Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Yes in My Backyard

December 12, 2017

When I was a kid, I vaguely recall reading an article about “NIMBY” which stands for “Not In My BackYard”. The idea is that people wanted things like manufactured goods but they didn’t want to have to hear the sounds of actually making them or smelling the smells. It’s like people who love beef but can’t stand the smell of manure.

Thankfully, it seems for at least the people living in the Tri-Cities area, they are willing to live next to the nuclear power plant that would give them cheap and plentiful energy, all with zero pollution. http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/dec/10/survey-says-tri-cities-a-big-fan-of-nuclear-energy/

As for me, I know nuclear power, I know how it works, and I know its risks. I would be perfectly fine raising my kids in the same water source shared by a nuclear power plant, downstream even. I know that there is absolutely no risk with modern nuclear techniques, and I know that there is zero contact between the outside water supply and the nuclear material. I also know that we all live in the middle of radioactivity, and as far as we can tell, low levels are completely harmless. Of course, living near a nuclear power plant would not have any effect on radiation levels at all, since it is completely isolated from the outside world.

I know the jokes on The Simpsons that make it seem like nuclear power creates mutant fish, or they have to dump buckets of glowing green liquid in the water in order to keep the plant running. If you can’t see that The Simpsons is fantasy, I can’t help you. But for the sake of those who can’t shake the feeling that nuclear power is somehow dangerous, let me assure you of some things.

  • The byproducts of nuclear power production are not liquids. They are rods or rather pellets.
  • The byproducts are stored in massive pools buried under thick layers of concrete. Divers regularly dive into these waters to make sure the water is circulating properly. The water is completely safe unless you are very near to the byproducts.
  • The byproducts would glow a deep blue, not green. This is due to the Cerenkov Radiation due to particles traveling faster than the speed of light in that material. It is an ethereal, dim light.
  • The amount of nuclear byproducts produced by a nuclear power plant are minuscule compared to the amount of power produced. We haven’t yet settled on where we want to store these products so each power plant simply stores it on location — behind thick concrete walls in deep pools. We have no concerns about running out of space any time soon. There is no ticking time bomb, there is no rush, and we’ll likely figure a way to use the radioactive byproducts to make more energy. (The inert byproducts are useless in terms of nuclear energy — and harmless aside from whatever chemical properties they naturally have.)

I can’t wait until the United States, and the rest of the world, embraces nuclear power en masse. Having such a limitless, abundant supply of electricity could potentially end our dependence on oil, especially if it is combined with some new technology like supercapacitors (as transporting power in smaller quantities is still not easy.) I don’t know how much total uranium the planet Earth has, but we have plenty of proven supplies today and it’s not very hard to find more. Honestly, leaving the uranium in our crust probably does far more harm to the environment than using it for power generation. (The same for crude oil. I’d much rather have CO2 in our atmosphere than crude oil in our soil.)

 

Advertisements

Insanity with Natural Gas

December 12, 2017

Link: http://mynorthwest.com/841839/protesters-at-port-of-tacoma/

Apparently, people protest natural gas because it might explode.

How much more ridiculous can you get?

Natural gas explosions do occur, but mainly connected to the pipelines carrying the gas to your private home or business. That’s why we mix in chemicals so that you can smell the gas leaks. When explosions do occur, it’s rare that people and property are hurt, killed or destroyed.

In order for an explosion to occur, the gas must mix with air (specifically oxygen) in the right ratio. Then you must introduce an ignition source, a spark or a fire of some sort.

If you are worried about a gas explosion, then make sure you check your gas lines. If you smell any bad odor around your gas line, contact a qualified professional who can seal any leaks. If it’s a very bad odor, call the fire department as they know how to deal with bad gas leaks.

Protesting industrial natural gas supply by chaining yourself to heavy equipment puts your life, and the lives of your rescuers, at far greater risk than natural gas will. Doing so in an effort to protect life is the exact opposite of what you intend to do. If you really want to prevent gas explosions, then learn about them, learn how to prevent them, become a qualified gas line technician, or volunteer for the fire department.

It’s time to change the state constitution

November 16, 2017

The WA Supreme Court came back and said that the legislature isn’t doing enough to fund education. Specifically, the education spending in the state “delays by over a year implementation of a constitutionally compliant salary model, a critical part of meaningful reform.” (link)

The crux of the issue is a single word: “ample”. Specifically, the WA state constitution says:

SECTION 1 PREAMBLE. It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.

You’d think that the preamble to a section of the constitution would be disregarded as merely describing the intent of that section of the constitution. However, give enough lawyers enough time and money, they can twist anything to say anything.

Indeed, reading the section on education leaves me wishing I was a lawyer.

I think it’s high time we removed that entire section from the constitution.

It is not the duty of the state government to educate children. It is the duty of their parents.

32 kWh

October 20, 2017

32 kWh is how much energy is stored in a single gallon of gasoline.

If you think electric cars are happening anytime soon, that is the number you should be worried about. In order to get the equivalent of what happens when I pull up to a gas station and fill my tank, you’d need something like 30,000 Amps. That’s a whole lot of Amps, something that anyone who knows the first thing about electricity would be terrified of.

An alternative is to switch a dead (or low) battery for a new one, but we’re talking about moving 250 lbs of material, which is no small feat. If you can imagine a way to do that safely under 5 minutes, then you’ve only solved part of the problem.

The next part is storing and charging enough of these batteries. One of the 250 lb battery packs would take up far more space and weight than the 10 or so gallons of gasoline. Liquids are nice: You fill up a reservoir, you pump it out, and you can load and unload the reservoir at the same time. Warehouses don’t work that way, and require careful management as you manipulate each item into a specific spot, and then retrieve it. You can’t achieve anything close to what you’d get with the typical gas station. Remember, a typical gas station stores approximately 20,000 or more gallons of gas. That is the rough equivalent of 2,000 of these 250 lb batter packs. Stack them 100 high into 20 stacks, or 10 high in 200 stacks, which could be arranged in a nice square of roughly 14×14 stacks.

If you charged the batteries offsite (which is really wise, since that kind of current is way beyond anything our electric infrastructure can handle), how many trucks would be lined up and loading and unloading to match tempo with the cars? What about the charging hubs where these batteries are brought in, charged, and then sent off? Again, gasoline, because it’s a liquid, and because it’s so dense, wins the day. I have a refinery down the street from my house, and it’s pretty rare to catch a truck loading up on gas. Perhaps I’m just looking at the wrong time of day, but I’ve lived here for nearly a decade and I’ve never seen a long line of gas trucks running up and down the road that accesses the refinery.

The refinery down the street produces no pollution, none that I can see or smell. The conversion of raw petroleum to gasoline is nearly complete. Whatever waste is produced is converted into gasoline or sold occasionally. How about a battery pack charging hub? They’d likely need to generate their own electricity, since transferring that kind of power is expensive. If you’re not near a nuclear power plant, a hydroelectric plant, or an industrial scale coal, gas, or whatever plant, it’s likely to be expensive.

Gasoline is a miracle material, safe, mostly harmless, and packed with energy that is readily accessible while not dangerously so. Beating it, even with batteries, is not really something that is feasible yet.

The Opioid Crisis

October 17, 2017

My city of Tacoma is joining the lawsuits against drug companies that manufacture opioids. Talking with my sister, who is involved in the medical industry, here’s what I gather happened.

The medical industry has known, for a long time, that opioids are dangerous stuff. Sure, they kill pain, but they are also highly addictive. Typically, they were only used on people who were going to die anyway, cancer patients and the like. The rest of us were given other, less effective painkillers because the opioids are simply too addictive.

The drug companies, in an effort to make more money, would experiment with all sorts of opioids. Oxycontin was discovered to be just as effective as any other opioid and slightly less addictive. By “slightly”, we’re talking tiny percentages that most mortal human beings wouldn’t even be able to detect. Initially, the FDA approved it for use for end-of-life care, but due to lobbying and the fact that regulatory agencies are run by the corporations they are supposed to regulate, it got approved for the rest of us. The next thing you know, doctors are prescribing it because they were told it isn’t as addictive.

Would doctors have prescribed it if they knew it was dangerous? My sister says no, they wouldn’t have. I believe this. I can’t believe that doctors would join the medical industry with the intention to do harm. The FDA told the doctors that it wasn’t addictive, and so they prescribed it, tried to monitor its usage, but it got out of hand rather quickly, and doctors figure this out so they don’t prescribe it anymore.

The problem is that the opioids are on the street, and doctors can’t control it. Now that China and Mexico are manufacturing and smuggling them into our country, no one is ever going to control these drugs anymore. The problem with opioids is they are so highly addictive that really, the only way to handle the crisis is to not get people hooked in the first place.

What caused the opioid crisis? Some would say greed. The problem with blaming a trait of human nature is humans don’t change. We are always going to be greedy. It’s part of who we are. You can’t fix problems caused by greed by making humans less greedy.

So taking greed off the table, what caused the crisis? Assuming that humans will always be greedy, the key factor is the FDA. Statists simply don’t understand that when you form a government, it’s going to attract people who want power. The more power it has, the more people it attracts. Like mosquitoes to a bug zapper, certain kinds of people are attracted to it.

When it comes to regulatory agencies in the United States, inevitably, the corporations that those agencies were intended to regulate dominate those agencies. No matter how hard you try to eliminate corruption, it’s going to exist, and the more valuable the corruption, the more difficult it is to identify let alone eliminate.

The Opioid crisis we face today was caused by the FDA, or rather, the misguided belief that regulatory agencies can regulate industry. No, all they really end up doing is stamping bad behavior with the seal of government approval. Had there never been an FDA, doctors would each have to figure out whether this particular drug would be a fit for their particular patients.

Inevitably, doctors would form associations, and those associations, run by the doctors, would determine which drugs were good for what cases and which were not. Given the fact that getting your drug approved by these associations would be very profitable, it is inevitable that drug companies would try to get their drugs approved, perhaps by deception. The key difference between private, independent associations and the government is that when the association is corrupted, it loses its reputation and no longer becomes a valuable entity to corrupt. That is, it is in the association’s interests to not allow itself to be deceived.

Some ways they can do so is demand subscription fees from their members. These fees, and nothing else, would be used to compensate the officials in the organization. Losing members due to trust issues would mean they would lose their jobs, while maintaining the highest levels of professionalism and science would mean they get more subscribers and thus fatter paychecks.

In the future, I propose we do the following.

  1. Abolish the FDA.
  2. Allow the medical industry to form its own standards and such, privately, without the influence or color of government.
  3. Let the doctors and patients decide which organizations they will listen to. If there are bad organizations, people will figure that out pretty quickly, and they will be held to account.

Under this system, individual doctors will have to convince the community that they are good at their job. Organizations will have to convince doctors and patients that they are good at their job. And drug companies will have to tell the truth about their drugs or risk being humiliated.

Regarding the lawsuit, I hope it ends up where it belongs: At the FDA. The drug companies and the FDA should be humiliated and punished for what they have done. They should be forced to bear the cost of the opioid crisis.

On the Big Bang

October 16, 2017

The Big Bang is one of those theories that everyone seems to believe is accepted as hard science, when it is really on a shaky foundation. Any science that has to do with “predicting” what happened millions or billions of years ago is on a shaky foundation. All it takes is new evidence and observations for the entire theory to disappear.

The Big Bang theory suffers one of the fatal flaws that Evolution suffers: It seems to evolve just fast enough to keep up with the latest observations. How many times have you read, “New fossil suggests entirely new ordering of Humanity’s ancestors, surprising scientists!” In Physics, when our theory predicts something contrary to what we see, we throw the old theory away and then create new ones, complete with new names so we don’t confuse ourselves. The evolution of Darwin is entirely different than modern evolution.

So it is with the Big Bang. It seems the harder we look into it, the more problems we see. Lately I’ve been looking into the “Young-Old Galaxy” problem. It seems that the most distant galaxies we see, which shouldn’t even exist, because they were from such a short time after the universe was created, not only appear old, but appear just as old as the Milky Way, leaving no time for stars to form, die, and form again.

At first, they added in Dark Matter, then Dark Energy. I have no idea what they are going to try to add to the Big Bang to make these contradictory observations fit! Maybe they’ll call it “Dark Time”, but I shouldn’t give them any ideas.

Regardless, materialists point to the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe. Aquinas’ First Cause argument shows why this is plain silly. You can’t be a materialist and believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. At best, you have to believe in an infinite series of causes.

Let me walk you through it. Aquinas argued that all things have a cause. That is, there is nothing that spontaneously is created in and of itself, but all things were created by something else. If you don’t accept an infinite series of creations, then you have to have the source of all creations, the First Cause, which cannot have a cause (except itself). This is God.

The nature of this First Cause is either that it exists beyond the universe, or if it were to exist in the universe, then the universe would be able to contain things that cause themselves (since the First Cause is the cause of the universe itself.)

For materialists, who believe that nothing exists except the material universe, the Big Bang cannot be the First Cause since the Big Bang, or rather, the conditions that existed before it came into existence, doesn’t exist. Thus, to believe in the Big Bang is to contradict materialism. You must reach beyond the universe to find a cause for the Big Bang, whether that is random chance in nothingness or something else. And if you accept this, then you’re joining the realm of the Platonic Realists, and thus opening yourself up to obvious proofs of God.

Ultimately, I don’t see any theory of a non-infinite universe standing the observations we have. What we see not only contradicts all of our understanding of how physics works, but calls into question what we think we see altogether. Like Descartes, we need to struggle with the fact that what we see in the sky could simply be an image, a projection, an illusion. Yes, we can measure the distance to the nearest stars with parallax (and I need to expose who difficult it is to measure how big the sun is and thus how wide our orbit is in another post), but the vast majority of stars lie far beyond this range and cannot be detected to move even the slightest and so only offer us a minimum range with parallax.

The problem of an infinite universe is an entirely new one. Why isn’t the sky filled with light? Why does anything exist at all given dS >= 0? What is really going on up there?

There are simply too many questions, and I am lead to believe that the supposed answers we have are not obviously correct. More investigation is needed.

On Family

October 4, 2017

Some sacred cows are so sacred that tipping them really, really makes people angry.

Here’s one that lately ticked off some internet commentators: If you’re not spending your life trying to make babies in families, you’re wasting your time on useless things.

That is, the highest ideal anyone can achieve in life is to become a father or mother, raise a large family, and see their children become fathers and mothers and continue on. Anything less than this is sub-optimal. Those who are perfectly capable of doing this but choose to do something else are thus wrong and I say even evil.

When you consider economics, you quickly learn about opportunity costs. That is, the cost of doing something is not just the cost of doing that thing, but the cost of not doing other things. IE, if I spend my money to buy a new car, then that means I didn’t spend my money buying stock. If my car wouldn’t have made as much money as the stock would’ve, then I lost money, overall.

Let’s consider morality, or the economics of morality. In moral systems, good is, well, good, and evil is the opposite, which is not good. If you are going to make the best decision, then that means you have considered all the possibilities and made the decision that has the best difference between good and evil. To do any less is really not as good, and since it is not good, you can consider it evil. Some evils aren’t that big of a deal, but some are really severe.

Let’s take life. If murder is wrong (and I hope we all agree that killing the innocent is wrong!) then not murdering is better than murdering. Is there something even better than not murdering? Why, bringing new life into this world. Under what circumstances? It shouldn’t be a surprise that the best circumstances for new life, for children, is to be raised in a healthy family with a mother and a father. Thus, if you think murder is wrong, then you also think the best thing you can do is get married, stay married, and raise kids.

Let’s suppose you’re one of those new-fangled atheist types who think you’ve figured out how the human mind and spirit works and want to impose your new value system on the world. You believe that life is good (I hope) and you also believe in evolution, survival of the fittest, as being the optimal strategy to preserve, prolong, even improve life. Then the logical conclusion here is that you should also procreate and bring your children into the world in the system that is most likely to have them procreate. And you’ll do this as often as possible. This is just basic common sense.

Society tells us that we should place our own needs above the needs of our spouse and our children and grandchildren. Society is wrong. Just a simple examination of the arguments I made should make clear why this is. In fact, our highest priority should be family. If we aren’t married, we should get married. Until then, we should support our family, which will form an essential fabric on which the married couples can fall back on. When it comes to child-rearing, it doesn’t matter if we’re not the father or mother, we can still do our best to be a good example and encourage others to get married and raise as many kids as possible.

Some people might try to argue that even though they aren’t actively supporting their family, getting married, encouraging others to get married, and having lots of kids while encouraging others to do so, that they are still “good”. Sure, not murdering is better than murder, but on the spectrum of goodness, it is about as distant from murder as it is from building families. Murder takes a life, not murdering doesn’t do anything, and raising children creates lives. But whereas a murder might take a single life, bringing even a single child into this world creates the possibility of millions and millions of people in future generations.

But ask yourself: So you pay taxes, keep the laws, and leave people alone. Maybe you’ve accumulated some degree of wealth, or done something nice for the community, like served in some charitable role in society. But ask yourself: Are those things really more important than bringing more life into this world?

As with any ideal, you strive to obtain it, getting as close as possible if it is not achievable. It is in the striving that we grow, not necessarily the obtaining of the goal.

 

 

 

 

What is Marxism, really?

August 27, 2017

When you dig into a philosophy, you try to find that one kernel that gives life to all the other bits of philosophy.

For instance, for LDS theology, that idea could be summed up as “revelation”, the idea that God still speaks to men. From that, we get everything else.

For Marxism, it’s very difficult to identify the core philosophy because Marxism seems to be inherently illogical. But I think I have found it.

What revealed it for me was my study of Naziism. Here’s what I uncovered about some of the central tenets of the Nazi philosophy:

  1. There is no objective, universal truth.
  2. Each race of men has a different morality and definition of truth.
  3. Truth is fungible. What is true today may be false tomorrow, replaced by a new truth. The arbiter of truth is the leader of the group.
  4. The ultimate evil is egocentrism (putting your own needs ahead of others.) The ultimate good is altruism (putting other’s needs ahead of your own.)
  5. Violence is justified.

What’s shocking is that this isn’t really that shocking anymore today. A hundred years ago, our ancestors would’ve been able to easily identify the problems with this philosophy. Today, not so much!

Marxism seems to boil down to a similar set of tenets, a sort of Naziism, so to speak, but on a different basis.

  1. There is no objective, universal truth.
  2. There is no morality. (Everything is justified.)
  3. The only truth is that there are classes of people, and they are at war with each other, always have been and always will be.
    1. The upper classes, though numerically inferior, are slave drivers who use whatever tricks they can come up with to convince the lower classes to feed them.
    2. The lower classes believe the lies of the upper classes and willingly enter slavery, without realizing that their numerical superiority gives them all the means they need to overthrow the upper classes.
  4. There is a direction to history, and it’s clear that ultimately, the lower classes will own the means of production, and the other classes will be eliminated.
  5. Since that is the ultimate destiny of mankind, we might as well get their sooner rather than later, and avoid all the bad bits that have to come in between here and there by doing it quickly.

What’s most striking to me is whereas Hitler divided humanity by race, Marx divided them by economic class. In Marx’s world, people didn’t move from one class to another; you were basically stuck where you were born. In other words, Hitler and Marx seemed to believe the same thing, just they disagreed on the distinguishing characteristic, even though they agreed that you were born into that class or race, with nothing you can do to change it.

Even though Naziism advocated the suppression of basic rights, they didn’t completely write off all morality. Marxists do. There is literally nothing that a Marxist would ever claim to be “wrong” except the oppression of the lower classes. That is, it’s perfectly ok to rape and murder little children, as long as you’re not rich!

Of note, Nazis espoused altruism. Altruism sounds nice. I mean, after all, didn’t Jesus teach his disciples to love one another? What people forget is that Jesus said “Love your neighbor as yourself“, meaning, you are also supposed to be egocentrist. That is, you are supposed to weigh your own needs as you weight your neighbor’s needs. As I like to put it, you can’t help anyone get rich if you’re poor yourself! As Jesus said, “First cast the beam out of your own eye!” Indeed, Jesus’ parables are full of examples of righteous people acting in their own self-interest, from the master who rewarded his servants who doubled his assets, to the master of the vineyard that built a wall and a watchtower and put servants in place to protect it, to the parable of the sower, who sows seeds and expects to reap the rewards for himself. Indeed, Judaism teaches that while you are supposed to care for the poor, you are not supposed to sacrifice yourself doing it. Let the poor glean your fields, let the travelers eat the edges of your fields, but the rest is yours to keep, and you cannot simply give it away.

What do Marxists espouse? They espouse the class struggle. Individuals won’t own the means of production, *everyone* will. This philosophy, to me, is even more detestable than Naziism. At least Nazis taught that people were human with individual needs; Marxists teach that they are nothing more than a member of a group, and only the group should benefit.

Nazis looked forward to a future when each race could live in their own lands with their own way of life and their own government. In a sick and twisted sort of way, they actually looked forward to a peaceful world. I often wonder if indeed the Nazis would’ve invaded the US if they had taken Europe; indeed, whether their goal was simply to annex all the German lands or all of Europe. (Historically, the Frankish kings that created France came from Germany as well.) Did Hitler have plans to seize the Iberian peninsula? We can’t really tell, and no one seems to be bothered to explain these things. What was Hitler’s end plan? From my limited knowledge, it was simply to unite the German peoples, create a pure race with pure blood and pure culture, and remove the rest.

What about Marxists? Marxists look forward to the inevitable moment when the rich will be eliminated, that all will be the same. In a way, Star Trek’s Borg race is the perfect ideal of what Marxism anticipated for mankind. Everyone the same, everyone owning everything altogether. This sort of reality, to me at least, is complete dehumanizing. What would “other” mean when we are all the same? Would we even have different names, or even individual personalities, with our own likes and dislikes? Or would we be expected to be identical to each other, and not just in our appearance, but out behavior and attitudes?

Most depressing is that Marxism predicts a long and brutal war as the lower classes rise up against the higher classes. They see it as inevitable. Much like Sherman’s March, where General Sherman thought he could save lives by taking them, or the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this kind of thinking truly leads to horrific behavior. I shudder to think what people might do if they felt like they were averting a greater disaster. “Let’s murder 100 million today,” they say, “Because if we don’t, then 200 million will be killed tomorrow.”

To sum this all up, let me introduce you to the liberal philosophy that our Founding Fathers espoused. I call this “Radical Whigism” because no one is using that term and it’s not overloaded.

  1. God gives individuals rights, such as the right to life and liberty. There is a long list of these rights, and we’re not going to spell it out for you but let individuals assert these rights as far as they believe God gave them to them.
  2. Government exists solely to protect rights. Any more or less than this is grounds for altering or abolishing the government.
  3. People are accountable to themselves and themselves alone.

That’s pretty much it. The Utopia that conservatives imagine is a diverse population, with people speaking whatever language they like, wearing whatever clothing they like, but all agreed that they won’t trample each other’s rights. And when someone gets it in their head that trampling rights is a good idea, we’ll bring down the force of government on their pathetic souls to make it right.

Finally, let’s consult the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for his opinion on which political philosophy we should follow. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Both Naziism and Marxism are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths. What about Radical Whigism? If you count the Civil War casualties along with every war American participated in, it doesn’t even compare. And unlike those two philosophies, we have built a nation where anyone can come and build their own future.

On Contention

August 13, 2017

One way to tell the good guys from the bad guys is this: Contention.

Contention comes from the word “contend”, which is another word for fighting and arguing. Contention in and of itself is not bad. Hopefully, each of us live our lives daily contending with ourselves about what we should do with our time. In science, we contend with each other about science and interpreting the results of experiments. In a good religion, individuals content about what is the true and pure doctrine and what is not.

The problem of contention comes when we stop battling ideas and start battling each other. When it becomes more important that the other person lose, rather than just his ideas, we are fighting each other and not ourselves.

I believe this is what is warned about in the Bible. In the Book of Mormon, in 3 Nephi 11, Jesus spells out that contention doesn’t come from him; it comes from the devil.

When you survey the political landscape, you see people arrayed one against another, like vast armies. For your political philosophy, what is your enemy? Are you arrayed against certain ideas, or are you set against particular people or groups of people (regardless of their ideas)? If so, you’re in the wrong.

This brings to my mind a couple of things.

One of the things I have been thinking about lately is why we need to punish criminals, and what should be the punishment for certain crimes. I think it boils down to this: We punish criminals so we don’t have people taking vengeance for themselves. The amount of punishment we meet should fit the crime, so reasonable people won’t feel like they have to supplement the system. For instance, let’s say we were adamant in executing each and every murder, and our justice system worked pretty much how we wished it would. Would a cop arresting a suspected murderer feel any inclination to rough the suspect up (off the books, of course) if he knew that if he were guilty, he was going to get executed? No, I don’t think so. That’s what you have justice for: so that people don’t go around harming each other because they don’t feel like proper punishment was applied. The whole reason why mythical figures like The Punisher exists is because people feel like the guilty are not being held accountable.

So when I say something like, “We need to execute Hillary Clinton for treason against America”, I am not against Hillary directly, but the things she did. If I believed the justice system would work to uncover all of the murders and traitorous acts she was engaged in and then hold her accountable, life for life (and people have died because of her, make no mistake), then that would be the end of my statement. I wouldn’t feel any anger at Hillary. I might even feel sorry for her and her family as I watch them buckle her down to the execution chair.

In other words, a properly functioning justice system would end pretty much all the contention we have in America. If we executed murderers, rapists, and such, we wouldn’t be so angry at murderers and rapists, but merely wait until they got the inevitable justice.

When I look at what happened over the weekend in Charlottesville, this is my impression. You had a bunch of racist neo-Nazis (false flag or otherwise) and you had a bunch of so-called anti fascists (who behave like fascists.) Both hated each other’s guts, both wanted blood, and the thing is, when someone wants something, they’re going to get it, one way or the other. How do you end the contention? Swift and fair justice. Take the people who initiated violence, hold them accountable, and make it clear that there is no reason for any retribution. Life for life. If someone dies because of the bad decisions of one or more people, they need to die for it, otherwise, we’re going to have more fighting and more deaths.

The good guys, meanwhile, know that justice is coming, in this life of the next. They don’t act except out of self-defense. They hold their hands out in an honest gesture of friendship. The endure bitter abuse and intolerance and even some degree of violence, turning the other cheek, so to speak, and only resort to violence as a last measure.

Keep that in mind.

Can Censorship Work in the Internet Age?

August 11, 2017

As I watch Google and YouTube struggle to stem the tide of dank memes and pro-Trump messages, I wonder if they realize they can’t win this battle.

Recently, they de-monetized Diamond and Silk, popular supporters of Donald Trump. Of course, there is huge backlash building. Because Diamond and Silk are black women, they’re being compared to Rosa Parks.

But with so many alternatives to YouTube, and so many ways to reach their supporters, how does Google think such behavior will benefit them? It’s not like Diamond and Silk are silenced, after all.

Can censorship work in the Internet Age? The obvious answer is “No.” There’s simply too many ways to manipulate the internet to get to where you want to go, and too many alternatives to distributing information. It is a well-known fact that in North Korea, you can get access to South Korean dramas, even when people distribute pro-Christian and anti-North Korean propaganda with the shows. If even North Korea can’t block the free flow of information, what does Google think they can do?