Back in the 60-70’s when I went to grade school, I still recall many things being taught.  The world was a place I could enter and change, or make better.  Hope was not heavily promoted but the atmosphere shure seemed hopeful.  A good education, higher education and work were in the future. It was not always a friendly place and bullies walked the halls, but it was not so bad and I still carry knowledge from those years I have used here in my Blog. I made it through and believe it was overall, good times and it helped shape me to be who I am today.

This video shows not only what kids are being taught today, but the interview itself happened because the mother insisted her daughter should be interviewed because she was so very knowledgeable about eco-issues. Be sure to catch that the girl thinks at times humans “shouldn’t exist”.  Yes, this is an advertisement for a book, but when you run into a 12-year old being taught stuff that makes her think she and others shouldn’t exist, something is VERY WRONG.  I have not read Brian Sussman’s book yet, but if this is part of the basis of what he addresses, i need to read it.




 The Time Tunnel. Seven Days. Quantum Leap. Voyagers!.  Doctor WHo.   Just a few of some of my favorite TV shows specifically exploring time travel.  Of course the many episodes with series where time travel takes place, like Star Trek also have their moments.  City on the Edge of Forever, has to be one of the great episodes on the subject.

They helped me believe in time travel as a possibility.  A chance to travel back in time is a fascinating exercise mentally.  What would happen if we went back and caused our Grandfather to die before he met Grandmother? Back in the 70’s and 80’s I read Poul Andersons “Time Patrol” series. They we specialist who kept the time stream intact.

It has only been in the last decade that I came to see the greatest problem with this idea of time travel and it can be summed up in one word: Space.

You see, “time” is a human designation to explain our passage through space. Yes, it really is.  A day is what we call 1 full rotation of the earth on its axis. A week is 7 of those days. A Year is one full rotation of the earth around our sun.  An hour is a breakdown of a day equating to the earth rotating 1/24th of a full rotation.

Yes I know, I am being technical. But step away from the earth to an imaginary point in space where you can look around and yes, still breathe and survive.  You can see all the planets, and the moons.  You can see the sun.  Lets say you are standing there at that point on January 1, 2012, at 1:00 AM (New York time). YOU will always stay in place while everything else moves.  EVERYTHING ELSE!.  What you will observe as the minutes tick by is the earth rotating on its axis, the moon rotating around the earth, and the earth moving past you as it continues on its circuit around the sun.  Lets say you wait a full year, 365 days.  What do you see from the spot you cannot move from?  You now see nothing but open space, because even the SOLAR SYSTEM was moving away from the galactic center. You effectively watched the solar system move away and leave you behind.

Now you must understand this. The earth in is motion, rotating on its axis.  It is in motion relative to the sun in an elliptical orbit around the sun.  The solar system is in motion relative to other solar systems.  All those solar systems in our galaxy are rotating relative to one another in a semicircular motion forming this galaxy.  This galaxy, in relation to other galaxies, is also in motion away from the galactic center.

In a nutshell, it is all about motion through space.  Time is the “tool” we use to describe that motion.

With that in mind, not think about it.  You are standing at street level on Wall Street in New York.  You activate your time travel device to go back in time 100 Years. And where do you arrive?  IN the middle of space, dying of cold and lack of air.  You see, even if you really can travel through time, you have to somehow take into account the DISTANCE through space to get to where the earth was 100 years ago.

All those TV shows never seemed to talk about that too much did they? There is no space-based geographical mapping that has ever taken place such that we can give specific coordinates for where in space the earth was 100 years ago or at any time.  Given factors like the way the earth “wobbles” on its axis and whatever other forces have affected the motions listed above, we will never know where to transport to.  When to transport to may be overcome someday, but the necessity of transporting to WHERE you want to go is farther out of reach than people are ready to believe.

But at least we still have movies and TV, don’t we?

I was listening to my regular morning radio talk programs talking about Vice-Presidential candidates when all of a sudden the topic switched to Sarah Palin and how people seem to hate her and did not like her as a candidate and wouldn’t vote for her. They do not want her running this time around either.  While they tried to figure out what it was about Sarah that somehow made her a bad candidate they kept running into a brick wall.  Then they went to commercial and a Rush Limbaugh commercial came on. And all of a sudden I realized that people hate Rush, not just for his opinions, but because he tends to be right a lot of the time and could care less about what his critics say about him.  I suddenly connected the hate for him with Sarah Palin.

 I think a large part of it has to do with people who literally radiate self-confidence to the point that who they are and what they do is not going to change because the critics blast them. Many people agree Sarah is beautiful, a working mother raising a disabled child, has a husband who loves her and helps with rearing the kids, who has risen to be Governor of Alaska, who bucked her own party to do what was right for the people of her State, who is confident about her femininity while also being confident of her womanhood in all areas of life.  She is an all-around, confident person. She does sports, hunting, fishing, and loves the things that “men do” even excelling at them.

Makes you sick to think of it that way, doesn’t it?

From a political point of view, she lacks skills in the international front, and perhaps higher economics, and maybe she doesn’t have every detail of the national political spectrum in her repertoire, but neither have other Presidents. But, I think you can trust her to dive into whatever tasks she had to face with focus and gusto. She would lay out plans and goals and work hard to achieve them. She works with people while still trying to get her goals accomplished should they “block” or “interfere” with them. She would listen to those who advise her and make informed decisions. Her track record shows she has already done so.

Now this confidence is “excusable” in a man to some extent, but to see such an accomplished woman with the same confidence?  That seems a bit threatening to our politically stabled view of women in politics.  Hillary Clinton gave up so much to follow her womanizing husband around and to stay in the background dealing with all his crap, yet now she is perceived as a candidate for the Presidency. Let’s face it – Hillary has accomplished many great things for herself but she is viewed through the lenses of victimization. And she is considered a good candidate.

Sarah is no one’s victim, has stepped out and accomplished, and people tend to be leery of her as a Candidate for the Presidency.

Hillary has a confidence. Sarah has Confidence.  Yet Sarah accomplished by making her own shadow stand out, while Hillary stayed in her husband’s then stepped out.

I admit I do not easily understand coming to conclusions from an emotional standpoint as women are perceived to do a lot. Sarah is more of the cut of someone who comes to decisions and conclusion in a less emotional method. With Confidence.

I believe should Sarah ever get into one of our higher offices of the land, she would do a great job.  Trying to get her into those offices means getting them to set aside their fears or criticisms and to help them realize she would do a great job no matter what.

A great article showing why you should look at history before just accepting someones claims about themselves.




I found a link on Facebook today that shares an APP (now taken off the market it appears) and how a simple ability to look for something can potenitally be misused and it clearly showss how not using your BRAINS and think through what you are making public about yourself could put you in danger.  For as long as this article remains available, please read this and think about what you choose to make public about yourself.


Without referring to anything “religious” or sourced to some faith, I prefer to apply what I learned in school about the human being to form a foundational basis for looking at the abortion issue. Back when I took a class in college called “Critical Thinking” I was taught about forms of arguing and structuring an argument. Fallacies and other subjects were also covered. One thing I recall was the statement “an argument is only as strong as the presuppositions it is built upon”. Presuppositions are those things we bring to forming the argument and if they themselves are faulty, then the strength of the argument is weakened. Lots more can be said but for the sake of what I will say here, that is sufficient.

Most arguments for abortion start far away from any foundational basis and promote “rights”.  Not all arguments but most of the conversations I have ever had or heard have people jump directly to the word “rights” and will not go back to any foundational understanding of the issues.

My first premise is that the abortion issue is talking (100% of the time) about HUMAN abortion. It is not about dog abortion or cats or elephants or polar bears or bald eagles, etc. As such I can confine my points solely to that fact.

My next premise is that this topic falls under our ability to reproduce. Abortion being the termination of a pregnancy of a human means an act of reproduction has taken place. Seems a bit obvious but when building a foundational argument the assumptions I am making need to be clearly stated.

My next premise is that since it is not about any other creature on this earth, I can look at what we know about HUMANS via science. This takes me into first categorizing humans as science has shown me to do, namely, the examining of humans as a species. I will build my foundation on that point in particular.

What does science tell us about species?  The term species is use to categorize life on earth by their attributes and even their relationship with one another. Plants, fish, birds and animals all have their own “tree” because their attributes seem to be similar in key ways and different from the other trees in other ways. Within this concept of species we can also point out genetic factors that make the creatures/plants in a given species “branch” similar and thus justify that they are part of the same ‘branch’ within a given species.

 Humans belong to the Class called Mammals.  Wikipedia defines them as: “Mammals are members of class Mammalia ( /məˈmeɪli.ə/), air-breathing vertebrate animals characterised by the possession of endothermy, hair, three middle ear bones, and mammary glands functional in mothers with young. Most mammals also possess sweat glands and specialised teeth, and the largest group of mammals, the placentals, have a placenta which feeds the offspring during gestation. The mammalian brain, with its characteristic neocortex, regulates endothermic and circulatory systems, the latter featuring red blood cells lacking nuclei and a large, four-chambered heart maintaining the very high metabolism rate they have. Mammals range in size from the 30–40 millimeter (1- to 1.5-inch) bumblebee bat to the 33-meter (108-foot) blue whale.”

Within that class you will find separate orders, which include the primates, to which the human species belongs.   Another factor that separates out the different mammals is the fact that the members of one species tends not to be able to cross-breed with another.  Cats cannot naturally breed with dogs.  Rabbits cannot cross-breed with foxes.  And humans cannot cross-breed with any other member of the Mammal tree. What this essentially tells us is that Humans (aka, Homo-Sapiens) cannot cross-breed with anything other than another Human (Homo-Sapiens).  By extension, the resulting offspring will never be anything other than another Human (Homo-Sapiens).  Humans do not breed with Horses and make centaurs.  Humans do not breed with goats and make Satyrs.  Humans do not breed with fish and make Mermaids. These latter ideas are what we call “mythical creatures” and science shows them to be impossibilities within the differing species.

According to Wikipedia, “Humans (known taxonomically as Homo sapiens, Latin for “wise man” or “knowing man”) are the only living species in the Homo genus. Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago”.

 Wiki again, on Human Pregnancy – “Although pregnancy begins with implantation, the process leading to pregnancy occurs earlier as the result of the female gamete, or oocyte, merging with the male gamete, spermatozoon. In medicine, this process is referred to as fertilization; in lay terms, it is more commonly known as “conception.” After the point of fertilization, the fused product of the female and male gamete is referred to as a zygote or fertilized egg. The fusion of male and female gametes usually occurs following the act of sexual intercourse, resulting in spontaneous pregnancy”.

 ** Based on the above I can make one solidly supported assertion based on science fact. A pregnancy within a Human woman will only produce another Human being.  **

This presupposition is the one thing that can separate out many arguments about Abortion.

Think of this.  Every single person alive on the face of this planet HAD to have gone through a pregnancy, not necessarily for exactly 38 weeks, but there is no artificial womb in existence which can replace a woman’s womb for the needed development time to bring a fetus or embryo to full viability and childbirth.  Thus everyone currently on the face of this earth HAD to have gone through a pregnancy period of some weeks and was brought forth from the womb.  Everyone HAD to have been conceived, either naturally (sexual intercourse) or by artificial insemination but they all had to spend weeks within a woman’s womb to reach childbirth.

Given that, then it is the nature of Human existence to have to go through those events in order to exist.  It is an inescapable reality of life for a Human Being.

So foundationally, it remains inescapable that each abortion is the termination of a Human life. We who are outside the womb and those still within the womb are still Human Beings and we each have in common the simplified terms of conception, pregnancy and birth.  We do not have to debate when we become Human Beings. Our existence within the terms of being a member of the Genus of Homo Sapiens requires conception, implantation, gestation within a woman’s womb, birth, growth and development up until the day that death ends our life, whenever that takes place.

So my foundational approach to all examination of this issue is simply, an abortion is the termination of a human life. No reference to a religious quote or passage.  No attempting to obfuscate the issues. No attempting to avoid other issues. I just simply hold to the factual basis that Human life requires a pregnancy, that we all have that in common as Humans, and no other attempts to trying to define when Human life begins is needed.

Summary – Human life begins at conception and an abortion is the early termination of a Human life.

Given the atmoshere of politics at this time, it often confuses me just who is who and where are they coming from and what are they trying to push forward.  I like it when someone makes things clear to me. SOmetimes that means going back into the past to find it.

This one requires a little bit of background. Back in 1908, Winston Churchill was an up-and-coming voice in Britain and he was part of the Liberal Party of his country.  If you ever have watched some of the speeches and debates held in Britains House of Commons and House of Lords, you will know they do not sit quietly while someone is talking. Back in that day, people clearly identified themselves with a party. If you were a Liberal Party member, you declared it. If you were a Tory, the same.  If you were a Socialist (and they did have a Socialist Party) you declared it.


So this link has Winston’s speech and within that speech he makes the following statements from the standpoint a member of the Liberal Party stating the differences between being a Liberal vs being a Socialist.



 To the revolutionary Socialist I do not appeal as the Liberal candidate for Dundee. I recognise that they are perfectly right in voting against me and voting against the Liberals, because Liberalism is not Socialism, and never will be. [Cheers.]There is a great gulf fixed. It is not only a gulf of method, it is a gulf of principle. There are many steps we have to take which our Socialist opponents or friends, whichever they like to call themselves, will have to take with us; but there are immense differences of principle and of political philosophy between the views we put forward and the views they put forward.

 Liberalism has its own history and its own tradition. Socialism has its own formulas and its own aims. Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty. [Loud cheers.] Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right. [Cheers.] Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference. [Cheers.] Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass. [Cheers.] Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly. [Cheers.] These are the great distinctions which I draw, and which, I think, you will think I am right in drawing at this election between our philosophies and our ideals. Don’t think that Liberalism is a faith that is played out; that it is a philosophy to which there is no expanding future. As long as the world rolls round Liberalism will have its part to play – a grand, beneficent, and ameliorating part to play – in relation to men and States.   [Cheers.]

 Ah, gentlemen, I don’t want to embark on bitter or harsh controversy, but I think the exalted ideal of the Socialists – a universal brotherhood, owning all things in common – is not always supported by the evidence of their practice. [Laughter.] They put before us a creed of universal self-sacrifice. They preach it in the language of spite and envy, of hatred, and all uncharitableness. [Cheers.] They tell us that we should dwell together in unity and comradeship. They are themselves split into twenty obscure factions, who hate and abuse each other more than they hate and abuse us. [Hear, hear, and laughter.] They wish to reconstruct the world. They begin by leaving out human nature. [Laughter.] Consider how barren a philosophy is the creed of absolute Collectivism. Equality of reward, irrespective of service rendered! It is expressed in other ways. You know the phrase – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” [Laughter.] How nice that sounds. Let me put it another way – “You shall work according to your fancy; you shall be paid according to your appetite.” [Cheers.]

 Although I have tried my very best to understand these propositions, I have never been able to imagine the mechanical heart in the Socialist world which is to replace the ordinary human heart that palpitates in our breasts. What motive is to induce the men, not for a day, or an hour, or a year, but for all their lives, to make a supreme sacrifice of their individuality? What motive is to induce the Scotsmen who spread all over the world and make their way by various paths to eminence and power in every land and climate to make the great and supreme sacrifice of their individuality? I have heard of loyalty to a Sovereign. We have heard of love of country. Ah, but it is to be a great cosmopolitan, republic. We have heard of love of family and wives and children. These are the mere weaknesses of the bad era in which we live. We have heard of faith in a world beyond this when all its transitory pleasures and perils shall have passed away, a hope that carries serene consolation to the heart of men. Ah, but they deny its existence. [Laughter.] And what then are we to make this sacrifice for? It is for the sake of society.


There are 2 things about this that strikes me.  First of all, a Liberal man points out exeactly what the difference is between his political aims and those of a Socialist.  Back then it was something that was clear and distinct to him. And this helps me today to know just where I can draw lines to see if someone is more Liberal than Socialist.

The second point is how he shares his attempts to understand a Socialist thinking and willingness to give up individuality for the sake of society.

I think about what I have been hearing for many years in the political arena and cannot help but see a blurring of edges when those claiming to be “Progressive” or Liberal” make their statements and cannot help but feel that they are truly Socialist.  It HAS gotten harder to tell the stance they are taking is what they claim it is or if it really is what old Socialism espoused.

It took Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Marxist China (and many others) to show us Socialism does NOT WORK. You say China proves it can?  Then why have they encorporated Capitalistic programs into their economy in recent decades and seen a HUGE improvement to the point they now own a huge chunk of our national debt and even whole parts of the rest of the world?  Have you seen the pictures of their air in their cities? Have you heard of the living conditions outside of the major cities?

Yet it seems more and more, the “other progressives” that Winston mentions in that entire speech such as Socialism have come into America by hiding themselves under terms like “Liberal” and “Progressive”. 

Oh, the times we live in. And I can thank a Liberal like WInston Churchill to help me see the differences so I can know that what I am seeing is Socialism in Sheeps clothing.