Something To Think About dot info

If the police want more support, they better do a lot more dying.

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:14:35 -0800

The police often say 'We put our lives on the line every day to serve and protect' and as far as it goes, they do. A typical, well known example is the cop approaching the driver of the car he just pulled over - will the driver pull a gun and try to shoot the cop? Some few times the answer is yes and some fewer times the cop ends up dead.

But what about the times they don't risk their lives? What about the times they blast away at someone rather than risk their lives?

Consider that time in NY, February 4, 1999, when 4 undercover cops blasted away at Amadou Diallo, a civilian in the shadows who was attempting to show them his identification? One cop said he thought the victim was pulling a gun, and in fear for his life, this cop opened fire on the victim. When his brother cops realized the first cop was shooting at the victim, they joined in.

These cops didn't know if the victim had a gun, they were just 'afraid' he did. Rather than risk their lives in order to determine if the victim intended them harm, they shot him down in a hail of 41 bullets.

"We risk our lives." Compare that statement to the soldier's: "We give our lives." What does it mean when someone risks their life but stops short of giving it? Or contrast the cop's stance with that of those hero's of Search and Rescue who say "If I have to give my life for yours, I will".

Sometimes cops actually go beyond merely risking their lives to giving them. On That 2001 NY day, scores of cops became rescue workers, and three score perished.

As harsh as it sounds, I want the cops to default to dying rather than killing innocents.

"Self-sacrifice enables us to sacrifice other people without blushing." George Bernard Shaw

Fun Facts to Know and Share:

Per year averages for the 15 year period from 1980 through 2005:

§ 10,751 cops were assaulted by folks using weapons - 22% of these assaults involved firearms

§ About 50,000 assaults on cops without weapons

§ 140 cops were killed - 56% of these deaths were accidental, the remaining 62 were felonious

In 2004 there were more than 800,000 full-time sworn law enforcement officers in the United States, yielding an average of 8 deaths per 100,000. The homicide rate from 1976 through 2005 was 7.8 per 100,000. While my calculations here are only approximate, it seems that being a cop is about as risky as not being a cop.

"The changes in the U.S. homicide rate over time are interesting. In 1900 there were few gun laws. New York had no handgun law and California no waiting period. Guns of all types could be ordered by mail or bought anonymously. And the homicide rate was 1.2 per 100,000." David C. Stolinsky, MD

Bumper stickers that caught my eye:

"The only thing that I feel when I kill, is the recoil."

If I Were King ...

Sun, 13 Apr 2008 00:13:45 -0800

I would implement a 50 year plan to end the use of combustibles for energy:

1)     3 years: Cancel all combustion based generating plant projects that haven't broken ground

2)     5 years: Require all new construction to include as many free-fueled energy devices and/or eco-helpful environments on the roof as practical

3)     20 years: All oil fueled generating plants would be dismantled

4)     30 years: All fossil fuel generating plants would be dismantled

5)     50 years: Fossil fuels would no longer be used for transportation

6)     Possible exceptions: Air and Space travel; military and emergency; waste reclamation

Make it a criminal offense for members of the media to come in physical contact with their subjects or the subject's escorts. This would include:

·         Being propelled into contact by another would not be allowed as a defense

·         The subject initiating contact would not be allowed as a defense unless the subject actually chased the member of the media

·         Mandatory jail time for 2nd and subsequent offenses

·         Escalating fines for both the contactor and their employer

At my own expense, commission:

·         The development of an inexpensive consumer device that lets me control the magnitude of the difference in volume between the quietest to the loudest in any audio stream

·         The present day equivalent of a Statue of Liberty gift for France honoring the creation of the EU

Correct the Educational System by:

1st.        A return to a catechism oriented classical curricula

2nd.       Require any school experiencing an unacceptable level of violence to implement a comprehensive surveillance system

3rd.        All students will be subject to searches of their persons and effects at the reasonable discretion of the teachers (law enforcement searches will still require a warrant).

4th.        If a student creates a serious problem, and strenuous efforts to correct the problem fail, place the student in a problem student class

5th.        Require much more from the brightest students

6th.        End the strict association of age with grade; all students would advance a grade only after demonstrating mastery of the current grade's material

7th.        Resurrect the Primary and Secondary education systems by guaranteeing that only those who have mastered the curricula receive diplomas

8th.        Require everyone to complete a year in the military followed a few months later by a year in an approved militarily structured organization by their 29th birthday

9th.        All college applicants would have to pass a comprehensive entry test before enrolling in their first course

Apply the 4th Amendment to current technology:

v Medical Information:

a.       Within 5 years, create a national medical database containing everyone's entire medical history and all the data generated by providers and funders and other stake holders.

b.       All the information in the database will be under the sole ownership of the patient and classified as a Federal Secret; access granted by permission only, and only as far as necessary to provide the proper care.

c.       Unless authorized by the patient, possession and/or use of this information will be a criminal offense. Insurance companies and employers and recruiters, and their agents, are specifically prohibited from accessing this information

v Personal Information:

a.       All the information and data generated by a person's personal activity are the sole and exclusive property of that person (with an exceedingly long and specific list of exceptions).

b.       Except for extreme situations and parents testing minors, all drug tests are prohibited and possession of recreational drugs will be decriminalized.

Let our children be children:

         I.            Return responsibility for and authority over our children to their parents. This especially includes medical, health and reproductive activities; religious beliefs and values; associations; education, corporal punishment, etc...

       II.            Return the voting age and majority age to 21; active military stays 18

     III.            Require DNA verification of parenthood for all children born to minors. The parents of the father and mother are responsible for children born to minors until the mother's and father's majority

    IV.            Allow minors to marry only with their parent's permission

      V.            Bring back the curfew

Make sure we all speak the same language: Require all commercial, political and legal communications to be in English (with a long list of exceptions)

Quotes:

"MAGPIE, n. A bird whose thievish disposition suggested to someone that it might be taught to talk. " Ambrose Bierce (1842 - 1914), The Devil's Dictionary:

"One's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Fun Facts to Know and Share:

The term "basket case" originated after WWI to refer to a wounded soldier who has lost both arms and both legs to amputation, and had to be carried around in a basket.

Bumper stickers that caught my eye:

"I've read about the evils of alcohol, so I gave up reading."

"To err is human; to blame it on somebody else shows management potential."

What Liberals Know that Just Isn't So: End Poverty in America

Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:29:58 -0800

In a speech early in his campaign, Sen. Obama said "We will end poverty in America". Even though this is a common theme for liberals, I still wondered why he would say such a thing, Here's my best guesses:

Maybe he's an idiot?

The word "poverty" is defined as the financial condition of those having the lowest values along a range of wealth. It's like the word "cold". "Cold" is not a temperature, like 42 degrees Fahrenheit; it's a range of temperatures that are lower than those temperatures which are called "Hot", or warm or cool, etc... To a person, 32^OF is cold, but to a Penguin maybe it's only cool; or even warm? Maybe Sen. Obama doesn't know this; that poverty is relative? That would certainly make him a idiot.

Maybe he's a Communist?

If Sen. Obama set it up so that everyone had the same amount of wealth, there would be no range of wealth at all ,and so no poverty. We all know what communist societies are like. I suppose it's possible that some folks actually want to live under tyranny. I personally know some folks who would love to be a tyrant. And if George Washington, or even Timoleon, were the tyrant, life probably would be better.

Maybe he's a Child?

'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.' This promise of Marxism is certainly attractive to many of us; even compelling. Such a society might be a Utopia, and who wouldn't want to live in Utopia? Unfortunately, history teaches us that Utopia is currently an unattainable ideal. Only children believe in such things.

Maybe he's using a sophism?

This would get my vote as the most likely reason Sen. Obama said "We will end poverty in America". He's lying through his teeth; shoveling it out by the truck full to secure the support of those who fall for such tricks..

If one isn't liberal while they're young they probably have no heart. And if one isn't conservative when they're grown up they probably have no brain. Or they don't use it. Or they're tyrants. Or I don't really know as I've spent decades searching, futilely, for a liberal willing or able to explain it to me.

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary at www.m-w.com/dictionary:

Main Entry: id·i·ot

Pronunciation: \ˈi-dē-ət\

Function: noun

2: a foolish or stupid person

Main Entry: pov·er·ty

Pronunciation: \ˈpä-vər-tē\

Function: noun

1 a: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

Main Entry: soph·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈsä-ˌfi-zəm\

Function: noun

1: an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive

Quotes:

"Some people are so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good."

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained."

Mark Twain

Bumper stickers that caught my eye:

"My mind is like a steel trap; rusty and illegal in most states."

"Don't believe everything you think".

Fun Facts to Know and Share:

Gold is so dense that where a cubic foot of water weighs 64 lbs, and a cubic foot of iron weighs 500 lbs., a cubic foot of gold weighs 1,200 lbs. If that gallon of milk you buy were gold, it would weigh 150 lbs.

BYKI free v3.6 - A Great Way to Wait for Your Computer

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 05:43:00 -0800

The free version of BYKI v3.6, or Before You Know It, is nothing more than a simple foreign language flashcard app. I really didn't expect too much from a computerized version of such a time-worn technology as flashcards, but I'm glad I gave it a try. It's so simple to use that I just leave it running whenever I'm working at my computer. Now, when I have to wait those agonizingly long seconds for my computer to finish doing what I just told it to do, I just flip a few flashcards, learn a little Spanish, and I'm no longer waiting!!! There are plenty of times I'm on my computer and have to wait for 3 or more seconds as it. With BYKI these waits are no longer boring. That alone is enough for me, so it's all gravy that it's kind of fun also. And I can now count to10 in Spanish too.

In my Spanish download there are 16 different vocabulary lists with around 14 words per list; lists such as Counting Numbers, Polite Conversation, and Meeting and Greeting. The new vocabulary is presented via 5 "Learning Modes": Review It; Recognize It; Know It; Produce It; and Own It. Following this sequence worked pretty well for me. I also got other languages, Latin and German, and more are available from the vendor; all free. If you upgrade to the commercial version for $45 - $55, you'll get quite a bit more functionality, including recording you saying the word and comparing your pronunciation to the native's. For a Franklin, you'll get BYKI and 4 other apps. c|net Download : Vendor's site

The Reason We'll lose, if we do

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:07:41 -0800

We humans, smart as we are, oft confuse complicated with difficult, and simple with easy. In my experience, it's the other way around plenty of times; the simple can be extremely difficult. Ask any physicist about the difficulty of dealing with an equation as simple as

E = mc²

Or a person simply trying to do the right thing; Or even just counting out loud to 10,000 without error.

Much of the beauty scientists find in their work is in the elegant, and simple, laws underlying their reality. But this hasn't been the case in the "soft" sciences. Ask one of them why? and instead of writing a few figures on the blackboard, they will tell you volumes, and still not have it completely correct. I don't believe this is only because of the subject matter; I suspect it's mostly the attitude of the practitioners thinking that the truths of their field are frightfully complicated.

Well, I'm not a practitioner of any soft science, so it could only be my ignorance talking, but some "human" things are very, very simple. For instance ...

In the case of our current violent conflict with the "islamists", they will win because they are willing to kill, and we aren't willing to die.

It really is that simple.

If you don't believe me, do your own brief survey of the armed conflicts America has been in. You will find that every time we weren't victorious we were also not willing to die. Compare three recent examples where Americans were outraged at the deaths of our soldiers: Vietnam, Somalia, Korea; with WWI and WWII. If you're still not satisfied, pick any military history you like. As soon as one side says "we've done enough dying, and will do no more", the other side wins.

Isn't that just about the same as surrender?

Quote:

"American supremacy is the greatest threat to the world today." George Soros, MoveOn.org's billionaire benefactor

I have seen this quote attributed to Soros many times in many places, but was unable to verify it on the net. After checking the web thoroughly, the closest I found was a transcript of CNN Crossfire, Aired May 31, 2004 - 16:30 ET which says " ...Soros explained to 'The Washington Post' this fall ... Soros went on to compare the president of the United States to the Nazis. And then he said something even more offensive. Soros described the United States as -- quote - 'a danger to the world.'"

Fun Facts to know and share:

There is an intersection in Houston: Clinton & Fidelity

Bumper Stickers that caught my eye:

If You Don't Vote, DON'T WHINE

Don't Worry What People Think. They Don't Do It Very Often

The magic of math: when x ≠ x

Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:09:54 -0800

What can I say; I think math is way cool. Always Have. Always Will. Like when I start with X only to find out that it's no longer equal to itself. Kinda ...

Let x = 0.999... (to ∞)

Now we can multiply this equation by 10 to get

10x = 9.999... (to ∞)

Now we have two equations and so far OK. But let's subtract them:

10x = 9.999...

- x = 0.999...

________________

9x = 9.0 which of course simplifies to x = 1.

And "1" is not the number I started with, which was 0.999... (to ∞) !!!

Or does 1 really equal the first number after all: 1 = 0.999... ???

Infinity is a mischievous concept and there's no telling what it's up to!

Quote

"Don't just learn the tricks of the trade. Learn the trade." James Bennis

Fun Facts to Know and Share

111,111,111 X 111,111,111 = 12,345,678,987,654,321

Bumper Stickers that caught my eye

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

What if the hokey pokey is really what it's all about?

Where surfers are the same as conservatives

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:52:28 -0800

Or, one of the things surfers have in common with every mature, experienced person.

I find everything about surfing a blast. I like riding the wave the best. Next best I like getting outside. Next best I like wipeouts. They can be as cool as a marble in a shoe box, or better still, a sock in the washer. And best of all wipeouts, a sock in the drier, going round and round and round. Of course, if you hit something it could mess you up, and sometimes it seems as if the Ocean will never let you up; I only like these wipeouts when reminiscing.

The overriding lesson surfers learn, is that the Ocean always wins. If you fight her, she will win. Always. You've just got to learn to live with her under her rules. When she has you, many ordinary things become impossible, like breathing for instance. If you don't recognize or accept her omnipotence, you'll get into trouble. You'll get into trouble anyway, but if you learn the things she'll let you do, and learn to do them the way she likes, you'll hardly be powerless.

So in the surfer's world, there is this group of things that are just impossible to do; they know this group intimately. There is also this other group of things that can be done, but only if you do them 'just so'; they know this group intimately also.

It is in the acceptance of the world the way it is; it is in the letting go of the impossible; it is in the learning what can be done and how to do it; it is in these that the surfer is the same as the conservative.

When a conservative looks at society, she sees lots that's impossible to do; and puts those things away until they become possible. Then she gets busy learning what can be done and how to do it. Then she does it and it works.

1st Amendment cases from the ACLU's "100 Greatest" page.

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:03:33 -0800

I've just come from the ACLU page listing their 100 greatest successes from 1925 through 1999. Out of these, 35 involve our 1^st Amendment right to speak freely:

a) The 1st three defended those who call for the violent overthrow of our government.

b) Next, in 1938's Lovell v. Griffin, they challenge a Georgia ordinance prohibiting Jehovah's Witnesses from distributing literature. Surprisingly, this was not a speech case; it concerned Christians prohibiting the religious expression of Jehovah's Witnesses; an 'Establishment of Religion' case.

c) Next, they defend an anti-Semite in 1949's Terminiello v. Chicago.

d) Then 16 cases through 1976 protecting: civil-disorder speech, obscene speech (twice), political defamation, political speech( twice), violent over-throwers (again), war potesters (twice), hecklers, flag-burners, Presidential-life-threateners, and some others.

e) Then in 1977 the Jehovah Witnesses again, though this time not a religious case, but a "Right to Not Speak" case.

f) Next, 1978's Smith v. Collin, the famous Skokie Illinois case protecting anti-Semites (again).

g) Then 3 more cases, including another defense of flag desecration, and one protesting a School's desire to exclude some material from their library,

h) Next, in 1992's R.A.V. v. Wisconsin, as they describe it: "A unanimous Court struck down as overly broad a local law banning the display, on public or private property, of any symbol 'that arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.'" This ruling is followed closely by Lee v. Weisman, which made prayers at school unconstitutional.

i) Next, 1993's notorious Wisconsin v. Mitchell: The various conversations that culminated in this unprecedented pivotal decision are one of history's finest examples of successful political sophistry. For the first time in America, certain thoughts were not only illegal, but unconstitutional. Such an accomplishment deserves its own name, and placement into our dictionary - "Hate Crime". Unbelievably, having one of a particular class of thoughts, if combined with the commission of specific crimes, becomes, itself, also illegal. As the ACLU describes it: "Wisconsin's 'hate crime' statute, providing for additional criminal penalties if a jury found that a defendant 'intentionally selected' a victim based on 'race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry', did not violate the First Amendment because the statute punished acts, not thoughts or speech."

This last one is sophistry at its best! They couldn't possibly make thinking illegal; they couldn't even come close to it here in America. So they shifted the discussion to actions; specifically, criminal acts.

They know that the vast majority of us believe that murder, rape, robbery, etc., should be illegal and we're glad that they are. Building on this foundation, they point out that a jury will consider many things while choosing between the verdicts Guilty or Not Guilty: Where did the alleged crime take place? What time was it? What devices were used? What precipitated, or at least preceded, the crime? Did the accused know they were breaking the law? What type of planning took place? And so on ...

Now they demonstrate that the "Evidence" a jury examines lies somewhere along a continuum from 100% physical action all the way to 100% abstract thought. AND. Juries already examine stuff that's pretty close to 100% thought, like: did they know their intended action was illegal? AND. Conspiracy is already illegal, and thought plays a crucial role in the commission of illegal conspiracy.

It took a deft touch, but we come to understand this ruling as merely a trifling modification of this continuum. The planning of the crime is a part of the crime brought to the attention of the jury in a conspiracy trial. Planning is a type of thinking, and the jury is required to consider planning in a conspiracy trial. They're only allowing the jury to examine a little more of the defendants criminal thinking, and even then only if that particular thinking was associated with the commission of a crime.

They get a lot from this sophistry:

The pervasive belief that the addition of Hate Crime laws doesn't entail any drastic, even major, changes to The Law; it merely throws a few more things into the pot when considering criminal behavior. Some more things just like some of the things already in the pot.
It creates a new concept, Hate Crime, and they get to name it.
They also get to populate it and so have defined it for current dictionaries for all time.
They reinforce the idea and actuality of Protected Classes: Hate Crime only applies to Protected Classes.
They claim the mantle of Civil Rights Crusader for protecting those classes.
They introduce, and gain widespread acceptance of, the belief that these Hate Crime laws are just like those conspiracy laws which prohibit conspiracy type thinking.

It's critical that they accomplish this last point. They need to sell you their analogy that Hate Crime law is just like Conspiracy law. Once they do that, they can successfully demonstrate that as "conspiracy type thinking" is illegal even when the underlying crime remains nothing but a plan, so should "hate type thinking" become illegal, all by itself.

And Poof! Thought Criminals!!! The ACLU; those folks are experts!

An Effective Use of Sophistry by the ACLU

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:47:41 -0800

When I stopped by the About page of the ACLU today, I found this excellent example of effective political sophistry:

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs

Notice how they begin with reference to our Bill of Rights. The term "Bill of Rights" entered our dictionary circa 1780 with tremendous prestige. When I read the term on their webpage, I behaved as they expected, and brought some of that august history to mind. Not only am I in a different "Frame of Mind" now, I'm also in a different "Frame of Feel" (for lack of a better word). They expected this also.

Next, they provided the date of ratification, implying that their point of view is that of a scholarly, historic authority.

Now that they've set the desired context for me:

Sophistry #1: They add 4 amendments to the Bill of Rights; skipping forward over 70 years for their first addition, and almost 130 years for their last.

In their next paragraph, they claim to be on a "mission" to "preserve" "protections and guarantees". Specifically which/what "protections and guarantees"? "These." I've just read a paragraph about the Bill of Rights and 4 other actual amendments, all of which I strongly support; and I Love the Bill of Rights. I've just answered the question of what they are referring to when they used the word "these", and as they planned, I'm now in full support of their mission.

Sophistry #2: They change the meaning of the word "these". It no longer means those 14 amendments, but now just the 4 items on the list that follows. This list includes only a tattered remnant of the 1^st Amendment, while the remaining 90% of the Bill of Rights has just vanished.

The rhetorical goal of the ACLU here is to gain acceptance by the reader as a "Worthy Defender of The Bill of Rights". Much of their success in accomplishing their objectives is because of the support they receive as result of this deception.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

Bumper Stickers that caught my eye:

"Friends don't let friends vote republican"

"Guns don't kill people. I do."