VOTE 2018! Vote for our Constitution!
Hint, Democrats no longer support our Constitution.
VOTE 2018! Vote for our Constitution!
Hint, Democrats no longer support our Constitution.
Yesterday I received yet another telemarketing call. My main phone line is unlisted, on the Do Not Call Registry, and I NEVER give it out for any reason whatsoever. Unlike postal service, where someone else buys the stamp, I pay for my own phone line. It’s my line, no one else’s. Period.
Yet the spammers and scammers continue to violate my privacy, even with both community and personal black lists. Heck, I turn off the ringers before I go to bed just so I can sleep!
I came across this meme on September 11, 2018, seventeen years after that fateful day that killed nearly 3,000 American citizens and changed the lives of countless more.
I found myself getting royally pissed. That’s not something that routinely happens to this combat aviator and veteran. The principle flaw of all the “9/11 IS A LIE” memes, however, is the unbelievable ignorance if not outright stupidity that results in the minds of those blithering idiots who pass it around as if were gospel. But that’s not what pissed me off. There are stupid people everywhere. Here’s what pissed me off: HOW DARE THEY desecrate the graves and memories of those we lost on that tragic day when overwhelming abundance of evidence undeniably demonstrates that hijackers leveraged multiple loopholes in security — which had been identified on multiple occasions over the years — took over four U.S. air carriers in a rather skillful manner, and used those planes as weapons to attack the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and probably either the White House or the Capitol Building. They were only 75% successful. Their last effort was thwarted by Todd Beamer and other heroes aboard who turned the tables and attacked their hijackers. The results of that day’s sad events can be found in The 9/11 Commission Report, a 585-page exhaustive summary of every relevant fact, socioeconomic and political environments, and sequence of events leading up to the attacks. Encyclopedia Britannica’s September 11 Attacks entry provides an objective an complementary summary report and analysis of the attacks and their aftermath along with plenty of ancillary and corroborating links.
Now, if you’re one of the pin-headed mental midgets who can’t bring themselves to read 585 pages, if that’s too difficult for you, if all you can bring yourself to do is post a handful of mindbogglingly stupid memes on Twitter and Facebook, then I suggest you shut your God-damned pie hole, read the report, and learn something real for a change.
By comparison, the volumes of nonsense I’ve seen on anti-9/11 websites make this aerospace engineer absolutely cringe.
The first, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are perhaps the worst. They claim, “More than 3,00 architects and engineers have signed our petition.” Over the years, I have reviewed all the “evidence” they link to on their website, and none of it would stand up under scrutiny by a team of actual, licensed, practicing, and reputable civil engineers. In fact, every one of their pet theories is rather damning of their incompetence. Any competent engineer can spot the many flaws in their assumptions, knowledge, thought processes and conclusions in short order.
For example, they scratch their heads repeatedly over the presence of sulfur, claiming, “no one knows where,” so they jump to the conclusion that it “must” have been in “thermate, which is produced when sulfur is added to thermite.” Every engineer worth their weight in salt wonders how anyone could be so stupid, knowing that many construction materials contain vulcanized rubber (rubber to which sulfur has been added for strength) as do most bleached papers, including copier and printer paper. In fact, “Many surfactants and detergents (e.g. sodium lauryl sulfate) are sulfate derivatives. Calcium sulfate, gypsum, (CaSO4·2H2O) is mined on the scale of 100 million tonnes each year for use in Portland cement and fertilizers.”
Well, there’s your answer, idiots: Wallboard aka sheetrock. It’s made of gypsum, which contains sulfur. The buildings were chock full of it. Specifically, “Calcium sulfate (or calcium sulphate) is the inorganic compound with the formula CaSO4 and related hydrates. In the form of ?-anhydrite (the anhydrous form), it is used as a desiccant. One particular hydrate is better known as plaster of Paris, and another occurs naturally as the mineral gypsum. It has many uses in industry. ”
You see, there, dipshits, REAL ENGINEERS know this. We don’t stand around scratching our heads like fucking Goofy saying, “Well, gee, Mickey, where could that sulfur have come from? They don’t make buildings out of sulfur, so it must have been thermite, guh-huh!”
Yes, Goofy, they do make buildings out of sulfur, in the form of calcium sulfate. What did I say about shutting your pie hole and learning something?
The A&E 9/11 Truth website is the flagship, and if that highly un-educated rubbish is the best the entire movement can do, then the rest of the movement is even more stupid.
But I’m not here to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theories. You’ll find countless experts online who’ve done a fine job of doing just that, including Popular Mechanics, who has kept their Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report – The World Trade Center and related pages up to date. They and many others have tackled and resoundingly rebuffed each and claim of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists six ways to Sunday.
And yet the blithering idiots continue in their errant beliefs, grossly disrespecting everyone and everything in their path, including science and the memories of those we lost.
Just be glad I know how to check my temper. In response, I’ll say this: The real 9/11 lie is that all the “9/11 Is A Lie” websites are lies. Anyone with half a brain knows this, and those with full brains and civil engineering credentials have completely and utterly debunked the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement.
May God allow the souls of the dearly departed to finally rest.
First, let me begin by saying, “I like my eggs runny!” I always have. There’s nothing more satisfying that sopping up runny eggs with butter toast or pancakes!
Oh, That “Dreaded” Disease
That said, let me also say this: Salmonella can kill you. However, in the U.S., that rate is pretty low: 450 deaths out of 1.2 million infections (0.04%), nearly all through severe dehydration. But only 30 people die of salmonella from eggs, again, through dehydration.
Furthermore, the prevalence of salmonella in eggs is mighty low: “A study by the USDA in 2002 (Risk Analysis April 2002 22(2):203-18) showed that 1 out of every 30,000 eggs produced annually is contaminated with the pathogen. That’s 2.3 million eggs per year.” Eating two eggs for breakfast every single day gives you an even chance of eating a contaminated egg every 27 years and 5 months.
If you’re one of the “lucky” 99.96% of people who live, you’ll develop diarrhea, abdominal cramps, possibly a fever, and recover within 4-7 days, usually without any other treatment than ensuring you’re drinking plenty of fluids and maintaining your electrolytes i.e. eat food.
To be fair to salmonella, it’s pretty much everywhere. Nearly all animals contain salmonella in their gut, and as researchers have well noted, “The elimination of salmonellae must generally be considered an impossibility.”
To Cook or Not to Cook
Fully cooked eggs are more digestible than raw eggs, with about 91% of the protein available in cooked eggs compared to only 51% in raw eggs. Raw egg protein also interferes with the micronutrient biotin, critical in the metabolism of both fat and sugar.
Alas, cooking eggs reduces or eliminates other nutrients, with the phenomenon increasing the more they’re cooked:
Vit A: 17%-20% reduction
Antioxidants: 6%-18% reduction
On a more positive note for us runny egg yolk eaters, cooking egg yolks creates oxidized cholesterol and oxysterols, which increase the risk of heart disease.
So, if you’re going to cook eggs, they’re healthiest for you when just barely cooked (a little runny is fine). Adding plenty vegetables or veggies and lean meat in a lightly cooked omelet is even better!
Finally, believe it or not, a very small amount of butter is the preferred high heat stable oil, as it tastes great, remains stable at high temperatures so as to not oxidize and form harmful free radicals. But if you’re a glutton for punishment, use extra virgin olive oil or coconut oil.
I’m not going to tell you that runny eggs are safe. I will say follow the references below and reach your own conclusion. In the meantime, whether with pancakes, toast, or even in an omelet, I will always prefer and relish slightly runny eggs!
CNN. (2018). Salmonella fast facts. CNN Library. Retrieved from: https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/28/health/salmonella-fast-facts/index.html
Murray, C.J. (1991). Salmonella in the environment. Australian Salomonella Reference Library, Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science. Retrieved from: http://oie.int/doc/ged/d8193.pdf
Urban, S. (2014). Just how risky are runny eggs? Organic Authority. Retrieved from: http://www.organicauthority.com/just-how-risky-are-runny-eggs/
West, H., RD. (2016). What is the healthiest way to cook and eat eggs? Healthline. Retrieved from: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/eating-healthy-eggs
Wikipedia. (2018). Salmonella. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmonella
The rising tide of red flag laws does not bode well for the United States of America. Not only are they fraught with many potential avenues of failure and abuse, they’re also highly ineffectual, stopping less than 1/10th of 1% of their intended targets — a statistically and absurdly tiny fraction of the problem.
For the first time in many years, I’m at a loss for world. These proposals and the laws that have made the books are so ridiculously, unbelievably mind-bogglingly STUPID that I don’t know where to begin.
So, let’s begin at the beginning, with our United States Constitution. Here’s a couple of key points:
– The States were already in power at the time they agreed to join the Union. They already had powers. They still do.
– The Constitution specifically delineated a few key powers to the federal government and normalized relations between the States, primarily in the areas of commerce and common defense.
– Just in case anyone forgot that the people and the States retain the lion’s share of authority, our Founding Fathers included Amendments IX and X in our Bill of Rights:
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
– Amendments to the Constitution become integral parts of the Constitution itself. As the Constitution itself declares in Article. V., “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.”
– Between December 7, 1787, and May 29, 1790, all thirteen states ratified the Constitution.
-Subsequently, whenever a territory has applied to become a State, they do so with the full knowledge of and consent to the U.S. Constitution.
– One of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, proposed in 1789 and duly ratified by the states on December 15, 1791, is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Our Founding Fathers were so adamant about protecting this right they added an absolute: “shall not be infringed.” Moreover, this isn’t merely about restricting Congress from passing laws, as stated in the First Amendment. Rather, it applies to the states, as well, and on December 15, 1791, all United States at the time become party to it, whereas all subsequent States became party to it when they applied for statehood.
WHERE WE ARE NOW
Sadly, instead of focusing on legitimate, science-based policing, these red flag laws throw that science out the window, criminalizing gun ownership itself, in a flagrant and very dangerous violation of the “shall not be infringed” clause of the Second Amendment i.e. the U.S. Constitution.
This morning I came across yet another shining example of the Lesser of Two Evils Fallacy. This fallacy’s premise is simple: “When you vote for the lesser of two evils, evil always wins.” On the face of it, that has a ring of truth, doesn’t it? Yet only very shallow thinkers stop there and run with it, or spend all day coming up with cool-looking graphics like this one from Freedom Info. Those who bother to think just a bit deeper might say, “Well, no. If people vote for the lesser of two evils, then the lesser evil wins.” And now, we’re finally getting somewhere. But the truth is actually a good deal more profound, as we shall soon see!
I call this a fallacy because it’s based on a faulty premise and employs faulty logic. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a fallacy is “a false or mistaken idea.” More accurately, it’s “an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference. Furthermore, the term plausible only means that it is “appearing worthy of belief.” Something that’s plausible may look good on the surface, but such superficial appearance can be deceptive, and conveys absolutely no warranty whatsoever about the actual state of affairs under the hood. Things might be good, they might be bad, or in the case of the Lesser of Two Evils Fallacy, we find they’re dead wrong.
As Dr. Jeremy E. Sherman notes in Psychology Today, the Lesser of Two Evils fallacy is “actually the lesser of two disappointing choices.” He notes how we apply the lesser of two evils rule in many areas of our lives, yet reject it completely when we head to the poles. The problem comes down to consumerism. When it comes to products and services, we have a cornucopia from which to choose, but in elections, it often comes down to just two people, neither of whom floats out boat. As a result, we’re so disappointed in the the choices that we tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater, meaning we see the entire process as evil because it fails to produce more palatable choices. I have a sneaking suspicion this phenomenon is great exacerbated by the media constantly poisoning the well against one candidate, the other, or in some cases, both candidates in their money-grubbing clawing for ratings and advertising revenue taking precedence over objective journalism.
In his rather insightful article, “Fallacy Detective: Three Assumptions Made by ‘Lesser of Two Evils’ Voters,” Tobin Duby correctly identifies errant assumptions and the logical fallacies committed by those making the assumptions:
The “Lesser of Two Evils” reasoning fails to differentiate the person from his policies. Fallacy: Red Herring, Ad Hominem. Most people vote for politicians based on how they perceive their personal character, and not based on their actual policies or voting record. As Duby notes, moral character is important, but competence is just as important. A good man can bankrupt the nation just as fast as a bad man if neither one does the right things.
The “Lesser of Two Evils” reasoning restricts the argument to the current presidential term. Fallacy: Framing the Debate. Put simply, this falsely assumes both candidates will be on the ballot four years from now. As Duby notes, “By framing the debate, [voters] are accepting a lesser good now and rejecting a greater good later.”
The “Lesser of Two Evils” reasoning assumes that there are only two options. Fallacy: Exigency, Either/Or. Again, put simply, voting requires both moral and practical decisions, yet the Lesser of Two Evils fallacy only considers the moral aspects. From a practical standpoint, if there are only two candidates, then there are only two candidates! Pick one. You can either pick the candidate you think would do more good for the nation or you can pick the candidate you think would do less harm to the nation.
The problem with most people who buy into the “Evil Always Wins” fallacy is they view both candidates as poor choices, yet refuse to accept responsibility for minimizing damage. That’s like a homeowner, seeing his house on fire opting to do nothing because the greater evil is that his home burns to the ground but the lesser evil is that his home winds up half-burned and neither option is acceptable to him so he does nothing. It’s irrational, and to the extreme.
Interestingly enough, I just presented two different arguments. Did you catch the difference?
The first says “when you vote for the lesser of two evils, evil always wins” is a logical fallacy.
The second says, “voting for the lesser of two evils” is a logical fallacy.
Well… Which is it?
To answer that question, we really need to examine reality itself, namely, the three situations where we see this meme appear in federal elections.
First, here’s a situation we are very unlikely to see: When we have multiple candidates favored by many people in both parties. If Tom, Dick, and Harry ran, and all three were independents of good moral character and promising platforms, and they appealed roughly equally to both conservatives and liberals, we would never see the “…Evil Always Wins” meme. That meme is only pushed forward by those who see both candidates as evil, and then, only by those who do not understand the nature of their logical fallacy. Even so, the meme will still surface, as some people will see only two plausible options, both evil, or they may see all three as evil.
Second Situation: Two candidates, one from each major political party. The meme will surface.
Third Situation: Three candidates, one from each major political party, and one who is either independent or running on a third party ticket. The meme will surface.
So you see, regardless of whether we have just one candidate, two candidates, or even three or more candidates, we will always see this logically fallacious meme, for the simple reason that some people, ignorant of reality and the way things actually work, will see the one, two, or three or more candidates as being evil, and will employ this meme as their way of avoiding responsibility to minimize the damage by actually selecting the best (or least worst) candidate.
If there were more people who thought deeply, instead of people who avoid responsibility, we would undoubtedly have a better selection of candidates!
You know what else President Trump and We the American People aren’t buying? Huffington Post’s ridiculous, single-word allegation that Vice President Pence was the author. As we’ve clearly seen from the eight rock-solid reasons given above, the op-ed didn’t come from President Trump’s administration.
And, no, it wasn’t Vice President Pence. That is absolutely not his style, at all. Ever.
It is far more likely some libtard Demoncrap wrote the piece and planted the word, “lodestar” hoping to get President Trump flustered to the point where he starts chewing up those within his own administration.
That didn’t happen. In fact, the exact opposite happened: The blitheringly idiotic libtards are steeling We the American People against the liars, cheats, and thieves known as “Democrats.”
Funny, but all of this seems to come down to some idiot calling himself, “Dan downLODESTAR Bloom,” @danbloom on Twitter. Perhaps he’s the original author of the NYT’s op-ed piece.
Nah… He’s just not that smart, and besides, he doesn’t write that well.
Update (9/7/2018): Yahoo continues to publish a number of articles, as in perhaps half a dozen a day, attempting to point fingers at Republicans when it’s far more likely this piece was floated by the lying, cheating, and stealing Demoncraps as has long been their habit. Even Omarosa “gives clues…”
Yeah, right, Omarosa. Grow a brain.
Get a clue, people: NO ONE ” from inside 45’s WH wrote the @nytimes Op-Ed on page ((330)) of Unhinged.”
Cutting one’s own throat, or the throat of one’s own political party is never a motive, particularly right before midterm elections. That would be supremely stupid, and conservatives are not stupid.
On the other hand, a number of nefarious libtards and Demoncraps had Means, Opportunity, and Motive to write this piece. Complicit and liberal New York Times jumped at the chance to publish the piece, knowing they could hide their libtard/Demoncrap source indefinitely.
Then again, Omarosa’s recent book, “Resistance Inside the Trump Administration” is prima facia evidence that Omarosa herself (or her publisher) wrote the op-ed, as yet another mind-bogglingly stupid stunt to increase her book sales. In fact, I’d say it’s a good bet she’s had this entire line of events planned for a long time.