Nonsense Logic and Opportunity.

I was watching this interview on David Letterman with John Oliver about soccer. I had no idea what it was going to say and then I heard the line that mattered. Apparently, in England there are four different team structures of soccer players. The Premier League, Championship, First Division and Second Division and the Conference (amateurs). Now Letterman then asks if theoretically one could move from amateur to Premier and Oliver says that while it is theoretically possible, there is no chance it will happen because the Premier league can actually pay money to hire players and as much as they want.

YouTube - John Oliver Explains English Soccer to David Letterman.

Earlier Oliver had stated that the levels in soccer were basically the class system. It is the same in America and we accept that. There is pro-baseball, AA, triple A and all sort of other levels going down to T-Ball (for little children). Can you imagine the best junior high baseball team in the world playing against the Yankees being a fair competition in any manner way shape or form? That would be insanity; but, Letterman seems to think that it would be fair in English soccer teams. Putting 8 year olds against seasoned professional baseball players is not fair, it is not even a competition. Sure, theoretically angels could help the 8 year olds win; but, even there it would not be fair, would it?

Here is the reality. Right does not necessarily make right. If you think it does then explain the holocaust or the killing of 40 million Russians during the communist revolution or the killing of 60 million Chinese under Mao. Nope, if that is to tough for you, explain why the Romans could kill Jesus, was that right making might or might doing wrong. Might alone does not justify it's actions.

A merit based society is based on the idea that those who are better should rise to the top, not some of the time, all of the time. That opportunity should be based on merit rather than relations and birth or inheritance. If based on those things it is called an oligarchy. Do you think that your children have as much chance of succeeding as the children of the wealthy or famous? The difference between America and England is that their non-Premier people know they don't have the same opportunity.

More Baloney In The News - Media Propaganda

Fox - Gutfeld: Why America has trust issues with the media. The speakers opinion, from Conservative Fox, is convinced that the reason the media is no longer trusted is because it is liberal. He goes as far as to claim that Fox is not part of the media. The establishment cannot seem to understand why people jointed the Tea Party or Occupy movement a few years back and now cannot seem to understand the support for Sanders or Trump and the media is even more confused over why they are not trusted. The reason is quite simple, because everything they say is a sales job rather than an attempt to just present the facts in any in depth way. The hypocrisy of the media is only highlighted by the following video that literally auto played after the one above.

Fox - Anarchy in America. In this "report" Bill O'Reilly talks about how certain cities (he chooses San Francisco) are considering themselves "sanctuary cities" and not going after illegal aliens. I sort of agree with him on that, cities, counties and states need to keep the laws. Whether it be federal safety laws or any other laws. The problem is that O'Reilly said that the legislators who voted to remain a sanctuary city should all be jailed even if the law would not allow them to be prosecuted. Is this the same Fox News and O'Reilly that thought the clerk should not have to issue marriage licenses because it violated her religious beliefs and also supported that idiot farmer in Arizona who thought he had an innate right to graze on federal lands and not pay a fee? Well, yes it is. Fox is a bunch of hypocrites and it was funny to see this right after the video on the lack of trust in the media.

New Scientist - Carbon nanotubes found in children’s lungs for the first time. This is a really important finding. Carbon nanotubes are created in labs and may have many important uses down the road. We don't know if they are cancerous and it is believed they could be or at least increase the chance of cancer. It should also be noted that they have never been found in the air before; but, now are being found in the lungs of children in Paris and may also be in the lungs of adults in Paris. The big scary question is where are they coming from and how are they being released. If they are intentionally being released then we have an even bigger issue; but, we should at least be trying to find out how they are getting in the air. For my regular readers you may recall that not long ago the French also accidently sold some genetically modified sheep, illegally, that were put into the food supply "by accident". France might want to consider keeping a better eye on it's labs.

Fox - Business Insider - Donald Trump has experienced a major shift in one of the most significant predictors of electoral success. The short of the story is that 60% of Republicans have said that they could vote for Trump with 43% saying they think he will win the nomination. No matter how much support he has, the Republican party establishment does not want him because he is not already sold out to their traditional economic interests.

Yahoo - Reuters - Marijuana Use and Disorders Have Doubled Since 2001. The title and the way the article is written are both mislead. The article claims that Marijuana use has doubled according to surveys. Well, that would make sense as it is now legal in about half the states for medical uses. After having taken car of, helped and known people who have had cancer and gone through chemotherapy and radiation therapy, anyone who deny them marijuana to me is scum. It really upset me that my father could take morphine and was dying but it was still illegal for him to smoke weed even if it helped him to eat. He would not have taken it and did not want the morphine either; but, it really brought it home for me. This post is about marijuana though, it is about the media slant. The very first sentence of the article is a lie, it states that "abuse" of marijuana has doubled since 2001 because us of marijuana has doubled. Think about that. Do you honestly believe that people who are using medical marijuana are all "abusing" it? If you read the whole article you will find that 10% of the population is believed to have used marijuana in the last few years and of the roughly 320 million Americans that means that roughly 32 million have used marijuana in the last few years. I should point out that about 25% of the population had at least one day where they had at least 5 heavy drinks according to the CDC, or 2/12 times the number of people who even smoked marijuana once during that same period. Now, according to this article, the number of people that actually had a clinical problem with marijuana was roughly 3% of the 32 million who used it or a little more than 300,000. I am pretty sure the number of alcoholics is much higher than that. I should point out that it is believed that about 14 million people have problems with alcohol (Alcoholics Information - Statistics About Alcoholism). The statistic means that 2 1/2 times many people as have smoked marijuana in the past few years have serious problems with alcohol and the number of people wish serious problems with alcohol is about 50 times higher than the number of people who misuse marijuana. I should also state that later in the article it says that 3 out of 10 users were diagnosed with a marijuana disorder; but, aside from the fact that is 30% and not their earlier quoted 1.5% to 3% of users. The reason for the confusion is because they are playing games with numbers and they never define what this marijuana "disorder" is.

Now the source article came from JAMA which is publication of the Psychiatrists in America. You know, the people I wrote about recently who push psychotropic drugs like Ritalin and Prozac and Valium and, well, the list goes on and on. I hate to say this; but, I don't articles about medicine very much anymore. In fact, I lost most of my faith in the articles when I discovered that the number one study quoted that claimed second hand smoke was worse than first hand smoke was not based on second hand smoke; but, was instead based on the effect of smoking on babies when they were still in the womb. If someone wants me to trust what they say about a study, they have to provide me with the name of the study and where I can read it myself. I don't expect my readers to trust that I am accurately reporting on news articles, I provide a link to the article itself.

UPDATE:

I had just posted the above and I returned to read news articles when I came across this.

Fox - Bill Murray reportedly dating former child star Jenny Lewis.

Personally, I had never heard of Jenny Lewis and there is a good reason, she was not a "child star", at best she had been a child actor. She has actually been better known for music since 1998. I should also point out that she is 38 years old. What do you think sounds more shocking that Bill Murray is dating a 38 year old musician or a "former child star"? The truth is the article cannot even state that Murray is dating her, it is a "rumor".

Paul Ryan Full of Nonsense

The speaker of the House of Representatives quit, his name was Boehner. Now people in the media pronounce it Bayner; but, lets be truthful nowhere in English does oe make the ayyyy sound. The rules of English tell us that when a vowel is followed by another vowel, the first vowel is pronounced in its whole sound. Boner. We are not a nation of 12 year old boys in school and shouldn't change the rules of English to accommodate foolishness.

Be that as it may. Nobody in the Republican house wants the job as speaker as that would require them actually trying to work with Democrats to get laws passed, you know, doing their job. The one person who appears to be able to get sufficient support is Paul Ryan, you know, the guy who wants to be President. After a lot of pressure he has said he will accept the job; but, only if every Republican in congress supports him. What???

Yahoo - AP - Ryan to seek speakership if House GOP unifies behind him.

Why is it so hard to find a Republican that wants to lead his party in the House of Representatives? I have never seen or read of this in history. What is it this year, I mean, Vice President Joe Biden is being begged to run for President by his party and he doesn't want to. Actually, Joe Biden lost his son and is looking to retire so I can appreciate his position. Ryan actually wants to be President. Can you imagine his campaign, "I will only accept being President if all the Republicans and Democrats support me". He has all the backbone and courage of a jellyfish. Ryan is claiming that he wants to not spend less time with his family or travel for fundraisers, he didn't have a problem with either of those things when running for President. The truth is that the Republican party is no longer a party of consensus and nobody can get it's support. Currently, it is a party of corporate whores and extremists, not the conservative, pro-American party of the past and even the Republican voters know it.

Unexplained Changes In Your Life

Fox - DC church calls proposed bike lanes unconstitutional.

The article itself is about a church suing over bike lanes taking out their parking. I know a lot about transportation laws, I have been asked to write a book about public easements and I am telling you right now that the church does not have a leg to stand on and will lose horribly thereby setting the legal precedent for cities to put in bike lanes and take away parking and traffic lanes.

Here is what you need to consider. All across the nation crosswalks are being modified, they now resemble the crosswalk on the cover of the Beatle's Abbey Road cover. At the same time all across the nation bike lanes are being put in at the same time. Do you ever wonder why? Funding determines what gets built and federal funding has a big impact on local paving. Local municipalities are responding to the Federal governments call for an "intermodal" approach to streets; but, there is a problem. Municipalities do not own their streets, they only have a public easement (the right to traverse the streets and keep them clear for such purpose).

Traditionally, sidewalks were for foot traffic and streets were for wheeled traffic (originally for horse drawn traffic). The law also frequently prohibits pedestrians from walking on street if there is a sidewalk and from driving on sidewalks almost always. Those laws are established. Creating a new type of public easement limited to bikes is an outgrowth of laws allowing for bus only lanes. This is why I did not write the book on public easements, I bore myself when discussing these things; but, they are relevant to our lives. The truth is that bus lanes are not needed, one can make an argument for ride share lanes as they were, in at least California, required to be built with funds specifically for such a thing and lanes that had previously been built could not be re-purposed (yes, there is actually a court case over that).

If you cannot repurpose existing highways lanes for limited uses, why should municipalities be allowed to repurpose traffic lanes for only one type of traffic. Why should we have traffic lanes limited to bikes when bikes can ride in car lanes. Bikes are not limited to any lane, buses are not limited to any lane; but, cars and trucks are. Is that legal, probably not if the right law suit was brought. One that questioned why streets were allowed to be made into public easements for limited use by vehicles.

Alien Worlds and Politics

The Atlantic - The Most Mysterious Star in Our Galaxy.

Scientists have found a star that apparently has objects circling it that may have been made by intelligent life. That is the short of the article. Now, the reasons that they believe this has to do with the age of the star, the lack of consistency of the circling objects and some other observations. The fact is that it is only a question of when we find other intelligent life in the universe. If you believe in God then you have to believe that he didn't need to make so many planets if we were going to be the only sentient beings using them and if you are an atheist you have to believe that planets similar to ours would have had similar results.

There is one philosophy that might assume that there is no other life in the universe. If you believe God made the universe so that we could discover that we were his only creation. Of course, that doesn't explain angels. If you believe that God made the universe and angels then you already believe in aliens.

I personally don't think we have a clue what is circling that planet. I sure don't know. My thoughts on aliens are sort of limited. I do believe there is life on other planets, what kind and why, I have no idea. I believe something happened at Roswell and that we have still not been told the truth. I am far from convinced it was aliens. I do not believe that aliens from other planets are regularly visiting the earth. I do believe that reports of flying saucers represent something people are seeing and are not all hoaxes. Finally, I believe the media regularly ridicules strange phenomenon because they don't want to be seen as not knowing more than the rest of us. The media saying they don't know the truth is like a police officer arresting you and saying he doesn't have the authority. I don't expect to see either happen.

Here is my question. If one day we actually communicate via any method with alien life (lets say laser beam communication that takes 5,000 years to reach the other planet), how will the media react? If we received a message from an alien planet that had been sent 5,000 years ago I think most people would accept it pretty quick and not even be surprised. The media, government and business would freak out and be scared, then they would try to scare us too. Alien life is only a threat to the people in charge. People who were about to be sacrificed by the Incans were not half as afraid of the conquistadores as the people who ruled the empire. The people who were about to be sacrificed by the Incans had nothing to lose and often sided against the Incans.

What would an alien race have to offer the world that might cause 99% to go along. What if they promised that all people would have medicine or homes or food or protection from aggression? If you want to take over a country or society and not have to spend all your time managing and fighting them, you have to offer to be better than the people they used to be under and that is our problem in IRAQ.

It is pretty hard to tell people in Iraq that America is better for them because Hussein used to torture them when we also torture them. How do we tell Iraqis they are better off under us when their houses are all destroyed and are even more likely to have their children killed? If the Iraqis and Afghanis don't believe us then why would they not accept the promises of aliens over ours?

There is a part of the bible that has always confused me. After the final battle at Armageddon, Jesus takes over and rules for 1,000 years. At the end of that time he releases Satan and some of the people on earth fight against Jesus with Satan. Why? What if it is because they believe they can get a better deal than others? What if it is all the believers of Ayn Rand, those who think that helping one another is the despised "collectivist mentality". The most hardcore believers in dog eat dog capitalism believe that working together and helping the less fortunate is the sin and that selfishness is being godlike. Psychopaths and Sociopaths. If ever aliens come here, it will be the rich and powerful that will have to change their ways if we are to stay in charge of our own future.

Outsourcing To China Versus American Production

I was getting ready to go to bed and I read and saw a couple of news articles. One was about all the toxic products, like toys and sheetrock, that China sells to the rest of the world and the other about clothes made in foreign countries using child labor and having little if any safety checks. Anyways, I had a thought about how to improve the products sold here and make American producers more competitive. What if we required all products sold in America to meet the same requirements that we make of American companies?

I know this is crazy; but, what if we held foreign companies selling in the United States to the same rules that we hold our own companies to? Why does our government allow foreign companies to sell in America; but, not require them to not use slave labor or children or put toxins in the products they sell here? Does allowing toxic products from foreign countries to be sold in America protect Americans? I don't see how. And if you think about it, making that requirement would increase the profitability of American manufacturers. Heck, if you are liberal and believe in global warming, the requirement that other countries companies meet American pollution standards to sell in America you would decrease global warming. For conservatives, making foreign countries follow the same rules for selling in America as we do our own companies is even better than a tariff. It takes longer to meet health and safety laws than to pay an extra fee. Oh, and buy the way, the United States holds a lot more patents on clean air products than China, just look at their smog and it should be clear. They haven't invested much in clean technology.

Let's go a little bit deeper. Every American company should be in favor of what I have proposed. Heck, if the real problem is American wages or unions then it will still make sense to outsource our jobs because our competitors in foreign countries would still be cheaper. We are willing to tell other countries what weapons they can and cannot make; but, don't believe it is right to tell them what products they can sell here?

By the way, the free trade agreements make it so we cannot question the methods employed by foreign countries in making products for sale in the United States and also allows corporations to sue the United States for having standards, like age and safety requirements. That is what the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is all about. Fight any trade agreements that do not put basic health and safety requirements on goods to be sold in this country.

It Is Not News It Is Propaganda

I went out with friends and had a very nice meal  When I got home I read the news and saw the following article.

Yahoo - Reuters - U.S. confirms Iran tested nuclear-capable ballistic missile.

If you read the article and pay attention, you discover that what they said is not true. There is absolutely no proof the missile could carry nuclear weapons. The article states that the problem with the missiles is that they are medium range ballistic missile, that means it can travel far and that is all it means. An Inter-Continental Ballistic is one that can reach half way across the world, so whatever missile they tested is not capable of reaching America from Iran.

Now, if we accept that statement from the author that every missile is "inherently" capable of carrying nuclear weapons then it is also saying that no other nations should have rockets capable of delivering satellites into space, same technology. Here is an important line from the end of the article.

"The missile test is not a violation of the nuclear deal, which focuses on Iran's atomic program, U.S. officials have said."

Lets be clear, under the proposed Iran Nuke Deal, they would even be allowed to buy ballistic missile technology from other countries including the United States so long as it was not designed for nuclear missiles. That strongly suggests that not all ballistic missiles are capable of launching nuclear weapons. This article by Reuters is a series of internal contradictions. Whether you like Iran, hate it, trust it, love it or think it is just a bad place to go on your honeymoon, the article is a giant lie and that is the issue I am addressing.

I want you to consider the linked article again. It basically said that Iran tested trucks capable of carrying nuclear bombs. That would include every truck if you believe nuclear bombs can be made the size of a barbecue from Home Depot and not weigh more than a quarter ton. What about this, what if it said that Iran tested software capable of detonating a nuclear missile? That would include any program and not even a complicated one. It would include every cell phone as detonating a bomb is not that complicated and neither is making a rocket, the Germans were doing it in the 1940s.