Why Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 7 Beta 2 sucks!!!!

1. In order to leave feedback you must sign up and install for Microsoft Connect.

2. You cannot uninstall IE7 and reinstall an older version of IE

3. The “security certificate alert features” are fine, but I don’t want them, and you apparently cannot turn them off, even if you set the security settings to their lowest setting (“medium”) and go into the options to uncheck/check options.

4. One size fits all/ our way or our way continue to be the Microsoft arrogant mantra.

5. There is very little different from IE6 to IE7 in terms of features after 6 years of development. No fresh ideas here.

6. Sites still piss me off by demanding that I use IE to interface with them.

Seamonkey rules. Firefox rocks. And Opera blazes! Internet Explorer 7 snoozes.

Freedom's Phoenix is a website dedicated to daily news and commentary effecting the freedom of people in the United States.

http://freedomsphoenix.com

Check it out for the most outrageous news that directly effects your liberty. Everyone is welcome to participate in the forums.

Many Republicans have been uneasy with the Bush administration over the years. They have seen massive spending programs enacted by the President and the Republican dominated Congress, sending the national deficit into a Sumo wrestler weight gaining regime. Democrats only dreamed of such spending levels.

Bush has also invaded a country, and his occupation threatens to bankrupt our economy in both dollars and blood. The moral bankruptcy of both an unprovoked attack, and the establishment of gulags and torture chambers, in addition to the installation of a “democratic” government composed of anti-American Shiites also worries the conservative base. Yet they seem committed to riding this train wreck into the hillside with Bush. Power corrupts.

Democrats on the other hand, have watched as their Party wholeheartedly became the me-too cheerleaders of the War in Iraq. To whatever level of blood the Republicans shout for, the Democrats enthusiastically respond we’ll give you more, in the so called War on Terror. They have equally been front runners in promoting the attacks on civil liberties, whether domestic spying by government on its citizens to secret arrests and detentions.

What is clear is if you oppose the war you are not going to get ANY support from your elected Representatives, Senators or the Whitehouse.

The election in November will bring no relief as incumbents are re-elected over 97% of the time. Where the thud of your foot against their head can be heard is in the primary elections. This would require: 1) a staunchly committed anti-war opponent to run against the incumbent in the primary. 2) There be money behind the candidate. 3) No vote splitters enter the race. 4) Members of that Party vote against their incumbent candidate, even if it might tip the seat to the other party. [It won’t. Most seats are gerrymandered so only one Party can win the seat.] And 5) the candidate make an issue of introducing a bill demanding the withdrawal from Iraq of ALL US troops and US paid mercenaries within 6 months of taking their office.

Unless the apple cart gets upset in 2006, the same way Democrats were tossed out in 1994, the War will go on past 2008 and probably until sometime around 2014, after a Democrat President is re-elected. That is a lot of blood, and a lot of debt. Since incumbents from neither Party seem predisposed to rapidly ending the war, the solution is to rid both parties of incumbents.

[No Spoilers] On DVD Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2005


I went to a preview of the new movie Serenity. For those Firefly fans, it really does hit the spot. For those unfamiliar, I included a cheat sheet I made. The movie is definitely interesting from a cinematography standpoint right from the Universal logo at the beginning. Plot is consistent, and the movie is fast paced (maybe too fast paced). Some nice freedom statements, which I may post a synopsis in a few weeks after it hits much of the world. It gets 4.5 out of 5 stars from me.

It is a grand romp! Some big surprises. Whedon is not afraid to do things not normally seen. There are some genuine belly laughs present. Good writing, acting, and character development weaved into a compelling story that has a genuine resolution.

Serenity, in a nutshell
For audiences that have not seen the TV series

Serenity, is a major motion picture focused on two character's lives: Malcolm Reynolds and River Tam. It is a continuation of a failed television series, Firefly, that was cancelled after 11 episodes, after a cancellation insuring Friday night schedule, in which FOX insisted on showing episodes out of order and interrupted by baseball games.

Remarkably, fans wouldn’t allow the signal to be stopped. Neither would Firefly’s creator, Joss Whedon, best known as the creator of the TV series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The impossibility of a cancelled TV series getting $40 million to make a movie alone should tweak your interest.

Fortunately, you do not need to have seen the TV series to follow the movie, but viewing the delightful and best selling DVD set, Firefly, does help breathe more life into understanding the characters. For fans of the show, Serenity is Director Whedon’s vision of where the TV show would have ended up at the end of season two. He definitely provides former viewers with answers to the mystery of River Tam, without requiring those who have not seen the show to previously learn anything about the characters. But if you are curious ....

What is important for a person to know going into the movie is that 500 years in the future, Earth is used up. A new solar system has been colonized by transforming the planets and moons into Earthlike environments. Such terraforming is a hard, long and arduous process. Those who move onto the planets first have first claim, but the hardest time of it, since the planet is still turning earthlike.

In many ways Serenity is a western shot in a science fiction motif. There are pioneers eking out a living on the outer worlds. The inner worlds were terraformed first, and have been around the longest. It is the inner worlds that are “civilized.” It is the inner worlds that formed the Alliance, who demand allegiance of all.

The outer planets resisted being incorporated into the Alliance, and fought a war to remain independent. They lost. Malcolm Reynolds (Nathan Fillion), Mal for short, was a former sergeant in the army of the Independents, on the losing side of a civil war with the Alliance.

Six years later, ex-Sgt. Reynolds buys a Firefly class transport ship at a junk yard, and restores it. He names it Serenity, after his last major battle of the war at Serenity Valley, where virtually all of his soldiers were forsaken by his commanders, and slaughtered by the Alliance.

The Corporal who fought with him at his side, Zoë (Gina Torres) is now his First Officer. They have picked up a Ship’s Pilot, Wash (Alan Tudyk), who is now married to Zoë. And a Ship’s Mechanic, Kaylee (Jewel Straite). And a “public relations officer.” Well more of a mercenary actually, named Jayne (Adam Baldwin), who as Browncoats have posted, really puts the Me in Mercenary. [Browncoats was the nickname given Independent soldiers, and has become slang for rabid fans of Firefly and Serenity.]

They had a Registered Companion onboard, Inara (Morena Baccarin), who had rented one of Serenity’s two shuttles for her business, prostitution, which lends respectability to Mal’s operation. She now runs a training house on one of the outworlds.

Mal’s trade is operating a cargo transport, and guns for hire on the outer rim of the solar system. Whenever civilization begins to show up, he moves his ship a little further from the Alliance’s grasp.

Serenity’s crew are the bad guys. To supplement their honest labor they smuggle untaxed cargo, and pull off petty robberies, knocking over Alliance supported assets. And these are the good guys in the movie. This is one of the great, twisted plots that makes Serenity and Firefly so darned good. The characters have great three dimensional background, and a lot of flaws, quirks and quips. The actors are really committed to their roles, and it shows. [The cussing is in Chinese.]

Along the way they had picked up a passenger, Sheppard Book (Ron Glass), a preacher on a ship where the captain wasn’t overly fond of God, having lost his spirituality when the Battle for Serenity Valley was lost. Book now has a flock on an outworld moon.

And taking on a Ship’s Doctor, Simon Tam (Sean Maher) fleeing with his barely sane 17 year old sister, River Tam (Summer Glau), whom he rescued from years spent in an secret Alliance human experimentation laboratory. The two are being relentlessly hunted by the Alliance, who fear the secret of what they have created will be exposed, and are willing to go to any length to prevent that. Thus a extraordinary game of cat-and-mouse begins when the Alliance sends one of its most dangerous agents, known only as The Operative (Chiwetel Ejiofor) after the ship.

As the wanted crew of Serenity seeks to evade the dangerous Alliance, they have to also steer clear of another menace existing in the outer worlds, the mysterious Reavers: Humans who have turned savage and live recklessly as nomadic pirates in ships upon the black of space; murdering and pillaging settlements and ships when the opportunity strikes.

Finding themselves hunted by vastly different enemies, the ship’s crew begin to discover that the greatest danger to them may be on board Serenity herself.

Outlaw Sci-Fi at its finest.

"It's about how much freedom you can take away from somebody before they either fold or fight. It's about the right to be wrong and the nature of human beings, that they need the freedom to be wrong. That they cannot be made to be better or perfect." — Joss Whedon on his new movie, Serenity.

Warning: Many links contain spoilers within. You can usually navigate without unknowingly encountering spoilers, but explore at your own risk:

Some things start to take on a life of their own. Shiny.

http://www.serenitymovie.com/

http://www.cantstopthesignal.co.uk/


The Arizona Browncoats: !!!! Holy crap, we're mighty!

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/AZ_Browncoats/

http://www.azbrowncoats.com/


In case you don't live in AZ:
http://browncoats.serenitymovie.com/serenity/index.html?fuseaction=tools.cantstopthesignal

http://browncoats.serenitymovie.com/serenity/index.html

http://www.fireflywiki.org/

http://www.bigdamnboard.com/websites/?PHPSESSID=1ea5dca6d69a2701144e3fbefa732924

http://signal.serenityfirefly.com/signal.php

http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=60033036&trkid=181026

http://www.browncoats.com/

http://the11thhour.home.att.net/

http://signal.serenityfirefly.com/signal.php

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/serenity.html;_ylt=Ahzai_Aeu8supgr0OBZgA8VfVXcA

For those of you, like me, who are Kate Bush fans she is releasing a new double CD album on November 8^th through EMI (Sony), entitled Aerial. Her first since 1993's, The Red Shoes! I am really excited. King of the Mountain has been released already as a single (with the Marvin Gaye tribute that never was released: Sexual Healing as "flip" side). Vinyl release concomitantly for those who worship the black. Update (10-15) I heard the King of the Mountain track on Internet radio today (nfradio.tk), and it sounded very good indeed.

Never heard of her?! Oh, you ignorant pup. Try The Whole Story, which was a overview of her first five albums (CD's).

Track Listings

Disc: 1
1. King Of The Mountain
2. Pi
3. Bertie
4. Mrs. Bartolozzi
5. How To Be Invisible
6. Joanni
7. A Coral Room

Disc: 2
1. Prelude
2. Prologue
3. An Architect's Dream
4. The Painter's Link
5. Sunset
6. Aerial Tal
7. Somewhere In Between
8. Nocturn
9. Aerial

Why is your blog/ journal titled, “Fascist Nation?” And subtitled, “Welcome to Ameríka?”

Fascism is hurled as an invective. But it is a valid economic description, which I will define below.

Socialism is where the government controls the economy, or at least deludes itself into believing it can. It passes laws, regulations, tax codes, tariffs, import and export restrictions. It keeps tabs on productivity and consumption (as best it can), and produces the infamous five year plans for the economy. Since the state can never make error, those who wish to remain working for the state must never admit the fallacy of state control over the economy. As a result, reports are always generated extolling the “success” in economic output annually. Those five year plans being replace by other five year plans ... also annually.

Fascism, a form of socialism, is where government acknowledges the limitations of government’s ability to control the economy. The solution is to anoint a few winning businesses, who will then run the economy for the government. The government in turn controls the few businesses. This created mega-corporations. Those in charge then subcontract portions of government contracts to other businesses on a favoritism basis. This still fails to make goods produced reflect true costs, and worse government may set price caps on goods. This is where National Socialism fits as a term. Fascism, socialism. It is all the same. Just with fascism, a few businessmen run the economy, and the government runs those businessmen.

The United States purports to be a capitalist nation economically. Yet, the amount of regulations and burdens imposed on the business community and the workers (producers) in this nation is staggering! About half of the productivity in this country is siphoned off into the maw of government. In turn, government produces both costs and restrictions and regulations that add another 20% to the cost of production and consumption. This percentage climbs a little bit higher every year. This regulation is supplemented with the favoring of a few mega-corporations that control the economy. Kellogg, Brown and Root, The Carlyle Group, Goldman Sacks, Chase, J.P. Morgan, Bechtel Corp., etc.

The small businessman is driven from the marketplace by rule and taxes, implemented by people who could not successfully run their own business if they were subsidized. These entrepreneurs are ultimately forced to work for others. Typically the only stable companies are those on the receiving end of government contracts. Getting these contracts is their business. Subcontracting out the work to a favored few is routine. So in effect, they act as middlemen, getting the contracted product produced at market value, while skimming the excess of the contract.

Government restricts by setting rules so only the few can receive the government largess. The few oblige by making government look efficient in fulfilling its stated commitments, and giving kickbacks (frequently in nepotic form) to the rulers in government.

Hence the good old USA is a fascist nation. I have refrained from stating how evil is this control. The rest of my messages can convey this.

Laissez faire capitalism, is the only economic system with morality. All other forms of economics are immoral. Though the latter all sound so good, they are all about force, theft and fraud.

The free market is two parties non-coercively agreeing to exchange goods or services with each other. Both walking away believing they got the better of the deal. Why? Because each had a surplus of whatever they traded for something they wanted.

All other forms of economics involve the third party of government, taking from one party and giving to another (usually keeping a fine slice for itself). This exchange always occurs at the point of a gun. Under these forms of economics, nothing is owned, except by the government. This is true for monopoly, socialism, Keynesian capitalism or the fascism the United States economic system operates under.

For progressives: Try The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy
by The Nation's William Greider

For conservatives: Try Rush Limbaugh's favorites, Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams

For libertarians: Try Henry Hazlitt

The price of gasoline is in no small part due to the high taxation of the product at both the federal (18¢/ gal.) and state level.

Also the costs of refineries to convert oil into gasoline are prohibitive due to government regulation, which is why we have not seen any built in over three decades.

Additionally government regulations regarding fuel production, producing "cleaner" gasoline, and required additives (ethanol or MTBE) in major metropolitan areas have greatly added to the cost of gasoline/diesel.

Lastly, India and China are now major importers of oil, competing with us. They will pay what they will pay, so the price of this limited product increases. They will pay for it with our dollars.

Worse, when you start wars in the region of the world's major oil producer or threaten to assassinate the head of the country of another major oil producer, oil suppliers get nervous, and oil speculation drives the price of crude up, up and away.

Enjoy Bu$h's War, Bu$h's Economy. Got Ga$?

How about lobbying to get rid of elections all together?
After all, the outcome of elections are already well
known, typically well before the Primary is over, due to
districting.

We could simply ask the Republican and Democratic
Parties to tell us whom they have appointed to those
formerly elected offices.

In the end, this is what occurs now. The only
difference is we wouldn't have to go through the trouble
of holding a couple of elections. We wouldn't be
required to get registered to vote. Voters would no
longer give their endorsement to the process of ripping
off the productive. And those damned Libertarians,
wouldn't get the increasingly rare forum to spout off
their foolish anti-government rhetoric. ;-)

This is not an original idea. Others have argued that two sides have emerged in libertarianism. I will argue that there are three groups below.

People are probably drawn to libertarianism and the Libertarian Party (LP) (which are separate issues) for many reasons. But one common theme must be dissatisfaction with the status quo. They are looking for something other than what the predominant Republicans & Democrats offer. They have almost assuredly tried them out and found them wanting.

The three kinds of individuals are attracted to libertarianism and the LP:

1) Those who pop up almost overnight to take over any organization of people. Once you accumulate a sufficient mass to draw attention to yourselves as an organization, people appear literally overnight and through hard work, organizational skills and persuasion quickly take over the organization. It does not matter if you are the local rock club or a political party, they are there. I am not suggesting some organized cabal who dispatches minions at the first sign of an organization, but by a kind of person drawn to the flame of organization. Obviously, there can only be a few top dogs, so these people are by definition in the extreme minority in any organization, but exercise tremendous influence and power over the organization, including culling the herd through creating rules and hostile situations. They subvert the stated mission of the organization to where the organization really exists to promote themselves. The original mission statement is maintained however for recruitment.

Libertarian philosophy: Must have something that attracts them to a specific organization. But libertarianism is not very important to them, as at the end of the day they do not practice it.

2) Those who want to believe. Government is necessary. Government can be good. Government can be controlled with appropriate safeguards. They wish to work within the system to reform the system. They wish to appear civilized and command the respect of their peers. Appearances must be maintained. They must ignore all evidence to the contrary to remain for long in this group. Or they simply cannot imagine a world without government, and fear its absence.

“Who is to say what a green light means?” They are the first group's foot soldiers, but not necessarily loyal ones. While emotional, they can also be persuaded by reason and history. They must have been politically aware, and to have ultimately rejected the Republicans & Democrats. Ultimately they must believe their goals can be achieved through political power. These are the foot soldiers of the Party.

Libertarian philosophy: Social. The limited government of Jefferson. Victimless crimes are not crimes (mind your own business). Laissez faire economics (free market capitalism). "No force, no fraud" does not appeal to them, for obvious reasons. Government cannot exist without force. The U.S Constitution and the Bill of Rights appeals to them, along with a paternal "government of the people, by the people and for the people."

3) Those who do not believe. Many in this group probably once believed in government, especially limited government, but slowly or rapidly abandoned the concept that government is necessary and good. These are the philosophers of the philosophy. They are drawn to libertarianism. They may be drawn to the LP, as their first step into libertarianism and those of like mind. But in due course the Party is nothing more than a tool for attracting those of like mind, and organizing and spreading the gospel. They may start out believing in limited government, but over time they frequently become what is called min-archists (minimal government of some form) and may eventually become anarchists giving up on government entirely. These people are incompatible with the first group.

Libertarian philosophy: Individual. No force, no fraud is their mantra. As is minding your own business (No trespass.). The U.S Constitution has demonstrably failed to contain the power of the federal government, as it was designed (deliberate double entendre here). The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights appeals to them. They have grasped the limited government concept and started to reduce it to its barest concept (which ultimately leads to the absence of government). They can be abrasive, rude, frank, uncompromising, stubborn and arrogant. But their philosophy is simple, pure and focused.

I started to make my two sides of the same coin analogy (with the first group trying to hold the coin). Clever huh? I slapped myself on the back for my wit with that one. But it isn’t true. In a very real sense we are separable as groups.

One group of libertarians still believes in limited government, the other has lost faith in government ever being an asset. We each struggle to convince the other of our position. "How can traffic lights work without government?" "Where do we adjudicate our transgressors?" "Have you seen any limited government lately?" "How about in the last century?"

Perhaps a modification of the old joke: A libertarian is just an IRS visit away from being an anarchist. And an anarchist is merely a person who has not been mugged. (like there is a difference;-)

While I see many working areas of overlap between the two predominant groups, I see no way in which the two will merge. And perhaps we do not wish them to merge. Perhaps we just need to agree to get along on the many projects we feel will mutually benefit us. And tolerate the sport we make of each other, regarding libertarianism and the LP.

Those who wish to try to restore a limited government can continue to recruit members, register voters, participate in the political process, raise money and file suits where they are allowed standing. My personal opinion is that they will continue on exploring the political process to their disappointment.

Anarchists will continue to pull members who continue to be dissatisfied with the political process. Speaking for myself, we may wish to make sure it is the leadership of the Libertarian Party who takes the blame for political failure, as anarchists are easy to blame for Party failures, because they ‘will not compromise,’ ‘will not participate in the process man,’ ‘scare away people who would vote for us or donate money.’

If libertarians wish to play the political game, and expect to win seats, they need to accept the causes of their defeat. If they define victory by other standards, they may be more satisfied. If they continue to hang out with those who pluck their wallets with promises of electoral victory, and deliver 2% of the vote ... well, what do they say of those who continue doing the same thing and expect a different outcome?

The populace is not so bad off that they are ready to accept less government (but they are bad enough off to accept more government). That may change, and change quickly. When it does, it will be government blaming the lack of government as the recipe to get the nation out of the disaster government has led it to. [See FEMA. "More money." "Cabinet position."] Being prepared to place the blame squarely on government for government should be a number one priority for both sides. And explanations on how limited government can fix the economic and political problems of the nation should be readily at hand. Half a century ago it was the Jews. I suspect it will be the Arabs and the capitalists who get blamed this go around. Or the Asians and the Indians who have wealth to envy.

This will be a battle over whether we are going to get a century of light or centuries of darkness. I expect the darkness to prevail because it has had so very much practice and success, and people always seem to take the seemingly easier path. But it is a cyclic process, and every dog has its day = Hope.

As always, persuasion and/ or guns will carry the day. I hope we are very, very persuasive.

Link to story: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=47528

"Chandler’s Breast-Feeding Task Force will get to work this week. The group of mothers, business leaders and city officials are scheduled to meet Thursday to begin drawing up recommendations to the City Council on how public breastfeeding should be addressed in Chandler."

My response:

Now there is a title for a resumé.

I cut my teeth on this subject many years ago. While some insensitive boobs may find this topic udderly ridiculous, I sincerely trust this committee's work will not be a bust. I hope this committee will keep us abreast of their progress, as I would love to keep their report next to my bosom.

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest.

This was written in response to someone making note of a column that had been posted on Lew Rockwell by Fred Reed:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

He criticised the theory of evolution, along with the origins of life (he had them connected). And brought up Intelligent Design. I had to respond. Some of this is in reply to his terminolgy.

Evolution is not a science. Biology is a science.

Evolution is a theory. That all life present today is descended from other, more ancient forms, leading back to one single celled organism that began it all. From this numerous hypothesis spring. In ALL cases where (testable by definition) hypothesis have been proposed, the Theory of Evolution has survived. Modifications have occurred. But the theory remains intact.

Short term evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. This is demonstrable, and uncontested. But it involves alterations to a species, not the creation of a new species. [Though by one good definition, “the inability to breed,” as the definition of a species boundary, this could be contested. Example, London moths and Darwin’s finches. Still, such species are typically behaviorally prevented from mating, not genetically prevented ... they recently evolved apart from a common ancestor, yet scientists in a lab can artificially inseminate and produce a viable, and perhaps reproducing offspring (though at other times the offspring is equally incapable of successfully mating with its progenitor species or other hybrids due to behavior).]

Long term evolution can probably never be proven [time travel not withstanding], since speciation occurs so slowly that it cannot be observed.

There is some confusion here between evolution, and the origins of life. These are two different ideas, with obvious overlap. Like the laws of physics, one would expect (but not require), that at least some of the motifs responsible for the formation of life, would be found like “scars of evolution” in today’s and yesterday’s life.

Keep in mind when we talk about all life having evolved on Earth from a single, celled organism we are talking about evolution. When we are talking about the origins of life, we are trying to imagine the processes that eventually led to that first, self replicating single celled organism. That is, before cells existed.

The only imaginative treatise I know of on this latter topic is George Mason University professor Harold Morowitz’s, “Beginnings of Cellular Life.” Oh sure, there are plenty of theories on the origins of life, but all are untestable, or incompletely testable. But this one actually looks at those scars present within today’s cells, and comes up with a minimal list found in all, or logically required before cellular life could exist. Pre-cellular life or “life,” must have embodied some of these traits. And different pre-cellular life or phenomenon must have encompassed all of these processes. How such came together to form the first replicating cell is still not very satisfying. But the evidence, but not absolute proof, that it did lies within us all.

Be wary of the argument that such life could not have come into being on the Earth, but was seeded from outside sources. Fine, but it had to have come into being somewhere, so it is a spurious argument ... though if true, it may complicate theory development, but probably not greatly, since any surviving organism of extraterrestrial origin would have to have come from a planet with similar conditions to Earth 4 billion years ago. Very unlikely in any reasonable surviving travel distance from Earth, unless you wish to look at Mars. And you are left with the same arguments for the origin of life if you do, just on another planet.

The theories of Evolution and the origins of life may be frustratingly incomplete, highly speculative, and portions may be untestable, but it beats the alternative. The claim of outside, yet conspicuously untestable outside influence. Even the best (IMHO) of the “Intelligent Design” arguments (Is it a testable hypothesis? I say it is, but will the authors agree to the consequences of such a test?), “Darwin’s Black Box,” by Michael Beje, concede the theory of evolution: That all life on Earth evolved over time from A single celled organism. This hypothesis continues to withstand the test of time, and for Dr. Beje, the accumulation of the sequence data on numerous organisms, and the predictable pattern of sequence divergence that evolving from antecedent species would entail have been borne out. While not “proving” the theory of evolution [Indeed, no theory is ever proven, hypothesis are proven false or they survive testing.], the evidence supports evolution from a single source over a long period of time.

Fred Reed confuses, or fails to separate the theory of evolution from the origins of life. Still, both suffer from the same problem. The distances in time are immense for a human to grasp. Over 4 billion years ago, for the beginning of life, and over the course of 4 billion years for evolution. These are vast distances to comprehend. And the changes that have passed in that amount of time have destroyed the ability to know what conditions were like 4 billion years ago, or what has transpired over this distance of time. Yet there are clues, there are remnants that survive.

And the reasons theories change is that new technologies, new discoveries and new thoughts occur over time, leading to new proposals against the commonly held views. Welcome to science.

Yes there are many theories of the origins of life. And only one or none of them is true. Welcome to science. Most theories and most hypothesis get discarded over time. Those theories for which hypothesis cannot be formed and tested will be worthless. But even if we were to create results in a laboratory to create life, under all the circumstances that we have reason to believe existed 4 billion years ago on Earth (which would be impossible to replicate), we would NOT have proved how life began back then.

Let me repeat: If we KNEW what ALL the circumstances were on Earth at the beginning of life, and successfully recreated them in a lab, AND created life in the process, this would still NOT prove that this is how life began 4 billion years ago. It would only lend support to the prevailing theory that hypothesis were developed from and were being tested. Logically, we can never prove a hypothesis, only disprove.

So you are left with only faith and your beliefs. The faith of science is built on logic, observation and most importantly experimental challenge. A long history of experimental challenge in which to support faith in evolution, and to a much lesser extent, on the origins of life on this planet.

The mere fact that this is unsatisfactory, does not negate the theory, nor lend credence to some other theory. All theories rest upon their own laurels.

As for other sciences, as I have said, evolution is a theory, biology is the science. But yes, there are some sciences that are very hard and predictive. Chemistry. Geology [to a point, yet try to predict earthquakes and volcanic eruptions], Astronomy [well not really, not only do theories on origins of stellar objects and the universe itself change, get modified, etc.], Physics [ah, string theory, chaos theory, yada yada yada... theoretical physics is replete with unsatisfying theories. Yet, Physics can make many certain predictions. Example, Newton’s apple.]

So Mr. Reed should not be so smug in his posture on evolution. On the other hand, scientists should not be smug in their acceptance of evolution, as many are. [I know of no scientist who is smug on the theories of the origin of life.] Evolution is a theory. It is a large, encompassing and complex theory. But a better theory could come along and take its place. I fail to see that as having happened however. And I have seen evolutionary hypothesis survive trial, and therefore any new theory MUST explain those demonstrated hypothesis. Until then, I find the theory of evolution satisfying, predictive and well thought out, but open to modification. And like Mr. Reed, I too find many explanations in evolution and the origins of life less than satisfying. But explanations are mere speculation put forward to explain an observation, that now need to be tested.

To hypothesis some outside influence is responsible for evolution or the origins of life is to beg the question of where did the outside influence come from? And how do you test the hypothesis that must come from this theory?


I could go on and address Mr. Reeds criticisms. I think I have hit on the main fallacy of his complains. The mixing of the theory of evolution and the origin of life. Back and forth in a dizzying group of circles. Worse, at one point he jumps from poo-pooing speculations of the origins of life with theories of evolution, and poo-pooing those with a discussion of sexual selection’s contribution to evolution. As if failure of himself to be satisfied with why a bird has red feathers demonstrates the fallacy of all the theories on the origins of life. You obviously need better sources of explanation for your questions, and a better understanding of the theory of evolution.

As an aside, the question of why a bird would have brightly colored feathers (FYI almost always just the male, and many times only during breeding season) is a great question, since there would be a great selective disadvantage to prancing around so adorned. The answer is such a bird is more likely to mate, than his counterpart, that has been captured, his feathers painted a nice “normal” color, and then released and observed. There are two major forces at work in evolution: the desire not to be eaten (as well as the success in fulfilling the desire to eat), AND fulfilling mating (in sexually reproducing organisms). Sexual selection (mate choice) is a powerful, and proven evolutionary force, as powerful as surviving (to mate and raise offspring – if required).

As far as strait answers ... it is a theory! There are no strait answers to a theory. That is why it is a theory. A known fact, is a known fact. Chemistry is full of known facts and few theories. Biology has many known facts, and many theories. To claim that since an area of biology, namely evolution, is incapable of conclusively answering your questions and therefore is not science, but metaphysics is simply not true. Metaphysics is outside physics or the real world, Universe, however you wish to view it. It cannot be examined from the real world. It is the idea of an outside, Intelligent Design that is metaphysics. Existing outside of the testable Universe. Evolution, may be speculative, as all theories are, but there are testable facets. And as I have said, where tests have occurred, evolution failed to be disproved. Questioning evolution occurs daily. Proposing tests of evolution, while daunting also occurs. Anyone is free to propose alternatives to evolutionary theory or the origins of life. No one is stopping you.

Please provide an speculation as to where did life come from? Where did all of these species that exist now, or for which evidence of extinct species existence has been uncovered, come from? Why do birds have red feathers?

Watch your metaphysics.

This was also from the same journal that specializes in Phoenix, AZ and state news. I wrote this in response to Mesa (AZ) legislator Russell Pierce's column on a piece of legislation calling for the walling off the border of Arizona from Mexico paid by the AZ taxpayers. Rep. Pierce and I agree on some things. This wasn't one of them. We are working on the others (he is open minded).

Sure we could build a 30 foot high wall along a 400 mile long stretch of border. It is not like we are using concrete for anything else in Arizona. Sort of a Future Tourist Attraction: The Great Wall of Arizona, or Stalag Arizona, or Russell’s Last Erection. For decades now we have read about the trespass problems private property owners have had along the border. I propose a different solution than the ones that have been pursued for these many years which has worsened your problem. I address the private property owners along the border.

First, what you have been doing is not working. So maybe it is time to do something else. Maybe it is time to examine what is the cause of your problems, and fight the cause rather than the symptoms.

The huge influx of Mexicans and people from other parts of the Americas is important to you. These people provide large labor savings on your ranches. They come ready to work and are willing to work hard. They lower the costs to you both in selling to and buying from the marketplace. If they could not find work, they would not come. So there is obviously a job market out there, and that market is nationwide.

Now some would say, this is an area we need to attack. We need to pass laws against aliens coming here to work without government permission. Since when has it ever worked out well for you whenever the government interfered with your free market exchanges?

Besides the federal government has already passed such un-Constitutional and draconian assaults on the free market, and the results are that the immigrants keep immigrating, and the employers keep hiring them, and occasionally we have a business owner like yourself, getting a show trial by a conniving federal prosecutor who triumphantly sends that entrepreneur to prison. But for the most part, the situation remains: People hire people to do jobs. The free market ALWAYS finds a way. And government officials are always willing to be corrupted.

So what are we supposed to do? Let people by the tens of thousands stream over our private property!? That is the situation you are in today. Why? It did not used to be like this in your father’s and grandfather’s time. What has changed? Transportation has improved, but not that much. These immigrants still travel for long periods over great distances at great cost, and at terrible risk just to work menial jobs in the United States for you. And we want them to!

The countries they come from are impoverished, but that has been true of these countries for a century, and besides our ancestors immigrated here for the same reason; seeking a better living.

Our economy for the past 50 years has grown enormously. We are comparatively wealthy as a population, and that wealth translates into more job openings as we are willing to pay others to do certain jobs, preferring to spend our limited time on more productive pursuits. In our situations it has become worth it to hire low cost immigrants. Is this a cause we really wish to fight? Do we wish to impoverish ourselves so these aliens will stop coming? I think not.

So what is the other cause of these aliens trespassing on our private property by the tens of thousands? The federal government. Our government blocks all public roads into our country, denying access to these aliens whom have jobs waiting for them on the other side of the fence. So they use your property. And the sheer number of people causes massive damage to your property in the trampling of your lands, the consumption of your lands resources and the deposition of large amounts of both garbage and human waste.

This never happened when the borders were relatively open. Indeed, were the borders open today, as an entrepreneur you could seize the opportunity to facilitate the weary travelers on their journey into the United States. Instead of giving thousands of dollars to Coyotes, they could be renting places to stay on your property, buying supplies and making safe transportation arrangements. Since they would not wish to anger you, they would be respectful of your property. Even though your anger may have turned to prejudice, even you remember that these are good people who want to work.

The solution is not to demand more federal government, they are the ones responsible for your mess in the first place. The solution is to drive the federal government back into its cage at every opportunity and by any means at hand. But go ahead, build a wall. I am sure industrious people can dig tunnels. Get it? Where there is a will, there is a way. You simply add to your costs, add to your own inconvenience, and add to the corrupt government’s power.

This was my response to an educator, Dr. Corso, complaining about public schools not getting enough money in Arizona on another journal:

Dr. Corso writes: Free choice and natural selection are not equivalent, ....

Sure they are. Animals make choices, in their environment, and depending upon those choices they are rewarded or penalized. People also make choices, in their environment, and depending upon their choices they are rewarded or penalized. That is free choice. That is natural selection. The population self optimizes, at the expense of unwise individuals, to the betterment of individuals in the short term and long term.

Free choice only works for those families who are enabled and empowered to make that choice from the beginning (i.e., wealthy and educated). What happens to the students who have impoverished single parents working more than one job? Do you really believe that that they will be able to make a "choice"?

Everyone is free to make choices. Not everyone will have the same choices, or even as many choices. But everyone has choices to be made that can lead to betterment or a worsening of themselves and their progeny.

As someone who thinks that schools are "wasting resources", I'd ask you to think about why it is that as a teacher, I usually spend approximately $3-4,000 per year on my classes for materials. I'd also like for you to ponder why I am an educator with 13 years of experience and a Ph.D., who is only making $41,000 per year. Finally, I'd like for you to explain why it is that I have taught in classrooms without enough textbooks or desks, yet you argue for the governor not to "spend another dime."

If by "I usually spend approximately $3-4,000 per year on my classes for material," you mean that you spend your own money, that is clearly wrong. But it makes the case that public education fails. It fails to provide enough money to educate children it has demanded responsibility for, even though 3/4 of the state's budget goes towards funding public education.

As for your salary, see the above comments about choices. As to why you have taught classes without enough textbooks or desks for your students, see my comments on the failure of public schools and the enormous maw currently devouring money in the name of public education.

You certainly cannot complain that students are not being provided with enough support when the state is providing around $9,000 per student per year. If you taught a classroom with an average of 35 students that would amount to over $300,000 annually. Minus you salery which would amount to about $60,000 including benifits, that leaves over $200,000 for upkeep of your room, utilities, and school supplies. That is a lot for lets say 35 X 5 classes/ day = 175 students.

Corruption and misspending money is an obvious feature of public schooling, because there is no selection in getting your dollars worth. No reason to keep costs down. Most private schools would be ecstatic to take students for $4,500 per year. There is a reason most public school teachers send their own children to private school, despite public school being "free" to those underpaid teachers.

The business model does not fit schools because we are not in the business of churning out a product. We are in the business of helping to create thoughtful human beings responsible for the world. ....

Of course you are in a business that produces a product! You are supposed to produce a well educated child. I would not want my kids being taught to be thoughtful, as in kind and considerate of others. That should have been my job before the kid was old enough to attend school. Nor are my kids responsible for the world. No one is. People are responsible for themselves and their non-emancipated children. It is only when someone claims to be necessary for the responsibility of others that I nod my head and think, yup, they call that person master.

References:

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/pdf/materials/525.pdf

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/pdf/materials/506.pdf

http://www.ade.state.az.us/schoolfinance/Reports/

Embargoed until 8 a.m. EST, July 15, 2006
From: Republican National Committee, Washington, D.C.
To: Loyal following in the media and call-in volunteers
Subject: Sunday’s Trashing Points

10. Keep repeating “the war in Iraq is going very well. The insurgency is on the run. With just another $80 billion and an additional 80,000 increase in troop number we should have this war successfully mopped up the day after the 2006 elections.” Whatever you do, do not say anything about some damned light in a tunnel.

9. Valerie Plame is a whore! She actually kissed her future husband on the third date. At best this means she is a woman of low repute and easy reputation. Thank God Rove exposed her, before she exposed herself.

8. Threaten the life of talk show hosts who fail to present our side accurately ... and exclusively. “They should be hauled out and shot!” seems to be popular Congressional phraseology.

7. Catholic priests are no more likely to sexually abuse children in Boston that they do in any other city.

6. Of course Wilson’s assessment of the Niger yellow cake uranium was faulty. He did it without charging the government for his troubles. What does that tell you? He is a liar, that is what. No one does anything for patriotic reasons in this town. Besides, he has long hair.

5. Enlist. Enlist your children. It is your patriotic duty. Your country needs you and your kids.

4. It is a shame that when the bodies are still cooling in London, terrorism’s supporters are taking to the airwaves in this country attacking our noble President. A man who has worked very hard to make sure these incidents occur in other people's countries, and not our own.

3. Support our troops. Wave a flag. Wear a flag lapel pin. Criticise talk show hosts who fail to wear such pins. Tie a yellow ribbon around your antenna.

2. Isn’t it wonderful the space shuttle is launching again? I think everyone should really get excited about this, and pay attention to this exciting development and our brave new astronauts. And just in case they don't get off of the ground, there is the health of the Chief Justice or Congressman Santorum's terrible dispersions of Boston to consider.

1. The Guantanamo Bay Detention Center is like a fancy resort, only with a more strenuous workout facilities and fresher air.


Receiving these talking points today, pushes the story of capo Eddie “the Tuna” Califanos trial that I was planning on reporting to a later date. Synopsis: Don Califanos has told the jury that he told Louie “Fat Tire” Giovani to kill Murray “three fingers” Lavadio’s wife, but he never mentioned her by name. Therefore, under the statutes regarding murder, since he did not use her actual name, he did not actually order her murder. The Republican appointed federal judge said he would take this argument under consideration under new interpretation of federal laws currently being drafted by the Justice Department.


"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." ~ Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887.

Who will be the next “Woodward & Bernstein?”

It started out as a small story. “Who cares,” cried the White House spinmeisters?

Hardly any paper would reprint the stories. After all, it was only a burglary, at a Washington, D.C. hotel.

But eventually the dam burst.

The President had recently been re-elected. But the stories would not die.

The war was continually claimed to be going well, with the end in sight. But a year later, the President left the White House in disgrace.

And the Republicans, loyal to an Administration who sold them out, paid the price for their “no questions asked” backing of a crooked war monger. And they did not recover for almost 15 years.

The nation’s economy, self respect and pride took a similar toll.

The bill is due again. History repeats itself.

Which reporter will dig up the story and push to have it printed? Even if it is only four column inches on page A17 at first.

As it was over 30 years ago. Who will be the icon to a new generation of journalists?

Who will be the next “Woodward & Bernstein?”



"George Bush will never fire Karl Rove...that would be like Charlie McCarthy firing Edgar Bergen." — Kevin C., reader of Mike’s Blog Roundup

Washington, D.C. (AP) — Responding to an press inquiry the White House yesterday announced it found a closed investigation that they could comment upon.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan opened by stating that General Armstrong Custer was indeed under orders to await reinforcement troops before he was to engage the hostile Sioux Nation. This investigation, having found evidence of Gen. Custer being negligent of disobeying his orders, he would have been court marshaled had he survived. “Had he simply obeyed the orders of his superiors, his men would not be a tourist attraction today,” stated McClellan.

“We hope this answers questions raised by the media at a time when investigations were ongoing. We are glad we could finally comment on this tragic situation. Happily, subsequent military actions taken by our government have eliminated this terrorist red menace,” McClellan concluded. “We look forward to answering all of your questions as ongoing investigations are completed.”

A exuberant and chortling President Bush, at an evening fund raiser responded to questions regarding that day’s press conference with, “Sioux Nation. Sounds like a hot female rock group, or something.”

In a completely unrelated story columnist Robert D. Novak was struck and killed by a black Ford Expedition last night while leaving a legal defense fund raiser for Sen. Trent Lott. Witnesses stated the vehicle appeared to deliberately drive up onto the sidewalk in front of the building and struck the columnist before speeding off. Police are asking for help in locating the vehicle bearing the government license plates QUEEN1.


"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." — Henry A. Kissinger, Secretary of State

Washington D.C. (AP) — The White House announced today that Director Steven Spielberg was seized on the 4th of July as an enemy combatant. “FBI agents, acting on a note signed by President Bush today detained Mr. Spielberg at just before 4 A.M. in his bedroom in California. He was suspiciously found unconscious at the time.” While details on where Mr. Spielberg was detained are known, the press are not free to disclose this location due to provisions of the Patriot Act.

President Bush was unavailable for comment, but Vice President Cheney spoke with the press. “On Sunday afternoon, Lynne and I were appalled to see a movie showing ordinary American citizens going about their daily lives abruptly being slaughtered from above by overwhelming force, that they were helpless to oppose. Wave after wave of obliteration was visited upon the populace, while the government was shown impotent to stop the carnage.”

“This thinly disguised analogy of the people of Iraq being struck by the omnipotent and overwhelming might of the United States will not be tolerated. One would think a Jew like Spielberg would see the obvious assistance to Israel the USA is giving in the comprehensive subjugation of a bunch of Moslems. Well, a few hooded years spent incommunicado with the Attorney General will set him strait.”

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld agreed, stating “We should have nipped this in the bud after that George Lucas thing with aspersions on Empire. It wouldn’t surprise me if Industrial Light + Magic had a hijacked aircraft come crashing through their door the way they obviously pissed off the Arabs with their profligate expression of freedoms. I would not want to be working there around the time this Karl Rove CIA thingy starts appearing in the news.”

Meanwhile, in an completely unrelated matter, the Patriot Act II making its way through Congress was amended to expand the powers of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)’s ratings board to demand certain unpatriotic content be removed from films before their release. In addition, the composition of the board will now include a reasonable number of government appointed oversight members.

Senator Lieberman (D-CT) has praised this bold and courageous move on part of the House, and has stated he will extend this board's authority to regulate similar content on the radio, television, cable and satellite, cellular and phone lines, newspapers and the Internet, by reviving and extending provisions of the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts.

Not to be outdone, 2008 anointed President-elect John McCain (R-AZ) announced an amendment to reorganize the MPAA into a completely government appointed oversight board, with an appropriate bill title name change to Most Patriotic Americans Act.


"My God - you're like a trained ape. Without the training." – Dr. Simon Tam, spoken to ... guess?

It has come to my attention from a secret Pentagon report disguised as a NASA press release, the Right Honorable murderer of mankind George Bush, is planning yet another attack on foreign soil. Not merely being satisfied with two pathetic disasters of his making in the Middle East, he plans to bomb Tempel 1 at approximately 2 a.m. EST on July 4th, for his kind of fireworks.

The President, famous for his attacks on targets that cannot defend themselves, wanted to make it clear to the American Sheeople that the fallout from this explosion was unlikely to be able to strike back at our shores.

“We worked very hard, we tried very hard to bring about a peaceful resolution to the path being traveled. I think about this meteor every day. Every single day. But after exhausting every possible solution to getting Tempel 1 to alter the path it is on, after issuing every warning for it to stop, we cannot wait for the United Nations to act."

"It is up to the USA to protect itself from WMDs, IUDs and other stuff. So today acting in what I have determined is the best course for our nation, I have order our forces around the world to bomb this meteor,” said a resolved President wearing a military flight gear, surrounded by hastily recalled sailors on the deck of the destroyer, USS Richard Nixon, currently dry docked in Virginia.

This marks only the second time the United States has attacked sovereign soil in outer space, and the first time out of the Earth’s orbit. “There will be some real fireworks on that soil, yes sir! We are going to stay the course. We are winning this star wars,” said a beaming President.

Congressman DeLay stated he fully supported the President’s assault on those who pose a threat to our national security. “Terrorist, whether from Iran or Idaho, Neptune or Alpha Centauri, had better be aware. No matter where you are our armed forces will seek you out and obliterate you, no matter who happens to get in our way.”

The Democratic response was handled by Sen. John Kerry, who replied he could not believe he lost to "some half-asteroid who did not know the difference between a comet and a meteor."

He further stated he would have bombed not only Tempel 1, but also any asteroids in the area in order to get every potential enemy of the USA that might exist. He reluctantly supported this tepid response by the President, and encourages the President to next time be more manly, like him, and reminded the nation of his three purple hearts received in Vietnam. “A country the President avoided going to, until now,” he added.

Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister hurriedly announced a similar bombing campaign was in the planning stages in his country. He announced, “We will show our unwavering support for any plan promoted by our closest ally, the United States government.”

In an unrelated matter, the State Dept. announced an aid package for the United Kingdom of some $3.5 billion dollars in loans and military equipment as a token of esteem for allowing the United States to bankrupt that once great nation.


"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." — Ayn Rand