For those of you who are curious.

How many planets are there?


There are many planets in the universe. One could estimate the number of planets in the Universe by first estimating the number of galaxies in the Universe based on the even distribution of galaxies and the number of galaxies observed in a survey of a portion of the sky. This would be an incorrect assumption based on the latest survey results that show that there is large scale structure in the Universe. Even based on this large scale structure one could estimate the total number of galaxies by order of magnitude to be 10^9 Each galaxy contains a large number of stars, perhaps 10^10 stars. Next, we must define what we mean by a planets, because there are many bodies that orbit the sun, but we consider them asteroids when they are "too small." In other star systems we know that stars, black holes and neutron stars may also orbit a star. We could consider our solar system to be a "typical star system" and use 10 planets/star as an estimate. By doing this we estimate the total number of planets in this Universe to be 10^20.

My numbers are just estimates based on what I recall, but more accurate numbers may be available.

Memes and Freedom


Over the last four months I have tried to give an explanation for how and why we know what we know. Our assertion is we can not assume anything. We can make observations and form relationships. We can not know what we can not observe. Culture and society can effect our observations unless we actively prevent it. The methods used to retain information can effect our observations. Our brain tends to store information in metaphors, and the metaphors will change with time. Our free will can effect observations based on our motivations.

Do we even have a "free will" and how do we know it? I can not think of an experiment to conclusively prove we have a "free will," but if you have an idea please e-mail me. We can use a philosophical arguement instead. Assume we don't have "free will," then we must do what ever we were going to do and we loose our motivation to live. Then, we must be living a lie in order to live. Living a lie and knowing it leads to a lack of motivation to live. So, we could either have "free will," or we could be living a lie and not know it. We still don't know which is true, but we must assume "free will" in order to live a fullfilling life.

Since we have a "free will," we can choose to understand the universe to the best of our ability. We can first observe and understand the observable portion of the universe. We must throw away everything based on non-observables. But, why?

In order to understand why the non-observables need to be thrown away we need to learn about memes. Memes are pieces of information that replicate. An example of a memes could be the story of "Little Red Riding Hood." The story is told by adults and heard by children. It may change as it is retold from generation to generation. The changing of a meme is known as evolution. If the information becomes unimportant it dies. For example, the proper care for horses is getting less known. How to skin a mamoth is no longer readily known.

A meme's success is based on how well spread it is. A meme's soul purpose is to find a host and replicate itself. Some memes effect its host, while other's do not. Memes that do not effect the host are unimportant, and therefore die because of lack of need to be copied. Some memes effect the host negitively and others effect the host positively. An example of a meme effecting its host negitively would be: "If you die in the name of God, you wil go directly to Heaven. Suicide missions are needed to fight the Holy war for God." Hosts that take this meme to heart may not live to spread the meme to another person, or the Hosts death itself could spread the meme to more hosts. Therefore, the anouncement of the meme in the media could spread the meme to a wider audience of potential hosts. Since truth isn't a criteria for spreading the meme a wide variety of true and false memes occupy a culture at any one time.

So, if we limit ourselves to observables we stand a chance of knowing the truth. If we decide to question what we can not observe we are affected by social and cultural bias. Let us look at the history of social and cultural understanding of what we once could not observe, but through advances in technology we can now observe.

Example 1: The Earth. Many cultures once told us the Earth was flat and held up by elephants or Atlas. Obviously, this assertion was wrong.

Example 2: Other Cultures. Almost every culture believed other cultures to be bad, evil or worse. Once the culture is understood, most cultural practices become acceptable.

Example 3: Creation. The age of the universe is now known to be about 12,000,000,000 years old which counters the 5 or 6 thousand years old Judeo-Christian answer to this question. The age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The time it took to create the Earth and all the life took 99% of this 4.5 billion years as opposed to the 7 day senario offered by the Judeo-Christians culture.

What do we say to this same Judeo-Christian culture when it tells us about other unobservables? First of all, do they have any correct predictions? If you know of anything Judeo-Christian culture has predicted and it was later proven to be correct by carefull observation please send me e-mail. With that track record, we need to be skeptical about what they tell us about any unobservables.

This was just an example aimed at an assumed audience predominently of Judeo-Christians so they can relate to what they know. But this extends to any cultural norm not based on observables. When we tell a culture eating your dead may spread Crutchfield-Jacobs disease, and the belief that eating the dead does not give the consumer strength we are fighting very strong cultural memes. When the meme has no observable to counter it it becomes very strong. If we think of cultural memes as viruses being spread through the culture, and those which survive are successful without reguard for truth. How can a meme be killed? One way is for the truth to be born out. So, if the meme is about something observable, it will die when many observations contradict the meme. If the meme is about something which can not be seen it can live forever if it has the favor of the host.

Online Music

Just a short rant here.

Hilary Rosen doesn’t understand the music culture. She may understand the money culture. There isn’t anything wrong with making money, but promoting junk music to teenagers to reap profits is almost as bad as selling pornography. Instead of growing the culture of music the RIAA promotes bland tasteless music that is lapped up by people that haven’t been exposed to any other type of music except what they are selling.

Napster and KaZaA were one way the RIAA could have promoted other types of music. Allowing cheap or free downloads of unusual music that could have built a following for these types of music. But they were worried that people would learn about these different genres and wouldn’t come back to the sugar and shock rock.

Instead, now the RIAA is prosecuting people, which is sending people off to find other ways to not get caught sharing. Just copying CDs and trading them is very common.

Bush on TV

I had my car in the shop today. This dealership has a very nice waiting room with a Satellite TV. Since we don’t get any cable TV at home I like the hour or so when I wait for the oil in the car to be changed. I flipped on CNN and watched as President Bush and Prime Minister Paul Martin stood in front of the White House Press Corp and Canadian Press and made statements. Ironically as Bush said “one year ago I stood on the Aircraft Carrier… and there are no more rape rooms and torture chambers in Iraq,” a ticker rolled along the bottom of the screen telling about the photos of US soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners.

Of course, Bush condemned the actions of these soldiers. But, I would assume that Saddam Hussein himself would also condemn the same actions in public. I think the point is that these pictures are inflaming the passions of the Arabs around the Middle East. This actions and the photos will cause a further escalation in violence which may even occur on our soil.

Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush

This is the new book out by John Dean, who worked for the Nixon administration. Spencer Michaels on KQED interviewed him. In an hour or so you will be able to listen to the interview online:

http://www.kqed.org/programs/program-land ing-local.jsp?progID=RD19" title="http://www.kqed.org/programs/program-land ing-local.jsp?progID=RD19" target="_blank"http://www.kqed.org/programs/...

There was some quite interesting information. He actually documents 13 High Crimes committed by George W Bush during this administration. If Democrats win back the senate they will impeach Bush if he is re-elected. There is also some quite interesting stuff on Cheney as well. The Republicans hyped the Whitewater deal during the Clinton administration, which is small potatoes, compared to what Cheney did with Haliburton.


You can order the book through Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail /-/031600023X/qid=1083345 165/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap _i1_xgl14/002-6541667-805 8437?v=glance&s=books&n=5 07846" title="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail /-/031600023X/qid=1083345 165/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap _i1_xgl14/002-6541667-805 8437?v=glance&s=books&n=5 07846" target="_blank"http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob...

Bush says he and Cheney kept their story straight.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1000008 7&sid=aR4bifSElVXQ&refer= top_world_news" title="http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1000008 7&sid=aR4bifSElVXQ&refer= top_world_news" target="_blank"http://quote.bloomberg.com/ap...

Don't forget to watch "The Jesus Factor" on PBS tonight at 9pm. Bush tells everyone he believes only Christians will go to Heaven.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ shows/jesus/" title="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ shows/jesus/" target="_blank"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages...

More Hypocrisy from the Right

Right wing Republicans don’t like abortions, because they claim that these young mothers should be made to lie in their beds and they should be destined to sleep in them. This is their punishment for having sex and they need to pay the price by living in poverty and not being able to work or go to school and raise their child. So they pass a law under the guise of charging a murderer with two crimes when a murderer kills a pregnant woman. This way the right gets the idea of a fetus being a person into the law.

So, on the other side of the isle the right wing is upset at the assault weapon ban. They claim the left is using the law as the first step to banning all handguns. Maybe this is the objective of the left. But to make it sound as if they would never use such underhanded techniques is plain hypocrisy at its grandest.

I think the right wing has made its bed by using these scare-mongering techniques in order to inflame the general public. Now they need to lie in it when the left uses the same technique against them.

Late Night TV

Late Night TV is an interesting barometer of the political climate of the US. It is quite interesting listening to the audience response to the political jokes. There are quite loud outburst to many Bush jokes and almost silence to Kerry jokes. There are always one or two really loud guys in the crowd trying to instigate the loud outburst response. This seems to be quite a bit different than four or eight years ago.

But, the most interesting responses came a couple months back when Connan O’Brian took his show to Toronto, Canada. Several of his Bush jokes had such a loud response that Connan made the comment: “Hey, wait a minute, that’s my country and I have to go back there.”

You can also gage which news stories are more important in the minds of the general audience. For example, the audience doesn’t really get the Bush – Cheney co-interview with the 9/11 commission. However, they certainly understand that things in Iraq aren’t going well.

Health Care Shortages

Every time a new US system of health care is suggested people jump up and down and scream: shortages. Well, as I have already said in my recent blogs, there are a specific number of sick people and that number doesn’t change. So, if there are going to be shortages after some new health care system goes into effect then there are shortages right now. The difference is that people who have money and insurance get the health care now and people who do not don’t get it. So, if there would be shortages in a new system the only solution is to increase the supply in the health care system. In my previous blogs I have explained that increasing enrollment in medical schools (or nursing schools) will provide more supply and prevent shortages.

New York Times/CBS News Poll says support for the war is down. Only 47% of the American public thinks we are doing the right thing in Iraq.

How low can it go before Bush realizes he's doin the wrong thing?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/politics/2 9POLL.html?ex=1083816000&en=3d0 abcaccbce78cc&ei=5062&par tner=GOOGLE" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/politics/2 9POLL.html?ex=1083816000&en=3d0 abcaccbce78cc&ei=5062&par tner=GOOGLE" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...

How Dick Cheney Is Like Dan Quayle
Timothy Noah
Posted Thursday, July 27, 2000, at 3:14 PM PT

Remember Dan Quayle's disastrous debut as vice-presidential candidate in 1988? Quayle flubbed a round of TV interviews concerning his draft avoidance during the Vietnam War. Perhaps the most appalling quote Quayle served up was to CNN: "My desire was to go on to law school as soon as possible, so the National Guard allowed me to go to active duty for six months." Quayle's unembarrassed acknowledgement that his selfish desire to attend law school trumped any patriotic impulse--even retrospectively, Quayle displayed no capacity for introspection about this--led to a furious media frenzy.

Twelve years later, the Republicans have picked another Vietnam draft-avoider to be their vice-presidential candidate. Cheney didn't even serve in the National Guard; he just took advantage of student and then marriage deferments. Cheney is, of course, a smarter and more polished politician than Quayle was in 1988. But Cheney's explanation for why he failed to serve--uttered to George C. Wilson of the Washington Post in 1989--was no less obtuse than Quayle's. He said: "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

Guess how many times that quote turns up in a Nexis news database search? Two hundred times? Nope, too high. One hundred times? Still too high. Cheney's maladroit "other priorities" line has thus far appeared in the Nexis-searchable public prints a mere nine times. The breakdown is as follows:

* Five times since his selection to be George W. Bush's running mate;
* Twice in the period during and immediately after the Gulf War (during which Cheney was defense secretary);
* Once in a 1994 Dallas Morning News profile occasioned by Cheney's brief flirtation with running for president in 1996;
* Once in the original Wilson piece.

What the hell kind of media frenzy is that?

It's possible that Cheney was engaging in a bit of self-mockery when he told Wilson about his "other priorities"--that he was referring to his carousing youth (he dropped out of Yale after bad grades cost him a scholarship) as opposed to asserting that he was too busy to serve in the military. That would mitigate his comment somewhat. But only a little, since Cheney doesn't seem to have followed up with any expression of sincere regret. Of course, Bill Clinton hasn't expressed much regret either about avoiding military service during the Vietnam era. But Clinton, it should be remembered, opposed the war. Cheney and Quayle, on the other hand, did not oppose the war. They just didn't want to fight it.

Timothy Noah writes "Chatterbox" for Slate.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Economy_Rating.htm" title="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Economy_Rating.htm" target="_blank"http://www.rasmussenreports.c...

Spin the stats whichever way.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/War" title="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/War" target="_blank"http://www.rasmussenreports.c...%20with%20Iraq%20Bush%20R atings.htm

This number seems to be growing.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/War" title="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/War" target="_blank"http://www.rasmussenreports.c...%20with%20Iraq%20Bush%20R atings.htm

Just the facts mam:


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Economy_Rating.htm" title="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Economy_Rating.htm" target="_blank"http://www.rasmussenreports.c...

I tell you, those Arab Americans are ungrateful. Bush went out and invaded a country for them to be free and what thanks do they give him? You would think that they would support him.


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=4975649" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=4975649" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

Health Care IV

I think that this is going to take four blogs.

Finally, if everyone agrees that we need to control the market by limiting the number of doctors and limiting who can build equipment and who can make drugs then we need to artificially control the price that can be charged by doctors, equipment manufacturers and drug companies.

This can be done in many different ways. The way that I found works well is by having the government offer guidelines to the standard price charged for any medical procedure. The doctors and health care workers do not have to charge this price, but they need to state on the bill how much their price compares to the government standard. When you file your claim, the insurance company can decide what the limit is, say 200% of the standard price. Also, doctors and health care workers agree to treat a percentage of their clients under the government price guidelines. This is the price they pay for operating under the government’s market protection. People can still pay more than the government price for superb care from outstanding physicians, but they also know how much more they are paying. If they feel like they are not getting their moneys worth they know that there are places they can go to get cheaper health care. The cost to the government would be less than it is today because they are currently paying catastrophic health care for uninsured people. The system still has capitalistic incentives, but it controls the cost through psychological and social means.

There are many other ways to do this, but unless we figure out how to control the cost while continuing to protect the market the prices will just keep going up.

Health Care III

I think that this is going to take more than three blogs.

So, maybe the cost of doctors isn’t the main cost of Health Care. In fact, the cost of medication and procedures tends to be the major cost of health care. Once again, regulation in the health care industry has effected the cost of the industry. By licensing and certifying equipment we limit who can manufacture and sell the equipment. The FDA approval of drugs limits who can manufacture and sell drugs and what they can be used for. The AMA certifies procedures, which limits which procedures can be done and who may do the procedures. So, if we want to lower the cost of health care we can lower these restrictions which will allow more people to offer the health care we need.

If you think that we need these protections then you need to realize that we need to pay for these protections. The cost is in the artificial control of these markets by regulations.

Health Care II

I think that this is going to take more than two blogs.

So, now we know that Health Care economics doesn’t work the same as ECON 101 supply and demand. This is because Health Care demand remains the same regardless of the price. People are sick and if they raise the price it isn’t going to make people well. It may make them go away – by dying. However, in a western society leaving people to die without health care is not a responsible option.

What can be done with our current health care system to limit the damage of supply and demand economics?

Since the major issue is that there is no downward pressure on prices. People need health care and the wealthy people will pay whatever it takes to make them better. It’s not like they can buy a doctor and they don’t need to buy another.

One way to do this is to increase the production of doctors. If medical schools had open enrollment and admitted as many people as wanted to attend medical school then more doctors would be on the market and the price doctors charge would go down. Unfortunately, the AMA has a lock on the number of medical schools and the number of doctors produced every year. This control over the production of doctors keeps the price of health care above what it should be.

Perhaps the reason for limiting the number of doctors produced isn’t a function of the number of students available, but instead it is a way to protect the society from less intelligent doctors. I would argue that protecting the society would be better served by allowing more doctors into the market and let their performance sort them out.

Health Care

I think that this is going to take more than one blog.

First, let’s look at economics. Everyone knows that the law of supply and demand dictates economics. Products that have high demand are offered at a high price. Of course this means that the latest high tech gadget gets to charge a high price because there are so few on the market. Once the product is out there for a while manufacturing starts to pump out more and more products, in order to reap the profits. Of course everyone owns the new gadget and he or she don’t want to buy a new one. The price then comes down to attract the lower income people and the process continues by lowering the price and making more products.

This seems like a very nice economic model and many products fit this model. So, let’s fit health care into this model and see what the capitalistic US society does for us. In health care, we also have supply and demand. Doctors and hospitals supply health care and sick people demand it. So, when a new procedure comes out the doctors can charge a premium and the rich sick people who can afford it will pay the price for it. The poor sick people would like the same procedure, but they can’t afford it so they don’t get it. Some people who have insurance can get the procedure because their insurance will pay for it. In manufacturing the company will produce as many gadgets as possible to make a large profit, but in health care doctors can not just do more procedures to make the demand go down. In health care there are a set number of sick people that need one particular procedure. This means that no matter what the health care provider charges the people either get the treatment or they stay sick. This means that people will beg borrow and steal to pay for health care, because they don’t want to be sick. It also means that there is no incentive for health care providers to lower prices, only raise them.

If you read this and think that this is a very cynical view of health care then read this short story from my personal experience.

Back in the early 1980s I worked on the development of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) procedure now used in almost every hospital. When I worked on it we called it Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, but the doctors didn’t want to use the word nuclear. When we were trying to sell our system we would have doctors and hospital board members come in and listen to our spiel. Sometimes we would have large groups and have presentations with questions and answers afterward. One of the more shocking questions were:

“Could we get the image out in black and white? Our doctors wouldn’t know how to deal with a color image.” To this question we said, of course you can, but the color image contains more information and could show subtle differences in water density. To this they said, “Our doctors wouldn’t know how to deal with this additional information, we would prefer to have the black and white image so that it can be read like and X-ray.”

Now, and MRI image deals with water density and an X-ray deals with the ability of body materials to absorb radiation. The images are very similar, but they do have subtle differences. Why a doctor wouldn’t be willing to understand the differences and be able to use the difference to his advantage was stunning. But as I learned later doctors are not encouraged to understand procedures because if they did they could be subject to malpractice suits. This of course means that US doctors will soon rank lower on the world scale of being able to use new procedures or develop them on their own.

But, the most shocking statement I heard was:

“So, you are telling me that this (MRI imaging device) can give us more information than standard X-rays and it is cheaper to operate. So, we can raise the price because it gives more information but it costs less – so we will make more money.”

And this statement has come true. It is much less costly to operate an MRI device and it gives more information and the hospitals charge 20 times more for the procedure.

What do Bush and Cheney have to hide? What did they know about 9/11 that they don't want the 9/11 commission to know? This is in a private session and they need to be coached? What is the deal here? Obviously they are trying to cover something up. The American people have the right to know what they knew.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=4958955" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=4958955" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

Education

In the US and many Western Countries there are two forms of education that are happening side by side. There is the form of education where there are instructors and students. The instructors dish out the facts and the students memorize the facts. The students get graded on the number of correct answers from these memorized facts. This is old style education where information equals the facts. This form of education suggests that there is only one way to look at the world – the right way.

But, there is another form of education that grew out of the counter culture of the 1960s. This form of education requires students to be mentored by advanced students. In this form of education the instructor tells the students that we are all learning all the time. In this form of education the class “explores” a subject and comes to conclusions of the relative truth. This form of education gets the students to think about the subject but not to jump to any conclusions as to the facts.

The truth is, that neither of these forms of education is the best form of education. Exclusively using one form of education to the exclusion of the other results in a warped sense of the world around us. Exclusively memorizing “facts” creates people who don’t know what to do when they can not find the “facts.” Exclusively being non-committal about the “facts” results in students that are willing to believe anything put before them.

Traditionally our education system taught facts to younger students and used these facts as a basis for further inquiry as students matured. During the 1970s many schools began experimenting with alternative education where questioning everything became a very overused methodology. There was backlash to this “touchy feely” and unexplained form of education. During the late 1980s and 1990s testing and knowing the facts became the promoted form of education. In the long run, education needs to take the middle road on this issue. Students need to lean that there are some undisputed facts about the world in which we live, but they also need to know that our pool of knowledge is every growing and changing as we learn more.

May 1st is the 1-year anniversary of the END of the war in Iraq. Don’t forget to thank the soldiers who fought to make the US a safer place because they won the war. Good thing that Bush learned to fly the military jet so that he could land it on that aircraft carrier and declare the end of the war. Good thing the war is over. Who wants too tell the 584 soldiers that gave their life since the war was over. Good thing that Bush had a end plan after winning the war. Oh, that’s right it isn’t Bush’s job to do any of the details. I am sure glad that he is the front runner in the presidential election. If he wins we will get more tax cuts and we can put the clean up operations in Iraq on the credit card. Good thing that war is over, lets go fight some terrorists in another country with weapons of mass destruction, like France or Great Briton or maybe we have them in our own backyard. Let’s start digging up some spider holes in Chicago, or Cleveland.

Sarcasm mode off.

Bush’s and Kerry’s Military Records

Whoa, I am totally confused. I am sure many of you out there in blogging land are saying to yourself, “This doesn’t sound so unusual.” Why is Bush pounding on John Kerry’s Military record when his is so abysmal? Obviously, Bush knows that whoever is going to vote for him doesn’t care about the facts. They don’t care that Bush went to Alabama while he was enrolled in ROTC or the National Guard. They don’t care if it was ROTC or National Guard. He knows that they don’t care that he was skipping out of going to Vietnam. He knows that his supporters are going to vote for him no matter what the facts are. He knows that they just don’t care that he learned to fly a jet because he pulled strings to get ahead of all the National Guardsmen who were waiting their turn. Then, once he learned to fly he didn’t even keep up his flight hours. He knows that Bush supporters don’t care that he wasted tax payer money being trained to fly then he just didn’t show up for duty in Alabama. He knows that people who are going to vote for him just don’t care about America!

See the latest Kerry ad online.

https://www.moveonpac.org/donate/warrecord.html?id=2729-3011820-C_Qw AMWQN08AHmuR2FLi_w

More Lies from Bush proven.

Bush has told the country that no one knew how this Iraq thing was going to work out. However, in the letter written by 50 former British diplomats to Blair they claim the following:

"The conduct of the war in Iraq has made it clear that there was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement. All those with experience of the area predicted that the occupation of Iraq by the Coalition forces would meet serious and stubborn resistance, as has proved to be the case.

"To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful. Policy must take account of the nature and history of Iraq, the most complex country in the region. However much Iraqis may yearn for a democratic society, the belief that one could now be created by the Coalition is naive. "

It just shows how experts knew how this was going to turn out and you can't force Democracy on anyone!

British Diplomats send letter to Tony Blair

Former British diplomats criticize British Prime Minister Tony Blair for his Iraq policy. Here's the story as reported by the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3661519.stm" title="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3661519.stm" target="_blank"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk...

The actual text of the letter can be found at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0" title="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0" target="_blank"http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...,,1-1089361,00.html

Evolution

Evolution is name used to describe the fact that successive generations of animals or plants survive because they are adapted to their environment. This is at work today just as it has been for the last 3.5 billion years. So, as we know, some people are sensitive to air pollution, resulting in them acquiring asthma. So, if children and babies acquire asthma because of bad air pollution and this results in them dying this results in less air pollution sensitive humans in the total population. Of course, people living in areas with clean air would not come down with asthma and the probability of them dying from asthma would be much smaller.

Evolution happens over thousands of years in most cases, although sudden evolution happens when an environment has a sudden change. For example, after an asteroid strikes the earth the dust kicked up into the air blocks the sun and temperatures fall. Some creatures and plants can survive the new conditions, while others can not. The plants and animals that evolve are the ones in which some of the young can survive because they have genetic advantage.

So, I was contemplating the evolution of the human brain. I thought back to the pre-agrarian human culture. People would gather nuts and fruits and save them and eat them until the next hunting and gathering expedition. Of course early storage techniques were not the best and early humans surely would have discovered alcohol along the way. Surely someone of these early humans being desperate for food would have eaten some of the spoiled food and discovered the effects. If these early humans were like many of us they would have craved more of the special juice. Adults would not have withheld the juice from pregnant women or children, because they wouldn’t have known the possible problems and the scientific studies that would one day tell us about. So, many children may have died from alcohol poisoning. Those with the lowest tolerance would be worse off. But, the issue of brain damage would also be relevant. Many children and even young adults would have been rendered incapable to raise families – only the strongest brains could survive. Strongest brain may actually mean biggest or smartest. A brain that could deal with alcohol and brain damage would be most likely to pass it’s genes down to the next generation. Over the years people many have gradually become smarter. When people didn’t drink alcohol they may have even been smart enough to invent better ways to make alcohol.

So, this brings me back to modernity. How will the human brain evolve over the next thousand generations? My hypothesis is that the human species will divide into two species. There will be a smart species – even smarter than anyone alive today. And, there will be a species that will be as smart as they are today. Well, those who currently drink alcohol and survive to pass their genes down to their children will select for the smarter children. Those who do not drink alcohol will only pass the same genes down to the next generation.

Everyone knows that Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims do not drink alcohol, so they will evolve into the group that doesn’t progress. Everyone else who drinks liberally will contribute to the further evolution of the human brain.

So drink up and salute Darwin.

Two Parties Many Problems

I just wanted to post an example of the problem with the two-party system of politics in the US.

This can go for any election, but why not look at the current election. In order to bring this to light I will attempt to illustrate our current situation by using our current system and the two-party system. I’ll point out the current system, the way things are to bring everyone up to speed.

1) In the US in 2004 people tend to be aligned with either one of the two major parties or they claim to be independent. So, we need to look at the two parties and who aligns themselves with which and why.

Republicans find their supporters among the religious right, the wealthy and strict disciplinarians. The wealthy have the money and control the party, so what ever they want is what happens. However, they need votes, so they support some religious right issues and disciplinarian issues to keep their votes. But, they also vilify anyone with other views so that they won’t be tempted to vote against the party.

Democrats, on the other hand, have found their supporters among the traditional labor force. Since labor means manual labor, this means labor unions. The main constituents of labor are the less wealthy and the minorities in our country. Since labor has, in the past, been able to organize labor is the guiding force of the Democrat Party. But, because of labor’s support of the poor and minorities Democrats will attract these people even if even if they are not in the labor force. Since women have been fighting for labor right over the last 50 years, a larger portion of women is attracted to the Democrat party. Also, since the 1970s the environmental movement has been attracted to the Democrats. This is mainly because labor generally opposes the corporations, which are run by the wealthy. The corporations are generally guilty of polluting the environment to a large degree, so the Democrats could add one more issue to the opposition of the wealthy.

2) Now, not everyone agrees with all the issues. For example, Some people are Christian but not fundamentalist Christian. They may support some issues, but they don’t think that God gave us this planet and we can rape it if we please, as many fundamentalists believe. In many counties this problem is solved by allowing a multiparty system voted in by proportion representation. Therefore, every 5 percent of the people (for example) would have their own representative. In this way the many groups of people who represent different perspectives are able to vote for someone who truly represents their views.
In this way there could be many parties that represent the views of each interest. Therefore, the Green party could represent environmental interests. A labor party could represent labor interests. In the US there could be a minority party to represent minority interests. A socialist party could represent the poor. A religious Conservative Party could represent religious interests. A royalist party could represent the wealthy.  Now, a coalition of these groups then joins together to run the government. When issues come up the important aspects of the issue are set in place and each point can be argued. The religious group can argue the effect that a new law would effect the religious community. The environmental group can argue the effect of a new law on the environment. The labor group can argue the effect of the new law on labor. The Wealthy can argue the effect of a new law on industry or property. In the long run the points are not pre-selected by the two parties, but instead presented from each group’s interest. Now, if an issue comes up that the coalition doesn’t agree on, a group can leave the coalition and join the opposition to form a new majority position. This gives more power to smaller groups, which makes people feel that their vote means something.

Of course, there are problems with this form of government as with the two party system. One thing is that since smaller groups have more power the extremists may be able to effect some radical changes. This could be good, or bad. In the long run the majority still controls the government which prevents horrible laws from lasting very long.

It looks like Bush supported "Plan of Attack," the new book by Bob Woodward because he didn't read it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4189 9-2004Apr25.html" title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4189 9-2004Apr25.html" target="_blank"http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Guns in Iraq

How can Iraq be free if we are taking their guns away from them? Isn’t that what makes Americans free – the right to bear arms.

Why Conservatives are Against Abortion

When I say conservatives, I mean the conservatives with the money who are directing the Republican Party. One needs to remember that the two US political parties are controlled in different ways. Republicans have very tight control over the money spent on their elections and who gets that money. This is one reason why McCain lost to Bush in the Republican primaries of 2000. Cash was funneled into the Bush campaign from early on, The Democrats on the other hand let the select few battle each other for the honor to challenge the Republican selection.

Enough said about the workings of the two parties, but what about Abortion? One thing the Republicans like in private, but not in public is cheap labor. So, if people have abortions many of these potential low wage earners would never be born. This is horrible for the conservative in search of cheap labor. If only the conservatives could force women who are not yet in a financially stable position to have children if they become pregnant. Conservatives look at this problem as statistics. The more difficult abortions become the more cheap labor will become available in the future.

So, the wealthy conservatives have courted the religious right to fight their battle against abortion for them. The guys on top don’t have to do a thing but wait for the results and collect the cheap labor when it comes due.

I just need to know from someone who is on the fence in the US presidential election.

I know there are people that are way more to the right than Bush. They would be Nazis or some other Fascist ideology. They will never change their vote. Then, there are the Fundamentalist Christians who have been told by God to vote for Bush. They won’t change their votes. But there is 30 % of the population out there who are wavering.

If you are currently supporting Bush, please tell me why. If you are supporting Kerry, but could go for Bush, please tell me why.

If your name is reducto I’ll just ignore your response. I’d really like to hear from the people in the middle.

Why doesn’t the administration see the folly of their ways?

This is because there are two ways to look at the situation in Iraq. Either the Bush administration is throwing fuel on the fire of the Muslim hatred of the US policy in the Middle East. Or, the Bush administration is throwing Blood on the Funeral Pyre of the US soldiers already killed in the Middle East. Either way more violence is not going to solve the problem. The Bush administration doesn’t even understand the words talk, negotiate, understand, and think….

The only way the situation in Iraq is going to change is with the change in administration

You can read some of the more interesting quotes from Bob Woodwords book “Plan of Attack” at slate.com:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2099277/" title="http://slate.msn.com/id/2099277/" target="_blank"http://slate.msn.com/id/20992...


It’s quite interesting how all of these books paint the same picture of the White House. It is a picture that the White House continues to deny. Denying the truth is considered a lie by most.

Republicans to bite the bullet and ask for Twenty Billion more for Iraq. I thought the Democrats were the tax and spend party.

This is from :

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0404/042304c dpm1.htm" title="http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0404/042304c dpm1.htm" target="_blank"http://www.govexec.com/dailyf...

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said Friday he will seek a minimum of $20 billion in additional fiscal 2005 appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the $402 billion already requested for fiscal 2005, to serve as a bridge until a fiscal 2005 supplemental is enacted. Hunter said the Appropriations panel will decide the amount, but that $20 billion should be the floor.

Illegal Pictures

No, it's not porn. These are the pictures the administration doesn't want the country to see. Soldiers have given their lives for their country and the administration doesn't want us to see them returned to the place of their birth. They are not identified by name, but the administration claims that this is an invasion of their privacy. If you have an issue with this, then don't look.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dov er/gallery.htm" title="http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dov er/gallery.htm" target="_blank"http://www.thememoryhole.org/...

http://www.thememoryhole.org/" title="http://www.thememoryhole.org/" target="_blank"http://www.thememoryhole.org/...

Hey, this looks like a good idea.

http://www.fatwreck.com/junk/rab.html" title="http://www.fatwreck.com/junk/rab.html" target="_blank"http://www.fatwreck.com/junk/...

Buy a CD and support a grassroots effort to kick the bum outa office!

I just found this great web site. They have some very funny stuff. One of which is Bush's resume:

http://www.punkvoter.com/dls/dls-flyer-gwb_res ume.html" title="http://www.punkvoter.com/dls/dls-flyer-gwb_res ume.html" target="_blank"http://www.punkvoter.com/dls/...

Abortion

Because of the Washington march many radio stations are addressing the issue of abortion today. I was listening to an abortion discussion on the radio this morning and I began to think about my own position on the subject and how I came to my belief.

When I grew up my parents decided to put me into Catholic schools – Catholic Elementary school, Catholic High school and finally Catholic University. Seeing the Catholic churches position on abortion one would think that I would be pro-life or anti-abortion. Well, I am pro-life and pro-choice.

Now, how could I be pro-life and pro-choice some of the more naïve out there may be thinking. Well, it seems quite obvious to me. I believe that I could never request or require or encourage any person that I know to obtain an abortion. Therefore, I am pro-life. Personally I couldn’t do it.

However, I also could not deny anyone who wanted to have an abortion the right for her to end her pregnancy. So, I am pro-choice. Making laws restricting abortions is the same as making religious laws. Many religions believe that abortion is wrong. That’s fine, then don’t have an abortion, but you do not have the right to stop people who don’t have these beliefs from exercising their American Freedom of choice.

So, when I graduated from University in Ohio I packed up and went to Texas for Graduate School. As I found out, things were much different in Texas than they were up North. People assumed that you were a baby killer if you thought anyone could get an abortion. While I was in Texas I met my wife-to-be. As time went on the subject of abortion came up. I told my wife-to-be that I was pro-choice. I think that I said this because in Ohio at the time being anti-abortion would be unacceptable in some circles. She just about got up and left. She started raising her voice and telling me how I was a baby killer. She said, “How could you kill a baby?” Well, with that question I said, “I couldn’t kill a baby, but that doesn’t mean that I should deny the right of abortion to someone who thought that they couldn’t raise a child.” With that one sentence she went silent. She said that she had never thought about abortion that way before.

I still think that the majority of Americans feel the same way if they think about it. They may not be able to have an abortion themselves, but they also don’t want to deny that right to anyone else.

Lying

Please ignore me if you tired of reading about this. I am going to blog on about lying in the administration – both the Clinton and Bush administration.

Clinton lied about getting a blowjob in the oval office, or technically, down the hall. Now granted most people think that having your cock sucked by an intern isn’t the best form. But, the way the Republicans during his administration dug for dirt in every possible way should not be admired. Ken Star himself should be admonished for the police state type investigations he performed. Republicans after all are interested in freedom, at least that is what they say. No matter what you think the law should be – it is not against the law to get a blowjob. Much of the nation’s time and energy was wasted pursuing this stupid obsession of the Republican Party. But this obsession was only the beginning of what the Republicans really want. They seem to desire a Nazi Police State were they could watch everyone.

Now, the Bush administration comes along. They have their own agenda, where they believe they can protect the US with Star Wars anti-missile missiles. They don’t care about terrorism, because in the long term they believe that anti-missile missiles will solve the problem. Experts are telling them about the dangers of terrorism and they just laugh in their face. The Bush administration is just too cocky because they know what the nation needs. Bush also had a vendetta to settle with Saddam Hussein. He was waiting for the opportunity to invade this country from the 3rd day of his administration.

After 9/11 Bush knew he could leverage this tragedy to enable his invasion goal. He told congress about Iraq being a threat. He lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction even though his advisors told him otherwise. He lied to the American people as to the danger Iraq presented. He lied to the American people about Iraq’s ties to 9/11. Congress acted on these lies and passed a war resolution that now knowing the truth many in congress regret. There are over a hundred documented lies of the Bush administration, but Bush is not being held responsible.

So, President Clinton was nearly impeached by the Republican Party for one lie about something that many of those same people had done and would have lied the same. Now, when the integrity of the office of the President is truly at risk the same Republicans fall in behind the president and endorse his lies. This is hypocrisy to the nth degree.

But, I just don’t understand how the American people can not see the hypocrisy. Is keeping the party in power more important than truth and honesty? If it is then it truly is the downfall of American Culture. But it is not because of the moral decline of America’s youth, instead it is the moral decline of America’s leaders.

50 Worst Songs

In the May issue of Blender Magazine, Blender ranks the 50 worst songs of all time. But, this doesn’t quite make sense. How would we even know about the true 50 worst songs of all time. After all, don’t we live in a capitalistic society? Doesn’t this mean that the worst songs never get recorded, or if they do get recorded no one buys them. Isn’t it all about the money? If a song is truly awful won’t it have the lowest earnings?

Or, is Blender Magazine admitting that commercialism controls the music industry and marketing makes money not talent? So, the question becomes what are the criteria used to judge how bad a song is and how it should be ranked. After all, I could easily write songs much worse than any of the songs on the list.

I am assuming the song needed to have been marketed by some major record company before it could make the list. For example, Revolution Number 9 on the Beatles White Album is not easy to dance to or even listen to. So, why isn’t it on the list? Maybe the amount of radio airplay was considered in the list.

Music is a reflection of the culture in which we live. So, when music becomes popular it is popular because people see the music reflecting their culture. So, when you see a song that has sold millions of copies on a list of worst song one needs to ask why.

One explanation is the culture has changed. The new culture looks back on the songs of the old culture and determines which songs no longer reflect its sensibilities. So looking at the list of 50 worst songs tell us something about how our culture is changing.

I don't understand, Ari Fleisher said on January 9, 2003 that it's a fact that there were WMD in Iraq:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01 /20030109-8.html" title="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01 /20030109-8.html" target="_blank"http://www.whitehouse.gov/new...


Q But it wouldn't be disappointing, would it, if there were no weapons there?

MR. FLEISCHER: We know for a fact that there are weapons there. And so -- the inspectors also went on --


It's a fact, so where are they?

So, what ever happened to the WMD?

Rumsfeld knows where they are, said so on March 30, 2003. Shouldn't he be held accountable. Or should he be fired? The Republicans were so hot to fire Clinton because he had an affair. Don't you think that war is a little more important than sex? Weren't WMD the whole point of the war? Wasn't that what Bush said over and over again? Don't let the president and his staff whitewash this fact!

http://www.dod.gov/news/Mar2003/t0330200 3_t0330sdabcsteph.html" title="http://www.dod.gov/news/Mar2003/t0330200 3_t0330sdabcsteph.html" target="_blank"http://www.dod.gov/news/Mar20...

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. [b] We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. [/b]

Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes.

I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.

Second, the criminal facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes.

I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.

Illegal Aliens

The Hypocrisy of Republicans is amazing. Listening to Michael Savage you would think that he doesn’t know what everyone knows but just won’t say. The point is Republicans want illegal aliens to come to the US. They don’t want them to stay, they want them to work the menial jobs for minimal money. This is because their labor keeps the price of food and services low.

But, Republicans don’t want Illegal Aliens to become citizens or even become legal, because then they would be subject to US labor laws. Instead, they want illegal aliens to stay illegal so they can be exploited. Laws passed under the guise of discouraging illegal aliens from coming to the US instead keep aliens in low wage, high manual labor jobs.

This is obvious when you look at the enforcement of laws already on the books. If farms and service jobs were targeted every day for an entire growing season it would become too expensive for the farms to produce food and prices would go through the roof. Everyone would be upset about the inflation, which would bubble up through the economy. So, instead of facing that truth everyone looks the other way.

At least Democrats fight for the basic human rights and benefits for these workers. However, the farmers themselves, and the Republicans who they support talk out of both sides of their mouths.

It looks like Thailand will pull their major troop contribution as well.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040420 -031607-7016r.htm" title="http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040420 -031607-7016r.htm" target="_blank"http://washingtontimes.com/up...

Bush Wants Freedom for Iraq

Bush wants to give freedom to Iraq and he wants to take it away from us. Well, actually he has already taken some of our freedom away from us with the Patriot Act. But he also likes the FCC censoring the airwaves and he wants to know how cable can be censored. He has pushed Howard Stern off the air. He wants to censor the Internet. But, it doesn’t stop there. He wants to silence moveon.org and other political organizations on the Internet.

But, in Iraq he wants freedom for Iraqis. What makes Iraq more special than America?

We Don’t Live in a Black and White World

Yesterday I had a discussion on tblog with an atheist warmonger that had anger issues. He could only see the world as Black and white. There are the good guys and the bad guys. There are the terrorists and there are the heroes. Well, the world we live in isn’t that simple, even though President Bush tells us that it is.

A Fundamentalist Muslim faction living in Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11/2001. The Taliban protected them and were governing the country at the time. Saddam Hussein was a leader of Iraq, and he was a secular leader often accused of not giving rights to the fundamentalist Muslims. The two groups hated each other and they would not have helped each other.

In Saudi Arabia the government supported the fundamentalists, but publicly did not condone violence. Many members of the Royal Family did contribute to terrorist organizations. It could be argued that they did not know the organizations were connected, but they did give money to terrorists.

Other leaders in Syria and Pakistan also supported terrorists by giving them shelter and selling them arms.

So, the question becomes; why was Iraq the country the US decided to attack? Syria sponsored and sponsors more terrorism than Iraq ever did. Iran is a fundamentalist Muslim country run by clerics that hate the secular US. Pakistan was under sanctions imposed on them because they developed a nuclear weapon. (Which is considered a weapon of mass destruction.) If we use the criteria for invading Iraq – getting rid of a bad leader, we still don’t know why Iraq is so special.

So, fine we invaded Iraq and we find ourselves trying to impose our western culture on a Middle Eastern culture. At first, people are happy to be out from under a tyrant. But, as time wears on the population realizes that the US isn’t who they want to govern them. The US found some buddies and put them into power because they thought they would agree with the US. The general population sees through the sham and begins to get upset. In the Middle East the clerics tell the people what to think. It is like the fundamentalist Christian churches in the US where the preacher tells the congregation what to think. The preachers tell the people not to accept what the US is telling them to accept. One preacher, al-Sydar, tells his people to revolt. Now, this guy was a troublemaker and deserves punishment, but the people are trained not to think for themselves. The followers are only doing God’s will, because that’s what they believe.

So, when the US soldiers attacked Falluja in retaliations for the war atrocities the people in the town fought to defend their religion. The religious leaders chastised the few people that committed these war crimes, but the US sought revenge. In their quest the US solders kills two thousand people, many of which didn’t participate in the atrocities. It has been confirmed that these people that were killed were Iraqis, not insurgents as the Bush administration has lied to us again. After almost two weeks of violence the Falluja has begun to be restored to a peaceful situation again. But, much of this could have been avoided if people understood the people better.

We don’t live in the fundamentalist black and white world of the administration, and it may take a change in the White House before we have peace in Iraq. The question is will it be a few months or a few years?

First Spain, now Honduras. Soon only the idiots will be left.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=4872445§ion=news" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=4872445§ion=news" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

Sharon’s Visit with Bush

Let me see if I got this right. Sharon killed a Hammas leader. Then he went to Washington to make sure it was OK to kill him. Bush says yeah, that’s fine, don’t worry about it. Sharon goes back to Israel and kills another one. Like we don’t have any problem with terrorists. Now, the terrorists can say Israel and the US are in bed together – strike one you strike the other, it doesn’t matter.

I’m a little late on commenting on this quote that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld spoke not to long ago. But, It’s better late than never.

"If you had said to me a year ago, 'Describe the situation you'll be in today, one year later,' I don't know many people would have described it - I would not have described it - the way it happens to be today," Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon. "And it's a tough road. And it's a bumpy road. And I'll be honest, it's an uncertain road."

When Rumsfeld said this I was shocked and surprised myself. There were war protesters in the streets telling Bush and his administration this. There were political and history experts saying this. There were Middle East experts describing the subtle relationships between the groups in Iraq. How could Rumsfeld get up in public and make a comment like this knowing all the people that told him this.

When everyone outside the administration was saying that we needed to get the support of the UN before going in to Iraq – Where was Rumsfeld? It’s great that the administration is coming around to the idea of UN involvement, but this may only be their way of finding a scapegoat for their ineptness.

How can a sane person in America think that Bush did the right thing in Iraq? How can a sane person in America think that he will get us out without turn Iraq into the harbor of terror?

Here is a link to the story where Rumsfeld says this:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq /bal-te.rumsfeld16apr16" title="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq /bal-te.rumsfeld16apr16" target="_blank"http://www.baltimoresun.com/n...,0,523471.story?coll=bal-local-head lines

How President Bush has Screwed up the Country

1) At the beginning of his administration it was known that the economy was in a slump. People had reduced spending and inventories were high. Spending would have been one method to put the brakes on the slide. In order to increase spending a tax cut would be very helpful, however different tax cuts would affect the economy in different ways. By putting money into the hands of those who don’t much money it would ensure that the money is spent instead of invested. This money would be recycled in the economy several times, multiplying its effect. Suspending Social Security payments for several months could have done this. Instead, Bush cut the taxes on dividends, which put money into the pockets of those who own stock – most likely the wealthiest Americans. This money would most likely not be spent into the economy, but rather be reinvested and maybe push the stock market up. It would not and hasn’t influenced the employment market.

2) After 911 Bush invaded Afghanistan, which was a wise move because the terrorists were being harbored there. However, after toppling the government the US forgot to pursue the terrorist network al-Qeada. They are still at large and not very much reduced.

3) Bush was not a very good example for our children. He showed that if you don’t like someone you should get in the first punch, even if you are much bigger than him or her. So, children on the playground should follow this rule.

4) Bush is not a good example for children again on education. He touts the fact that he doesn’t read and thinks school is not worthwhile. He stated on many occasions that he finds school tedious.

5) Bush thinks discrimination is a good policy. He wants to pass the first constitutional amendment to take away rights from people. The amendment is based on religious bias, which is expressly opposed by the constitution.

6) Bush defiantly went against international law by invading another country without the support of NATO or the UN. By taking this example other countries such as China, Russia, Korea, Israel etc… may justify attacking an opposing state.

7) Bush changed US policy from being neutral to supporting the Sharon government in Israel. This will give terrorist even more reasons to recruit terrorists.

8) Bush attacked Iraq, giving terrorist even more reasons to recruit terrorists. This makes our country less safe than it was.

9) Bush squandered the good will that the world felt for us after 9/11 by going against world opinion and attacking Iraq without proof that there were weapons of mass destruction.

The list can go on quite a bit longer, but I need to run errands…

Bush League Education

In the past we had presidents who studied history and when they were elected they read even more about current events and history. Now we have a president that doesn’t know history, so he doesn’t worry about the lessons of history. People who support him either don’t care because they are getting their agenda accomplished. Or, they don’t think that he could do anything wrong, because he is the moral president.

President Bush is a clear example of how the US school system has failed us.

The book, entitled "Plan of Attack," is not due to be released until next week but the Post's assistant managing editor, Robert Woodward, wrote it and the newspaper is reporting from it.

So, Powell still has morals. Too bad that Cheney and Bush don't.

Check out this link:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=4854500§ion=ne ws" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=4854500§ion=ne ws" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

The more information we can get out of the secretive Bush administration the better. The best part is when Woodward says:

"Powell felt Cheney and his allies -- his chief aide, I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith and what Powell called Feith's 'Gestapo' office -- had established what amounted to a separate government,"

I can't wait for this book to come out.

College students in China interviewed Dick Cheney, recently. Worried that the government may distort the interview Cheney demanded that the interview be broadcast on TV. Could anyone in the US imagine if some leader came to our country and demanded that the interview be broadcast on TV?

Besides this oddity, Cheney was surprised by a question from a Chinese student, who asked what it was like to be the most powerful vice president in US history. It’s to bad that he doesn’t get questions like this from our press. Of course he wasn’t prepared for the question, so he gave a lame answer. He said that he knew his way around the White House, because he had been there in other administrations, and he and Bush were buddies from way back.

So, the point is, why does it take a student from another country to point out the obvious?

The Two Party System

The American two-party system is an albatross around the neck of the American people. It assumes that each person in America aligns himself with one ideology or the other. Issues are not all that clear cut and if one party chooses one solution it isn’t always based on it being the best solution, but instead the best way to achieve one parties ideological goals. A prime example of this problem is with the broad policies on fiscal issues and social issues. There isn’t really any reason why one solution should imply the other. But if you are a Republican you are expected to be a “good” Christian. But what if you like Republican policy because you think that Democrats are going to waste your tax money? Washington warned us about the two-party system. He thought that people shouldn’t align themselves together at all, but the temptation was too strong because we didn’t write any prevention into the Constitution.

Europe on the other hand has adopted a parliamentary system that is much more flexible than the US system. The question is, how can we get there from here?

State Polls

Colorado:

Bush 49% Kerry 44%

Florida:

Kerry 47% Bush 46%

Washington

Kerry 50% Bush 44%

Iowa

Kerry 51% Bush 41%

Minnesota

Kerry 47% Bush 44%

Missouri

Bush 49% Kerry 42%

Michigan

Kerry 48% Bush 44%

Ohio

Kerry 45% Bush 41%

Pennsylvania

Kerry 45% Bush 44%

California:

Kerry 53% Bush 44%

North Carolina:

Bush 51% Kerry 43%

Illinois:

Kerry 52% Bush 39%

I would really like to hear the right wing explaination for this:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&s toryID=4850524§ion=ne ws" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&s toryID=4850524§ion=ne ws" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

Let me try to understand this. Al-Qeada attacked us and they are hiding in Afghanistan. We attack Iraq and Afghanistan because we are fighting terrorists. We need more troops because we are having problems in both places. So, lets take the troops from one place and put them in the other? What about our troops in Japan and Germany?

A few days back I ran across a link on someone’s blog that startled me. The link said in effect “Here’s a link to a blog I agree with 100%.” I had a twinge in my gut, but I didn’t know what to say. Some of you may be thinking that I’m jealous, but that would be wrong, because the link was to my blog. I was flattered, but I could imagine the conviction in the link. Maybe this is because I’m a scientist and I understand what 100% means. In days when people talk about giving 110% to mean 100% this may just be a form of hyperbole. However, I didn’t know why, but this really bothered me.

Then it came to me. I thought for a second about me linking to my own blog. I could never say that about myself, because I am a changing growing person. Therefore, what I write today may not be exactly how I feel tomorrow. This is because when someone learns new facts they begin to look at things in a light and therefore realize that their old thoughts were now dated.

When I was in high school I used to blog. We used to call it journal writing back then, and it wasn’t done on a computer. But, what I was able to see was how my thoughts evolved over time. I once wrote that I thought Einstein didn’t know what he was saying when he said things couldn’t travel faster than the speed of light. No, I didn’t know what Einstein was saying – and I didn’t want him to be right.

But, not only that, if I had to be right 100% of the time I wouldn’t be able to write this blog. I write this blog so that I can get my thoughts out there for people to look at and comment on. Even when someone on the far right jumps up and down and screams I get to see how my thoughts fit into the big picture of political thought.

So, even though I don’t agree with myself 100% of the time I still try fit all the pieces of things together so the world makes sense to me. Hopefully as I continue to do this I’ll learn more about the people, the world and the thought around me.

Do we have enough troops to do the job in Iraq?

Bush will tell you we have enough troops until after the election. In November we will suddenly realize that we don't have enough troops. How will we get the right number of troops? Two words: The Draft. Wise 18-year-olds are looking for real estate in Canada.

We are not the world's police force!

These are the words G W Bush used when he debated Al Gore in 2000. He was talking about the Kosovo situation. So, he said this then and look what he did - Iraq. Imagine if he thought that we actually were the World's police force.

If Saddam Hussein was such a bad guy because he was killing everyone, then why aren't we going into the Sudan to change that government. We could use a democracy in Africa as well.

The polls show no effect of press conference.

Looking at the latest polls released just minutes ago:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking _Poll.htm" title="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking _Poll.htm" target="_blank"http://www.rasmussenreports.c...

The sample of data taken after the press conference showed Bush with 46% and Kerry with 43%. Most people would expect a big spike after a prime time press conference.

Nobody's Running the Country

George Tenet claimed that he didn’t meet with the president during the month of August 2001 even after the August 6, 2001 PDB. Condi claimed that Richard Clarke didn’t need to meet with the president because he was meeting with George. So, if the president isn’t meeting with Clarke and he isn’t meeting with Tenet, and he doesn’t read anything – How the Hell does he know what is going on?

QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?

BUSH: We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over.

And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them.

In the press conference last night Bush attempted to answer a question with the following:

[I] BUSH: I thought it was important for the United Nations Security Council that when it says something, it means something for the sake of security in the world.

See, the war on terror had changed the calculations. We needed to work with people. People needed to come together to work. And therefore, empty words would embolden the actions of those who are willing to kill indiscriminately.

The United Nations passed a Security Council resolution unanimously that said, disarm or face serious consequences. And he refused to disarm. [/I]

Well, this is such unsound reasoning. Saddam was already disarmed. That’s like the police saying you have drugs. We’re going to break into your house and shoot you if you don’t give us your drugs. Since you don’t have any drugs you can not comply. Then the police break down your door and kill you, and saying if you just handed over the drugs you’d still be alive.

And the sad part is that there are people out there that buy this.

The most stunning question and non-answer at last nights presidential press conference was when Bush was asked why he was meeting with the 9/11 commision in tow with Dick Cheney. He avoided the question like the plague.

Since I am a scientist, I look at the evidence and I construct a theory that fits the facts. So I am going to try to explain why the president and the vice president need to testify together and they don't want to tell anyone why.

The story begins back in 1980. Ronny Reagan just beat Jimmy Carter. Ronny had a personality and he was able to communicate his ideas. Conservatives began to petition their ideas to Ronny, because if he explained them people understood.

In 1983 Ronny was shot. Unknown to the American people he lost a lot of blood and suffered some minor brain damage. He was never quite the same. But with his training as an actor he was able to carry off the next five years of his presidency with the help of his trusted advisors.

He did so well, that George H W Bush rode into the White House with ease. Now, this Bush was from the school of thinking about a problem and searching for a solution. He did well in the CIA and the UN. He knew how to get things done. Unforetunately for him his solutions didn't alway work politically and he was voted out of office.

So, learning from history, the Republican party decided that they were looking for a guy to be the actor in front of the crowd. He didn't need to know anything, and thinking about problem could be detrimental.

From looking at the pool of available candidates: Republicans with experience but very little public record of opinion. They found GW Bush. They poured money into his campaign fund before the primary race even began. When John McCain started to win public support the Republican machine slandered McCain in South Carolina resulting in Bush taking the momentum and winning the nomonation.

When the inexperienced, uninformed and unmotivated Bush found himself in the White House he didn't worry he deligated. In fact, he deligated everything except his public appearences. His speeches are written for him. His talking points are given to him. He has his decisions before he has the facts.

So, why doesn't Bush want to talk to the 9/11 commision alone? Because he would be embarrassed to be exposed in front of the Democrats on the committee. In fact, many Republicans in Washington have been shocked by how little Bush thinks about any issue.

This frightening disreguard for learning can be illustrated by comment he has made at some less formal question and answer sessions. He was asked about his thoughts on education and he responded, "...school, no I'm too old for school, and frankly I don't have any interest..."

Compare this comment to the typical political response to this type of question. This is along the lines of: Learning is a lifelong process, there are always new ways to look at old problems.

In conclusion, the evidence points to Bush being a puppet, but the question remains: Who's puppet is he?

Wow – Bush Does Not Answer the Questions.

Bush’s press conference was the worst presidential press conference that I have ever seen. And, I have seen quite a few. I don’t know if he had a list of answers on the teleprompter, and if so why did he keep repeating the same answers to different questions. Now we know why he doesn’t do these very often. He kept trying to find a way to work in catch phrases even when the phrases had no relevance to the question at hand.

My favorite question was when Bush was asked why he and Cheney were going to meet with the commission together. He answered, “So we can answer questions.” Then the reporter pressed further, “But why are you meeting with the commission together, which was against the commission’s request?” Bush responded, if you can call it that, “So we can answer questions.”

Joseph Nye, Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University has a new book out called “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics.” The tittle implies the concept of soft power and hard power. Hard power is blatant military force, while soft power is winning the hearts and minds of the world. Joseph Nye argues that the Bush administration does not care about soft power. Donald Rumsfield couldn’t even understand the concept of soft power when Nye tried to explain it to him. Soft power comes in different ways, through humanitarian aid, through propaganda broadcasts, as well as movies, music and other desirable cultural influences. If people view the US as something desirable then they will support their government when they want to assist the US. Unfortunately, the Muslim world views the US as the Devil and evil and when the people view the government as assisting the US the help is seen as helping the Devil. The Bush administration is spending less and less on soft power because it doesn’t understand the value of such programs.

Joseph Nye was interviewed by the World Affairs council and it was broadcast last night on NPR.

[i] Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics with Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. In the late 1980s, Joseph Nye coined the term “soft power”, which lies in the ability to attract and persuade. Whereas hard power (or the ability to coerce) grows out of a country’s military or economic might, soft power arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals and policies. Hard power remains crucial in a world of states trying to guard their independence and of non-state groups willing to turn to violence, and it forms the core of the Bush administration’s national security strategy. But according to Nye, the Bush administration focuses too heavily on using America’s military power, and pays too little heed to soft power; whereas soft power will help prevent terrorists from recruiting supporters and help deal with issues that require multilateral cooperation. [/i]

Scandal

Lets look at the two options that US voters have in November.

Scenario #1: GW Bush re-elected as US president. The Iraq war will turn into a scandal like the Clinton White House. At the current time the generic Democrat will beat a generic Republican at the polls. This usually means that the Democrats will re-take the House and Senate. Maybe the House is too much to ask if GW Bush is re-elected, but if Democrats take over the Senate there will be an investigation into the Iraq war. Millions of dollars will be spent investigating motives of the administration beginning with questioning the lowest ranking bureaucrats and extending all the way up to the Oval office. But this isn’t the only thing. The military forces need money and man power to continue the Bush administration’s objective in Iraq - if they can figure it out. A large spending package is already in the works, but it won’t come up for a vote until after the election. The military need manpower as well, so they need to figure out how to get more manpower. One option is to continue to use National Guard troops again and again. This isn’t playing very well with the wives and families at home. So, another option is to draft 18-year-old males into the army. This is most likely to happen after the election if GW Bush is elected. Finally, a tax package will be needed to pay for the war in Iraq.

Scenario #2: JF Kerry is elected US president. The priority will be shifted from trying to control Iraq to trying to turn over control of Iraq to the UN or NATO. A true multinational force including Muslim solders will be enlisted to keep the peace. A legitimate group of leaders will be created to draw up an Iraqi constitution and the focus of the US will return to fighting terrorism. Less money will be needed to fund the Iraqi operation. Less manpower will be needed to support the effort in Iraq. Halliburton will no longer be allowed to overcharge for services in Iraq. Companies will be discouraged from outsourcing work to other countries with tax incentives. The economy will be back on track.

This has been an issue with authority people telling teenage boys that they'd go blind and other such nonsense. I hope this furthers the cause for the pro masturbation forces.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&st oryID=4766524§ion=new s" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&st oryID=4766524§ion=new s" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

At least I hope that’s the way this goes. I would hate the results of this research to encourage 12-year-old marriage or even 12-year-olds buying prostitutes.

Then again with religion logic one never knows.

Bush’s Lack of Curiosity

Shouldn’t a good leader of any sort have at least a moderate amount of curiosity. If he doesn’t, then what is his function? If he isn’t the guy to ask the questions, then who should? Since, by his own admission, he’s not a detail guy, then shouldn’t he at least question the decisions of the guys at the top? Wasn’t the communication between the CIA and the FBI a major issue before 9/11? Isn’t the communication between The State Department and The Pentagon a major problem with the Iraq issues? Paul O’Neill was shocked by the lack of questions that Bush had during their one-on-one meeting in the Oval office. Questions facilitate discussion and should be part of any good leader’s toolbox.

As a parent, don’t you ask your children questions about what they do and whom they associate with? As a worker, don’t you ask questions about your job? As a manager, don’t you ask questions about your employees? As an investor, don’t you ask questions about the companies that you invest in?

If Bush isn’t asking these questions, then who is? I believe that someone in the government must be doing his job for him if he isn’t. Because decisions are being made based on some information somewhere.

What is the meaning of the August 6th memo? Some are saying, “See, Bush knew all along that the terrorists would attack.” Others are saying, “See, Bush didn’t know any specifics about when or where the terrorists were going to attack.” But, the problem is what did the administration say after the attacks, and what does this memo say about what they said. Immediately after the attacks Condi said, “we had no idea that the terrorists would hijack planes and use them as missiles to attack us.” Well, this lie is wrong from several points and this memo adds one more. Yes, Condi and the president knew that al-Qaeda was planning to attack the US, and one method mentioned in the memo was to hijack airplanes. Based on this alone the FAA should have stepped up security – which they didn’t.

Jesus and the Eclipse

Last week at the Palm Sunday Mass I heard an interesting thing and it got me thinking. At the Catholic Palm Sunday mass the Gospel merges the stories from the four Gospels into one story. So when they said that when Jesus died there was an eclipse of the sun I wondered if it said that in all the Gospels or just in one of them. So, I went home and looked it up and found that in Luke 23:44 there it was, “the sun was darkened by the eclipse of the sun.” This may not seem to be unusual to many people, but it should be. This is because the Passover is defined on the Jewish calendar by the full moon. Does anyone see the problem yet? Well, if there is a full moon it would take two weeks for the moon to get into position for an eclipse. Therefore, there could not be an eclipse. So, I thought surely the fundamentalists have already seen this problem. They should know the answer. And, surely they do. They changed the translation from eclipse to darkening of the sky for three hours. This is very interesting.

The Draft

When the US reinstates the draft will it include Women?

I am guessing that it won’t. This is because we have a Republican Congress and a Republican President. Of course, he wouldn’t start a draft in this term, it wouldn’t happen until he is re-elected. So, there is almost no way that women will be drafted in the near future.

But, the fear mongering Republicans will say: “If Kerry is elected then women will be drafted into the military.” To that I say: “ There will be no draft if Kerry is elected.” This is because Kerry will be able to do what Bush cannot and will not do. He will talk to the other nations and enlist their support. You may tell me that Bush has the worlds support, but that would be an exaggeration. Bush has Tony Blair’s support. The population of Britain is against the insane action in Iraq. The other countries we have claimed for our support are drifting away.

So, if Bush is elected there will be a draft, but it will not include women.

And, if Kerry is elected there will be no draft and the rest of the world will join us in our fight against terrorism.

Quagmire

A difficult or precarious situation from which extrication is almost impossible. (The American Heritage Dictionary)

Doesn’t this definition fit the situation in Iraq? I don’t care if the number of dead in Iraq isn’t the same as the number dead in Viet Nam. Viet Nam was the 10,000-day war, and 50,000 soldiers died in that war. Therefore the rate of dead was 5 per day. So far in Iraq 649 soldiers have died and we have been there for 365 days, which is about 2 soldiers per day. However, the first 365 days in Viet Nam had many fewer deaths than Iraq so far.

I just think that people in the US need to learn what people around the world already know: Iraq is a big mistake and we need to figure a way out of this quagmire.

Condi Again

Condi’s testimony illustrates a couple of things about this administration that lead to the 9/11 tragedy.

First, it showed without a doubt that GW Bush does not know the details of what is going on. It shows that he doesn’t care to know the details, and it doesn’t matter to him whether he knows the details.

This is important, because not only doesn’t he care to know the details he also didn’t care that the different organizations in the government should talk to each other about the terrorist threat. Clark requested a meeting of the principles on this issue. When Condi was questioned about this she thought that this type of meeting was not needed because it just meant that the guys would get together and say to each other what their staffs already said. Except, the fact is that these guys had no other channel to communicate through. At least if they had gotten together they could listen to each department’s assessment of the problems and issues. Condi is assuming that the head of each department understands all the issues. But, not even her chief POTUS knows what is or was going on. So, the reasoning for not having these meetings that regularly occurred during the Clinton administration seems to be extremely short sighted. Even after the Clinton administration warned the incoming Bush administration that this was going to be the most time consuming part of the administration. So, creating the department of Homeland Security is supposed to fix the problem, but it doesn’t it just puts one unknowing person in charge of a bunch of other unknowing people.

I think it’s time to put someone in charge that knows what is going on, or at least wants to know the details.

John Mellencamp

Last night I was watching late night PBS. I know, I have a warped mind. Anyway, I heard an interview with John Mellencamp. It was quite interesting. John claims to be a middle of the road guy and claims he is independent. Apparently he wrote new lyrics to an old song and it is on his latest album - “Trouble No More.” The album came out six months ago so many of you probably already know this but there is a song on the album called “To Washington.” The song seems to be the ideal song to galvanize the middle of the road guys and point out how this right wing president needs to be voted out of office. He hits both Democrats and Republicans – and points out how Bush says one thing and does another.

Condi is Confused

In her testimony today before the 9/11 commission Condi says that the US was unprepared because the US territory had not been attacked in 200 years. OK, if Pearl Harbor doesn’t count because it wasn’t a state at the time – even though it was a US military base. What about the War of 1812 when the White House was burned down? What about something more recent like the bombing of the World Trade Center building the first time around in 1993? Am I confused, or is it Condi?

ENRON and Halliburton – 2004

On my way home from work Tuesday I saw this bumper sticker. I thought it was funny and I thought it must be a “Bush Hater” who owned the car in which the sticker was placed. Then, I noticed that there was another Bumper Sticker on the other side of the car. This one said, “Bush Cheney – 2004.” Now, I am totally confused with this arrangement. Is it posted by someone who thinks that Bush and Cheney’s connections to this insidious companies is a good thing? Or, does one sticker belong to the husband and the other belongs to the wife? If anyone has a clue, then please let me know.

Missiles or Terror?

I know that it is hard to remember the way it was before September 11, 2001, but lets try. At the time the Bush administration was trying to reinvigorate the Star Wars program. This program was begun under the Reagan administration. The idea was that if someone shot Nuclear Missiles at us we would be able to shoot them down with other missiles. Scientists had told Reagan that this was just not possible for several reasons, but the government sunk more and more money into this ridiculous idea. Even in the 1980s those opposed to the idea said that anyone who wanted to could put a nuclear weapon into a cargo container, load it onto a ship and detonate it when it is in a US harbor. The Clinton administration finally realized the futile nature of the missile defense and put the program on the back burner. However, when the Bush administration came into power the Star Wars plan was reinitiated. Obviously programs take some time to begin anew, but where were the rapid response to these airplanes after the first one hit the world trade center? Nuclear missiles are much faster than jet airplanes, so the question becomes: How many nuclear missiles would hit the US before we would respond? What if we had the Star Wars program in place? Putting attention on the missile defense program was obviously a distraction from the real threat: Terrorists.

This was great. Someone modified the garment instructions so that the French version read:

"We are sorry our president is an idiot. We did not vote for him."

http://www.king5.com/business/stories/NW_0 40604BUBbushbashingbagsKC .fe8337f2.html" title="http://www.king5.com/business/stories/NW_0 40604BUBbushbashingbagsKC .fe8337f2.html" target="_blank"http://www.king5.com/business...

Since we have taken over Iraq, don't we get a seat in OPEC?

If so we can vote for increasing production so we can lower the gasoline prices. I'm sure we can use some of our muscle with some of the smaller countries like we ussually do to get our way. So, either Bush is a wimp or he's making too much money on the oil prices to give a damn.

Isn’t it strange that GW Bush doesn’t want us to know what went on behind the scenes before, during and after 9/11. But, by bowing to public pressure little by little he is letting us know what went on. Now, as the public learns more about what went on his job approval, and popularity have continued to go down. The more he lets us know the more it goes down. Could you imagine what really happened? What was the truth? We will never know, because the administration knows that if we find out there is no way that he could be re-elected.

Check this out! Kerry is pointing out how Bush has flip flopped on issues. This race is much better