It has been a while since we have done a Culture Watch segment. Perhaps it is the election year and the tumultuous nature of 2020. But, as we have said before, if we lose our culture it makes no difference who we have for President.

   And, as I have repeatedly stressed before, the number one issue in our Culture Wars is not just the morality (or lack thereof) of what is being presented to us by our popular culture. It is the more fundamental question of “Why are they doing this type of presenting (of how our children should be doing their sex acts) in the first place?” And why do such Cultural Elitists feel it is their business to be doing this type of presenting in the first place? It is not.

   As I once put it in my work The Confused Generation, “And yet society is at a role reversal here.

   The universal prescription was to have an intact family dealing with the sex acts business while everyone else stayed out of it. Now, everyone and his kid brother is constantly engaging in the sex acts business with our children EXCEPT for there being an intact family to deal with it. Thus, it is time for both 1) the return of the traditional family unit AND 2) the exit of everyone else from the sex acts business. Or we will continue to have the Confused Generation as we have it today.” End Quote.

  But, unfortunately, and in a way that you would not expect it to happen, my criticism today is not aimed at the Cultural Elitists but at – incredibly – the Hallmark Channel. As we have said before, we are not hypocrites, we play no favorites and we simply call it the way it is. So, what is behind my reprimand of Hallmark (of all people!)

   It is their recent capitulation to the Homosexual Lobby. This is the blunt, unnuanced way to put it. But, as our regular readers know, we understand nuances and we do not broad-brush stroke everyone into the same category. We stand by our previous statements that we, in no wise, condemn people simply for practicing homosexuality.

   We merely believe, that just like a lot of the rest of us, they have an un-Biblical practice that is ongoing in their lives. And that like every one of the rests of us, you need to put these practices behind you when you do get involved in un-Biblical behavior. Thus, we have no worse criticism of people practicing homosexual behavior than of anyone else who has an un-Biblical practice in their lives. But what we do condemn, and vehemently so, are the people who keep trying to orchestrate this lifestyle onto all the rest of us. Or, to use the blunt terminology, the Homosexual Lobby.

  A second matter that concerns us (about this group) is the viciously non-tolerant strain of leftism in the country. And the most Stalinist of these are the people who have become the self-anointed “gay rights” advocates. In a previous Culture Watch segment, we chronicled the ‘tolerant’ crowd’s inability to just let The American Idol be The American Idol. This was our first Culture Watch segment of ours and it pretty much laid down our markers for what we really stand for. (For those with an interest in the matter the link is The Idol Wars.)

   But why has Hallmark done its apparent capitulation? (Specially: they have just done their fourth pro-homosexual movie in less than a month’s time. Why should someone tune into Hallmark to watch two homosexual males lip locking each other? People who watch Hallmark don’t do it to see things like that).

   I think that there are three possible factors for why The Hallmark Channel (at least for the moment) has capitulated to the ‘tolerant’ crowds. (That will knee you in the groins if you do not agree to every one of their ‘tolerant’ views).



   1) We have been aware, for some time, that the ‘tolerant’ crowds would make a move against the Hallmark Network for not playing ball with them. My fears increased when I heard how Lori Loughlin (a central part of Hallmark’s acting crew) wound up with legal problems. Our fear is that they may have taken advantage of Lori Laughlin’s legal problems to use it as a part of the pressure campaign. While I do not condone some of her behavior, it was a far stretch from being unlawful behavior, and I feel it was embellished beyond what she was truly guilty of doing. But why do I bring up the ‘tolerant’ crowds here?

   One reason is that we have been following, in this column specifically, the type of people who use their positions in power to do politically motivated prosecutions. The prosecutors that have been working the college admissions scandals fall in this category. While there was no grand conspiracy involving Lori Loughlin (and Hallmark whom she was a major actress for) once she came to their notice then we believe the following may have happened:

   They love a ‘big fish’ to fall into their nets. Also, because she has been prominent in the Wholesome Entertainment movement (which is now somehow a bad thing rather a good one) it was more of the same. Many federal prosecutors are rife with political motivations and political animus’s against other people in how they do their jobs.

  Next, the ‘tolerant’ crowd may well be using her situation as a warning shot over the bow to others. Essentially, if you do not play ball with them then you had better live a totally sinless life – or you could find yourselves in trouble. This is especially true because most of the prosecutions (not all but most) of the admissions scandal are based on a very nebulous legal theory.

   Namely, that if you are a rich person who gets special favors then that is, in and of itself, an act of grand larceny. With a wide-open legal theory like that in play, it leaves virtually no one safe and is certainly leaves a lot of room to do intimidation. Combine that with many federal prosecutors who also double as political hacks and it is a recipe for disaster. Once who have a wide open enough legal theory to use for prosecutions – and you have prosecutors who are more than happy to double as political hacks – then it is so much for the rule of law. Time does not permit a prolonged dissertation on this, but it is one of our concerns.

   To do a repeat of a prior point: I have always known that a move would be made against Hallmark (and others who have not played ball with the Homosexual Lobby and other PC movements). When I saw Loughlin’s problems being turned into a crusade, I became concerned that it might wind up as something to put the move against Hallmark (and others like them) into play. I do not know for sure how much of this has happened, but it concerns me.



   I do not think that a particular new development is a part of Hallmark’s recent behavior but there is a new development. Hallmark has developed economic ties with the Lifetime Channel which is not so fastidious about just giving people straight entertainment. Hopefully, Hallmark would not comprise its mission of just providing quality entertainment (and staying out of the indoctrination business) just over economic ties. I do not believe this to be the case, but Hallmark needs to be more forthcoming to its viewers as to why there has been a sudden change in their entertainment philosophy.



   Trump may wind up leaving the White House. And, normally, politics would not be so important but …

   The first thing that the homosexual rights movement has done (after Biden has started to look like the incoming President) is to press for what amounts to sheer blasphemy. Basically, they asked the (possibly) incoming people to decertify all parochial and private schools that do not play ball with their agenda. In short, that you can only be private or religious as they define it for you to properly be. This Stalinist type of politics would not be a problem with a Trump administration (or even with a Democrat one before now) but it is a (possible) problem now.

  There is an entire wing of the Justice Department that is (effectively) a criminal organization. It is the SDNY – the Southern District of New York. They deliberately engage in political prosecutions just for politics’ sake. It has now become something of a norm to criminalize political differences.

   And it has become increasingly easy to do this through their increasing use of novel legal theories to make things prosecutable. If you 1) make every possible act a human being can do become prosecutable through novel legal theories and then 2) prosecute only the people that annoy you then 3) you are now successfully the dictator of the world.

   People are already afraid to speak their minds from mob behavior becoming a new norm. Once political prosecutions become the new norm then everyone will have to tow the line of the latest political movement that is in charge. While, technically, you would still not be risking prosecution for simply resisting political correctness the actual reality would become much more intimidating.

   Suppose, for example, you get a real high profile for not conforming to these new norms. Then, just as a hypothetical, someone invents the latest new novel legal theory makes you prosecutable for picking up your newspaper without the proper attire on. And then, finally, you get a prosecutor who also doubles as a political flunky.

   Don’t you now have to add, say, being careful how you pick up your newspaper onto the list of things you now need to be doing? Or should you simply acquiesce to the PC crowd – so you will no longer be on someone’s target list?



    Now I do not know, precisely, why Hallmark has gotten sidetracked onto the wrong course. Its previous course was correct. They portrayed premarital sex in neither a good light nor in a bad one. They just stayed out of the matter altogether, just stuck to being an entertainer and left it up to the parents of the world to raise their children – and to be the ones to mold people’s values.

   Hallmark has not been involved with any hot button issues about your gun rights, abortions, Donald Trump and/or Barrack Obama, etc. And this is also correct. They have, traditionally, just stuck with being an entertainment company and stayed out of the “tell you how to think” business. And, in my opinion, rightly so.

   Similarly, Hallmark had never said anything – one way or the other – about homosexuality. They have never said, portrayed or insinuated that you should not do it. Nor had they ever, until now unfortunately, said, portrayed or insinuated that you should. This was, again, the correct entertainment philosophy.

   In Hallmark’s case it can be said, in a friendly way, to “Go back where you came from!” Because where they came from was right. And the way that they are going now is wrong.

April 2020



    I think we should switch gears to that most fundamental of issues: the ongoing obstruction of democracy.

   1) There are the biased news sources that seem to feel that the most important issue (even above how ever high the death count) is the disgracing of the current President. If you are shook up by the latest alleged  statements of the Prez, then don’t be. He does not believe that individuals should be drinking or injecting themselves with clorox. For a more thorough discussion of this go to the following link:


   2) There is always the Judge shopping. The recent headlines showed another ultimate win by Trump in the Supreme Court for his immigration policy. His Resistance opponents have never questioned that they would ultimately lose in the courts BUT it is still a way of obstructing the process. That is, to have his actions stay blocked for as long as possible in the lower courts.

   3) And there was the criminalizing of political differences that led to the ultimate outcome of the Impeachment Saga. All three of these practices are an intended set of acts to subvert the democratic process. Thus, we will continue our shift away from virus coverage (not totally but some) and shift back to other basic issues.

   One shift will be a full length article entitled “The Death of the Ballot Box.” This will be put into the Rogue’s Gallery section on the Welcome to the Library! page. A second shift will be a new set of articles inspired by the blunders of the coronavirus fight.

   It will be a trilogy that I will entitle ” ‘Science’ vs. Thinking.” I will do an introductory piece to set these three articles up: Why you never let someone else do your thinking for you – ‘science’ notwithstanding. I think this will make a good new direction for the upcoming news blurbs and full length articles. There will still be the occasional virus update and Culture Watch segment but let’s see how this new direction works out.


   We are on top of the ‘flattened curve’. The active number of cases (when using a 5-day rolling average) goes a slight up, slight down, slight up, slight down … at slightly over 500,000 active cases. The daily death totals do the same slight up, slight down, etc. (when using a 5-day rolling average) of about 2150 daily deaths and a 7.5% death rate in real time numbers.

   The problem with (finally) being ‘flattened’? ‘Science’ keeps flashing these two different curves at us. One is a steep, sharp but short curve that depicts the natural course of an epidemic. The second is the much bally-hooed ‘flattened’ curve. But, if you actually look at the two different curves geometrically, it is possible that they are still roughly equivalent in total deaths.

   The natural steep curve (of an epidemic) is horrible but much shorter in length – while the ‘flattened’ curve (potentially) goes on and on and on … Thus far, we have been in this ‘flattened’ state for more than 2 weeks with no guarantee of it ending soon. Thus, we may wind up having just as many total deaths as the natural curve would have produced without all of the ‘flattening’ measures.


Coronavirus Bell Curve | Daily COVID-19 Statistics for the United States

   The link above had a significant update yesterday. Check the new format for survival rates. (If you are under 40 w/ no underlying health problems there is only a 1 in 2500 chance of a fatality from the virus). You can see again how there has been no epidemic – but simply a failure to protect the vulnerable parts of the population. But for this, there would be no significant amount of deaths.

   On a plus note, policy makers are at least making mention of the over 65/under 65 factor in their latest considerations. We will have to await the results to see if it is with a sufficient seriousness. That is, do we finally start getting these people out of the equation so that the overall death rates will start becoming lower and lower. At this moment, the benchmark rate (of the real time death rate for the populous as a whole) is running at 7.4%.


   Per a previous blurb, I will maintain a record when the virus hits certain benchmarks. As of today, the rate of cases is stabilizing but not the death rates. The real time death rate has made another 1-percentile uptick: from running at 6% to 7%.


   (Obviously) there comes a point where a matter is talked to death so … as to the virus: after today, we will just do a weekly update on the progress of the fight against the virus. We have already expressed our views on how we think it could have been done better. So … to our last opinion blurb on the coronavirus efforts:


   The reopening should be in two phases: the first phase should be to make things the way it should have been all along (by our opinion) without doing any of the closings at all. Namely, that all businesses should be opened. But with limitations:

   All employees are to practice aggressive self protection – masks dampened in a slight protective solution, on-the-hour clean up breaks with hand sanitizers and a slight protective solution blend to re-dip the masks and/or rinse the facial areas. The employers are to configure their shops so that there is either a 6 foot social distance separation between employees and customers OR there is to be a partition of some kind as an alternative.

   (This is another reason why I don’t like medical professionals actually running the show. If you haven’t noticed, virtually all cashiers have now put up physical barriers between themselves and the customer. It has always been obvious that the 6 foot rule could not apply but … guess what? They figured out the physical barrier scheme as an alternative – and did it all by themselves!)

   A final self-protection is to simply be aware of who is working for you. (From our other writings: someone who is in the high risk pool should not be working for you – or shopping from you. They should be in the harder levels of protection we have talked about elsewhere.) But what the employer can do (minus we called a ‘triage’ concept being used by the government) is to observe which employees are having to do the most hazardously close-in work with others. If they are wearing a face mask, are under 40 years of age and have no underlying health problems the odds of them still winding up dead are virtually nil.

   As to the customers: I again criticize the arrogance of the medical professionals. Most employers (who have been allowed to stay open) are already doing everything right:

     1) Most of them limit the amount of people that are inside at any time (so that social distancing can be maintained) and

     2) Most of them have all lines (on the outside) have space bars to keep the people in line from getting too close to each other. Also, they usually have the line to the cashier be similarly marked and for the same reasons. And this was all done without anyone ordering them to do it. But there should be one last change that has not been totally put into gear yet.

     3) All  customers should have to wear a face mask before being allowed in. Even this is something that the medical professionals bear the most blame for. Since Day One, they have insisted that masks are critical to their survival while, simultaneously, discouraging the average citizen from using one. This is one of the prime reasons that masks haven’t been getting used more frequently. 

   4) But then you have the air tight reason why there is probably not even one restaurant – anywhere in America –  that should have ever been closed. It is because virtually every business in America already has the capability to act as a drive-in establishment as well as drive-through ones. In today’s world, virtually every person who will park in a parking lot will also have access to a cell phone and the phone number of any establishment that they might want to do business with. And, conversely, in today’s world virtually every business you might want to park in front of has the ability to take phone orders and payments. Finally, since the food can be delivered to the hood of a car (with the all of the windows rolled up) wouldn’t this act as an airtight social separation technique? Between this, drive-throughs, home delivery and inside social separation OR partitioning (either can work) there has never been the need to shut down a single business. At least not without allowing them to submit a Safe-but-Open plan.

    So why has a single restaurant ever been ordered closed – without them at least being given a chance to submit a Safe-but-Open Plan? This must never happen again. There must be a new federal law giving every business owner the right to submit a Safe-but-Open Plan before they can ever be closed. And the new federal law must place the County Health Departments as the approving authorities for them – to prevent the types of political fowl ups that we keep seeing involved here.

   A final matter is how to deal with the geographical hot spots and how to inhibit their spread to other geographical areas. In previous writings, it is has already been laid out how to do a strategic quarantine of an area in such a way that there is little economic damage. See “WHILE WE ARE STILL MINUS ENOUGH MREs(POSTED 3/29/20)” for more details.

   This would be Phase One of the re-opening. (Which, again, is what we have advocated all along but without doing the shutdown in the first place.) But before we go to Phase 2, just a couple of questions:

      1) ‘Essential’ businesses appear to be operating safely with the extra safeguards that most of them have adopted. So why would opening a ‘nonessential’ business – to operate the same way – risk reigniting the virus?

   2) Finally, where are the random testings – to know exactly how the breakdown of the virus is actually occurring. Gallup polls do this type of an exercise all of the time. They use just a small amount of sampling to get an accurate breakdown of opinions – and across a massively large area. All the random testing program would be is the same selection process – you just then do a virus test rather than an interview. Maybe we should put them in charge of the testing program rather than the medical ‘professionals’? We could have known weeks ago exactly how the virus is distributed amongst the population – and how the impact actually works out to with precision.


   Our views on Phase Two are simple: necessity will always be the best mother of invention. Allow each business enterprise to be able to reopen itself fully if they can meet just one condition:

   They set up a regimen where they can vouch for everyone, who comes inside their business, that they are negative for the virus. This may not sound like much but it is enough just to put an economic incentive out there – for the business world itself to get involved in testing. And their are many ways they could do it. I will only list one for-instance scenario.

   My one possible example: why couldn’t businesses pool some of their money for their own testing centers, i.e., a sign says “Do you want to go shopping? Get tested here.” or “Do you want to eat inside the lobby? Get tested here.” They then have their own arrangement so that if a person tests negative they get a certificate saying “Good to go” – followed by the date of the test on the slip of paper. This person is then free to shop anywhere and at any time with no restrictions  – for at least the next 24 hours (or maybe more – depending on the science involved). Now that there are quick tests available why not quick testing centers that can enable you to be good to go? And especially if you give the business world itself a powerful economic incentive to start setting such centers up?

   This, again, is just one for-instance. The details don’t really matter – nor do we have to keep being dictated to by politicians or by the medical bureaucrats. Once you put an economic incentive out there for the business world to get into the testing business then it will just somehow happen. There are the laws of physics, there is the law of gravity and there are the laws of human nature that necessity will always become the mother of invention. It needed even be worried about.

   Just these two items (a business’ right to submit a Safe-but-Open Plan and an incentive to become a part of the testing industry) should totally do the trick until the national emergency is over. Less lives would have been lost (not more), it would end the emergency quicker and, in all probability, it should have been done without ever shutting down a single business for even one single second.



   I have, finally, come up with the most definitive materials that I can find. The actual death rate, in real time, is even worse than the 3-4% mark. This number came from having the total number of cases, going back to Day 1, and then comparing it against the total number of deaths – and going back to Day 1.

   As stated earlier, this number has been increasing – and in the way my last article stated. But the best measure is a real-time measure of what is happening right now. The link below will give you the two numbers you need: the daily (real-time) increase in cases and the daily (real-time) increase in deaths. Thus, you can now get the daily, real-time death rates from this below link:

Coronavirus Bell Curve | Daily COVID-19 Statistics for the United States

   I also have an updated link for what the real-time death rates are according to a person’s age. It is below:

   The upshot is that the most pessimistic estimate of death rates (among lower risked people below age 65) is 3/4% – when you weigh in all the age groups and make the appropriate adjustments. Since the real-time death rate is running at 6% then we have at least an 8 fold increase in the death rates that may be totally unnecessary.

   On the plus side, the cases (nationally) most likely are leveling off like we are being told. But at what type of an excessive price? In more deaths and economic devastation equally alike.



   My immediate observation is one that I have predicted all along. It is about the failure to triage, i.e., use all of our resources to do a hard lock down on the vulnerable – while the rest of us come up with better ways to protect ourselves. What is occurring is the continuing rise in the death rate per number of confirmed cases. It was, once, at only 1%.

   It rose to 2% as of a couple of weeks ago, jumped to 3% as of a few days ago and is picking up speed as it goes rapidly towards 4%. All of this jump comes from the coronavirus penetrating deeper and deeper into the older and more vulnerable categories of the general population.

   So what was the reason the death rate started at only 1%? It is due to natural circumstances: the vulnerable are not, normally, as active as the younger population. Thus, the initial rounds of the infection start out much more likely to hit the younger – and not the more vulnerable – first.

   Thus, if extra layers of protection had been set up hard enough, and early enough, we might well have had the overall death rate go down from the 1% to maybe no higher than a 1/2%. But it is instead climbing and will continue to do so until it may well hit the Italy levels of 10%+.

   I hope not but it is within the realm of possibility. What do I blame for this? Again, my ‘blame game’ (such as it is) has been spelled out before:

   1) The medical advice Trump has received. I have no idea how he can have the expertise level available to him that he has – and they have, apparently, no concept of what a triage is and when it is needed as your initial approach.

   2) The astronomical emotional pressures that were exerted against him. This being done to sucker him into trying to save everyone all at once, and from all things all at once. Rather than concentrating on the most vulnerable first (and about death first) rather than getting into that Diffusion of Limited Resources that I have alluded to in other writings.

   3) The third blame area is a benign one. And it is that everyone is a flawed human being and, at the same time, just a human being. Now, according to the New American Left and their flunky media allies, Donald Trump is the only person on the entire planet who is an exception to this. He is ahuman and totally in a caricature mode as walking evil. He, by there statements, does not give an s, an h, an i or a t about any other human being except for himself.

   The problem with this analysis? How does such a person get emotionally blackmailed into a quixotic effort to save everyone all at once? And to let himself get put on the hook to be running around like a chicken with his head cut off with the responsibility to save everybody? In short, the third ‘blame’ area (if you want to call it that) is that he is not remotely like what his critics say he is as a person.


      1) I repeat the one prediction I have already made: the death rate will continue to keep climbing until it gets closer and closer to the Italy rates of 10% (unless there is a radical change in policy to shift priorities).

      2) The death rates among strictly young and healthy people will be less than 1/2% once all of the Monday morning quarterbacking is done.

      3) With aggressive self protection, the low risk pool of people could have kept the economy open and still kept the infection rate down to around 1% of their part of the population. (If everyone had started earlier with the appropriate use of masks, maintaining as much distance as their work situations allowed, using whatever forewarned is forearmed knowledge they might have as smartly as possible, etc.) This will be found to be true after all of the Monday morning quarterbacking is done.

   4) Thus, if the triage approach had been executed properly – and from the beginning – the number of deaths could have been held to around 10,000 out of the low risk pool. And, since there is no such thing as a totally perfect defense strategy, we might also have still lost, maybe, another 10,000 people from the high risk pool. But this is only 20,000 people while not shutting down the economy. This position will be seen as being justified once there is the post game time for analysis.

   5) This set of predictions also makes the assumption that no one will pursue the “With enough MREs” strategy laid out in some of my earlier writings. Even minus this, however, a properly done triage approach would have still resulted in less death and destruction to the economy than what the President allowed himself to get manipulated into.


   Going forward, I will have a new Gallery set up on the Welcome To The Library Page. It will be called the Potpourri Gallery – and will be exactly that. It will deal with a wide variety of different issues and the first one will be “The Coronavirus – The Compilation.” This will simply take all of my Current News! blurbs on the virus and compile them into one set of posts – with my earliest writings starting first.

   Secondly, while I am a full Trump supporter, I have a duty to keep an accurate record of this virus as it plays itself out. Done, in the hope that the right lessons can be learned later on. Therefore, I will post a new article as the virus reaches its’ coming percent of deaths marks: i.e. when it reaches 4%, I will post a short article reminding the reader of why the current strategy is wrong. I will similarly do this as it reaches the upcoming marks of 5%, 6%, 7% and etc. Done, again, just to maintain an accurate record for the future.

   Pardon my bit of downbeat drama here but I will also post the occasional article for helpful suggestions too. With, of course, a desire to hear from you. Make some comments, post some articles, get involved!


   A Senator Amy Klobuchar and family have, fortunately, made a full recovery from the coronavirus. It is everyone’s duty to be thankful for this. However, it is also everyone’s duty to ignore the image making that was involved (in the televised news segment) that puts out the Amiable Amy/Nice Everyday Girl From Next Door persona.

   If you have not read it, read Komrade Klobuchar from the Rogues Gallery section in the “Welcome to the Library” page. There is absolutely nothing Amiable about this particular Senator in any way whatsoever. And a heads-up: it is not an article for the squeamish. The issue, that the article brings out is the question “Is it morally acceptable to do a frame-up (for rape) against someone – if it will stop them from opposing Roe vs. Wade?” We take the position that it is not.


   I will get back to the physical virus that is currently threatening us – and in the very next article that follows this one. I just feel that we still need to maintain our spiritual lives. And even if we should feel that our physical one is in danger.

   What follows is a good news/bad news story. It is also something that demonstrates my concept of a spiritual ‘virus’ and how they tend to work. I am referring to the final episode of The Bachelor.

   It featured a woman (Madison) who stood up for traditional values and, to give credit where credit is due, she was treated respectfully. However, there is the issue that she had to contend with. It is an issue that is not just bad news. But very, very bad news. For there is an issue with both The Bachelor and The Bachelorette that has to be made a point of.

   It is that these shows are promoting what is, ultimately, a glorified gang bang. (Multiple people are given the same key to an overnight ‘fantasy’ suite). And, what’s more, is that this is the process being used to decide a final cut for … who you want as your monogamous partner(?) – and for the rest of your life(?).

   Even apart from what is actually being normalized by these shows, isn’t it also rather contradictory? I am supposed to choose a life time monogamous relationship by going through a quick round of multiple sex partners – as a final cut type of a mechanism? Really?

   This is why these types of things work almost like a virus. If one would just stop, for even a minute, and do the basic logic of the matter – then what I am saying is obviously true. And yet, like it is somehow invisible, the obvious abnormalities that are involved in this show have gone totally mainstream and without even being spoken out against. Consider:

   Scenario #1: I am given a key to a room where I immediately have sexual relations with three different women – and one immediately after the other. Does anyone question that this is the proverbial gang bang?

   Scenario #2: Let’s say it is not an immediate swing through all three of the different women. Let’s say that between 9 pm and 10 pm I have a sexual dalliance with a woman #1. On the same night, after she leaves, it is between 10 pm and 11pm that I have a physical relationship with the second woman and the third one is done similarly between 11 pm and 12 pm. But does this really make the basic situation (of Scenario #1) somehow different?

   Scenario #3: I, again, go through all three women but do each one in turn on a different evening. So… in Scenario #1 I allow only, say, a minute between doing three different women and it is grotesquely amoral. In Scenario #2, I allowed one hour between the three different women so it becomes less immoral(?). And, since by Scenario #3 I am allowing 24 hours between each successive round, it is now in the realm of moral acceptability and is no longer a gang banging? (And what Bible verse does that come out of?)

   And, speaking of the Bible, there is no Bible banging involved here either – as can easily be demonstrated. If, that is, one would stop for even a minute to do the basic logic here. Let’s say that I am in a room full of married men who are all complete atheists.

   I then ask how many of them did a scheme similar to The Bachelor as a part of proposing to their then girlfriends. That is, that they got their then girl friends to agree to a ‘final cut’ arrangement involving two other women. And, this being done, as the prelude to their having gotten married.

   I maintain that, no matter how big a room full of atheists we might be talking about, that there would not be a single instance of this happening. Even in a room full of total atheists. Moreover, you could probably question each one of them and find out that 1) not only have they never done such a thing but that 2) atheists not withstanding, even the thought of doing such a thing has never even occurred to any of them in their entire lives. And this would be in a room full of atheists.

   Yet, we have all just spent several seasons (of watching exactly this on TV) and right before God and the whole world all looking on. And it is normalized and mainstreamed and is never even spoken out against. Very weird when you think about it. And that is just how these spiritual ‘viruses’ work – in a way that is very weird.


   I have listed a number of problems about the current Corona Virus strategy. But I have not actually gotten to that most central problem. It is not the Prez – but the fact that no one else is showing any leadership. And, thereby, making it so that everything revolves around one human being in a country with 330 million people at risk.

   And the two items of this that I will focus on are the two items at the bottom of the totem pole – not the ones at the top. I am referring to the medical professionals out in the country (not the ones in DC that get the TV coverage) – and to us common folk as the second item of consideration.

   So … what am I the most annoyed about with the medical profession out in the country? It is that the national microphone has been hijacked by the panic mongers. Thus, the medical professionals need to get off of their butts, retake the microphone and get an appropriate ‘bedside’ manner prevailing again in the country.

  It is not possible, and will never be possible, when there is a sudden mass medical emergency situation, to have an airtight set of supply lines. And to also have flawless logistics to all situations and in all places for all of a countrys’ 330 million people. I am sick of listening to all of this c_ _ _ that unless 1) a Donald John Trump gets every supply line working continuously airtight and 2) gets every logistics operation to go like clockwork then we will all freaking die. These are the type of words that can kill and I will use an example to demonstrate this.

   A first aid instructor once told me the following example: You see an unconscious injury victim and say “Well, hell, it looks bad and like he ain’t going to make her.” His criticism? It was that hearing is the last thing to go out before someone dies. Thus, your saying “it looks bad and like he ain’t going to make her” may be just the thing that causes the accident victim to not make her.

   Now, with this in mind, how does the following talk sound (as far as being good bedside manners): “AAAAAAAA!!! Unless a Donald John Trump makes everything come together perfectly we’re all going to freaking die!!! AAAAAAAA!!!”  I realize that the medical profession has enough on its’ plate already. Still, one of the first things you always have to do is start out with a “Stay Calm!” – and to get the microphone away from idiots like the ones that are currently wielding it. Before, that is, they get even more people killed than are getting killed already.

   But how can the medical profession be more involved in doing this? The medical profession can do a lot (that they are currently not doing). They can remind people that the first thing that is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS done, in a sudden mass medical emergency, is to setup a triage station.

   This involves field medicine, improvising, thinking out of the box – and doing so without any ironclad guarantee that you will always have the best of equipment, and all fully stocked and at all times. Doctors are right to keep pressing for all of the equipment and supplies that they can get. But they do still know how to soldier on and keeping doing the medical care that the people need.

   Also, we have some plausible Hail Mary types of medications (until something better comes along). It is possible to improvise with PPE equipment while you are stretched out betwixt and between. Further, there is such a thing as hand ventilating if one is minus a mechanical ventilator (I even looked that up. It is, in fact, true).

   Thus, what the medical professionals need to do – forcefully and on a regular basis – is to state that, while they will keep pressing for more and better equipment, that they can and will still be able to provide you with your medical care come what may. And though doctors work on physical bodies as their main lane, they are all also aware of the intangible elements also. Specifically, that hope keeps people alive while fear kills.

   The other main grievance I have with the medical profession at large is their cursory way of getting people to do self protection. Sure, social distancing, wash your hands and don’t touch your face are all good but there is much more that can be done for self protection. And where, possibly, a person can decisively save themselves rather waiting for someone else to save them.

   And here is where I will transition the discussion to us the common people. There are leadership issues involved here also. So … how good has your leadership been over your own life? At the end of the day we are all in a position of leadership even if it just involves your own leadership over your own life. So how would you rate yourself?

   To use the last paragraph about the medical profession: what about yourself as your own protector? I realize there is plenty of blame to go around but, at the end of the day, don’t we all ultimately wind up as the final line in our own defense system?

   So, here are the basics of an (almost) airtight self protection system against viruses. It revolves around a well known but rarely discussed fact. Specifically, there that there is one way in which you will always be stronger than any virus. And it revolves around bleach.

   Just a combination of 4 tsps of bleach per 4 cups of water is enough to kill any virus while not harming you. There is your one edge that you can use to protect yourself the best. So… what is the full kit then for a self protection regimen? It is:

      1) Hand sanitizer

      2) A basin of bleach blend – a 1 tsp per one cup of water mixture

     3) a self made face mask and

     4) cotton balls

  Before leaving your house you do the following:

   1) use the hand sanitizer to clean off your hands 

   2) you take the immersed mask and ring it out to get rid of the bleach. The bleach simply sanitizes the mask. You can use the dip to rinse your face (eyes closed). And be sure to dry off well afterwards. This will kill all of the viruses on your facial area.

   3) You keep one end of the two cotton balls dry and then dip the other ends into the bleach blend. You put the cotton balls into your nasal cavity – bleached side out to block the pathogens. Also, so that you don’t bleach fume yourself.

   4) Place the face mask over your face and you should be good to go.

   If, during your outside activities, you can stop virus contact with your mouth and nose you will almost certainly keep yourself safe. Provided, you follow your Returning Home procedures.

   After you return home, use the hand sanitizer to clean your hands. Re-immerse your protective gear back into the bleach blend,  rinse and dry your face. You have now cleaned yourself off and set up your protective gear for its’ next usage.

   But here, in my opinion, are the most important leadership issues vis-a-vis yourself. Who do you ultimately pray to to give you this day your daily bread? To God or to the government? Do you pray to the Lord to be your ultimate deliverer from evil or to Barrack Obama or Donald Trump?

   Yes, we do what ever we sanely can to limit risks. But for those of us in the low risk pool, we have the obligation to self protect so that the limited resources go mostly to those in the high risk end. Also, we still have an obligation to keep the country going so that these resources are not depleted. Finally, at some point, aren’t all of our lives still ultimately in God’s hands? Where do you stand on these types of leadership issues in regards to your own life?


March 2020


   What makes this all a fiasco is that various governors and mayors keep calling for more and more “stay at home” or “shelter in place” orders – when there are no such things available. If a prepared national shut down had been set up you would have the following:

   1) A situation where the only people not in shutdown would be:   

  1. a) the national guardsman who would mobilize the lockdown
  2. b) law enforcement personnel and
  3. c) a skeleton crew of utilities workers to make sure that the utilities would stay up and running – for the locked down population.

   2) From the above: only about 5% of the people in the area would remain in a somewhat exposed state (the people mentioned above) while

   3) The other 95% of the people in the area would remain under full lockdown and have no meaningful exposure until the virus could be starved out and die accordingly

  But … because they keep insisting on ordering more people to, somehow, lock themselves down – and to be left to their own devices on how to somehow accomplish such a feat – you have the following:

   1) There have to be “essential businesses” so they can fend for themselves at getting their own provisions. Thus, about 50 to 60 percent of the population still has to show up for the daily shifts, interact with strangers and etc. and still be subjected to a full exposure to the virus. And this includes some of the high risk pool of people who might work at one of these ‘essential’ businesses. Has anyone thought to check if these businesses might employ 65 and older people – exactly the ones you don’t want exposed?

   2) The other 30 to 40 percent of the population still has to keep bobbing in and out of social contacts (at the essential businesses to maintain their provisions). And, thus, they will still retain at least some exposure to the virus rather than having none and

   3) It is out of this half baked arrangement that we are supposed to shut down an entire society well enough to kill off a virus with the level of contagiousness that this one has?

   Thus, I will stick with the points made from my previous virus updates. The entire focus should have been a triage operation where the limited resources were used to shelter the vulnerable more thoroughly – and let there be a short surge in people getting sick – but with a lesser amount of people actually dying.

   And once, as has been noted before, if you got more effective measures mobilized, you could do the isolation campaign effectively – under the conditions that would prevail at the beginning of this blurb. Thus, you might even wind up, over the long term, with even less illnesses as well as deaths.

   But, at the present, all we are getting is more and more declarations of half-baked measures at a more and more astronomical cost. The President has been taken advantage of:

      1) he received lousy advice

      2) he received enormous emotional pressures to attempt to save everyone all at once (in a way that would have to prove utterly chaotic) and

      3) he is now on the hook for an endless number of multi-trillion dollar bailouts – to relieve the problems that other people are free to keep causing (with more and more of these half-baked measures.)

   I got it wrong in my previous statement; the President has not been taken advantage of. He has been totally suckered.


   A quick note: MREs stands for Meals Ready to Eat and are designed (primarily) for our military.

   So … for the moment (at least) we are minus our MRE stockpile. And, unfortunately, the Prez is being pressured to do a lot of the wrong things and … is not getting the type of advice he needs to do the right ones. Look back, for example, at my 3/05/20 post on the coronavirus.

  It mentioned the 3,142 most important government agencies that would have to be at the center of the fight. It was my first serious blurb on the virus and is, still, the most relevant. For now we know that 50% of all the virus transmission has come out of just 10 counties in America.

   If the CDC had made the Countrys’ County Health Departments their main focus we might well have stopped the problems. Now, granted, we can’t turn back the clock. So, I will introduce Going-Forward-Solution #1: a strategic quarantine of these 10 counties.

   Going-Forward-Solution #1): The first of the new ways forward (to reopen the country): you can not cross any county line (in either direction) EXCEPT under the following circumstances:

  1. a) You are hauling commercial cargo AND you do not roll down your window or get out of your vehicle – except at truck stops along the way if you are a long haul trucker.
  2. b) Now that we have a more enhanced testing ability: you may go back to using public transportation systems to go past county lines. IF you are tested first before getting on a plane, train or sailing vessel. AND you are tested after exiting a plane, train or sailing vessel on your return to your point of origin.

   These two sets of restrictions will do little economic damages and should have been instituted at the County levels from the earliest times of the outbreak. It may well be a good idea to make this a national set of restrictions. At a minimum, they must be a part of a strategic quarantine for the Top Ten – the counties that have done 1/2 of all the transmissions of the disease for the whole country.

   Going-Forward-Solution #2) STOP even trying to protect the entire country: it is not possible because we did not (and still do not) have the necessary preparations in place. We are doing the #1 No-No of all times: THE DIFFUSION OF LIMITED RESOURCES or to use a medical term: we are in a triage situation while still trying to help everyone. MEDICAL RULE NUMBER ONE: YOU DO NOT DO THAT!

  There are two categories of people to deal with: those with a high probability of death from the virus vs. those who have only a high probability of getting sick (but not dying). We must overhaul the entire strategy: double down hard on only those most vulnerable to death. In short, we must shift our approach so that we will allow a lot more people to get sick while insuring that a lot less people will actually die.

   And, in a sort of grim way, getting sick is good if you are not susceptible to actually dying. The more the population becomes this way the faster the virus will burn itself out. But, what about category two: those less vulnerable to dying? Aren’t there some possible protections available?

  1. a) We look at the facts as laid out above: we rely on their own natural protection to save them from actually dying.
  2. b) Re-opening does not necessarily have to re-open a mass infection anyway. By strategic quarantines of certain areas, most of the country may not suffer at all. Plus, people are much smarter now about how not to get sick. Those of us in Category #2 can add to our natural protection, even after going back to a relative ‘normal’, just by relying on forewarned is forearmed.
  3. c) The ‘smarter’ classes need to allow us to both walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. It is possible to do both controlled studies on hopeful therapies and cures – while still allowing their mass use so long as they don’t violate the Do No Harm rule. None of the following items has any significant chance of doing harm while still, maybe, doing good:
  4. i) Hydroxyl Choroquine (and other similar antiviral/anti-inflammatory medicines) that are still proven safe while MAYBE also being effective for an off label use.
  5. ii) Plasma therapies using existing antibodies from people who have recovered and, possibly controversial,

     iii) Immunotherapy. People may well flinch at getting oneself deliberately infected but that is what a large number of successful vaccines ultimately do: a weakened strain is used to ‘infect’ you. But because of it’s weakened nature you get the best of both possible worlds. You get to have your antibodies get produced without having to actually get sick. Also, with our modern scientific abilities to open up microscopic entities and manipulate them it might not be that difficult to produce this situation: using a less harmless strain of a virus to get antibodies produced against a more harmful one.

   The main point though: there are some things that are a medical judgment. However, there are other things that are, ultimately, a value judgment – and even if it might have medical ramifications. The philosophy of “What the hell do you have to lose?” is a value judgment. And there is nothing about a doctor that gives him a superiority at value judgments.

   They have superior medical judgments but they do not have superior value judgments. Whipping an epidemic involves both types of judgments. So don’t assume that every doctor is smarter than you are, and at every single thing so that you must do only what they tell you to do – rather than to think for yourself also.

   Going-Forward-Solution #3) We can still start the mobilizations needed for the recommendations of the next blurb below, “With Enough MREs” that was posted on 3/19/2020. Eventually, we would start with the #1 worst of the worst 10 counties for a campaign of rolling isolations. After the first of the 10 is set up well enough (and you have enough mobilization in place) you might then start on numbers 2 thru 10 – without, necessarily,  having to wait for the full three weeks for #1 to finish its’ full course.

   Sorry if  this ‘quickie’ blurb has, actually, been rather lengthy. So … if you have not read the 3/19/20 blurb below read it now so you will understand what an MRE-based isolation campaign refers to. Also, I will try to do more regular (and shorter?) blurbs on this subject as events develop. Stay safe and good bye for now!


   Our situation (with the coronavirus) seems complicated but first a background story. In my last managers job: I wound up butting heads over a basic philosophical difference. The company had a new high level management that was utterly stuck on themselves – and on how much smarter they were than every other person on the planet.

   (Yes, elitist snobbery is alive and well in the corporate world too. Sadly, this is also what they were basing their new direction on to a, presumably, more superior way. Spoiler alert: it didn’t happen like that).

   My position was diametrically the opposite: do things in such a dumbed down, mega-simplified format that it would NOT be possible for it to NOT work. And … once you have something that is not possible for it to not work – then what are the odds that it WILL work? Pretty good, I would think.

   This is also the right approach, for not just the current epidemic, but for every other possible one as well. For what is the one and only airtight way to beat every possible epidemic? Starting with the simple (and the theoretical) for now: keep everyone isolated from each other until the disease runs its’ course. In this way, no current sufferer will ever be able to pass it on to another person. Thus, once it has run its’ course, the epidemic expires with it.

   There are nuances here but, for now, I present the central building block of the air tight epidemic defense: 21 billion MREs at the expense of only 63 billion dollars. This would create enough MREs, to shelter-in-place, the entire U.S. population for the full run of the current disease (and most other diseases also). Now the nuances:

  You would not have to do the entire country all at once. And, in all probability, you might never need to do the whole country at all. There would need to be rolling isolation campaigns.

   They would be preceded by the national guard getting the MREs distributed first, then the isolation/shutdown next. Also, for the next epidemic, we could set up staging areas to help the distribution process. (In another news blurb, posted on 3/05/20, I pointed out that there are 687 federal courthouses spread throughout the country.)

   Now, yes, you would also have to be aware that once you lift the local shutdown – and then reopen the area – there is the threat of people from other areas coming in. And these people may not have had their own areas isolated yet. But competent epidemiologists can walk one through the nuances – while these Current News! items are only meant to be short blurbs.

   The central point is that you can readily defeat any and all possible epidemics if you have a sufficient amount of MREs. And that this is a much cheaper tactic and a much thorougher one also – though there are some economic nuances. Example: a local (but universalized) isolation campaign does not have to damage the economy that much. For, while there will be no income coming in, there will also be fewer outlays as well.

  Are you a worker? You have no income for the 3 weeks but you can also have no outlays as well. If the epidemics’ economics plan just focuses on rent/mortagages and utilities – for a temporary cover period – then you won’t need to make any money during those three weeks. And the MREs will keep you fed for your food.

   Are you a business owner? You also have no income during the 3 weeks but you also have fewer outlays – you don’t have to pay wages. Like the workers, if the epidemics’ economics plan just focuses on rent/mortgages and utilities – for a temporary cover period – then you won’t need to make any money during those three weeks.

   Again, we can talk nuances. But the general economic concept is that you have the local economy simply become dormant for the short interlude.  Thus, I feel it can all be simplified by just going back to the title of this blurb. If you will just give me enough MREs then I can save the world! 


   It can be challenging: carrying a regular column about the popular culture – and relating it to our views on traditional living. Maybe a ground rule will help where we make an important differentiation. We are NOT at odds with individuals who happen to practice any type of ‘alternative’ lifestyles. But we ARE (severely) at odds with the people who are trying to orchestrate these ‘alternative’ lifestyles onto all the rest of us. This latest ‘orchestration’ effort involves a popular program that I have always liked: The American Idol.

   But first: there is a back story here. The American Idol show used to have it exactly right. It involved nothing, either pro or con, in regards to any lifestyle issues (or any other issues for that matter either). There was nothing either pro or anti abortion, pro or anti gay liberation or very much of any pro or anti at any significant issue. And this is what I believe in for the entertainment industry: it is their job to do “Let me entertain you” rather “Let me tell you (and your children) how they should think”. I favor entertainment just doing entertaining and staying out of the “tell you how to think” business.

   However … it turned out that the demographics of the American Idol show usually resulted in a straight/somewhat religious/All-American Boy or Girl type often being the winner. There was no one pushing anything one way or the other – it merely worked out this way on a somewhat regular basis. So … at some point, this became unacceptable to the Cultural Elite/Cultural Diversity types. Beginning at two seasons back from the present one, they pressured the shows’ producers into going down their Culturally Diverse rabbit hole with them.

   Obviously, the first thing that will happen is that one of the contestants will be set up to act as the official Gay Liberation Advocate for the season. Next, other types of performers were given the axe, not for a failure to perform, but for a failure to make a culturally diverse outcome. Up until then, every season had always had a fair mix of everything. And, for that matter, Clay Akins and Adam Lambert turned out to practice homosexual lifestyles – but it was strictly a private matter and was not an in-your-face advocacy effort on behalf of “THE CAUSE”.

   But not anymore. The new Culturally Diverse look began with a lesbian named Destiny for the second season back. Next, it was a Jeremiah Lloyd Harmon for last season – where his every single appearance revolved (exhaustively and one-dimensionally) around his homosexual lifestyle rather just having him perform.

   The shows’ judges were then pressured to boost these candidates as much as possible. And (maybe) were even pressured to reserve a ‘save’ for Harmon in the last season. And what about this season? When this season came around I was waiting to see if this was, indeed, a pattern – and it is. The most recent American Idol presentation just introduced the new Gay Liberation Advocate to be this season’s candidate for this task.

   But the Lord still controls all (and we still have some controlling ability also) so not to worry. Modern technology has the ability to do an Enhanced Block – one where you don’t have to block an entire show but merely the parts of it that go into the “tell you how to think” mode – while retaining the rest of the show to watch. It is not out yet but we still have what I would call a Manual Blocker.

   I always record my shows before watching them. I then use my “Fast Forward” button as my manual blocker – I just go through the “tell you how to think” parts without watching them. And for that reason – I just need some down time for diversion not to be told how to think.

   Now, I have no ill will against Destiny, Harmon or even the latest chosen delegate for the Gay Lobby. My “ill will” (such as it) is just against being told how to think by the entertainment industry. That is not their calling – and is the proper preserve for parents and parenting. Their “assistance” is not needed. What say you?


   A post-season update. It was the usual push and shove match where the producers, apparently, met some resistance. The judges allowed the Cultural Diversity cut to happen: only one of the All American Country Girl singers was allowed to go forward. But they refused to do it themselves – they forced another week to go by and had the country make the cut with a popular vote.

  They did the pro forma cut of the Kathy Lee Gifford-ish type of Gospel Girl singer that used to be allowed to go forward. But gave no explanation for it. Luke Bryan just got the maneuver out of the way as fast as possible – and with an obvious displeasure involved in his having to do so. But then there was the push back.

   The Designated Gay Advocate was ultimately cut, by the judges, rather than being allowed to go forward. And the show ended with a type of Revenge of Kathy Lee – the winner of the contest was, ultimately, a strong Gospel Girl type in her own right. And there was a twist: the ignominously cut Gospel Girl sang a Lauren Dagel song and then got the boot. But then Lauren Dagel was then brought back, by the winner, to perform a song with her!

   However … the pressure lobbies may ultimately have prevailed through their rule-or-ruin tactics. The show, after the back and forth resistance, was then (chronically) truncated into nothingness. I, personally, got little entertainment value from the last couple of weeks – where the show was given a bum’s rush off of the air in as fast a way as possible. But that is to be expected.

   Don’t be confused about what is happening around you. It is not the type of topic we will discuss in this column very much but the lootings and the lockdowns are more of the same. It has nothing to do with your health or legitimate protest. It is a case in point like the Culture Wars – it is either rule or ruin. If they can’t run the country they will gladly ruin it in the hopes of, somehow, inheriting what’s left over out of the ashes.


   Welcome to my latest conspiracy theory – which may (or may not) be true. I am just saying be prepared for anything. I will start by articulating things that everyone else is afraid to say.

   One is that Joe Biden is the real deal mentally gone – from an age related ailment. I base this on my personal dealings I have had with people who have Alzheimer’s Dementia and other similar ailments. The way that they will carry a conversation, and act, is so glaringly similar to Biden’s problems – that I sincerely believe him to be clinically impaired. He does not have the physical capacity to serve as President.

   So … you have one candidate who is worse from being totally unable to function in Joe Biden. Then you have a candidate who would be better from being totally unable to function in a Bernard Sanders. His views and outlooks are so bad, as a functioning person, that we would be better off for him to not function at all – than to be the way he currently is.

   Thus, you have the first part of the ‘conspiracy’. Even though they are aware of Biden’s problems, they may still be using him simply to stop Sanders. But then what do they do about Biden?

   So what will the Dems, ultimately, do? This is why I say: be prepared for anything. I am (nearly) 100% certain that we have not heard the last from Mayor Pete and ‘Amiable’ Amy Klobuchar. At least one of the two of them is likely to be in a VP spot – and here is the second conspiracy part. Were the Dems successful at winning in 2020, then one of the two of them may wind up actually serving as Prez come election day – rather than Joe Biden.

   There are ways for this outcome to happen (and I am not suggesting murder) so don’t totally discount it. I have laid out (in my writing “The Confused Generation” in the DeNova Gallery) why Mayor Pete is not an appropriate candidate for higher office. I also have a full length article in the works on why ‘Amiable’ – or, actually, (non) Amiable Amy is also not fit for higher office. It will be out shortly as an article in the Rogue’s Gallery section in our “Welcome to the Library” Page.

   But for now, just be prepared for anything.


   I come from the state with the worst outbreak (in fatalities), Washington State. There will certainly be no humor or satire today. The blurb will still be quick but I will attempt as much analysis value as possible in a short time. To begin:

   The Washington State outbreak highlights the most basic – and least talked about – aspect of fighting a national epidemic. It is that there are 3,142 primary government agencies that will have to lead the fight (and none of them have anything to do with Donald Trump). I refer to the fact that America has 3,142 counties in it – and each county is tasked its own crack team for public health issues. 

   This is the spot where the fight will be won or lost. Referring back to Washington State to illustrate the point: The disease epicenter of our state, at the present time, is one county. Thus, there is one county in America that is currently taking the main brunt of the disease (in fatalities) for the whole country. And all from a very tragic but localized situation.

   Since these blurbs are meant to be short, I will just throw out one shortcoming in our current crisis infrastructure. We have around 687 federal courthouses, spread around the country, that could serve as staging areas against a national epidemic or crisis. Their main purpose would, actually, be small but necessary.

   They would be there as a way to deal with the fact that we would need to have all 3,142 counties working at full capacity – and that the worst starting problem (in any crisis) will always be logistics. Hopefully, the 687 staging areas (spread all throughout the country) will help with the logistics of dealing with the 3,142 county governments – also spread all throughout the country. May the Lord watch over us.




February 2020


   As to the recent pardons and commutations: if you are familiar with my writings you know how I feel about ‘process’ crimes. This is where a fed investigation finds no wrong doing. However, they take the way that you responded to their efforts to put you in jail. Then, if they find your response to have been inappropriate they prosecute you for it – so that they can still put you in jail for that!

   And, again, excuse me for my own prior naivete on this matter. I remember someone named Deaver (back in the 80’s) – he did some bad optics/conflict of interest behavior and was investigated by a special counsel. And it was one of the first instances of this phenomena: he was cleared of a crime on the matter but still prosecuted for his behavior in how he responded to their investigation.

   I clearly recall not liking what I was seeing. But I wasn’t sufficiently on guard about this type of conduct (by fed prosecutors) that was being done at that time. Since then, as this has gone on and on and over and over, I am sufficiently on guard now.

   My belief is that Trump should pardon everyone ever convicted of a ‘process’ crime – period  – and going all the way back to Deaver. This would also include the controversial Mr. Stone but so what. Then he should give a long overdue executive order: finish your investigation and if there was no crime involved then do like every other law enforcement body does. Namely: just shut up, drop your prosecution and GO AWAY.     


   In one of my writings,  I compared the visousness of Trump’s adversaries (when Sondland was sticking with the Prez) compared to Trump’s supposed nastiness. Well, according to the Flunky media, I am now proven wrong by Trump’s ‘retaliation’ against him – by removing him from his post. I disagree.

  Once someone has testified against you, he can no longer have credibility as still being your advocate. Sondland knew that he would have to be leaving and there is nothing to really fuss about. But, again, the comparison: now that he turned against Trump, has Trump: 1) boycotted his hotel chain (like the Resistance did) 2) drummed up law suits against him (like the others did) and 3) talked about prosecutions for non relevant matters? (like the others did).

  No way. It’s a fake comparison; as unfortunate as losing his diplomatic post was it was no where near a Resistance-level assault.


   Why does she keep doing that? Why does she always follow a statement about his impeachment – and every time – with a “and he is impeached FOREVER!” and “He can NEVER get rid of it!”  Well, first we will be fair and balanced. Many listeners have the clear impression that they also heard her say something to the effect of “Ne-ahahaha, Ne-ahahaha …” during these statements.

  However, our panel of experts have exhaustively examined all of her utterances and, to be fair, there are no (expressly stated) “Ne-ahahaha”s”. Our panelists came to the conclusion that the mishearing of what she said, and by so many people, was due to a psychological phenomenon called “Listener’s Perception”. But we need to get back to the original question (and in a fair and balanced manner) So why, again, does she keep doing that?

  She has explained why and we take her at her word: the reason she keeps doing that is because she does NOT (repeat does NOT) dislike the President. She has also commented on how and why she does NOT dislike the Prez before and we will, again, take her at her word: it is because she is such a staunch Catholic.


   The day after the impeachment went down in flames, the Prez was supposed to have delivered a prepared speech. Instead, he just did a celebration get-together with his allies – and did do some venting. Though 1) no one was subjected to a summary death penalty nor 2) were there any further steps taken (that we are aware of) in his plans to set up a military dictatorship (using Ukrainian armed forces) it was still regarded, predictably, as another dangerous act by an out of control President.

  I do not agree. But I do give him one piece of advisement. While I hope that Nasty Nancy will forgive me someday (for my ratting her out on what her current chess move is) it is this: she is doing gratuitously disrepectful acts during State of the Union addresses, her “and he is impeached FOREVER” statements and et al for a simple tactical reason.

   It is all a calculated attempt to get him to react inappropriately and be his own worst enemy. Or to at least to be unpresidential. Thus, getting him to self defeat his own campaign – in case they can’t defeat him with theirs.

  Thus, I simply advise him not to take the bait. It is all simply an effort aimed at goading him into defeating himself in the next election. And I think what I will advise next is good general advice that can apply to a lot of situations.

  For, in a way, I do believe that he should do a crackdown on Pelosi – and one that will fry her keister in a way that she will never forget. And, in a way, that he should come down harder on all of his adversaries than he has ever done before. But how? Simple, by ignoring the living hell out of them!

  Don’t take the bait, next time just stick with the scripted speech. 


SOME Black Lives Matter


First, click on the Link Below:

Do ALL Black LIves Matter?

   I have previously steered clear of the BLM (Black Lives Matter) group as I have attempted to get a better analysis of it. Throughout the years, I have heard two sides to the matter: one saying they are peaceful, while the other (accurately) has pointed to numerous bad instances. “What do we want? Dead Cops!”

   Still: to be fair, I have been willing to consider a split decision. Some say that most of the BLMers are peaceful, it is just some who are not. Also, to be fair, I have not really objected to the “Black Lives Matter” expression rather than to say that “All Lives Matter”. Someone has the right to emphasize a specific problem about discriminatory practices if that is their particular aim.

   So what has changed? It is that they are not even honoring their own goal of “Black Lives Matter” – it appears to have become just another political agenda. They are now failing to do good – even by their own standards. I feel that they now need to be corrected with not “All Lives Matter” but with “All Black Lives Matter – rather than just some of them”.

   And thus my objection: they are only allowing some Black lives to matter to them. And these appear to be only the Black lives that can be used as cannon fodder against White police officers. Thus, I now feel that it is the BLM that is being discriminatory – and, thus, I feel the need to make this point about them in this blurb.

  The title of this blurb is about the SBLM crowd: Some Black Lives Matter. And, this, unfortunately is the truth about the BLM and why they are now the discriminatory ones. The only Black lives that have mattered to them is if a White Police Officer is involved and there is a political agenda. For example:

   1) The overwhelming majority of deaths of unarmed Black men happens when the police are not around – and criminality is involved. This constitutes about 99% of all deaths of unarmed Black men. That is, if the police could be everywhere – and all at once – the death rate of unarmed Black men would drop by 99%. Thus, an increased police presence saves Black lives – by a ratio of 99 to 1.

   I will use a quick blast from the past to expand on this point. The number one White man for saving Black lives (of all time) is probably the reformed Confederate General Longstreet – who led an integrated New Orleans police force against the KKK and its use of violence and terrorism. But the second runner up is, most likely, Rudolph Giuliani. He shifted his police forces out of the rich neighborhoods that voted for him – and redeployed them into poorer neighborhoods that voted against him.

   Rudy, thereby, saved thousands of Black lives. However … how does that play with The BLM Narrative – about racist, White cops being the root of all evil? It does not play well into that narrative – and thus their inconsistencies began to expose themselves. For Rudy is the most hated – not the most loved – figure by the BLM crowd.

   This is in spite of him doing exactly what their bidding (supposedly) was – to start protecting the Black lives first rather than wealthy socialites being first in line for the police protection. This is how we see their inconsistencies showing themselves: anything that looks good about a White police officer is never to be mentioned – only anything that might make them look bad. But there are more examples to follow:

   2) It is now a proven fact that police officers of color are just as likely to use deadly force as a White police officer. But only the White police officer shootings are emphasized. The same inconsistency as before: if it does not play into the narrative of Police equals racist, White cops then it does not get talked about.

   3) What if you are a Black life wearing the police uniform? And you get shot in the back of the head trying to stop a Black citizen’s store from getting looted? No tears fall for this with the BLM crowd (or just the SBLM crowd – Some Black Lives Matter). Same inconsistency – it is just about an axe to grind against White police officers as a political agenda.

   4) What about the tens of thousands of Black lives that have been destroyed – in just the last couple of weeks – from rioting and looting? If there were roving bands of White police officers doing this, I will bet you would hear a lot about it from them – but not when it is done by others. And as to the bands of police officers both Black and White – all over the country – who have suffered hundreds of casualties trying to stop this? The same: the (S)BLM is simply not interested.

   The upshot: the BLM or, more accurately, the SBLM is the worst type of BS artist there is. They are oblivious hypocrites – they have the same hate fest attitude against White police officers that they accuse the White police officers of having against them. And they are so oblivious – to this obvious fact about themselves – that they have a total set of blinders on against all evil except for what might be lodged against a White officer. They have, thereby, rendered themselves useless to helping any one’s lives: White, Black or otherwise.

Science and God



   A quick note to the more secular followers of our We Must Unite! movement: You, also, are welcome here and are a 
member in good standing. I write this not to convert everyone. As it has been said before “For those who believe in God, 
no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe in God, no explanation will suffice.”
   And I accept this with no hostility towards anyone but simply write this out of a sense of duty. For there are some 
elite sectors of society that now hold traditional values in utter contempt. "Science" now somehow justifies every new 
radical, brainless notion of the Far Left. And that hostility towards basic, traditional values has taken on a more and 
more militant turn. Despite being a country founded on freedom of religion, I even fear that religion is turning into a 
critical fault line in today’s society/cultural wars.
   It should not happen that way, I am against it happening that way, but I fear that it is still going to happen that way 
anyway. Thus, my article: I simply choose to defend the reasonableness of belief in God - and the reasonableness of still 
getting along with each other even if we hold different beliefs about God. With this said, I now present the following 
article to all our readers – both the religious and less religious equally alike.

                                               IN THE BEGINNING … GOD!

   For those of you with just a little Bible knowledge: The Bible opens with Genesis 1:1 – “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” So, a simple test: are there things that we can trace, all the way back to their beginning point? And, if so, would we wind up back at God? If God was at the beginning – and you trace something back to the beginning – do you wind up back at God?



   I, as a believer, say yes – and that there are many things that can take us down this path. For the moment, however, let us just start with a general test of this matter. For how, precisely, could our universe even have a beginning – and then be where we are at right now? It is not as straightforward a process as one might assume. For example:

   We have entropy. What this means is that, if the universe is around long enough then it will eventually burn out. And thus, we will all wind up being nothing but exhausted bits of (former) energy. I will call this the Existential Deadline. After a certain amount of time, everything burns out and is done doing anything for ever after.

   But here is the problem when you reject God and can only work with natural processes. We know that the universe has not been around long enough (at least in its present form) to hit this deadline. We can be sure of this because I am not writing this article to you as a permanently inert heat ball. And this fact leaves us with only a limited number of possibilities:

   1) The universe has not been around this long (at least in its present form) and therefore had a point where it did not exist. Which means that there must have been some point where it went from not existing to existing. But some people like, say, Carl Sagan want to maintain that science calls for a universe that “Is all there is, or ever was or ever shall be.”

   But then how could it have had a point of non-existence? And then something made it start having existence – when there is nothing else out there (but it) in the first place? Or we now go with a second possibility.

   2) The universe has always existed but not in its present form. Therefore, to solve these problems, ‘science’ (the distorted version) ultimately had to come up with some form of a Big Bang theory. It is simply assumed that the universe used to be a tiny little egg of matter, lying inert for an indefinite duration, that is then acted upon by some quote “perturbation unknown”. This then jump starts the current process – to now have the universe be the way that it is today. But where does this ‘perturbation unknown’, itself, come from? If all of the universe is in an inert state, and the universe is all that there is, then how can there still be a ‘perturbation unknown’ – outside of the universe – so that it could then act upon it to do the jump start?

   Thus, how does the simple use of some verbiage somehow make something become any less ‘religious’? The use of different verbiage (calling it some type of a ‘perturbation unknown’) does not a ‘scientific’ make. But what about the third possible explanation for how the universe is where it is today?

   3) There must be a something – more than just the physical universe – that does not have to act under the constraints of natural law. From before: natural processes can only go back so far, thus, it is ultimately a linear logical reasoning that has to take you the rest of the way. If all you can keep going back with is natural law and a natural universe, you will eventually hit a some point where you simply have to assume that something was there just because it was there. And since there is nothing currently in nature that has this capability (to be there just because it is there) then there must be a Something Else (besides just this) that must exist also.

   This is where, say, the Ancient Greeks started off from. They used to simply refer to this as First Cause or the Unmoved Mover – and accepted that it was just a Something Different. So, the misuse of science does a disservice by simply referencing a ‘perturbation unknown’. Why is it any less religious than, say, the Ancient Greeks – since it is ultimately a distinction but without any real difference? Or, for that matter, what about the Ancient Hebrews?

  The scoffers may not think much of me for saying so but the ultimate reference on this matter that I find to be the most scientific is the Voice that came from out of the Burning Bush. For me this is ultimately the most scientific way of wrapping up this point. You may remember the story: Moses asked how the Children of Israel would know what God he was talking about – when he was to say that God had spoken to him. Do you remember what he was told?

   He was told to just tell them that “I AM THAT I AM” – has sent you. And this has never been thought through thoroughly by most Bible readers. What he was being told is that they would know what precise God is being talked about by referring to …



   We have already seen, just by linear logical reasoning, that no matter how you approach the matter you are still ultimately stuck with some form of “that which is simply because it is”. But are we to assume that if we simply say “God” (rather than, say, a “perturbation unknown”) that we are suddenly less ‘scientific’.

   At the end of the day, whether you call it “I AM THAT I AM”, First Cause or a ‘perturbation unknown’ there is still only so far that the physical sciences can take you. Once you are forced back to this point you have no choice but accept a Something Else behind it that does not have to do natural law and is beyond the natural universe. Or there is nothing to do that initial jump start of the whole process in the first place.

   It is just pure logic that takes you to the point where you have to realize that there must, ultimately, be a something that simply is just because it is. So why should the type of verbiage you use make you any more (or less) ‘scientific’?

   And, thus, I see no logical reason why our Scriptures can’t describe God as THAT WHICH IS SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS – and have it be just as logical a possibility as any other one. And/or just as scientific also. And this would clearly be the most logical way to connect us back to the very beginning point as it relates to our current physical universe. So … what does strictly natural law have to (ultimately) say about this? Just that “We are here simply because we are here and simply because we are here” is the best that it can do.

  But let us now move on to a more concrete discussion. We have talked about the universe itself but what about some of the specific elements that make up our universe? If you trace each of these to a beginning point – do their beginning points also lead us back to God?



   Since this is (hopefully) a basic discussion, I will stick with just a few basic items. I will focus on the following:

      1) The primary building block for all the universe: The Amazing Atom.

      2) The primary building block for all the living universe: The Impossible Existence of the Living Cell (But it still exists?)

      3) There is the ‘jump start’ of the universe (that we have already talked about). But what about the ‘jump start’ that every one of us must go through to start living in this universe? 

      4) There is the ultimate outcome of what you get from all of the living species, that is, – a nature that does not jump. But has still (somehow) left behind a jumped status between every species within nature. And, finally,

     5) The Origin of Order itself– how the whole process itself is an important ‘beginnings’ question. I am leaving this one for last because it is simply a little more lengthy than the others.



   A repeat of our simple logic. If the universe really is an “In the beginning … God” affair, then each time you take something back to the beginning – it should take you back to God. And it does, e.g., like the Amazing Atom. Starting simply: an atom consists of the heavy nucleus, the protons and the electrons.

   In the nucleus, you have all the protons clustered together with each other. BUT (but, but, but, but, but) they are all also positively charged – and yet still congregate with each other. Do you remember that like charges ALWAYS repel? And since all protons are like charges, they will ALWAYS repel – if, that is, there is nothing but natural law at work. Yet they do not repel so … is it possible that there is more than just natural law at work?

   Outside the nucleus, it is surrounded by all electrons – all bonding together properly to maintain the cohesion of the atom. Except that all electrons are also all negatively charged – and therefore repel each other (if left strictly to natural law). Yet they do not repel so … is it possible that there is more than just natural law at work?

  In short, what would happen if you were to pour out a bag of electrons and a bag of protons into space? How would they configure themselves if things were just left to the natural course of things? It would not form as it is now. In essence, a Something would have to hold the electrons together against their will, then a Something would have to hold the protons together against their will and then a Something would have to activate motions in such a way that a countervailing force would then keep things stable from then on. Which we now have – and this force is given names by scientists; but which would never have happened strictly naturally.

   Now, just for the sake of argument, lets’ say a Scripture passage will be our first foray out of strictly natural law. I will refer to Colossians 1:17 where it reads “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” That is, that the ‘cosmic glue’ (that causes the structure of the atom to defy the physical laws of the universe) is like God’s little finger being in the middle of the atom – and that that is what is holding it all together. Or how “by him all things consist”.

   Next suppose another ‘silly’, non-scientific notion. What would it take for the entire earth to melt away – and with an enormous heat involved? Most scientists would have a difficult time thinking of anything that would cause the earth to simply start melting away – and then, literally, melt into nothingness. For, after all, doesn’t science say that matter can neither be created or destroyed? And, yet this Biblical ‘silliness’ is a matter of sheer simplicity itself.

   Suppose the cosmic glue factor should be allowed (or be caused) to slip apart. Like, say, God removing his little finger from the center of the atom. What would happen is that the atoms would start ripping apart. The outermost layer of the earth’s atoms would be the starting point at simply splintering into nothingness. As the outer layers would vanish, then the inner layers would no longer have any restrains and the process would continue until all the earth would totally ‘melt’ away. And to do so with a ‘fervent heat’.

   And as the apostle Peter writes, “and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.” Note even his precise terminology “the ELEMENTS shall melt …” The reason the earth will melt away “with a fervent heat” is because the very elements themselves will be melting away. And the only way that anything can totally ‘melt’ away (seemingly defying the natural law that matter cannot be destroyed) is through the loosening of the ‘cosmic glue’.

   Thus, you have no logical, scientific explanation for the configuration of the atom – but you have a Scriptural one. And, in step two, if you assume the Scriptural explanation is true then the seemingly absurd spectacle of the very elements “melting with a fervent heat’ is, in fact, quite scientific. That is exactly what would happen, and how it would happen – scientifically – if there was first a cosmic glue (and then there was its removal.)

   Thus, we have gotten back to another beginning point – this time at the main building block of the universe. And it somehow forms in a way that does not seem to be very ‘scientific’ – and yet has still managed to form. It could not form together ‘scientifically’ in the way that it did – and yet it still did. So, what, ultimately, caused it: something ‘scientific’ – or something else? And, again, strictly natural law can only say that “It formed that way simply because it formed that way and simply because it formed that way”. That is the best that it can do.



   ‘Scientifically’ the cell is also put together in a way that is not possible – and yet still came together that way anyways. So, just using linear logical reasoning – and being neither ‘scientific’ nor ‘religious’ – is it at least possible that there exists a something else (beyond just ‘scientific’) that made it so it was possible – since it did, in fact, still happen? And I am just asking a logic question – not trying to be ‘religious’.

   Example one of this: say that you are just dealing with the chemical components of living cells (but not inside a living being). They will bond together – in a natural setting – in a way that will ALWAYS form what is called a perfect covalent bond. You look at it under a microscope and you just see one item. But in all actual living cells, under the same microscope, you will see a shadow effect from the bonding ALWAYS happening with a skew angle involved. So how did they bond together this way? All that exists, we are told, are natural processes. And all natural processes would work differently than this and yet … here we still are.

   But then there is the more fundamental problem about our basic cell structures. All scientists, atheists included, acknowledge that DNA can not possibly exist without having RNA exist first. And that RNA cannot possibly exist without having DNA exist first. So, ‘scientifically’ we have neither of them existing. But in actual reality (where something more than just ‘scientific’ could, at least possibly, exist) you have both. So, does actual reality contain more than just ‘scientific’? While strictly natural law just says that “They got here simply because they got here and simply because they got here.” Again, the best that it can do.



   I have already mentioned three instances of this (the beginnings issues) so far. The universe itself needed an initial ‘jump start’ (a fact that even atheists admit). But cannot answer what was (also) there to do the jump starting; their ‘perturbation unknown’.

   The atom had to have an initial happening where it got force fitted into the right configuration. Next, that it got inserted into some type of a containment field. And all as the only way to keep it stable – after forming in a way that it would not (naturally) have formed. 

   The human cell is the third instance. First you must have the one thing (DNA) to have the other (RNA). Then you must have the other before you can even get to the first one. Thus, like all things in science, the process can only take you so far (to a point of beginning?) then you must have a ‘something else’ that takes it from there.

   Otherwise, you would now be reading something being written by an inert heat ball. Plus, even this would still have to have happened in spite of there being no such thing as an atomic structure to have even allowed to it to get that far. And, even it could get that far, there would still be no such thing as living cells getting formed from these (non) atoms to get to any type of a something that could be doing this writing in the first place. And on we could go – if all there was was nothing more than just natural causes only. But now to a fourth one: what about actual life as it lies there in the human womb?

   What does the actual jump start in this instance? When we are talking about human life as it exists in the womb? For the basic problem is that a brain is either working or not working. And what causes a brain (that is not working) to be told to start working – and then have it begin working?

   For example, I am injured, and my brain stops working. It never simply restarts itself; some form of CPR is always needed. But this is also the state we start our lives in when we are in the womb. We are brain dead and (were it at any other point in life) we would need an intervention.

   But none is done. So how does the brain first get started if there is nothing there to start it? Look at the example of your car. You give the engine that first kick of electricity, it starts and then (through its operations) it keeps generating its own electricity and sending it back to the battery. This is the self-sustaining process of both automobile engines and human brains.

   The jump start begins the process, the process feeds back to the beginning point and then it is self-sustained through to the next cycle. But we start the engine to the car ourselves (it does not start on its own) and nothing (that we are aware of) starts the brain for that first firing. So how does it still fire?

   Also: why does this process only work that first and only time? If you could have a car that could jump start itself, then why would it work one only time – when you first buy it – and never again? Yet we have a brain that seems to jump start itself – but then can only do it on that first and only time. Why?

   It is because it is APPOINTED that way. That is not the way that it would work ‘scientifically’. Science would say that the one car (the mother) would have to be the one to give the other car (the infant in the womb) that initial jump start that then begins the self-sustaining process. Except that it does not – and nothing else does either. And why does it only work that one time?

   It is because “It is APPOINTED unto every man once to die and after that the judgment.” It works that way that one first time (a self-jump start) by way of an appointment. And it never works that way again (all by itself) because you are only appointed to it but one and only one time. Natural law on all of this: “It starts just because it starts and just because it starts” – and nothing more to say after that.



   Said the only intellectually honest Darwinist that has ever lived – a Charles Darwin – “Nature does not jump”. He said this in the context of the future after he would be gone. He meant that if you cannot arrange all of the species into a neat line – and with no “leaps” between them – then you should stop believing in his theory. His one flaw in how he argued it? He assumed that the fossil record would be needed as the way to answer this question.

  But science is now more advanced than he was aware of at that time. We can now observe the configuration of all of the species under a microscope – and that there are many hundreds and thousands of “leaps’ between every species. And that it remains that way no matter how you try to do the arrangement. So, if nature does not jump then what has caused the ‘jumped’ status between all of the species?

  And, if Darwin is not a good enough critic for you on the question of Darwinism, then the final analysis piece of this paper (which follows) will delve more deeply into why he was right that “nature does not jump”. So … again: break something down to its most basic level (or take it back to a point of beginning) and you get jumping species’ (in a natural universe that does not jump), things that make up the building blocks of life that had to have been placed, you see everyone’s first hospital experience where you get ‘jump started’ from something that is not physically present on the premises, etc.  And strictly natural law? “The gaps in species are simply there just because they are there and because they are there.” The best that it can do.



   As mentioned earlier, I saved this for last because it is a little lengthy. But it is the most ultimate beginning of the beginning’s questions. For both the skeptics and believers maintain that it is an orderly world. But where does the Order, itself, come from?

   The skeptic says that the Order just naturally ‘evolved’ out of Chaos. On the other hand, the real argument of the believer is not just that there is an Argument-from-Order to be made. It is that we live, not just in an orderly universe, but in a universe where it is an Order-from-Order universe – and not one that became orderly by, say, evolving out of Chaos.

   So, you have two competing ‘beginnings’ involved: does our entire process (of Order) ‘evolve’ out of Chaos? Or does our Order only come from out of Order in the first place? Thus, we have ourselves another ‘beginnings’ issue and we will assume, for the moment, that the skeptics are right: that the world is an Order, but it is an Order from Chaos. But then what would it actually look like?

   Consider: There is a good argument to be made about the absurdity of an Encyclopedia Britannica evolving out of random ink splashes by monkeys. And then making the point about a lot of the universe being equally unlikely. But it is still not the best argument.

   Granted, the arguments of Order through Chaos can wear thin. The argument is that if you just have enough time then even the impossible becomes the inevitable. And, thus, Order will always evolve out of Chaos if you just have enough millennia involved.

   But in the encyclopedia example, is there even enough time available in the entire universe to accommodate it? Eventually, entropy will turn us all into fully exhausted heat balls. And the Encyclopedia example is so extreme it seems that there would not be enough time to get it done to even beat this Existential Deadline: the amount of time in the whole universe before we all become an exhaust product after entropy has done its full run.

   So, there is a point where the “Given enough time” argument is too strained for most reasonable people. But still, there is a much better argument available. For the universe directly declares itself to be a case of Order-from-Order as well as just being a good Argument-from-Order.

   It revolves around two problems for the skeptic – not just one. The first is the more talked about probabilities problem. But there is also what I would refer to as the sorting problem. For, in the encyclopedia example, let’s say someone has asserted that an encyclopedia is now sitting before us that evolved that way. But here are the questions that I would ask – even apart from the questions of probabilities and statistics:

  Where are all the rejects at? If you still want to argue that an Encyclopedia can evolve itself, then what about all the unsuccessful attempts along the way? Where are all of them at right now? And, lastly, since it is siting in front of us in a neat and sterile environment then who did this sorting process? So that you now have an Encyclopedia in a sterile environment in front of us? Arguing that an encyclopedia can evolve doesn’t explain how it came to be sitting on my desk – so there would still need to be something more involved even if it was just someone doing a sorting process and then placing it into a neatly sorted area.

   As to our encyclopedia itself: once a random ink blot got involved with one of the attempted copies then the copy would be no good. (And this is like all natural processes – natural processes don’t work like something being written on a piece of paper. Where you can just erase something out of existence to get a fresh do-over.) This is the basics of the sorting problem. It is a second problem in addition to the probability one.

   Another example: picture, for a moment, a group of twigs with a “MWC” configuration – shaped to make my initials. If it is the result of nature (only), then it would be out in nature. And whatever caused the stirrings that produced the “MWC” twig configurations would be surrounding it with a mass of chaos and randomness. Thus, if a “MWC” configuration was, instead, at the end of my driveway I would still know, and beyond all doubts, that at least that particular “MWC” was not the result of random chance.

   That is, if something is caused by random chance it will be encompassed by randomness and the results of random chance. If it is not encompassed by randomness, then it was not caused by randomness. And all the theoreticals about “Given enough time” become irrelevant. This is another aspect of the sorting problem. How does a random event get neatly sorted out to become a neat line event – even while (presumably) being caused only by randomness?

   That is why I can always out argue someone who points to an encyclopedia on my desk – and talks about how it could have evolved over enough time. Not the one on my desk – because it is neatly on my desk and is in a neat and tidy environment. Therefore, at least that particular one, came about by a neat and orderly process. However, this is what all nature ultimately looks like also.

   So how is all the universe in an orderly and sterile environment – with no surrounding chaos? It is because it is Order that came from Order – and Chaos had nothing to do with it. Similarly, there are also neat and tidy separations between all items in the universe.

   For example (and referring back to “nature does not jump”): Is it possible to arrange all living species’ in a neat line such that Species #1 has only one minor leap to ‘evolve’ into a Species #2, Species #2 has only one minor leap to ‘evolve’ into Species #3 and etc.? No, it is not. Thus, we have another case of a sorting problem for ‘science’ (as some define it).

  If you ‘evolve’ things from, say, a step #1 to a step #10 you still must go through Steps #2 thru 9 along your way there. The problem is that, if enough trials will make even the impossible inevitable, then it must also make everything that is slightly less impossible become the inevitable also. Thus, you can’t get to “the impossible eventually becoming the inevitable” – making it to a Step #10 – without making all that is slightly less than impossible becoming the inevitable too – and thereby also creating Steps #2 through #9 along the way.

   But that is not how things are actually formed. You, again, have a neat sorting of all the species. All are distinctly in their own category, with their own particulars involved and do not, in fact, ‘link’ to other species in a way that shows a strictly natural fusion from one to the other. No matter how you do the arrangement, a Species #2 will still have, say, ten thousand steps between it and Species #1 while there will be, say, ten thousand steps between it and a Species #3 and so on one could go. But what happened to the intervening steps?

   But we need to come to the final step of reasoning here. As laid out, there are two problems – not just one – in trying to stick with an orderly world but maintaining that it all arose out of chaos. There are not just the probabilities involved but what I would refer to as a sorting problem.  But here is where we come to our final step – it is where the two problems merge together to create a final impossibility for an Order-but-from-Chaos argument vs. an Order-from-Order argument.

   For suppose we go back to the Encyclopedia experiment – and try to ‘evolve’ one of them through random chances. Suppose there is no sorting process and the efforts are done in total randomness and through total randomness. The first problem is that you can’t ‘evolve’ straight from total randomness to the Encyclopedia Britannica without going through all of the intermediate steps.

   First, you would have to have 10 to the massive powers of failed efforts to get one copy that has one correct entry while all the rest is still gibberish. And ten to the massive powers before you would get one with two correct entries and the rest is gibberish. The same with one that has three correct entries …

   … and then when you are at success minus just three gibberish entries how many efforts are gone by? Until you then get to minus two, minus one and success – a perfectly formed encyclopedia. With each level taking 10 to the massive powers of failures before reaching it. And here is why Darwin is the only intellectually honest Darwinist.

   Without going through a prolonged argumentation, he still stated, correctly, that “nature does not jump”. You do not get to go to Evolution Point Ga-jillion without going through all the intermediate steps as well. He even set this up as a future test for his theory. He stated that if nature does not start simple – and move simply through every step – then his theory should be rejected by future generations. His theory has failed his test but how many people do hear acknowledging his own arguments?

   So, here we now sit with the time involved from a ten to the ga-jillionth power of failed efforts where not a single workable entry occurred in any of the randomly produced encyclopedias. Then there was the time involved of the failed efforts that occurred to produce a copy with one correct entry. And so on. Won’t we eventually wind up with a ten to the ga-jillionth power of time involved, a ten to the ga-jillionth level of matter and energy expended and what if … the entire physical universe is not even big enough to accommodate the process?

   Suppose the process has such unwieldy probabilities that you will wind up using all of the time up to the Existential Deadline. Suppose it is so unwieldy – that just the small amount of matter and energy involved in each transaction (times the number of transactions that it would take to do a “impossible eventually becoming the inevitable”) would exceed all of the matter and energy that exists in the entire universe? Then it is, in fact, not only the impossible but it will also remain impossible – and throughout all the entire continuum of all time and space.

   This is what leads to something called the Borel’s limit. Put clumsily, it seems – at first – to be hard to understand. Essentially, you have, say, a 1 in 10 to 100th power of improbability. Then you have, say, a 1 in 10 to the 199th power of improbability. But you then switch into a 0 in ten to the 200th power of improbability and nothing ever changes: you just keep going to a 0 in 10 to the 2000th power, 0 in 10 to the 200,000th power etc. Where the impossible becomes truly the impossible and remains that way no matter what.

   But is not difficult to understand this when you realize what is really happening. Borel’s limit is simply the point where more and more improbable odds (the number of failed attempts keeps becoming larger and larger) will eventually collide with more and more ‘sorting’ problems (how do you deal with the time, matter and energy being expended that is getting larger and ever larger) until it has to hit that final breaking point: where there is no longer enough time, matter and energy available in the entire physical universe to sustain the process and to keep it going.

   In the ‘evolving’ encyclopedia problem suppose I could turn the entire physical universe into paper and ink products to help sustain the experiment. But even after using up the entire new universe we are still just scratching the surface of the number of experiments needed (because of the extreme odds) to have a single success. Thus, after having run out of all of all time, matter and energy we are now forced to end it. It has ended unsuccessfully because it ultimately had to: the numbers involved were simply too large.

   But it is best to end with a simple logical proposition: forgetting the odds question for a moment (or even Mr. Borel and his limit) what type of a universe does it look like to you? Does it look like a universe of one chaotic mass with just the few pin pricks of Order in it that it takes to sustain us? Or does it look like one orderly sphere with everything ‘sorted’ into it in an orderly manner?

   When you actually do the logic and think about what a universe of Order-from-Chaos would have to look like does our universe actually look like that? No, it does not. And it is because that is not the nature of our universe’s origins – and end of argument.

   Therefore, it is time to end the matter of arguments. I simply urge all people of good will to accept the reasonableness of belief in God – as well as the reasonableness of us all getting along however we may feel about God. In a country founded on religious freedom you would not think an argument about the reasonableness of belief is even necessary. But, as I said at the start of this argument, I worry about our country’s present course. I pray that we will, indeed, remain a country where such an argument is not even needed. But I am uncertain of our nation’s present course.


Vote for Trump


   Up until the Covid-19 disaster, we had God (with considerable help from the Trump Administration) to thank for the return of our heavy industries. On the other side were the ‘globalists’ and multinational business crowds that thought it was a stance for sheer mockery: “How is he supposed to bring these jobs back – with a magic wand?” Well, he did bring them back; and not with a magic wand but with sound policy decisions. See it for yourself:

But his “Magic Wand” actually works!

   So … the pre-Covid past was, perhaps, the best economy ever – but where do we go from here? It is simple; the only thing you should want from the Democratic Party is to get out of the way and let you have your life back – and exactly the way it was before the virus! Biden (and the past Republican administrations) were all a part of outsourcing America and the virus has just added extra emphasis to the problem.

   The incompetence of the past was so extreme, in fact, that we were dependent on the Communist Chinese government for our supply chain – to get the medicine for the virus that they caused! This has also been reversed by Trump (the only major political figure willing to say America First) but we now have the hijacking of the Covid-19 epidemic – and its politicization. Were it not for this, we could have a safe return to normalcy:

   1) Very few people are likely to die from the virus unless there are 65+ and with underlying conditions

   2) The overwhelming majority of deaths were due to the incompetence of the Blue State (Democrat) governors and that

   3) Locking down the general population was just punishing the working class for the incompetence of their ruling classes

   Consider: 90% of the deaths were readily preventable if the local governments had acted competently. Since the beginning of the virus, elder care facilities have been in a hard lock down. Also, all such facilities have demanding protocols that, if enforced and monitored by the local governments, would have kept them from becoming infected. And yet 50% of all the virus fatalities came from less than 1/2% of the population – those in elder care facilities.

   It is a straightforward case of incompetent (local) governments causing the most deaths. And then penalizing the working classes the most for it. Did you know that one Democrat Governor (a ‘Witless’ Whitmer) shut down and an entire county because of virus fatalities? When all the county’s’ fatalities happened at an elder care facility – that was managed incompetently by her government officials? (So why make the working class people pay for their own mistakes?)

   The second area of local government incompetence (then being used to justify punishing the working classes) are the 65+ with underlying conditions who live outside the elder care facilities. It has been a known fact (since early in the virus) that the best way to protect them is to give them the resources they need to stay out of harm’s way. But what provisions have ever been made to help these people? None!

   Blue State Governors are letting the vulnerable stay vulnerable, are punishing the middle class with shutdowns for their own  incompetence – and it is all due to the politicization of the virus. These Trump bashers could have mobilized the National Guard to provide care packages to the most vulnerable members of the population – and, thereby, keep them out of harm’s way. They could have provided them with access to a special hotline – one they could call to get the help they needed to stay out of harms way. Or, even, what about the high quality N95 masks? If you are going to leave vulnerable people to have to go out, then why not make sure they were given the best possible protection – due to their being in the most vulnerable part of the population? How much of this was done by the Blue State Governors and their Trump bashing allies? Zip, zero and nada.

  Just a couple of common sense measures would have eliminated almost 90% of all the coronavirus deaths – and with no general shutdowns to the general population. But what is Joe still saying? That he will gladly shut down the entire economy again – and punish workers again (for the further incompetence that we are almost certain to keep getting from the ruling classes?)

   And where is the surprise? It was incompetence at the highest levels that originally lost us our heavy industry jobs. And it was Obama-Biden in power that did this incompetence (and then scoffed that Trump could not bring back these industries).

   Now they are advocating more of the same incompetence that has kept these industries closed unnecessarily. When will people in power stop blaming the average person for their own miserable failures? At least Trump has tried to change this: he advocates (and has provided real help) on behalf of the elderly and infirm to get them more resources. While allowing the rest of the world to get back to work. But Joe is still off in his own corner of the universe – willing to repeat the same mistakes endlessly.

   Listen to President Trump. Obama and Biden were the ones in power when he ran for election. And, like he has said, if they had really done such a good job then why was he the one to win the election? He deserved to win the last election and we need him to win this next one too. Especially since it is against this same Biden/Obama clique of people. Vote for Trump.



Science and Human Behavior



Where we ended in our introduction:

   “Thus, you have now been given my introductory tour on ‘Science’ vs. Thinking – where we allow others to do our thinking for us on ‘scientific’ grounds. There are three planned articles to follow: ‘Science’ and Human Behavior, ‘Science’ and God and then ‘Science’ and Nature.

   But here is the short, short, short form wrap up for all of it in advance. Never let anyone else do your thinking for you – ESPECIALLY if they claim to be talking ‘scientifically’!”



   Because this is show case number one for the ‘science’ crowd’s blatant hypocrisy. Where you either 1) simply ignore the ‘scientific’ to do whatever you want to do anyway or 2) Do a Warp-to-Fit job to make something ‘scientific’ – in an attempt to justify what you want to do.



   This statement was accurate in the 1980’s when President Ronald Reagan first said it. And it has just gotten more and more accurate as time has gone by. By the 1980s, direct measurement of fetal brain wave activity was common science. But even as early as 1942, it was known that there were two brain waves at work with (according to the law and medical science) there, therefore, being two people.

   This happened (in 1942) when a medical doctor accidentally picked up an EEG reading from the lower abdomen of a pregnant woman – and then compared it against post pregnancy infants. The two phenomena were then read, by the doctor, on a monitoring screen and were determined to be the same phenomena at work. That is, what was happening in the womb of the one woman was the same thing that was happening to another infant – after it had just left the womb of another woman.

   Further, medical monitoring has also gone on to determine that the brain wave readings of the infants are different than the brain wave readings of the hosting mother. So, according to both law and current medical science, two different brain waves equals two different people equals two different lives. So …  the ‘science’ crowd is against abortion? Not!

   And how do you blame this on, say, a Religious Right? An EEG meter is not an instrument of the Religious Right – but of science. So, what is the problem? It is the same problem as always: human nature. People will always believe whatever they want to believe and do whatever they want to do. The rest is window dressing.

   Why do some people try to justify things by quoting something from out of the Bible – while others take a snootier approach of talking ‘science’? For the same reasons: People have often misused the Bible to justify things or to try to take a short cut at making a case. But so do the ‘science’ types – it is just a slightly snootier version of the same behavior.



   Did you know that you are biologically dictated – like a wind-up robot – to have to do homosexual behavior? Or did you know that science also proves that biology is meaningless – and affects nothing about your behavior? Or does it just depend on which ‘science’ you are talking about? There is a back story here with several parts.


   The correct stance has always been – and is still just as correct today – that gayness is something that you do not something that you are. Therefore, it does not qualify for civil rights enforcement. All that happened is that the pressure lobbies for gay liberation decided to make ‘science’ change the nature of the game – and then went about seeking their ‘scientific’ proof afterwards.

   And the ‘scientific’ proof was to support a political agenda: if, the reasoning goes, my personal behavior is uncontrollable then you must regard it as just something I am. Like, say, my race or gender. Then you do, too, have to give me civil rights enforcement for my personal behavior.


   Never mind that this destroys:

      1) the entire purpose of the law as it has always existed. The law has always existed to protect us against someone else’s personal, private behavior – if it is a potential problem for ourselves. The entire purpose of the law is to limit the boundaries for private, personal behavior so that my private, personal behavior does not infringe upon you. The law has never been used – nor should be used – to take something out of my private, personal behavior and somehow make it sacrosanct – and a matter for a required acceptance by all other people. For this then violates their rights.

      2) the rule of law. The argument is that “I do not have free will for my behavior”. But why do we punish people when they do crimes? It is because they chose to do it – and that this is either a deserved punishment and/or a deterrent so that others will not do likewise. But how is this still relevant if we are just biologically dictated robots that cannot control our behavior?

      3) Theism. Why do we still believe in God – despite the world being a place where people do crimes? It is presumed that God needed to give us our free wills and, thus, we are responsible for the world being a place where criminals exist in it. But if we have no free wills, then God is, indeed, the responsible party and, thus, as one once put it “If God exists then he must be the very Devil”.

    So: so much for theism along with the entire purpose and the rule of the law. But ask the modern liberal “Do you really think it is wise to advocate something that nullifies the rule of law, theism and the basis of democracy – just to have a talking point for gay liberation for the next 15 minutes?” To which they will answer “Of course it is! What else matters?” But I disagree – with both their underlying point (about the lack of free will) as well as their incredibly glib attitudes about ideas having consequences.

   But this is where (and how and why) their quest began for ‘science’ to prove something (that they had already decided to prove). And to have this ‘science’ done in service to a political agenda. And what they, ultimately, came up with re-proves every point that I have made about letting others think for you – and especially if they are ‘scientific’.



   No, Junior, the world does not revolve around you!



   When does the same 25% equal 100% while, simultaneously, also equaling 0%? It is when ‘science’ is invoked in search of an already decided upon ‘answer’. The search for the ‘gay gene’ has never turned it up but an, admittedly, biased researcher tried to come up with an alternative. He took the phenomenon of twins separated at birth – and then compared their behaviors.

   It was not a bad idea for research – it was just his bad conclusions. For his research rebutted his premise. He found that in only 25% of the cases did both twins practice homosexuality. That is, that our natural make-up controls about 25% of what we are. The point being that no one has ever contested this. It has always been an accepted fact that all behavior is a combination of nature, nurture and choice.

From the Bible:

   “In sin did my mother conceive me” – nature

   “Raise up your child in the way they should go and when they are old, they will not depart from it” – nurture

   “Your own sins have brought this upon you” – choice and accountability

   The Ancient Greeks, for another example, divided people up into four basic temperaments. But they did not advocate that children should raise themselves – since their temperaments dictated their lives anyways. Nor did they advocate that the law should treat people differently according to their different types of natural temperaments. Nature, nurture and choice have always been assumed parts of human nature. And, with it, accountability.

   But we digress. Going back now to our non-Greek, non-Bible believing ‘scholar’ and his studies. Next, his study confirmed that nurture was also just as much a part of the picture as nature. When identical twins were raised in the same household then the rate became 50% of them being alike. That is, that 25% of our make-up is from natural inclinations (not the same as biological dictations like a wind up robot), that 25% of it came from how we are raised (nurture) and that the majority of it was still pure choice. But the spin was that 25% equals 100%.

   The media reported his ‘proof’ that people are biologically dictated like wind-up robots to do homosexual behavior. But 25% still only equals 25%; it does not equal 100%. And if I am biologically dictated (like a wind-up robot) to do certain types of behavior – then don’t I have to act that way 100% of the time – rather than only 25%? Even in the crude and indirect effort led by this first researcher, the numbers refuted the premise – they did not support it. But next: how do you make this same 25% also equal 0% at the same time – and why would you do it?

   It relates to another politically correct practice: gay adoptions. A ‘study’ showed that gay adoptions do not create gay children – except that they do. What it showed is that, left strictly to nature, there will be 1 to 2 percent of the population that practices homosexual behavior. But children raised in a homosexual household will practice it around 25% of the time. (By the way: isn’t this the same 25% that the other study showed – about nurture and its part of the influences?)

   But now 25% equals 0%. The study ‘showed’ that there is no influence from gay parenting and becoming gay as an adult. Therefore, it is now ‘proven’ that gay parenting is simply fine – except that it is not. Someone is still between 1 and 2 dozen times more likely to practice homosexuality – if they are raised in it – than if they were just left to nature instead. Thus, it still has a 25% influence and not a 0% one.

   And we could go on with the contradictions that are caused by other politically correct causes. How about my being a woman trapped in a man’s body? But if I am dictated to by my biology – then how can I also be at a 180-degree contradiction to it at the same time? That is, that my biology is totally the one thing (male) – but that somewhere in that innermost me of all me’s I am the opposite (a female)?  

   So, which one is it: am I dictated to by my biology – or is my biology totally irrelevant instead? Both can’t be true at one and the same time EXCEPT when you are dealing in politically correct ‘sciences’.



   But now we finally get down to the latest (real) science on the matter. Now (of course) it has nothing to do with politics but a researcher (interviewed by Lester Holt) did a groveling session first before dispersing his knowledge. He pleadingly stated how ‘sensitive’ they were going to be in releasing the latest research. And that – of course not – it would not be released in any way that would help a non-believer in gay liberation. But they did, eventually, get down to the actual results itself. (Which proved that you should be a non-believer in gay liberation.)

   First, a quick splash screen was put up with five points to it. The most important one, of course, being the fifth and last one listed. It stated, essentially, that homosexuality was “just like all other traits”. Meaning that, to whatever level we are responsible for our own behavior, that they (people practicing homosexuality) are equally as responsible for their behavior also. And that, to whatever extent you might want to give them a responsibility exemption, then you would have to give this same exemption to everyone else also.

   Other flash screen points were that all human behavior is complicated and can not be reduced to any type of a one-shot panacea. (Wow!! I guess I, as an average person, was not aware of that? Were you? Is that why they now charge people nearly a quarter of a million dollars to get a higher education – because you learn so many things that you could never know otherwise?) And then one last point before moving on:

   The flash points then stated that sexual behavior is even more complicated than the other kinds!!! Holy Whatnot – when I heard that I fell out of my chair so hard is was as though I never even twitched a muscle – or even took any notice. To their credit, they did still flash screen these ‘profound’ and ‘new’ discoveries long enough for you to speed read your way through them – before pulling them back down again. And did, eventually, even get to the main point.

   Eventually, Lester Holt said – and with as quick an in and out as could be done – “Born that way. True or False?” Thus, he did, ultimately, get down to the main course of the subject matter (even if in a very truncated manner). And said the researcher “False” – before mad dashing it back out of the subject matter.  And then talking about anything else he could think of. So, he did – ultimately – give The Answer (that gutted the whole Gay Liberation premise) before making a mad dash to the nearest exit immediately afterwards.

   And, I guess, we should be thankful for the newspaper coverage – even if just because there was some. Up until recently, on a topic this sensitive, news people would still let people from both sides in on the conversation. But not today. The newspaper quoted only a non-response from only the pro-Gay Liberation side. And what other type of a response could they make?

   It was a multi-year study, backed by multi-millions of dollars, and from pro-Gay Liberation sources of funding. What is more, it did attempt to directly tackle the ‘gay’ gene question. Using the latest technology, it did go through the entire DNA structure of a human being looking for the ‘gay’ gene. And still advanced the issue none whatsoever.

   After all the millions of dollars spent, and from a totally pro-Gay perspective, the facts remain identical to where they have always been. Namely, that there are some genetic aspects to ALL our behavior, that nurture is also an aspect of ALL our behavior and that choice is also an aspect of ALL our behavior. And that homosexuality, in this regard, is like quote “every other trait”. Thus, we were only allowed to hear a totally boiler plate response from the Gay Liberation lobby – and no response permitted from anyone else.

   For, after all, mustn’t ‘scientific’ studies (like what the researcher initially said) be handled with ‘sensitivity’ – to ensure that ‘non-enlightened’ viewpoints are not in any way aided or abetted? So, what am I complaining about? I guess I should just be happy that they at least did get down to the main points of the matter – and still show how it is an empty debate. At least ‘scientifically’ that is.



   This is, actually, the main point of this article that I have most wanted to get to. While I find it a continual annoyance to see science prostituted for political correctness, it is worse when it is simply not considered important at all – and on the type of things that are the most important. For, ironically, the people who have about the closest claim to being ‘dictated’ into certain behaviors are the type of people that we tend to hate the most intensely.

   My favorite person that I tend to love-to-hate is the man who is now the posture boy for the new ‘bail reform’ movement. He was just released for (for reals) the 104th time. And the first thing that he did was to observe and elderly woman go past him – upon which he cold cocked her to the deck for absolutely no reason!

   It was a thrill crime just because he can do it. Now before going on, let me give some reassurances: he is (obviously) morally responsible for what he did. And he is as despicable a person as his criminal behavior suggests he is. Yet, there is still an important lesson we need to learn here: where do people like this come from?

   The answer (and one that can be observed by the physical and social sciences) is that he is created by us – and the dysfunctional things we allow to continue in our society. Did you know that if you grow up in a state of prolonged stress (the fight or flight syndrome) for long enough that it physically re-wires your brain? And that this is even observable in laboratory conditions? That you, essentially, become hard wired to be dysfunctional?

   Did you know that most of the people – who are like the poster boy for ‘bail reform’ – have a three strikes and out record for all three of the behavior factors – nature, nurture and choice? If the Bail Reform Poster Boy did not start out with a natural inclination to act on impulse (and most criminals, in fact, do start out that way) then an entire upbringing (of living under a fight-or-flight environment) was certainly not helpful.

   Now what about the Bail Reform Poster Boy and nurture, you may ask? I will bet the bank that he does not come from an intact, properly disciplinarian two – parent family. And that he does not, say, know the Lord as his personal Savior.

   Choices? Yes, he has, ultimately, become the way he is from his own choices. But how much encouragement did he get to make the right choices vs. the wrong ones? For example: how do you think aiding and abetting him to make a ha-ha joke out of the criminal justice system helped – at encouraging him to make good choices rather than bad ones?

   And this is all relatively typical of all those scary people that we love to hate: the almost gratuitously violent types, those people with an almost unlimited ability to rationalize their behavior and to be oblivious of others. All of them are, very often, people we have created to be that way by our tolerance of dysfunctional conditions. And the type of dysfunctional values that are rapidly taking over our society.

   All these people have a much stronger claim to “I was forced into it” than people like Mayor Pete and his in-your-face homosexual behavior. Or, another prime example of the entitled types claiming to be unable to help themselves: do you remember a Rielle Hunter? She was the paramour of a Senator John Edwards – who was horsing around with him while his wife was kicking the bucket from cancer.

   True, they did not actually do a live copulation with each other – while laying on top of his dying spouse in her hospital bed simultaneously. But they did everything short of that. And yet what is her own statement on this matter: “I bear absolutely no responsibility for what we did”.

   And why? Because it “just happened” and they therefore could not possibly help themselves. Really? Compared to who and what?

   How many of us really have it as bad as these others that we tend to hate the most? How many of us grow up with a strong natural inclination (category #1) to do bad things (that is then – literally – reinforced through the rewiring of our brain cells). Next, are given no positive nurturing (for category #2). And then are not just encouraged – but are often aggressively encouraged – to make all the bad choices rather than the good ones (thereby damaging us in category #3 as well).

   For those of us who can’t lay claim to these types of things – which still constitutes most of us (for now): if we are ‘pressured’ to do, say, an abortion is this pressure really as bad as what some people are subjected to? And as their own type of a ‘new normal’ of dysfunctionality that often makes up their whole lives? Are most of us really a bunch of victim types who cannot help ourselves – and especially as compared to a lot of people who have it much worse?

   And does anyone really believe that pampered, entitled types like Rielle Hunter and Mayor Pete are some type of victims? That really cannot be held accountable for themselves – when we still hold these other types of people accountable for themselves? What elitist garbage!

   The esteemed criminologist, a James Q. Wilson, even points out why criminals often become criminals in the first place. It is because of their complete inability to think things through logically rather than to act on impulse. But even when you have the combination of all three factors (bad natural inclinations, no proper nurturing in growing up and an impaired ability to make rational choices) we still cannot absolve people of their responsibility. Or the first thing we would have to do is to clear out of all the prisons – so when do we get started doing that??

   But, ultimately, we are back at the central point of this entire galley of articles. Better to use your own common-sense thinking processes than listen to the ‘science’ crowd. And nothing better demonstrates this than a study of science and human behavior. If they really gave the rodents whatnot about science they would be pro-life, pro-family, would reject ‘biological dictations like a wind-up robot’ to justify their behavior and would place science (and real science) more deeply into much more important issues (like the free fall zones in our inner cities and the destructive behavior that often comes with it.)

   Rather, that is, than all of our pampered, politically correct BS about abortions, sexual ‘preferences’ (hate the term), “Help me because I am feeling Gender Dysphoric today’ and etc. We would be much more concerned about the type of dysfunctional behavior and conditions that our values systems (or lack thereof) are causing and on I could go. But do not hold your breath waiting for them to do any of this – it is not going to happen!

   Thank you for reading the first article of our Science Trilogy. The next is an article that should not even need to be written – Science and God. In America, the land of religious liberty, why should you even need to write about belief in God as being intellectually reasonable? You shouldn’t; but, unfortunately, there are now many people at work trying to make America a totally different country than it has always been. And religion is rapidly becoming more and more of a fault line in today’s society. I wish it were not so, but it is.