Are women getting a raw deal in the U.S.?

The discussion on the O'Rielly Factor, in the culture warriors segment, started out as whether or not conservative women were under attack in the media. Both women expanded on the idea and made the case that women in the U.S. of every political brand, face a tougher time than men in the way they are scrutinized and judged in general. I agree, but I think a good deal of it is self-imposed.

Before I get too far, please don't shoot the messenger. This is not how I believe things should be. It's how they are. When people attack or praise an individual, they do so in a manner that's optimized for that individual. In other words, they try to push your buttons. How do you get under a woman's skin? Criticize her clothes, her hair, her physical features. Professional women wear a wide variety of clothing in a rainbow of different colors from day to day and from person to person. Professional men generally wear the same uniform; slacks, shirt, jacket and tie. The big expression of individuality among men is the tie, and that's usually red, blue or yellow. There just isn't much to criticize.

Of course, I'm generalizing. But generally speaking men don't care much about their hair either. You're not going to traumatize the average guy by criticizing his doo in front of the whole office. Remarks about guys' weight and/or physical appearance don't carry nearly the impact that the same remarks about a woman would make.

Men don't face this type of criticism because it's simply not that effective against them. They face different types of attacks. If you want to denigrate a man, you call him a wimp, say he's not good with money, or with women. More generally, you imply that he is not in control of his own destiny or area of responsibility.

If women don't want to be subjected to superficial judgments, it's up to women to place less emphasis on it. "Society" doesn't tell women how to dress or what to look like. For the most part, other women and gay men do. If you don't want to take their direction, just stop. As long as you seek the approval of the fashion Nazi's, you are at their mercy. Superficial attacks can't hurt you without your full cooperation.

From health care to slavery

One thing I've found very discouraging amid the uprising of some of the citizenry against government bailouts and takeovers is that many still don't seem to grasp the core issue. As they protest one bunch of programs, they express a different wish-list of other things the government should do in terms of directing the behavior of individuals and markets. We're on our way to hell in a handbasket and most people are concerned about the brand of the handbasket.

Consider this; if you make well above average earnings, you're already working about half the time for government when you add up all the various taxes and fees. If you make average wages or lower, you're not a threat to the game plan. Most of your earnings are going to subsistence. You don't have the time or the resources to do much more than maintain, maybe a bit of recreation, but nothing that would constitute game-changing activity.

Many of the very wealthy are working with our top government officials to create their own little Utopia. As they're "feeling your pain", being very compassionate, "fighting for the little guy", they're traveling the world with their entourages attending various conferences, forums, summits, think-tanks, staying at the finest of hotels, enjoying the finest of foods, wanting for nothing and taking several "well-deserved" vacations every year.

It didn't come about with the Obama administration. It's been in development for decades. First one divides people into interest groups, highlights everything negative, convinces folks that nobody "deserves" any misfortune or misery in their lives and that it's up to the government to eliminate it. At the same time, demanding relief for yourself is very selfish. Your concern should always be for "others" (everyone except you). So while your personal quality of life may be on the decline, it would be horrible of you to bring that up when so many others will obviously be helped by all the lofty new public assistance programs, safety regulations and planet-saving policies.

All this has come about in a democracy. The people have successfully been sold on the idea that security and mere survival are more important than individual freedom. We voted for this. We are creating a far better world...for the less than one percent of the people who happen to be in charge. The rest of us are increasingly becoming worker ants; expendable labor providers. Government's takeover of health care is the final nail in freedom's coffin. We have tasked the government with taking care of us. If you have kids, you know that with dependence comes submission. "As long as your under my roof....". We're about to get everything we demanded. All it will cost us is our selves. Congratulations.

Presidential down-time

It hadn't occurred to me before, but when I heard Bill O'Rielly once again defending this President and Presidents past for taking recreational time, it really hit home that these guys really don't work that hard.

I had been in agreement, not having given it much thought. After all, he's the President of the United States. That's a very demanding job right? Then I thought about when the last time was that I had 3 free hours to go golfing, take in a show, play some hoops. I took the family on a weekend trip to visit my son in Kansas recently. That was our first family "vacation" in 20+ years. There's no time during the week and rarely a weekend that I don't put in a few hours at the shop. But that only takes away from time I need to spend working around the house and getting other things done.

The top dogs in Washington D.C. seem to have a tremendous amount of down time. When they are working, they aren't exactly shoveling coal. It's mostly speaking, strategizing about how best to manipulate the rest of us and delegating any real work to their extensive staff.

They don't have to sweat things like mortgage payments or grocery bills and all this "down-time" is in addition to the many vacations they take every year. When they retire, which can be as little as 8 years into their career, it gets even better!

All in all, I'd say it's a pretty sweet gig.

The Incredible Shrinking Universe?

I'm going to get all sciencey again for a few minutes. I just watched an episode of the Universe series on Discovery channel. It never ceases to amaze me how so many geniuses can often miss the coolest implications of their own conclusions.

Okay, here's the Cliff Notes version: Galaxies come together in clusters, over time the clusters cluster into super-clusters. Eventually, they merge into one big super-galaxy, but the various super-galaxies continue to move away from each other so that, in umpteen bajillion years or so, if you were in our supergalaxy and had no record of the past, as far as you could tell our supergalaxy would be the entire universe. You would not be able to detect the others. They would be too far away.

While they commented on the possibility that future sentients might not be aware of the real size and scope of the universe, they seemed to miss the distinct possibility, or extreme probability, that neither do we. Especially given the recent discovery that our universe seems to be getting pulled toward something ultra massive beyond the cosmic horizon.

Why would one assume that we are at the beginning of such a cycle? It seems more logical that what we know as the universe was once part of something much larger and that when our neighborhood becomes this "supergalaxy" it too will separate into clusters which will go their own ways.

No need for panic though. For one thing the time spans involved are unimaginably long and for another, there really is no limit to how small a universe can get. Everything is relative.

The Big Bang Blown to Bits?

A study released in 2008 revealed what appears to be a movement of galaxy clusters toward a point beyond the visible universe. The phenomenon has been dubbed Dark Flow.

Side note: whenever cosmologists come across data that doesn't jive with currently held theory, they simply put the word "dark" in front of it and attribute to it whatever mysterious properties they need to, to make the math work. Hence we have "dark matter", "dark energy" and now "dark flow". These mysterious entities save the scientific community from having to reevaluate their basic premises.

The Dark Flow seems to be converging on some kind of object or force that is over 46 billion light years away. This seems to present a problem for the Big Bang theory of the beginning of everything. If the universe is only 14 billion years old, and nothing in it can surpass the speed of light, how can there be a massive object 46 billion light years away?

Another problem: none of our physics takes into account any input from gigantic objects outside the known universe. If it's acting on one group of galaxy clusters, it's affecting everything in what Douglas Adams called "the general mish mash". And if there's one, there's a good chance there's a lot more. What other forces, objects, energy could be entering and affecting our system that we've been totally unaware of?

Scientists should be excited about this find. When a good scientist sees everything they thought was true thrown into disarray, they see a chance to dispense with a falsehood and acquire truth; a great trade! Yet, I haven't seen any blockbuster headlines about this, just a short story in Popular Science and a few posts on the web.

Hopefully, this will finally break down some mental blocks within the cosmology and physics worlds. The purpose of science is not to defend currently accepted formulas and theories through the use of mental gymnastics. It's to learn the truth. How about setting aside the 11 dimension approach, just for a while, and taking a close, objective look at what's actually going on. Even Einstein said, "If you can't explain it to a 12 year old, you're probably wrong." or words to that effect.

Ted Kennedy's death; the week the world stood still

For the past 72 hours and for who knows how much longer, the news media has focused almost exclusively on the death of Senator Ted Kennedy. Even when they bring up another subject, it's only to somehow connect the topic to the Senator's passing. How will it effect the health care debate, the auto industry, the price of rice in China?

I didn't know Ted Kennedy. I'll take the word of those who did that he was a fantastic human being. I didn't like his politics and I've never been into celebrity worship, so all this attention seems very odd to me. Even FOX News, not exactly a liberal media outlet, has been on 24 hour Kennedy watch.

The discussion about his replacement in the Senate is not fostering questions like "Who could best deal with Massachusetts' failed medical insurance program?" or "Who can fix the budget mess?" or more generally "Who is best qualified to find solutions in a crisis situation?". Rather, the speculation is more about which Kennedy would be willing to take the job. Who can perpetuate the air of majesty that surrounds the Kennedy phenomenon? If that's what Massachusetts wants, so be it. It just seems very bizarre.

I caught a few minutes of the memorial service on two separate occasions. Both times, the speaker was an aide or friend, not a professional performer, yet they told tales of breaking into song whenever they got together with the Senator. This seemed perfectly normal to them, in fact, they demonstrated by belting out one of their favorite tunes. Personally, I was reminded of Larry Hagman's interview on a night time talk TV show, where he related that he and whoever happened to be hanging out at the mansion at any given time, would often hold impromptu parades on the beach for no reason. It's not bad behavior, but it seems indicative of someone who lives in a world very detached from that of most of us. It seems a bit creepy to me and would not prompt me to want either individual in charge of anything that might in any way have a significant impact on my life.

The fact that the major media outlets are assigning far more importance to the passing of a 77 year old man who was in poor health, than I assign to it myself just points out how very different I perceive the world around me as compared to those who think they are providing me with useful information. If I'm the only one that feels this way, the major media outlets have nothing to worry about. However, if a lot of other people see the situation as a bunch of aristocrats emoting for the cameras, opportunity is knocking for their replacements.

Are we negotiating with terrorists?

The Obama administration has decided to re-investigate the "enhanced interrogation" techniques used by the CIA in obtaining information from terrorists like those involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks. The question is, why?

I don't think many Americans are outraged that the masterminds of the September attacks may have been sleep deprived, water-boarded, or even had their lives or their families lives threatened in a bluff to obtain information about more attacks. Obviously the administration is not responding to some big public outcry. So what's going on?

Is it possible that the administration has some kind of line of communication to the terrorist hierarchy? Is this part of some deal to avoid future attacks? Is the administration relying on the good word or Al Qaida for our security? Naaaa, there must be some rational explanation for their behavior. I hope it comes to light soon.