To the moon, Alice.

It appears that Neil Armstrong should have taken a jug with him to the moon because the NASA gangs says there is water there. Now I admit that I am a scientific ignoramus, but isn't water two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen? Hmmm. My meager understanding of science causes me to assume that the presence of water on the moon suggests one of two conclusions: 1) the level of oxygen is quite low thus limiting the quantity of  lunar water, or 2) oxygen may have been somewhat abundant at one time, but the bulk of the O was trapped when the water froze thereby limiting the oxygen available on the spheroid's surface.

So, does this discovery imply that the moon once upon a time could have sustained some form of life, or is it more likely that a cluster of little solo oxygen molecules met up with some hydrogen dudes and joined together to withstand the rigors of the bleak and forbidding moonscape. So, now we know that the "man in the moon" had something to drink. What did/does he eat? I understand that it is a significant discovery, but I really would like to know the primary "why" its important. For some time I have been aware that the moon may be the repository for minerals and elements that would ultimately be tapped for use on earth. Does the discovery of water alter that scenario? Will efforts now be directed towards the search for microorganisms that may be suspended in the lunar glaciers?

Even though I am scientifically unsophisticated, I am, nevertheless, fascinated the discoveries. I was so intrigued by the puzzles created by an answer that I couldn't resist addressing them. If you have any answers or any theories for me, please share them in the comments on the blogsite or thru direct Facebook. Thanks.

http://www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com/

Sacred Invasion

So, my local dying print medium (I know, it's redundant) had a headline today that the Feds had invaded four mosques. My initial reaction was "alright, kick some terrorist butt!" Then, after some sober consideration I wondered if my reaction may have too hasty...too thoughtless. First, let me state that I believe that the government has the Constitutional duty to pursue and apprehend those who are serious threats to our country and our communities. Currently the most ominous and broadscale threats come from radical Islamists whose theology and doctrine justify, in their eyes, the wholesale slaughter of others who do not share their beliefs (or those who do share them, but are collateral damage).

Clearly, when the authorities raid houses of worship, there should be some cause for alarm. Despite my reservations about some of the policies and practices of the Obama, I have no doubt that they will practice a prudent level of constraint when it comes to invading Islamic centers of worship. Only the most egregious violators and dangerous Imams will be subject to federal intervention. The Administration's prostrate presence before the altar of Political Correctness will not allow it to color with a broad brush. Islamic targets will be undeniably dangerous and imminently threatening.

On the other hand, one can detect a certain disdain for the evangelical and fundamental Christian among those who wield power in Washington. It's almost visceral. They distrust the "saved" community, and rarely miss opportunities to denigrate it. Within our recent history the U.S. government has torched a sect in Waco, arrested a loony polygamist, and now, invaded several mosques. I hold no quarter for any of those "religious" groups. They are clearly aberrant in my view, but where is the line? Are the redneck, gun-toting fundamentalist next?

My personal theology and doctrinal base is that I am an evangelical fundamentalist...too fundamental (and legalistic) for many evangelicals and too Calvinist for most fundamentalists. I don't dance too well so I don't qualify as a pentecostal. I do believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. That He died for my sins that I, through grace, may have enternal life. So, how long before my belief system is declared to be verboten, and I am considered to be a threat.

In every town or city in this country one can find little store-front churches and mosques. Maybe some of the preachers are shouting from their pulpits that America is going to hell and must be reformed and restored. They may proclaim that God's wrath will destroy this modern day Sodom and reduce it to rubble. What if some "enlightened" bureaucrat in the Department of Justice decides that the preacher is encouraging sedition?
Who's next? The snake handlers? The Roman Catholics? Independent Baptists? Amish

For now, I am not applauding the raiding of the mosques as vigorously as I was before.

Equality is a pipe dream.

How do we define equality? Webster describes it as something having the same size, quantity, value, rights or rank. If absolute equality existed, then each of us would have equal talents, skills, motivation, upbringing, tastes and outcomes. We would be indistinguishable from one another... a globe populated by identical borgs. Because of our uniform sameness, choices would be impossible. Whom should I love or marry? Who becomes my best friend (bff if you're under 30)? Where shall we live, and where to work? It's all the same. Doesn't matter. Nothing matters. No worries, no cares, no joy, no dreams, no nuance.

Taken to the extreme, absolute equality is abhorrent. What if we all are self-loathers, and everyone else is exactly like us. Homicide and suicide rates would be astronomical. What if we were all penniless? Our actions and behavior would make "Lord of the Flies" or "Lost" look like a day in the park. What if we were all stupid? After several generations (if Darwin is correct) we would lose to amoeba while playing "Jeopardy." So, if you catch my drift, true or pure equality is not necessarily a good thing.

We can all agree, however, that some elements of equality are desirable. Equal opportunity to maximize our talents should be a given. Chances for developing our skills should be universally available. Freedom to make life choices, for good or for ill, should be available to all. There may be many more "equalities" that one might name, but they probably would tend to yield equality of outcomes. It's difficult, in my opinion, to exercise the first three elements of equality in this paragraph and support any type of outcome-based measurement of equality. It seems that any desire to equalize outcomes ultimately results in an errosion of freedom. As dear old Granny used to say, "Be careful what you wish for."

I would add, "Put that in your pipe (dream) and smoke it."

The broad and narrow

We've been conditioned to believe that stereotypes are bad. That is not necessarily true. Some stereotypes are useful because they can help us to negotiate through unfamiliar situations. If we believe, stereotypically, that all Steelers fans are crazy, then we are more apt to approach them cautiously lest we inadvertently incite an incident. Stereotypes are generalities by their nature. They describe large groups...general identifiable populations.

Stereotyping loses some of its value as it is transferred from the general to the particular. You may know a Steeler fan (only one) who is not crazy. Dedicated, loyal and enthusiastic, but is someone who can be civil and polite. Perhaps, over time, you may meet other Steeler fans who exhibit positive attributes of social discourse, and your earlier stereotype of the Steeler fans may begin to fade.

Conservatives, Libertarians and Objectivists tend to appreciate the individual. They generally recognize that while we all may have something in common with various "groups," each of us is unique...possessing varying talents, skills, likes and dislikes. Each individual has been created to achieve and enjoy as much as her or his personal toolbox will allow. For individuals to be constantly forced to succumb to the standards of the group results in a high level of personal frustration and discouragement.

Liberals, progressives and marxists glorify the group while diminishing or isolating the individual. It's a rather Darwinian view that assumes that all members of a species, who share similar environmental characteristics, are alike. Thus, in the political realm leftists often strive to legislate broadly to marginalize individuals. This great levelling of society undermines initiative and self determinism. "Hate speech and hate crimes" are leftist methods for minimizing individualism and maximizing sameness. Diversity, multiculturalism and minority affairs are mechanisms for raising up the group at the expense of the individual.

With individualism comes freedom. If one can act in her/his best interests by following her own preferences and desires, then the group mentality becomes a barrier. If the group mentality prevails, however, the individual's initiative and creativity is smothered by a cloud of conformity. Big government, global corporations and any other mega-entity are incapable of dealing with and encouraging the individual. They mistrust free-thinkers and seek to render them impotent. The challenge for lovers of liberty and freedom is to consistently and effectively resist the efforts of those who would wedge them into stereotypical pigeonholes. 

We need more intolerance.

One of the primary tenets of marxism is dialectic materialism. It suggests that one's interpretation is the most valid analysis of reality. In other words, how the observer interprets an event or an idea is the structural basis for reality. Facts don't matter. How one "feels" about something is the true validity. This marxist application is most evident in how liberals/progressives/marxists use language. What one feels about something trumps what "is." They have co-opted much of our present English language by twisting and changing formerly clear consensual definitions into words and phrases that are loaded with distortions.

One such word is "tolerance."

Tolerance used to imply that we give someone the benefit of the doubt before we rush to a hasty judgement about them. Tolerance was encouraged when we would encounter someone different from us, but whose idiosyncrosies took no "skin off my nose." Being tolerant meant that we would be civil...to a point. Now, tolerance is a synonym for license. No behavior (acceptable to progressives) is to be condemned. Any lifestyle choice, personal choice or political preference (if progressives approve) is to be protected from criticism, and the critic is ostracized as "intolerant." If one controls the language, then one writes the rules.

The leftists have in a significant way seized the language. When people of reason and common sense engage lefties in a debate about public policy, the deck is stacked by the twisting and distortion of the language. Either the conservative uses words as they have been historically, or avoids certain buzz-words because the progressives own them. Either way, the conservative arsenal is compromised. In my view, it's time to reclaim the language. The time has come to "call out" the progressives, and fight to restore our language. If we don't, then every piece of legislation and every judicial decision is open to "interpretation."

It seems so petty to be examining language and linguistic contortionism when so many major issues are at stake, but any slight victory will be easily negated by some minor functionary, some bill-drafting staffer, or some gung-ho law clerk. So, let's stop speaking the language of the Hill, and begin with straight monosyllabic unambiguous talk. We must be intolerant of fuzzy defining.