Comments Worth Considering #1 – Contrasting Transgender People and White People

Aniston Thinking About It

I’m guessing that I’m like a lot of you in that I read a lot of news articles online. Just like major news outlets pumped through television, it’s pretty clear that certain online news portals like to focus on “their thing”. So Fox News is conservative and wants to promote the Tea Party agenda. CNN wants to push a more liberal agenda while at the same time trying their best to disguise that and appear truly balanced. Yahoo News seems want to go down in history as the media site which single-handedly launched the gay marriage and LGBT-rights causes while wrapping it in “other stuff” to try and seem like that’s not the only thing that they care about.

Over time I’ve discovered that often, the most interesting aspect of news stories can be found in the comments. Some individuals will post a thought related to the article that is so clear and invoking that it turns the message of the article on its head and you just go, “Why did I think of that?” It’s so often the case that I’ve decided to start up a new series here on my personal blog entitled “Comments Worth Considering”.

Our first post in this series will center around a piece found on Yahoo News praising a local public school for supporting a transgender man who wants to become a non-man by sending out a voice broadcast to the school parents alerting them to the fact. You can read the piece here: School Tries to Support Transgender Man With Voice Broadcast

The comments were, of course, wide and varied – and often nasty. The one nugget of gold found in the mire though was put up by John Matthews who said:

If I’m born a white man and tell people I’m black because I always felt black and should be eligible for black scholarships I’d be considered crazy. If I’m born a man and tell people I’m a woman because I always felt like a woman and should be allowed to play womens’ lacrosse nobody blinks an eye? What’s the difference? Biology chooses your race, your gender, your species, etc. We don’t get to pick and choose.

I thought that this was really insightful. It points out clearly how society will just “decide” that a particular cause needs to be supported and another is completely irrational. As far as I can tell, there’s no real “reason” for this. Oh people will come up with reasons, but those reasons could have been brought up before and they would not have been accepted as valid by the public and in 50 years, if social sentiments change, the reasonings of today could be decried as without merit.

Let me put it another way to make it a bit more clear.

If you could jump in a time machine and zoom back 50+ years and sit down in the lunch room of a Ford plant, an engineering firm, or a fabric store and tell the workers who were munching down their bologna sandwiches that in the not-so-distant-future you’d have a hue and cry pushing for gay marriage and both passively and actively shunning and shamming those who would speak against it – you’d either be called a nutcase or laughed out of the room.

If you told these same group of workers that the news media would be positioning a school as heroic and forward-thinking for sending voice broadcast messages out to the families that a man wanted to mutilate himself in an effort to try and mimic the physical characteristics of a woman as closesly as possible and that they would not only believe that there would NOT be some type of backlash from the families, but that the families would be EXPECTED to fall-in-line and embrace such a situation as “normal” and “progressive” and something to be championed by all…again, you would receive a sharp and harsh negative reaction.

Time passes though and opinions change. That’s the weird part about it. Those same young workers in the lunchrooms of our thought experiment are now “older and wiser” and are some of the most vocal supporters of this new wave of change. They would adamantly deny that they would ever have been the ones who would have spoken out again homosexuals back-in-the-day and would most likely position themselves as the ones who would have been “neutral” on the subject at that time.

The fact that there is no rhyme or reason to the thinking of the public is what we’re focusing on here and is the theme of Mr. John Matthew’s comment. It has to make us wonder, if the public can do a 180 on this whole gay marriage / LGBT rights issue…

What Else Will They Flip Flop On?

chaos-riots

Let’s just imagine that the current trend of embracing “alternative lifestyles” has the unintended consequences of destroying the family matrix of the nation and sending it down the gutter with people starving and chaos reigning in the streets. Blood and destruction is everywhere and in a time of crisis a charismatic leader arises. You know – a Hitler type. He points out that it’s the fault of the gays and the public’s failure 50 years prior by embracing them that has brought the nation to such a desperate place and that the “scourge must be purged” in order to restore peace and normalcy to the country.

Everybody signs up, including the most vocal gay-marriage supporters of the Millennial generation (now in their 60′s and 70′s), and there’s a new holocaust perpetrated against homosexuals.

Think it can’t happen? Well the people in the lunch room didn’t think that what you’re seeing today could happen either.

Another Reason to Give Blood

Click to Enlarge

I went to the Red Cross yesterday to donate blood.  One of the things I like about it is that you essentially are scheduled to check your blood pressure a few times per year without having to pay to see a physician.  You can then try to take measures to address heart-health issues because you’re not young and foolish pretending that nothing could possible start to go wrong in your mid-30′s.

They tell me that the “bottom number” is the important one where blood pressure is concerned.  Anything over 90 is “high” with “really healthy” being in the 60′s.  Low 60′s and high 50′s are pretty much reserved for long distance runners and triathletes.  Scoring 56 or below is in the danger zone and indicates that there is an issue that needs to be addressed FAST.

Back in September when I donated my “bottom number” was 90 exactly.  I happened to have drank an entire coffee on the way IN to donate that day though, so I thought the super-dose of caffeinne might be to blame.  (Caffeinne raises blood pressure when present in the blood)  Fast-forward five months to February of this year when I donated again and it had only dropped 2 points to 88 and I had NOT consumed coffee on the way in.  Not a good sign.

Since the weather has been warmed up though, I’ve been getting up early and taking long, brisk walks for about 45 to 50 minutes.  I’ve heard from multiple sources that consistently walking at least 6 days a week is THE best thing that you can do for your health over the course of a lifetime.  Perhaps “they” are right because, as you can see from the picture, my diastolic figure has dropped 10 points to 78.

I’m starting to fall into the “healthy” range again.  Woo hoo!  My best that I have a handy record of is 124/74 in December of 2008.

In addition to the walking, I’ve also been taking fish oil supplements and between 3 and 5 grams of Vitamin C per day.  That might have something to do with it too.

 

More Propoganda to Lead Us to Believe That We’re Not Unique

More info spilling out from the scientific oligarchy regarding the Kepler space-based, planet-seeking telescope.  The verdict?  They found a planet that is so similar to earth that it can be considered a “cousin” planet.

Or so they would have us believe.

If you read the article, you can see how hard “they” are continuing to push to convince the public that our planet is not unique in the universe.  It even comes with pretty pictures depicting a place that looks very much like our own home.  After all, if Kepler found a bunch of planets in the “Goldilocks Zone” and they’ve only surveyed a fraction of the billions and billions of galaxies in the universe, then even if the planet in question does NOT support life, it just goes to show that given enough planets situated similarly in their own galaxies, then surely one of them must support life, right?  If life sprung up from rock dust all by itself here then it must have done it elsewhere too – or so goes the line of thought.

The general public, who DO regard the scientific community in the same way as past societies viewed their own shamans, are not really looking deeply into this entire “other earth” idea.  There’s a LOT more that goes into why our planet is UNIQUELY able to support life than size and distance from a host star.  I’ll just touch on two below.  Oh yeah, let’s remember that the same scientists readily admit that these factors MUST be in place to find life as we know it to exist.

  1. Magnetic Iron Core – the earth has a gigantic iron core which works to create a gigantic magnetic field that surrounds the entire planet.  At any given moment, this field is protecting the earth from uncountable billions of megawatts of harmful energy radiated from the sun.  Without this magnetic filed, life on earth would not be possible.  Any planet that lacks a magnetic core similar to ours then, would also not likely be able to support life.  Interesting how only ONE planet in our own solar system has one uniquely tweaked to maintain life.
  2. Water – go ahead and google “Where did earth’s water come from?” or something like that.  You’ll find recent pieces which go into detail on the theories of how the water arrived here.  Those theories are pretty crazy.  They pretty much center around the concept that the umpteen billions of gallons of water that are found in earth’s oceans, rivers, lakes, streams, polar ice caps, and glaciers hitched ride here over time by meteor impacts.  Apparently all this water-attraction happened BEFORE life somehow spontaneously arose from non-life – as this new “life” would need the water to be present already in order to survive.

    Everyone should check out the true-to-scale map of the solar system which shows how small each of the few planets in our solar system really are in comparison to size of the solar system itself.  Go ahead and scroll through that baby and make sure you get all the way out to Pluto.  It will give you some perspective on how small everything really is.  The idea of asteroids hitting our planet with enough water to fill the ocean basins becomes an obvious-to-the-eye joke.  If you were to fill up even ONE typically-sized asteroid with water and try to shoot it at the earth it would be like trying to shoot a pin-head with a rifle from 5 miles away by aiming up into the sky’s horizon and hoping that it arched down and connected with the pin at the end.  It’s statistically impossible.

    Now the idea that not only did this happen, but it happened a LOT is outright ridiculous.  The idea that it happened TWICE on another planet somewhere else should show how willing the scientific community is to grasp at straws in regards to our planet not being unique in the universe.  And we all know what the motivation behind THAT type of behavior is, don’t we?

Just those two should do it for now.  If both of the above are true (and they are) then we all should be wondering why we’re spending billions of dollars on the space program just so that we can help scientists try to build up “proofs” that everything has come about by accident as a result of stuff just smashing into each other over time after the big bang.  I tend to think that it requires more faith to lean that way instead of admitting that everything has been organized by an all-powerful creator who knew exactly what he was doing when he carved out a special place in the universe that he wanted to focus on – at least for a time.

It’s Things Like This That Make You Wonder if the Federal Government Knows What It’s Doing

Department of Treasury Check

So apparently the Department of Veterans Affairs overpaid me when they were distributing my Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits to the University of Michigan.  That being the case they had the Department of Treasury contact me to setup a payment plan where I’d pay $50 p/month for 5 months this year to square up.

That’s fine with me.  So I sent the check in last month and yesterday I scratched out another payment and went to put in in the mailbox.  The postman had already been by for the day so I pulled out our new mail, slipped in the payment, and put up the little red flag.

I started shuffling through the mail while walking back toward my home and, wouldn’t you know it, there was an official envelope from the Department of Treasury.  My first thought was that it was going to be some notice saying that I needed to pay even more so I didn’t even open it until a while later.

When I did open it though, it was a check!  From the Department of Treasury.  The memo line said it was for my Post-9/11 G.I. Bill Benefits!?!?!?

So I’m sending them payments and they’re sending me payments.  It’s things like this that make me wonder if the Federal Government even knows what it’s doing.

Perhaps We SHOULD Amend the Second Amendment After All

We Want You To Support the Second Amendment

Recently, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens made a statement decrying how, in his absence, the Supreme Court has chosen to affirm the individual’s right to keep and bear arms for their own protection and safety.  He even proposed that it would be best that we amended the Second Amendment to specify that the only rights people have to keep and bear arms would be while serving in the Militia.

Nice.

The general thought from there would be that a conglomeration of Federal and State regulations would be used to control people’s ability to purchase firearms – and it is assumed that such regulations would do so in a much more stringent manner than we see today.

A recent article in Yahoo News examined Justice Stevens’ remarks and pretty much complained that the political state of affairs that we see in congress today would preclude ever seeing a proposal for such a change appearing for a vote in front of Congress.  The author then goes on to say that we could use the “alternative” method of amending the Constitution which is first initiated by the states.  He goes on again to whine that there is probably little hope that enough states would call for a convention and that even if they did, what might come out of such a meeting might backfire on those who would love nothing more than to see more gun control in our nation.

The entire article was a liberal sulk-fest.  There was obvious confusion on the part of the author.  He can’t seem to come to grips with the fact that a powerful majority of Americans want MORE access to guns, not less.  They want to be able to carry them EVERYWHERE they are lawfully able to go.  They do not want to find themselves saddled with a hodgepodge of regulations that require them to get out of their car and subsequently unload and case their pistol when driving through a certain area (be it a city, national park, or school zone) and then stop and re-arm themselves after passing beyond the opposite border of said area.

Anti-gunners actually believe that more people in America identify with their own feelings on this issue than don’t.  They believe that it’s captain obvious to everyone (even the pro-gun crowd) that we need to see guns completely removed from public possession and that “common sense” (read “harsh”) gun control regulation should be viewed as a steep compromise.  In their minds, those who stand in the way of “progress” and deep-down know that it’s only a matter of time before guns are relegated to the dustbin of history.  Yet, enamored with our guns and Bibles, we fight against progress.  Say they.

In fact, though, we pro-gun types don’t believe in the gun-free utopia where guns only exist in the hands of law enforcement officers and the military.  Deep down we really do believe that taking guns from the people is the first step to a totolatarian federal government that is hell-bend on the oppression of (even the elimination of) those who do not get on board with their “progressive” (i.e. liberal) ideology.

Original Assault RifleTruth-be-told, I wouldn’t mind seeing a change to the Second Amendment myself.  The ability of the people to resist tyrannical overstepping of federal power (as seen in the Nevada cattle ranch standoff) only exists if they have the arms to make a revolutionary final stand a reality.  If the Militia is representative of an ad-hoc group consisting of all men able to take up arms should the states need to throw off a government that has overstepped its bounds, then the militia should be able to be armed in the same manner as any standard company of infantry regulars would be.  After all, if the shooting started, it would be infantry regulars that would be ordered to fire upon the American people, correct?

Let’s consider some of the weapons assigned to infantry units while I myself was serving as an infantry rifleman in the Marine Corps.

  • Automatic M-16 – this rifle was equipped with a 3-round burst shooting mode which lands it in the “full auto” category according to the BATF.  Access to fully automatic assault rifles goes without saying if the Militia is to stand their ground and fight a guerrilla war against a federal government run amok.
  • Light Machine Guns – the M-249 SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) was hands-down my favorite gun that I was assigned to carry as a Marine.  This belt-fed weapon has a nice rate of fire and is light enough to be handled by infantry soldiers going house-to-house on foot.
  • Heavy Machine Guns – Marines MOS-assigned to machine gun teams specifically got to fire the M-240G.  This is a crew served weapon that traditionally requires more than one person to properly employ.  The 50-caliber BMG (Browning Machine Gun) also falls into this category.  A good number of Americans should have these in their possession at all times in case they need to be mustered to stand and fight against oppression.
  • Grenade Launchers – these come in different flavors.  The most common is seen in the hands of a squad-leader affixed to the bottom of his M-16 rifle but fully automatic versions which are attached to vehicles should be easily accessed by law-abiding citizens as well.  After all, if it’s issued to the infantry, it’s fair game for the Militia.
  • Shoulder Fired Rockets – these come in single-use packaging.  Pop up the sighting system, disengage the safety, aim at target, ensure nobody is behind you, and fire.  Might need a few of these if the Feds send in armored vehicles against the people of the United States of America should a Second Revolution be necessary.
  • One-Man Missile Systems – in the Marine Corps they used both the Predator, TOW, and Javelin missile systems.  These were expensive smart weapons to be primarily used against tanks and enemy soldiers holed up in fortified positions.  They were issued to Infantry Marines so they belong in the militia.  Portable S.A.M. weapons are also issued to infantry regulars and would be needed by a new generation of American freedom fighters.

Now that I think about it, maybe the states calling for a convention to amend the Constitution wouldn’t be so bad.  The anti’s can propose Justice Stevens’ verbiage and the pro-gun camp will offer up their own change which could read as follows:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State and of consisting of all able-bodied men who are both 18-years and older and free of past felony convictions, the individual right of the people to keep and bear Arms including but not limited to those commonly assigned to infantry regulars, shall not be infringed.”

If the current string of victories is any indication where the people of America stand where gun legislation is concerned, I’m thinking that there is more chance that the above version come out of a Constitutional Convention than the one Justice Stevens would see us shackled with.  So maybe amending the Second Amendment isn’t such a bad idea after all.

The Fort Hood Shooter’s Motive

Fort Hood Shooter Motive

This second shooting episode is undoubtedly going to have people all over America asking, “What was the Fort Hood Shooter’s Motive?”

The news coming out of the Texas Army base seems to indicate that Ivan Lopez was actually a pretty good soldier that did not have a history of violence or discipline issues.  So why did he go on a shooting spree that killed 3 other people and injured 16 others?

It’s important that we try to peer through the lines here because everyone who has something to lose (or gain) in regards to this highly-publicized event are going to try to conceal anything that might undermine whatever cause they have spent years fighting for.

Currently, we are hearing the term PTSD thrown around a lot.  The key phrases that the media keep repeating over and over again is “self-diagnosed” with PTSD or “being evaluated for” PTSD.  That means that at some point the guy told someone somewhere that he thought he might have PTSD and perhaps that he had initiated the process for getting officially diagnosed.

PTSD being the contributing cause of this tragedy seems unlikely to me.  PTSD requires one to present with very specific conditions in order for a positive diagnosis.  One of these is that the person must have been involved in a rather socking (traumatic) event. While Ivan Lopez does seem to have spent time on active duty in Iraq, he was assigned to a Motorized Transportation unit and, at least from what we known currently, was never placed in harms way while serving.

To say that this man may have done what he did because of PTSD is really disrespectful to those who HAVE been in traumatic events.  We’re talking about being shot or seeing friends shot.  Walking away from a roadside bomb blast with or without injuries.  Being in a supposedly safe place like ones Forward Operating Base (FOB) in close proximity to explosions from unexpected mortar fire detonate just a dozen meters from where one was standing.  These types of things.

The rush to “support the troops” had created a weird cultural phenomenon where any soldier/sailor/Marine who has said that he thinks he might be suffering from PTSD…well if he says he has it, then he has it.  After all, who are you to question?  You weren’t over there.

Such thinking is both silly and unproductive.  You don’t get to say that you suffered “trauma” which triggered PTSD just by BEING in Iraq.  Anyone who believes that such a low standard of “trauma” could induce PTSD better plan on eliminating the boot camps experience from the Marine Corps completely.  I assure you that my experience on Paris Island was more “traumatic” than driving a truck around in the middle of the most secure bases in Iraq.  Oh, and don’t question me.  You weren’t ON the Island.

The really important implications in this event are related to the fact that being quick to point the finger at PTSD and then be done with it takes the focus off of what we REALLY need to be investigating.

We need to be looking at Anti-Depressants.

You see, while the media keeps saying that this Lopez fellows was “self reported” as having PTSD, they ALSO keep saying that he was “being treated for depression”.  This is really quite huge.

Having recently completed  my studies in Psychology at the University of Michigan Dearborn, I can confidently say that it’s common knowledge in the mental health community that antidepressants can lead to suicidal thoughts and tendencies – especially in adolescents.  This is why psychologists will often hold off on prescribing SSRI drugs like Paxil and Prozac.

Here’s the connection that nobody seems to be making.  Or rather, it’s the connection that THEY (the pharmaceutical oligarchy and those who support them) don’t want the public to make.

Doesn’t it make sense that if a drug can cause a normal person to all-of-a-sudden have thoughts of suicide (killing someone else) that it’s entirely plausible that they would also be likely to have thoughts of killing someone ELSE? (homocide)

Of course, there’s no science on this, right?  And why would there be?  You think that some drug company is going to sponsor a study that comes to the conclusion that taking antidepressants might remove the natural restraints which keep from people from killing each other?  Do you think that so-called “impartial” universities are going to conduct such a study when they receive so much funding from the pharmaceutical sector?

Think about this from a public perception standpoint.  A university comes up with research that shows conclusively that antidepressants cause some troubled teens to kill themselves.  Everyone shakes their head and feel a bit bad but do they require the drug be banned?  No.  After all, it’s not THEIR kid which is killing themselves and the kid is only a threat to themselves – not to others.

Of course, if we flip that around and all of a sudden we find out that the troubled teens who take antidepressants are not just a threat to themselves, but ANYONE of ANY AGE are at risk.  And not just at risk for killing themselves but risk for killing any number of OTHER PEOPLE!

THAT, my friends, is something to raise a hue and cry about.  It’s not just your kid at risk when they take Paxil but it’s my kid too?  It’s not just your husband at risk when he takes Prozac but MY husband too?

Such revelations would cause a public panic which would end up in new regulations on these drugs.  It would upend our trust that these SSRI drugs are the “holy grail” for millions of depression sufferers.  Such broad usage as we see today would come to and end which would also cut into the profit margins of Big Pharma – heavily.

Now consider what we’ve seen with Ivan Lopez.  The guy killed HIMSELF didn’t he?  Isn’t suicidal ideation and tendencies something we know to be associated with drug treatment for depression?  Why would we not think that his killing of OTHERS was part and parcel to the same series of side effects emanating from the taking of antidepressants?

Mark my words – within 50 years everyone will “know” that SSRI antidepressants can cause people not only to kill themselves, but to kill others as well.  We’ll recognize that we will never find the Fort Hood Shooter’s motive because Ivan Lopez didn’t have one.  The drugs he was taking for depression simultaneously removed his internal restraints against killing himself and killing others.  With those out of the way even the slightest irritation could have enticed him to pursue the unfortunate course of events that we saw two days ago at Fort Hood, Texas.

The Law on Noncontradiction and Marriage

I got married to my wife Christina back on November 2nd, 2012.  It’s pretty easy to remember because we started dating right around the time of 9/11 when I was home on leave while serving actively in the Marine Corps.  In fact, I was suppose to fly back to Washington D.C. on 9/11!  Obviously, those plans got put on hold.  (I was actually stuck in Michigan for a full week before I could get a flight back).

So we were married a little bit over a year later in November.  What does all this have to do with the law of noncontradiction?  A lot.

It’s about the experience.  You see, I really do love Christina.  I should probably love her even more than I do, but that’s probably the case for everyone who’s married, right?  We’re going on 12 years of marriage now and in hindsight, I’m glad that we didn’t fall victim of the plague of divorce that has touched the lives of many of the close friends whom I grew up with.

When I think about our marriage I recognize that there are shortcomings.  There really are.  The level of passion isn’t quite where it needs to be and if you had asked us when we first got married what our standard of living would look like 12 years down the road – well I’m thinking that we’ve fallen a bit short of those expectations.

That being said, I’m really glad that we’re married.  Christina has a great head on her shoulders, is a good mom to our kids, and can get a lot of things done that, at one time, she probably didn’t see herself as being capable of doing.  I bet she could even do a lot more if the constraints of our life were not there, but again, that pretty much applies to all of us, right?  She’s a beautiful woman and she’s very special to me.  She means more to me than she did 12 years ago, but on a deeper and more meaningful level.

The point is that I really hope to be married to this woman for the rest of my life.  Just like I said I did when I asked her to marry me.  I want the experience of being with the same person for life.

I’ve spoken with some older men at my Church and they’ve told me their own war stories about things going wrong in life and how they persevered through it and have come out the other side.

Christina and I have gone through some of our own tough times already.  Tougher times than I ever really wanted to see.  Being that this is my honest blog where I can speak from the heart, I would have to admit that the last 5 years or so have changed us – and not for the better.  Not for the worse either.  I guess that I feel a little bit like I’m less of a person.  Almost as if someone took an ice cream scoop and dished out parts of my soul.  Like I’ve lost pieces of myself; parts of me have been left behind in the mire of the swamp of life.  I’d stab at a guess that Christina feels very much the same way.

Yet one thing we’ve been blessed with by God is the fact that through the entire series of disappointments that we’ve traversed, we are still together.  She’s still there to talk with every night.  When she has a particularly bad day, she can tell me about it.  And I listen a lot better than I used to.  Because I know that sometimes people just need to share which means that  sometimes you need to be the one to listen.  So I listen.

We’re really there for each other and I like that.  I like the fact that I will be able to relate that fact to my kids when I’m older.

You see, if we had given up at any time because things have not been all rosy for us, if we had abandoned our vows and chosen to break faith with God and each other in regards to our marriage, then we would not be able to talk of victory in the midst of adversity to our children at a later time.  It’s not possible to share experiences about weathering the storm if you do not in fact weather the storm.

That’s the Law of Noncontradiction active in marriage.

I’m interested in finding out what life looks like at the end when you’ve been married to the same woman for so long that you can’t really remember what life was like before she was there.  You can’t have that experience and NOT have that experience.  You have to choose to do whatever it takes to preserve and protect your marriage if you’re going to be able to see the world from atop that mountain.

Pay Attention to the Details

DNA From Scratch

I think that the primary purpose of Yahoo News is to act as a brainwashing outlet that pushes two ideas upon the public.  The first is convince us all that gay marriage is right because there is nothing wrong with what gay people do behind closed doors and the second is to continue to beat the drum that says that we all exist by accident after a long series of genetic mutations.

Last night I read an article entitled, Scientists just took a major step toward making life from scratch.

There is still cognitive dissonance in the mind of the average American where the idea of us arising from dust sloughed off the side of mountain eons ago clashes with the idea that this simply cannot be true based on the known data which shows that hardly any mutations are beneficial and thus billions of years is not enough time to randomly come up with the variety of intricate life that we see today.

Articles like the above are suppose to connect with the atheistic side of this “conversation” that is held in suspense in the minds of the people an reinforce the idea that, yes, it DOES make sense that we could have arisen from rock dust given enough time.

Think about it.  What’s the closing statement of the title?  ”…from scratch.”  And don’t the scientists say that evolution clobbered together the DNA strands that allow life as we know it to exist…from scratch?

There’s only one problem.  The article does NOT describe the scientists as having come up with whatever they’ve done “from scratch.”

Consider the following excerpt:

This careful planning is what allowed the researchers, along with 60 undergraduate students, to painstakingly string chunks of DNA together and insert them into living yeast cells.

Wait a minute.  They manipulated EXISTING DNA sequences and then inserted them into EXISTING yeast cells?  I thought they did it “from scratch.”

Obviously – they didn’t.

This is why it’s important to pay attention to the details.

They’re Getting Desperate

Earlier this week I read some post on Yahoo News about how some scientists at the bottom of the world have finally found “proof” of the Big Bang.

Of course they did.  You never thought that they would come out and say, “Sorry everyone.   We were wrong.  We don’t know WHAT the heck happened in our past and are just as clueless as ever!”  No…you’d never hear that.

Today I skimmed through Digg and found a second reference to that study and then further down the front page more prattle about us existing in a multiverse.  Complete with pretty pictures of universes in bubbles that one.

Let me tell you what is going on.

They/them/they.  The powers that be.  The new high priests of science.  They are desperate to have the world jump on the atheist bandwagon.  So they follow a very clear playbook.

That is to simply say the same thing again and again from as many media channels as possible in order to attempt to convince everyone that everything we see around us, all the order, can be explained as having happened by accident.  A random series of atoms crashing together.

Let’s talk about a few of these recent engineered talking points:

1) The Higgs-Boson Particle – remember reading about that one?  The world spent billions on an underground super-collider in order to find this thing.  Do you think that THEY were going to spend that money and then NOT find it?  Of course not.  So they declared victory prematurely.  Go ahead and go back and review the stories.  They all were framed with this little parenthetical disclaimer noting that the “initial findings” had to be verified but the experts were quite sure that it would be handled.  Has anyone heard about whether or not this has been confirmed?

2) There are Other Planets Out There – another billion dollars probably spent on the super-telescope designed to find planets orbiting stars in our universe.  Of course they found them.  They even found them in the “Goldie Locks” zone where water can be found.  Read these news reports and it’s pretty clear that you’re being set up to believe that with so many stars and the fact that we’ve ALREADY FOUND planets where life COULD be that certainly life has to have shown up on one of them!  Right.

3) Birds are Really Dinosaurs – I also recently read an article about some new-found dinosaur that supposedly looked like a chicken.  In the article you see the finders holding the skull of the creature.  You also see the skull again in its own frame against a black background.  You never see any of the other bones and you don’t see any other fossil remains.  You certainly don’t see fossilized feathers – yet the artistic impression of this creature shows it looking just as much bird as lizard.  Interesting how all the pictures of dinosaurs these days are getting frocked with feather fringe, isn’t it?  Maybe if we all see pictures of dinosaurs with feathers, we’ll believe that it was actually possible to convert scales to feathers through random mutation and natural selection regardless of the fact that the digital blueprints for feathers are about as different from scales as a submarine is from an oil rig.  Sure both submarines and oil rigs are found in aqueous environments and feathers and scales sprout from skin, but it’s as unlike that one pair evolved through random mutation as the the other.  Pay attention to stories about dinosaurs going forward.  Watch and see how many of them show the great lizards of the past with feathers and ask yourself if someone is trying to shape and mold your thinking on this issue.

4) Big Bang Is REAL! - here we go.  You’d think that the atheists would have thought that they had done a good job convincing everyone on this point.  Why do they need to go back and do it all over again?  Obviously because not enough people believe it.  Why so desperate to get everyone on their band wagon?

This leads us back to the “multiverse” nonsense.  Let’s get one thing straight:

No matter how many stars there are in the universe and no matter how many planets orbit them, it is mathematically impossible for random matter to arrange itself into detailed design information coded into the 4-character digital blueprint through natural selection and random chance mutation alone.

This is a fact.  It is done.  Finished.  Those who look into it know that it’s true.  We know that 16 Billion years simply isn’t enough time to do the impossible – which is why the paragons of science are pushing this multiverse funk into the popular science media streams so heavily.  Just have the “smartest people on the planet” say the same thing over and over again and eventually the world will believe it.  Or so they think.

The only way to get around the mathematical impossibility of evolution via mutation is to appeal to the infinite.  If there are an infinite number of universes, all with a similar number of galaxies and stars and planets as ours, then in the middle of all that infinity, ONE of those planets is going to have life, right?  We just so happen to be it.

Of course, we can all pretty much acknowledge that such nonsense is really talk that sits square in the middle of the zone known as “the supernatural”.  It’s not testable and it never will be.  But it’s a good story and keeps alive the dream of us getting here by random chance.

Know this, everyone.  Deep down inside, every human being knows that they were created by a Supreme Designer.  It is the wise who have become fools.  They tell themselves lies over an over again so they don’t have to deal with the reality of the supernatural and the divine, but then they come crashing back to it full circle in another way.  Strange that they embrace this silly multiverse idea.  Whatever THEY say, their pretty words simply mask the nasty truth.  Deep down, they hate God and they will do everything possible to eradicate him from the world.  Yet all their appeals to authority are not really working.

They’re getting desperate.

What Would Happen if We Tied Executive Pay to the Minimum Wage?

The world as we see it seems to be broken.  We are constantly being told about how the rich have become so much richer than we can possibly imagine.  If you listen to the Left, then apparently what we need to do is claw back those riches and give them to people who have less through one channel or another.  The Right says it’s better in the hands of the rich because, as Captains of Industry, they are the ones that create the jobs via injecting capital into the system.

While I lean right on most issues, I do believe that the widening income gap seems to indicate that things are getting worse for the Average Joe while those at the highest levels continue to thrive.  It might be attributed to the fact that income derived from labor has flowed out to cheaper sources overseas which has resulted in higher profits which has boosted the income levels of the rich.  I tend to think that the reality is a bit darker than that.

My theory is that, to a significant degree, the rich use their riches and power to game the system.  If they could tweak the rules of the game so that the outcome was that the guy looking to start his first job at McDonald’s was told that the starting pay rate was $1.00 per hour and anywhere else that guy looked for work he was offered $1.00 per hour, with the extra $7.00 worth of “savings” being converted directly into profit…they would do that.

Essentially, the goal of the uber-wealthy is squeeze as much profit as possible and pressing wages down as much as possible help achieve this goal.

The reason that this is a problem is that corporations (and mega corporations in particular) hold to the whole idea that the purpose of the Executive Team and the Board of Directors of any company is to simply maximize profits for shareholders- employee quality of life is of no concern.  Just profit.

Must be nice to be a stock holder.  Must be nice to be rich enough to have your money work for you and have people standing by at attention to do everything in their power to keep that money working for you while you enjoy a life of luxury.  Must be nice to see your “top talent” in the corner office doing your dirty work of finding way to “legitimately” reduce the quality-of-life of those working for the companies you invest in to a level that floats just above dependent slavery.  Rant done.  Moving on.

So the problem with our current model is that with a sole focus on maximizing profits for shareholders, it causes the guys calling the shots in the board room to look at the paychecks of their workers with greedy eyes.  Once all other areas of inefficiency have been trimmed, it makes it difficult to talk up your continuing great achievements to The Board and The Shareholders.

But what if you could cut worker compensation by 90% (or any significant percent for that matter) or hold it steady so that as the prices for the Corporation’s goods/services rose, the cost to produce them stayed the same – where labor is concerned.  Now THAT is something that will show some PROFIT!

It is this type of thinking combined with the power to pursue such ends which makes me wonder if Adam Smith and his foaming followers got it slightly wrong.  What would happen if we created a business environment where the CEO of the company doesn’t have just one mission (do whatever it takes to increase profits) but had a second one too?  To improve the quality of life for the worker by increasing both his compensation and value.

This is where tying the minimum wage to top executive pay would come in handy.

(Please don’t start talking about tethering the pay of top athletes, musicians, and actors…were brainstorming for solutions here, not obstacles.)

If top executive pay was tethered to the minimum wage at a rate similar to what we saw in the 1950′s, it would create a framework where the CEO would both focus on increasing the profits of the company but only while doing so in a framework that puts employees first.

Success books like the Go-Giver are always telling us how we need to find ways to help others and put their goals first.  In doing so, it creates an effect which turns around to benefit you in the long run.  Lets let executives to start adopting this philosophy.

A CEO that wanted to make more money would push to find ways to back the increase of the minimum wage.  He’d try to find way to pay, not just his OWN workers, but ALL workers more.  It would be in his best interest and he set about to find ways to do this while still building a company which is profitable in spite of the new focus.  Of course, the shareholders would not like to hear about how the minimum wage is increasing labor costs without those people bringing more value to the company.  The wouldn’t like it at all.

The result?  CEOs would come together formally and informally to find ways to invest in people so that they became more valuable to companies as a whole so that they could justify to their boards backing an increase in the minimum wage.  Or they would just back it outright and skip the justification completely.

Think this sounds crazy?  I don’t.  Think the idea would never work and that companies that are forced to work from the confines of a business environment where the little guy gets paid more is doomed fo fail?

Then let’s consider CSX and the other railroads.  I know people that work in the railroad industry.  It’s one of the last places you can get a job where you get great benefits, great retirement plan, and great pay…all without having a college degree.  That’s because there is “something” in place to ensure that this happens.

Now, let me say right now that I don’t want to underscore what the people working at the railroad do, but the reality of the situation is that without the railroad Unions being involved, the pay rate for all the non-management jobs would be cut by 40%.  You can look at the job descriptions and you’d know that if the flood gates were opened to allow more people in with no Union standing in the gap propping up wages, then instead of the typical pay for a railroad working ringing in at about $24 p/hour…it would shrink to somewhere closer to $15.  And someone would take it!

Now my point here is that people fight to get these jobs because they pay good.  CSX and the other railroads are turning a happy profit WITHIN A FRAMEWORK which keeps wages at levels where a family can be raised on one income – like in days gone by.

Now the dark side of that coin is that if the Union were EVER to be removed from he picture, then those wages would be pressed down.  The Executives would justify destroying the pay base and the quality of life of those workers and their families by talking about how they only have an allegiance to the shareholders and all that kind of crap.  This means that right now, the shareholders and their Executives are (whether they admit it or not) staring at what they consider to be “excess pay” being doled out to their work force with greedy eyes.  That gap between the $15 p/hour which represents what they think a lowly worker is REALLY worth and the $24 p/hour that they actually are getting paid is profit that should be going to shareholder, not workers.  They want it and if they could take it right now – they would.

Tethering executive pay to the minimum wage would turn this on its head.  Executives would want a raise (just like everyone wants a raise), but they couldn’t do so without getting the minimum wage boosted.  They’d have to be willing to put a whole lot of other people first and find ways to justify backing the minimum wage boost in order to buy that new villa in Tahoe that they want.  So they’d be innovative and find a way to throw their hat in the ring for the little guy.  They’d also do it in such a manner which they would justify to the shareholders.  They would seek a balance between their dual allegiance.

The result would be that wages would increase.  Period.  Companies would still turn a profit just like CSX does.  That level of profit would be tempered though and the result would be better lives for a lot more people.

I’m interested in what others think about this.  Obviously, there are tons of purists who would say that such a change would destroy capitalism, but my response is, if CSX can turn a profit that is satisfactory while paying workers at a much higher level then pretty much any other industry outside of the tech and medical fields – then why can’t other companies do the same?