The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement has no goal and the protests are built on a foundation of ignorance. At the core, protesting Greed, is reasonable and I find nothing wrong with it
I am goal oriented and there is no goal to Occupy Wall Street. That bugs me. It tells me a lot about people though, OWS people are "aversion oriented" and move away from something rather than towards something.
With the current pro-Greed administration it is very doubtful that any actual change will occur. I believe people need to be specific in their goals and at the end I outline 5 goals I think we need to achieve.
Lets address some of the ignorance in the beliefs of the Occupy Wall Street movement. You can find them in the link below.
http://www.alternet.org/story/152629/10_things_to_know_about_wall_street%27s_rapacious_attack_on_america/?page=1
1: Bankers are responsible for the mortgage crash.
Ultimately management is always responsible for problems. What management in the case?
Here is how the mortgage crash occurred. In the late 90's a Republican congress and President Clinton deregulated mortgages so that more people could purchase homes.
As housing demand increased commission based real estate agents pushed housing prices up as far as they could go. Real Estate offices are typically small franchise businesses. Realtors typically make more money brokering a mortgage than they do selling a house. The higher the interest rate the more money the realtor made.
Mortgage brokers are also typically small businesses and the higher the interest rate the more money the mortgage broker made.
Here are two small businesses operating within the law and being as profitable as they could be.
The mortgage brokers sold the mortgages into pools which were offered as investments. Investment organizations such as those on wall street.
So who really screwed up? Appraisers. Why?
As realtors and mortgage brokers were looking to increase housing prices privately contracted appraisers were pressured to appraise homes at inflated values. Those appraisers who did not submit to the pressure were not contracted and went out of business.
Even local governments hated appraisers who submitted realistic appraisals because the real appraisal reduced the local tax base.
Appraisers either supplied the Greed demand or were out of work.
The small business process and failure to monitor real estate appraisals is what caused the crash.
Want to prevent another crash? Make all real estate appraisers employees of the federal government. No regulation on wall street can fix this problem.
This problem was caused by local Greed.
2: The Wall Street crash directly caused the gravest unemployment crisis since the Great Depression.
Not really, although it didn't help. The biggest problem is businesses exporting their manufacturing overseas. 70% of people in the United States do not have a bachelors degree. Most of them are employed in small businesses. The first employment crash occurred when the internet bubble burst. When the mortgage bubble burst construction declined. These both set off chain reactions. A similar thing happened in the 70's when the primary employment for the 70% of people without degrees was in manufacturing. Within about 5 years two economic bubbles burst in the United States creating huge employment issues.
We need balanced and diversified national employment which means government regulation. Sorry folks, this problem is also caused by local greed.
3: Wall Street profited from the bailouts and remains unaccountable:
Can't argue this one, it is absolutely true.
4: The super-rich are getting richer:
Can't argue this one, it is absolutely true.
5: The super-rich are paying lower and lower taxes:
Not from my research, but, I'd be willing to review the research others have done and there is no link or reference to that research. I have reviewed the tax code and the only real issue I see is that the capital gains is fixed at 15% no matter what the income is.
The Democrats in congress are pushing a "millionaire" tax increase, which is a laugh. Look up how many people make over 1 million a year. Most millionaires declare between 150K and 250K a year in income. A millionaire is someone with over one million dollars in assets, not an income of over one million dollars a year. The Senate Democrats are FOS.
Not buying this, but, willing to listen.
6: Financial elites pay lower taxes than their secretaries:
Wording is wrong, some people pay a lower tax rate than others. Correct the wording and I agree.
Capital gains interest rate should increase with income. Under 100K, 15% is fine. After that 100K the normal tax rate applies so about 35% of everything over the first 100K would work for me and the vast majority of retired people living on investments.
This reason has an incorrect basis. the 15% capital gains rate was originally for retirees. The "carried interest" should not be taxed at capital gains rate. That is just lame.
7: None of those who caused the crash have been prosecuted.
True, because it was a bunch of your next door neighbors doing their best to make a profit in their small businesses and none of them broke the law.
8: Wall Street is much too big and its salaries are much too high:
I do not believe "Wall Street" is too big. I'm not sure what "too high" means. For the most part I agree that the amount of money that can be made by Wall Street Brokers is obscene and I think that money needs to be taxed at 35% of everything over 100K up to 1 million. 50% of everything 1 million and above.
The more people make, the more they spend and the more they should be taxed. Period.
9: Wall Street still owns the regulators.
Can't argue this one, it is absolutely true. Wall Street owns Washington, especially the Senate Democrats.
10: Financial innovation is a joke.
Disagree, the mortgage de-regulation in the 90's increased the potential for home ownership. It should have been tempered by making all real estate appraisers Federal Government employees so they only had to answer to the government when they appraised real estate.
There have been many innovations in finance over the years. Back in the 20's mortgages were interest only and balloon payments were common which is why so many family farms were wiped out. Changing mortgages was a financial innovation.
I could write a long time about things like this, but, it would take multiple economic text books to explain t all. This statement is just ignorant.
There they are, 10 reasons to protest without any kind of goal, 3 reasons make sense, 1 could be reasonable. Maybe 40%, the rest is ignorance.
Does that mean people shouldn't protest? No. People should protest.
The Federal government is not going to establish any real estate appraisal regulation because they like the record increases and don't really care about the record crashes. Maybe 1% of people have researched the mortgage crash well enough to know that it was caused by appraisals at maximum possible value. Greed caused the mortgage bubble, greed in the heartland.
Microsoft caused the Internet bubble crash by making their software not work with other companies software. The world is naturally moving away from microshit and into Linux. Advertising driven business models have always succeeded. If Microsoft had played fair instead of being a greedy corporate monster the world would be better off now. Microsoft should be split up the way Ma Bell was.
We need Copyright reform, software should not be covered by copyright, it should be covered by patent law and all code should be open source. Open source and software patents will increase the pace of innovation creating jobs and increasing the national GDP.
The one thing that I agree with is that our financial problems have been caused by Greed and that Greed is bad.
The government should take some action, but, they won't because congress is owned by people with money who make the decisions.
I'd like to see five things accomplished by these protests.
1: Split up Microsoft.
2: All software should be open source and covered only by patents.
3: All Real estate appraisals should be done by employees of the Federal Government.
4: Tax all capital gains over 100K at 35% up to 1 million and then at 50%.
5: Impose a tariff on Chinese imports based on currency exchange rates.
I am really tired of people rejecting each other over ideas. Reject ideas. Do not reject people.
Friday, October 07, 2011
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Being the "best" schooled person
The “Best” myth
One day I told my wife I was the best. She said “says who?”. I had just solved a complicated problem at work that had defied solution. It had become something “impossible” and, as usual, I did the “impossible.”
Her answer made me think though, what is “best”, who decides what is “best”?
The answer is that everyone decides what is “best”.
Best is an opinion, it is not a fact. Someone can be “fastest”, someone can be the “top point scorer”, someone can be the “most accurate shot” and we say things like; “that person is the best runner”, “that person is the best player” or “that person is the best shot”.
Sometimes we say “best of the best”.
At the root of the issue is the belief that “best” can be a fact. “Best” can never be a fact, “best” can only be an opinion based on individual criteria.
So who is “the best”, well, everyone can be the best based on their own criteria or different groups of people can decide on a common criteria for “best”. Not everyone in the world will agree on the criteria or even the words used to describe the criteria.
Pretty wacked out.
The Olympic committee does a pretty good job determining the “best” at a specific sporting competition. Even then not everyone agrees and there are plenty of challenges to the “best” decisions.
Back when Israel was first declared a country by the United Nations the military commissioned all of their officers at a place called Masada.
Back in about 70 A.D. (not C.E.) the Romans destroyed the country of Israel. The last hold outs went to Masada and waited out a Roman siege. The Romans built something called a siege ramp. Essentially a bunch of soldiers walk up to the wall of the city carrying sandbags filled with dirt and drop the dirt. They keep this up 24 hours a day until the pile of dirt has become a ramp leading up to the top of the walls of the city. Once the siege ramp is completed the Romans just walk up and kill everyone who fights and enslave everyone who doesn't.
Just before the siege ramp was completed the people at Masada decided they would rather die than be enslaved. Some of the Israeli soldiers killed everyone, then they killed each other until only one was left and he either fell on his sword or fought with the Romans and died. One of the soldiers hid his family and they told the story of Masada after they were enslaved.
Fast forward to 1948. The new Israeli military decided that they would never again be enslaved the way they were during the Holocaust and that they would all die fighting rather than ever be subjugated or enslaved again. As a result the Israeli military officers were commissioned at Masada so they would know what was expected of them. This was the “best” idea.
Later the Israeli military decided it was a bad idea to keep up this new “best” tradition of Masada, after all the people at Masada did not fight to the death, they killed each other.
The Israeli military came up with a new “best” idea.
This is actually pretty normal. Every twenty years or so people come up with a new “best” idea on how to educate people on healthy eating. Food groups, food pyramids, whatever is “best” or “better”.
The criteria for “best” changes.
In the United States it changes every time there is an election. One administration does what it thinks is “best” and the next administration decides that “best” was crap and they have another idea of “best”. No one in the international community knows what is going to be “best” in the United States next and truthfully, that scares the crap out of people.
Back in 1980 I believed it was “best” to invade Iran and rip that nation apart, then walk out and let them rebuild themselves. No help. I still think a scorched earth policy for Iran would be “best”.
The problem is fear. Other nations are already scared to death that the United States will decide to destroy them. If we implement a scorched Earth policy on Iran it will create an international animosity that will be difficult to overcome. It may be necessary to take over the entire word.
I believe that will eventually happen, but, by then the United States will no longer be a true Republican Democracy, it will be an Elitist Empire similar to what Rome became.
As the United States declines in the international economic community the power structure in Washington D.C. Will hate losing their political power and authority. The “Beltway Power” will implement policies that are designed to maintain their political authority.
Or the United States will eventually become a 2nd (or 3rd) world nation behind China and India.
Why?
Because people in the United States have really screwed up ideas of “best”. A lot of people, about 35% of the adults in the United States, think traditional academic education is “best” and have gotten a bachelors degree or better. Another 65% don't and even when they say education is important they have not made a traditional academic education a priority. This is especially true in lower income economic classes where slang language like “schooled” has developed.
One group of people in the United States think “schooling” is great. Another group of people in the United States used “schooled” as a synonym for humiliation If someone wins a basketball game by a large margin they have “schooled” their opponent. The loser has been “schooled” or humiliated.
An online urban dictionary defines “schooled” as: “Taught a lesson (the hard way), to lose humiliating”.
Some politically correct people try and twist the word “schooled” into something that isn't so bad. Yeah, well, try using that “nicey-nice” definition with some gang bangers and see how they school you on the definition. An experience like that can teach anyone a new “best” way to use a word.
One day I told my wife I was the best. She said “says who?”. I had just solved a complicated problem at work that had defied solution. It had become something “impossible” and, as usual, I did the “impossible.”
Her answer made me think though, what is “best”, who decides what is “best”?
The answer is that everyone decides what is “best”.
Best is an opinion, it is not a fact. Someone can be “fastest”, someone can be the “top point scorer”, someone can be the “most accurate shot” and we say things like; “that person is the best runner”, “that person is the best player” or “that person is the best shot”.
Sometimes we say “best of the best”.
At the root of the issue is the belief that “best” can be a fact. “Best” can never be a fact, “best” can only be an opinion based on individual criteria.
So who is “the best”, well, everyone can be the best based on their own criteria or different groups of people can decide on a common criteria for “best”. Not everyone in the world will agree on the criteria or even the words used to describe the criteria.
Pretty wacked out.
The Olympic committee does a pretty good job determining the “best” at a specific sporting competition. Even then not everyone agrees and there are plenty of challenges to the “best” decisions.
Back when Israel was first declared a country by the United Nations the military commissioned all of their officers at a place called Masada.
Back in about 70 A.D. (not C.E.) the Romans destroyed the country of Israel. The last hold outs went to Masada and waited out a Roman siege. The Romans built something called a siege ramp. Essentially a bunch of soldiers walk up to the wall of the city carrying sandbags filled with dirt and drop the dirt. They keep this up 24 hours a day until the pile of dirt has become a ramp leading up to the top of the walls of the city. Once the siege ramp is completed the Romans just walk up and kill everyone who fights and enslave everyone who doesn't.
Just before the siege ramp was completed the people at Masada decided they would rather die than be enslaved. Some of the Israeli soldiers killed everyone, then they killed each other until only one was left and he either fell on his sword or fought with the Romans and died. One of the soldiers hid his family and they told the story of Masada after they were enslaved.
Fast forward to 1948. The new Israeli military decided that they would never again be enslaved the way they were during the Holocaust and that they would all die fighting rather than ever be subjugated or enslaved again. As a result the Israeli military officers were commissioned at Masada so they would know what was expected of them. This was the “best” idea.
Later the Israeli military decided it was a bad idea to keep up this new “best” tradition of Masada, after all the people at Masada did not fight to the death, they killed each other.
The Israeli military came up with a new “best” idea.
This is actually pretty normal. Every twenty years or so people come up with a new “best” idea on how to educate people on healthy eating. Food groups, food pyramids, whatever is “best” or “better”.
The criteria for “best” changes.
In the United States it changes every time there is an election. One administration does what it thinks is “best” and the next administration decides that “best” was crap and they have another idea of “best”. No one in the international community knows what is going to be “best” in the United States next and truthfully, that scares the crap out of people.
Back in 1980 I believed it was “best” to invade Iran and rip that nation apart, then walk out and let them rebuild themselves. No help. I still think a scorched earth policy for Iran would be “best”.
The problem is fear. Other nations are already scared to death that the United States will decide to destroy them. If we implement a scorched Earth policy on Iran it will create an international animosity that will be difficult to overcome. It may be necessary to take over the entire word.
I believe that will eventually happen, but, by then the United States will no longer be a true Republican Democracy, it will be an Elitist Empire similar to what Rome became.
As the United States declines in the international economic community the power structure in Washington D.C. Will hate losing their political power and authority. The “Beltway Power” will implement policies that are designed to maintain their political authority.
Or the United States will eventually become a 2nd (or 3rd) world nation behind China and India.
Why?
Because people in the United States have really screwed up ideas of “best”. A lot of people, about 35% of the adults in the United States, think traditional academic education is “best” and have gotten a bachelors degree or better. Another 65% don't and even when they say education is important they have not made a traditional academic education a priority. This is especially true in lower income economic classes where slang language like “schooled” has developed.
One group of people in the United States think “schooling” is great. Another group of people in the United States used “schooled” as a synonym for humiliation If someone wins a basketball game by a large margin they have “schooled” their opponent. The loser has been “schooled” or humiliated.
An online urban dictionary defines “schooled” as: “Taught a lesson (the hard way), to lose humiliating”.
Some politically correct people try and twist the word “schooled” into something that isn't so bad. Yeah, well, try using that “nicey-nice” definition with some gang bangers and see how they school you on the definition. An experience like that can teach anyone a new “best” way to use a word.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Evolution, Darwin, Anthropology and ignorance
I was on a message board once and some ignorant person told me that they had a bachelors of science in evolution.
I almost fell out of my easy chair laughing. I pointed out that no one even gives classes in evolution much less degrees. The theory of evolution grew out of the study of anthropology.
Darwin's doctorate was in a field called "Natural History". I doubt if anyone actually gives degrees in this field anymore. Natural History was a combination of Biology, Environmental Science and Anthropology. Essentially, if you studied the world outside of your door you were studying Natural History. Today the closest thing to what Darwin studied is a BS science course typically taken by people getting a liberal arts degree called "life sciences" or something like that.
Darwin's field of study was very broad and this is one of the reasons he was able to develop a theory that was acceptable to the scientific community.
Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution. That idea had been around for at least hundreds and probably thousands of years.
Darwin presented a well written theory at a time when the world scientific and educational communities were willing to listen to it.
Evolution of humans is not a fact, it is a theory with a solid foundation in scientific evidence.
There are examples of mutations of "species" occurring and then dominating over previous "species" in lesser forms of cellular life. These experiments support the probability of evolution out in the natural world.
The current heated debate between evolution and creationism, religion and atheism gives the world an opportunity to see the destructiveness of closed minded thought.
Recently a teacher began punishing students for saying "God Bless You" because, he claimed, that in the past people believed that sneezing expelled evil spirits from the body and since we "know" that sneezing is not caused by a person expelling evil spirits from their body the use of blessing is "wrong".
First, we do not know any such thing. There is a large body of scientific evidence for the causes of sneezes. There is no evidence and no way to prove that a sneeze is never caused by a body attempting to expel evil spirits.
The very idea that we can dismiss a possibility as ridiculous is a rejection of the scientific method.
Understand this. The rejection of any potential possibility from consideration because of personal beliefs is a rejection of the scientific method.
Does that mean we should invest a great deal of time and money into experimentation surrounding the theory that sneezing is caused by the body attempting to expel evil spirits? Not in my opinion.
The theory of evolution was ridiculed and dismissed by many scientists and scholars based on belief systems.
Instead of learning from our human history of the rejection of theories based on belief structures this world has turned once again to the rejection of theories based on belief structures.
Is there any evidence evil spirits do not exist?
The answer is no.
Using the scientific method evil spirits causing sneezes must be considered as a possibility. Based on the difficulty in proving the theory of evil spirits causing sneezes I suggest giving this cause and effect study an extremely low priority.
That does not mean that eventually someone will not eventually prove that evil spirits do cause sneezes. It means that I am not going to study the subject at this time.
There is ALWAYS a belief within the "educated" community that they completely understand all of the potential variables.
We don't and that is why we can't dismiss evil spirits as the cause of some sneezes.
This is also why we can't raise the theory of evolution from a theory to a fact. We did not observe and document the evolution of man so we can only theorize based on variables that we currently understand.
Understanding that we, as a species, are always ignorant of some of the potential variables that are influencing the outcome is one of the most important features of the scientific method.
Yes, we attempt to create very stringent experiments in which all variables are documented and controlled. Sometimes these experiments are not reproducible and this leads us to understand that we have failed to document and/or control a variable. Our experimentation has resulted in the discovery of a previously unknown, to the experimenter, variable.
What happens when we have reproduced an experiment a hundred times and suddenly the experiment will not reproduce? Once again we have discovered an uncontrolled variable that was undocumented and had not coincidentally not changed in the previous one hundred experiments. Does that happen? Yes, occasionally.
There are two main foundations theoretical to the scientific method. Don't reject a possibility. Don't ever assume you completely understand all the variables.
In the world of investment where we invest time and money in experimentation because we do not have limitless resources decisions must be made to direct available resources to those experiments most likely, in the researchers mind, to produce results.
The balance between pure science and available resources.
In the middle or "dark" ages between about 800 A.D. and 1400 A.D. the Catholic Church was the primary source of funding for educational research and the primary publisher.
There were some rich "patrons" who were fascinated by specific areas of research. Typically these people were heavily invested with the Church because the Catholic Church was the strongest political body in Europe during this time.
When the printing press was invented people like Galileo could go to a printing house and have their research papers printed. Prior the to development of the printing press papers were published by scribes sitting at desks and these scribes typically worked for the Catholic Church.
Just an FYI, the "entire world" was not influenced by the "dark ages", just Europe and not even all of Europe at that.
The Catholic Church ridiculed research that conflicted with their beliefs, which is exactly the same thing this teacher who is punishing students for saying "God Bless You" is doing.
Our species has refused to learn from previous mistakes, rejects the scientific method and continues to suppress ideas based on personal belief systems.
DNA. Fact right? Nope. DNA is a theory. Essentially many experiments were done, not all were documented, not all documented were successful, and the preponderance of evidence suggests that each person has an individual DNA, blah, blah, blah.
Sounds pretty "iffy" right? The theory behind DNA is not quite as "iffy" as I make it sound even though everything I said is true.
The problem is that none of these experiments were done on thousands of people. These experiments were conducted on "statistically significant" samples and generated a statistical profile.
I won't get into statistics right now, except to say that the math behind statistics is very, very good and very, very accurate. It is not "perfect".
So what should we do to make sure the statistical experimentation matches real world results so we can identify potentially undocumented and uncontrolled variables.
We need to have a really huge data base filled with DNA and physical characteristic information and then we look for "flyers". Flyers are data that does not match the statistical predictions.
None of those in DNA, right? Wrong. Evidence suggests that there are. You can research it on the web if you want.
The potential problem with DNA is not the experimentation conducted. The potential problem with DNA is not the statistical math. The problem is that experimental sample sizes are very small when compared to a world population of billions of people.
In the legal community DNA theory has become a legal fact. Probability is that it should be a "legal fact". Probability. Not certainty.
People have a bad habit of being "certain" about things. Lawyers especially demand "certainty".
The more certain people are that they are correct the more I question the basis for their ideas.
A teacher suppressing religion is every bit as evil as a priest suppressing educational research.
In reality "anything is possible" even though very few things are probable.
The greatest tool we have against ignorance is refusing to suppress possibilities based on our beliefs.
I almost fell out of my easy chair laughing. I pointed out that no one even gives classes in evolution much less degrees. The theory of evolution grew out of the study of anthropology.
Darwin's doctorate was in a field called "Natural History". I doubt if anyone actually gives degrees in this field anymore. Natural History was a combination of Biology, Environmental Science and Anthropology. Essentially, if you studied the world outside of your door you were studying Natural History. Today the closest thing to what Darwin studied is a BS science course typically taken by people getting a liberal arts degree called "life sciences" or something like that.
Darwin's field of study was very broad and this is one of the reasons he was able to develop a theory that was acceptable to the scientific community.
Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution. That idea had been around for at least hundreds and probably thousands of years.
Darwin presented a well written theory at a time when the world scientific and educational communities were willing to listen to it.
Evolution of humans is not a fact, it is a theory with a solid foundation in scientific evidence.
There are examples of mutations of "species" occurring and then dominating over previous "species" in lesser forms of cellular life. These experiments support the probability of evolution out in the natural world.
The current heated debate between evolution and creationism, religion and atheism gives the world an opportunity to see the destructiveness of closed minded thought.
Recently a teacher began punishing students for saying "God Bless You" because, he claimed, that in the past people believed that sneezing expelled evil spirits from the body and since we "know" that sneezing is not caused by a person expelling evil spirits from their body the use of blessing is "wrong".
First, we do not know any such thing. There is a large body of scientific evidence for the causes of sneezes. There is no evidence and no way to prove that a sneeze is never caused by a body attempting to expel evil spirits.
The very idea that we can dismiss a possibility as ridiculous is a rejection of the scientific method.
Understand this. The rejection of any potential possibility from consideration because of personal beliefs is a rejection of the scientific method.
Does that mean we should invest a great deal of time and money into experimentation surrounding the theory that sneezing is caused by the body attempting to expel evil spirits? Not in my opinion.
The theory of evolution was ridiculed and dismissed by many scientists and scholars based on belief systems.
Instead of learning from our human history of the rejection of theories based on belief structures this world has turned once again to the rejection of theories based on belief structures.
Is there any evidence evil spirits do not exist?
The answer is no.
Using the scientific method evil spirits causing sneezes must be considered as a possibility. Based on the difficulty in proving the theory of evil spirits causing sneezes I suggest giving this cause and effect study an extremely low priority.
That does not mean that eventually someone will not eventually prove that evil spirits do cause sneezes. It means that I am not going to study the subject at this time.
There is ALWAYS a belief within the "educated" community that they completely understand all of the potential variables.
We don't and that is why we can't dismiss evil spirits as the cause of some sneezes.
This is also why we can't raise the theory of evolution from a theory to a fact. We did not observe and document the evolution of man so we can only theorize based on variables that we currently understand.
Understanding that we, as a species, are always ignorant of some of the potential variables that are influencing the outcome is one of the most important features of the scientific method.
Yes, we attempt to create very stringent experiments in which all variables are documented and controlled. Sometimes these experiments are not reproducible and this leads us to understand that we have failed to document and/or control a variable. Our experimentation has resulted in the discovery of a previously unknown, to the experimenter, variable.
What happens when we have reproduced an experiment a hundred times and suddenly the experiment will not reproduce? Once again we have discovered an uncontrolled variable that was undocumented and had not coincidentally not changed in the previous one hundred experiments. Does that happen? Yes, occasionally.
There are two main foundations theoretical to the scientific method. Don't reject a possibility. Don't ever assume you completely understand all the variables.
In the world of investment where we invest time and money in experimentation because we do not have limitless resources decisions must be made to direct available resources to those experiments most likely, in the researchers mind, to produce results.
The balance between pure science and available resources.
In the middle or "dark" ages between about 800 A.D. and 1400 A.D. the Catholic Church was the primary source of funding for educational research and the primary publisher.
There were some rich "patrons" who were fascinated by specific areas of research. Typically these people were heavily invested with the Church because the Catholic Church was the strongest political body in Europe during this time.
When the printing press was invented people like Galileo could go to a printing house and have their research papers printed. Prior the to development of the printing press papers were published by scribes sitting at desks and these scribes typically worked for the Catholic Church.
Just an FYI, the "entire world" was not influenced by the "dark ages", just Europe and not even all of Europe at that.
The Catholic Church ridiculed research that conflicted with their beliefs, which is exactly the same thing this teacher who is punishing students for saying "God Bless You" is doing.
Our species has refused to learn from previous mistakes, rejects the scientific method and continues to suppress ideas based on personal belief systems.
DNA. Fact right? Nope. DNA is a theory. Essentially many experiments were done, not all were documented, not all documented were successful, and the preponderance of evidence suggests that each person has an individual DNA, blah, blah, blah.
Sounds pretty "iffy" right? The theory behind DNA is not quite as "iffy" as I make it sound even though everything I said is true.
The problem is that none of these experiments were done on thousands of people. These experiments were conducted on "statistically significant" samples and generated a statistical profile.
I won't get into statistics right now, except to say that the math behind statistics is very, very good and very, very accurate. It is not "perfect".
So what should we do to make sure the statistical experimentation matches real world results so we can identify potentially undocumented and uncontrolled variables.
We need to have a really huge data base filled with DNA and physical characteristic information and then we look for "flyers". Flyers are data that does not match the statistical predictions.
None of those in DNA, right? Wrong. Evidence suggests that there are. You can research it on the web if you want.
The potential problem with DNA is not the experimentation conducted. The potential problem with DNA is not the statistical math. The problem is that experimental sample sizes are very small when compared to a world population of billions of people.
In the legal community DNA theory has become a legal fact. Probability is that it should be a "legal fact". Probability. Not certainty.
People have a bad habit of being "certain" about things. Lawyers especially demand "certainty".
The more certain people are that they are correct the more I question the basis for their ideas.
A teacher suppressing religion is every bit as evil as a priest suppressing educational research.
In reality "anything is possible" even though very few things are probable.
The greatest tool we have against ignorance is refusing to suppress possibilities based on our beliefs.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Directed Energy Weapons and 9/11
There is a lot of crap out on the Internet about how a Directed Energy Weapon was used to take out Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.
Is it possible? Yes.
Is it likely? No.
We have been aware that High Energy Radio Frequency is capable of disrupting the electronics on aircraft for many years. Military aircraft are built with protections against attacks from both High and Low Energy Radio Frequency interference. Commercial aircraft are susceptible to attacks by Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) such as a High Energy Radio Frequency (HERF) system.
Lets suppose that the military had developed an accurate HERF DEW and installed it in a large number of fighter jets used exclusively to protect the skies of the United States against terrorist attacks by commercial airliners.
Not very likely. Before 9-11 using a commercial airliner to crash into a building was a fictional creation used by Tom Clancy. It was not something seriously considered by agencies involved in protecting the United States from terrorism.
Okay, so there were not large numbers of fighter jets with equipment designed to destroy private or commercial aircraft installed.
Maybe there were just a few in Washington D.C that could be used to protect against small “airplane” bombs?
This is something I also doubt. Sure, airplane bombs are popular in fiction. As far as I know no small plane has ever been turned into a bomb and used in a terrorist attack. None.
What happens when someone crashes a small private plane into a house? Not much as it turns out. Maybe a fire. Maybe. What happens when someone crashes a small plane into a commercial building? Even less. What happens when someone crashes a small plane into a hardened government building? You get the idea, even less.
I won't get into the possibilities here and how damage occurs.
What matters here is that governments are typically reactive. It isn't a problem unless it becomes a problem. Typically democratic governments do not respond to reality, they respond to voter perceptions. It isn't a problem until voters believe it is a problem.
People don't care about guns until they watch a bunch of movies with people shooting each other up with guns and then a bunch of propagandists tell them guns are really dangerous. Once people are afraid they typically react with anger and make a bunch of demands.
So the process is, something happens, people perceive a threat to their safety, people become angry and people demand something be done. If the people are voters and there are enough of them the government reacts and makes a law.
The point is nothing is done until something is perceived as a problem.
Maybe the military did perceive of airplanes being used as bombs. Maybe the military decided Washington D.C. was the primary potential target of airplane bombs. Maybe a DEW like a HERF system was installed in a few fighter jets in the D.C. area. Maybe one of these took down flight 93. Maybe no one told anyone because they were afraid of the political fallout so they made the people on flight 93 a bunch of heroes.
Probably not.
Improvised Explosives were being used in Bosnia, Africa and the Middle East for years before the United States went into Afghanistan and Iraq. The military prepared really well for those. I doubt if they did any better with airplane bombs.
Maybe a bunch of politicians or the Secret Service demanded that the military prepare for private or commercial aircraft used as plane bombs? Really? You think some politician who had been involved in getting ready for this kind of attack wouldn't have been very vocal about it after 9-11?
Maybe the Secret Service decided they might not have enough time to move the president away from an attack by a plane bomb and felt the best option was to rely on the military for taking out those kinds of threats. Having met a secret service agent once I don't think those guys would turn over any kind of responsibility to anyone.
Do you see how many “ifs” and “maybes” that is? Do you see how many inconsistencies in behavior have to be accounted for?
Can you imagine how many people would have to keep their mouths shut to keep a conspiracy like that quiet?
I know the 9-11 “the government brought down the towers” nut cases think a conspiracy like that can be kept quiet. I don't think so. A conspiracy like bringing down the towers or shooting down Flight 93 would take so many people that it would be impossible to keep quiet. Look how many secrets the US government has had leak.
Would any politician or government official take the chance on a secret like that leaking? Not a chance. The probability is that once some scumbag politician heard of the conspiracy they would leak it and make themselves into a hero.
I would have to believe that the United States government was capable of making accurate predictions and keeping secrets far better than their track record leads me to believe they are for me to believe in these kinds of conspiracy.
Sure NASA has done some amazing large group project management. Secrecy is typically minimal and these projects do not require prophetic predictions.
Small groups are capable of predicting future events with some accuracy. Small groups are capable of secrecy. The bigger the deal, the more secrecy and the more prophetic qualities required the less likely it is to happen.
I just don't think of the United States government as being competent enough at prediction and secrecy to do anything like these conspiracies.
Is it possible? Yes.
Is it likely? No.
We have been aware that High Energy Radio Frequency is capable of disrupting the electronics on aircraft for many years. Military aircraft are built with protections against attacks from both High and Low Energy Radio Frequency interference. Commercial aircraft are susceptible to attacks by Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) such as a High Energy Radio Frequency (HERF) system.
Lets suppose that the military had developed an accurate HERF DEW and installed it in a large number of fighter jets used exclusively to protect the skies of the United States against terrorist attacks by commercial airliners.
Not very likely. Before 9-11 using a commercial airliner to crash into a building was a fictional creation used by Tom Clancy. It was not something seriously considered by agencies involved in protecting the United States from terrorism.
Okay, so there were not large numbers of fighter jets with equipment designed to destroy private or commercial aircraft installed.
Maybe there were just a few in Washington D.C that could be used to protect against small “airplane” bombs?
This is something I also doubt. Sure, airplane bombs are popular in fiction. As far as I know no small plane has ever been turned into a bomb and used in a terrorist attack. None.
What happens when someone crashes a small private plane into a house? Not much as it turns out. Maybe a fire. Maybe. What happens when someone crashes a small plane into a commercial building? Even less. What happens when someone crashes a small plane into a hardened government building? You get the idea, even less.
I won't get into the possibilities here and how damage occurs.
What matters here is that governments are typically reactive. It isn't a problem unless it becomes a problem. Typically democratic governments do not respond to reality, they respond to voter perceptions. It isn't a problem until voters believe it is a problem.
People don't care about guns until they watch a bunch of movies with people shooting each other up with guns and then a bunch of propagandists tell them guns are really dangerous. Once people are afraid they typically react with anger and make a bunch of demands.
So the process is, something happens, people perceive a threat to their safety, people become angry and people demand something be done. If the people are voters and there are enough of them the government reacts and makes a law.
The point is nothing is done until something is perceived as a problem.
Maybe the military did perceive of airplanes being used as bombs. Maybe the military decided Washington D.C. was the primary potential target of airplane bombs. Maybe a DEW like a HERF system was installed in a few fighter jets in the D.C. area. Maybe one of these took down flight 93. Maybe no one told anyone because they were afraid of the political fallout so they made the people on flight 93 a bunch of heroes.
Probably not.
Improvised Explosives were being used in Bosnia, Africa and the Middle East for years before the United States went into Afghanistan and Iraq. The military prepared really well for those. I doubt if they did any better with airplane bombs.
Maybe a bunch of politicians or the Secret Service demanded that the military prepare for private or commercial aircraft used as plane bombs? Really? You think some politician who had been involved in getting ready for this kind of attack wouldn't have been very vocal about it after 9-11?
Maybe the Secret Service decided they might not have enough time to move the president away from an attack by a plane bomb and felt the best option was to rely on the military for taking out those kinds of threats. Having met a secret service agent once I don't think those guys would turn over any kind of responsibility to anyone.
Do you see how many “ifs” and “maybes” that is? Do you see how many inconsistencies in behavior have to be accounted for?
Can you imagine how many people would have to keep their mouths shut to keep a conspiracy like that quiet?
I know the 9-11 “the government brought down the towers” nut cases think a conspiracy like that can be kept quiet. I don't think so. A conspiracy like bringing down the towers or shooting down Flight 93 would take so many people that it would be impossible to keep quiet. Look how many secrets the US government has had leak.
Would any politician or government official take the chance on a secret like that leaking? Not a chance. The probability is that once some scumbag politician heard of the conspiracy they would leak it and make themselves into a hero.
I would have to believe that the United States government was capable of making accurate predictions and keeping secrets far better than their track record leads me to believe they are for me to believe in these kinds of conspiracy.
Sure NASA has done some amazing large group project management. Secrecy is typically minimal and these projects do not require prophetic predictions.
Small groups are capable of predicting future events with some accuracy. Small groups are capable of secrecy. The bigger the deal, the more secrecy and the more prophetic qualities required the less likely it is to happen.
I just don't think of the United States government as being competent enough at prediction and secrecy to do anything like these conspiracies.
The corrupt US legal system
The legal system in the United States is about as corrupt as a legal system can be. I don't mean that people are constantly being paid off although I am sure that happens as often in the United States as it happens anywhere else. In the United States and in other nations there are networks of connected people that influence the outcome of the legal system of their nation.
It could be something as simple as a defense attorney talking a defendant into pleading guilty because the defense attorney does not want to take the time to go to trial or does not want to spend time that will be not be paid for defending a client that the attorney believes is probably guilty.
Many people, including attorneys, believe that if a person is arrested by the police they are guilty regardless of the legal “presumption of innocence”.
Quite often cops will say something like “not getting an arrest or a conviction does not mean we don't know who did it, it means we couldn't prove it”. This indicates a publicly declared corruption of the ideals of the law enforcement portion of our legal system. Instead of a presumption of innocence until proved guilty in a court of law many law enforcement officers are declaring a presumption of guilt exists which is a corruption of the US legal system.
Currently a person is arrested and if that person does not plead guilty a trial is scheduled, typically in front of a jury.
Why does the jury have to be present at the trial? The US constitution promises a trial by jury and not a trial in front of a jury.
Judges and attorneys preform in front of juries. Juries do not decide verdicts based on facts or evidence they decide verdicts based on presentation and performance skills.
A trial could happen in front of a judge without a jury present.
Once concluded a jury could be selected and the trial transcripts given to them and also read to them, preferably by a computer without any vocal bias. Before the jury even sees the evidence any appeals based on a judges ruling on evidence could be completed. All statements that are not appropriate witness statements could be removed from the transcript. The jury verdict would be decided on the final evidence presented alone.
No deals. Every arrest results in a trial by jury. The amount of time the jury is in session could be minimized. A representative of the judge could be available to answer jury questions and provide anything a jury needs or wants.
Juries should be selected from outside of the community where the crime occurred. If a crime has received national attention a jury could be selected from a co-operating international partner nation. Since the jury never actually sees the defendant or the lawyers involved the judgment becomes more objective and less subjective.
The United States won't do anything like this. It would reduce the potential for corruption in a system that enjoys being corrupted.
It could be something as simple as a defense attorney talking a defendant into pleading guilty because the defense attorney does not want to take the time to go to trial or does not want to spend time that will be not be paid for defending a client that the attorney believes is probably guilty.
Many people, including attorneys, believe that if a person is arrested by the police they are guilty regardless of the legal “presumption of innocence”.
Quite often cops will say something like “not getting an arrest or a conviction does not mean we don't know who did it, it means we couldn't prove it”. This indicates a publicly declared corruption of the ideals of the law enforcement portion of our legal system. Instead of a presumption of innocence until proved guilty in a court of law many law enforcement officers are declaring a presumption of guilt exists which is a corruption of the US legal system.
Currently a person is arrested and if that person does not plead guilty a trial is scheduled, typically in front of a jury.
Why does the jury have to be present at the trial? The US constitution promises a trial by jury and not a trial in front of a jury.
Judges and attorneys preform in front of juries. Juries do not decide verdicts based on facts or evidence they decide verdicts based on presentation and performance skills.
A trial could happen in front of a judge without a jury present.
Once concluded a jury could be selected and the trial transcripts given to them and also read to them, preferably by a computer without any vocal bias. Before the jury even sees the evidence any appeals based on a judges ruling on evidence could be completed. All statements that are not appropriate witness statements could be removed from the transcript. The jury verdict would be decided on the final evidence presented alone.
No deals. Every arrest results in a trial by jury. The amount of time the jury is in session could be minimized. A representative of the judge could be available to answer jury questions and provide anything a jury needs or wants.
Juries should be selected from outside of the community where the crime occurred. If a crime has received national attention a jury could be selected from a co-operating international partner nation. Since the jury never actually sees the defendant or the lawyers involved the judgment becomes more objective and less subjective.
The United States won't do anything like this. It would reduce the potential for corruption in a system that enjoys being corrupted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
