Laissez-Faire Evolution?

Instead of tinkering with evolution like the Intelligent Designers believe, I believe God instead built inside organisms a “program” that evolves organisms to higher complexity. This way evolution is directed, creative and takes a lot less energy. He doesn’t always have to be modifying the genes all the time.

In other words evolution would be like the free-market system. Free to evolve without much intervention.

Actually the idea about evolution going from lower to higher complexity is not new.  French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin proposed that the universe evolves to a point called the Omega Point.  Of course, that’s just a theory like my idea of evolution. Knowing the mind of God is always a tricky business.

A Personal Congressional Pledge

The following is what I think a pledge from congressional candidate should give to voters. Some of these promises could even be given from a presidential candidate. None of the promises I think are partisan. Any party can state these promises. They are not unreasonable. Here are the promises:

While in office:

I will only raise my salary if the budget is balanced.

I will read the entire bill I vote on. If not given enough reasonable time to read the bill then I will vote against it.

If I don’t understand any bill or any repercussions of any bill I read then I will vote against it.

I will thoroughly research any bill I write or co-sponsor.

I will not add any riders on any bill.

I will not take any money, trips or any other gifts from any organization.

I will not pit one group of Americans against another.

I will show up for every vote on any bill. I will not vote abstain.

I will not lie to or mislead the American people about the contents any bill I write or sponsor.

I will not vote for, sponsor, or co-sponsor any bill that violates the Constitution.

I will not call my political opponents “enemies.”

I believe this is a good start for promises. Some of them might be tough to do. Then again it is always the politicians that say the American people have to sacrifice.

Democrats pressing Obama not to run again

From WND.com (Oct. 27):

Some senior personalities in the Democratic Party have discussed with President Obama's advisers the possibility of him not running for re-election in 2012, according to an influential Democratic Party operative speaking on condition of anonymity.

The operative, who is close to the Democratic leadership, did not indicate whether Obama was undecided about running again. [read more]

I wonder who is going to run for president in his place? Hillary possibly? Dick Morris has speculated that if the Dems lose both houses by record margins, and Obama’s approval falls below 40% that the party leadership will look for another presidential contender ie Hillary.

Ratings might not be the real reason Obama might not run again. He might not like being president—he likes the power and prestige but that’s all. Also, Michelle Obama might not want him to run again either. That’s the rumor anyway.

Either way it would have to be a personal reason. After all it was Harry Reid’s idea for him to run in the first place.

A Peek Inside The Chinese Communist Party

The following snippets are from the book The Party. The Secret World of China’s Communist Rulers (2010) by Richard McGregor:

The Party is like God. He is everywhere. You just can’t see him.  -- A university professor in Beijing.  Most totalitarian systems are like this. Although, the Soviet Union I think wasn’t so invisible.

The word ‘democracy’ is banned in web searches.  This says it all.

The Party has substituted a kind of take-it-or-leave it compact with society.  If you play by the Party’s rules, which means eschewing competitive politics, then you and your family can get on with your lives and maybe get rich. Maybe? Hmmm. Sounds kind of like the American Left.

The more senior an official is, the more difficult it is for the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection to gain approval to investigate them.  To investigate a person, the Commission has to get permission from the person’s supervisor. So, if you’re the Chairman you have nothing to worry about. If you are a low level bureaucrat you are SOL unless your boss really likes you. This is the perfect system for corruption. Then again those in power find ways to protect themselves.

The Party could be unusually pro-business, as long as the state got a cut along the way.  Got a cut along the way? Sounds like a shake-down. Something a criminal mob or gang would do.

The Party invited entrepreneurs to join it, while intimidating and jailing business leaders who fall foul of it. Real nice.

Improving The Flat Tax Plan

Opponents of the Flat Tax plan (mainly those who advocate the FairTax) say that it has been done before and that’s how we got the Progressive tax system we have now. That is true but there is a way to keep that from happening again.

What Congress needs to do is once they propose a flat tax--like the one that Steve Forbes proposed--is to state in the bill that it can never ever be progressive. That is you tax everyone at the same rate.  If you raise the tax rate you raise it on everyone equally. I dare Congress to raise the tax rate to 40% on the middle and lower classes and justify it with a straight face. Then again the Progressives would say the taxpayers have to sacrifice. When does Congress ever make sacrifices? Hardly ever.

Using a Complex Systems Approach to Study Educational Policy

ScienceDaily (Oct. 10, 2010) —

Educational policy is controversial: positions on achievement gaps, troubled schools and class size are emotionally charged, and research studies often come to very different conclusions.

Researchers at Northwestern University's McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science and School of Education and Social Policy argue in an article published Oct. 1 in the journal Science that such an approach can help integrate insights and better inform educational policy. By breaking down policies into simple rules and computationally modeling them under different conditions, professors Uri Wilensky and Luis Amaral have found a promising new way to understand policy issues such as school choice and student tracking.

But to get a complete view of education, researchers must use methods that integrate insights about micro-level processes (the student) with macro-level outcomes (student achievement). To do this, Wilensky and Amaral look at education as a complex system: a system with many interacting parts that only can be understood by examining the interactions of the parts and the networks that connect them. Knowledge of the parts alone doesn't lead to understanding of the whole system. [read more]

Sounds promising. Too bad the article did not have a diagram of the system in study with the article. Oh, well.

What the research group found out was low achievers tend to do better in a group with high achievers.

Computer 'Trained' to Classify Pictures and Videos Basing on Elements They Contain

From ScienceDaily (Oct. 13, 2010):

University of Granada researchers have developed a new computer technique that allows to "train" computers to interpret the visual contents of a video or picture. This advance will allow to classify automatically pictures basing on whether individuals or specific objects are present in such images. Videos can also be classified according to specific poses.

Apart from detecting individuals in TV video/film shots, this new technique allows to estimate the position of upper limbs (head, chest, arms and forearms) and the automatic classification of video scenes where people appear in a specific pose. Human actions such as walking, jumping, bending down, etc. can also be detected in video sequences. [read more]

Interesting. Just to have the pgm recognize images in pictures is hard enough, but have it recognize images in videos is impressive.

Why scientific programming does not compute

From Nature.com (Oct. 13):

Researchers are spending more and more time writing computer software to model biological structures, simulate the early evolution of the Universe and analyze past climate data, among other topics. But programming experts have little faith that most scientists are up to the task.

A quarter of a century ago, most of the computing work done by scientists was relatively straightforward. But as computers and programming tools have grown more complex, scientists have hit a "steep learning curve", says James Hack, director of the US National Center for Computational Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. "The level of effort and skills needed to keep up aren't in the wheelhouse of the average scientist."

As a general rule, researchers do not test or document their programs rigorously, and they rarely release their codes, making it almost impossible to reproduce and verify published results generated by scientific software, say computer scientists. At best, poorly written programs cause researchers such as Harry to waste valuable time and energy. But the coding problems can sometimes cause substantial harm, and have forced some scientists to retract papers. [read more]

The moral of this article is that just because you are smart in one area does not mean you are smart in other areas. Even Einstein had trouble figuring out his taxes.

Having a computer science degree I was taught to document any procedure especially document why a routine was written. No programmer likes to do this but it is important if any other programmer after you is going to understand your code. Especially, if he or she is going to update it later on.

Testing the program is really important. You want the pgm to run correctly and not produce erroneous errors. It's too bad that Congress does not think hard about the side effects of the bills they pass. If you think about it legislation or laws in a way are like the program of the country. Wrong laws make the country work ineffectively. But I digress...

A computer scientist in the article did a survey of 1,000 scientists in different fields. He found out that only 47% of scientists have a good understanding of software testing. They should if they are going to write software to test a theory. The theory and the software program are equal to one another. You want the pgm to be solid as possible or it makes your theory look weak.

Mexico to Build Southern Border Fence

From NumbersUSA.com (Oct. 6):

Mexico, which often criticizes the American government for putting up barriers which restrict the flow of illegal immigrants across the U.S. - Mexico border is building a fence of its own along its southern border with Guatemala.

It has been reported that the head of the Mexican Superintendency of Tax Administration, Raul Diaz, confirmed that the Mexican government is building a wall along the Mexican - Guatemalan border. Diaz stated the official reason for building the border wall is to stop illegal drugs from coming into Mexico, but Diaz did admit that it could also prevent the free passage of illegal immigrants. [read more]

I have only one thing to say: The Mexico gov't is racist! Just joking, but whenever someone in America wants a wall or a fence (like me) along the border that's what the open border people say. Some say, the illegals will just go over or under the wall. Nothing will stop them perfectly. But it will slow them down. They won't be able to just walk across the border. They have to bring along a ladder or shovel won't they? Carrying those items in the heat of the desert can wear out a person. Heck, put a fence along the Canadian border too. Fine with me.

Or if Nevada wants police to stop people who are committing a crime and ask them if they are illegal or not. They are racists. (On a side note, if a Hispanic police officer stops someone for a traffic violation and asks if that person if he is illegal or not is the officer a racist? Just wondering, but I digress...)

As Representative Ted Poe from Texas said:

Every country has the right to defend its border. We should stop listening to anything President Calderon says and do what's right for our country.

I completely agree.

Other Separations of State

People talk about the separation of church and state. That's fine although that phrase was never in the Constitution. Basically that means the gov't cannot create a state-owned religion. If that happens then you have the church elders basically endorsing whatever beliefs the gov't has right or wrong. The first amendment does not mean politicians cannot be moral or have religion. That would dangerous and ludicrous. Since power corrupts I would think you would want the most ethical politician you can vote for.
But I think there should be other "separations" like:

• The separation of business and state. Gov't should not be choosing winners and losers by subsidizing businesses it likes and over regulating businesses it doesn't like. That's the free market's job to choose winners and losers. Once you have crony-capitalism then have businesses attempting to influence Congress for their own benefit.
• The separation of science and state. Gov't shouldn't deciding what is good and bad science by funding a specific research program. When does that it shuts down almost all other avenues of research on a particular problem. In dictatorships, science becomes another part of its propaganda machine. It uses science to justify whatever beliefs it has about nature.
• The separation of the fine arts and state. You want gov't deciding what's good and bad art? In dictatorships, the fine arts become just a propaganda tool (think of the statue of Saddam Husein) and whatever art it deems offensive or critical to the state (read: the dictator) it bans. There is no need for the National Endowments for the Arts.
• The separation of education and state. When the state takes over the education system it becomes indoctrination. Education should be controlled at the local level.

There could be other separations but these are the main ones.

‘No Pressure’: New Environmental Campaign Glorifies Eco-Fascism

This is one disturbing advertisement to say the least. It was created by an environmental group called 10:10.

So, what's the message here? Reduce your CO₂ or be killed? This what you get when you worship the earth and don't respect human life. Even as a joke this video is in bad taste.

You can read the The Blaze article for more info. That's where I got the video.

UK Pundit to Shocked TV Host: Suffering Children Should Be Smothered

I first saw this video on the Glenn Beck TV show. I was shocked by what the advice columnist said as were the host. That woman is a borderline (if not a complete) sociopath. She is advocating nothing less than murder.

I wonder if she takes the same attitude toward an elderly person with Alzheimer's or dementia. Would she consider them an inconvenience? I would hate to be under her care if I had any disability or disease.

A Nation of Peasants?

An article by Victor Davis Hanson:

Traditional peasant societies believe in only a limited good. The more your neighbor earns, the less someone else gets. Profits are seen as a sort of theft. They must be either hidden or redistributed. Envy rather than admiration of success reigns.

In contrast, Western civilization began with a very different ancient Greek idea of an autonomous citizen, not an indentured serf or subsistence peasant. The small, independent landowner -- if left to his own talents and if his success was protected by, and from, government -- would create new sources of wealth for everyone. The resulting greater bounty for the poor soon trumped their old jealousy of the better off.

The public is seldom told that 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 40 percent of the income taxes collected, while 40 percent of income earners are exempt from federal income tax -- or that present entitlements like Medicare and Social Security are financially unsustainable. Instead, they hear more often that those who managed to scheme to make above $250,000 per year have obligations to the rest of us to give back about 60 percent of what they earn in higher health care and income taxes -- together with payroll and rising state income taxes, and along with increased capital gains and inheritance taxes.

That limited-good mind-set expects that businesses will agree that they now make enough money and so have no need to pursue any more profits at the expense of others. Therefore, they will gladly still hire the unemployed and buy new equipment -- as they pay higher health care or income taxes to a government that knows far better how to redistribute their income to the more needy or deserving.

This peasant approach to commerce also assumes that businesses either cannot understand administration signals or can do nothing about them. So who cares that in the Chrysler bankruptcy settlement, quite arbitrarily the government put the unions in front of the legally entitled lenders? [read more]

Communism was able get a hold in old Russia because there were peasants there. Karl Marx convinced the peasants that Communism was good for them--which it wasn't. Punishing the successful didn't help the peasants. Their conditions never changed. It was all just a scam.

The dirty little secret is that The Ruling Class wants the rest of the population to be peasants. Because peasants are easier to control and manipulate. Or at least the Ruling Class hopes they will be that way.

UK Proposes All Paychecks Go to the State First

From CNBC.com (Sept. 20):

The UK's tax collection agency is putting forth a proposal that all employers send employee paychecks to the government, after which the government would deduct what it deems as the appropriate tax and pay the employees by bank transfer.

The proposal by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) stresses the need for employers to provide real-time information to the government so that it can monitor all payments and make a better assessment of whether the correct tax is being paid. [read more]

At first this may sound like a good idea. After all it saves the taxpayer mental aggravation in figuring out the tax code and doing the taxes. But what if the gov't screws up the tax calculation (which according to the article could happen)? If could take months for the gov't to correct their mistake.

The question is could this system be coming to America? I rather have a simplified tax system than the gov't just calculating what you owe and deducting it from your income automatically.

The Chronic Gambler and The Congressman

Giving money to a chronic gambler in debt is not much different than giving money to a deficit spending Congressman. In both cases, you'll never see any return on your money. The gambler says "I need more time" to hit the jackpot to pay the borrower back. The Congressman uses the excuse he needs to spend more money to get the country out of debt. But unless both bad habits are broken the behavior continues.
You could get your money from the gambler if you can outlive the law of averages. Then again the gambler might think he is on a winning streak and continue gambling.
It's all about self-control. Which neither one has.

Light bulb factory closes; End of era for U.S. means more jobs overseas

From the Washington Post.com (Sept. 8):

WINCHESTER, VA. - The last major GE factory making ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the United States is closing this month, marking a small, sad exit for a product and company that can trace their roots to Thomas Alva Edison's innovations in the 1870s.

The remaining 200 workers at the plant here will lose their jobs.

What made the plant here vulnerable is, in part, a 2007 energy conservation measure passed by Congress that set standards essentially banning [my emphasis] ordinary incandescents by 2014. The law will force millions of American households to switch to more efficient bulbs. [read more]

Yes, it is sad for a company to go out of business for no good reason. So, much for the economy growing. Then again this is what the environmental nuts wanted--the incandescent light bulb to disappear. It's one thing if a better light bulb comes along and replaces the a previous one just through normal market forces. But to have the "all-knowing" gov't ban a product because of some stupid reason, is just plain wrong.

It's a fact that gov't can't create business growth, but it sure as hell can destroy it.

Death Fog Mystery

In August 1986 in Cameroon nearly 2000 people dropped dead (plus cattle too) dropped dead by Lake Nyos without any signs of struggle or injury. It was a mystery to say the least.

To make a long story short it was CO₂ that was the culprit. CO₂ normally gets released from lakes in small amounts, but in this case huge amounts of CO₂ were released from the bottom of the lake all at once. A person can take small amounts of CO₂ but not huge amounts--you suffocate.

Most scientists thought a volcano caused the deaths. Because survivors smelled volcanic gases and the non-survivors were burnt. But the evidence did not add up to that conclusion.

One scientist named Haraldur Sigurdsson came to the conclusion that CO₂ was the cause of the deaths from previous experience with similar deaths in 1984 in Cameroon with another lake. Eventually his theory was the correct one. The burns were caused from the freezing CO₂ aka dry ice. As for the smell of volcanic gases it was just an olfactory hallucination.

What's interesting about this incident is the psychology. The Cameroon gov't did not initially believe Sigurdsson because of the consensus of the other scientists who thought a volcano eruption caused the deaths. But good scientific investigation won out. As it should. Does this scenario sound familiar to you? (Hint: notice the italics)

As a side note, the EPA has plans to capture and store CO₂ deep underground. Er, okay.

Bill of Rights Institute

I found an interesting website that teaches high school students about the bill of rights called of course Bill of Rights Institute.org. For example one of the lesson plans is called Citizenship and Character: Understanding America's Civil Values. This is what is in the text book:

1. Courage: The Declaration of Independence
2. Respect: First Amendment; Freedom of Religion; Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance
3. Consideration: First Amendment; Freedom of Speech
4. Perseverance: First Amendment; Petition and Assembly
5. Industry: Fourth and Fifth Amendments
6. Responsibility: Magna Carta; Fifth and Sixth Amendments
7. Justice: The Bill of Rights; Virginia Declaration of Rights; Pledge of Allegiance
8. Initiative: The Voting Amendments
9. Moderation: Franklin’s Autobiography; Washington’s Farewell Address; Jefferson’s Dialogue
10. Integrity: The United States Constitution

The website also has free resources for teachers (although anyone wanting to bone up on their American history can use these resources) like the Founders Online and Founding Documents. For students (or anyone really) is a quiz about the Constitution and the Founders. This quiz is also on the Good Web Sites list on the left.

From what I've seen a very good institute for high school students.

Environmental Protection Agency Reviewing Petition to Ban Lead Bullets

From Weekly Standard.com (August 27):

Will Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson make a back door move to ban lead bullets the day before the November 2 elections?

Several environmentalist groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) are petitioning the EPA to ban lead bullets and shot (as well as lead sinkers for fishing) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Although EPA is barred by statute from controlling ammunition, CBD is seeking to work farther back along the manufacturing chain and have EPA ban the use of lead in bullets and shot because non-lead alternatives are available. But here's the catch: the alternatives to lead bullets are more expensive [my italics]. A ban on the sale of lead ammunition would force hunters and sport shooters to buy non-lead ammunition that is often double the cost of traditional lead ammunition. A box of deer hunting bullets in a popular caliber could be upwards of $55. [read more]

I think the US gov't has gone insane--if not already. Although this is a sneaky end-run around gun control. Instead of banning guns--just make the bullets more expensive to buy. And blame it on "saving the environment." You get the same result. Less people owning guns. You can't use a gun if you don't have ammunition for it.

Screen Guide for Americans

The following was written by Ayn Rand for the Motion Picture Alliance for American Ideals. These were meant to be suggestions:

1. Don't take politics lightly.
2. Don't smear the free enterprise system.
3. Don't smear weath.
4. Don't smear the profit motive.
5. Don't smear success.
6. Don't glorify failure.
7. Don't glorify depravity.
8. Don't deify "the common man."
9. Don't glorify the collective.
10. Don't smear the independent man.
11. Don't use current events carelessly.
12. Don't smear American political institutions.

Pretty good suggestions. Nowadays motion pictures are doing exactly the opposite. Notice the suggestions did not say you couldn't criticize politicians.