Now is not the time for ideology

Constitutionally, Speaker Boehner Should Not Be Making Pre-emptive Tax Concessions

The article makes a good point, but I think misses the point.  Congress could go ahead and pass whatever it wants, but the same Article of the Constitution also says:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

So... let me see here.  It's a pretty safe bet that the President will veto the bill without some sort of tax hike on the rich.  Then, the House would have to pass with a 2/3 majority.  Not very likely, and then we're back to square one.  In this case, it doesn't much matter what the Constitution says the House can do, it really is a matter of handling the situation in a way that something gets done.  Of course, I'm not totally against the government doing nothing.  Just sayin'.

What are the odds?

First 'Alien Earth' Will Be Found in 2013, Experts Say

There aren't words to describe just how wrong this is.  I think scientists need to just stick to discovering stuff, instead of figuring the odds that they will discover stuff.

It can't be

Erratic Environment May Be Key to Human Evolution

Nah, it can't be cuz, you know, climate change is new, and caused by humans.

More on climate change

It's looking as if climate change hasn't reached the crisis stage... yet.  On the other hand, there's been some pretty wild weather in the south.  In other words, there's nothing really different than it ever has been here on Earth.  The climate changes... the atmosphere warms... the atmosphere cools... and despite the human desire to be able to control it all, we can't.

I am an unliker of this particular practice

More and more people seem to want to define themselves with verbs, e.g. "writer of blogs" or "lover of dogs."  I see it everywhere.  Not one of them, though (at least not that I've found) has defined themselves as a "mounter of bandwagons" or "follower of herds."  But they must be, since I can't believe that so many people came up with this same annoying practice independently.

The only explanation I can come up with for this phenomenon is that most people want to feel like they belong to some group or something, and to simply say "I love dogs" doesn't make the speaker seem part of the group of dog lovers.  Perhaps they are concerned that using the word "I" would make them sound self centered.  But then, telling the world what you love, or what you do, kind of already tells the world exactly that.  Well, whatever, I don't like it. 

A puzzle

7 + 7 = 12.  How?

Confidence booster

In studying behavioral finance, I learned that the more information a person has available to them, regardless of the usefulness of that information, the more overconfident that person becomes.  So, if you're feeling like you need a little confidence boost, click here.  It won't make you any smarter, but you'll feel smarter.

What other proof do you need?

N.H.L. Moves Closer to Canceling Season

Things are already going downhill, and it's only 12:34 a.m. on DOOMSDAY! 

A nice surprise

Got a nice surprise in my inbox from my alma mater, Weber State University.  Here it is.

Really?

"More than 30 Michigan schools closed for the holidays two days early, in part because the Mayan calendar predicts the world will end on Friday, an official said."

Whatever happened to America, home of the brave?

Global Warming (Huh?)

Today I read, with amusement, this article about global warming.  Okay, it’s not really about global warming; it’s about a poll conducted by the Associated Press-GfK concerning Americans’ opinions regarding global warming.  Apparently, a lot of Americans have finally figured out that temperatures are actually rising, because their thermometers tell them it is.  That in itself isn’t what was so amusing.  It was the growing number of people that think that the government needs to do something about it.

Okay, maybe it’s not as amusing as it is disturbing.  Let’s try to think rationally about this.  Forget about how the government makes a mess of most things that it tries to do, and just ask yourself, “What can I do to help slow down global warming?”  If you believe the “science” on the subject, then you know you need to reduce carbon emissions.  So, you could, say, buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, or drive less.  You know, carpool or something.  Now, consider what the government can do.  THEY CAN PASS LAWS TO FORCE YOU TO DO THE SAME THINGS YOU COULD DO YOURSELF!  Sorry for shouting, but really, what else do people expect the government to do?  I realize that more and more Americans are taking the term “Uncle Sam” more and more literally, and expect “layers of paternalism” to protect them from the big bad world out there, but come on.  Enough is enough, isn’t it?  I, for one, would much rather have the federal government butt-out of my personal life, as much as possible, and I don’t even live in one of those (lucky) states that legalized marijuana.  So, I drive a little less.  I turn off lights when I leave the room.  Not because I’m worried about global warming, but because I’m a tightwad.  And maybe, if I do enough, I can keep Uncle Sam off my back.

Oh wait.  I do seem to recall that there was some sort of plan to spray some kind of crap into the atmosphere to help block the sun, but I’ve really been hoping that was just a rumor.

Anyway, after reading the article about the survey, I decided that I would just do a little research for myself about global warming, and what I found was truly fascinating, at least to a geek like myself who actually wants to understand the world, as opposed to walking around thinking “Huh?”  Unfortunately, the more I learn about people, the more I find myself saying “Huh?”  And this time is no exception.

I had never heard of the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory http://www.lbl.gov/ before today, or at least not that I remember.  The lab is “supported by the U.S. Department of Energy through its Office of Science” and “managed by the University of California (UC).”  The list of awards won by its scientist is lengthy; you can check it out here.

At any rate, on the Berkley Lab website, I found a real gem titled “brief introduction to the history of climate.”  I’m not going to go into detail here; it’s a relatively easy read and if you’re interested in such things, I suggest you check it out.  I just wanted to point out one paragraph in the midst of all that great info:

“These data should frighten you. All of civilization developed during the last interglacial, and the data show that such interglacials are very brief. Our time looks about up. Data such as these are what led us to state, in the Preface, that the next ice age is about to hit us, any millennium now. It does not take a detailed theory to make this prediction. We don’t necessarily know why the next ice age is imminent (at least on a geological time scale), but the pattern is unmistakable.”

  Huh?

According to these scientists, then, the real concern should be about the coming ice age.  I’ve always thought this but didn’t think there was anybody in the science community that would actually say that, except for nutcases that doubt “real science.”  And it’s the government, no less!

Of course, those people in the survey did have plenty of anecdotal evidence of global warming that extends back 60 or so years.  Things like “Having lived for 67 years, we consistently see more and more changes based upon the fact that the weather is warmer,” and “Storms seem to be more severe.”  You know, real, cold, hard facts.  Millions of years of data can’t possibly stand up to evidence like that.

An annoying habit

Somebody just asked me what time I had to leave.  I answered.  Then, as if I couldn't figure this out all by myself, the person proceeded to explain that they didn't know before they asked.  Why do people do that?  Perhaps they do it simply to annoy me.  To which, I can only say, "Mission accomplished!"

I wish

I wish people would take more responsibility for their own actions, like, having kids for example.  I can't afford to have more kids, so I definitely can't afford your kids.

Give me some context!

I really wish people would stop quoting other people, especially historical figures, without providing some context to what they are saying.  Today, I happened on a quote that is being used all over the internet, and consistently without any context, as if the context is self-evident.  The quote is from Lenin: “The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstone of taxation and inflation.”  On first reading, it does appear that the context is, in fact, self-evident.  But in actuality, we can’t tell, just from this quote, what exactly Lenin’s mindset was at the time.  We don’t know whether he believed that himself or if he was saying that to soothe the proletariat masses.  Not being a history expert, I actually don’t know why he said that, and I don’t claim to know.  I will say this, though: it seems to me as if there are much easier and quicker ways to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor than hyperinflation, especially given that inflation generally hurts the rich much less than it hurts the poor.  So, just take the rich folks' property, and lock them up if they cause a fuss.  After all, Lenin also said: “We do not have time to play at ‘oppositions’ at ‘conferences.’ We will keep our political opponents… whether open or disguised as ‘nonparty,’ in prison.”

Just so everyone knows I am neither a conservative nor a liberal.  Ideology wise, I’m probably closest to Libertarian, but I really dislike labels like that, and I don’t necessarily think that Libertarians have it all right either.  I think the government has way too much control over our lives, and I’m all for lower taxes for everyone.  There are times and circumstances, though, when I have to leave my ideology behind and consider the best course under the current conditions.  Consequently, there may be times that I say one thing because that is my ideology, and then later I may say something because that is what I see as the best action given the current conditions.  It doesn’t mean I’m contradicting myself, and yet if the comments are taken out of context, it may seem that way.  Here’s an example:

I am against having a minimum wage.  I really believe that the only thing a minimum wage law does is make low paying jobs illegal, thus decreasing the number of jobs available.  It doesn’t allow workers the ability to compete for jobs in any way other than by answering ridiculous questions like “What’s your greatest weakness?”  If a job doesn’t pay enough, then nobody will apply for that job.  That’s capitalism at work.

But, capitalism is actually dependent on people’s concern for the well-being of others, at least in my opinion, otherwise it becomes dysfunctional, kind of like it is today.  So, a while back, I wrote a post that said that Wal-Mart should pay its employees more, and in that post demonstrated that Wal-Mart’s shareholders would be no worse off, that shoppers would really be no worse off, and that as a whole, financially, society would be better off.  If a company like Wal-Mart fails to act on that kind of evidence, then yes, as much as I hate to say it, I think the government needs to step in and raise the minimum wage.  In other words, if the company won’t do the right thing, then the government should force them to.

The point is, at one time I might say that there should be no minimum wage, and other times I might say it needs to be raised.  I’m actually not contradicting myself, and the context in which the statement is made is the only thing that gives the statement meaning at all.

No?

Milton Johnston of DEQ's Tidewater office: "We can't have pieces of chicken falling out of the sky."

Yes, well, I guess I can't really argue with that.

Even more doom

Just had a high school student ask me how to figure the square root of 169.  Being "old school," I know what the square root of 169 is, because I had to do all that basic math stuff without a calculator so many times that I just know those sorts of things.

So, trying to be helpful, I asked "What is the square root of 100?"  She didn't know.  So, I told her.  Then I asked "How much is 20 times 20?"  She said she couldn't do it without a calculator, but she thought it was somewhere around 120.  A big thank-you going out to the elementary school teachers here in Utah.  You've created a whole generation of what I call "button pushers."  Now, someone call me an idiot.

More about doomsday

I know what you're thinking.  "Oh boy.  Another doomsday nutcase."  Or something like that.  Or, if you're not thinking any such thing, then perhaps by the end of this post, you will be.  Let me just say that I neither believe nor disbelieve that the world will end on December 21, 2012.  It might, just like it might end today or any other day.  I like to keep an open mind about things.  I think that having an open mind is important to be able to continue learning, and I love learning new stuff.

Anyway, all this talk about the Mayan calendar (or one of them) ending next Friday has spurred my interest in astronomy, and I've been busily reading up on things like comets, the Oort cloud, and Planet X, to name a few (yeah, I really do have a lot of time on my hands lately).  The result, at least in my mind, is that it seems to be entirely possible that a large comet or asteroid could come slamming into the earth at any time.

My research eventually lead me to the NASA website, where, not surprisingly, I found a statement by someone (sorry, I don't know exactly where it was) stating that there was absolutely no evidence of any large space junk (my term) headed for earth, and as proof said that if there were, we would be able to see it, and that we could rest assured that NASA had no reason to keep any such finding a secret.  I immediately had to ask myself what the purpose of telling us would be, and decided that there would be no purpose, so I didn't feel particularly reassured.  To make it worse, whomever was making this statement said something to the effect that people should concern themselves more with "real science" like climate change than any doomsday theories.  Don't get me started on the real science of climate change.

In perusing the NASA website, I happened to see an article about the X-37, which was supposed to be a follow-on project for the space shuttle.  The X-37 project was cut by NASA a few years ago and was taken over by the Air Force and classified, so there's not a lot of new information about the X-37, other than a few days ago, when the craft was launched for a classified mission.

Now, everything I've read about this mission, which isn't much, says that the Air Force is just doing some testing.  Pretty standard stuff.  The funny thing is that it appears that nobody is quite sure why the Air Force would be interested in this type of aircraft, with speculation going so far as to say that the only reason for it is to keep the Chinese guessing what we're up to.  Of course, being a classified mission, launch commentary ended at about 17 minutes after the launch, because, you know, they're doing lots of secret testing, and besides, we don't want the Chinese to know what we're up to.

So, what does the X-37 have to do with doomsday?  One of the guesses as to the Air Force's interest is that it could be used as a device to carry nuclear weapons, rather than using a missile.  Of course, the obvious problem with this is that, because of its slow decent, it would be too easily destroyed before reaching its target.  But, that wouldn't really be a problem if the target were some massive asteroid heading straight for Earth, would it?

So, what to do... Same as everyday, I guess.  Live today as if it is your last, but don't forget to plan for a long and healthy retirement, just in case.

A great idea!

Um, yeah.  This sounds like yet another tax on employers for creating jobs.  Great idea!

The one thing I hate most...

... is being lied to.  So, ask me how impressed I am in a world where no one appears to be capable of telling the truth.

Fiscal cliff

I'm tired of everyone going on about the fiscal cliff.  Everyone seems to want to try and guess what will happen if we coast over it, because, you know, the people who are right can spend the rest of their lives pointing to that one time when, if anybody had ever listened to them, they could have saved the whole economy.  I hope they're all wrong, we drive off the fiscal cliff, and everything turns out better as a result.  Kind of like World War II.  I love economists.

Infinites

I just read somewhere, in defense of the idea that there are no infinites, the first action was just caused by the first entity.  Of course, this begs the question of how long the entity existed for, or if not forever, where did it come from?  What was its cause?  The answer, of course is that prior to the entity causing the first action, time had no meaning, and therefore didn't exist, apparently.   Personally, I think it is more like the idea of infinites is beyond the comprehension of most humans (including me) and so it is easier to just say that time didn't have any meaning until we get to the part that we do comprehend.

The argument about infinites seems to hinge on the idea that time, distance, and motion are all dependent on the existence of other things, but I really think that this is only because humans can't relate to it. Is it meaningful to be able to divide a line segment into infinitely smaller parts when the space being divided is just space?  Is it meaningful to be traveling in a universe where the only thing that exists is the thing that is traveling?  Is the concept of time meaningful under the same circumstances?  Not to us (humans), but that doesn't mean they are not meaningful.  Hard as it is to believe, it doesn't matter if humans can grasp a concept.  We are not infallible.

Well, perhaps I have it all wrong.  Being somewhat of a skeptic, I typically question my own reasoning, as well as the reasoning of others.  And I think the world would be a better place if more people did the same.

I'm friggin special!

I know I am, because I got an email from the White House that starts out like this: "Something special is happening right now at the White House, and you're the reason why." And of course, since I am the reason for something special happening, it must be because I'm special. Unfortunately, the rest of the email has nothing to do with me at all, so perhaps they had someone else in mind. But that won't stop me from thinking I'm friggin special.

A couple of old jokes

A couple of old classics.




How do you keep a moron busy all day?
Click here.

The Future Leadership of America

I just had to explain to a college student that you could not deduce that the weight of a letter was approximately a half pound simply by knowing that it cost $1.09 to send a 1 pound package, and the postage on the letter was $0.45.  The letter, by the way, weighed approximately 0.5 ounces, so I guess he got the "half" part right.

Testing a theory

I have a theory that I'd like anyone who reads this to help me out with.  Basically, what I need is to hear your interview stories, whether those interviews led to being hired or not.  I guess what I am most interested in is whether you walked out of the interview believing you would be hired and why you believed that.  It might also be helpful to know the type of job and industry, although I don't need to know specifically what company it is.  Keep responses as anonymous as you like.  Thanks in advance for your help!

The Mayan Calendar

I can’t help myself.  I have to stick my own two cents in on the whole Mayan calendar thing, as if there aren’t enough people already yakking about it.

To begin, there are all sorts of opinions about what’s supposed to happen and December 21, 2012.  Everything from the end of the world to the sudden enlightenment of the human species.  So, what can we derive from that?  Nothing, really, other than the idea that something will happen, which of course is what happens every day.

Still, those Mayans were pretty smart folks, so the fact that their calendar ends on that day has to mean something, doesn’t it?  Of course it does.  But, maybe it is only as significant as the end of our own calendar, and on January 1, we start a whole new one.  But, the Mayan calendar is over 5,000 years old, so it seems that the ending of this particular calendar should be way more significant than the ending of a calendar that has only lasted a year.

This kind of reasoning is what prompted me to do a little looking around on the internet to find out what I could about the Mayan calendar.  It turns out it really is significant, if you happen to believe, as the Mayans did, that this is actually the third world that the gods created.  The first two failed.  The significance, apparently, of December 21, 2012 is that if this world lasts until that day, we will have outlasted the last failed world.

So, nobody really knows whether December 21, 2012 will be the end of the world, or perhaps the beginning of human enlightenment.  I’m somewhat cynical, and so my own belief is that the human species will come to believe themselves enlightened, and thus precipitate the end of the world or at least the end of the world as we know it.