Smarter Than Thou!

DO YOU WANT ICE WITH THAT?

ONCE again I refer to the topic, if only theoretical, of (let us all tremble in fear and heat) global warming. My objection to this is, and always has been, not that it is not happening. It is that there is no scientific way to know, or to measure, if it is happening. I shall give an example.

Icebergs, like the one which sunk the largest metaphor ever to sail the seas, are the result of glaciers. A glacier pushes ice down to the sea. Then, for various reasons, part of the ice falls off, and into the sea. This procedure is officially called “deficit spending.”

As ice, glaciers, and icebergs, are all things which should be directly related to global warming, then number, and/or size, of icebergs should be a way to measure such a trend. But consider the following. If the world is colder then more ice forms, and this forces the glacier to move more quickly to the sea, forcing more icebergs to fall off as more ice gets to that critical “jump” point.

However, consider the following. If things are warmer the ice is warmer and thus not as strong. Less of an ice mass in the glacier may cause it move faster, as there is less fiction. Its weakness allows the ice to break free easier. This is the way we used to defrost the old freezers. Heat applied near the ice causes it to fall apart.

So more and fewer icebergs mean that the Earth is both cooling and warming, at the same time. By the way, I do not believe that there is any way to determine if there are more icebergs than before. They do not willingly submit to a census. Nor do they travel in herds. I am simply pointing out that real science does not take the same set of data and arrive at two mutually contradictory conclusions, both being logical.

Keep cool (or warm) by subscribing to "A&E." $30 for a year's subscription.

THE OLD BOSTON AND THE SEA

In the beginning of the American Revolution, the British occupied Boston. The British forces marched from it to Lexington and Concord. Then the Battle of Bunker Hill took place. Then Washington chased the British out of Boston by placing guns on the high ground. The shows on the History Channel show these events. And they show maps to illustrate what happened.

The maps make an interesting point. Much of current Boston then was under water. The British went to Lexington “by sea,” over what is now dry city land. But in those days it was part of the Atlantic Ocean. That is, people are now living on what had been ocean. Clearly what happened was that the residents of Boston filled in this space, and made dry land out of a bay. In other words, they used a landfill. And everyone gained.

I was watching a TV commercial, which showed a woman on a treadmill. The commercial told us that she was “30 minutes on a treadmill,” while the plastic water bottle from which she drank would be “thousands of years in a landfill.” So, the advertisers tell us, use non-plastic alternatives.

What about landfills? What is the purpose of one? It is to create a firm and lasting area upon which humans may build and live, is it not? In other words, we want them to last, and last, and last, for thousands of years. No one (except strong Yankee fans) now wants Boston to fall back into the ocean. The landfill there, and in Venice, was successful. So landfills help us. And with the ice capes melting, and the oceans rising about one foot per hour, is this not one way to keep Kansas from being flooded by next week? After all, more land means that the oceans rise less.

So what again is the problem with long lasting garbage?

In case you are not aware, other things last for long times. One is the knowledge, which you will gain by reading the “A&E.” This publication is issued monthly, and your subscription is only $30 (or 14.75 Euros). And it is printed on specially treated paper, which turns into plastic after 42 years.

FALLING THRU SOLID FLOORS

RON Paul is a candidate for the Republican candidacy for President. Ron is a mostly Libertarian. This political philosophy can be summarized best as “A whole lot less government than now.” Some Libertarians argue that they really want to return to the Constitutional framework. Others want to go beyond this, and remove all government functions which do not deal with crime or direct protection from aggression.

Whenever these types offer their view an issue always comes up. “How are we going to take care of…” various people? Or “What is now going to happen to…” various others, who need help? Let me simplify things a bit and assume, for the sake of argument, that there are humans who really do need help from someone. For example, the blind, the crippled, the insane, do not function well by themselves.

It has become politically and culturally acceptable to most citizens that the government, at some level, should provide some help to these categories. Again, I am not saying that this is right, constitutional, etc, or not. I am simply describing a current situation. So when Ron Paul, or someone else, wants to do away with lots (if not all) of “welfare” programs, his critics will always ask “What about these people?”

Related to this is the issue of “falling through the cracks.” This refers to the fact that, no matter how expansive, for example, child protective services are, there will be cases of abused children not being noticed. This is inevitable. We all accept it. So because of human imperfections, tragedies happen.

But these “crack cases” occur only because “we” have decided, in advance, that “something should be done.” Government is failing. Reforms have to be made. But right now, lots of other tragedies, also real, are occurring. For example, some poor woman is unable to get to a battered woman shelter, simply because she does not have her own car. Some deaf guy is having trouble hearing in a local movie house. Some other guy got to the local community food pantry too late to get some food. A family is cold because the power went out, due to an auto accident, and they do not have a generator.

Of course, none of these unfortunate and real cases are ones which some government agency has failed. These people have not fallen through the cracks. They have no floor upon which to stand. Let me make this more extreme. A woman is divorced by her husband because she has gotten fat and could not afford cosmetic surgery. There was no governmental health care to pay for her. How about the teenager who can not get a date with the popular girl because she will not go out with a guy who does not have a new, and expensive, car? Each movement along this spectrum of eliminating unhappiness makes the next movement seem inevitable and natural. After all, “if we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we…” have really interesting Cable TV?

At what point does a tragedy consist of unhappiness? At what point does it become a social problem, which “we” should take care of? I am NOT here offering a rigid rule. I am not here judging the philosophy of government help. These are not my purpose. What I am offering is simply this. Not all, but many (if not the overwhelming majority) of our “problems” are defined into being problems. Back in the “old days” lost teeth and partial deafness were simply a “natural” part of life. Now they are medical defects to be remedied, and, if necessary, by government funds. And deaf toothless people are now longer simply old, but now are people who fell through the cracks.

People do not fall through the cracks, until or unless they are defined as falling. And sometimes that falling is simply the way gravity works.

SUBSCRIBERS to the A&E are guaranteed to have their favorite team in the World Series. This is your for only $30 per year, i.e. 12 issues.

LET'S GIVE HIM A FAIR TRIAL AND THEN HANG HIM

I was listening to some guy who was substituting for Rush Limbaugh the other day. He was some kind of “conservative,” of course. And he was objecting to the socialization-tendencies of the Democrats. His philosophy was briefly, and stupidly, summed up as, “Just because you have billion dollars, the mob does not have right to take it away from you.”

Do you see, yet, why this is stupid? Of course they do! Don’t worry, if you do not see this, yet, as this is why I am writing this, and you are reading it.

Unless he is an anarchist, and conservatives are not, then he is precisely in favor of the mob having a right to his, mine, yours, anyone’s money. Think of that mob, literally, in a Hollywood sense, namely a bunch of crazed thugs with torches. They are going to attack Mr Rich Guy’s house and loot it.

Mr Law, a member of the mob, stands up and says, “This is not the right way.” So the mob sits down, and elects representatives. Then they write out a bill which takes Mr Rich Guy’s house away from him. Then these representatives “of the people” vote, and bill passes, and becomes law. Now the mob has become the (self-appointed) police, and when they take the house away it is legal, which means done by right. And if Mr Rich Guy resists then he is shot down, legally, or hanged, later, also legally.

What is the difference between this event and what we have in the USA? Nothing. All governments are, of necessity, oppressive, and able to declare what is wrong to be “right”(sic). Once “we” agree (and no one asked me) that “the consent of the governed” (here after known as the mob) is the basis of a government, then the mob has become supreme. The mob has become God, at least to other mob members.

The fact that the representatives of the US mob wear suits and meet in Washington makes no difference. The fact that our mob does not include everyone does not matter either. Many times there are no women in the free lunch (or lynch) mobs. Houses and property are taken away by the mob every day. The fact that the mob makes it legal, by voting on the matter first, does not make a difference.

I suppose that what really bothers me about this is the foolishness of people, like the talk show host, who simply deny reality. They adore the empty idol, made in their own image, and do not care that it is hollow.

Subscribers to the A&E are guaranteed never to have their homes taken by the government. It is one of many benefits, which are yours for only $30 per year.

DON'T TELL WOMEN THAT THEY ARE...

I love TV commercials. I, apparently like many others, will watch the Super Bowl commercials to judge the state of the art. I sincerely feel that if the Renaissance Masters were alive now then they would be working on Madison Ave. Often the really good ones give us more pathos, humor, and interesting plot, in 60 seconds then a “dramatic” TV show does in an entire hour.

However, even during the Renaissance I am certain that there was a whole lot of not very good art. And there are not very good commercials too. There is a type of cult interest in very, very bad movies. I hold, personally, that the worst one ever made was “The Creeping Terror.” In the same sense some people, including me, notice the bad commercials. The better ones of these bad one are those which try to hide the unpleasant facts.

For example, and I am not the only one to notice this, the side effects of advertised drugs, can be funny. There are a number of (putting you to) sleep medicines which warn you that they “may” cause drowsiness. Better than this are the allergy medicines which tell you that they can treat your symptoms, without drowsiness. However, the announcer then advises that it “may cause drowsiness.” Sometimes the drug seems utterly useless. For example, the medicine is offered to treat liver problems. However, it is not “advised for people with liver problems.”

However, there is another one which I like, and like to comment on. It begins with an interest grabbing “come on.” It tells us, men mostly, I suppose, that “only one gift is guaranteed to get a woman out of her clothes this Christmas” (or Valentine’s Day). Then we are told that we should give a “pajama gram.” This is some kind of special night wear, for her. And it comes with all those lotions, etc, “which women love.”

OK, and, this far, it is good. Then it adds that the entire purchase process can be done instantly by phone or on line. And the (lady) announcer adds that it will only take a moment, but SHE will think that you spent “lots of time and effort” on the purchase.

Huh? As I understand this, women are so stupid that, despite the fact that this commercial deals with a totally feminine product, and the ladies will notice it, somehow they are going to be fooled… even though the commercial declares that they women are going to be fooled. In other words, when you tell women that you are going to deceive them, it works! Wow! How much effort I wasted trying things the old way.

Subscribers to the A&E publication have more success with the opposite gender. One year, 12 issues, for $30.

BEING REALLY TRIVIAL...

I continue to defend Barak Obama, a severely evil human, not because I like him, and not because he deserves it, but because by doing so I enlighten some of you. It is a heavy burden I bear, but my shoulders are strong. Once again, the subject is Obama and his relationship with his “khurch”/pastor. Pastor Wright said some not things which troubled (mostly) White people. These same people have repeatedly asked: “How can he accept/support this guy, when he ‘teaches’ such hateful things?”

Am I the only human who understand the nature of Protestantism? Protestantism, in practice, is nothing more than rejection of the truths and moral principles of Catholicism. It is not a thing, but the absence of a thing, like a hole. However, in theory only, it does have some affirmative theological positions. Thus a Prot should not, usually, be accused of any self-contradiction when he actually follows his “faith.” And this was all that Obama was doing.

The Prot, following Luther, holds (again in theory) that no man can, or should, stand between him and his god. This is called the “Universal Priesthood.” Thus nothing anyone else says, no matter what his position is within a church, has any authority over him. Every man goes to his god by himself, led by himself, without any help from another, ever! Let me now show how wrong it was to attack Obama, on this basis.

Tom goes to Yankee Stadium to see the Yankees play the Red Sox. In the 7th inning, Yankees fall behind, and Jeter strikes out with the based loaded. Tom immediately gets up and leaves. When asked why he replies as follows. “I am a true Yankee fan. I do not approve of them losing to the Sox. Nor do I approve of Derek striking out. Thus, lest someone see my continued presence here as supporting a Yankee loss, I leave the Stadium… and I now must consider supporting another team, which will never lose.”

This is not an invalid analogy. As official Prot theology demands that no man accept any other---ever!---as any kind of spiritual guide, guru, authority, etc, then the only thing left is the social aspect. Obama, as do all Prots, go to church because it is a social event. And in social contexts we are not guilty by association simply because someone else, who is within the same room, says something indiscreet.

Let me put it this way. The more “devout” and dedicated Obama is, religiously, the less he has any religious use for any religious institution. So if he actually “followed” Wright then he would not be a “good” Prot churchgoer anyway. That is, he could not be attacked for following an evil leader, as he would be rejecting the premise upon which Wright operated. The more serious he is in his faith, then less he will pay attention to what Wright says.

Do not try too hard to understand this. Being a Protestant theological position, it is not comprehensible.

With every subscription to the A&E you help Tinkerbelle recover from drinking poison. Don’t be fooled: the audience clapping is NOT the real cause of her survival. A 12 monthly issue subscription is $30. Tink needs you... badly!