The National Divide

Number 15 of a possibly infinite series

This series highlights the observation that a hard line divides the nation. People will eventually need to decide which side of the line to take. Choices are becoming ever more clear.

President Trump has for months stepped into a series of legal cow patties. His most recent may not have been the last straw. It appears to be the last load of concrete.

Pastor Robert Jeffress of the First Baptist Church, located in mid-town Dallas, has come to embrace this president and continues to excuse his malfeasance. A recent blowup highlights the divide.

Trump attacks whistleblower and Schiff, tweets impeachment would cause ‘Civil War-like fracture

Pastor Robert Jeffress said he is “afraid” impeachment “will cause a Civil War-like fracture in this nation from which this country will never heal.”

Derived from this:

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

….If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews

8:11 PM · Sep 29, 2019Twitter for iPhone

First dispel any notion Pastor Jeffress claimed impeachment will result in civil war. He said it would produce a civil war-like fracture. Pastor Jeffress, you are a few days late on this. The fracture is here,  and it is for all to see.

This is what Robert Jeffress endorses. I am going to request he stand on one side of the divide, and I will stand on the other.

Quiz Question

Number 224 of a series

The diagrams above are an overhead view and a front view of two spheres backed into a corner. The drawings are not to scale, so believe me when I tell you the radius of the small sphere is 1, and the radius of the large sphere is 4. What is the value of h?

Post your answer in the comments section below.

Update and Solution

See the following two diagrams.

The radius of the small sphere is 1, so d = √2. Similarly for the large sphere, radius = 3.

We get b = 3√2 – √2 = 2√2.

r = 4

h = 3 + 1 + √(r² – b²) = 4 + √(16 -8) = 4 + √8 ≅ 6.83.

This is your president speaking.

Number 223 in a series

And now a few words from the President of the United States.

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrumpHow do you impeach a President who has created the greatest Economy in the history of our Country, entirely rebuilt our Military into the most powerful it has ever been, Cut Record Taxes & Regulations, fixed the VA & gotten Choice for our Vets (after 45 years), & so much more?…

5:00 PM · Sep 28, 2019Twitter for iPhoneDonald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

….The conversation with the new and very good Ukraine President, who told the Fake News, at the United Nations, that HE WAS NOT PRESSURED BY ME IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, should by and of itself bring an end to the new and most recent Witch Hunt. Others ended in ashes!5:00 PM · Sep 28, 2019Twitter for iPhone

Yes, these are the words of the President of the United States, and they are really great words. Except this is not the greatest economy in our history, money appropriated for the military has been diverted for one of the President’s pet projects, that was not the the greatest tax cut ever, and the VA is not fixed. That said, here are some more—not verbatim—words from the President of the United States:

Well it is very nice of you to say that I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you.

This is from a phone conversation on 25 July this year, initiated by President Trump. The Trump administration had previously put a hold on some $390 billion in military aid to Ukraine, appropriated by Congress. More:

All they do is talk and I think it’s something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn’t do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it’s something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.

Now the President gets down to what has become obviously the purpose of his phone call:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people.

Yes, the President of the United States, who holds under his control a massive military package for Ukraine, asks for help in producing bad press for candidate Joe Biden. There is more. Please read the entire transcript, or, better yet, wait for the official, verbatim, transcript to be made public. You will have to admit our president certainly has a way with words.

Bad Joke of the Week

One of a Continuing Series

Blond jokes are not only about women.

A blond man is in the shower. His wife shouts to him, “Did you find the shampoo?” “Yes, I did,” he shouts back. “But this shampoo is not for me. The label says it’s for dry hair, but I just got mine wet.”

A blond man spots an envelope on his door mat. Stamped on it in large letters is, “Do Not Bend.” He spends the rest of the day figuring out how to pick it up.

A blond man shouts frantically into the phone to the 911 operator. “My wife is pregnant, and her contractions are two minutes apart.” The operator tries to calm him down. She says, “Take it easy, sir. Is this her first child?” “No,” the man shouts back. “This is her husband.”

Houston, we have a problem.

Number 11 of a series

Forget about Gregg Jarrett and his book. This is about witch hunts.

Ted Cruz is from Calgary, Alberta, Canada, but he now has a Houston address, hence the title of this series. He serves as the junior senator representing Texas. And we are so proud. His offerings pop up on my Facebook feed, such as this item.

Since the day President Trump was elected, congressional Democrats have been working to find any reason under the sun to impeach the president and undo the results of the last election. First, it was Mueller, then the Mueller report found no collusion. Now it’s Ukraine. Next month, it will be something else.

Despite the wild speculations from the media, career intelligence community staffers, and congressional Democrats, the actual transcript of the call reveals no illegal quid pro quo.

Nevertheless, the facts don’t matter to congressional Democrats. The 2020 Democratic presidential candidates will continue to call for the president’s impeachment, and Nancy Pelosi will continue to be hounded by the far left of her caucus to halt all other legislative work to focus on attacking the president.

Yes, there is a problem. A transcript, not verbatim, is now out. CNN has posted it, or a large part of it. Some excerpts are notable:

President Zelensky: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I’m very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.
The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

Yes, President Zelensky, most obviously, is eager to retain the graces of the American President, who just previously put a hold on the sale of critical anti-armor missiles to Ukraine. The American President’s response, goes something like this: “That’s great, President Zelensky. We think your country has a great future.” No, that was not the President’s response. He immediately launched into an appeal (demand?) for the Ukraine president to stir up some trouble for American ex-Senator Joe Biden, quite possibly President Trump’s opponent in next year’s elections. People, I’ve been to a wedding, a mass shooting, and a rodeo, but that is the most fantastic thing I have heard of an American president saying to a foreign leader.

But what of it? Is there more? Here is one more item of interest, and then I will drop the matter for today.

President Zelensky: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all, I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.
The President: Well, she’s going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I’m sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It’s a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people.

Yes, President Zelensky, apparently at the favor of President Trump, has recalled the Ukraine ambassador to the United States, and now our president is submitting not only his personal attorney, but the Attorney General of the United States to work the matter of Joe and Hunter Biden in Ukraine. Here are some hard facts. The President, as an elected official, is allowed to work his own campaign, but he is not allowed by law to employ government officials on that behalf. There are a number of ways to spell “impeachment,” and this one is all caps.

And this is what Senator Cruz, formerly of Calgary, and presently of Houston, wants us to defend. We have to wonder when he is going to start doing what he was elected to do, uphold the law.

Your Friend The Handgun

Number 183, unfortunately

So I got to wondering whether a bunch of people wised up and figured having a handgun around was not a great idea.

Kroger shopper accidentally shoots himself inside store

by: 

Abusing Science

Number 37 of a series

If the truth be known, I was unaware of C.S. Lewis prior to watching his portrayal by Anthony Hopkins in the movie. I have learned little since. However, the Discovery Institute is now promoting a book by Michael D. Aeschliman titled The Restoration of Man. The subtitle is  C.S. Lewis and the Continuing Case Against Scientism. From the D.I. site:

C. S. Lewis is best known for his Narnia tales and Christian apologetics, works that have sold more than 100 million copies. But Lewis was also a trained philosopher and a professor at Cambridge and Oxford. An intellectual giant, he fiercely and extensively critiqued the fashionable dogma known as scientism—the idea that science is the only path to knowledge, and matter the fundamental reality. Michael Aeschliman’s The Restoration of Man ably surveys Lewis’s eloquent case against this dogma, and situates him among the many other notable thinkers who have entered the fray over this crucial issue. Aeschliman shows why Lewis’s case for the human person as more than matter—as a creature with inherent rationality and worth—is a precious resource for restoring and preserving our culture’s sanity, wisdom, and moral order. This newly revised and expanded edition of Aeschliman’s celebrated study includes forewords by three distinguished writers—James Le Fanu, George Gilder, and Malcolm Muggeridge.

Reading this I now know C.S. Lewis fiercely and extensively critiqued the fashionable dogma known as scientism. I had a prior concept, that scientism was some sort of worship of the scientific method, but now I learn it is really “… the idea that science is the only path to knowledge, and matter the fundamental reality.” I already knew science is defined as the search for knowledge, generally knowledge about the natural world, but since extended to knowledge about other things. We call the study of how to perform tasks using computers “computer science,”  and I have one of those degrees.So if science is not the only way to knowledge, then there must be others or at least one other. We might demand to know what other.

A look at Lewis’s thinking on scientism indicates the D.I. interpretation is less than strict.

Some critics have incorrectly regarded That Hideous Strength as an attack on science. In this regard Faye Ann Crowell correctly draws attention to Lewis’s unpublished (in his own lifetime) reply to Professor J.B.S. Haldane’s highly critical review. Lewis answered Haldane’s criticism by explaining just what he was attacking: “Firstly, a certain view about values: the attack will be found, undisguised, in The Abolition of Man,” Lewis’s 100-page work of nonfiction on the same subject. The latter essay addresses the dangers Lewis saw in the twentieth century abandonment of traditional, objective values. Lewis’s second aim in That Hideous Strength was to illustrate the folly of devoting one’s life to gaining the power and prestige of belonging to a ruling clique or inner circle. Finally, Lewis continued, he was attacking not scientific planning, as Professor Haldane had thought, but the kind of planned society which first Adolf Hitler and then European Marxists had instituted: “the disciplined cruelty of some ideological oligarchy.”

Lewis aside, consider the practice of science is a method. Then by what other means are we to gain knowledge? We can go to our imaginations, and we can gain wondrous things—music, poetry, flights of fiction. However, these are not strictly new knowledge. Knowing the Discovery Institute, I would expect they want us to explore ancient philosophy to probe matters such as the origins of life. There is more.

How should governments government, and how should people conduct personal relationships. We see groups, the D.I. included, advocating for philosophies extracted from ancient texts. Marriage is defined, lifestyles need to conform to tradition, and prescribed rituals are to be followed. The source of this thinking is not reason and pragmatism but the ancient texts. But not, in fact, the ancient texts. The ancient texts are to be interpreted by those very ones who perceive reliance on science a threat. We suspect this reasoning is driven by personal preference. It is rule by edict in bald disguise, and it is definitely an abuse of science.

Quiz Question

Number 223 of a series

Prove that fractions such as 8/7 must devolve into a repeating decimal sequence.

Update and Answer

The answer I gave when I was taking a math class about 1968 was much like Mike’s (see the comments section). It goes like this:

If you divide one integer by another there is either a remainder, or there is not a remainder (zero remainder). The remainder is always going to be less than the divisor, so if you continue repeating the process you will eventually produce a prior remainder. At this point the process will begin to repeat, and the result will be an infinite, repeating sequence.

No fair invoking Kolmogorov complexity. KC stipulates that the result of a process cannot require more information to describe than would be involved in describing the process. Remember, a process for computing the value of π requires only a few words to describe, and the result is a series of digits with no infinitely repeating pattern.

The difference between my answer and Mike’s is mine does not restrict the process to decimal numbers.

People Unclear

This is number 82 of a series

Yes, I subscribe to offerings from California Congressman Devin Nunes. I enjoy people like Devin Nunes, not just because he is one of those people unclear, but that he is one of the people most unclear of all. I call attention to the image that popped up in my Facebook feed. The wording at the top is:

The Fake News media is just a megaphone for their liberal allies in Congress.They must be held accountable for their biased attacks.

Biased attacks! Naturally I am outraged. Outraged! These attacks must stop. In particular, the following kinds of attacks must be stopped.

Yes, the liberal media must cease these biased attacks on our President. On that point we are all perfectly clear.

 

Bad Joke of the Week

One of a Continuing Series

So a guy is in a bar, and he’s talking to the bartender. He says, “Who’s that guy down at the end? He’s drinking alone.”

The bartender says, “That’s Melvin. He’s kind of stupid, but you can have a lot of fun with him.”

So the guy goes over and introduces himself, and they get to talking. The guy says, “Hey, Melvin, I have a riddle for you.”

So Melvin says, “All right. What is it?”

The guy says, “Sisters and brothers I have none. But this man’s father is my father’s son. So who is it?”

Melvin thinks for a while and finally says, “I give up. Who is it?”

The man says, “It’s my son!”

And Melvin chuckles and says, “That’s very clever. I’m going to tell this one to my wife.”

So Melvin goes home and he tells his wife, “I heard this this riddle, and I’m going to tell it to you.”

His wife groans and says, “Don’t bother.”

But Melvin does anyway. He says, “It goes like this. Sisters and brothers I have none, but this man’s father is my father’s son. So, who is it?”

Melvin’s wife thinks for a while then says, “I give up. Who is it?”

Melvin says, “You wouldn’t know him. but I met his father in the bar tonight.”

Your Friend The Handgun

Number 182, unfortunately

A reminder—if the story is not about a handgun, then it doesn’t make it into this column. No matter. There are plenty of these:

A social media feud led to the killing of a 9-year-old girl in Dallas, police say

Yes, a lot had to go wrong to make this story. The problem is, a bunch of stuff always goes wrong, and when a handgun gets into the mix the outcome is generally regrettable.

While I’m at it, here are a few that did not make the cut this week.

Breitbart Mentality

Number 12

I subscribe to the Breitbart News email feed, and I get this frequently. It’s the “Liberal Love and Kindness” meme, intended to demonstrate that liberals are not the loving and kind people they purport to be. So stop right there. I consider myself to be somewhat liberal, and I have never advertised to be loving and kind. While there is nobody I hate, there are a few I would enjoy seeing run out of town on a rail. So, Breitbart News, forget this love and kindness bull shit. We are here to do battle.

Which gets me to my point for today. Try as I may, I find it difficult to differentiate Breitbart News from a dedicated shill for Donald Trump. Let me emphasize that. Donald Trump. There appears to be nothing Donald Trump will do or say that raises the hackles of Breitbart News. Nothing. Breitbart News, what kind of people are you? Let’s take a look at the person you are carrying water for:

Trump: Cokie Roberts ‘never treated me nicely’ but ‘was a professional’

President Trump said pioneering journalist Cokie Roberts, who died Tuesday at the age of 75, “never treated me nicely” but praised her as “a professional.”

“I never met her. She never treated me nicely. But I would like to wish her family well. She was a professional and I respect professionals. I respect you guys a lot, you people a lot. She was a real professional. Never treated me well, but I certainly respect her as a professional,” Trump told reporters on the flight from Albuquerque, N.M., to Mountain View, Calif., on Tuesday.

Yes, let’s get that straight. A person died. And President Trump noted her passing and her professionalism. And in the next breath Donald Trump, President of the United States, inserted his self esteem into the matter. What kind of human being does this kind of shit? This is the kind of person Breitbart News never seems to find fault with.

I hope you don’t think I am prepared to stop here. There is more. Please enjoy.

Breitbart News, let’s not hear a bunch more about liberal love and kindness.

Abusing Science

Number 36 of a series

Once again I need to post an item on the topic of Abusing Science, and once again I turn to that reliable source, the creationists of Discovery Institute. Here is something directed to me from their Center for Science and Culture. The email service arrives regularly and is titled “Nota Bene.” Make what you want of the title, but here is a link from the email:

WHY CAN’T MONKEYS TYPING FOREVER PRODUCE SHAKESPEARE?

Before communication can begin, there must be an intention to communicate

BY RUSS WHITE ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2019

If you give an infinite number of monkeys typewriters and allow them to type freely, will they eventually produce the works of Shakespeare? Call this the infinite monkey theorem (IMT), widely attributed to Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–1895), best remembered today as “Darwin’s Bulldog” for his defense of Darwin’s theory of evolution. In 2000, a tongue-in-cheek “protocol” for such an experiment was developed. Independently, in 2003, enterprising researchers gave a group of monkeys keyboards, in what they were willing to discuss as a test of the theory:

It is a shopworn challenge, and it centers on the random mutation aspect of Darwinian evolution. How, creationist argue, can a random process using finite resources produce well-crafted organisms? Richard Dawkins addresses the argument in his book, The Blind Watchmaker.

The resemblance of a cloud to a weasel is only mildly diverting, barely worth calling to the attention of our companion. Moreover, we are quite likely to change our mind about exactly what the cloud most resembles.

Hamlet. Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel?

Polonius. By the mass, and ’tis like a camel, indeed.

Hamlet. Methinks it is like a weasel.

Polonius. It is backed like a weasel.

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (pp. 65-66). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

Dawkins discusses how random permutation of a sequence of letters can eventually form Shakespeare’s line, “Methinks it is like a weasel.” He produced a computer simulation that did exactly that. However, his process incorporates a selection mechanism as required by Darwinian evolution. Dawkins’ process permutes letters in the initial string until a letter fits the required pattern, then the process stops permuting that letter and continues with the rest. In short order the process produces “Methinks it is like a weasel.”

Of course, nature does not act this way. Nature is likely to continue permuting a letter that already fits the expected pattern. Besides, nature does not have an expected pattern as a goal. And that is a thing that bothers the creationists. There must be a goal, or else Darwinian evolution cannot work. It is inside that goal Intelligent Design lives. The “intelligent” part of Intelligent Design has nothing to do with smarts. It’s all about goals. Goals are fed into the process from an external source—a source of intelligence.

And that gets us the the crucial part of White’s thesis. After some lead-up he gets around to:

These issues speak to intent. It is not enough to form symbols; it is not enough to form words; it is not enough to form sentences. Before communication can begin, there must be an intention to communicate which results in the creation of dictionaries and grammars which interact with one another and are often layered in complex ways. Intent, then, is a critical component of communication.

At this point I need to call a halt to a serious misconception by White and others seeking to use information theory to argue against Darwinian evolution. There is a basic misunderstanding of what communication is. I state without authority the following:

  • At the base level information is the entity that mediates cause and effect.
  • At the base level communication is a manifestation of cause and effect.

All higher levels of communication we experience—talking person to person, watching a game on TV—they all distill down to the bullets above. Further justification on request.

White writes, “Before communication can begin, there must be an intention to communicate…,”  and he says this without justification. He wants to construe communication in the same sense as people talking on a telephone, where intent is an ingredient. Intent is not a requisite for communication. But what is intent, and does it exist?

Stating without authority, intent is a feature of living organisms, and it is particularly a feature of animal life forms. Animal life forms move about and do things, and their actions are driven by intent. Let that be the working definition of intent.

Where does intent come from? We are born with it. Without it most animal forms would quickly perish and would not reproduce. Darwinian evolution has produced intent on this planet. Some elaboration.

A baby mammal is born. If it is born without the intent of seeking its mother’s nipple, then it will not live to reproduce. Animal life is driven by goals, the substance of intent. The animal is hungry. The animal seeks food. The animal (often without much thought) seeks to reproduce. Intent is essential to the promulgation of a species.

But whence intent? On this planet before there was life there was no intent. Creationists want to argue there was intent, and, further, that intent came from a transcendental being that exists outside space and time. You can see I am making a bunch of this stuff up.

Ultimately White’s argument appears to go nowhere. He concludes:

Neither of these approaches, however, will ultimately work — real communication requires intent, not only in the communication itself but even in the creation of the shared framework (dictionaries and grammars) in which communication takes place. Ultimately, then, thinking through the IMT shows us that artificial intelligence cannot produce the works of Shakespeare. There can be an illusion of intent but the original intent required to communicate just is not there.

He says much, but tells us nothing. What we are observing is a horrendous abuse of science.

Quiz Question

Number 222 of a series

The radius of the small circle is 1. What is the radius of the large circles (all the same)?

Post your answer in the comments section below.

Update and Solution

This has received several responses, so it’s time to post a solution. See the following diagram.

R is the radius of the large circles. 1 is the radius of the small circle.

8R² = (2 + 2R)² = 4 + 8R + 4R²

4R² – 8R – 4 = 0

R = 1 + √2

Mike was the first with the correct answer.

Bad Joke of the Week

One of a Continuing Series

Actually this bit of humor is from the movie.

Eva Peron is suggested to have slept her way to power as First Lady of Argentina, the wife of Juan Peron. Her past dogged her throughout, even as she represented her country on foreign trips.

She visited Spain, where dictator for life Generalissimo Francisco Franco ruled with an iron hand. After a grand review of the troops Sra. Peron had a question for the Generalissimo. “As the troops marched by,” she inquired, “they turned their faces toward me and chanted, ‘Whore! Whore!’ Is this proper?”

“Do not take them too seriously, Señora Peron,” he told her. “What do they know? For example they still call me ‘Generalissimo,’ and I haven’t worn my uniform in years.”

Houston, we have a problem.

Number 10 of a series

It has to go down as the understatement of the 20th century. James Lovell: “Houston, we have a problem.” He actually said, “We’ve had a problem,” but I prefer the present tense. Three men were aboard Apollo 13 on the way to the moon when an oxygen tank disintegrated, dooming the mission and threatening the lives of the crew. And James Lovell phoned in to say they had a problem.

Anyhow, I now apply the quote to any of a multitude of political disasters close to my home state. Here is the most recent.

John Cornyn <info@johncornyn.com>
To: jf_blanton@yahoo.com

Sep 12 at 11:41 AMNo,

Tonight, the Democratic Presidential candidates are in Houston for their big debate. Why did they choose Texas to have their debate?No, it’s because Democrats think they can flip Texas blue in 2020!

They think their policies can appeal to us, but they are wrong.

We don’t want abortion on demand, even after birth.

We don’t want to decriminalize illegal immigration.

We don’t want Medicare-For-All.

Above all, we don’t want to impeach President Trump! Democrats are trying to force all of these ideas on us. We don’t want them.

Let’s send a loud and clear message to Democrats: Don’t Mess With Texas! 

That is Senator John Cornyn of Texas making those various statements. Then he asks for money. And, yes, we do have a problem. Some dissection.

Democrats think they can flip Texas blue. No truer words were recently said. And flipping Texas blue will mean voting Senator Cornyn out of office. Any sentient carbon-based life form will do as a replacement.

They think their policies can appeal to us. Wandering around and talking to a bunch of people, I am thinking that their policies find great appeal in Texas. We wait for November next year to find out.

Abortion on demand. Isn’t that like saying if somebody wants an abortion they will request a medical professional to perform the service? Even after birth. Dude, where is that coming from? After birth it is too late to abort a pregnancy, so the phrase is just stupid. Furthermore, it’s designed to scare the bottom of the barrel voter base, aiming to convince them people want to kill babies after they are born. And it’s really bad form. By now we are beginning to realize why people are turning against the Republican Party.

Decriminalize illegal immigration. Again, a contradiction of terms. Where does Senator Cornyn, and by extension the Republican Party, get these propaganda-laced snippets? For those who are not lawyers, something that is not legal cannot be decriminalized. Not speaking for all Texas voters, I will say that coming to the United States and requesting entry, even asylum, is not now illegal. This is not illegal immigration. Coming to this country without a valid entry visa and not reporting in to the proper authorities is a misdemeanor and needs to be handled as such. Beyond that, people in dire straits coming to this country and asking for help should receive real consideration and should not be demeaned as drug smugglers, rapists, and murderers. They are people who need help, and this country does have the resources to help them. That’s the Texas I grew up in.

Yes we do want Medicare-For-All. Expanding Medicare coverage to the entire population will result in a more healthy and more productive population. My take and also the view of many Texans is a population that receives necessary medical care will be a national asset, well worth the investment.

Above all, we don’t want to impeach President Trump! Don’t want to impeach President Trump? Are you out of your mind? You don’t want to impeach President Trump? We have to ask why. Here is a person who is running the United States government as his personal ATM, and you want to keep him in office? On the payroll? Are you out of your mind? Oh yeah. I already asked that. We definitely have a problem.

John Cornyn, quit messing with Texas.

Update

As a follow-up I sent the following by email to Senator Cornyn:

Senator Cornyn,

Yesterday I received an interesting email, and since your name was at the top I am assuming it is from you. The email contained a number of comments, and I will address two of them. First there is this, from your email:

“We don’t want Medicare-For-All.”

Actually, we do want effectively Medicare for all. Our economy will be more robust if everybody in this state has access to health care, and something modeled on Medicare will accomplish this. Don’t go off the deep end with phony scare tactics.

“Above all, we don’t want to impeach President Trump! Democrats are trying to force all of these ideas on us. We don’t want them.”

You don’t want to impeach President Trump? Really? Here is a low-grade criminal who persists in, among other things, using the United States Treasury as his personal ATM. Think about the reputation of the United States government. Think about your future electability. Quit standing up for a person who cares for little but his own gain.

Breathtaking Inanity

Number 21 of a continuing series

People, I definitely need help. Ether I have lost my mind or else the whole world is going wacko. The depth of inanity, from where I view it, is becoming unfathomable. Don’t believe me? Then view a recent exchange with some global warming (AGW) deniers. Pardon me, but I have decided not to redact the names of the correspondents.

It started out when a Facebook friend posted something from Fox News. The headline is “Kimberley Strassel: 2020 Dems vowing to ‘kill every coal job, every oil and gas job’ with climate goals.” I responded, letting on the world can survive without the coal industry, and things went downhill from there. The thread has multiple exchanges, and I am only keeping the pertinent ones. Here goes:

Edward Stansell All of the fuels we currently use can by present technology be made to burn clean. The real problem lies in the bogus designation of CO2 as a pollutant. Without CO2 there would be no plant life. Without plant life there’d be no animal life.

Edward Stansell Kevin Burris What do you expect out of mental defectives? We use canvas bags. They can ne used over and over. They don’t require cutting trees and they are better than those crappy plastic bags the handles or bottoms rip out of before we get them home.

Some cutting of trees is necessary. everything manufactured doesn’t have to have a container, paper or plastic. Most landfills consist mainly of used containers.

[Note: I included this bit because I so love the reference (which I highlighted) to “mental defectives.”]

John Blanton Edward Stansell Green plants depend on CO2. We need CO2 in the atmosphere. However, in my lifetime the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from about 300 parts per million to over 400 ppm.

A basic physical principle is that CO2 absorbs infra red radiation. Atmospheric temperatures are driven by solar energy (light, infra red, etc.) and by heat sources within the earth (nuclear decay). A steady state is maintained when the heat lost to outer space (radiation) equals heat supplied by solar and nuclear. When things warm up, they radiate more, achieving a balance–steady state.

Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere raises the steady state temperature. We are experiencing a rise in average temperatures (steady state).

As always, details are on request.

Edward Stansell John Blanton According to what you say about CO2 absorbing infra-red radiation, the atmosphere and therefore the biosphere should be cooling. Please explain.

John Blanton Edward Stansell I’m glad you asked. When something absorbs infra-red it gets warmer. Let me know if you have any more questions.

After that last, I am at a loss for words. Quite obviously, humanity is lost. Is it time for me to check into the Neptune Society?

Update

Since posting the above there have been additions to the conversation. See the following:

Edward Stansell John Blanton Yes, but it didn’t adsorb the UV rays, they would still reach the earth’s surface and heat it, particularly the oceans.

John Blanton And your point being?

Edward Stansell John Blanton The point is that CO2 is not the cause of climate change. It would happen with or without it. Therefore there is no need to control the emissions of CO2.

I will not respond further on this Facebook thread. Comments posted by Edward Stansell and others speak for themselves.