The Theory of God

I read an article today that says physicist Stephen Hawking, in his final book, proclaimed that God does not exist. I find his declaration kind of interesting.  Hawking was a brilliant man, with an incredible mind.  He was a firm supporter of M Theory as a complete explanation of how the universe works.  The thing is, M Theory requires eleven dimensions in order to work, and it's for this reason I'm a bit perplexed why Hawking didn't believe in God.  Allow me to use an analogy to explain.

It should go without saying that we experience life in four dimensions... length, width, depth and time.  Now, imagine a world of two dimensions.  These two-dimensional beings have length and width, but cannot grasp the concepts of depth and time.  In short, their experience is half of ours.  They cannot move, because they don't exist in time the same way that we do.  They will never notice a shadow, because they do not experience depth.  Human beings "create" two-dimensional things all the time through drawing, painting, photography, and so forth.  These "creations" would rightly consider the painter, sketch artist or photographer a god, because the artist did indeed create the art.  The creator experiences all four dimensions... two dimensions more than the creation could ever possibly comprehend, and exists outside of its own creation.  Now, let's take my analogy to the next level.

As I said before, mankind exists in a world of four dimensions... but Hawking postulated that our universe has eleven dimensions.  The flaw in Hawking's conclusion that no God exists is that he failed to acknowledge the possibility of an eleven-dimensional being.  This is even more interesting, because Hawking believed in the existence of alien life.  I find it interesting that Hawking's system of belief allowed for alien life, but did not leave room for the existence of an eleven-dimensional being... a being that would certainly qualify as God based on our limited understanding.  Indeed, God doesn't need to exist in all eleven dimensions in order to be able to create us in a matter similar to how we "create" two-dimensional art.

I understand that two-dimensional art doesn't "exist" in the same manner that we do.  Two-dimensional art doesn't experience reality... it isn't life, thus my analogy is imperfect.  However, this analogy should adequately explain why I'm so puzzled over Hawkings certainty that God doesn't exist, while simultaneously believing in eleven dimensions.

Kavanaugh

Like most Americans, I've been paying close attention to the Brett Kavanaugh Senate hearing.  I've also been keenly aware of how divisive the hearings have been.  Unlike most though, I've been VERY torn over the process.

When I went into this, I simply thought about these proceedings as a partisan event.  At that point, I was hoping for a moderate judge... one who would look at each individual case, based on its individual merits, and rule according to his conscience and the rule of law, without looking at cases through a Liberal or Conservative perspective. But that's  no longer relevant.  The fact of the matter is, Kavanaugh's selection to the Supreme Court is no longer about his judicial qualifications.  His selection now focuses on allegations of sexual assault.  I am not going to state my personal opinion on whether or not Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford.  I am, however, going to pose a series of questions, with the idea that you, as the reader of this article, can form your own conclusion as to whether or not Brett Kavanaugh is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, based on this specific issue.  Please consider the following questions...

-Have you, or has anyone close to you been the victim of sexual assault?  If not, this series of questions really doesn't apply to you.  You are fortunate, and you can formulate a conclusion based strictly on intellect, and not on emotion.

-If you are the victim of sexual assault, or if someone close to you has been, you need to ask yourself a deeper question.  Is it possible that the perpetrator of sexual assault could grow, and become a good person... a valuable member of society.  In other words, could you forgive someone for this grave transgression?  Or would you prefer that this individual be held responsible for their actions, even if their comeuppance were to occur three decades later?

-If you personally believe that there is no statute of limitations on when the perpetrator should be held accountable, the final question is... Do you believe that Christine Blasey Ford is a credible witness?  Do you believe what she's saying?

IF you or someone you love is a victim of sexual assault... AND you believe that the perpetrator should be held accountable without a statute of limitations... AND you believe that Christine Blasey Ford is a credible witness, then you should believe that Brett Kavanaugh should not be selected as a Supreme Court Justice.

Congratulations Kids!

Last night, I had the privilege of walking my daughter down the aisle at a small, intimate ceremony in Las Vegas, where the bride and groom were surrounded by family and close friends.  I have many, many thoughts, and I'm having a hard time sorting them all out, so I'm just going to write stuff down as it comes to mind, and skip the eloquence...

Kid, I'm happy for you and Josh beyond words.  No ifs, no ands, no buts... just happy for you.

The happy family is moving to Reno next week.  A lot of people have asked me if I'm going to miss them... if I'm going to be sad.  Of course I'm going to miss them, but how could I possibly be sad?  My daughter is moving because she wants to see something beyond where she grew up.  This new family is doing exactly what young families do.  How could I feel anything but happiness for them.

The wedding itself was one in a series of events this week... they zip lined Fremont St.  They're riding their motorcycles to their new home, stopping in national parks on the way.  And they planned and executed all of this without any assistance...and they took mishaps in stride... even when Josh's bike died and he had to buy a new one.

I realize that you're going to have disagreements, trials and struggles, but know I'm confident that you can -- and will -- get through them and that your marriage will grow stronger and more loving with the passage of time.

If you need something... advice... help... just to say hi... I'm a phone call away.

Congratulations.  I love you.

-Dad

My Two Cents on the Florida Shooting

Let me start by saying that what pisses me off most about this whole scene is that those on the left and those on the right are so busy screaming and defending their precious positions that rational voices are being lost in the din.  It's bad enough that these events occur.  It's even worse that they occur so frequently.  Worse yet is the fact that we, as Americans, are growing numb from hearing about it all the time.  The worst part of all is that we agree there's a problem, but we're so cock-sure that our opinion is the right one that we dig in and refuse to listen to another position.  All the while, knowing that another mass shooting is in the not-too-distant future.

I've seen pro-gun advocates scream that it's wrong to blame the tool (the gun) for the actions of the person wielding the tool.  You know what?  They're right.

I've seen gun control advocates scream that (insert mass shooting incident here) wouldn't have occurred if the gun hadn't fallen into the perpetrator's hands.  You know what?  They're right.

You idiots on both sides need to get over your personal agenda.  You ALL need to SHUT THE FUCK UP and take a step back.  This issue isn't about you!  This issue isn't about how right you are, or how wrong the other side is.  I think that we all agree that there is too much gun violence in America.  I think we all agree that it needs to change.  Maybe it's time to quit shouting your self-serving rhetoric, and focus on the issue.

I saw kids walk out of classrooms to protest the violence.  I saw kids standing up and saying enough is enough!  To my dismay, about half of the alleged adults chastised these same kids for getting angry, and voicing their fears in the only way they know how.  These kids were belittled as the Tide Pod generation.  Okay, yeah, there are a few idiots eating Tide Pods, but that doesn't mean the this generation's fears are unwarranted, nor does it render moot their legitimate right to call us out for our infighting and failure to act.

THESE ARE OUR FUCKING KIDS AND GRANDKIDS, YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!!  But you're so busy squabbling about how to solve the problem that you've lost sight of the root issue!  Our kids are killing each other.  It doesn't matter whether it's in the Chicago hood, or the whitest suburb, the fact is that we're screaming at each other over the approach, and the root issue is being completely ignored.

We're supposed to be the adults here!  Let's fucking grow up and act like it!

My Take on the 2018 State of the Union Address

Last night I watched President Trump deliver his first State of the Union address.  Like many viewers, I also showed up early to watch the "pregame" show, and watched Joe Kennedy deliver the Democratic Response to Trump's address.  Here are some of my thoughts about the events, in no particular order.

-I checked out all of the major networks before the show, and for the most part I was disappointed in the amount of spin that the commentators put on things.  Fox, as usual, were behaving like Trump's cheerleaders, and the other outlets were significantly less kind.  I finally settled on CBS, because their views seemed the least  biased.

-I was pleasantly surprised by Trump's speech.  It was significantly more conciliatory and positive than I expected, and far less self-congratulating than I anticipated.  I knew there would be exaggerations, but the speech didn't scream "liar, liar!"

-I was struck by how much Trump basked in the applause.  Indeed, he seemed to prompt it several times.  I was disgusted by how the Republicans looked like a bunch of yes-men, and how the Democrats sat stone-faced, even when Trump made comments that could have been bipartisan.  The Republicans looked like sycophant lap dogs.  The Democrats looked (and occasionally sounded)  uncooperative and obstructionist.  It was unprofessional on both sides.  I was particularly disgusted with Nancy Pelosi's dour demeanor.

-I was genuinely impressed with Kennedy.  I think this kid has a future.  He seemed passionate and genuinely moved during his response.

Overall, I suspect that the event did what it was supposed to do... it mellowed my harsh opinion of Trump, and it made me more acutely aware of Kennedy and left me with a generally positive impression of him.  It utterly failed to reduce my contempt for Congress.  I'm still skeptical that Trump will change his ways, and I'm not a Kennedy fanboy, because I haven't yet researched his record.  But I walked away from the State of the Union speeches feeling less angry than I've felt in a long time.

My Problem With Palestine

I've spent a lot of time pondering the Palestinian-Israeli problem over the years.  I certainly don't believe that I can fix the problem single-handedly, but I would like to put out a couple of items that the public at large doesn't seem to know or consider when the issue is discussed.

You may or may not know that the Palestinians effectively lost their land because of the six day war in 1967.  In a nutshell, Israel's neighbors had a problem with Israel's existence since the country was re-created in 1948.  These neighboring countries (Egypt, Jordan and Syria) tried a couple of times since 1948 to kick Israel's ass, and consistently failed.  In 1967, this happened again, and in a matter of six days, Israel took an ass load of land from these countries.  In short, the Palestinians tried to take something from Israel, and the Israelis eradicated Palestine from the map.  My take:  If you go to war with a country and lose, you really don't have much to cry about, especially if you're the aggressor!

Going back further, there has never been a historical country of Palestine.  There have been Palestinian territories going back to the Roman Empire, but there has never been a country named Palestine in the same sense that there has been a France, Britain, China or USA.  This means that the Palestinians are more of a cultural people than a geographic people.

If you put these issues together, it seems to me that the Palestinians are being rather unreasonable in their demands for land and peace.  They claim a right to East Jerusalem, though they've never had a country, much less a country with Jerusalem as its capital.  They claim land that they lost through their own misplaced aggression.  It seems to me that life would be easier for everyone if they took what was offered and moved forward peacefully.

This, of course, is my own take.  I am absolutely willing to hear new information.  I don't have all the answers, and welcome the opportunity for someone to prove me wrong, or change my mind.

Libertarians are Leading With the Wrong Argument

Those of you who know me are likely aware that I'm a Libertarian and have been one for... well, quite a while. Over the years, I've heard time and time again that Taxation is Theft.  It's become kind of a rallying cry for the Libertarian party.  Unfortunately, it's the wrong opening discussion.  Here's why:

The reason I became a Libertarian was not because of money.  I became a Libertarian because I was disillusioned with the Democrats and Republicans.  I got tired of the lies, the broken promises, the crony capitalism and backroom deals.  I grew sick of seeing politicians getting elected to office as decent people only to be turned into party automatons.  I got tired of seeing new laws that curtailed my personal rights.

Bitching about taxation is all well and good.  I don't know anyone who loves paying taxes.  But at the end of the day, choosing taxation as the Meme for the Libertarian Party is not the best place to start the discussion. Taxation is a finite item with a limited appeal and value.  We should talk about how our individual freedoms are being eroded.  People seem to agree that freedom has no price.  So why are we leading with taxation, which has a set dollar value, when we can talk about personal freedom, which has a value beyond measure?  Libertarians are leading with the wrong argument.