Truth, Credit and Good Solar Science

Share

Let's give credit where credit's due and be honest about a few things. Scientists and politicians have been talking for most of my adult life about the panacea of solar energy. Plants are really good at it, and it's partly the reason why we exist. Otherwise, the solar rays would probably wipe out all life on earth. However, as I told my students, even the carotenoid-chlorophyll based antennae complex of Photosynthesis isn't all that efficient.

Plants absorb light at two basic frequencies. The rest of the photons they capture are reflected back into space or released as heat or cause damage resulting in free radicals inside the leaf. I think it's funny that we think we can design something more efficient than plants when those same scientists claim plants evolved millions of years before us. We haven't even really understood how they do it for very long. We are so vain.

Let's give credit where it's due. The first notions of photovoltaic capture (synthetic photosynthesis that converts light to electricity [since that's not what plants actually do])is attributed to French physicist Edmund Bequerel in 1839 when he discovered that certain substances produced an electric current when hit by light. Now, they don't actually make electricity. The light created a flow of energy that could be harnessed. Albert Einstein was the first person to explain what was actually going on, which turned out to be very similar to what happens inside a leaf when in 1927 he described excitement of electrons off a metal surface when exposed to light. It took a century before the first prototype came off the line when in 1954 researchers Pearson, Chapin, and Fuller at Bell Labs created a cell that was 4.5% efficient. 

The truth is that solar power is still in its infancy. Pure solar generation costs almost 200x as much money as any other type of electricity. This means that if your power bill using coal is $50/month, if you switched to solar power immediately, it would rise to $10000/month, which I can't afford. The cells commercially available range in efficiency from 5-20%, which means that some of them are zero improvement over the original cell made in 1954. It's still not as efficient as a chloroplast. It cannot be sustained on its own.

My father told me Wednesday night about the neighbor's project across the street. The life span of the neighbor's project, even with subsidies from teh government, meant that by the time they break even on cost the panels will need to be replaced. Without the subsidy? It's a net LOSS of money. Need I mention Solyndragate, and how that company after wasting $500 million of our money moved to China just to stay afloat? They were making panels for four times what they could get at the market, meaning they were hemmorhaging money.

People like to talk about how Nevada would be ideal for solar power. They think only of our sun exposure in terms of photon capture potential. Consider also the fact that the sun will damage the components. Soda cans bake in the desert and age much more quickly than anywhere else. Our sun literally breaks PVC pipe. Include also the wind damage, insects, sand, etc., and it's a pipe dream. Besides that, where will we get the money?

This is a temporary and piss-poor fix. I have written before about how Nevada has very little renewable energy in terms of total kilowatt hours. I also know a guy who worked very hard to put in Reid's famous Searchlight NV generator facility only to discover the jobs were temporary when they laid off all the installation crew after the plant went live. We're not even receiving that energy. It goes to California. Sounds like Boromir: "By our blood are your lands kept safe." By our land use are your cities kept lit. Everything is theoretical. None of the panels have lasted as long as they claim or generated as much energy as they hope despite claims that "they generate significantly more energy over their lifetime than the energy expended in producing them (wikipedia)".  The panels may still be there in 25 years, but they won't still be generating any electricity; they'll be trash and fit right in.

Too many scientists know squat about the truth. Too many of them are into science to publish papers, win grants, prove they are smarter than other people and make tenure. Too few projects have an end-user application in mind. Too few scientists are honest. If you are, they view you as a threat. What would happen if you prove them a fraud? You will probably end up like me.

I teach my students the following, which is an original quote:

Science doesn't prove anything. It removes all other possibilities until only the truth remains.

In some research this week on melanin, I learned that although things might be true, they may not mean what we think they mean or exist for the reasons we think they do. I teach my students to be skeptical of certain scientific claims and look for the truth. I intend to be different from other scientists and find what is true even if it's not what I hope or want to be the truth. In the end, I will be true, and I will teach truth as well.

Professors Don't Conspire

Share

As we head towards mid terms, I hear the same complaints from students. They think we should get together so that everything doesn't hit at the same time and make their life harder. Well, I have a message for these young folks- when things hit the fan, they hit at the same time and when it's not convenient. This is a life lesson college teaches.

Contrary to popular belief we don't get around and conspire how best to stress out students or complicate their time. I haven't actually spoken with any of the professors in Chemistry about my Organic Chemistry class, and the only reason I discuss biology is because I'm covering for an absent worker who's out for health reasons and have to make sure things are kept up to par.

I decide when things are due based on when it makes the most sense for the course. For my second biology exam, there are only two weeks' worth of material. I told them Tuesday it's because Respiration and Mitosis don't really fit well with anything else, and they're a lot to digest, pardon the pun. Rather than load them up with a lot of unrelated things, I'm giving a test on those two topics, then I will move on to genetics. Chemistry works the same way. We're covering oxygen and sulfur compounds and aromatics for the next exam. If it coincides with other due dates, I'm sorry; it's not personal; it's how I think the course is best subdivided.

When we make these decisions, it really is in the best interest of the students. I could do things differently. I could load everything up into two tests and make them all cumulative and laugh maniacally. I don't. I am not here to beat them into submission. I am here to teach them, and not everything they will learn or can learn is on the exam. Take the one young lady for example after my first biology exam who told me she'd decided to rearrange her priorities and study more. Congratulations- you learned something on this exam. Like Gandalf, I tell them I am not trying to rob them or hurt them; I do what I do to help them.

Not all professors care about the students. Many of them love the subject, but too few love those to whom they subject the subject. Too many of them misunderstand our relationship. The students pay us up front to deliver, and we owe them the best job we can for the price we ask. It's only fair, and it's what we demand when we transact with people outside of academia. We work for them.

Contrary to popular belief, professors are there to serve you. No, we don't give you the answers. No, we don't hand you a degree. No, we don't teach you to answer questions. The good among us teach you how to solve problems, how to make solutions, because that will make you an asset and successful no matter where you end up professionally. I know. I have been kept by employers because I could do and would do things other people could not. They know I'm the go-to guy for solutions, figuratively and literally. I'll show you how.

Do Me the Favor of Truth

Share

Most people ask, when given the option, that you give them something that will maintain peace rather than be completely true. Some of them want truth, but not all of it right this minute. See, we all recognize, I think, that when we make decisions based on half truths and whole lies that the end turns out more difficult than the beginning.

When I was younger, my parents, like yours, told me to tell them the truth. They promised it would be better for me. When I did, and they reacted in anger, it sure didn't seem to me like the best option. In fact, one of the only reasons I started giving people who ask the truth was when I learned that I was going to be damned either way. I decided if I was going to be damned, I might as well be damned for who I really was. It has trimmed the fat to a great deal as regards the people who are in my life, and my days are sometimes quiet and lonely, but I prefer that to a room full of liars.

Like you, I make decisions based on the information given me. When I go to a store, I pick items based on the price the shelf says they cost. When I plan activities, I decide things based on who confirms attendance. When I go to work, I act according to the portion of work allotted to me. When the information changes, I change my decisions. When the information is not true, I get frustrated, and it costs me much more than if I just got truth up front.

Maybe you don't give me truth because you think you care about me. You tell me some truth or some lies to not hurt my feelings. You are afraid you might hurt my feelings. You forget that when people do that to you and it falls apart you asked them, "Why didn't you tell me?" Do me the favor of truth. Give me the truth.

Just because someone says it doesn't make it true. Just because it's on wikipedia or Google doesn't make it true. Just because a pastor, a president, or a professor tells you doesn't make it true. Once, the world was flat, and once it was impossible to break the sound barrier. Maybe you don't have the whole truth. Maybe you don't think I can handle it all. At least make sure that what you give me is true as you understand it. That will save us all a lot of hassle and stress in the end. Truth will out. Truth remains after all else has been said.

All of us can climb high together when we honor every form of truth. --James E Faust

If it's Almost, It's Not

Share

I actually tried to buy a new(er) car today. Yes, honest to goodness, I almost bought a 2005 Chevrolet Malibu. The husband was a nice guy; his wife was somewhat intransigent.

She is a businesswoman and a haggler. I came prepared with what I thought it was worth, because no matter what you think, the things you have are really only worth what people are willing to pay for them. She insisted that since it was 'almost excellent' condition, she should get the price for a vehicle in excellent condition, nevermind that price was still less than her asking price. Almost just doesn't cut it.

I heard somewhere that almost only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. If you say something is almost, it usually means it's something less. Since Kelly Blue Book doesn't have a pricing guide for 'almost excellent', it was at best 'good', which was $700 less than her asking price. She wouldn't budge. As such, she 'almost' sold the car today.

Almost is a tricky word. You can't almost avoid being hit by a bus and say that's a good thing. You almost made it home alive. If you almost laughed, it doesn't mean the comedian was any good. Try telling the IRS you almost paid your taxes and see if they think it's good enough. If you're almost faithful, almost rich, almost finished, or almost old enough, you are none of those things.

The woman insisted the car was a certain condition and as such almost sold the car. I drove away. Car2D2 got me where I needed to go, no almost about it.

Personalized Wedding Gift

Share

When folks I know to whom I desire to give a gift get married, I insist on delivering the gift personally. See, it's not really something that conforms well to the anonymous pile of presents or to a standard thank you note. In fact, to this day I have actually only been thanked once for this particular gift. Unlike all the others, my gift comes with a message because it has deeper meaning than the objects lead you to believe.

The origin of this tradition begins somewhat inauspiciously. Some folks I really liked who by my reckoning were a great couple were getting married, and financial circumstances for me were as such at that time that I was unable to be as generous as others might appear to be. Although I have sinced learned that giving a gift thought makes it more valuable than its price tag, at the time I took a less symbolic approach. I scoured around the house looking for something meaningful and appropriate but for which I did not have to put out any money I had not already spent. Since then, it has become my standard wedding gift.

If you've received this same gift some time in the last five years, chances are you received it from someone who's copying me. I consider that a great form of flattery to be copied. I just want to go on record as the originator of this idea and the thought behind it, because as far as I can figure, nobody gave me the idea except for God, and I have subsequently applied it. This way you will understand the intent for which it became a tradition as it becomes diluted by others who mimic the semblance without the substance.

Our story begins at the store. No, not Tiffany's or anywhere even so fine as Kohl's. You can get these items at Wal-Mart or Home Depot, where they are the cheapest because their value is in their symbolism and their utility rather than their price tag. You stop in the aisles and pick up two items, a roll of duct tape, and a can of WD40. From there you contact the happy couple and arrange a time to visit them, which usually occurs after the honeymoon and after all the other gifts are opened and thank yous written and sent. The meeting set, you gather your thoughts, the gifts, and wait.

Usually I get down to brass tacks rather quickly. I'm there with a gift and a message for them, after all, and they have granted me a personal audience. Without any more delay than is necessary, I produce them from an opaque container, either a paper bag or a box and explain that the gift is both useful and a symbol. I have never encountered newlyweds to whom someone else already gave duct tape or WD40, both of which may be handy at any time in the first few weeks or years of a marriage. Then, I tell them why I really chose the gifts.

Sometimes they don't know that I have been married before. This gives me a perspective on life and love and companionship they lack and that they do not know I have. See, life is a stormy sea. You'll be driven to high progress along your way one minute and be dashed against the rocks another. You get together with someone for and about whom you care so that when times are hard you can face them with someone at your side and so that when times are grand you can share the joy with someone special. As you ride the waves of life, things may become bound up that grind against one another and cause friction, and it is then that it helps to have some way to lubricate things and keep them running smoothly. At other times, things will come apart, and it is useful to have a way to keep them together. I give these items to remind them that there is someone who loves them who gives them those tools to help them stick it out through the storms and arise at their very own land of promise.

People often forget that marriage is a triumvirate. You and your beloved enter into a contract with the Savior who agrees to sanctify and bless your marriage as you remain faithful to Him and to each other. If you keep your focus on your relationship with Him, even if things come apart between you and your beloved, He can help patch it back together when the opportunity arises. Some among us unwisely and selfishly think that the focus should be on our mate, and they cry foul if God comes before Love. It's wise to remember that marriage is a sacrament of the Church and only recently an usurpation of the State, which is the real reason why it's solemnified in a House of God. Place Christ first at all times in your marriage. That done, He then provides you with the tools to keep your marriage strong and unified as well as keep things moving smoothly towards a common goal. Christ is the chief cornerstone. I think that without Christ you face rocky shoals but that you can weather anything if you keep your focus on Him.

John Paul Jones

Share

On a blog that I follow, a fellow I know did some research into what happened in American history today. Today was the day John Paul Jones coined the phrase "I have not yet begun to fight". Read about it here and remember that there are many treasures that have no monetary value but matter anyway.

Social Contract

Share

I took some flak yesterday for disagreeing with Candidate Elizabeth Warren. In her video, she claims that nobody got rich on their own, with the premise that your stuff isn't really your stuff, because people you never met played a part you never saw them do and have a right to it. What she essentially argues is that other people have a right to what you have if you have something, but what she ignores is that that door swings one way. Do you like it when other people get credit for what you do? Warren thinks they deserve the credit, in the form of the money you earn transferred to their bank accounts. She forgets that government is a mode made necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world. If she really is that virtuous, she should prove it.

Society really is a blessing. We come together because it's a mutually improvement association, where we both benefit from community. Some people specialize so that we can be more efficient and more productive, but her argument holds very little water. Ms. Warren seems to think that the barnyard animals in the community with the Little Red Hen somehow have a right to the bread she baked in that fairy tale despite bowing out of the actual work all along simply because they perform some ancillary function in the barnyard community. They had very little to do with it. Just because they might be involved does not mean that their presence made it possible. Otherwise, we're all responsible for the bad just as much as we're all responsible for the good. This is bad science, and I protest.

Social contracts are entered because they are mutually beneficial. They are the epitome of Covey's 'win-win or no deal' mentality. However, the contract is voided when one side breaks the terms. Too many of the violators still require that we keep our end of the bargain even as they abandon theirs or do the opposite entirely. When you find yourself in the position where the conditions of a contract have changed, it's really up to you what kind of relationship you have with those people in the future. It isn't that you don't forgive them. It isn't that you're suspicious of trusting them or holding it against them. It's that you choose to avoid entering into future contracts with them, especially when you can enter into contracts with alternative parties.

Over a year ago, a girl I attempted to date tried to reestablish a friendship with me. I told her that the burden of proof was on her, as I was not the one who changed my mind and tried to alter the terms to benefit one side at the expense of the other. I realized she was abusing our relationship, and after she attempted to borrow money from me with the assumption that all was forgiven without any attempt on her part at restituteion where I refused, she left, and I have heard nothing since. After you prove I cannot rely on your word, I choose to enter into contracts with people whose credibility remains intact.

They say we need to share and 'just get along' as a community. Obama made an asinine comparison to the sand box where your parents make you share. When I was young, my parents forbade us from playing with Christmas gifts given to our siblings for the first two weeks because they were not OUR presents. If my stuff is not my stuff, does that mean your stuff isn't yours either and that I can walk in and take whatever I like? It's legalized plunder, like Bastiat wrote, and it's not made right because government does it. They say it's because I don't care about other people. How can you really love your neighbor if you hate yourself? i do care about other people, but you can only share your oil and meal if you have some with which to start.

We hear a great deal of talk about rights without attendant responsibilities from the Monarchists at our head. In an attempt to get their way at your expense, they will leverage your guilt and your principles. They don't stand for anything worth defending. If you doubt me, go watch Mr Smith Goes to Washington and compare the modern politician to Stewart's character. They talk about equality, but they really mean that they want things to be better for them, especially Obama. He overreaches. Of course we want to pay for things, but we can't pay for everything everyone wants at every time.

Monarchists have different goals in sight than we do. They meddle. They are really after you. They are in our homes, and in our heads, and in our bank accounts, and they haven't the right. Notice when they are investigated, they claim special privileges, which they would never extend to you. When it serves their ends, they appeal to Jesus and religion and charity, when they are a bunch of impeached perverts. Then they will trash religious observance as the reason why terrorists attack us, as if we're supposed to pretend that religion, which is the fertile soil in which morality can grow, is somehow controversial, unless they're leveraging it to serve their agenda.

Politicians think they can make us better through force of law. In doing so, they attempt to use the adversary's method as a means to enforce the Father's plan of happiness. They always swing back to the belief that they can make people better, focusing on what they do rather than on what they are. Remember that although doing might lead to being, being always leads to doing. A liberal is someone for whom compassion and charity are doors that swing one way. While they expect you to, out of Christian compassion, share what you have, if the roles were reversed, they would feel under no such reciprocal obligation.

Beware when politicians paint themselves as moral authorities and talk in sweeping gestures of Judeo-Christian principles. Most of them are irreligious and generally talk of such not because they mean to be virtuous but because they know that you do. Politics and economics reward people, not for their virtue, but for the advancement of their interests. If virtue were rewarded by society, then I, and not Hollywood socialites, politicians, bureaucrats, and sports figures, would be among the richest and most respected on the planet. Nothing is greedier than government, be it in Congress or around the Board, and nothing is more generous than a moral and religious citizenry.

Upgrade Your Echoes

Share

Before the first exam of the semester Tuesday night, I had a brief exchange with the students. Among the topics not on the test that came up was the subject of encouragement and echoed sentiments. I left those who listened with an upgrade I choose to discuss here.

It is the more common advice to say something that is subconsciously countereffective. We tell people "don't panic", having forgot that as children when our parents told us "don't X&Y" we immediately did X&Y. Your brain doesn't know how to 'don't' something, and this particular construct is technically a double negative, full of bad energy.

It's hard to upgrade sometimes, partially because it's habit, and partially because some of our upgrades aren't that good. I initially wrote "calm down" and immediately erased it, recognizing that the word 'down' was a downer, literally! In the end, I wrote "Be Calm" and left it at that. It was the best message I could manage.

Be careful when you give advice and pass on thoughts to leave something as positive as possible to echo. We all know subconsciously that people leave on the last screen of their presentations the take home message with which they want to impress our minds. Let the best thing you can echo, for the last part is the part they remember best.

Maybe my students don't like me. Maybe they will drop the class after this exam. For those who stick it out, I will leave them with a series of these sayings to teach them things that are not reflected on transcripts or required on the rubric. After the grades are in, people will want to know who these people really are and why they should hire them. I intend to give them tools that will make them stand out and stand up and stand well against other candidates as they move forward with their careers. After all, I know they are my customers, and I will give them as good of a product as I can manage for the price they pay. If they pay the price, maybe we'll all know about the echoes of their lives in form of what they leave as their legacy. Upgrade your language, and you can upgrade your students.

Wage Expectations

Share

When I was a student, they made the hard sell for 'where the big money was' in science. When I graduated, I found it hard to get any salary in my field at all, let alone the kinds of money I had been led to expect. Today, I read an article that finally made the mistake of adding a word that put everything in perspective and may help you make better decisions.

In mathematical comparisons, they use several words to describe statistically relevant figures. The mean is the average, the median is the middle value, and the mode is the most frequent. We could also talk about standard deviation, which describes how variable the field is, and the range, which is something they never mention, but it is valuable because it helps you manage expectations.

When they tell you that your vocational field will earn you some salary, pay attention to what number they choose. If they give you an average, remember that this value includes people who have been doing this longer than you've been alive and people who started doing it yesterday. As the baby boomers delay retirement, that might skew the average higher as it will bias the field towards the experienced. If that is true, expect the mean to drop by the time you graduate. If they give you the median, that is the middle value; it means that if the salaries are as follows, it will be $40,000:

21,000 25,000 28,000 32,000 40,000 52,000 71,000 74,000 80,000

Notice that in this particular example, the salaries cluster to one end. That will be true for you too, and in this particular example it means that half the people earn less than that, not just on average. If they gave you the mode, that would be the most useful, because it would tell you what MOST people doing that expect to earn. Starting salary is rarely reported but important to consider too.

Most of these stories are dishonest. Even out departmental brochures are dishonest. Even my parents expected me to earn more than I do. When it becomes a particular problem is in dating, since people have an expectation of a certain standard of living not supported by many employment categories. That might be why so many girls I know are looking for Doctors and Lawyers, without realizing that most of them start at salaries much lower than people think.

This article mentioned mostly the median salary. That means half of aspirants will earn something less than that. If the industry is heavily loaded or relatively new, expect most of the salaries to be clustered significantly less. It would be interesting to see the median and the mean, because that tells me more than just the middle value. Here are figures for my particular rank in the university system in the state for your reference (sample size = 14):

Range: $36,700-$54,500

Median: $48,600

Mean: $42,600

Mode: $38,000

Standard Deviation: $6600

Therefore, based on an average that is only about 15% higher than the lowest figure one may conclude that it is the most frequent that people earn near the bottom of the pay grade. The average is lower than the middle value, which means that on average people earn less than the median and some few folks earn salaries at the extreme top end. Also, the persons earning the second lowest and the second highest wages each have only four years on the job, and most people have been around a lot longer. With this data, it's easier to manage expectations, assuming you could get this data (it is publicly available actually online). Remember this includes only the people at my exact rank (ignoring step increases), and other people at different ranks have different pay data.

The data you choose to present and the way you choose to present it say a lot about the data. In this particular case, they clearly wanted to lead people to believe that a median salary of $60,000 for accountants was normal. Notice that for IT professionals they report a mean salary of $81,000 which is a different data type. It's probably not common, and it's certainly not a starting salary if people with the same number of years in the job can earn $16,000 difference in wages as they do where I work. In fact, the standard deviation for my job is rather large, which leads me to believe it's a broad range of values where 95% of salaries are between $55,800 and $29,400. Since the standard deviation is so low, it means you could expect to start as I did at a salary significantly lower than the current range.

Years back, I got the following advice about a job I really tried to get. "You don't join the Border Patrol for the money. You join because you love your country." If you take a job for the money, you are taking it for the wrong reason. Sure, we all need money, but money isn't even real. Be sure you do something that you love, and then your work isn't a chore, it's an endeavor that in itself gives us some direct satisfaction. We get what we seek, and when, as is the case with money, we seek for nothing that is frequently all with which we are left.

Living for the Moment

Share

Many of the young people today claim to be living in the moment when they are really living for the moment. They frequently use 'spontaneity' as an excuse to be lazy and as a bullwark against any kind of commitment. At the same time they claim people need to do more to help people, they concentrate more for themselves. They are in pursuit of something that, even if it yields pleasure, will not yield happiness.

My maternal grandmother still has, I confirmed this Sunday, the following quote hung on her refridgerator. It is one of the things that has transformed my life and values. It reads:

The chief cause for failure and unhappiness in life is trading what we want most for what we want at the moment.

This is the real danger of living in and for the moment. What it means is that too many of the youth make a decision that might be right in the moment but is not right for the duration. Too many of us don't think things through to the end, or at least far enough out, to realize what the ripple effect will be. That very concern is why people who care about me worry that I write this blog, because once it's up here I cannot take it back. It's also partly why I have thoughts I have not published to the world if I have expressed them to anyone at all.

Our decisions have unexpected consequences. String theory teaches that everything done affects other things. I love the exchange from the movie IQ where Einstein's friends are sitting around and notice a change in the universe because "somewhere an atom collided with another atom and so forth until it collided with us". This moment is connected with so many others, and what we do today lays a foundation for what is possible for us tomorrow.

Eventually there comes a point in every man's life where he must decide between what is easy and what is right. In many instances, you may be surrounded by friends at this moment; in some, you may not. At a previous job, I was present for a moment of conflict during working hours. In the circle around me, there were high-ranking members of Human Resources, high-ranking members of my Faith, and high-ranking people who believed themselves to be high-ranking at least in their own minds. When the moment of conflict came, I looked at all of these as if to say, "Don't force me to do what you ought to do" only to see them hang their heads and pretend not to notice. I stepped forward, spoke my peace, and took the risk. I have managed to do well in spite of that moment or perhaps because of it.

At the end of the day, you are the only person who spends 24/7 with yourself. You have to sleep with yourself, talk with yourself, eat with yourself, listen to yourself, and live with yourself. Other people may come and go, at least for a while, because they're in different places doing different things for different reasons during at least some portion of the day. You have to live with your conscience, and you have to sleep on what you do with the day.

Wickedness never was happiness. You cannot find true peace and happiness in doing what is not truth. It might be right for you, but if it is not a true principle, it isn't really the right thing. I find it kind of illuminating that some of the people who claim others have to sacrifice are themselves very selfish to maintain that which benefits them most. There is a misbegotten notion that you can love your neighbor without loving yourself and that acting as if you did is the same as really truly loving them. While doing may lead to being, being always leads to doing. Pretending to be something might make it true, but the long and short of the long form is that you find out what really matters based on what becomes permanent.

We are not living in a moment or for a moment. We are living for something greater than ourselves. It's not a government program or an institution or even a movement. We are living for truth, and the only way we find happiness is in an honest search for the truth. Many of the people who live for the moment are looking for a piece of the truth, the only piece they are willing to accept and use. Be truth, be for truth, and things will work out best for you in this moment and every other moment, because they are and will be connected, and what happens to and with and for you tomorrow is influenced by what you do today.

Hogwarts Generation

Share

Over the weekend, I did some thinking about what really made the difference between me and others in my age bracket. I realized that there is a common theme that stretches across almost the entire next generation that has transformed their thought, culture, and values. People refer to my generation as Generation X; I think the next generation, which begins basically in 1980, is best referred to as the Hogwarts Generation.

JK Rowling's first novel was published in the United States in 1998. At the time, I was in my second year of college and in circumstances where I had only a landline phone, DSL dorm internet, and no television. I read things, but they were primarily things I was forced to read for class, and so I did very little recreational reading. During the summer of 1998, I left home in America for service as a missionary in Europe, where my access to media was even more restricted. When I returned, my parents were listening to Harry Potter Part IV on tape in the car, but I was lost. All of the hype transpired in my absentia, and I was not caught up in it like everyone else.

Rowling's work reached a broad cross section of almost an entire generation. If you were eleven years old when Rowling's first novel hit shelves, you are Harry's contemporary and about 24 years old today. I spoke with a woman I know who confirmed that her eight year old child was also into the novel series. What this means is that for the better part of a generation, Rowling's books have dominated the literary culture in which these children have been raised. When I was young, the books I read were the Hardy Boys, which are basically in the same literature class as the Hogwarts world, although they were shorter in individual length.

The Hogwarts generation has some interesting characteristics. They have grown up believing or at least wishing they can wave a magic wand and change the world. They grew up thinking that problems can be solved in two hours. They believe in commited and romantic relationships at a young age (remember that Harry's first kiss is when he is 14). They believe that their lives, like their novels and the actions of the characters in them, will be easy and will easily transform their lives for good. They learned that you can be a hero and a whiner at the same time, that pouting and brooding makes you a hero and gets you the girl. They learned that some things are normal and acceptable that were once thought taboo. They have been taught that adults will meddle with the plotlines and that children, who are the stars of the novels, are the protagonists, even though most of them don't know what protagonist means.

Some older people like the books, but we had other influences besides that. The Hogwarts world has dominated literature, film, and now even the amusement park world for the last 14 years, and there are people growing up who have never lived in a world without Harry Potter. The Boy Who Lived threatens to make sure that some of our young people never do. They live in a fantasy world, and the literature of the age has reinforced the concept of virtual and fantasy as preferrable to reality.

I am good enough a scientist to admit that this is not an exhaustive analysis. It may be that they will notice, albeit subconsciously, the good thematic elements of the novels as they mature. What worries me is that the youth mirror the surface elements in their lives now, and that those things have guided their values because we have failed to guide them to the fundamental substance of the themes presented in the books they love. With this post I express only my concerns about what appears to be the major influence of Hogwarts on the rising generation, and it also accounts for disparity of values and interests between myself and people only a handful of years my junior.

So if you're wondering what makes the difference, I believe Hogwarts has greatly influenced the rising generation. I have hope that they will see in it the powerful principles it teaches, but since they didn't notice it in other literature, I won't hold my breathe. At least they have read these books, and if it goes through their hands, it might go through their minds. If you're a member of or fan of the Hogwarts generation, ignore the filler materials and structural elements that Rowling used to set the stage and instead look for the lasting truths in those books and apply those things.

Biology: Science of and for Life

Share

I'm an extraordinary teacher. Most of my students like me. This is not to toot my own horn, but rather because I come at teaching with a different perspective. Although typically called life science, biology is really the Science of and for Life. Last night I told my students that Chemistry is the rules, Physics is the mechanism, and Biology is the practical application and results when the rules are applied or ignored. Too many students step into the classroom and think it's about plants, animals, photosynthesis, the plasma membrane and DNA transcription, but it's about critical thinking skills and how to use what you know to find the truth.

Some of the students don't like me now. That's ok. I'm not there for an ego boost. I don't have an ego to bruise. I know who I am and what I know, and what they think about me doesn't change who I am. Truth is not offended if you happen to believe falsehood. Whatever you believe, the truth remains. Unlike some other people, I don't get excited and feel like I'm 'doing my job' if a certain percentage of students fail each semester. I am there to teach them how to use what they know.

Unlike other professors, I empathize with them. I am young enough (the next oldest professor until recently was 12 years my senior, but now we have two who are within five years of my age) that I can remember and understand what it was like to be in their position. Too many of my professors wanted me to read their minds, and I am learning that it's a natural but counterproductive mentality among the faculty. Most of the students know I am not trying to lord over them, that I will admit mistakes and slips of the tongue without being caught, look things up I don't know or about which I'm not sure, and ultimately confess that I'm human. I am real to them, and they know they are real to me. I am the kind who will sit down after class and go over material, even if it's for other classes, or explain my lectures in a different way, even if I have to compare the Kreb's Cycle to an internal combustion engine.

Until they enter my classroom, most of them have been misled to believe that the purpose of class is to make them able to barf information back up on an exam. To this end, we have a series of PhD professors who believe it is their duty to essentially haze anyone who hopes to be like them. They put students through a series of tests that beat people down rather than realize that they are there to help students achieve their goals. After all, the students PAY us to help them get to that end by giving them information they need and the practice applying it. Too often we teach our students to answer questions rather than solve problems, and that serves neither them nor us, unless of course you're only after an ego boost.

The students are generally smart people who lack only guidance on how to use their wit, wisdom, and intellect. Many of them are young enough that they haven't started to figure things out yet, and part of our job is to culture them, not just the bacteria with which we work! For my part, most of my students are headed into life science careers, where they will directly affect the duration of life, the quality of life, or hopefully both simultaneously for their customers (to whom we usually refer as patients). Much of the course material is stuff they already know, but we teach it in a way to make us sound smarter than they are. Just as they don't understand the difference between the Fluid Mosaic Model and the Second Law of Thermodynamics as our customers, neither will most of their customers. These students go into a uniquely difficult position where they will interface between doctors, who all talk to each other like high falutin' greeks, and the patients, who may know absolutely nothing about biology.

I know my limits. I sometimes recommend students get a tutor, not because they're unintelligent, but because tutors approach the subject material differently than I, and maybe they can connect. I believe students should avail themselves of all the tools available to reach their goals. Some teachers hold themselves above the students and are as a consequence inaccessable. Too many of the people who have PhDs have been out of school so long that if they had to go back and take the PhD exam they would fail it. They have been out of school so long that they just repeat many of their notes, and they're not staying current. There are exceptions, but we should be the rule. Contrarily, I'm near enough to the students to empathize and give them appropriate correction and direction.

Biology is also the search for truth. Unfortunately, most people can't handle truth, but truth shows compassion. People keep telling me that friends tell them what they need to hear and not what they want to hear. Giving the truth sometimes takes courage. I learned the courage to give truth when I was married. My ex wife would seek my 'opinion' when she really wanted me to certify what she wanted. This she did, I believe, even though it may be subconsciously, so that she could hang it on me if it failed or turned out to be something she didn't like. If I disagreed up front, I was getting in her way. It was a way for her to pass the buck and a no-win scenario for me. Eventually I decided that if I was going to be damned anyway, I would be damned for who I really was.

Since then, I have had myriad opportunities to stand up for truth at the cost of things that were once very dear to me. I have subsequently learned that my integrity is all they cannot take from me, and I have nothing to lose of which I would lament being rid.

You learn what you really believe when people challenge your assertions. If you seek consensus, like in the global warming scam, you're looking for affirmation and confirmation, to know that YOU are right, not what is right. You are not looking for truth. There is the famous exchange from some old Tom Cruise movie I haven't actually seen:

You want answers?I want the truth.You can't handle the truth.

When you are faced with a no win scenario, that you will be the only one who stands up for something, you find what you truly believe. You discover who you truly are by swimming against the tides of opposition. Only then will you know to what lengths you are willing to go to defend and support the things for which you ostensibly fight.

Science teaches us to think critically in the search for truth. It teaches us to tilt at windmills when they blow an ill wind. The pursuit of actual truth is somewhere where even sometimes the brave dare not go. Sometimes the pursuit of truth means you may get unhorsed, but in the end, it is he who acts with integrity of heart who wins a place in our hearts and history books. Biology teaches us what we need to know in life and how to use it to become something. Not all biologists understand that or pass on that message to their students, when it is absolutely critical to their education. Only those people who understand the science of and for life really live.

Logic + Rhetoric Exercise

Share

Tuesday afternoon in class, I offered my glasses to a student who forgot hers. She took them, put them on and immediately removed them. "Wow, you're blind" she said. Thus begins my exercise in logic and rhetoric.

They say that love is blind.

If I am blind, does that make me love incarnate?

They say that God is love.

Does that make God blind?

If I am blind, and love is blind, and God is love, does that make me God?

Justice is also blind.

Does that mean I am Justice?

That would certainly explain why I can't seem to get any if I am the source.

The point of this is simply to point out that logical arguments, when taken to their logical extreme, are not valid points of argument. There are people out there who like to use these simple associations that say:

If A=B and B=C, then A=C.

It might, but it does not necessarily follow that it must.

I think it forms the core of the technique by which people who want to control your life speak with you. They draw parallelisms with positive things and then extrapolate into infinity the same characteristics for themselves. Likewise, they are able to malign their opponents by comparing them to negative things, like Hobbits. Really, it comes from bad science. Like I tell my students, science never proves anything. It removes all other possibilities until only the truth remains. That is an original quote. Scientists like to think that their work proves things. It proves they MIGHT be related, but most people will argue that I am not love or justice or God, especially God, no matter how much He likes me.

Associating yourself with something great does not make you great any more than guilt by association makes you complicit. If Obama is not connected to Ayers and Wright and the whole kitten kaboodle, then you aren't soiled either. Just because Obama channels Lincoln to give himself credence doesn't mean he resembles Lincoln at all or that Lincoln would even like him if they met. If Ghenghis Khan picked his nose and so do you, does that make you like Ghenghis Khan? Didn't think so, and neither should you.

Human beings are not logical. --Spock

When Will it Be Enough

Share

Why are they so against things that actually will create jobs like drilling oil, mining coal, making electricity, building SUVs, when these are things Americans buy. Obama is the one stopping job growth. At the same time, he says he needs more time, more money, and more leeway to get things done. He assumes of course that we not only tolerate but endorse both the means and the end. Too many people are however skeptical of the end. Obama is an Obamist, and even his Statist friends aren't sure he's really on their side. When will the duplicity and the dishonesty actually be enough?

Statists are frequently the ones actually involved in scandals. To jog your memory:

Fast and Furious

Anthony Weiner

Monica Lewinski

Barney Frank

Daniel Inouye

Dream Act EO

Solyndra

William Jefferson (Katrinagate)

Countrywide Six

Chappaquiddick

Yet, when there is even a hint that a member of the so-called radical right which is not really that radical (have any of the people who used that phrase actually met a radical right winger like I have? Every one of them tried to give me a copy of "Mein Kampf" and "Die Grosse Weisse Rasse"), it sticks like glue and forces them to resign. They mock Palin for periodic gaffes while Obama makes them all the live-long day. It's not newsworthy when he does it; it's normal for him to be an abject fool when it comes to oral communication (give him a breathalyzer for his asthma; that will fix it). It appears to be a badge of honor to be a democrat and be immoral, criminal, or otherwise selfish at the expense of other people's civil liberties even as they claim themselves to be crusaders against the very things they practice.

They will make the argument that "they've done a lot of good stuff". A few bad deeds do not erase a lifetime of goodness any more than a handful of good ones in the twilight of life erase a lifetime of wickedness. I'm sure depending on where you live and who you were at the time people like Mark Antony, Ghenghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, and Slobadon Milosevic did "a lot of good stuff". That depends on your perspective. I will not buy that premise that just because they meant well we should forgive what they actually did. That would be like Elizabeth I forgiving her would-be assassins because they meant well.

Most Statist promises involve things that are always traveling but never arriving. Even Obama joked about how the shovel ready jobs weren't ready. They like to do things that will always cost money like schools, construction, and welfare. Where is all the property and state income tax going? Now the federal government fixes schools, pays teachers, and fixes roads. Why do our taxes rise if the federal government is picking up the tab? When they talk about money for schools, it still doesn't make it into the classroom. It goes to buildings and wages and campaigning by the NEA Union, and so in essence people help Democrat candidates campaign by paying more for school. They don't care about test scores. They don't want you to be intelligent. Notice they don't talk about hiring cops to patrol the schools and keep them safe for learning. We have hall monitors in Vegas who don't dare actually monitor the hall.

The bad news, Statists claim, is nothing more than lies told about Obama and his friends to discredit them. Of course, it can't be because it's true. Apparently they have forgotten that the Duke LaCrosse players were acquitted but that Bill Clinton is an impeached pervert. Instead, they divert attention elsewhere. "You're a murderer." "Oh yeah, well he is driving with a suspended license." Please, there is no comparison. It would behoove them to beware lest in trying to point out the mote in my eye they gouge something out with the beam that is in their own.

Statists are elitists who believe themselves to be above the law. They are a form of organized crime, gathering together to break the law, wearing similar symbols on their campaign websites of the Donkey. They foment against the Constitution because they cannot abide the laws it prescribes. They say their beliefs will get us to utopia, but they cannot tell us when we have arrived. They do not have any guiding principles. I ask at what point we will know when we have arrived. What is the optimum tax rate?

What is the optimum government spending rate? Obama's first reaction after raising the debt ceiling was to call for more debt and taxes. Tax more, spend more, borrow more, print more, because we just haven't quite done enough of that. When will it be enough? If it were a solid philosophy, by now, after $7 trillion of spending, we should have seen some sign of success. When Obama repeated "pass it now" he sounded and looked a lot like a petulent child in the grocery line demanding some treat from his mother.

Statists give the same answer every time, and they scam one group after another, one generation after another, one civilization after another when there has never been any approximation to the utopia they adamantly assure us will come. At the same time, they criticize those of us who believe in the return of Christ. Their faith, however, will not make anyone whole.

It seems some people got the message. The NY House seat held by Weiner was won by a GOPer yesterday who ran on a message of "send me to Washington to stop this". The bottom line is that Statists don't care about you. They are selfish for their own success and comfort. If you happen to benefit as a side effect, so be it, but that was not their intent, even if it is their claim. As far as Statists are concerned, you will always have too much money and too much liberty until you have none at all of either.

Selfishness Breeds Tyranny

Share

In many societies, tyranny begins at the ballot box. Even the Jews voted themselves a king, which is true of several other societies, including the Romans, who elected Caesar to be emperor and dictator. Tyrants throughout history have made sweeping promises, for which the people have willingly given consent, and then once hooked, they reel us in.

I have never understood why elections made things permanent. Unlike the Constitution, which was not subject to a vote by this nation, because it was adopted by citizens of a prior one, there are laws extant that people believe ought to remain because they are laws. What makes a man and his progeny sufficiently prescient so as to ensconce them in perpetuity in positions of power? Thomas Paine wrote that it was silly that an island should rule a continent, and it is likewise silly that a fool should govern the world entire. Just because a man descends from you does not mean he is a great man and more than just because a man comes from inauspicious ancestry makes him a bad one.

Much of this is selfishness. Some of the people who clamour most for continuation of the status quo do so because things are good for them. I know several British people who, making sufficient for a life of certain creature comforts, are not interested in working. They can do NOTHING and in some cases live better than I. Why are social programs like medicare, medicaid, and social security, once started, applicable to people who do not want it and people who don't even know it exists? Why must tyranny persist? Selfishness.

In too many cases, the same people who tell us we must look out for others are first looking out for themselves. Each is selfish to get his due from a government program that they stick it to others. Even when I was looking for a house, I was initially interested in a quick sale so I could get the $5000 tax credit, which I did not earn or deserve. I did not collect on it, and I sleep easy with that knowledge. Last Friday, I responded to an article about how 'women and minorities are hardest hit by the recession' with this comment:

I find it kind of illuminating that some of the people who claim others have to sacrifice are themselves very selfish to maintain that which benefits them most. While I confess that firefighters, teachers, and nurses are important, they are not vital. We can survive without them, but they cannot survive without us. Else on whom will they practice their employ or from whom will they exact taxes to pay their wages? There is a misbegotten notion that the lay person cannot survive without the leaders but that they can get along well without us. That is folly.

Yet, this is precisly the prevailing attitude in many instances.

Frequently, they sell these programs as for the children when they are really for the recipients. It's about looking good. Many people do things, not because they are right, but because they get an ego boost. The people who argue most for social security and point how the evil GOP wants to hurt you are doing it because they want you to owe them. In return, they ask you to deliver all of your posterity into bondage. It is not fair to saddle children with something from which they will never benefit so you can get yours. These do-gooders would crucify you for saddling them with something with which they happen to disagree, but it's ok for them. Maybe that's why the rising generation disrespects their elders. Selling your posterity, even the as yet unborn, into perpetual slavery for a little cash is not love, whether it's to get 'your' social security or to satisfy a gambling addiction. That's really what Social Security is- a gamble. It was supposed to be an 'investment account', but when modern politicians suggest 'privitization' by putting it into the market, that's not ok. It is however ok to force people to pay into it who have no expectation and little chance to ever benefit from it, unlike the first recipient who paid $24.75 in and collected almost $23,000 in benefits.  Apparently, it's ok to mandate some things but not others. At least Perry had nothing to gain personally from this. If Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme, I don't know what is.

Some of the same people who argue the most for equality do not really want that. They want things to be better for them. Too many people bring children into this world without wanting to care for them. They want the children so they look better, get status, can have things in common with friends and neighbors, please their parents, etc. You think that's harsh? Watch them discipline their children and look at the things for which they vote that increasingly saddle their children they ostensibly love with greater costs and other impositions.

The older I get, the more convinced I am that people make decisions based on selfishness. I am not sure anyone does anything for the best reasons. I am not sure we ever do anything altruistically. If you are a person of Faith, frequently you do it to please God or gain a reward. If you are a person without Faith, you probably do it for a legacy, which is about your ego. The trouble for society comes when either side of that spectrum tries to mandate that other people adhere to their value system, tyranny is born. During a more lucid time of political thought, Ron Paul said this:

Character and good manners are not a government problem. They reflect individual attitudes that can only be changed by individuals themselves. Freedom allows virtue and excellence to blossom. When government takes on the role of promoting virtue, illegitimate government force is used and tyrants quickly appear on the scene to do the job. Virtue and excellence become illusive, and we find instead that the government officials become corrupt and freedom is lost, the very ingredient required for promoting virtue, harmony, and the brotherhood of man.

Although it is no guarantee of character, freedom is the soil in which true goodness and virtue can take root. Let us now apply liberty. Let men worship how, when and what they may as long as they return us the favor. People should not be punished for their beliefs, only for their deeds. The Constitution was really written to prevent compulsion and protect freedom.

Truth for 9/11

Share

As we gear up to commemorate the tragedy of 9/11/01, I have one demand. Tell the truth.

Joe Biden talks about the WTC site as "where the towers fell". They didn't fall. They were felled by terrorists. That September day ten years ago was an act of war.

They will weep and moan about how it's a time of diversity, to come together. Make sure they address it honestly. The ONLY good news of the day was a guy named Todd on Flight 93 who, 30 minutes after the first tower was struck, called out "Let's roll" and precipitated the resistance movement aboard that plane that brought down the fourth plane far from its intended target and saved us from the Robert Byrd Administration.

I remember where I was. I had two tests that morning and some work in the greenhouse, but I remember rushing about the campus wondering why people were huddled around TVs. It was 9PM Pacific before the professor in the neighboring greenhouse broke the news to me. See, I didn't even own a TV.

Just like the internet doesn't fact check, even at a time when Google says it saves us money because we don't have to go to the library, many of these people aren't concerned with what really happened. PEOPLE DIED that day, and we haven't managed, ten years hence, to build a decent memorial to the victims. What a shame. What a crying shame.

Terrorists did this. It was a cowardly act of war perpetrated against innocent civilians who could not fight back and didn't know they would need to. Thank God for a decade of relative peace and safety.

America's new December 7th in what may come to be known as the Third World War.

"I Have a Plan" --Obama

Share

When I got into the car after class last night and fired it up, it was unfortunately tuned to Obama's 41st Jobs Speech. Obama acts like he's still a candidate. In fact, when we first got wind of topics from the speech, the media even referred to it as if it were a candidate's address (local Vegas affiliate KXNT).

He preaches to us. He acts like he's better than we are. In fact, he should be apologizing for the fact that his other grandiose plans haven't returned the utopia he promised as a candidate. Instead, things have gotten progressively worse, on his watch, despite his plans, even though he got everything he wanted 94% of the time. Last night, Obama claimed that if the GOP doesn’t give him exactly what he wants, then the GOP is responsible for his record. He makes vague proposals, claims things about those proposals he cannot possibly substantiate, and then blame the failure of things on other people.

He is too close to the problem to see it clearly. I spoke with a student after class about leaders who refused to listen to other ideas. Obama insists that his ideas will work, eventually, because when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Nine times out of ten, the people who are on the front line who live at sidewalk level and work in the trenches know more about how to fix things than people who sit on guilded thrones in a far distant capital. I really had a deja vu moment during the speech, because it sounded a lot like things I've already heard. Apparently, Obama believes in recycling, even recycling the same misbegotten notions.

Obama always acts like he’s on your side while he undermines you at the same time. He is very much like Brutus, that famous historical conspirator who stabbed his best friend to death. When things suck, he claims it’s a joint responsibility. When things really suck, he blames it on you. He acts like it’s the first time he’s ever given a speech on jobs, as if there have been no stimulus at all, when in fact, there were two economic stimulous programs under the GWBush administration that together added up to more than Obama’s currently proposed amount of $400+ billion. What it actually amounts to is a confession that he is a fraud, because he insisted under Bush that it wouldn’t work and that although nothing he did has worked he is free of accountability for it. Truly there is far too much talk about rights without attendant responsibilities. He claims a clean slate, that he has no role whatsoever in all the fomenting discord going on out there. On top of that, he’s late, which is a sign of arrogance and disrespect, as if his time is more valuable than yours. While that might be true, he is ALWAYS late, which is an indicator of how much disdain for you the man has who claims to be the power in your corner.

Obama is the epitome of piss-poor leadership. He claims to be in a lofty position, looking down on everyone else while he claims to understand life at sidewalk level. Simultaneously, he casts himself as both victim and hero, the only person with the only ideas possible to save our state. He paints himself as a messiah, clothing his naked villainy with odd old ends stolen forth from holy writ and seems a saint when most he plays the devil (Richard III Act I scene ii).

What does he mean by “since our beginning”? Is he embracing the 10th Amendment, which the left says is pro-slavery? Is he embracing the Declaration of Independence that says the people have the power? Is he embracing the absence of social welfare, since we had none of that at the beginning? What in Falkirk does that mean? He insists that things must be done immediately, without the benefit of the Constitutional process, which is completely inconsistent with the Constitution. He doesn’t want you to know what’s going on. How is that consistent with since our beginning? The only time he’s in a hurry is when it’s about what he wants to do. The rest of the time, it can wait until he golfs one more round or takes one more day of vacation or has one more beer with a buddy to whom he never actually listened when that buddy preached violence from the pulpit.

Everything was vague. It was just like the speech they love from the movie ‘Dave’, where the president gives a highly emotional speech, short on specifics, and loaded with lies in linear series. He talks of construction jobs, which never materialized the first time. He talks of jobs for veterans, but doesn’t say exactly how. It will, damn, it. Trust him; he’s a Time Lord, because he clearly doesn't live in the real world! He talks of how it will create teaching jobs, one of which I have, which is a GOVERNMENT JOB. If we have infrastructure projects that need doing, why didn't they fix them with the first stimulus bill? How about doing things like slashing taxes so companies can grow, expand, create, and hire people. Nah, he insist those are the failed policies of a bygone era. Thank goodness he was able to travel back in time and erase his actual record.

As I wrote previously, the same bureaucracy that couldn't fix things with the last stimulus will be entrusted to oversee it this time, which is why this jobs bill won't work. He fills his administration and his circle of friends with people who don't pay taxes like Warenn Buffett and Timothy Geithner, and then says you should pay more. Rules are also for rulers, but then I doubt Obama reads my blog. He calls it the American Jobs Act, and says he wants companies to build here, hire here, and innovate here while every jobs act he starts either creates jobs in other countries or results in corporations like T-Mobile being denied acquisition, which keeps jobs offshore, or punishes an industry like banking, so that BofA announced 40,000 layoffs. He has had 32 months. If he had great ideas, they should have worked by now. Let’s remember that until 2010, he controlled all of Congress and that he still controls the Senate under "Dirty" Harry Reid. He blames war in Arabia or natural disasters or the GOP for his failures. In essence, unless he controls everything and gets everything he wants, he’s ineffective as a leader. If only he could be dictator, life would be a dream.

There was a man once who had a plan. He was going to FORCE men to obey God. What he wanted was that God give him all the glory. Similarly, in his speech, Obama tells us that if we give government authority they will forcibly rebuild the economy and make utopia on earth. His bottom line is: I have a plan that will guarantee peace and utopia; pass it, pass it now, pass it damn it, and all my promises will come true. He even said it multiple times- pass it now. I really should have counted just how many times he said it (18 times). It's like a canned phrase he's trying to force down our throats like some cod liver oil or jam into our eyes like a contac lens to change our taste and vision. Who's he trying to convince? If something is true, you don't have to sell it. Good ideas sell themselves. Furthermore, pass what bill? Legislation originates in Congress, and so there isn't any rassafrassin bill. After all the times he told us to pass the bill now, if it doesn't deliver will he be responsible for it? No. He will pass the buck.

The devil is in the details. Obama is here to save us. Yeah right. He's an Obamist. He cares only for himself and his job.