The Federal Reserve

There are laws of physics, economics, mathematics, statistics, biology, and yes, of economics. You cannot invoke these laws for the 20-25% of the time they support whatever daydream you’ve convinced yourself of, and just ignore the other 75% of the time when they demonstrably prove you’re chasing a fairy tale.

You cannot ignore fundamental economic realities any more than you can ignore the Law of Physics without a painful reckoning.

Our Federal Reserve is hiding some terrible secret, possibly a catastrophic secret, from the American people as well as the rest of the world.

People, it’s math. You do the math on anything and you quickly come to the truth of it. We invented the word “absurd” for a reason, as well as the phrase “statistically impossible”.

“Oh, this 747 jumbo jet just mystically assembled itself from 60,000 non-flying parts when a tornado passed through a junk yard.”

No it didn’t. Someone conceived it, designed it, engineered it, built it, and sold it. Someone else bought and flew it.

That’s how reality works.

Same for economics.

If you have even a basic grasp of economics you can quickly tell there is something underhanded going on.

Tactical Tomahawk

Tomahawk 1

Tomahawk 2

I love these.

I do a lot of hiking and I need to get back to camping and all the outdoor stuff I adored in college. I don’t hunt so I am basically left with mountain-related escapades, snorkeling and scuba diving.

But I think this would be a cool tool to play with and keep around the house.

Utilitarian but very stylish.

It looks like Batman’s tomahawk.

You know, if Batman needed a tomahawk.


Move Along

As a recent exchange prove, some people just want to argue.

No matter how silly a charge, if you are in the mood, answer it.

But it takes about three back-and-forths to realize the person will yield no ground, respect no dissent from whatever it is he has convinced himself, and use the old circumvention of “you didn’t prove your position.”

About two years back I had a debate with a guy about a three Hebrew words—three words—that apparently just infuriated him when traditionally translated. He had a very skewed translation of the Hebrew words, which is fine as he’s entitled to his opinion. He demanded “proof” of the common translation, despite the fact it had been around for 2,500 years.

He dangled the carrot and like a sucker, I reached for it.

I custom-built a 15-page PDF with fifteen modern translations of the verse in question, excerpts from essays from Hebrew language professors (living and dead), source material from four online interlinear companions to the Old Testament, quotes from twenty famous rabbis, first century sources, and even military linguistic reports from the Mossad. All neatly arranged with embedded URL links.

Didn’t matter.

“You didn’t prove anything,” he charged.

That level of dissociation cannot be overcome—well, not by me. It’s like arguing with someone with Gilles de la Tourette syndrome.

I spent like three days putting that PDF together only to have instantly rejected because my opinion did not conform to his palm-reader’s declaration. I have to admit I was not happy with this guy. He wasted my most precious resource, my time. He was not curious about a countervailing opinion, and from his bungled retorts it was clear he had never previously read the very materials I had collected for him. Then he proved he didn’t even know what I believed but he was certain that I was wrong, having convinced himself of a caricature of my views I actually didn’t hold. In trying to correct him—at a minimum on what I actually thought—he ignored my clarifications and returned to arguments that weren’t even viable. He was so convinced I was wrong he was deaf to fifteen pages of scholastic opinion and refutation, and on top of all those giants, my own conclusions as well. Like a recent exchange on this site, all my answers were evasions. Every answer was no answer.

What did I do? What do I suggest you do? Walk away.

Remember: Jesus Christ let the pouting rich young ruler walk away.

Be more discerning in those you debate. Find honest minds who have honest questions and who want honest answers. Ideologues, zealots and the ice-hearted you cannot help or heal.

But if you are up for it, go for it.

If you don’t want to waste the time debating stone minds…

Honestly, I don’t blame ya.

Move along.

When Did Everyone Become So Thin-Skinned?

Did we pass through the tail of a comet while I was sleeping?

Did an X-class solar flare lick us last night?

Did Aquaman finally gag on all the toxic waste we’re dumping in the oceans?

When did we all become hypersensitive victims, injured parties, and litigants-on-call baying and squalling over the tiniest, and sometimes most innocent offenses: blog rebuttals, Facebook posts, or Tweets?

You have a position? State it. If someone completely opposes you… go at it. It’s called debate, dialog, discourse. Swing. If you have to, swing hard. But at the end of the day caterwauling over the tiniest nick or pang is not healthy for you.

If you are right, stand you ground.

If you are wrong, correct.

If you have genuinely offended, redress.

If you are dealing with a man-child who just wants to argue and convulse, leave them to their tantrums.

Past that you owe your detractors nothing. If they insist on pushing thorns into their paw…

Let them.

Less Keystrokes! Not More!


Twitter just changed its account icon selection tool from an easy row of icons to a [expletive] pull down menu.

Twitter just added one extra keystroke (+1) to anything I want to post. If I want to schedule fifty posts Twitter just added +50 keystrokes to the effort.

Some free advice from a website designer to the social media companies with clumsy interfaces: You design your interface

  1. intuitively; and
  2. with the fewest possible keystrokes possible to achieve any end.

Twitter, what are you doing? The way you had before was efficient. Stop impersonating Adobe by making superfluous and annoying changes to your interfaces (rearranging stuff) just so you feel justified adding a new number to the box and calling it a “new version”.

Further proof even multimillion or multibillion dollar companies frequently interfere with themselves.

Or in the words of Captain James T. Kirk: “Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!”

Edward Hubble & George Wald

Let’s hear it for scientific neutrality on the uniqueness of Earth:

“Such a condition [red shift analysis] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth… The hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena… Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative … But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs… Such a favored position, of course, is intolerable… Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.”

—Edwin Powell Hubble (“The Observational Approach to Cosmology”)

“When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility…Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion — that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God…I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”

—George Wald, Nobel Laureate (Scientific American, August, 1954)

Everyone is capable of being blinded by a bias, an irrational fear that skews their views. For some that irrational fear is God.

Incredibly, some people are terrified of the Deity. As aberrant and distraught a position as that is, many people (including scientists, Nobel Laureates, physicists, astronomers, others) sink into hysteria when a Creator is proposed.

Personally, I find the hypothesis that random forces and mutations (mistakes and ruptures) created the universe and all life within it, to be a maniacal thought. I’ve actually looked into the eyes of men with doctorate degrees as they confess “I know evolution doesn’t work but what’s the alternative? God? I go down that road and I lose my job, my grant and any hope of tenure.” They confess to me in secret, in a Starbuck’s over a latte away from their skeptical colleagues and thought-policing superiors who would punish them for their philosophical defection from naturalism.

To the untrained it is simply the hallucination of choice, the latest flavor of Kool-Aid, one that spares obedience to a higher intellect and grander battle plans. To the angrier regiments that have entrenched themselves in our good sciences, it is the raving cavalry charge of men who would pull the world back with warped winches into crazed and slaughtered half-reasoning, the bulwarks of which were disproved and torn down one-hundred-and-fifty years ago.

Some men are frantic to keep heaven empty.

There was a time one’s best answer against unhinged science was warm Scripture. And honestly, that is always your best answer.

But today science is the best weapon against science.

You think biogenesis can happen? Be a man, be a thinking man, and run the math on it.

See what happens.

Technically biogenesis must occur before natural selection can work to allegedly evolve one species into another. The only part of this entire proposition that is true is the natural selection part. But natural selection (bounded variations within a species) is not the same a long age trans-species metamorphosis.

Stop towing the party line and delve into the scientific journals… and go deep. There you will find our prized erudition trembling under the weight of its own collective discoveries.

Statistics will slay any chimera and good science will always slay bad science.

Evolution as it is touted today is a dead 19th century daydream.