Mr. President, if because of your inaction there is another attack on our NATO allies who we are obligated to come to their aid if attacked, or an attack on US citizens I would ask that you resign your office and if you do not I implore all congressmen to seek your impeachment be they Republican or Democrat.
It is criminal that by inaction or insufficient action you allow others come to harm.
I am a service veteran and student of history. I think your argument against deploying troops to Iraq and Syria to avoid getting bogged down in a middle-east war is extremely flawed. We our bogged down in a war on terrorism and to go on with a belief that terrorist attacks will be status quo is wrong, it betrays the people who elected you, the people who serve under you, and the memories of the victims of terror and those that died in the fight against terrorism.
Your plan for change in regimes in the middle-east was noble and may have worked if there had been a proper end game but there was not and we, the world, face an evil enemy that filled a void left by the lack of a proper exit strategy. I am not talking about the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq, but Arab Spring ant its aftermath. There is a Bible verse that discusses what can happen to one who does not fill himself with the Good of Christ after they've been swept clean, that more evil worse than the original will take its place and that person would be worse than before. This can be said of what is happening in Syria and Iraq.
Do not let pride blind you to what needs to be done. Do not be afraid to admit to a change of middle-Easter n policy because of concern about how your presidency will be defined. There is a high chance that failure to do more to fight ISIS could define your presidency as a failure. I ask you to take action for World safety.
Writing experience, my life as a Christian (I am nowhere near perfect), life in general.
Monday, November 16, 2015
Sunday, November 15, 2015
My take on nuclear fusion.
Well it is time to torture people with my take on some science stuff. Why? Because I can't sleep!
For a long time scientists have been trying to harvest the power of the sun, or to put it more precisely, what powers the sun. No, I am not talking solar panels. I am talking fusion, the process of joining two hydrogen nuclei to make a helium atom. That is a basic explanation because there is a little more to it than that.
Now you may say scientists have created fusion in the lab and with hydrogen bombs and you would be correct. What they have not done is harness the reaction, to control it for any length of time that would allow the reaction to provide power. You see, when scientists create a fusion reaction in a lab using something like a tokamak reactor or using lasers they are only able to sustain the reaction for a fraction of a second before things break down, confinement normally.
Right now the main way scientists try to contain the reaction is by the use of magnetic fields (electromagnetic). The problem is it requires more energy to create the fields for confinement than what energy is generated by the reaction.
If you look at the sun, (not directly without a filter) you see a nice shaped sphere more or less. This shape is because the mass of the sun and of other stars is enough to act as a containment field. (This is not 100% because sometimes magnetic fields on the sun go wonky and we have a solar flare)
What is really funny about gravity as the confinement field is that in physics gravity is considered a weak force, much weaker than the electromagnetic force. But how can a weak force act as a means of confinement for sustained fusion reaction? It has to do with strength in numbers. Each atom has gravitational pull because it has mass. The gravitational field of an individual atom maybe quite small but when you get enough together in a particular volume of space you have a larger field. In fact if the field is strong enough because there is enough mass in a particular area (this is a basic definition of density) that hydrogen will heat up and start a fusion reaction. When the fusion reaction commences then there will be an outward push by the energy created (radiation pressure). If the radiation pressure pushes outward with the same force as the gravitational force pushing in you have achieved equilibrium and you have a star that will stay that way until something changes to upset the balance.
What scientists are trying to do is create that equilibrium in a lab on a small scale, too small for Gravity to be a factor so they need use force, electromagnetic. Here is the rub, the fusion reaction creates its own electromagnetic fields and it is these fields that cause the confinement to collapse when they interact with the confinement field. There is some hope as there is work being done to use the fusion generated fields to help in confinement. I do not know the specifics but maybe by sensing the fluctuations in the fusion generated magnetic field and adjusting the confinement field to compensate.
What would make things easier, though it is improbable, is to be able to generate and/or manipulate a gravitational field to act as a confinement field. Of course to be efficient the energy used to generate the confinement field needs to be less than the energy output of the fusion reaction.
So this is another of my "interesting things I think about" post.
For a long time scientists have been trying to harvest the power of the sun, or to put it more precisely, what powers the sun. No, I am not talking solar panels. I am talking fusion, the process of joining two hydrogen nuclei to make a helium atom. That is a basic explanation because there is a little more to it than that.
Now you may say scientists have created fusion in the lab and with hydrogen bombs and you would be correct. What they have not done is harness the reaction, to control it for any length of time that would allow the reaction to provide power. You see, when scientists create a fusion reaction in a lab using something like a tokamak reactor or using lasers they are only able to sustain the reaction for a fraction of a second before things break down, confinement normally.
Right now the main way scientists try to contain the reaction is by the use of magnetic fields (electromagnetic). The problem is it requires more energy to create the fields for confinement than what energy is generated by the reaction.
If you look at the sun, (not directly without a filter) you see a nice shaped sphere more or less. This shape is because the mass of the sun and of other stars is enough to act as a containment field. (This is not 100% because sometimes magnetic fields on the sun go wonky and we have a solar flare)
What is really funny about gravity as the confinement field is that in physics gravity is considered a weak force, much weaker than the electromagnetic force. But how can a weak force act as a means of confinement for sustained fusion reaction? It has to do with strength in numbers. Each atom has gravitational pull because it has mass. The gravitational field of an individual atom maybe quite small but when you get enough together in a particular volume of space you have a larger field. In fact if the field is strong enough because there is enough mass in a particular area (this is a basic definition of density) that hydrogen will heat up and start a fusion reaction. When the fusion reaction commences then there will be an outward push by the energy created (radiation pressure). If the radiation pressure pushes outward with the same force as the gravitational force pushing in you have achieved equilibrium and you have a star that will stay that way until something changes to upset the balance.
What scientists are trying to do is create that equilibrium in a lab on a small scale, too small for Gravity to be a factor so they need use force, electromagnetic. Here is the rub, the fusion reaction creates its own electromagnetic fields and it is these fields that cause the confinement to collapse when they interact with the confinement field. There is some hope as there is work being done to use the fusion generated fields to help in confinement. I do not know the specifics but maybe by sensing the fluctuations in the fusion generated magnetic field and adjusting the confinement field to compensate.
What would make things easier, though it is improbable, is to be able to generate and/or manipulate a gravitational field to act as a confinement field. Of course to be efficient the energy used to generate the confinement field needs to be less than the energy output of the fusion reaction.
So this is another of my "interesting things I think about" post.
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Using lies to support your side. No, no, no!
I am a person who loves our constitution and the Bill of Rights and will defend them from all attackers. One thing I try to do is use facts in my arguments to keep my position on solid ground, fact based.
Now there are many sites and Facebook pages claiming to be in support our rights like the right to bear arms. The sad thing is these sites can be run by people who do not check facts or make up stories to stir up people to garner support. They think they are helping the cause but in actuality they do harm by making themselves and others look like hacks and nut cases.
A recent example concerns a statement purportedly made by Dianne Feinstein concerning guns. It goes something like "if everyone turns in their guns then the gunman would turn in his gun when he sees everyone else is unarmed.....it's human nature."
Well this is not to support Dianne Feinstein, I strongly dislike her, but she not say this at all, neither did Barbra Boxer. All this story does is discredit any valid argument in support of the 2nd amendment.
Here is a link.
http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/feinstein.asp
Now there are many sites and Facebook pages claiming to be in support our rights like the right to bear arms. The sad thing is these sites can be run by people who do not check facts or make up stories to stir up people to garner support. They think they are helping the cause but in actuality they do harm by making themselves and others look like hacks and nut cases.
A recent example concerns a statement purportedly made by Dianne Feinstein concerning guns. It goes something like "if everyone turns in their guns then the gunman would turn in his gun when he sees everyone else is unarmed.....it's human nature."
Well this is not to support Dianne Feinstein, I strongly dislike her, but she not say this at all, neither did Barbra Boxer. All this story does is discredit any valid argument in support of the 2nd amendment.
Here is a link.
http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/feinstein.asp
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
The problem of misinformation
Is it me or has our society become more fractured than it has been in a long time. I blame two main things media stoking the fire for more sensational headlines and politicians for pandering to special interests groups to get headlines and votes.
It seems like our system is being held hostage by the modern Information Age and it is out of control. False claims reported online spread like wildfire, no verification of sources or stories, no accountability for false information. This is probably one of, if not the biggest, problems we face today and if it is not fixed will be our downfall. It will be "like a firebell in the night!" That quote was from Thomas Jefferson when he was thinking of about the slavery question; he knew that if it were not addressed it would cause a problem and it did. I do not compare slavery with the problem we face with information , the are not comparable but in one way they are the same as they can divide a nation. We need a responsible press to take charge and give unbiased fact based reporting before someone stokes a fire so hot if explodes and can only be extinguished by blood of the just!
It seems like our system is being held hostage by the modern Information Age and it is out of control. False claims reported online spread like wildfire, no verification of sources or stories, no accountability for false information. This is probably one of, if not the biggest, problems we face today and if it is not fixed will be our downfall. It will be "like a firebell in the night!" That quote was from Thomas Jefferson when he was thinking of about the slavery question; he knew that if it were not addressed it would cause a problem and it did. I do not compare slavery with the problem we face with information , the are not comparable but in one way they are the same as they can divide a nation. We need a responsible press to take charge and give unbiased fact based reporting before someone stokes a fire so hot if explodes and can only be extinguished by blood of the just!
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Unequal retirement pay for older veterans
I just heard where there is no cost of living increase for social security this year because of low gas prices. Is congress getting one?
Anyway, I have been thinking of veterans who served and retired years ago, like 30 years or more. Now let's say a veteran retired in the 1970's with a retirement around 400 a month and now with cost of living increases over the years let us put their current retirement at about $1700.00 a month. In this day and age that is not a lot.
Now let us compare congressional retirement : First they are eligible for pension after 5 years of service while military retirement is 20 years at least. Second congressmen have a contribution system for the most part unlike the military but congressmen get paid more. In 1975 congressional salaries were $44,600 per year which is around $194,000 in today's money. You can see that a congressman could contribute a considerable amount of money compared to an enlisted person in the military base pay for an E-9 over 20 years was on around 1200 per month which equates to around $14400.00 per year. Now if you compute retirement using high 3 numbers you will see the enlisted guy gets a much smaller retirement which only increases with cost of living increases which have to be approved by congress. Now look at salary increases between military and congressman. In 2014 an E-9 over 20 was paid $5,674 per month about for a yearly amount of $68088. A congressman gets $174000 per year. Again the congressman who only has to serve 5 years to receive a retirement can contribute more while a veteran who serves 20 years or so get less and still needs cost of living increases controlled by congress. Now even if the military went to a contribution system they would still not be able to contribute as much to retirement and would still have to deal with rising over all costs to them without a corresponding increase in income. Congress grants cost of living increases but it does not take into account real life costs.
Since 1975 congressional salaries have increased by 290 percent while an E-9s salary has increased by 372 percent but still subject to cost of living increases for increase in retirement.
Why do our older veterans have so little retirement compared to today? Since the 1970 congress decided to make military pay closer to civilian pay so they increased pay amounts significantly but the veterans from before this have their retirement calculated with values before the correction plus they use only the final pay to calculate the value so they make less than an E-9 retiring today pretty much. Same job, same amount of service, but older vets get lower pay for retirement and with increase in medical costs as they get older they and their family are screwed. Way to go congress.
Sunday, October 4, 2015
My writing and Christian experience.: Find and fix the real problem
My writing and Christian experience.: Find and fix the real problem: First I want to still offer my prayers to those who suffer from the Roseburg, Oregon shootings. Second I will not be talking gun rights (I c...
Find and fix the real problem
First I want to still offer my prayers to those who suffer from the Roseburg, Oregon shootings. Second I will not be talking gun rights (I can tell you gun rights advocates even agree the shooter should not have had access to firearms.) I want to address the key factor that underlies these acts of terror, and that is what they are whether committed by the lone wolf or organizations. These acts are cold blooded and calculated to terrify everyone and not just the targeted victims.
The underlying problem is we now live in a society full of violence be it real, fiction, or virtual. We also live I the Information Age and it is sad to say people probably have more access to false information than they do factual. We live in a shrinking world where different cultures are being pushed closer and closer together. Sometimes these cultures mix very well and end up being greater than the sum of their parts other times they do not mix and we have turmoil. This turmoil is usually do to a conflict in values and if one culture uses violence as a means to an ends then we have death and destruction.
As a Christian I do not believe in spreading the Word by the sword unless that Sword is the tongue welding the Gospel truth. Did Christ use anything other than the Word to reach people? No, then no one has the right to in His or His Father's Name. This is not saying I will not defend my family and friends if you come at me physically then I will come at you with everything I got and then some. If you come after me with words I will wield the Word and the Word always prevails.
Another problem we have is that with an increase in population we will have an increase in people with mental or emotional issues. Not everyone of those people are going to be bad but there will be those who will think that what they do is right even though it is wrong.
Now here is a connection I want to make; sometimes a problem in itself is composed of areas from those I have listed and more. The sad thing is our society can make problems worse due to poor choices in regards to our freedoms. Do you think that the problem is the Second amendment right to bear arms? You are wrong. What about the rest of The Bill of Rights? You know the ten amendments that seemed like and after thought of the constitution. Those rights. I am a firm believer in Constitutional rights but I can tack on a few others that can be seen to contribute to mass shootings.
Let's start with the First Amendment. Probably the best amendment as it is the one that ensures I am free to be a Christian and that no person nor the government can say otherwise. It is the one that allows me to write this post here without fear of the government saying I cannot write it. The sad thing is that some people think this amendment is for them force their views on others and we are just helpless and have to listen. Wrong answer, if I don't agree with you I have the right not to listen to you. You do not have the right to force you way into my home to voice your opinion. Now I, on the other hand, do have the right to knock you on your ass if you try. How And what I use to knock you on your ass I'll leave to your imagination (See Second Amendment). If you protest outside my house after a certain hour you go from peaceful assembly to disturbing the peace and the police will handle that.
Ok I got sidetracked but here I go back on track. As we know Hollywood, or as Phil Robertson would call it, Hollyweird, is a big industry depending primarily on the freedom of speech aspect of the first amendment. This allows them to tell stories of fiction and non-fiction ( though most non-fiction is so changed by artistic license it might as well be fiction). They can do this freely limited only by an industry rating system. Sex, Drug, And violence story telling protected by the First Amendment. Now those violent crime glorifying bits of cinema and TV don't cause violence. They are just pieces of show. Let me set you straight, if various media could not influence behavior then why do we have advertising? If we didn't have advertising we would not have Hollywood plain and simple. If you say well maybe a very few people would be influenced to commit a violent act by media here is something to think about. Your number is pretty close, actually higher, probably than those who are gun owners legally committing violent acts. And for the anti-gun Hollywood types: Before you go out attacking the second amendment you better check your résumé to make sure you did not act in a violence glorying project before you start asking to get rid of the second amendment. As I see it Hollywood is abusing the First Amendment because you cannot claim that your use of the first amendment did not lead to acts of violence.
Freedom of Religion, if your view of religion means causing harm then you got it wrong. If you think atheism will get rid of violence let me point you to the history of countries that are atheist, USSR, North Korea, pretty much most communist bloc countries. Not a good track record atheists.
Freedom of assembly, let's get rid of this and extend it to the Internet so we can make sure no one can be influenced or conspire. Heck the added benefit would we wouldn't have to listen to blowhard politicians at conventions or have to put up with Hollywood award shows where some celebrity who doesn't know their ass from their hat spout off about their political ideals.
Let us skip to the third Amendment. Let us get rid of this amendment so we can quarter a soldier in each home in the country. A soldier could make sure we don’t have guns, anti-government paraphernalia, and make sure the only sex position is missionary so as not to offend others. (Sorry to bring sex up). Another plus for having soldiers in the home, at least for celebrities, is they can keep away paparazzi.
On to the Fourth Amendment. Let’s ditch this one. Heck it would solve all are problems with gun violence by getting rid of this and the second amendment. The government could just drop in and go through all your stuff to find out if people are hiding guns. It may have another side effect, an increase in drug busts, especially in Hollywood. Brainstorm: if the government finds private nude photos of celebrities they could sell them to the tabloids or Playboy and pay off the national debt.
Fifth Amendment, only criminals need this one right? If you answer yes, uh, ummm then there is probably a little man in your head giving directions saying “move along folks, nothing to see here!” Due Process! Double Jeopardy! (Not a game) and self incrimination. You know if we got rid of this we could say bye bye lawyers, try the same crime in state and federal courts because if one doesn't convict the other can. Heck, keep going until you get that guilty verdict.
Sixth Amendment not that we have a speedy Justice system anyway. We can get rid of this so the judicial system can focus on more serious matters like “preventing small scale and recreational miners from suction dredging in California because of environmental issues while the Sierra Club wants to conduct the same dredging using the argument they are removing Mercury from the rivers.(of course they want to keep the gold they find to fill their coffers. What the heck?)
Seventh Amendment no one needs a jury trial because the cost too much. Heck maybe without juries we’d have more convictions. I still get a kick out of the $20.00 limit for civil cases eligible for jury trials.
Eighth Amendment screw bail, Jack the fines up so high no one can pay so that way we keep the poor criminals off the street.
Ninth Amendment get rid of this that way we can get rid of common law and make some really cool draconian laws to keep all safe.
Tenth Amendment we can just say screw the states and let the Feds control everything, who needs a state government. That way we can all be exactly the same, I mean all the same. Who needs individuality?
See some amendments contribute to this Social Problem and others just get in the way of having a totally safe society. You want to do something to fix the problem? Look to the elements of society that glorify violence, isolate people, and do nothing to address mental health. And above all, “Teach your Children Well!”
The underlying problem is we now live in a society full of violence be it real, fiction, or virtual. We also live I the Information Age and it is sad to say people probably have more access to false information than they do factual. We live in a shrinking world where different cultures are being pushed closer and closer together. Sometimes these cultures mix very well and end up being greater than the sum of their parts other times they do not mix and we have turmoil. This turmoil is usually do to a conflict in values and if one culture uses violence as a means to an ends then we have death and destruction.
As a Christian I do not believe in spreading the Word by the sword unless that Sword is the tongue welding the Gospel truth. Did Christ use anything other than the Word to reach people? No, then no one has the right to in His or His Father's Name. This is not saying I will not defend my family and friends if you come at me physically then I will come at you with everything I got and then some. If you come after me with words I will wield the Word and the Word always prevails.
Another problem we have is that with an increase in population we will have an increase in people with mental or emotional issues. Not everyone of those people are going to be bad but there will be those who will think that what they do is right even though it is wrong.
Now here is a connection I want to make; sometimes a problem in itself is composed of areas from those I have listed and more. The sad thing is our society can make problems worse due to poor choices in regards to our freedoms. Do you think that the problem is the Second amendment right to bear arms? You are wrong. What about the rest of The Bill of Rights? You know the ten amendments that seemed like and after thought of the constitution. Those rights. I am a firm believer in Constitutional rights but I can tack on a few others that can be seen to contribute to mass shootings.
Let's start with the First Amendment. Probably the best amendment as it is the one that ensures I am free to be a Christian and that no person nor the government can say otherwise. It is the one that allows me to write this post here without fear of the government saying I cannot write it. The sad thing is that some people think this amendment is for them force their views on others and we are just helpless and have to listen. Wrong answer, if I don't agree with you I have the right not to listen to you. You do not have the right to force you way into my home to voice your opinion. Now I, on the other hand, do have the right to knock you on your ass if you try. How And what I use to knock you on your ass I'll leave to your imagination (See Second Amendment). If you protest outside my house after a certain hour you go from peaceful assembly to disturbing the peace and the police will handle that.
Ok I got sidetracked but here I go back on track. As we know Hollywood, or as Phil Robertson would call it, Hollyweird, is a big industry depending primarily on the freedom of speech aspect of the first amendment. This allows them to tell stories of fiction and non-fiction ( though most non-fiction is so changed by artistic license it might as well be fiction). They can do this freely limited only by an industry rating system. Sex, Drug, And violence story telling protected by the First Amendment. Now those violent crime glorifying bits of cinema and TV don't cause violence. They are just pieces of show. Let me set you straight, if various media could not influence behavior then why do we have advertising? If we didn't have advertising we would not have Hollywood plain and simple. If you say well maybe a very few people would be influenced to commit a violent act by media here is something to think about. Your number is pretty close, actually higher, probably than those who are gun owners legally committing violent acts. And for the anti-gun Hollywood types: Before you go out attacking the second amendment you better check your résumé to make sure you did not act in a violence glorying project before you start asking to get rid of the second amendment. As I see it Hollywood is abusing the First Amendment because you cannot claim that your use of the first amendment did not lead to acts of violence.
Freedom of Religion, if your view of religion means causing harm then you got it wrong. If you think atheism will get rid of violence let me point you to the history of countries that are atheist, USSR, North Korea, pretty much most communist bloc countries. Not a good track record atheists.
Freedom of assembly, let's get rid of this and extend it to the Internet so we can make sure no one can be influenced or conspire. Heck the added benefit would we wouldn't have to listen to blowhard politicians at conventions or have to put up with Hollywood award shows where some celebrity who doesn't know their ass from their hat spout off about their political ideals.
Let us skip to the third Amendment. Let us get rid of this amendment so we can quarter a soldier in each home in the country. A soldier could make sure we don’t have guns, anti-government paraphernalia, and make sure the only sex position is missionary so as not to offend others. (Sorry to bring sex up). Another plus for having soldiers in the home, at least for celebrities, is they can keep away paparazzi.
On to the Fourth Amendment. Let’s ditch this one. Heck it would solve all are problems with gun violence by getting rid of this and the second amendment. The government could just drop in and go through all your stuff to find out if people are hiding guns. It may have another side effect, an increase in drug busts, especially in Hollywood. Brainstorm: if the government finds private nude photos of celebrities they could sell them to the tabloids or Playboy and pay off the national debt.
Fifth Amendment, only criminals need this one right? If you answer yes, uh, ummm then there is probably a little man in your head giving directions saying “move along folks, nothing to see here!” Due Process! Double Jeopardy! (Not a game) and self incrimination. You know if we got rid of this we could say bye bye lawyers, try the same crime in state and federal courts because if one doesn't convict the other can. Heck, keep going until you get that guilty verdict.
Sixth Amendment not that we have a speedy Justice system anyway. We can get rid of this so the judicial system can focus on more serious matters like “preventing small scale and recreational miners from suction dredging in California because of environmental issues while the Sierra Club wants to conduct the same dredging using the argument they are removing Mercury from the rivers.(of course they want to keep the gold they find to fill their coffers. What the heck?)
Seventh Amendment no one needs a jury trial because the cost too much. Heck maybe without juries we’d have more convictions. I still get a kick out of the $20.00 limit for civil cases eligible for jury trials.
Eighth Amendment screw bail, Jack the fines up so high no one can pay so that way we keep the poor criminals off the street.
Ninth Amendment get rid of this that way we can get rid of common law and make some really cool draconian laws to keep all safe.
Tenth Amendment we can just say screw the states and let the Feds control everything, who needs a state government. That way we can all be exactly the same, I mean all the same. Who needs individuality?
See some amendments contribute to this Social Problem and others just get in the way of having a totally safe society. You want to do something to fix the problem? Look to the elements of society that glorify violence, isolate people, and do nothing to address mental health. And above all, “Teach your Children Well!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)