Let me refer to the Genesis of the Solar System post. (Sorry about it being so long. That is the edited version, incidentally.) When confronted with such a dichotomy as the pressure–gravity barrier, I occasionally have people respond like this. They do not know how, or why, or where it (gas giants in this instance) came from, but it is here. So it must have happened. In other words, it is a fait accompli and they do not need to explain it. They just observe, take data, note regularities, make hypotheses, and test them.
The last sentence is exactly the role and operation of “science.” It does not make things happen. It observes what happens and tries to find an explanation for why it happens. This is “real” science as opposed to historical science which tried to explain things that “are” but which cannot be examined.
Take the gas giants, for instance. Since we know that gravitational energy can hold them together, example Jupiter, then we theorize that the gravitational energy pulled it together and voila` here we are. Fait accompli. The same argument is applied to evolution in general. We see that there are almost uncountable numbers of different types of life and we can trace (supposedly) the trail from simple to elegant and complicated, so therefore they must have evolved. Fait accompli.
When confronted with the staggering barriers to such an occurrence, they say, “Well, it must have happened, because ‘here we are.’” Fait accompli.
When discussing this very problem with a PhD student and asking about Sagan’s comment that the chances of evolution occurring were one with two hundred billion zeros behind it, he glibly replied, “That is the chance of it happening AGAIN.”
I had to agree, that it is impossible for it to happen again, but how did it occur the first time? His answer is classic. “We cannot know that, because we cannot observe it.” He did not see the disconnect between his statement and his belief in (the first) evolution.
This is not to belittle nor demean people who believe evolution. (Are convinced that it is true, actually.) But to help “creation warriors” to know how to approach the discussion. We can focus on facts and not on speculation. This belief–data “barrier” is what we must breach. It does work. I have read and talked to several creation experts who started out to prove that creation was wrong. As they encountered the factual data and not just propaganda, they were convinced that creation fits the data better than macro-evolution.
I just wish we could have a “fait accompli” and everyone would believe.
Thursday, December 29, 2016
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Genesis of the Solar System
Disclaimer of sorts: This is kind of long and technical. I tried to get it into "layman's language" and will let you be the judge of that.
Earlier (Thoughts on Winter Solstice) we considered the “luck” or design of the earth in regard to the tilt of its axis. It is tilted at 23.5 degrees which is just about ideal for life as we know it. But let’s look at a broader picture and consider the whole solar system.
The solar system revolves around a ball of hydrogen that is essentially a giant fusion bomb. Then there are nine, plus or minus, depending upon whim and definition, planets that orbit around the sun. All nine of these are lined up like peas on a platter and not scattered like the iconic atomic model that we often see with electrons whirling around it, completely encasing the center nucleus. The solar system resembles a frisbee and not a giant ball.
According to planetary cosmology theory, this whole thing began as a giant explosion, the Big Bang, that flung newly formed matter (out of nothing, it seems) out into the universe. That matter consisted mainly of hydrogen gas and a few “heavier” elements. By “heavier” we mean all of the other elements. (Incidentally, the “explosion” theory of elemental formation stops at iron. Nothing heavier can be made in “natural” or unguided atomic fusion reactions. But we will leave that for another day.)
There are approximately 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (6 times 10 to the 23) stars in the universe, so there must have been that many discreet “globs” (scientific term) of matter ejected from the original explosion. If it had been evenly scattered, there would be nothing but the original splash of matter evenly distributed around the solar system. According to the theory, the particles in the globs attracted the other particles in the globs and began to coalesce into discreet bodies. Take the sun, for instance.
It was mostly hydrogen and the hydrogen molecules began to attract, by gravity, each other and begin to condense into a ball. As the theory goes, the mass became so great and hot that the gravitational forces smashed the hydrogen molecules into each other with such force that it began a fusion reaction that we know of as the hydrogen bomb.
Just for reference, any significant amount of hydrogen gas that we can “ignite” in that manner as in the hydrogen bomb uses an atomic bomb as the trigger. The atomic bomb forces the hydrogen molecules together with enough force to “fuse” them into a heavier element, helium. This smashing theoretically can continue with the heavier elements smashing into each other to make even heavier ones. (Up to iron, that is. More on that another time.)
A small disclaimer here. We cannot do that with actual hydrogen. Our fusion reactions are completed using a “heavy” hydrogen called deuterium that has a proton and a neutron. Natural hydrogen is only one proton. We cannot force two single hydrogen atoms together and make them “stick.” Theoretically the process would require at least three and probably four hydrogens, four protons, and slam them together in such a way that two of the protons change into neutrons and then combine with the other two protons to make helium. Helium usually has two protons and two neutrons. (He 4) He 3 (two protons, one neutron) is very rare on earth and probably the sun.
The compression of the hydrogen gas to produce the massive ball that can burst into nuclear fusion causes heat. We can measure the interior of the sun and it is roughly 15.6 million degrees K. The heat helps to initiate the fusion reaction, but also causes a problem for our theory.
Follow this reasoning. As we put more air molecules into a container, two things happen. Either the container will expand, like a balloon, or the pressure inside the container will increase, like a basketball. And when the pressure goes up, the temperature does too. That is the explanation as to why the sun can “catch fire.” The extreme pressure inside of the compressed ball of hydrogen is high enough, combined with the elevated temperature, to initiate an atomic reaction.
And you can begin to see the problem. Back to the beginning. The glob of hydrogen begins to collapse due to gravitational attractions. As this happens, the pressure of the coalesced gas also increases, resisting further compression. Without any constraint, like the shell of the basketball, the gas will spread out until the outward gas pressure is equal to the inward gravitational attractions. It will become a static ball of gas, neither expanding nor contracting. End of solar story. Cold, dark, and silent.
Just for the record the gravitational attractions must be very high to hold the hydrogen molecules together. Did I forget to mention that they are in motion? They are zipping around like a bunch of super balls in a blender. Only they do not get chopped up. To hold them together takes a very strong force. There is very little hydrogen in the atmosphere of earth, because the hydrogen is so energetic that it is escaping the earth’s gravity into open space. So for our glob to hold together, it would have to generate more gravitational force than the earth does. See the problem?
And as the glob compresses, the temperature increases, increasing the amount of force needed just to keep it together, let alone continue to compress. There is no scientific answer as to how this pressure-temperature barrier could be breached naturally. Not only do we have no sun, there are not any stars either. And many of them are much larger than old Sol. Once you get them together, the nuclear forces involved in the reactions can maintain the “ball” but there is not mechanism for getting to the top of the hill.
No sun, no solar system. But just for kicks, we will take a quick look the problems with the solar system generation. First, recall that the first four planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars are called “rocky” planets, meaning that they consist of heavier elements. The rest, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto are more gaseous planets. They have very little if any iron and silicon or the other elements needed to make a “solid” planet. They are mainly compressed, frozen gasses.
How is it that the heavier elements concentrated in the inner part of the solar system while a giant mass of hydrogen was at the center, and also in the outer rings? Did the sun attract the elements into the planetary positions from “outer space?” If it did, why did it stop attracting after it had “pulled” them all the way in from out there? They should have just fallen into the sun after coming from so far away. You remember, I am sure, that the closer things are together, the stronger the attraction is. So to pull them from way out with “weak” attraction, then stop when they are closer makes no sense.
And then how did they form bodies? Gravity again? Again we have the temperature-pressure barrier to overcome. But just in the chance that it did, we still have some problems. First remember the “platter” configuration? How is it that the sun pulled all 9 planets and all of the asteroids only on a single plane?
More problems arise when we think of the planets themselves. How did they begin to rotate? And the sun, itself, also rotates, like the earth and the planets. Getting all of this motion going would require some sophisticated computer calculations. And it was just random. Humm.
Kind of looks like some design was required from the initial formation of matter to the final configuration of the planets orbiting a burning sun. And Carl Sagan took us farther into the realm of believability when he stated that the chances are about one to the two hundred billion power that man could have evolved as he did. (The number is 2 with two hundred billion zeros behind it as opposed to the 23 above.)
And we have not even considered the tilt of the earth, or the problems with attracting a viable atmosphere. We have about 20% oxygen with 79% nitrogen and 1% everything else. Changing the oxygen to nitrogen ratio by more than 2 or 3 points would render the earth uninhabitable.
And we have only begun to plum the wonders of design. If the earth were 1% closer or farther from the sun–no life. If the moon were not there, no life and no world. Just luck, I guess.
The incredibly complex system that we see when we look anywhere in the natural world demands an intelligent design. The real science deniers are those who see the design but refuse to acknowledge it.
Disclaimer–of sorts: I did a Google search on star formation and every one that I could find said that once the mass of gas becomes large enough for the gravity to overcome gas pressure, the star will continue to contract, heat, and eventually begin the fusion reaction. Not one mentioned the barrier of getting past the pressure–gravity boundary. They simply assumed that it happened and once the cloud was massive enough, it would form a star.
Just for kicks, I am including a nice little two page PDF that gives all of the formulas for the gravity–pressure problem. If anyone is math oriented and wishes to flagellate themselves with the formulas, have at it. The author proved that Jupiter was stable because the internal gravity exceeds the gas pressure and it remains a stable planet. How it got there is omitted or ignored.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/education/outerplanets/math/gravity_vs_pressure.pdf
Earlier (Thoughts on Winter Solstice) we considered the “luck” or design of the earth in regard to the tilt of its axis. It is tilted at 23.5 degrees which is just about ideal for life as we know it. But let’s look at a broader picture and consider the whole solar system.
The solar system revolves around a ball of hydrogen that is essentially a giant fusion bomb. Then there are nine, plus or minus, depending upon whim and definition, planets that orbit around the sun. All nine of these are lined up like peas on a platter and not scattered like the iconic atomic model that we often see with electrons whirling around it, completely encasing the center nucleus. The solar system resembles a frisbee and not a giant ball.
According to planetary cosmology theory, this whole thing began as a giant explosion, the Big Bang, that flung newly formed matter (out of nothing, it seems) out into the universe. That matter consisted mainly of hydrogen gas and a few “heavier” elements. By “heavier” we mean all of the other elements. (Incidentally, the “explosion” theory of elemental formation stops at iron. Nothing heavier can be made in “natural” or unguided atomic fusion reactions. But we will leave that for another day.)
There are approximately 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (6 times 10 to the 23) stars in the universe, so there must have been that many discreet “globs” (scientific term) of matter ejected from the original explosion. If it had been evenly scattered, there would be nothing but the original splash of matter evenly distributed around the solar system. According to the theory, the particles in the globs attracted the other particles in the globs and began to coalesce into discreet bodies. Take the sun, for instance.
It was mostly hydrogen and the hydrogen molecules began to attract, by gravity, each other and begin to condense into a ball. As the theory goes, the mass became so great and hot that the gravitational forces smashed the hydrogen molecules into each other with such force that it began a fusion reaction that we know of as the hydrogen bomb.
Just for reference, any significant amount of hydrogen gas that we can “ignite” in that manner as in the hydrogen bomb uses an atomic bomb as the trigger. The atomic bomb forces the hydrogen molecules together with enough force to “fuse” them into a heavier element, helium. This smashing theoretically can continue with the heavier elements smashing into each other to make even heavier ones. (Up to iron, that is. More on that another time.)
A small disclaimer here. We cannot do that with actual hydrogen. Our fusion reactions are completed using a “heavy” hydrogen called deuterium that has a proton and a neutron. Natural hydrogen is only one proton. We cannot force two single hydrogen atoms together and make them “stick.” Theoretically the process would require at least three and probably four hydrogens, four protons, and slam them together in such a way that two of the protons change into neutrons and then combine with the other two protons to make helium. Helium usually has two protons and two neutrons. (He 4) He 3 (two protons, one neutron) is very rare on earth and probably the sun.
The compression of the hydrogen gas to produce the massive ball that can burst into nuclear fusion causes heat. We can measure the interior of the sun and it is roughly 15.6 million degrees K. The heat helps to initiate the fusion reaction, but also causes a problem for our theory.
Follow this reasoning. As we put more air molecules into a container, two things happen. Either the container will expand, like a balloon, or the pressure inside the container will increase, like a basketball. And when the pressure goes up, the temperature does too. That is the explanation as to why the sun can “catch fire.” The extreme pressure inside of the compressed ball of hydrogen is high enough, combined with the elevated temperature, to initiate an atomic reaction.
And you can begin to see the problem. Back to the beginning. The glob of hydrogen begins to collapse due to gravitational attractions. As this happens, the pressure of the coalesced gas also increases, resisting further compression. Without any constraint, like the shell of the basketball, the gas will spread out until the outward gas pressure is equal to the inward gravitational attractions. It will become a static ball of gas, neither expanding nor contracting. End of solar story. Cold, dark, and silent.
Just for the record the gravitational attractions must be very high to hold the hydrogen molecules together. Did I forget to mention that they are in motion? They are zipping around like a bunch of super balls in a blender. Only they do not get chopped up. To hold them together takes a very strong force. There is very little hydrogen in the atmosphere of earth, because the hydrogen is so energetic that it is escaping the earth’s gravity into open space. So for our glob to hold together, it would have to generate more gravitational force than the earth does. See the problem?
And as the glob compresses, the temperature increases, increasing the amount of force needed just to keep it together, let alone continue to compress. There is no scientific answer as to how this pressure-temperature barrier could be breached naturally. Not only do we have no sun, there are not any stars either. And many of them are much larger than old Sol. Once you get them together, the nuclear forces involved in the reactions can maintain the “ball” but there is not mechanism for getting to the top of the hill.
No sun, no solar system. But just for kicks, we will take a quick look the problems with the solar system generation. First, recall that the first four planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars are called “rocky” planets, meaning that they consist of heavier elements. The rest, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto are more gaseous planets. They have very little if any iron and silicon or the other elements needed to make a “solid” planet. They are mainly compressed, frozen gasses.
How is it that the heavier elements concentrated in the inner part of the solar system while a giant mass of hydrogen was at the center, and also in the outer rings? Did the sun attract the elements into the planetary positions from “outer space?” If it did, why did it stop attracting after it had “pulled” them all the way in from out there? They should have just fallen into the sun after coming from so far away. You remember, I am sure, that the closer things are together, the stronger the attraction is. So to pull them from way out with “weak” attraction, then stop when they are closer makes no sense.
And then how did they form bodies? Gravity again? Again we have the temperature-pressure barrier to overcome. But just in the chance that it did, we still have some problems. First remember the “platter” configuration? How is it that the sun pulled all 9 planets and all of the asteroids only on a single plane?
More problems arise when we think of the planets themselves. How did they begin to rotate? And the sun, itself, also rotates, like the earth and the planets. Getting all of this motion going would require some sophisticated computer calculations. And it was just random. Humm.
Kind of looks like some design was required from the initial formation of matter to the final configuration of the planets orbiting a burning sun. And Carl Sagan took us farther into the realm of believability when he stated that the chances are about one to the two hundred billion power that man could have evolved as he did. (The number is 2 with two hundred billion zeros behind it as opposed to the 23 above.)
And we have not even considered the tilt of the earth, or the problems with attracting a viable atmosphere. We have about 20% oxygen with 79% nitrogen and 1% everything else. Changing the oxygen to nitrogen ratio by more than 2 or 3 points would render the earth uninhabitable.
And we have only begun to plum the wonders of design. If the earth were 1% closer or farther from the sun–no life. If the moon were not there, no life and no world. Just luck, I guess.
The incredibly complex system that we see when we look anywhere in the natural world demands an intelligent design. The real science deniers are those who see the design but refuse to acknowledge it.
Disclaimer–of sorts: I did a Google search on star formation and every one that I could find said that once the mass of gas becomes large enough for the gravity to overcome gas pressure, the star will continue to contract, heat, and eventually begin the fusion reaction. Not one mentioned the barrier of getting past the pressure–gravity boundary. They simply assumed that it happened and once the cloud was massive enough, it would form a star.
Just for kicks, I am including a nice little two page PDF that gives all of the formulas for the gravity–pressure problem. If anyone is math oriented and wishes to flagellate themselves with the formulas, have at it. The author proved that Jupiter was stable because the internal gravity exceeds the gas pressure and it remains a stable planet. How it got there is omitted or ignored.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/education/outerplanets/math/gravity_vs_pressure.pdf
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Three (or more) Party System
During the past election some have lamented the travesty of our two party system. They have advocated multiple parties to better represent all citizens of the nation. There are several instances of such political systems, but we can see a very illustrative version of what usually happens in Syria.
First we have the government faction, backing President al-Assad. Opposing them are a group that the media calls the “rebels.” They have been attempting to overthrow the present regime for years. Add to that the ISIS group that originated variously in Iran and Iraq. Reading the news is both interesting and confusing. Adding to the fun is the fact that Russia backs al-Assad and the United States backs the rebels.
So when battles are reported, ISIS is attacked by both of the opponents and when they are defeated, the “allies” then fight each other for control of the “liberated” territory. If we had a three or more party system, every Presidential election would be finished in the House of Representatives. And if that august body body is likewise fractured, we might never elect another President. Welcome to the Banana Republic of North America.
Two parties seem to work pretty well.
First we have the government faction, backing President al-Assad. Opposing them are a group that the media calls the “rebels.” They have been attempting to overthrow the present regime for years. Add to that the ISIS group that originated variously in Iran and Iraq. Reading the news is both interesting and confusing. Adding to the fun is the fact that Russia backs al-Assad and the United States backs the rebels.
So when battles are reported, ISIS is attacked by both of the opponents and when they are defeated, the “allies” then fight each other for control of the “liberated” territory. If we had a three or more party system, every Presidential election would be finished in the House of Representatives. And if that august body body is likewise fractured, we might never elect another President. Welcome to the Banana Republic of North America.
Two parties seem to work pretty well.
Happy Holiday or Merry Christmas
“Merry Christmas or Happy Holiday?” That is the question often asked these days. As one of the “older generation,” who, according to the media, prefer the “Merry Christmas” greeting, let me propose a solution.
Let the “Holiday” guys pick any day of the year and designate it Happy Holiday Day. Then we will see how many pick up on that, how soon it becomes a national–federal holiday, and how fast it becomes a standard holiday over most of the planet. As we know, Christmas was designated as a remembrance, a memorial to the birth of Christ.
Are those who refuse to say, “Christmas,” ignoring or negating this life? For the “tolerant” who wish to never offend other beliefs, consider how often they “mask” their holidays. Instead of Ramadan, Hanukkah. Kwanza, and others, do they ever refer to their celebration as “holiday?”
This is not to belittle any other celebration. There are different “thanksgiving” days in other countries, as well as independence days. We do not offend or deny others when we celebrate our day. Labor Day, Memorial Day, ML King Day, even Valentine’s day are celebrated without offense. So why disguise Christmas as if it were unwholesome or even shameful? “Happy New Year” seems to escape unscathed.
Practical suggestion: If anyone is offended by Christmas, let him work a full day and just ignore the rest of us. Just for the record, I have never missed a day of work for Cinco de Mayo, nor have I been offended at those who celebrate it.
Did you ever hear about the Battleship Mayonnaise? It sailed into the Cuban harbor of Havana. It was am endearing nickname the sailors called the Maine. Some type of bomb exploded on-board and the ship was destroyed. A terse message went out all across the land. “They sinko de Mayo!” And the Spanish American War was on.
Good day and Merry Christmas. (Notice for Facebook censors: The previous historical reference was fanciful, or false news. Please do not terminate my account as it was whimsical satire.)
Let the “Holiday” guys pick any day of the year and designate it Happy Holiday Day. Then we will see how many pick up on that, how soon it becomes a national–federal holiday, and how fast it becomes a standard holiday over most of the planet. As we know, Christmas was designated as a remembrance, a memorial to the birth of Christ.
Are those who refuse to say, “Christmas,” ignoring or negating this life? For the “tolerant” who wish to never offend other beliefs, consider how often they “mask” their holidays. Instead of Ramadan, Hanukkah. Kwanza, and others, do they ever refer to their celebration as “holiday?”
This is not to belittle any other celebration. There are different “thanksgiving” days in other countries, as well as independence days. We do not offend or deny others when we celebrate our day. Labor Day, Memorial Day, ML King Day, even Valentine’s day are celebrated without offense. So why disguise Christmas as if it were unwholesome or even shameful? “Happy New Year” seems to escape unscathed.
Practical suggestion: If anyone is offended by Christmas, let him work a full day and just ignore the rest of us. Just for the record, I have never missed a day of work for Cinco de Mayo, nor have I been offended at those who celebrate it.
Did you ever hear about the Battleship Mayonnaise? It sailed into the Cuban harbor of Havana. It was am endearing nickname the sailors called the Maine. Some type of bomb exploded on-board and the ship was destroyed. A terse message went out all across the land. “They sinko de Mayo!” And the Spanish American War was on.
Good day and Merry Christmas. (Notice for Facebook censors: The previous historical reference was fanciful, or false news. Please do not terminate my account as it was whimsical satire.)
Monday, December 19, 2016
Baby, It's Cold Outside (Non-political comment)
Have you ever heard anyone say that it is too cold to snow? Well, that is right and wrong. Actually the statement is “true” but it is a consequence and not a cause. I am a chemist. You have to humor me on occasion.
Snow, as we probably all know comes from water vapor (not steam that we see, but water in the gas form–invisible) in the air. Most often we refer to the “humidity,” when actually we mean the relative humidity. Now for the chemistry.
The amount of water vapor that the air can “hold” is dependent on the temperature. Warm air can hold more water. So when you dry your hair, you usually use a “dryer” that warms the air, making it thirstier, if you please. More water can evaporate in warm air than in cold. The “relative” part comes from comparing the actual amount of water vapor in the air compared to the theoretical amount that it can hold according to its temperature.
When it reaches 100% relative humidity it is ready to rain. Any change, like more water evaporating, or more likely, a drop in temperature will cause the water to condense and fall to the earth. This is precipitation and snow if the temperature is right.
When the air temperature is below freezing, the condensation is frozen. Rain that is cooled and condenses is hail or sleet. Water vapor that changes directly into a solid is snow. As more water molecules accumulate on the flakes, they eventually become heavy enough to fall to earth. Big globby flakes are formed when there is a lot of water in the air, i.e. warmer air. If it condenses very rapidly when cooled to a lower temperature, it will result in big flakes.
If the actual amount of water vapor and the relative limit are lower, or it is cooled more slowly, the water solidifies more slowly and forms smaller flakes. This is why some snow is big heavy flakes and other is light and fluffy.
Now to the temperature. As the temperature decreases, the amount of water vapor the air can hold also decreases. At temperatures below 0 degrees F, or so, there is very little water vapor, so even cooling it farther causes very little snow to form. Or, it is too cold to snow.
One of the common scenarios for snow is “warm” moist air is in place and a cold mass drives under it, raising it up and cooling it at the same time. (Cold air is heavier, denser than warm air.) As the air continues to cool, the amount of water left in the air is less and the snow diminishes. Eventually it will stop as the air becomes so dry that further temperature depression does not produce precipitation.
Occasionally a cold air mass is in place and a warm mass rides up over it. The cooling air then can produce snow. Most of the “really cold air” snow is caused by this rather than the previous method described. A “blizzard” consisting of extremely large amounts of snow accompanied by very cold temperatures and high winds usually results from this situation. If the “warm mass” has a good supply behind it, the snow can last for a longer time as the water is “pumped” up over the cold air mass to replenish the water that has condensed.
Too cold to snow? Not really, but once the water vapor is removed from the air, even much colder temperatures cannot “wring,” if you please, more water from the dry air. Hence the observation that it rarely snows in really cold weather.
You may now return to your normal web surfing. Keep warm.
Snow, as we probably all know comes from water vapor (not steam that we see, but water in the gas form–invisible) in the air. Most often we refer to the “humidity,” when actually we mean the relative humidity. Now for the chemistry.
The amount of water vapor that the air can “hold” is dependent on the temperature. Warm air can hold more water. So when you dry your hair, you usually use a “dryer” that warms the air, making it thirstier, if you please. More water can evaporate in warm air than in cold. The “relative” part comes from comparing the actual amount of water vapor in the air compared to the theoretical amount that it can hold according to its temperature.
When it reaches 100% relative humidity it is ready to rain. Any change, like more water evaporating, or more likely, a drop in temperature will cause the water to condense and fall to the earth. This is precipitation and snow if the temperature is right.
When the air temperature is below freezing, the condensation is frozen. Rain that is cooled and condenses is hail or sleet. Water vapor that changes directly into a solid is snow. As more water molecules accumulate on the flakes, they eventually become heavy enough to fall to earth. Big globby flakes are formed when there is a lot of water in the air, i.e. warmer air. If it condenses very rapidly when cooled to a lower temperature, it will result in big flakes.
If the actual amount of water vapor and the relative limit are lower, or it is cooled more slowly, the water solidifies more slowly and forms smaller flakes. This is why some snow is big heavy flakes and other is light and fluffy.
Now to the temperature. As the temperature decreases, the amount of water vapor the air can hold also decreases. At temperatures below 0 degrees F, or so, there is very little water vapor, so even cooling it farther causes very little snow to form. Or, it is too cold to snow.
One of the common scenarios for snow is “warm” moist air is in place and a cold mass drives under it, raising it up and cooling it at the same time. (Cold air is heavier, denser than warm air.) As the air continues to cool, the amount of water left in the air is less and the snow diminishes. Eventually it will stop as the air becomes so dry that further temperature depression does not produce precipitation.
Occasionally a cold air mass is in place and a warm mass rides up over it. The cooling air then can produce snow. Most of the “really cold air” snow is caused by this rather than the previous method described. A “blizzard” consisting of extremely large amounts of snow accompanied by very cold temperatures and high winds usually results from this situation. If the “warm mass” has a good supply behind it, the snow can last for a longer time as the water is “pumped” up over the cold air mass to replenish the water that has condensed.
Too cold to snow? Not really, but once the water vapor is removed from the air, even much colder temperatures cannot “wring,” if you please, more water from the dry air. Hence the observation that it rarely snows in really cold weather.
You may now return to your normal web surfing. Keep warm.
Thursday, December 8, 2016
Change the World Series
What a travesty the World Series has become. It does not crown the most popular, or sometimes even the team with the most wins in a season. It comes down to an archaic method of choosing the champion handed down from over 100 years ago. The hue and cry has begun. Change the World Series!
For those who are not as “into” sports as others, the World Series begins with a playoff series in which season records are completely ignored, except for choosing the opponent in the elimination games. A “small” market team can be matched against a “big” market team with no handicap or bonus.
Take this year’s finals for instance. Cleveland was ultimately matched against Chicago. Chicago’s population is approximately 2.7 million while Cleveland is roughly 400,000. With all those extra “voters” Chicago should have had some sort of advantage. Just last year, Kansas City defeated New York, a terrible travesty for democratic baseball.
The arguments are becoming as incessant, irritating, incoherent, and, well, ignorant as those against the Electoral College. You would think that people did not know how such things were conducted. Choosing a World Series champion, like the President, is a specific protocol. The “winner” is the one who fulfills those requirements. All other considerations are statistical considerations for someone, sometime to study. But they do not have a bearing on the outcome.
For instance, maybe we should re-examine the best 4 of 7 criteria. Why not use the total runs scored in the series? That would demonstrate a superior quality of play. This year that total was a tie, at 27. Maybe we should choose “runs scored at home versus on the road.” Nah, that is too much like soccer. Nobody understands that. And besides, they play a different number of home and away, so that would be an unfair advantage for the team with four away games.
Also akin to soccer would be the margin of victory in each game. But, alas, that also came out to be equal over the series. Wait, I have it. Let’s look at the games won margin. The first game began, of course, with zero for both teams. Then Cleveland won it, so their games won margin was 1. The Cubs erased that lead in game two, so each team got a zero. Cumulative was Cleveland “led by” 1, Chicago, 0 after game two. Game three was won by Cleveland, giving them another one game lead and total of ledby 2 to nothing for Chicago.
By winning game four Cleveland, at 3-1, increased its ledby total to 4 to nothing. Game five had Chicago fighting back to win and cut the lead, 3-2, to 1, but the total of ledby is now 5 to nothing, Cleveland. Game six ended with the teams tied at 3-3, so the ledby score remained 5 to 0 in favor of Cleveland. We all know that Chicago won game seven giving them a 1 in the ledby category. 5-1
Cleveland was clearly the winner of the series, 5 to 1, in the ledby category. In the Presidential election, Mrs. Clinton won some states by larger margins than Mr. Trump won his states, but Mr. Trump won more states.
And here, in the opinion of some, is the genius of the Founding Fathers. They devised a weighted system to avoid imposing a disadvantage on either the small states or the large states. The “big” guys get more weight because they represent more voters. But the “small” states are not overwhelmed by the sheer force of numbers. And everyone in between has an equally, weighted impact on the decision. Mrs. Clinton made the tactical mistake, or perhaps “liberal” handicap, of putting the focus on population centers and ignoring the “grass roots” or “fly over” areas.
The Cubs, to their credit, hit all the right balls and bases and pulled it out in overtime. The system performed as it was designed. The only challenge is to devise some extraneous measure to impose upon the decision process like the ledby score. The Electoral College has functioned to produce a President. It is a carefully reasoned and designed process to give everyone a significant “say” in the election.
Let’s keep the World Series the same...and the Electoral College. Cubs win! Cubs win! Cubs win!
For those who are not as “into” sports as others, the World Series begins with a playoff series in which season records are completely ignored, except for choosing the opponent in the elimination games. A “small” market team can be matched against a “big” market team with no handicap or bonus.
Take this year’s finals for instance. Cleveland was ultimately matched against Chicago. Chicago’s population is approximately 2.7 million while Cleveland is roughly 400,000. With all those extra “voters” Chicago should have had some sort of advantage. Just last year, Kansas City defeated New York, a terrible travesty for democratic baseball.
The arguments are becoming as incessant, irritating, incoherent, and, well, ignorant as those against the Electoral College. You would think that people did not know how such things were conducted. Choosing a World Series champion, like the President, is a specific protocol. The “winner” is the one who fulfills those requirements. All other considerations are statistical considerations for someone, sometime to study. But they do not have a bearing on the outcome.
For instance, maybe we should re-examine the best 4 of 7 criteria. Why not use the total runs scored in the series? That would demonstrate a superior quality of play. This year that total was a tie, at 27. Maybe we should choose “runs scored at home versus on the road.” Nah, that is too much like soccer. Nobody understands that. And besides, they play a different number of home and away, so that would be an unfair advantage for the team with four away games.
Also akin to soccer would be the margin of victory in each game. But, alas, that also came out to be equal over the series. Wait, I have it. Let’s look at the games won margin. The first game began, of course, with zero for both teams. Then Cleveland won it, so their games won margin was 1. The Cubs erased that lead in game two, so each team got a zero. Cumulative was Cleveland “led by” 1, Chicago, 0 after game two. Game three was won by Cleveland, giving them another one game lead and total of ledby 2 to nothing for Chicago.
By winning game four Cleveland, at 3-1, increased its ledby total to 4 to nothing. Game five had Chicago fighting back to win and cut the lead, 3-2, to 1, but the total of ledby is now 5 to nothing, Cleveland. Game six ended with the teams tied at 3-3, so the ledby score remained 5 to 0 in favor of Cleveland. We all know that Chicago won game seven giving them a 1 in the ledby category. 5-1
Cleveland was clearly the winner of the series, 5 to 1, in the ledby category. In the Presidential election, Mrs. Clinton won some states by larger margins than Mr. Trump won his states, but Mr. Trump won more states.
And here, in the opinion of some, is the genius of the Founding Fathers. They devised a weighted system to avoid imposing a disadvantage on either the small states or the large states. The “big” guys get more weight because they represent more voters. But the “small” states are not overwhelmed by the sheer force of numbers. And everyone in between has an equally, weighted impact on the decision. Mrs. Clinton made the tactical mistake, or perhaps “liberal” handicap, of putting the focus on population centers and ignoring the “grass roots” or “fly over” areas.
The Cubs, to their credit, hit all the right balls and bases and pulled it out in overtime. The system performed as it was designed. The only challenge is to devise some extraneous measure to impose upon the decision process like the ledby score. The Electoral College has functioned to produce a President. It is a carefully reasoned and designed process to give everyone a significant “say” in the election.
Let’s keep the World Series the same...and the Electoral College. Cubs win! Cubs win! Cubs win!
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Electoral College Circumvented Part (4) The Last, I hope
The newest wrinkle in the Electoral College debate is an orchestrated move to circumvent it. Now refresh my memory. Was there a spontaneous move by literally thousands of “voters” to urge the electors to be faithless to their commitment in any previous election? The word, “orchestrated” is used because, even though the actual wording varies, the content and context of the calls are identical. Did these disenchanted patriots independently conceive of this strategy? Incidentally, how do they know how to contact the Electors? (See below)
Having failed at electing their chosen leader, someone, somewhere is mobilizing an army to try to circumvent not only the Electoral College, but the will of the people. Remember the Electoral College chooses the President, not the mass of voters. The voters elect the Electors. Consequently the calls to urge a “squirrel” vote, that is one off the track, are calls to repudiate the voters and the Constitution.
Now let’s not comment on their motivation, other than to “get their way” when they have lost the sanctioned contest. But these calls reveal something fundamental about the callers. They are assuming that the Electors share their character flaws.
The Electors are urged to abandon first their commitment. They committed to represent a particular candidate if they were chosen. They have been chosen. They are encouraged to violate the trust of the party who designated them, and the voters who selected them. And finally, the Electors are encouraged to substitute their “judgment” on the suitability for that of the caller. A caller, incidentally, whom they have never met nor interviewed nor evaluated. “Just do what I want.” The betrayal of integrity is massive here.
The pervasive attitude of narcissism and “I want what I want,” and most critically, lack of integrity in our current society, current, and prospective administration has been illustrated in these calls. They are losers, literally and figuratively, (not to be too harsh here) and evidently spoiled babies who invoke the worst of their character and project it on the objects of their interest.
What is next? Will there be calls to Secret Service to stop protecting President-elect Trump? After all, they are just doing their job. Now the protesters are calling on electors to not do their job. To use another metaphor, why not call the Cubs or Cavaliers and ask them to renounce their championship? After all, they just won it in a contest by conforming to the rules. “But I don’t like the outcome.”
I knew this would happen when we let the 10 year olds vote. Wait, we didn’t, did we?
Addendum: The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) makes the following declaration on its web page about the Electoral College.
“Please Note: NCSL does not have the names of the individual presidential electors in each state, nor does NCSL have their contact information. You must contact either your state's election officials or political parties for information.”
So unless thousands of disappointed individuals contacted the election officials in various states, we have ourselves a conspiracy. Or at best a concerted effort by third parties. How does it feel to be manipulated, callers? You are attempting to do the same to your Electors–if indeed you are contacting your own state’s Electors. If other states are involved, it is like complaining about the mayor of Nome, Alaska. (Unless you live there, and voted.) It ain’t none of yer business. But I digress.
Having failed at electing their chosen leader, someone, somewhere is mobilizing an army to try to circumvent not only the Electoral College, but the will of the people. Remember the Electoral College chooses the President, not the mass of voters. The voters elect the Electors. Consequently the calls to urge a “squirrel” vote, that is one off the track, are calls to repudiate the voters and the Constitution.
Now let’s not comment on their motivation, other than to “get their way” when they have lost the sanctioned contest. But these calls reveal something fundamental about the callers. They are assuming that the Electors share their character flaws.
The Electors are urged to abandon first their commitment. They committed to represent a particular candidate if they were chosen. They have been chosen. They are encouraged to violate the trust of the party who designated them, and the voters who selected them. And finally, the Electors are encouraged to substitute their “judgment” on the suitability for that of the caller. A caller, incidentally, whom they have never met nor interviewed nor evaluated. “Just do what I want.” The betrayal of integrity is massive here.
The pervasive attitude of narcissism and “I want what I want,” and most critically, lack of integrity in our current society, current, and prospective administration has been illustrated in these calls. They are losers, literally and figuratively, (not to be too harsh here) and evidently spoiled babies who invoke the worst of their character and project it on the objects of their interest.
What is next? Will there be calls to Secret Service to stop protecting President-elect Trump? After all, they are just doing their job. Now the protesters are calling on electors to not do their job. To use another metaphor, why not call the Cubs or Cavaliers and ask them to renounce their championship? After all, they just won it in a contest by conforming to the rules. “But I don’t like the outcome.”
I knew this would happen when we let the 10 year olds vote. Wait, we didn’t, did we?
Addendum: The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) makes the following declaration on its web page about the Electoral College.
“Please Note: NCSL does not have the names of the individual presidential electors in each state, nor does NCSL have their contact information. You must contact either your state's election officials or political parties for information.”
So unless thousands of disappointed individuals contacted the election officials in various states, we have ourselves a conspiracy. Or at best a concerted effort by third parties. How does it feel to be manipulated, callers? You are attempting to do the same to your Electors–if indeed you are contacting your own state’s Electors. If other states are involved, it is like complaining about the mayor of Nome, Alaska. (Unless you live there, and voted.) It ain’t none of yer business. But I digress.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
More Electoral College Part Two
More Electoral College (This is a continuation of the original post below. Electoral College)
Another criticism of the Electoral College is that some votes count more than others. A second, and possibly corollary is that it violates the “one man one vote” provision.
Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming each have three electoral votes. Based on their population they are entitled to one representative, but their electoral college impact is three times their population numbers. California, on the other hand has 55 votes, 53 based on population and two for the senators. So their electoral impact is less than 2% enhanced compared to the smaller states.
Again, we appeal to the actual intent of the framers of the Constitution. The states collectively elect the President. As it is, most of them use a “winner take all” formula for awarding their votes. An analysis of the present election shows that apportioning eledtoral votes based on popular vote would NOT have affected the outcome. https://ricochet.com/389543/the-unfairness-of-the-electoral-college-didnt-swing-the-2016-election/
The “unfair” or differential influence argument is handicapped by the facts. Anyway you count, Trump won. The second argument is likewise flawed.
First, just using the demographic analysis of the above article, it is possible to see the lack of impact rendered by the electoral college. But a simple analysis of the one man one vote principle also eliminates this objection. If it were to be applied as some wish to do for the electoral college, the entire concept of voting would be destroyed.
A single voter in Wyoming exerts a greater influence on statewide elections than a single voter in California. They elect a single governor, or senator and the disparity of population means that every California vote is worth “less” than one from Wyoming. But they are different states. A California vote does not count in Wyoming, nor vice versa. And the Representatives and Senators from these states have exactly the same vote value in Congress.
As defined by the Constitution, each state elects it own officials according to its own standards. A strict one man one vote standard would require that every elected office be conducted on a national basis. This is obviously unworkable and ludicrous. Each state is “independent” or separate from every other. They cooperate, via the Electoral College to select a president.
Those wishing to change the rules are not reacting in a manner designed to strengthen the Constitution and country. They are acting out of partisan political motives.
And along with the dash to enact direct election of the President, we find “experts” proposing the elimination of states all together. Huh? How would that work? Who would run the “sub-areas?” Eliminating states would also obviate the role of governors, attorneys general, treasurers, police departments, all commerce divisions, tax collection agencies, and House of Representative and Senate positions. Obviously that critic had not thought much past his hat, which was probably held over his face.
To effect such a sweeping alteration of the country would require that we scrap the entire Constitution, all state constitutions, and begin again. Has anyone checked the progress of “nation building” in Iraq lately? That is pretty much what they had to do. And with Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, along with a Republican President, we would...well, maybe his bright idea is not so far fetched after all. Bet he would hate the result even more than the Electoral College. But I digress.
What alternatives are there? Electoral college critics cite Parliament as alternative or direct election. They claim that no other country uses the EC concept. But they are wrong. Several other countries use it. India, for example is a large, diverse country and it employs the concept.
In fact Parliament is a form of EC, only less democratic. Here is how Parliament works. Voters elect a local Member of Parliament and the MPs elect the leader of their party as leader of Parliament, Prime Minister–if they have a majority of the seats. This is 1) far less stable than current system. 2) It is less representative of the whole of the country as local voters only effect one choice, the local MP. 3) If no majority exists, several parties cooperate to form a coalition which is even less representative--see #2. 4) A vote of no confidence restarts whole project. This can happen at any time, any where, for any reason. Sounds loverly doesn’t it?
We discussed direct election before. The current election illustrates why a direct election is not a good idea. Hillary lost because the Electoral College worked as planned. It is not to elect a white, southern, good ol’ boy, but to have a President of the people. Take a look at the county by county map again. Hillary focused on metropolitan, liberal enclaves–and won them. But she lost the country.
Trump, on the other hand appealed to the country. He won 30 states while Clinton carried 20. The trap of California’s 55 votes caught her. With that “gigantic lead, she only focused on more of the same. But there was a bit more of the “other” in this election. California narcotizes liberal candidates. They “sleep walk” through the election, believing that since it (California) is so BIG, carrying it ensures that he/she cannot lose. And that is why they do.
Now the pundits are predicting that Trump will be a one term President. Seems like prognosticators said the same for Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama. The predicters’ track record then and in the recent contest makes me believe that they are probably exactly right. (Not)
(Continued on “Page 3.” Below)
Another criticism of the Electoral College is that some votes count more than others. A second, and possibly corollary is that it violates the “one man one vote” provision.
Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming each have three electoral votes. Based on their population they are entitled to one representative, but their electoral college impact is three times their population numbers. California, on the other hand has 55 votes, 53 based on population and two for the senators. So their electoral impact is less than 2% enhanced compared to the smaller states.
Again, we appeal to the actual intent of the framers of the Constitution. The states collectively elect the President. As it is, most of them use a “winner take all” formula for awarding their votes. An analysis of the present election shows that apportioning eledtoral votes based on popular vote would NOT have affected the outcome. https://ricochet.com/389543/the-unfairness-of-the-electoral-college-didnt-swing-the-2016-election/
The “unfair” or differential influence argument is handicapped by the facts. Anyway you count, Trump won. The second argument is likewise flawed.
First, just using the demographic analysis of the above article, it is possible to see the lack of impact rendered by the electoral college. But a simple analysis of the one man one vote principle also eliminates this objection. If it were to be applied as some wish to do for the electoral college, the entire concept of voting would be destroyed.
A single voter in Wyoming exerts a greater influence on statewide elections than a single voter in California. They elect a single governor, or senator and the disparity of population means that every California vote is worth “less” than one from Wyoming. But they are different states. A California vote does not count in Wyoming, nor vice versa. And the Representatives and Senators from these states have exactly the same vote value in Congress.
As defined by the Constitution, each state elects it own officials according to its own standards. A strict one man one vote standard would require that every elected office be conducted on a national basis. This is obviously unworkable and ludicrous. Each state is “independent” or separate from every other. They cooperate, via the Electoral College to select a president.
Those wishing to change the rules are not reacting in a manner designed to strengthen the Constitution and country. They are acting out of partisan political motives.
And along with the dash to enact direct election of the President, we find “experts” proposing the elimination of states all together. Huh? How would that work? Who would run the “sub-areas?” Eliminating states would also obviate the role of governors, attorneys general, treasurers, police departments, all commerce divisions, tax collection agencies, and House of Representative and Senate positions. Obviously that critic had not thought much past his hat, which was probably held over his face.
To effect such a sweeping alteration of the country would require that we scrap the entire Constitution, all state constitutions, and begin again. Has anyone checked the progress of “nation building” in Iraq lately? That is pretty much what they had to do. And with Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, along with a Republican President, we would...well, maybe his bright idea is not so far fetched after all. Bet he would hate the result even more than the Electoral College. But I digress.
What alternatives are there? Electoral college critics cite Parliament as alternative or direct election. They claim that no other country uses the EC concept. But they are wrong. Several other countries use it. India, for example is a large, diverse country and it employs the concept.
In fact Parliament is a form of EC, only less democratic. Here is how Parliament works. Voters elect a local Member of Parliament and the MPs elect the leader of their party as leader of Parliament, Prime Minister–if they have a majority of the seats. This is 1) far less stable than current system. 2) It is less representative of the whole of the country as local voters only effect one choice, the local MP. 3) If no majority exists, several parties cooperate to form a coalition which is even less representative--see #2. 4) A vote of no confidence restarts whole project. This can happen at any time, any where, for any reason. Sounds loverly doesn’t it?
We discussed direct election before. The current election illustrates why a direct election is not a good idea. Hillary lost because the Electoral College worked as planned. It is not to elect a white, southern, good ol’ boy, but to have a President of the people. Take a look at the county by county map again. Hillary focused on metropolitan, liberal enclaves–and won them. But she lost the country.
Trump, on the other hand appealed to the country. He won 30 states while Clinton carried 20. The trap of California’s 55 votes caught her. With that “gigantic lead, she only focused on more of the same. But there was a bit more of the “other” in this election. California narcotizes liberal candidates. They “sleep walk” through the election, believing that since it (California) is so BIG, carrying it ensures that he/she cannot lose. And that is why they do.
Now the pundits are predicting that Trump will be a one term President. Seems like prognosticators said the same for Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama. The predicters’ track record then and in the recent contest makes me believe that they are probably exactly right. (Not)
(Continued on “Page 3.” Below)
Electoral College Part 3
Electoral College (Part 3)
Number 1 is below and 2 immediately preceeds.
To continue our analysis of alternatives, a direct election would lead to demagogic manipulation of the few largest population concentrations either ones that are geographically contiguous or those that are ideologically aligned. If a candidate can concentrate on a single issue, they can unite a majority almost every time.
Speaking of majority, does the direct election have to win a majority of the votes or only a plurality? Would successive runoffs be required to eliminate those who achieve lower numbers, but preclude a majority for any other candidate? The prospect of fielding multiple competing candidates to dilute the opposition vote could also be contemplated by campaign managers. Had Trump lost, a portion of the blame would have been directed to the 16 other original candidates for diluting the opposition to the ultimate losing candidate. A stronger one might have emerged from a smaller original field. But that is moot.
If this election is viewed as “flawed” a runoff scenario in the direct election contest could very well arise. And keep looking at the county map of the country. For the past eight years the majority of the country has felt alienated and ignored. That largely provided the impetus for the “switch” in this election. And if the “majority” as defined by direct election prevailed, the current situation would possibly be perpetuated indefinitely.
The Electoral College has lent a cache and authority to the selection of Presidents over the years by periodically switching from one party to the other. And speaking of parties, the Parliamentary model also lends itself to a multiplication of minority parties. This may ostensibly give a “voice to the minorities” as they can unite in a coalition and take control.
But that same multiplicity of interests often splinters once the shindig is over and things fall apart. This leads to no confidence votes and the reorganization of the government as we have seen happen often in Canada and Great Britain. On the other hand Russia uses a direct election. It usually only has one viable candidate, so that simplifies things. But I digress.
The Electoral College is not designed to be democratic. It is representative. And treating it otherwise, yields the same results as Al Gore and Hillary Clinton have demonstrated. Obama widened his appeal, marginally, and was able to prevail, twice.
If the viewer ignores parties and political preferences he would marvel at the genius of this system. It is very difficult to “game;” it preserves a representative construct; and it usually provides a “mandate” for the winner. A razor thin plurality or even a deficit of the popular vote translates to a significant advantage in the final accounting of the electoral votes. This mandate constitutes a foundation from the new President can confidently proceed.
Some old time advice from an old time advocate: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And if it is broke because you lost, maybe you are the one who is broke.
Number 1 is below and 2 immediately preceeds.
To continue our analysis of alternatives, a direct election would lead to demagogic manipulation of the few largest population concentrations either ones that are geographically contiguous or those that are ideologically aligned. If a candidate can concentrate on a single issue, they can unite a majority almost every time.
Speaking of majority, does the direct election have to win a majority of the votes or only a plurality? Would successive runoffs be required to eliminate those who achieve lower numbers, but preclude a majority for any other candidate? The prospect of fielding multiple competing candidates to dilute the opposition vote could also be contemplated by campaign managers. Had Trump lost, a portion of the blame would have been directed to the 16 other original candidates for diluting the opposition to the ultimate losing candidate. A stronger one might have emerged from a smaller original field. But that is moot.
If this election is viewed as “flawed” a runoff scenario in the direct election contest could very well arise. And keep looking at the county map of the country. For the past eight years the majority of the country has felt alienated and ignored. That largely provided the impetus for the “switch” in this election. And if the “majority” as defined by direct election prevailed, the current situation would possibly be perpetuated indefinitely.
The Electoral College has lent a cache and authority to the selection of Presidents over the years by periodically switching from one party to the other. And speaking of parties, the Parliamentary model also lends itself to a multiplication of minority parties. This may ostensibly give a “voice to the minorities” as they can unite in a coalition and take control.
But that same multiplicity of interests often splinters once the shindig is over and things fall apart. This leads to no confidence votes and the reorganization of the government as we have seen happen often in Canada and Great Britain. On the other hand Russia uses a direct election. It usually only has one viable candidate, so that simplifies things. But I digress.
The Electoral College is not designed to be democratic. It is representative. And treating it otherwise, yields the same results as Al Gore and Hillary Clinton have demonstrated. Obama widened his appeal, marginally, and was able to prevail, twice.
If the viewer ignores parties and political preferences he would marvel at the genius of this system. It is very difficult to “game;” it preserves a representative construct; and it usually provides a “mandate” for the winner. A razor thin plurality or even a deficit of the popular vote translates to a significant advantage in the final accounting of the electoral votes. This mandate constitutes a foundation from the new President can confidently proceed.
Some old time advice from an old time advocate: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And if it is broke because you lost, maybe you are the one who is broke.
Protests
“Not My President!” Hmmm. Let’s analyze that. Since Donald Trump has not yet been sworn into office, does that mean that these guys are anxiously anticipating the day when he is sworn in so that they can proudly announce, “My President?” (That reminds me of Hosea who named one of his kids, “Not My People.” Later on, the name was changed to “My People.” What a touching story. (Hosea 1:9, 10; 2:23)
Do our protesting friends mean that? Or something else? Well, a little analysis might turn up a little angst and anger. Are these guys proclaiming that when there is a President Trump in the United States that he will not be their President? Does that include a recision or denunciation of their citizenship? If so, this is pretty unusual.
Looking back a ways, I recall a certain LBJ who sparked wholesale protests. No citizenship renunciations that I recall. Then he was replaced by RM Nixon. Whew! The streets were crawling with protests. And stores were smashed and looted as well as cars. What a scene. No cancelled citizenships. Substitute Ford came along and all the protesters were either relieved or so worn out that they seemed to go into hibernation.
I do not recall any uproar over J. Carter. Everybody loved the bumbling peanut farmer from Georgia. They just did not want to elect him a second time. R. Reagan was loved by everyone who did not hate him. When the air traffic controllers announced that they did not want to work, President Ron graciously gave them time off. In fact their leave was indefinite. Whoa! The protest networks burst out of their caves.
First Bush had a pretty easy course, thanks to Saddam H. Bill Clinton “felt their pain” so not one protested that. The second Bush did not evoke too much negative emotion as the country was recovering from 911. I recall some initial complaints that the Supreme Court had “pronounced” him President, but what else could they do? He won the Florida vote in every way that it was counted, except the method he, himself initially proposed. SCOTUS used the rule of Law and then the several method of counting confirmed that they had not erred.
Seems like the protesters, looters, and crybabies are not as active during Democratic administrations as in the other one. There did seem to be some “One Percenters” objections, but again no revoking citizenship during the current administration. Most of the hoopla now is about a pipeline across the northern plains. The chances are good that it will not spread to the general population. We all burn gas and appreciate the lower costs compared with oil shortage days and $5 gas.
Now the protests have again begun all over the country. And groups of disillusioned and disappointed protesters have been marching all over. And have you seen the signs? “The Cubs are not MY World Series champion!”
Our protester friends are ignoring some basic facts. One, the protest must concern a specific incident that has precipitated a demonstrable harm. Second, the protest must encompass a specific, actionable remedy to the resultant condition. And finally, the specific action must not, itself, inflict a harmful result to innocent parties.
Our heritage in the South, of sit-ins fell within all of these constraints. The restaurant sit-ins were by specific individuals who had been denied service on account of skin color. The bus protests were initiated by a lady named Rosa who refused to yield her seat to a polite gentleman who demanded that she give him her seat. “There’s plenty in the back, Bub. Help yourself. I was here first.” Whatever happened to “ladies’ privilege?” But I digress.
At least our Cleveland protesters are not breaking rule number three. No one is hurt by their silly protests, unlike the seemingly orchestrated actions to protest the election results. They have not suffered any damage. Second, they have no remedy to propose other than to behave like spoiled children. And third, their escapades appear to be designed to inconvenience the maximum number of non-affected, and probably uninterested parties.
When I was a kid, we played all kinds of ball games. Every once in a while, the guy who owned the ball would be offended and behave like a spoiled rich kid. “I am taking my ball and going home.” The protesters are further handicapped by not owning the “ball.”
Our response to the ball-boy and to the protesters is pretty much, “So long. Good riddance. Don’t let the door hit you in the....” (Back) One proviso that was self-imposed was that he was no longer playing ball. The rest of us “made do” with whatever we had. But for him, the game was over.
Those who proclaim that “Trump is not my President,” have not thought through the ramifications of their declaration. Mr. Trump will become President, so if they are removing themselves from under that Constitutional overlay, they must repudiate their citizenship. Game over.
Consider the consequences of rash statements. That is a mark of maturity. Little kids can declare, “You are not my mommy.” But if pressed, they will repudiate that when Mommy walks away. They eventually learn to think before they speak.
When is the next protest? One about a hurricane or tornado? How about an earthquake? Do black lives matter? The majority of aborted babies are black. And why not protest the murder of innocent, often black, teens in many, if not all, of our major cities? Don’t their lives matter? Protest away.
There is a demonstrable harm. There is a viable solution. There is no “collateral damage” to bystanders in protesting such matters.
Protest away. Make it count. Don’t be like a spoiled rich kid. There is one other option. Instead of protesting, pray. Prayer changes things.
Do our protesting friends mean that? Or something else? Well, a little analysis might turn up a little angst and anger. Are these guys proclaiming that when there is a President Trump in the United States that he will not be their President? Does that include a recision or denunciation of their citizenship? If so, this is pretty unusual.
Looking back a ways, I recall a certain LBJ who sparked wholesale protests. No citizenship renunciations that I recall. Then he was replaced by RM Nixon. Whew! The streets were crawling with protests. And stores were smashed and looted as well as cars. What a scene. No cancelled citizenships. Substitute Ford came along and all the protesters were either relieved or so worn out that they seemed to go into hibernation.
I do not recall any uproar over J. Carter. Everybody loved the bumbling peanut farmer from Georgia. They just did not want to elect him a second time. R. Reagan was loved by everyone who did not hate him. When the air traffic controllers announced that they did not want to work, President Ron graciously gave them time off. In fact their leave was indefinite. Whoa! The protest networks burst out of their caves.
First Bush had a pretty easy course, thanks to Saddam H. Bill Clinton “felt their pain” so not one protested that. The second Bush did not evoke too much negative emotion as the country was recovering from 911. I recall some initial complaints that the Supreme Court had “pronounced” him President, but what else could they do? He won the Florida vote in every way that it was counted, except the method he, himself initially proposed. SCOTUS used the rule of Law and then the several method of counting confirmed that they had not erred.
Seems like the protesters, looters, and crybabies are not as active during Democratic administrations as in the other one. There did seem to be some “One Percenters” objections, but again no revoking citizenship during the current administration. Most of the hoopla now is about a pipeline across the northern plains. The chances are good that it will not spread to the general population. We all burn gas and appreciate the lower costs compared with oil shortage days and $5 gas.
Now the protests have again begun all over the country. And groups of disillusioned and disappointed protesters have been marching all over. And have you seen the signs? “The Cubs are not MY World Series champion!”
Our protester friends are ignoring some basic facts. One, the protest must concern a specific incident that has precipitated a demonstrable harm. Second, the protest must encompass a specific, actionable remedy to the resultant condition. And finally, the specific action must not, itself, inflict a harmful result to innocent parties.
Our heritage in the South, of sit-ins fell within all of these constraints. The restaurant sit-ins were by specific individuals who had been denied service on account of skin color. The bus protests were initiated by a lady named Rosa who refused to yield her seat to a polite gentleman who demanded that she give him her seat. “There’s plenty in the back, Bub. Help yourself. I was here first.” Whatever happened to “ladies’ privilege?” But I digress.
At least our Cleveland protesters are not breaking rule number three. No one is hurt by their silly protests, unlike the seemingly orchestrated actions to protest the election results. They have not suffered any damage. Second, they have no remedy to propose other than to behave like spoiled children. And third, their escapades appear to be designed to inconvenience the maximum number of non-affected, and probably uninterested parties.
When I was a kid, we played all kinds of ball games. Every once in a while, the guy who owned the ball would be offended and behave like a spoiled rich kid. “I am taking my ball and going home.” The protesters are further handicapped by not owning the “ball.”
Our response to the ball-boy and to the protesters is pretty much, “So long. Good riddance. Don’t let the door hit you in the....” (Back) One proviso that was self-imposed was that he was no longer playing ball. The rest of us “made do” with whatever we had. But for him, the game was over.
Those who proclaim that “Trump is not my President,” have not thought through the ramifications of their declaration. Mr. Trump will become President, so if they are removing themselves from under that Constitutional overlay, they must repudiate their citizenship. Game over.
Consider the consequences of rash statements. That is a mark of maturity. Little kids can declare, “You are not my mommy.” But if pressed, they will repudiate that when Mommy walks away. They eventually learn to think before they speak.
When is the next protest? One about a hurricane or tornado? How about an earthquake? Do black lives matter? The majority of aborted babies are black. And why not protest the murder of innocent, often black, teens in many, if not all, of our major cities? Don’t their lives matter? Protest away.
There is a demonstrable harm. There is a viable solution. There is no “collateral damage” to bystanders in protesting such matters.
Protest away. Make it count. Don’t be like a spoiled rich kid. There is one other option. Instead of protesting, pray. Prayer changes things.
Friday, November 11, 2016
Election Apologetic
The election is over. It is an appropriate time to examine the statement, “I could never vote for XXX because of their ethical and moral failings.”
At the outset we must admit that all of us have moral and ethical failings. During this election, we have an unprecedented disclosure of the failings of the candidates. At least before the fact of election, instead of the normal timing of “later.”
First we will address the specific charges. “I will not vote for a man who denigrates and demeans women, minorities, and the handicapped.” And, by implication and occasional declaration, “Anyone who does vote for him either condones or participates in those same egregious activities.”
Using that logic, then those who backed the other candidate condoned and committed acts of prevarication, murdering babies, scofflaw activities including using unsecured emails to manipulate classified materials, and contributing to terrorist murders of American citizens.
Obviously neither of these characterizations is accurate. We all have failings, or shortcomings, or to be frank, sins. The act of voting for one candidate did not validate the peculiarities of the candidate nor signal collusion in those activities. Quite simply the electorate was presented with a set of two flawed candidates. (The alternatives demonstrated the futility of their selection by their election day statistics. I tol’ ya so.)
The question was not “voting for the lesser of two evils,” but which accompanying platform is preferable. The choice was very clear. The direction of the Supreme Court for the next 20 to 30 years and the concomitant social issues that have and will continue to face the judiciary is one critical consideration.
A second is the role of government in personal freedoms, ranging from freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and others. The present administration had clearly signaled the direction in which it purposed to proceed. One candidate promised to continue that train while the other was adamantly opposed.
The third, but not necessarily in any specific order, deals with the fiscal policy of the country. The present administration has nearly doubled the national debt from 10 to 19 trillion dollars and counting. One candidate enthusiastically endorsed that policy, much as Rehaboam threatened to do upon his succeeding of King Solomon. (Although the current administration may not be charged with possessing the wisdom of King Solomon.) The other proposes to move toward a more balanced budget.
The final issue, but not the only one left, is the role of the United States in international interactions. These range from control of borders to interactions with established allies to responses to announced and potential adversaries.
The two parties lined up in exact opposition on all of these issues. The choice was not complicated by conflicting priorities, to many minds, anyway, on these competing issues. It seems like there was a perfect alignment of values on all of these policies. Based on the political, and not moral, inclinations on these concepts, a number of “offended” voters, including this one, chose a Presidential candidate.
Those on both sides of the political spectrum must resist the temptation to align the “other side” with the foibles of their opponents. The ongoing unity and strength of our nation hangs in the balance.
Abraham Lincoln gave us our marching orders in his second inaugural address. “With malice toward none, with charity for all....” Notice the order. No malice first, then charity for all. Thank you for the good advice, Mr. President. (Who was selected by the Electoral College, by the way. See the preceding post.)
At the outset we must admit that all of us have moral and ethical failings. During this election, we have an unprecedented disclosure of the failings of the candidates. At least before the fact of election, instead of the normal timing of “later.”
First we will address the specific charges. “I will not vote for a man who denigrates and demeans women, minorities, and the handicapped.” And, by implication and occasional declaration, “Anyone who does vote for him either condones or participates in those same egregious activities.”
Using that logic, then those who backed the other candidate condoned and committed acts of prevarication, murdering babies, scofflaw activities including using unsecured emails to manipulate classified materials, and contributing to terrorist murders of American citizens.
Obviously neither of these characterizations is accurate. We all have failings, or shortcomings, or to be frank, sins. The act of voting for one candidate did not validate the peculiarities of the candidate nor signal collusion in those activities. Quite simply the electorate was presented with a set of two flawed candidates. (The alternatives demonstrated the futility of their selection by their election day statistics. I tol’ ya so.)
The question was not “voting for the lesser of two evils,” but which accompanying platform is preferable. The choice was very clear. The direction of the Supreme Court for the next 20 to 30 years and the concomitant social issues that have and will continue to face the judiciary is one critical consideration.
A second is the role of government in personal freedoms, ranging from freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and others. The present administration had clearly signaled the direction in which it purposed to proceed. One candidate promised to continue that train while the other was adamantly opposed.
The third, but not necessarily in any specific order, deals with the fiscal policy of the country. The present administration has nearly doubled the national debt from 10 to 19 trillion dollars and counting. One candidate enthusiastically endorsed that policy, much as Rehaboam threatened to do upon his succeeding of King Solomon. (Although the current administration may not be charged with possessing the wisdom of King Solomon.) The other proposes to move toward a more balanced budget.
The final issue, but not the only one left, is the role of the United States in international interactions. These range from control of borders to interactions with established allies to responses to announced and potential adversaries.
The two parties lined up in exact opposition on all of these issues. The choice was not complicated by conflicting priorities, to many minds, anyway, on these competing issues. It seems like there was a perfect alignment of values on all of these policies. Based on the political, and not moral, inclinations on these concepts, a number of “offended” voters, including this one, chose a Presidential candidate.
Those on both sides of the political spectrum must resist the temptation to align the “other side” with the foibles of their opponents. The ongoing unity and strength of our nation hangs in the balance.
Abraham Lincoln gave us our marching orders in his second inaugural address. “With malice toward none, with charity for all....” Notice the order. No malice first, then charity for all. Thank you for the good advice, Mr. President. (Who was selected by the Electoral College, by the way. See the preceding post.)
Electoral College Part One
The quadrennial hue and cry has begun already. “Change the electoral college!” May I be blunt here? That is like going to a cricket or rugby game and demanding that it be played like football or baseball. Each game has its own laws and they designate and control the conduct of the game.
The typical, and expected complaints are lodged. “Unfair, archaic, chaotic, terrible, etc., are adjectives and not indictments. They are based, again, on the characterization above. The critics are 1) unaware of the true nature of the enterprise, 2) are driven by sectarian by motivation, and probably most important, 3) ignoring or discounting the historical context of the Electoral College.
Let’s begin at the beginning. The critics, like teenagers are declaring that they know more than their elders. And, like in “real life,” a semester or two of college sends them/us home with a new appreciation for how much Mom and Dad know and how little I knew back then and how far I have to go.
Another salient complaint is that the elector college is undemocratic. The founding fathers knew and understood history. Every democracy began with the idealistic goal of citizen rule. But once 50.1% of the voters discovered that they could vote to have the other 49.9% support them, the enterprise was doomed. The founding fathers opted, instead for a representative or federal republic. It incorporated the crucial concept of separation of powers. They subdivided the country, retroactively, into states and delegated the division of states into representative districts.
The representative districts elect the representative by popular vote in all of the states. (Their decision.) The senators are elected by a majority of the whole state. (Again determined by the individual states.) Then each state is allotted one electoral vote (elector) for each representative and senator. How the states apportion the electoral votes is up to each state.
So far, none of the “complaints” have not cited a specific fault in the process, except that their preferred candidate did not win. Counting popular votes is akin to going to a football game and counting the fans for each team to determine the winner of the game. The fans may inspire and tangentially affect the game, but they do not determine the winner. The electoral college is the states electing the President.
One other complaint is that the electoral college is designed to elect rich, southern white men. Check the 2000 election during which two rich, southern white men ran against each other. One had to win and the other lose. Then the 2008 and 2012 pitted two northern, and western rich white men against a supposedly poor, black man. The white men lost. 2016 pitted a rich northern woman against a rich northern man. The complaint, me thinks, is a moot point.
In conclusion, the electoral college works as it was designed for the country to elect the President. It was designed to avoid the dominance of massive population centers. Taking a look at the county by county results demonstrates the efficacy of this approach. The population centers dominate in both the House of Representatives and the Senate by virtue of their overwhelming number of voters. If they likewise controlled the Executive branch, the separation of powers would be effectively circumvented as they would control two of the three branches of government. And consequently by appointment and confirmation, they could conceivably establish control of the third branch, the judiciary.
Them old boys were not ignorant, bigoted farmers. Their wisdom and governmental acumen survives and is validated in current events.
The typical, and expected complaints are lodged. “Unfair, archaic, chaotic, terrible, etc., are adjectives and not indictments. They are based, again, on the characterization above. The critics are 1) unaware of the true nature of the enterprise, 2) are driven by sectarian by motivation, and probably most important, 3) ignoring or discounting the historical context of the Electoral College.
Let’s begin at the beginning. The critics, like teenagers are declaring that they know more than their elders. And, like in “real life,” a semester or two of college sends them/us home with a new appreciation for how much Mom and Dad know and how little I knew back then and how far I have to go.
Another salient complaint is that the elector college is undemocratic. The founding fathers knew and understood history. Every democracy began with the idealistic goal of citizen rule. But once 50.1% of the voters discovered that they could vote to have the other 49.9% support them, the enterprise was doomed. The founding fathers opted, instead for a representative or federal republic. It incorporated the crucial concept of separation of powers. They subdivided the country, retroactively, into states and delegated the division of states into representative districts.
The representative districts elect the representative by popular vote in all of the states. (Their decision.) The senators are elected by a majority of the whole state. (Again determined by the individual states.) Then each state is allotted one electoral vote (elector) for each representative and senator. How the states apportion the electoral votes is up to each state.
So far, none of the “complaints” have not cited a specific fault in the process, except that their preferred candidate did not win. Counting popular votes is akin to going to a football game and counting the fans for each team to determine the winner of the game. The fans may inspire and tangentially affect the game, but they do not determine the winner. The electoral college is the states electing the President.
One other complaint is that the electoral college is designed to elect rich, southern white men. Check the 2000 election during which two rich, southern white men ran against each other. One had to win and the other lose. Then the 2008 and 2012 pitted two northern, and western rich white men against a supposedly poor, black man. The white men lost. 2016 pitted a rich northern woman against a rich northern man. The complaint, me thinks, is a moot point.
In conclusion, the electoral college works as it was designed for the country to elect the President. It was designed to avoid the dominance of massive population centers. Taking a look at the county by county results demonstrates the efficacy of this approach. The population centers dominate in both the House of Representatives and the Senate by virtue of their overwhelming number of voters. If they likewise controlled the Executive branch, the separation of powers would be effectively circumvented as they would control two of the three branches of government. And consequently by appointment and confirmation, they could conceivably establish control of the third branch, the judiciary.
Them old boys were not ignorant, bigoted farmers. Their wisdom and governmental acumen survives and is validated in current events.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Politics
This is being written before the results are in on the 2016 election. It is a bipartisan critique of voters. Time after time, throughout the campaign people have declared that they could never vote for XXX because of some activity. For the Democrats, they abhor the cavalier way Donald Trump acted with regard to women. Republicans, on the other hand focused on Hillary Clinton’s lying and other ethical failures.
This is not to depreciate the importance of morals and ethics, but the election is for the policy leader of this country and by default, the free world. None of the “never XXX’ers” ever mentioned any policy issue, whether social, financial, national, or international. Their focus was on the purported unscrupulous actions of one party while ignoring the failures of their choice.
If ever there was a case of speck in the eye of the examined and log in the eye of the examiner, this is it. And yes, these character flaws will have an effect on the ruling efforts of the victorious candidate. But looking back in history we see the Presidency rife with men who would be classified as unscrupulous (Johnson), womanizing (Kennedy), adulterous (Eisenhower), unrestrained (T. Roosevelt), and who knows how many other moral and ethical deficiencies.
But their national policy was the salient determinant of their place in history. Our voting efforts should be focused on ferreting out the candidate who will best pursue the overall interests of the country. The party platforms are the area from which this decision should arise.
It is too late to affect the outcome now, but one would hope that such “shallow” thinking will disappear into the past as this election fades. Whatever happens, the USA is “stuck” with the results of this exercise in representative governance.
We can only hope and pray that this will not be our last opportunity to participate. And even more that we get it right next time, regardless of how “lucky or unlucky” we are after we evaluate the present results.
This is not to depreciate the importance of morals and ethics, but the election is for the policy leader of this country and by default, the free world. None of the “never XXX’ers” ever mentioned any policy issue, whether social, financial, national, or international. Their focus was on the purported unscrupulous actions of one party while ignoring the failures of their choice.
If ever there was a case of speck in the eye of the examined and log in the eye of the examiner, this is it. And yes, these character flaws will have an effect on the ruling efforts of the victorious candidate. But looking back in history we see the Presidency rife with men who would be classified as unscrupulous (Johnson), womanizing (Kennedy), adulterous (Eisenhower), unrestrained (T. Roosevelt), and who knows how many other moral and ethical deficiencies.
But their national policy was the salient determinant of their place in history. Our voting efforts should be focused on ferreting out the candidate who will best pursue the overall interests of the country. The party platforms are the area from which this decision should arise.
It is too late to affect the outcome now, but one would hope that such “shallow” thinking will disappear into the past as this election fades. Whatever happens, the USA is “stuck” with the results of this exercise in representative governance.
We can only hope and pray that this will not be our last opportunity to participate. And even more that we get it right next time, regardless of how “lucky or unlucky” we are after we evaluate the present results.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Advertising and Articles
Do you have Asteroid Anxiety? Good news! Now the cumulative resources of mankind have been able to map the heavens and identify “near earth objects” which might, at some time threaten to crash into the earth and become devastating meteorites. (Meteors that penetrate the atmosphere to strike the ground or water.) Well, “we” have identified 90% of them, mainly the larger ones.
So imagine that an imminent impact is identified. The response is to get FEMA and other disaster agencies on alert to help mitigate the damage. I do not know about you, but that certainly relieves my asteroid anxiety. If and when the “big one” hits, our disaster agencies will be on high alert. As Speedy, the AlkaSeltzer boy used to warble, “Oh what a relief it is.”
A Medicare advertisement shows two attractive women roughly in their twenties or thirties smiling as they peruse the new Medicare Advantage offerings. Guess the advert guys have not been told that Medicare is for those over 65.
One particular auto advertisement that runs mainly on the “off channels” is one that says, “You pay your premiums for your car insurance faithfully and on time, and now that you have an accident, you have to pay more.” Obviously it is referring to the deductible that we choose when we pick insurance.
They act like it is such an affront to humanity and decency that they do that. It is possible that we can have a zero deductible (possibly what this company offers), but at a much higher premium. Obviously the company would prefer the higher premium as they get to keep all the money if you do not have an accident.
If you do file a claim, they will pay it, but you may rest assured that in the long run, they “get” more than they give. Now they are advertising to entice the potential client to pay even more into the kitty on the pretense of not being cheated by the greedy insurance guys. Is it any wonder that all of those tall buildings downtown are named for Insurance companies?
On the topic of advertisements, does anyone else get a little tired and even irritated at the advertisements that assume that their potential clients are dumber than a box of rocks? Listen to the implied statements, and try not to be so offended that you refuse to buy the product even if it is one that you prefer. Or on the other hand, why prefer one from such a doltish company?
So imagine that an imminent impact is identified. The response is to get FEMA and other disaster agencies on alert to help mitigate the damage. I do not know about you, but that certainly relieves my asteroid anxiety. If and when the “big one” hits, our disaster agencies will be on high alert. As Speedy, the AlkaSeltzer boy used to warble, “Oh what a relief it is.”
A Medicare advertisement shows two attractive women roughly in their twenties or thirties smiling as they peruse the new Medicare Advantage offerings. Guess the advert guys have not been told that Medicare is for those over 65.
One particular auto advertisement that runs mainly on the “off channels” is one that says, “You pay your premiums for your car insurance faithfully and on time, and now that you have an accident, you have to pay more.” Obviously it is referring to the deductible that we choose when we pick insurance.
They act like it is such an affront to humanity and decency that they do that. It is possible that we can have a zero deductible (possibly what this company offers), but at a much higher premium. Obviously the company would prefer the higher premium as they get to keep all the money if you do not have an accident.
If you do file a claim, they will pay it, but you may rest assured that in the long run, they “get” more than they give. Now they are advertising to entice the potential client to pay even more into the kitty on the pretense of not being cheated by the greedy insurance guys. Is it any wonder that all of those tall buildings downtown are named for Insurance companies?
On the topic of advertisements, does anyone else get a little tired and even irritated at the advertisements that assume that their potential clients are dumber than a box of rocks? Listen to the implied statements, and try not to be so offended that you refuse to buy the product even if it is one that you prefer. Or on the other hand, why prefer one from such a doltish company?
Sunday, October 16, 2016
The Talk 2
We recently discussed having “the talk” with our kids. That is the one where a wise dad instructs an adolescent on how to interact with a police officer. “Use respect, as if he has a gun. He does!”
There is a second “talk” that is even more important, and at a younger age. That is what to do when a child encounters a gun. If it is lying on the ground or exposed somewhere, do not touch it. Get away without doing anything else. Get an adult, preferably police, to take possession of it.
But more likely, is when they are visiting a friend’s house, someone will produce a gun. At that point, the child should immediately leave. Say, “I got to go home.” Do NOT give a reason or make a joke about it. Do not warn that this is dangerous. Just go and tell an adult.
If a child is manipulating the weapon, it is dangerous. If you mention anything about it, they may, in their immaturity, point it at someone as a joke. If you try to take it away from them the ensuing struggle may result in a discharge. All of these things can, and often do, lead to disaster.
And of course, Dad, talk to yourself. Any guns in your house MUST be secured and assuredly unavailable to any child, yours or any other. Incidentally, that is where gun legislation and prosecution comes into play. A responsible gun owner will absolutely ensure that no child can access his weapons. Period. No exceptions. No slip ups. No extraneous circumstances. And even then, keep them unloaded and apart from the ammunition.
Imagine it is like a live rattle snake. You would not “accidentally” leave it lying around or “forget” to it away. The gun potentially can be more deadly than the snake. Treat with due respect.
Gun tragedies are almost uniformly preventable. If we publish the responsibility caveats and then enforce them, careless gun owners will shape up or be locked up.
Our kids are worth it. Talk to them.
There is a second “talk” that is even more important, and at a younger age. That is what to do when a child encounters a gun. If it is lying on the ground or exposed somewhere, do not touch it. Get away without doing anything else. Get an adult, preferably police, to take possession of it.
But more likely, is when they are visiting a friend’s house, someone will produce a gun. At that point, the child should immediately leave. Say, “I got to go home.” Do NOT give a reason or make a joke about it. Do not warn that this is dangerous. Just go and tell an adult.
If a child is manipulating the weapon, it is dangerous. If you mention anything about it, they may, in their immaturity, point it at someone as a joke. If you try to take it away from them the ensuing struggle may result in a discharge. All of these things can, and often do, lead to disaster.
And of course, Dad, talk to yourself. Any guns in your house MUST be secured and assuredly unavailable to any child, yours or any other. Incidentally, that is where gun legislation and prosecution comes into play. A responsible gun owner will absolutely ensure that no child can access his weapons. Period. No exceptions. No slip ups. No extraneous circumstances. And even then, keep them unloaded and apart from the ammunition.
Imagine it is like a live rattle snake. You would not “accidentally” leave it lying around or “forget” to it away. The gun potentially can be more deadly than the snake. Treat with due respect.
Gun tragedies are almost uniformly preventable. If we publish the responsibility caveats and then enforce them, careless gun owners will shape up or be locked up.
Our kids are worth it. Talk to them.
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Piling On
Whenever there is a fumble during a football game two or three guys “fall” on the ball and begin to wrestle for control. At this point about 13 other guys leap onto the pile. They do not have a chance of even seeing the ball, but they jump on. Some of the leaps are even pretty artistic.
The focus of the game is not to pile on to the stack. It is to win the game. While they may not affect the outcome of the struggle under the pile, they get the aggression relief of building a big pile. (Note: Usually a replay shows one guy capturing the ball and curling up around it. Then the pile hits.)
To my Republican friends: Today’s application is a political fumble. Actually one that happened over 10 years ago. Mr. Trump clearly fumbled the ball and even loyal Republicans cannot wait to jump on the pile. Back on the playground we called it piling on. But in the hurry to leap the pile, we need to remember, like a football player, that the object of the game is not to make a big pile on the ground. It is to win the game.
And to those who sanctimoniously proclaim that we should, “Vote our conscience,” where was this conscience back in January and February when internecine disputes could have been resolved. Instead three conservatives spli the vote and left the path open for Mr. Trump. Rather than utilizing conscience, concern for the party, and more importantly, to a lot of us, concern for the country, we had three factions selfishly fighting for about 2/3 of the voting block. Splitting that base was a heady, self gratifying action. But in the long run, none of the three were able to prevail and now these same loyal party guys are busy throwing Mr. Trump and the party under the bush. (Oops, freudian slip) Under the bus.
Republican alert! Even if you do not like the head of the ticket, examine the competing platforms. If the Democrats win, it will be more and more of the same. And more. If your social conscience is guided by the platforms, you have to vote to stop Hillary. Yes, Trump is a former Democrat. That is great. There is hope that others will “see the light.”
If “voting our conscience” paves the way for another devastating attack on social mores and constitutional government, then your conscience was not well informed. And do not forget the $1 trillion dollar addition to the national debt every year that the H-camp will undoubtedly pile on. Don’t be like the boys on top of the pile. They have no idea of what is happening underneath. They are just piling on.
The game is more important than the pile. Let’s win the game.
The focus of the game is not to pile on to the stack. It is to win the game. While they may not affect the outcome of the struggle under the pile, they get the aggression relief of building a big pile. (Note: Usually a replay shows one guy capturing the ball and curling up around it. Then the pile hits.)
To my Republican friends: Today’s application is a political fumble. Actually one that happened over 10 years ago. Mr. Trump clearly fumbled the ball and even loyal Republicans cannot wait to jump on the pile. Back on the playground we called it piling on. But in the hurry to leap the pile, we need to remember, like a football player, that the object of the game is not to make a big pile on the ground. It is to win the game.
And to those who sanctimoniously proclaim that we should, “Vote our conscience,” where was this conscience back in January and February when internecine disputes could have been resolved. Instead three conservatives spli the vote and left the path open for Mr. Trump. Rather than utilizing conscience, concern for the party, and more importantly, to a lot of us, concern for the country, we had three factions selfishly fighting for about 2/3 of the voting block. Splitting that base was a heady, self gratifying action. But in the long run, none of the three were able to prevail and now these same loyal party guys are busy throwing Mr. Trump and the party under the bush. (Oops, freudian slip) Under the bus.
Republican alert! Even if you do not like the head of the ticket, examine the competing platforms. If the Democrats win, it will be more and more of the same. And more. If your social conscience is guided by the platforms, you have to vote to stop Hillary. Yes, Trump is a former Democrat. That is great. There is hope that others will “see the light.”
If “voting our conscience” paves the way for another devastating attack on social mores and constitutional government, then your conscience was not well informed. And do not forget the $1 trillion dollar addition to the national debt every year that the H-camp will undoubtedly pile on. Don’t be like the boys on top of the pile. They have no idea of what is happening underneath. They are just piling on.
The game is more important than the pile. Let’s win the game.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
Today
Today
Today is Sept 22 and is the autumnal equinox. So we got as much nighty night as we did day time. I hope you had plenty of sleep. Or rather got a lot done, because day light is going away. The old “man works from sun to sun” is catching up with us.
Today was also the anniversary, of the 1776 execution of Nathan Hale. I hope you know who he was. “I regret that....” Look it up if you don’t know.
You will be glad you did.
Have a good day.
Today is Sept 22 and is the autumnal equinox. So we got as much nighty night as we did day time. I hope you had plenty of sleep. Or rather got a lot done, because day light is going away. The old “man works from sun to sun” is catching up with us.
Today was also the anniversary, of the 1776 execution of Nathan Hale. I hope you know who he was. “I regret that....” Look it up if you don’t know.
You will be glad you did.
Have a good day.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
The Electoral College
Electoral College
The direct election of the President was a cause that I supported in the past. Then I heard a high school student explain the genius of the founding fathers’ paradigm for government. To review, the Constitution specifies a tripartite system of government that contains both separation and division of powers. There are three separate divisions, and three distinct methods for choosing the participants. We have a Legislative branch elected by the general population. The House and Senate share, though to a different degree, the distinction of being chosen by the individual voters.
Second the Judicial branch is appointed by the Executive and approved by the Legislative. Notice the intertwining of elections processes without overlapping. Finally, the President and ultimately the Executive is chosen by the States through the electoral college. Thus we also have a check and balance system to ultimately control all three branches.
A popularly elected President, or one chosen by apportioned electoral votes reduces him to a one-man congress or prime minister of the population only without the “no confidence” circuit breaker. (See below.)
The legislature is apportioned roughly by the division of interests in the individual states. Even the Senate can be “split” if a particular state has evenly divided interests. (Note that parties have usurped the role of interests, but in most cases, they are responsive to their “base” and quickly come into line when they stray.)
The States choose the President on the basis of their specific needs and convictions. So to be elected, the President must appeal to a majority of the States. The “division” of our society that is represented is the individual States. In this manner individuals, the government itself, and the states are all equally represented and involved in the checks and balances. One branch does not overwhelm the other two.
These electoral votes are traditionally voted by State on a winner take all basis. Each State submits its choice for President and they are tallied at the Electoral College to determine the next President.
Apportioning votes is as silly as having the Supreme Court Justices vote a percentage. Take, for instance, a situation where one Justice voted 30% in favor of a position and 70% against and two others voted 51% for and 49% against. This would have been a 2 to 1 decision in favor of the side. But if the percentages are summed, it is a 132 to 168 decision against.
The Supreme Court presents a decision based on the majority. The Senate, often with advice from their House colleagues, confirms the Judiciary. Likewise, the states have a united voice in the final decision for the executive.
Actually reporting the accumulated total votes for the President is both worthless and misleading. It has contributed to the popular myth that the people elect the President. It is as useless as reporting the total number of votes cast for the Republican and Democratic members of the House of Representatives. We do not know, nor care how many total votes the parties received. The count of the representatives is what is important.
So the Constitution has crafted a marvelous division and separation of powers. It is not an whimsical fantasy of the founding fathers. It is a functional, utilitarian, and extremely successful model for governance that has not been improved upon for over 2 centuries. And no other form of government has even approached the success and stability that this structure has afforded to the United States of America.
The real genius of this Constitutional system is the President. He (or she) is elected by the States. The States have proportional strength so representation is roughly apportioned, but not exclusively, on size of their population. Compare this to a prime minister who merely represents the majority of the legislative branch. He is not independent nor able to restrain the legislative body. We need only observe Canada, Great Britain, and even Israel to see the drawbacks and impotence built into this system. The no confidence vote effectively reduces him or her to a pawn of the legislative branch.
.
Dividing electoral votes proportionally is merely a thinly veiled attempt to make an end run around the concept of State selection of the Executive. If proportionality is so sacred, why not make the Congressmen and Senators vote for issues on a proportional basis predicated on their percentage backing in their electoral district?
The check and balance system is complete and functional. We only tend to “muck things up” when we arbitrarily change one aspect without considering the whole entity. This is called “systems analysis.” No one in his right mind would install 24 inch wheels on the back of his car to make it go fast and 13 inch wheels on the front to save money because they are cheaper. (Unless you are building a drag racer, which is not too functional on Briley Parkway.)
Changes in one part of the car affect other aspects and must be carefully, and thoughtfully considered. The Founding Fathers crafted an impressive edifice for governing our country. Let’s be very careful of tipping it in any direction.
Sunday, September 4, 2016
Learning from Football
Learning from Football
This weekend several teams made egregious mistakes that either cost them the game or nearly did. One mistake that should be pounded into the head of every quarterback, especially toward the end of the game is, “Do not lose field goal position.”
LSU was trailing by two and was in field goal range. The QB “scrambled” out of trouble, but did not get rid of the football. He retreated farther and then broke the second cardinal rule for passers. “Don’t force it when you are off balance. Always throw to the outside of the receiver. And cross field passes are always problematic.” Kind of a long rule, but has critical components.
He attempted a pass from one side of the field to the other. Not only did he miss his target, it went directly to the defensive player, who intercepted it and promptly dropped to the ground.
(Note: Several years ago Nebraska was ahead of Texas A & M at the end of the game. A&M was threatening, but the Huskers intercepted a pass in the end zone. Ball game.., Except the player tried to run it out, was hit, fumbled, and A&M recovered for a touchdown, winning the game.)
The LSU QB broke just about every end of game rule that you can imagine. My son and I were discussing some of the other mistakes. He commented that on the irony of guys who have watched over 50 years of football and seen just about everything but are unable to play the game. We have to suffer the guys who have not seen or thought of these thing–yet–are out there losing games. How sad. Sigh.
The Tennessee QB did that at the end of the first half against Appalachian State, also losing an almost sure three points. The game ended in a tie, and only a propitious bounce gave Tennessee the win. But the rest of their schedule may not be so accommodating. Maybe. See below.
Who does the offensive end block on field goals and extra points? Often two guys will line up “over the end” and he cannot block both. On Friday night, we watched a high school game and the end started to go after the outside guy, realized that the inside guy was going too, swung back, missed him, and watched the kick get blocked.
Always take the guy with the shortest route if you have two and cannot get them both. Make the guy go the “long way around.” This kid learned the hard way. The kick was blocked, the game ended in a tie, and they lost in overtime–on another blocked kick. Maybe he has learned now.
Where was the coach? I bet he and the boys watch a few kicks over the week end.
Shall we look at Houston and Oklahoma? I thought every coach in the country would warn his teams against letting down on field goal misses. Alabama lost a chance at the National Championship a couple of years ago by not covering a missed attempt. Oklahoma did the same on Saturday. The guy was about 2" from the end line. It was a 109 yard and 34 inch return.
More coaches are watching film, and showing them to players. Let the games go on. They are, at the least, interesting.
This weekend several teams made egregious mistakes that either cost them the game or nearly did. One mistake that should be pounded into the head of every quarterback, especially toward the end of the game is, “Do not lose field goal position.”
LSU was trailing by two and was in field goal range. The QB “scrambled” out of trouble, but did not get rid of the football. He retreated farther and then broke the second cardinal rule for passers. “Don’t force it when you are off balance. Always throw to the outside of the receiver. And cross field passes are always problematic.” Kind of a long rule, but has critical components.
He attempted a pass from one side of the field to the other. Not only did he miss his target, it went directly to the defensive player, who intercepted it and promptly dropped to the ground.
(Note: Several years ago Nebraska was ahead of Texas A & M at the end of the game. A&M was threatening, but the Huskers intercepted a pass in the end zone. Ball game.., Except the player tried to run it out, was hit, fumbled, and A&M recovered for a touchdown, winning the game.)
The LSU QB broke just about every end of game rule that you can imagine. My son and I were discussing some of the other mistakes. He commented that on the irony of guys who have watched over 50 years of football and seen just about everything but are unable to play the game. We have to suffer the guys who have not seen or thought of these thing–yet–are out there losing games. How sad. Sigh.
The Tennessee QB did that at the end of the first half against Appalachian State, also losing an almost sure three points. The game ended in a tie, and only a propitious bounce gave Tennessee the win. But the rest of their schedule may not be so accommodating. Maybe. See below.
Who does the offensive end block on field goals and extra points? Often two guys will line up “over the end” and he cannot block both. On Friday night, we watched a high school game and the end started to go after the outside guy, realized that the inside guy was going too, swung back, missed him, and watched the kick get blocked.
Always take the guy with the shortest route if you have two and cannot get them both. Make the guy go the “long way around.” This kid learned the hard way. The kick was blocked, the game ended in a tie, and they lost in overtime–on another blocked kick. Maybe he has learned now.
Where was the coach? I bet he and the boys watch a few kicks over the week end.
Shall we look at Houston and Oklahoma? I thought every coach in the country would warn his teams against letting down on field goal misses. Alabama lost a chance at the National Championship a couple of years ago by not covering a missed attempt. Oklahoma did the same on Saturday. The guy was about 2" from the end line. It was a 109 yard and 34 inch return.
More coaches are watching film, and showing them to players. Let the games go on. They are, at the least, interesting.
Friday, August 26, 2016
Of Bathrooms and Babies
Of Bathrooms and Babies
This bathroom junk has gone on for too long. It needs some clarification badly. Or as Jerry Clower used to say, “Shoot up here amongst us. One of us gotta have some relief.” (If you don’t know that story, check it out. It is priceless. There is a commercial involved, but it is worth it.)
The controversy about who gets to use the bathrooms has roiled the country from one end to the other. Those who oppose allowing transgendered individuals the use of their preferred facilities are not, as accused, discriminating against these people. The accusation of potential sexual assault is not directed against a transgender, but against the poser, who, under the cover of transgendered entry, will take advantage of the situation.
Think that this is preposterous? Just recently a TSA employee was charged with going around a major airport taking surreptitious photos up women’s skirts as they passed through stairwells and escalators. Where do you think he will spend his lunch and breaks? Another incident involved a guy taking pictures over the top of the stall in a women’s bathroom at a college in a northern state that did not restrict gender entry.
Inevitably, some weirdo will assault a child or woman in a restroom or other “gender neutral” facility. And when that incident occurs it will be like removing the chocks from the wheels of a train wreck that will make “Die Hard 3" look like my Lionel model train derailing.
Granted, the transgendered crew would probably not do such a thing because it would draw unwanted, negative attention to them. However, the perverts have no such compunctions.
But you protest, “Why punish the innocent with the guilty?”
And I reply, “My point exactly.” Innocent children will suffer for our lack of constraint, restraint, and just plain common sense.
The solution seems fairly obvious. If a transgendered is “transformed” then no one will know if and when he or she utilizes the restroom of their choice. But if the “hardware” is still of the now “discarded” identity, it would seem that overtly flaunting their presence in the “wrong” restroom would actually be a source of more taunting and bullying. This is one of the very “reasons” given in the appeal for access.
It is simple. If you are “male equipped” use the MEN facilities. For the person trapped in the wrong sex, just avert your eyes as pass the urinals, proceed to the stalls, and do your business. It is exactly the same as in the WOMEN rooms once you get past the “U” area.
For the “un-penitent” (is that a word?) just ignore the others and proceed to a stall. If you insist and “standing up” as you do it, be sure to lift the seat. And, from what I hear, wipe your shoes.
And what is the point? It seems that THAT is the point. The transgendered community and their apologists are determined to make a point of their rejection of old social mores and baggage. A short time with a anatomy text and a quick look at biological and physiological differences will demonstrate that gender is not a social construct. (Aside, make a quick Google search of male and female pelvic structure and the differentiation is clear and compelling.)
There is an old saying that goes, “Your freedom to swing your fists ends at the beginning of my nose. In conclusion, protect the smallest and most helpless by using the appropriate facilities. If you want to make believe what is, isn’t, do that where you will not inadvertently endanger others.
This bathroom junk has gone on for too long. It needs some clarification badly. Or as Jerry Clower used to say, “Shoot up here amongst us. One of us gotta have some relief.” (If you don’t know that story, check it out. It is priceless. There is a commercial involved, but it is worth it.)
The controversy about who gets to use the bathrooms has roiled the country from one end to the other. Those who oppose allowing transgendered individuals the use of their preferred facilities are not, as accused, discriminating against these people. The accusation of potential sexual assault is not directed against a transgender, but against the poser, who, under the cover of transgendered entry, will take advantage of the situation.
Think that this is preposterous? Just recently a TSA employee was charged with going around a major airport taking surreptitious photos up women’s skirts as they passed through stairwells and escalators. Where do you think he will spend his lunch and breaks? Another incident involved a guy taking pictures over the top of the stall in a women’s bathroom at a college in a northern state that did not restrict gender entry.
Inevitably, some weirdo will assault a child or woman in a restroom or other “gender neutral” facility. And when that incident occurs it will be like removing the chocks from the wheels of a train wreck that will make “Die Hard 3" look like my Lionel model train derailing.
Granted, the transgendered crew would probably not do such a thing because it would draw unwanted, negative attention to them. However, the perverts have no such compunctions.
But you protest, “Why punish the innocent with the guilty?”
And I reply, “My point exactly.” Innocent children will suffer for our lack of constraint, restraint, and just plain common sense.
The solution seems fairly obvious. If a transgendered is “transformed” then no one will know if and when he or she utilizes the restroom of their choice. But if the “hardware” is still of the now “discarded” identity, it would seem that overtly flaunting their presence in the “wrong” restroom would actually be a source of more taunting and bullying. This is one of the very “reasons” given in the appeal for access.
It is simple. If you are “male equipped” use the MEN facilities. For the person trapped in the wrong sex, just avert your eyes as pass the urinals, proceed to the stalls, and do your business. It is exactly the same as in the WOMEN rooms once you get past the “U” area.
For the “un-penitent” (is that a word?) just ignore the others and proceed to a stall. If you insist and “standing up” as you do it, be sure to lift the seat. And, from what I hear, wipe your shoes.
And what is the point? It seems that THAT is the point. The transgendered community and their apologists are determined to make a point of their rejection of old social mores and baggage. A short time with a anatomy text and a quick look at biological and physiological differences will demonstrate that gender is not a social construct. (Aside, make a quick Google search of male and female pelvic structure and the differentiation is clear and compelling.)
There is an old saying that goes, “Your freedom to swing your fists ends at the beginning of my nose. In conclusion, protect the smallest and most helpless by using the appropriate facilities. If you want to make believe what is, isn’t, do that where you will not inadvertently endanger others.
Ducking Donald
Ducking Donald
Oops, I am going to have to disagree with Donald Trump. He said that the Hillary email scandal is as bad as Watergate. Whoa. Wait a minute. I respectfully disagree.
Watergate was a two-bit political espionage caper carried out by some pretty inept operatives. The goal was to ferret out the strategy of eventual landslide loser McGovern in the 1972 election. It had virtually no effect on the election. The only significance to it was the coverup that was initiated after the fact.
Nixon was largely innocent of any wrong doing until he started interfering with the investigation. Does anyone remember the infamous, missing 18 minutes? His secretary “accidentally” erased 18 minutes of what the investigators suspected was damning conversation about the subsequent activities to obscure the truth.
Missing minutes? Does that sound familiar? Yes, except the Watergate caper did not expose national secrets to any foreign power, friendly or hostile. It did not endanger, or even cost innocent lives. Once the fat hit the fire or fan or whatever, the wheels of justice ground inexorably to the proper conclusion. “I am not a crook,” notwithstanding.
So to equate the current “missing material” and subsequent coverup with the innocuous Watergate is a grave misstatement. But you know how circumspect Mr. Trump is. He did not want to over exaggerate his statement.
Is it 30,000 emails or 15,000 more, now 45K, or more? We do not know the extent of the exposure, let alone the damage. No wonder Hillary is running so hard for the Presidency. She wants to postpone the accounting for four or eight years.
At least Nixon is off the hook for being the biggest crook in American politics.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)