Criminal Acts Admitted by Utah Attorney General

I recently sent the following email to friends@foxnews.com. I think it speaks for itself. Let's see if we get an answer.

I was extremely troubled by a segment on your show Wednesday, August 30th.

Your guest, the attorney general of Utah, admitted that his office had known for 5 1/2 years about polygamists under his jurisdiction and only now had chosen to act against them (trggered by a recently arrested polygamist from Utah in Nevada).

An attorney general is sworn to uphold the law. Is he not breaking the law by failing to act on this information?

The subject of preventing the abused of women is an important issue in our home. Don't you think that for the taxpayer's prosecutorial dollars we would do much better by forcing this criminal (the attorney general) out of office through prosecution and replacing him with someone who will actually enforce the existing polygamy laws?

Wouldn't far fewer girls and women be abused at the hands of the polygamists with an attorney general who actually enforced the laws regarding polygamy?

It seems like this attorney general is making a showcase of prosecuting the "polygamist of the day" rather that doing his job on a regular basis.

Sincerely
todd@just-got-lucky.com

Engineering Leadership

An article from volume twelve, issue six, August 2006 of the Pittsburgh TEQ magazine titled "America Need not Cede Engineering Leadership". The author? Pradeep K. Khosla.

Gender Incompetence

My wife's friend thinks that today's twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings are gender confused. By this she of course means that society tells them through the marketing of gay activism, equality of the sexes, etc. that concept of gender is all in their minds and that they are whatever gender (or combination thereof) they imagine they might want to be. She reasons that these messages are confusing them.

Evidence of this can be seen today on virtually any social web site where there are much larger collections than expected of bisexual, androgynous and gay youths.

I respectfully disagree with my wife's friend. Instead, it seems to me that these youths suffer from gender incompetence. I define gender incompetence as "the act of functioning against ones biological gender." A simple example of this would be someone that sees a television story or reads a story or visits a web site glorifying some alternate gender choice and subsequently acts as if they themselves are now a person of that alternate gender.

(Note that I do not attempt to define "biological gender" and that one first has to have determined their biological gender in order to act against it.)

Confusion vs. Incompetence

The definitions of incompetence, according to Merriam-Webster is 1) not legally qualified, 2) inadequate or unsuitable for a particular purpose, 3) lacking qualities needed for effective action, and 4) unable to function properly. Confusion, on the other hand, is a mental state where one fails to make appropriate distinctions or differentiations (see Merriam-Webster here). So I argue that being confused about anything, much less gender, is a common human occurrence but that choosing to act in a confused manner regarding gender renders one incompetent.

Your biological gender is what you are. You may not like it but it is what you were endowed with by your creator.

Teaching Your Child

I participated in a remarkable conversion a few days ago. An experienced teacher had recently participated in a workshop on the differences between boys and girls (the instructor is supposedly to appear on a John Stossel 20/20 episode on September 15, 2006). The instructor was not identified, but it may have been Michael Gurian or his logical equivalent.

The teacher was shocked to learn there are differences in how the two sexes learn. Apparently this workshop struck a chord because many common problem classroom situations, with boys in particular, where elucidated.

From the conversation I gathered that since the 1970's teachers have been instructed that boys and girls are "the same" relative to how they learn (supposedly due to "woman's lib"). The teacher was beside herself because it was completely clear that whatever had been going on in his classroom was highly stilted toward favoring the "female" learning model. He realized that the boys were being "made into girls".

(As an example: Little Johnny scribbles outside the lines. Little Suzy colors neatly inside the lines. Little Suzy is praised for doing a good job while little Johnny is chastised for his coloring ineptness. Johnny subsequently tries to emulate little Suzy. As time goes by little Johnny realizes he is inferior to Suzy as a boy and hence works to emulate her due is native male competitiveness. The point being that little Johnny learns coloring differently and coloring outside the lines may not (no pun intended) outside the lines of Johnny's ability relative to little Suzy and their respectively equal numerical ages.)

The conversation expanded into how much this teacher was expected to do in the classroom already and that making up for the lack of teaching skills shown by the younger teachers was now also becoming a problem. An example of this was a situation where newly graduated teachers were unsuccessful at teaching junior high school grammar and spelling - apparently because they (the newly graduated teachers) themselves did not have a good grasp of these subjects.

This combination of revelations lead the teacher to lament his future survival - particularly in retirement.

Well, its about time! Sadly no connection was made relating the product of the educational system and the skill levels of newly graduated teachers - nor was a connection evident between the "sissifying" of boys and the educational system.

I suspect its too late for hope....

TSA Fun

According to today's Wall Street Journal gel-filled bras will no longer be allowed on airplanes. We do we go from here? Certainly lubricated condoms cannot be far behind (no pun intended); no doubt to be followed by breasts or penises containing liquid implants - though removing those prior to boarding might be a problem.

I suppose that one could conceivably have to remove one's blood as it might actually be a concoction of explosive and artificial hemoglobin. Hmmm... You could probably make a sub-critical mix of uranium or plutonium and artificial hemoglobin and transfuse enough into two children so that when they came into proximity to each other a critical mass would be created - so blood has to be out.

(Note: Yes the +Enlarge tag at the bottom of the image is really there.)

So to, probably with artificial bones, limbs metal plates - same problem.

But wait! Singling out the handicapped (or large breasted women or well-hung men) for special searches just because the prosthetic parts just might be considered profiling or discriminating.

So, soon everyone will have to line up next to the giant portable atom-smasher that bombards your body with "special" radiation to illuminate your insides - lest someone be lying about the nature of your underwear or your breast or penis implant.

Global Dimming

Below is an excerpt from a BBC programme called Horizon (link here). It discusses the effect of having all US airplanes (as well as airplanes from other countries as well, I suppose) grounded for three days right after 9/11. They discuss some unquantified temperature measurements from 48 states (about 5,000 measuring stations) from areas "that was[sic] most dominantly affected by the grounding".

Excerpted from the previous link

DR DAVID TRAVIS (University of Wisconsin, Whitewater) We found that the change in temperature range during those three days was just over one degrees C. And you have to realise that from a layman's perspective that doesn't sound like much, but from a climate perspective that is huge.

BCC NARRATOR One degree in just three days no one had ever seen such a big climatic change happen so fast. This was a new kind of climate change. Scientists call it Global Dimming.

Follow the link for a complete context to the comments below.

Hmmmm..... this sounds like a very subjective measurement (areas dominantly affected by the grounding). Though it seems obvious that fewer jets means less pollution and contrails; hence more sunlight reaches the earth's surface; hence more of the sun's energy reaches the earth. Particulates (like coulds) help keep the heat absorbed by the earths surface from radiating back into the sky (this is why, all things being equal, cloudy winter days are usually much warmer that days without clouds). So without the layer of particulates, the earth heats and cools more quickly.

There are several troubling aspects to this. First, its hard to imaging the "global warming" scientists missing out on something this important (see previous posts). Second, what does this do to the "standard" climate models, i.e., is it accounted for?? Third, maybe carbon dioxide is keeping the planet habitable while the climate is really being destroyed (thrown into an ice age) by aircraft contrails.

Another troubling aspect is that somehow these local effects are thought of by scientists as "climatic". What is described in the BBC article is an extremely temporary, local effect which affects the "temperature" of the earth by a degree or more C (temporary because things go back to "normal" when air traffic returns). This effect can be generated by flying a few thousand (not sure on the exact number) airplanes at high altitude for a few hours each day. This means that someone could easily control the amount of energy reaching the earth's surface.

Over all, this seems to create a "hole" in the "climate models".

Global Dimming!?!

Apparently its a surprise to scientists that as the amount of pollution (particulates in particular (no pun intended)) increases less sunlight reaches the surface of the earth. This remarkable fact is now called "global dimming". Global dimming means less solar energy is reaching the surface of the earth. Where does it go if not to the surface? Why, its reflected back into space.

Maybe the fact that since the 1970's the amount of particulates has decreased (due, for example, to the clean air act) - hence the dramatic increases "global warming".

Bottom line - no one really knows....

MRSA (Mer SaH)

Troubling medical news - not for what the story says (see story here), but for what the story implies, particularly about parents and doctors and how they care for children.

MRSA is a serious staph infection. This article describes research into how common MRSA is becoming in the community. MRSA had generally been a problem only in nursing homes and hospitals, but now community acquired MRSA (acquired outside of these places) is becoming more common. This particular article covers staph skin infections (which can be serious should the infection enter the blood stream). For older folks, this is the old "watch for red streaks around an infection".

Over prescription of antibiotics, i.e., prescribing antibiotics when an non-antibiotic treatment will work just as well or better, has created drug resistant strains of staph that can cause "flesh eating" wounds and pneumonia... (but I paraphrase the article here).

Now for the troubling part. Parents apparently bring their children to hospitals with what they describe as "a spider bite that's not getting better or a pimple that's not getting better.” What do doctors do (and apparently have been doing) - prescribe antibiotics.

Why is this troubling? Because its unnecessary, as the article goes on to point out. Simply cleaning out the area (and draining the pus) offers the cure most of the time.

(For those to young to know - what this (cleaning out the area) means is opening an infected area, e.g., breaking open a pimple and picking off a scab, and flushing the area thoroughly with something like over-the-counter hydrogen peroxide. Usually several treatments are required. Other "home remedy" style treatments can include soaking the infected area in boric acid water or using something like iodine in place of peroxide.

Why is this not done? Well, for one thing it hurts. So little Suzy or Johnny will cry and all the adults will feel bad - and we can't have that. Much better to prescribe a fruity tasting pill.

Another reason is that things like boric acid are harder to buy than they used to be. Why? Because they are dangerous or, in this case, poisionous. So little Suzy or Johnny will eat the stuff and die. So the medical community has replaced a $.02 cure (a 1/4 pound of boric acid costs are around $5.00 US and will last a decade) with expensive prescription drugs.)

You have to ask yourself:

1) Why don't the parents clean out the area themselves (using iodine, mercurochrome, peroxide, boric acid, etc.)?

2) Why don't the doctors (or nurses) clean it out at the hospital?

3) Are the doctors simply prescribing antibiotics to do their (or the parents) job for them?

I have personally noticed that simple cuts don't heal quickly unless their cleaned thoroughly as described above. In the past I did not notice this - it could be because the pesky bacteria are more stubborn now or it could be because I am older and don't heal as quickly. In any case, these treatments have so far not failed me.

Creative Outlets...

For those that are interested (and there are few) some of my music can be heard at here and here and my photography can be seen at here.

Global Warming Science...

Someone in the global warming research department forgot something... the sun! Yes, its true. Current global warming models apparently consider the global warming contribution of the sun's as constant over time (centuries). Apparently some people have a problem with this at www.space.com.

The reflectivity of the planet's surface (a thank's to my friend Rob for the heads up on this) is also not part of the model. Some things, like clouds, reflect more or less light than others.

As for the sun, well, suprise, its measurable output is increasing (a good reason to ignore it, I think). The apropo comment from the previous www.space.com link is Sun's possible influence has been largely ignored because it is so difficult to quantify over long periods. Hmmm...