I confess I can't help myself when they finally make it to the conference finals that I get interested, but I seriously don't watch a game all year long. They have destroyed the game. College basketball is so true to the sport, the NBA is a toned down version of the Globetrotters. I could go into great detail in all of the ways I think they have tarnished their own game but I authored a very lengthy piece in my last effort and I'm on a quest to keep this concise. The NBA, in order to give the fans what they want, have really changed the game. As a fan of sport, any sport, I just don't think that's cool.

Major League baseball has tried to do the same: steroids, corked bats, dimension changes at stadiums, juiced balls?, ridiculous strike zones. I suspect because baseball is our first love we don't like it when the tradition is changed too much. Even though these things have, and do, occur, we frown upon them and encourage the game be played the way it was meant to be played. None of us feel good about the home run asterisk era.

Which leads me to the NFL. Dan Marino held the record for the most yards passing in one season with 5,084, set in 1984. He was the first player to throw for over five thousand yards in the history of the game. In 2008 Drew Brees fell just shy, fifteen yards, of breaking Marino's mark. However, he did surpass the 5,000 yard mark and became only the second player in the history of the league to achieve this feat. This year three players eclipsed 5,000 yards: Brady, Stafford, and Brees (again).

I'm cool that sport is entertainment. I'm just not cool when we alter the game to make it more entertaining. The rules have been altered and the referees have been instructed to make the game more offensive oriented. I suppose it is possible three dudes all broke the 5,000 in the same year, when only two guys had ever done it, and it could just be the way it is,but I'm a huge fan of Occam's Razor and that isn't the simplest explanation.

He Ain't Heavy, He's A Hologram

It is strange the things you remember in your life. I mean the things that you can never forget, things embedded into your very fiber. Naturally there are enormous milestone events that imprint themselves deep into your memory: marriage, birthing a child, graduations, career goals achieved, deaths, etc... But what I'm talking about is the random event, the thing that wasn't on your radar, that impacted your life in ways you never imagined.

Even though I don't remember the exact date, very close to twenty years ago would be my best guess, I can remember the people I was with and the gist of the conversation. The conversation involved one of the craziest things I had ever heard in my life (and still is to this day) and I found it mind boggling. I was at a party with two of my very good friends when one of them began talking about "entanglement". I'm not even sure if that's what he called it at the time but he explained it and I was fascinated.

Volumes have been written on this subject and I encourage you to look into if this is something new to you. However, I'm only going to briefly touch on what it is so you can relate to my story going forward. Here is a pretty solid description of entanglement:
Quantum entanglement occurs when particles such as photons, electrons, molecules as large as "buckyballs", and even small diamonds interact physically and then become separated; the type of interaction is such that each resulting member of a pair is properly described by the same quantum mechanical description (state), which is indefinite in terms of important factors such as position,momentum, spin, polarization, etc. ~ Wikipedia (so you know it's true)

I only picked that particular description of entanglement because it mentioned buckyballs. To put it in the most basic of terms ... What happens to one particle directly affects another particle somewhere else in the universe. If science isn't your thing and my "entanglement for dummies" definition still seems Chinese to you, the major mind blowing idea that comes from this occurrence is the fact that this information can travel from one particle to another instantaneously. This means something could happen to one particle and its entangled partner particle could be 10 billion miles away and it would still affect it instantly. This defies everything we understand about the universal speed limit of 186,000 miles a second, the speed of light. If, in fact, information is actually travelling between particles on opposite ends of the universe it would have to move thousands of times the speed of light.

I've always considered myself fairly deep but after listening to this conversation (I'm sure I didn't contribute in any way other than to confirm that what I was hearing was as crazy to my friends as it was to me) I discovered I wasn't nearly as deep as I once thought. It had never occurred to me that things might not be what they seem. It changed forever how I processed everything.

ACT II

Holograms are two dimensional surfaces that show three dimensional objects. When I think of a hologram I always think of R2D2 projecting Princess Leia to Luke and C3PO. Over thirty years later we really haven't noticed too much improvement in the quality of holograms we encounter. They can be found everywhere: driver's license, credit card, CD's. But most of them are pretty cheesy and hardly demonstrate the full potential of a hologram. With the right equipment (lasers, mirrors, beam splitters and so on) we have the ability to make precise holograms that look incredibly real. What's really cool is no special eye wear is needed.

We can do some pretty cool things with holograms: make them change color, make them appear to be looking at you when you walk across the room, and even make them appear to look like completely different objects when viewed from different angles. But the coolest thing about a hologram, in my humble opinion, is the fact that you can cut one in half, and each half contains whole views of the entire holographic image. You could go on and cut another piece and it, too, would contain a whole view of the entire image. If you were able to dissect it into a million pieces, each of those pieces would contain a whole view of the image. It's incredible.

ACT III

Black holes are what remain when massive stars die. They are spooky things and once something passes the event horizon of the black hole it is gone from the universe forever. At least that's what we thought until relatively recently. Stephen Hawking was troubled for over thirty years with this paradox of black holes destroying information. Everything that is currently in the universe has been here all along and will always be here as long as the universe exists. Bermuda triangle type things that gobbled up information didn't seem to jive with what we thought we knew about the nature of everything. Everything indicates that physics works in both directions, forward and backward, but this doesn't ring true if things get eaten up and destroyed going in one direction. Thankfully, fairly recently our understanding of how black holes work has shifted. They're not the giant PacMan's of the universe after all.

Instead of information (and when I say information I mean anything, everything is information) disappearing, forever lost, in black holes, the information is believed to be stored on the surface area of the black hole, later to be emitted back into the universe. Eventually the black hole will die and send the stored information, albeit jumbled and unrecognizable as the same form as when it made contact with the hole, back to the universe. The physicists that support the idea of black holes storing information have demonstrated how it works by explaining how a hologram works in two and three dimensions.

ACT IV

I mentioned earlier the strangest thing I think I've ever heard occurred when I learned of quantum entanglement. A very close rival when it comes to extremely mind boggling ideas to enter my brain is the "double slit experiment". Cutting right to the chase, this experiment showed us that things don't always do what we think they should do when we aren't observing them. There are some really good videos that break it down for school aged children but it is still a hard concept to grasp.

A single photon was fired through either slit A or slit B and the results were tracked when the photon reached its destination. Naturally, when the scientists fired the photon through slit A they expected to see it hit the wall in a location that would indicate it traveled through slit A. However, what they discovered is when the photon is traveling, and not being observed, it does all possible outcomes: it goes through slit A and not through slit B, goes through slit B and not slit A, both slits at the same time, and neither slit. Then when they actually watched the particle to see which slit it went through, it went through the one it was supposed to every time. If it's hard for you to comprehend don't be ashamed, it baffles physicists too. They fired a single particle and it acted like a wave.

FINAL ACT

David Bohm was an American physicist that was born in 1917 and argued with Einstein about the nature of reality. One of Bohm’s most startling assertions is that the tangible reality of our everyday lives is really a kind of illusion, like a holographic image. Underlying it is a deeper order of existence, a vast and more primary level of reality that gives birth to all the objects and appearances of our physical world in much the same way that a piece of holographic film gives birth to a hologram. He calls this deeper level of reality the implicate (which means enfolded or hidden) order, and he refers to our own level or existence as the explicate, or unfolded order. Put another way, electrons and all other particles are no more substantive or permanent then the form a geyser of water takes as it gushes out of a fountain. They are sustained by a constant influx from the implicate order, and when a particle appears to be destroyed, it is not lost.

Bohm believed his understanding of reality explained a lot more about what we experience. We know today that the universe is made up of almost all empty space. We (meaning humans, not really America because we don't feel the need to invest in science) are currently conducting amazing experiments at CERN trying to locate a particle that gives mass to all particles. It doesn't make sense to us how so much of the universe is nothing but there seems to be so much mass to the few things that are here.

Hardly a perfect analogy but it will suffice ... Imagine you had a handful of pennies and you laid your bicycle on its side and dropped the pennies through the motionless spokes. Undoubtedly, all of the pennies would pass through the spokes and hit the ground. Sure, they would hit some of the spokes along the way but it would seem unlikely any of the pennies would be halted from their fall by miraculously landing in just the perfect way as to balance it on one spoke. So if you had ten pennies and stood over your sideways bike tire and dropped them, all ten pennies would hit the ground. However, if you were able to spin the tire at a high rate of speed, let's say the speed of light, and you did this same experiment, I would be willing to bet not one penny would make it through the spokes. It would seem as if the inner surface of the wheels where the spokes occupy was a solid surface. Yet, most of the area is actually nothing.

If our reality is more like a hologram than we think (and who has ever really thought our reality was some type of hologram?) it could change some of the ways we look at things. Our senses, the only way we experience reality, provide us with the tools of survival. They weren't evolved to detect the nature of our reality. Things work very well at the macro level, it is only when we try to get down to the micro level that things fall apart. Particles pop in and out of existence and they don't behave they way we would expect them to.

Karl H. Pribram is a professor at Georgetown University, in the United States, and an emeritus professor of psychology and psychiatry at Stanford University and Radford University and board-certified as a neurosurgeon. Pribram's neurobehavioral experiments established the composition of the limbic system and the executive functions of the prefrontal cortex. Pribram also discovered the sensory specific systems of the association cortex, and showed that these systems operate to organize the choices we make among sensory stimuli, not the sensing of the stimuli themselves.

Pribram was extremely interested with how we stored and recollected memories. Pribram had discovered memories weren't logged as single events in individual places in our brains. Instead, they are networked out to all locations and when we think a thought we receive all sorts of information that help us piece it all together. Imagine I say George W. Bush. You might receive thoughts and ideas about Texas, Governor, man, cowboy hat, baseball, fool me once shame on me fool me twice shame on ... well you know how it goes, President, Katrina, war, debt, Laura, daughters, swagger, and thousands more all at the same time coming from all recesses of your brain. This was a very new observation and idea. Pribam later collaborated with Bohm (Pribam contacted Bohm to inquire about the physics perspective on the holographic idea) on a human cognition model and called it the "Holonomic Brain Theory".

From Wikipedia:
The holonomic brain theory is a model for human cognition that is drastically different from conventionally accepted ideas: Pribram and Bohm posit a model of cognitive function as being guided by a matrix of neurological wave interference patterns situated temporally between holographic Gestalt perception and discrete, affective, quantum vectors derived from reward anticipation potentials.

There are those wave functions again. If we are in some sort of hologram there are a million places to take the conversation. And trust me when I tell you the conversation has gone a million places already. My main motivation for writing this piece was mostly based on the daunting task of trying to find relevant information about this subject. There are many super bright people that discuss these things on forums and on their own blogs, but far too often it takes a turn into "The Secret" type stuff and "Law of Attraction" and I just don't see the connection.

FINAL FINAL ACT

Even though I think too many people take these progressive ideas too far, I do concede I think there is a lot of truth in many organizations of all rank and file. There have been people for thousands of years that have been telling us our reality isn't real. And I'm not talking about nut jobs, I mean real religions and great thinkers. And many a past and current religion seems to have a lot of these ideas when they teach unity and love. And Christianity's seven day creation story seems a lot more plausible if God was simply creating a hologram. "Let there be light" takes on a whole new meaning. It just seems more than likely that after hundreds, and even thousands, of years of passing down stories these things got altered and tailored to suit the needs of those in power.

If we live in a hologram or not doesn't really answer some of the deeper questions in life. It certainly doesn't answer any of the "why's". It really just begins to answer some "what's" and "how's". But what we are is terribly important knowledge to have. If we have properties of a hologram than we are all connected, we all contain the entire picture. When I gaze at my 60" high definition television the picture is crystal clear. However, if I magnified it down to just one pixel nothing would make sense. I suspect this is why things break down for us at the quantum level, we can never go small enough, eventually it will just become a blur. When we believe we are an individual that isn't part of the bigger picture, and possess the bigger picture within us, then we have squandered an amazing gift.

Entanglement, double slit experiment, black holes, wave functions and frequencies all fit nicely into the holographic model. Mass, something many countries are spending millions to understand, makes a lot more sense. Obviously, this theory isn't perfect and needs to iron out some things, but what theory doesn't, especially one that is relatively new? And it has gained a ton of traction with some very respected scientists, this isn't just some fringe idea that isn't being taken seriously.

We stare at our computer all day long and it is nothing more than 0's and 1's. It isn't what it seems until it gets into our head. Nor is our tv screen, nor the voice on the other end of the phone, the music in your car, nor the video game that comes to life, they are all just waves and frequencies and 0's and 1's. Things all around you, in your everyday life, are mostly made of nothing or not what it seems and it all feels so counter intuitive to think of it any other way than the way we sense it. But our senses are the least reliable tool to understand the nature of the universe. They're not even particularly good at doing what they're supposed to do, compared with many other animals that have more keen senses. Pilots train in simulators. Have you gone to the theater and witnessed Avatar? Take off the glasses and look at the screen, it isn't what it seems. Put them on and the light hitting a flat surface creates an incredibly real sensation. We know we can be fooled.

I have no idea how it all works. I find it exciting that we have the desire to know, no other animal occupies its time wondering why they exist. In the end, it only really matters to me so we can enjoy this short little ride, holographic or not. The more we know about ourselves, the more we discover the truth about what we are, the easier it is to understand how to make ourselves happy. If we accept what the universe puts in front of us instead of fighting back every step of the way, against every change, against every difference, then our journey might be more enjoyable.

"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." ~ Carl Sagan