Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Whenever You Hear Someone Complain the Rich Don’t Pay Their ‘Fair Share,’ Show Them This Handy ChartBy Donald Sensing
In other words, when federal income taxes are reduced by the amounts those households received from the federal government, only the top 20% contributed any meaningful amount. Bottom line: the top fifth of households basically paid for everyone else, in addition to everything else.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
One problem is that conventional physics doesn't really account for why the universe is so large, Arkani-Hamed said.But fear not! The reason that our universe acts in ways that physicists don't understand is that they are simply living in the wrong universe! There are trillions and trillions of other universes, they claim, and perhaps if Arkani-Hamed lived in one of them it would make perfect sense to him.
Albert Einstein's theory of relativity showed that a huge amount of energy exists in the vacuum of space, and it should curve space and time. In fact, there should be so much curvature that the universe is a tiny, crumpled ball.
"That should make the universe horrendously different than what it is," Arkani-Hamed said.
But quantum mechanics also poses a problem. The theory is good at describing the very small realm of particle physics, but it breaks down when physicists try to apply it to the universe as a whole.
"Everything that quantum mechanics is, is violated by our universe because we're accelerating (referring to the idea that the universe is expanding) – we don't know what the rules are," Arkani-Hamed said. "When you try to apply quantum mechanics to the entire universe, quantum mechanics cries 'uncle.'"
But he doesn't, nor do any others, so they mentally invent them. It's called String Theory, the idea that there are indeed trillions and trillions of other universes, and lucky us! we inhabit this one. As I have written before, advanced cosmologists have started writing science fiction, not science, although they use equations for their fiction rather than prose.
All their equations may work out, but that don't mean they actually know more than before or that reality has been discerned to a greater degree. Hawking admitted that postulating a universe of three or four dimension did not resolve mathematically. In fact, using up to 10 dimensions didn't work. So they tried 11 and presto! X = 0. Or something. To paraphrase Groucho Marx, "These are our equations. If they don’t work, we have others."But back to the multiverses. The same Prof. Arkani-Hamed (who teaches at Harvard) and some others insist that there is a real problem with living in a universe that appears so finely tuned to support our lives when such fine tuning has no scientific explanation. So they say that there are, minimally, 10^500 other universes because that is the minimum number to make our universe's fine tuning feasible. Author Donald Johnson explains,
Koonin explains, "In an infinite multi-verse ... emergence of highly complex systems by chance is not just possible but inevitable. That this extremely rare event occurred on earth and gave rise to life as we know it is explained by anthropic selection alone." The anthropic illusion basically says we just lucked-out in that our Universe appears to be designed "toward man" (anthropic). The fallacy is that we're considering the only universe that we know exists (ours), and the fine-tuning that is evident in it. Speculation of innumerable other universes does not explain our Universe's fine-tuning.
Others note that "String Theory" is not a scientific theory since it cannot be observed, tested, or falsified. "Alternative universes, things we can't see because they are beyond our horizons, are in principle unfalsifiable and therefore metaphysical." "The trouble is, proponents have not produced an iota of empirical evidence for strings. That's why University of Toronto physicist Amanda Peet--a proponent--recently called string theory a faith-based initiative'. "No part of it has been proven and no one knows how tо prove it'.
So the physicists' dilemma is either to accept that, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," or find some way, however screwy and fictional, to deny it."Because our Universe is, almost by definition, everything we can observe, there are no apparent measurements that would confirm whether we exist within a cosmic landscape multiple universes, or if ours is the only one. And because we can't falsify the idea, ... it isn't science '. "If ... the landscape turns out to be inconsistent ... as things stand we will be in a very awkward position. Without an explanations of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics'. It is clear that string theory is not science, but a philosophical belief. (Italics original)
(Boy, I am getting a lot of use of this pic!)
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Sex could become purely recreational by 2050 with large numbers of babies in the Western world born through IVF, the professor who invented the contraceptive pill has claimed.
Prof Carl Djerassi, the Austrian-American chemist and author, said he believes that the Pill will become obsolete because men and women will choose to freeze their eggs and sperm when young before being sterilised.
He also claims it will end abortions, as no children will be unplanned or unwanted.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Prof Djerassi said that advances in fertility treatment made it much safer for parents without fertility problems to consider IVF.
Humanity will not be better off for this.
Liberals say two things simultaneously:
1. For many years that the provisions of international law (always specifically the charter and resolutions of the United Nations) trump the US Constitution and overwhelm Constitutional rights and US law.
2. America's drug laws are too strict and too harshly enforced and that marijuana is not merely harmless but can actually be medically beneficial. Therefore, marijuana should be legalized across the land.
So what will they say to this? U.S. states' pot legalization not in line with international law: U.N. agency
(Reuters) - Moves by some U.S. states to legalize marijuana are not in line with international drugs conventions, the U.N. anti-narcotics chief said on Wednesday, adding he would discuss the issue in Washington next week.It will be fun to watch how liberals' react!
Residents of Oregon, Alaska, and the U.S. capital voted this month to allow the use of marijuana, boosting the legalization movement as cannabis usage is increasingly recognized by the American mainstream.
"I don't see how (the new laws) can be compatible with existing conventions," Yury Fedotov, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), told reporters.
I'd almost bet my next paycheck that the American Left will become federalist fundamentalists on the right of states. Anyone care to bet that they trot out the sanctity of the 10 Amendment?
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Monday, November 10, 2014
When I was young I was a liberal. Well, not by the standards of where I lived, but by the standards of the US. Impossible not to be a liberal when you’re raised in Europe.
Here are some of the things I believed from an ESR post which you should definitely read in its entirety:Read also, "Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist."
How far left was I? So far left my beloved uncle was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party in a Communist country. When I returned to his Slovak village to buy him a mass card, the priest refused to sell me one. So far left that a self-identified terrorist proposed marriage to me. So far left I was a two-time Peace Corps volunteer and I have a degree from UC Berkeley. So far left that my Teamster mother used to tell anyone who would listen that she voted for Gus Hall, Communist Party chairman, for president. I wore a button saying “Eat the Rich.” To me it wasn’t a metaphor.In my experience dealing with Leftists (as distinguished from mere liberals, of whom practically none remain), the author's 10 characteristics of Leftism are very accurate. But the number one reason is the most accurate of all:
1) Hate.If hate were the only reason, I’d stop being a leftist for this reason alone.
Almost twenty years ago, when I could not conceive of ever being anything but a leftist, I joined a left-wing online discussion forum.
Before that I’d had twenty years of face-to-face participation in leftist politics: marching, organizing, socializing.
In this online forum, suddenly my only contact with others was the words those others typed onto a screen. That limited and focused means of contact revealed something.
If you took all the words typed into the forum every day and arranged them according to what part of speech they were, you’d quickly notice that nouns expressing the emotions of anger, aggression, and disgust, and verbs speaking of destruction, punishing, and wreaking vengeance, outnumbered any other class of words.
One topic thread was entitled “What do you view as disgusting about modern America?” The thread was begun in 2002. Almost eight thousand posts later, the thread was still going strong in June, 2014.
Those posting messages in this left-wing forumpublicly announced that they did what they did every day, from voting to attending a rally to planning a life, because they wanted to destroy something, and because they hated someone, rather than because they wanted to build something, or because they loved someone. You went to an anti-war rally because you hated Bush, not because you loved peace. Thus, when Obama bombed, you didn’t hold any anti-war rally, because you didn’t hate Obama.
I experienced powerful cognitive dissonance when I recognized the hate. The rightest of my right-wing acquaintances — I had no right-wing friends — expressed nothing like this. My right-wing acquaintances talked about loving: God, their family, their community. I’m not saying that the right-wingers I knew were better people; I don’t know that they were. I’m speaking here, merely, about language.
I once had a professional colleague (since moved to another state) who got literally livid just mentioning Republicans. You could almost see her blood pressure spiking just at the sound of the word.
Update: Is it possible that the cause of Leftist thinking has finally been discovered?
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Saturday, November 8, 2014
One problem with narcissists is that they almost always wind up failing rather miserably.
But if you found yourself bothered by a person always talking about how wonderful they are, remember that their future may not be bright.
'In the long-term, what tends to happen is that narcissistic people mess up their relationships, at home and at work,' Twenge said. Though narcissists may be charming at first, their selfish actions eventually damage relationships.
It's not until middle-age they may realize their lives have had a number of failed relationships.
And even if they recognize something is wrong they may have a hard time changing.And the other problem is that there are more narcissists than ever, and we are creating them on purpose: Study shows college students think they're more special than ever...even those that can't read or write and barely study
'It's a personality trait,' says Twenge. 'It's by definition very difficult to change. It's rooted in genetics and early environment and culture and things that aren't all that malleable.'