We are being bombarded with extravagant praise by the popular media for Barrack Hussein Obama. They carefully neglect using his middle name for fear of arousing “unfounded” concerns by the fascistic, homophobic, ignoramuses called “Republicans”. These paeans to the new JFK seem to be based on his “blackness’, his youth, and his charming way of saying nothing at all while making it sound really really important. His platform seems to consist of one plank called change, but precisely what he intends to change or how he intends to change it goes unreported. We are told by the media that 86% of blacks voted for Obama but none of the press or media view this as racist. Insead it is announced with pride that the blacks are clearly voting for the best man, not the black man, although the voting pattern among blacks has consistently been racially based (think Marion Barry among others) and independent of qualifications or even past criminal records. The only solid thing coming from Obama is his determination to end the war in Iraq – not by victory but by surrender – surrender to the Muslims – but we are assured that he is not a Muslim or at least not one of those radical Muslims and that surrender is really not surrender but simply wise policy. Wise policy for who seems to go unreported, but we are told that the youth of American are solidly behind Obama. The assumption here is that these youths are capable of critical thinking and have carefully considered Obama as well as the other Democratic and Republican candidates. Of course this is unlikely because the college campuses from which these youths spring are heavily weighted to the left and any critical discourse is discouraged if not outright forbidden.
The press in the US has continued to drift left as the colleges graduate more and more students who have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the politics of the left. The highly acclaimed Katie Couric in her visit to Cuba in 1992 announced to the world that the standard of living in Cuba was “very high for a third world country”. Of course this oxymoronic observation was duly reported with no critical comment or comparison. In fact Cuba had been among the wealthiest Latin American nations when Castro obtained power by force but now it ranks among the poorest with even the Dominican Republic having a higher standard. Of course the left leaning media do not criticize Marxist regimes that have taken over by force, criticism is aimed only at those brutal dictators that are not Marxists. In fact even as the USSR was disintegrating before the eyes of the world and the evils of Marxism were becoming clear, Peter Jennings continued to laud Cuba and their Marxist paradise – of course ignoring the hundreds – if not thousands of Cubans risking their lives in leaky boats in their desperate flight to the US. So is it any wonder that the media cannot bring themselves to critically examine the leftist politics of a young black man who promises change without specifying what changes. It is worth noting that this was the mantra of Hugo Chavez when he took over Venezuela and who is now admitting to his Marxist beliefs.
It is also worth noting that Robert Frost once said that “A liberal is a man too broad minded to take his own side in a quarrel”. This quote really sums up the liberal position in most situations, especially when it comes to the US. These are the people who will automatically assume that anything the US wants to do is automatically wrong. These are the people who “blame America first” and certainly never give America credit and blame Republicans for everything that they see as being wrong in the world. It was Ronald Reagan who revived the American economy, restored the vitality of NATO, restored America’s domination of the world stage, and forced the USSR to abandon its drive toward world domination and ended the cold war. All of these are enormous achievements but at the conclusion of this Time magazine made Gorbachev “Man of the Year” and to this day the liberal establishment denies that Reagan won the cold war or that he accomplished anything significant – other than to arm the Contras and crush the incipient Marxists for which he was castigated by the press then and now. Any attack on any Marxist government is roundly condemned by the leftist press in America.
Of course the very foundation to the current Democratic platform – if indeed there is one beyond “we aren’t George Bush” is that we need to withdraw from Iraq. The rationale for this position is a little vague other than American Troops are getting killed and we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place. The critical scrutiny of this seems to be restricted to the basis for the decision which is generally believed by the press to be an invasion to support President Bush’s oil interests. Any strategic thinking or examination of the long range effect and impact is missing. Why there is no critical examination of the global situation and the necessity of removing Hussein can only be attributed to a lack of critical thinking, an inability to think strategically, ignorance of geopolitics, or a burning desire to discredit a Republican President – take your pick. Now this same band of geniuses is supporting a very junior senator who has no military experience, no business experience, no administrative experience, very little experience in government, who belongs to a racist and possibly anti-Semitic church and whose only qualification as a candidate seems to be he is black and inexperienced. It would seem that even the media – who are not noted for their high IQ’s – would recognize that the Presidency of the United States is too important of a job to be filled by a candidate who has no experience whatsoever.
The supreme irony here is that the Democrats had a very strong and viable candidate in Governor Richardson. A man whose resume was very strong and who was amply qualified to lead the country. Unfortunately Governor Richardson wasn’t black, wasn’t young, and lacked charisma – all he had were the qualifications necessary to effectively lead the country. Instead the Democrats and the media once again opted for veneers and flash with no substance.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Soccer Tees, Pluto, and Harris Tottle
There is a fascinating book available titled “”Non Campus Mentis” which is a collection of excerpts and quotes from the various tests and papers of students. It is always fascinating to look at history through the eyes of the students which is what the author has done and when you read what he has gleaned you don’t know whether to laugh or cry. The teacher’s present the materials but then something seems to be lost in the translation from mouth to ear because the students don’t seem to hear precisely what is being said or hear it and then don’t have a clue as to what it means, how to spell it, or even how it applies to anything. So here is a summary of World History which I have compiled based on the responses taken from this treasure trove of school tests and papers . The spellings have been left intact and I leave it to your discerning eye to distinguish between what is written by me and by the students and for this reason I have elected to not use distinguishing quotation marks.
Let us begin with ancient Egypt which has always been a challenge because counter to all logic on a map the Nile runs up (North) rather than down which has always caused consternation for the observer who views Egypt on a map, because as we all know, there was Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt. Lower Egypt is actually farther up than Upper Egypt which was – of course – lower down than the upper part. This is why we learn geography as a factor in history. Egypt was certainly an interesting and powerful civilization. The rulers of Egypt were entitled as Faroes with one of the most famous being King Toot. Of course one of the most famous things in Egypt is the pyramids. The pyramids were large square triangles built in the desert. O’Cyrus was a god who lived in a piramid and would give you the afterlife if your sole was on straight. The Egyptian upper class was able to live posthumously through the arts and facts buried with them.
And this brings us to that other great civilization – the Sumerian also known as the Mesopotamian which existed in a valley near the Eucaliptus river where flooding was erotic. Babylon was similar to Egypt because of their differences they had apart from each other. Egypt for example only had Egyptians but Babylon had Summarians, Acadians, and Canadians, to just name a few. The Babylonians honored their gods by building pyramids in the shape of zeplins. Mesopotamia was dominated at various times by the Medes, Persians, and Assyrians. The Assyrian program of exterminating various ethnic groups failed to promote cultural diversity. And so closes our tour through the truly ancient cultures and brings us to the Mediterranean and the Classical Age.
Athens, Sparta, and Pluto were Greek city states. Some were Oglearchies but Athens was a democracy resulting from the reforms of Colon and Percales. Sparta demanded loyalty, military service, and obscurity from its citizens. King Xerox of Persia invaded Greace but fell off short at the Battle of Thermosalami. Religion was polyphonic and featured such gods as Herod, Mars, and Juice. Thucydides was a noted historian who collected facts objectively and saw himself as responsible only to Clio, the Greek Mouse of History. Eventually the Greeks were conquered by Phillip of Mastodon who was later killed in a family sprawl. He was succeeded by Alexander the Great who conquered Persia, Egypt, and Japan. Sadly he died with no hairs.
The Greeks were important and laid the foundation for western civilization. They were important at culture and science. The scientific method came into use when the Greeks learned never to take things for granite when solving a problem. The Atomists discovered E=MC^2 and other mathematical things. U Clid proved that there is more than one side to every plane and Pythagasaurus fathered the triangle, while Archimedes made the first steamboat and power drill. But perhaps the greatest gifts of the Greeks were in the form of philosophy. The pre-Socratics lived long before Plato and were not decisively influenced by his work. Perhaps the greatest philosopher was Socrates who was accused of Sophomorism and sentenced to die of hemroyds. His student Plato invented reality and was teacher to Harris Tottle, author of the Republicans. Other philosophies included the Epicureans for them lust was a must. Others were the Vegetarians and the Synthetics who said “if you can’t play with it, why bother”.
The Greeks were eventually replaced by the great Roman Empire which was founded sometime by Uncle Remus and Wolf. The Roman upperclassmen demanded to be known as Patricia. Senators wore purple tubas as a sign of respect. Around the 120’s B.C the Gretzky brothers failed to stop these and other injustices. But the Republic carried on and struggled with the other great Mediterranean power – Carthage. Hannabelle crossed the Alps with a herd of eliphants and thus invaded Africa. After they defeated Carthage the Romans brutaly salted the people and razored the city. Scipio was called “Africanus” because he served in Spain. The Republic prospered but eventually it came to be dominated by Julius Caesar who was famous for inspiring his men by saying “I came I saw I went”. Caesar was assassinated on the Yikes of March and is reported to have said “Me Too Brutus”.
Following the assassination of Caesar Rome was subjected to many turnoilic events, oncluding Anthony’s elusive affair with Cleopatra. The shrewd Octavian grabbed hold of the Empire and he kept the people happy by giving them breaded circuses. Augustus (aka Octagenarian) founded the Roman Catholic Empire and punished those involved in sibilancy and adultery. The symbol of his authority was the Cross. He put it everywhere. Augustus did have to leave the Empire due to his death.
There are many theories about the fall of the Roman Empire and many were totally not possible and some of them were. This included more than enough religion, too much slavery, not enough water, and smoking from lead pipes. Then the Empire was swept with a tidal wave of Goths, Hungs, Zulu’s and others who impacted Rome. Athena the Hun rampaged the Balkans as far as France, where he plumaged and tortured people of the villages he captured. Thus ended the Roman Empire and Western Civilization entered the Dark Ages where it was mostly dark.
Certainly history is a lot more interesting when you have explained through the eyes of the students. Soccer Tees, Pluto, and Harris Tottle – I salute you.
Let us begin with ancient Egypt which has always been a challenge because counter to all logic on a map the Nile runs up (North) rather than down which has always caused consternation for the observer who views Egypt on a map, because as we all know, there was Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt. Lower Egypt is actually farther up than Upper Egypt which was – of course – lower down than the upper part. This is why we learn geography as a factor in history. Egypt was certainly an interesting and powerful civilization. The rulers of Egypt were entitled as Faroes with one of the most famous being King Toot. Of course one of the most famous things in Egypt is the pyramids. The pyramids were large square triangles built in the desert. O’Cyrus was a god who lived in a piramid and would give you the afterlife if your sole was on straight. The Egyptian upper class was able to live posthumously through the arts and facts buried with them.
And this brings us to that other great civilization – the Sumerian also known as the Mesopotamian which existed in a valley near the Eucaliptus river where flooding was erotic. Babylon was similar to Egypt because of their differences they had apart from each other. Egypt for example only had Egyptians but Babylon had Summarians, Acadians, and Canadians, to just name a few. The Babylonians honored their gods by building pyramids in the shape of zeplins. Mesopotamia was dominated at various times by the Medes, Persians, and Assyrians. The Assyrian program of exterminating various ethnic groups failed to promote cultural diversity. And so closes our tour through the truly ancient cultures and brings us to the Mediterranean and the Classical Age.
Athens, Sparta, and Pluto were Greek city states. Some were Oglearchies but Athens was a democracy resulting from the reforms of Colon and Percales. Sparta demanded loyalty, military service, and obscurity from its citizens. King Xerox of Persia invaded Greace but fell off short at the Battle of Thermosalami. Religion was polyphonic and featured such gods as Herod, Mars, and Juice. Thucydides was a noted historian who collected facts objectively and saw himself as responsible only to Clio, the Greek Mouse of History. Eventually the Greeks were conquered by Phillip of Mastodon who was later killed in a family sprawl. He was succeeded by Alexander the Great who conquered Persia, Egypt, and Japan. Sadly he died with no hairs.
The Greeks were important and laid the foundation for western civilization. They were important at culture and science. The scientific method came into use when the Greeks learned never to take things for granite when solving a problem. The Atomists discovered E=MC^2 and other mathematical things. U Clid proved that there is more than one side to every plane and Pythagasaurus fathered the triangle, while Archimedes made the first steamboat and power drill. But perhaps the greatest gifts of the Greeks were in the form of philosophy. The pre-Socratics lived long before Plato and were not decisively influenced by his work. Perhaps the greatest philosopher was Socrates who was accused of Sophomorism and sentenced to die of hemroyds. His student Plato invented reality and was teacher to Harris Tottle, author of the Republicans. Other philosophies included the Epicureans for them lust was a must. Others were the Vegetarians and the Synthetics who said “if you can’t play with it, why bother”.
The Greeks were eventually replaced by the great Roman Empire which was founded sometime by Uncle Remus and Wolf. The Roman upperclassmen demanded to be known as Patricia. Senators wore purple tubas as a sign of respect. Around the 120’s B.C the Gretzky brothers failed to stop these and other injustices. But the Republic carried on and struggled with the other great Mediterranean power – Carthage. Hannabelle crossed the Alps with a herd of eliphants and thus invaded Africa. After they defeated Carthage the Romans brutaly salted the people and razored the city. Scipio was called “Africanus” because he served in Spain. The Republic prospered but eventually it came to be dominated by Julius Caesar who was famous for inspiring his men by saying “I came I saw I went”. Caesar was assassinated on the Yikes of March and is reported to have said “Me Too Brutus”.
Following the assassination of Caesar Rome was subjected to many turnoilic events, oncluding Anthony’s elusive affair with Cleopatra. The shrewd Octavian grabbed hold of the Empire and he kept the people happy by giving them breaded circuses. Augustus (aka Octagenarian) founded the Roman Catholic Empire and punished those involved in sibilancy and adultery. The symbol of his authority was the Cross. He put it everywhere. Augustus did have to leave the Empire due to his death.
There are many theories about the fall of the Roman Empire and many were totally not possible and some of them were. This included more than enough religion, too much slavery, not enough water, and smoking from lead pipes. Then the Empire was swept with a tidal wave of Goths, Hungs, Zulu’s and others who impacted Rome. Athena the Hun rampaged the Balkans as far as France, where he plumaged and tortured people of the villages he captured. Thus ended the Roman Empire and Western Civilization entered the Dark Ages where it was mostly dark.
Certainly history is a lot more interesting when you have explained through the eyes of the students. Soccer Tees, Pluto, and Harris Tottle – I salute you.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Meta-Science and Evolution
By way of disclosure the ideas being presented here are not original with me but represent a melding of a wide variety of opinions, speculations, and beliefs, but it must be noted that the belief system is not limited to those who believe in God but encompasses much of the scientific community as well.
The battle between Evolutionists, Creationists, Darwinists, Atheists, Scientists, and religionists rages on with no quarter being asked or given. The problem seems to lie in the inflexibility of all concerned and no one seems willing to accept any compromise. You are either pro-science or pro-God and there is no middle ground. After considerable reading it seems to me that we have entered the realm of Meta-Science a place where science and God seem to meet. The Creationists believe that the Bible is revealed truth and literal and some even believe Bishop Usher was correct and the Earth is only 4000 years old. On the other hand there is a large population who believe that God or any spiritual involvement in anything is not just misguided but the height of ignorance. Then there are the Darwinists who have raised Charles Darwin to godhood, much as “Brave New World” did for Ford. However, if you actually read current theories in Quantum Physics and Cosmology and then read other theories and the Bible with an open mind, you begin to see that these things are really not that far apart and it is this area that I call “Meta-Science”.
Of course the first issue is the “First Cause” or “First Singularity” depending on your point of view. The Steady State theory that the Universe has always been as it is has been discredited by Science with the emergence of the Big Bang theory. However, the flaw in this theory is that where did all of this energy come from? Since it created space, time, and mass, all of that had to have existed somewhere and if it occurred spontaneously then how – what was the “First Cause”. The Metaphysicians believe in the beginning there was only a mind-force, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, which was the source of all. This was the “I AM THAT I AM” – the eternal God mentioned in the Bible. The “First Cause” was the self-awareness of God and the Second Cause was desire for creation.
The Book of Genesis Chapters 1 – 5 states that the Earth was without form and God created light. This essentially describes the Big Bang, which was an explosion of energy that established space, time, and mass. Genesis goes on to establish the order of things as the Earth evolved from a molten state through the various stages of evolution – from the bumping and thumping of electrons and protons to the creation of life, in the form of fishes, plants, and animals. This is poetically delivered but does not vary from the current scientific thinking if the term “day” is not taken literally but poetically. Of course the real stumbling block here is the creation of “life” those simple little microscopic collections of primitive electrons and protons that miraculously not only sub-divide and grow but procreate in the more advanced forms.
This problem of “Creation” was first addressed by Thales in 600BC who postulated that water was the source of all things which is not too far from the current position of science who postulate that life began in the seas. Then Plotinus who postulated that from a pure God came emanations or beings as light flows from the sun. This view corresponds with later metaphysical views that God created all souls before he created the universe. But then modern science maintains that the Earth is just an accident and independent of any external cause and that man emerged from some simple state through the natural evolution described by Darwin -- however progressive this idea may be viewed as it was first postulated by Epicurus in 306 BC. But alas the rub is that “simple state” from which all derived is left unexplained by all but science believes it was simply a coincidental collision of random atoms and events – with belief being the operative word. So there you have it – you can believe that God created the life force in those microscopic organisms or you can believe in the scientific view of random coincidence but both require unproven belief. The pivotal issue really seems to revolve around homo sapiens and where did he come from.
The Darwinists believe that man evolved from ape-like animals into hominids which went through various evolutionary stages culminating in homo sapiens. Most of these branches on the human evolutionary tree seem to have gone extinct and gradually mankind evolved from primitive beginnings into the five races of man today. God was never involved and everything happened by pure chance which is what is believed by the Darwinists. However, in a reading of other sources including the Bible we find a very similar description, which can be summed up as follows: God created man in his image but since God is not human that image – whatever it is can be described as “energy”. However, God also created humanity which could be viewed as these first hominids – no one knows how this happened but it is possible it was God as well as evolution. We are told that God created Adam and Eve, the first perfect humans, which means that His first try didn’t work out. The descendants of Adam and Eve mixed with these early humans, which resulted in God destroying humanity in the Great Flood. The human race today is descended from the survivors.
When examined critically these two views are truly not in great conflict, of course one is rather poetic but follows the scientific train of thought fairly closely. It certainly allows for the evolution of man from a more primitive form to the superior creature we have today. The sticking points are really rather few. First of course is what caused the Big Bang – no proof on either side but God is probably as logical as any other explanation. The second sticking point is how life was created. In Genesis 20-21 we find God brought forth the moving creatures, having earlier brought forth the dry land and vegetation. Admittedly this view skips over the actual initiation of living micro-organisms and goes directly to plants, which is contrary to the scientifically accepted sequence of events but then the Cambrian explosion of life lies unexplained so we are left with what do you believe – coincidence or God. If you accept God and intelligent design then everything falls into place but rests on belief. If you reject God then you are left with the first cause conundrum and then your position rests on belief that it can be explained independent of God --take your pick. But it seems to me that God is looking more and more like the logical choice because even police detectives don't believe in coincidence so why should scientists?
The battle between Evolutionists, Creationists, Darwinists, Atheists, Scientists, and religionists rages on with no quarter being asked or given. The problem seems to lie in the inflexibility of all concerned and no one seems willing to accept any compromise. You are either pro-science or pro-God and there is no middle ground. After considerable reading it seems to me that we have entered the realm of Meta-Science a place where science and God seem to meet. The Creationists believe that the Bible is revealed truth and literal and some even believe Bishop Usher was correct and the Earth is only 4000 years old. On the other hand there is a large population who believe that God or any spiritual involvement in anything is not just misguided but the height of ignorance. Then there are the Darwinists who have raised Charles Darwin to godhood, much as “Brave New World” did for Ford. However, if you actually read current theories in Quantum Physics and Cosmology and then read other theories and the Bible with an open mind, you begin to see that these things are really not that far apart and it is this area that I call “Meta-Science”.
Of course the first issue is the “First Cause” or “First Singularity” depending on your point of view. The Steady State theory that the Universe has always been as it is has been discredited by Science with the emergence of the Big Bang theory. However, the flaw in this theory is that where did all of this energy come from? Since it created space, time, and mass, all of that had to have existed somewhere and if it occurred spontaneously then how – what was the “First Cause”. The Metaphysicians believe in the beginning there was only a mind-force, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, which was the source of all. This was the “I AM THAT I AM” – the eternal God mentioned in the Bible. The “First Cause” was the self-awareness of God and the Second Cause was desire for creation.
The Book of Genesis Chapters 1 – 5 states that the Earth was without form and God created light. This essentially describes the Big Bang, which was an explosion of energy that established space, time, and mass. Genesis goes on to establish the order of things as the Earth evolved from a molten state through the various stages of evolution – from the bumping and thumping of electrons and protons to the creation of life, in the form of fishes, plants, and animals. This is poetically delivered but does not vary from the current scientific thinking if the term “day” is not taken literally but poetically. Of course the real stumbling block here is the creation of “life” those simple little microscopic collections of primitive electrons and protons that miraculously not only sub-divide and grow but procreate in the more advanced forms.
This problem of “Creation” was first addressed by Thales in 600BC who postulated that water was the source of all things which is not too far from the current position of science who postulate that life began in the seas. Then Plotinus who postulated that from a pure God came emanations or beings as light flows from the sun. This view corresponds with later metaphysical views that God created all souls before he created the universe. But then modern science maintains that the Earth is just an accident and independent of any external cause and that man emerged from some simple state through the natural evolution described by Darwin -- however progressive this idea may be viewed as it was first postulated by Epicurus in 306 BC. But alas the rub is that “simple state” from which all derived is left unexplained by all but science believes it was simply a coincidental collision of random atoms and events – with belief being the operative word. So there you have it – you can believe that God created the life force in those microscopic organisms or you can believe in the scientific view of random coincidence but both require unproven belief. The pivotal issue really seems to revolve around homo sapiens and where did he come from.
The Darwinists believe that man evolved from ape-like animals into hominids which went through various evolutionary stages culminating in homo sapiens. Most of these branches on the human evolutionary tree seem to have gone extinct and gradually mankind evolved from primitive beginnings into the five races of man today. God was never involved and everything happened by pure chance which is what is believed by the Darwinists. However, in a reading of other sources including the Bible we find a very similar description, which can be summed up as follows: God created man in his image but since God is not human that image – whatever it is can be described as “energy”. However, God also created humanity which could be viewed as these first hominids – no one knows how this happened but it is possible it was God as well as evolution. We are told that God created Adam and Eve, the first perfect humans, which means that His first try didn’t work out. The descendants of Adam and Eve mixed with these early humans, which resulted in God destroying humanity in the Great Flood. The human race today is descended from the survivors.
When examined critically these two views are truly not in great conflict, of course one is rather poetic but follows the scientific train of thought fairly closely. It certainly allows for the evolution of man from a more primitive form to the superior creature we have today. The sticking points are really rather few. First of course is what caused the Big Bang – no proof on either side but God is probably as logical as any other explanation. The second sticking point is how life was created. In Genesis 20-21 we find God brought forth the moving creatures, having earlier brought forth the dry land and vegetation. Admittedly this view skips over the actual initiation of living micro-organisms and goes directly to plants, which is contrary to the scientifically accepted sequence of events but then the Cambrian explosion of life lies unexplained so we are left with what do you believe – coincidence or God. If you accept God and intelligent design then everything falls into place but rests on belief. If you reject God then you are left with the first cause conundrum and then your position rests on belief that it can be explained independent of God --take your pick. But it seems to me that God is looking more and more like the logical choice because even police detectives don't believe in coincidence so why should scientists?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)