Palm Beach Atlantic Lacrosse Coach Bans Gun Pics

I’ve been a Christian since I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior at age 15.  Since then, I have participated in thousands of worship services, Bible studies, and scriptural studies.  I have three degrees, two in science, two graduate, and two summa cum laude.

I attended and graduated from Virginia Tech in the middle 1980s.  Virginia Tech is, as you may well know, the location of the massacre perpetrated against fellow students and teachers by Seung-Hui Cho.  The heinous nature of that incident affected all students, including we alumni.

At age 25 I became a U.S. military officer, serving our nation honorably for more than 20 years, beginning with the same oath of office as taken by every public servant including all judges, law enforcement officers, legislators and members of the executive branches (mayors, governors, the president):

I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Please keep the aforementioned facts firmly in mind with respect to my credentials across several fronts backing up what I am about to say below.  Put simply, this is not an “opinion piece.”  These are facts:

In a flagrant violation of both the First and Second Amendment U.S. Constitutional rights of its students, the lacrosse coach of Palm Beach Atlantic University forbade a student, Zach Scholl, from posting pictures “guns and this stuff.  Specifically, the coach said:

“You want to play lacrosse, you won’t post pics of your guns and this stuff.  That’s simple.  You want to continue to post this, you don’t play.”

Young Mr. Scholl displayed an exemplary level of mastery in his response to the coach’s flagrantly un-Constitutional mandate:

“As a citizen of this country, I have a second amendment right to keep and bear arms and a first amendment right to post the pictures of my firearms and photos from my hunts on my various social media accounts.

“These are my rights as a U.S. citizen and I’m not going to throw them away just to play ball under you.  As much as I love the sport it is not worth it to me to surrender.  So, thank you for the opportunity, but someone else will have to be wearing #40 this year.”

It’s more than a shame Mr. Scholl had to quit the team.  It’s a crime, prohibited by federal law, for a coach to force any student to forfeit their Constitutional rights in order to play on the team.  Now, to be fair, coaches, universities, and athletic organizations such as the NCAA can impose a very few limitations, such as maintaining a reasonable QCA/GPA, eating at an athletic dining hall, living in athlete dorms and maintaining a curfew during the season.  They absolutely can NOT, however, force a student to pick between posting tasteful pictures of a lawful and Constitutionally-protected activity — by two Amendments, no less — and playing a collegiate sport.

Fortunately, the university published an official response to this incident in the clearest of terms:

“As a Christian University, PBA strongly supports our Constitutional Republic, the U.S. Constitution and all individual rights protected under the Bill of Rights, especially freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms.”

Such an outstanding official position needs no explanation or interpretation, and neither do the two Amendments from which it was derived, Amendments with which the lacrosse coach is in sorely need of  review:

Amendment I:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II:  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But hey, let’s watch what Dana Loesch has to say in her NRA video:

Well said, Dana.  Well said.

In light of the coach’s heinous actions violating the Constitutional rights of he student as well as official university policy, three things must happen:

  1.  The coach needs to be officially reprimanded, and if he insists on repeating his erroneous ways, he needs to be fired for wrongly imposing his NPOV (narrow point of view) i.e. political bigotry on his players.
  2. Palm Beach Atlantic University needs to issue an official and public apology to the student
  3. The student needs to be invited to re-join the lacrosse team, without prejudice, and in the same position and degree of play he held before.

If you would like to contact PBA’s Athletic Staff Directory, you can reach them, here.

If you would like to contact the university directly, their contact information is listed on the bottom of their home page.

For more information on Students for Concealed Carry, see:

ABOUT STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY — Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization comprising college students, faculty, staff, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other organization. For more information on SCC, visit or For more information on the debate over campus carry in Texas, visit or tweet @CampusCarry.


The Operating System of the Future

Forbes recently ran an article entitled, “What Will the Operating System of the Future Look Like?”  Well, I wasn’t satisfied with their rather generic, non-specific answer, much less their assertion that blockchain will have something to do with it:
“Blockchain isn’t necessarily something that stands alone. It seems more of a backbone technology, something we’d use as an operating system for a lot of other technologies… …blockchain may be just the operating system to use.”
No.  Blockchain isn’t a backbone technology which you can use as any sort of operating system.  Whoever said that doesn’t understand the first thing about the nature of blockchain, which is a way to link encrypted records such that each record is dependent on the previous record.  It is “an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way.”  A portion of the record is visible, and a portion is encrypted, visible only to those who are party to the transaction.  You can implement multiple areas and layers of visibility, encryption, and authentication for each transaction.
It’s a ledger, not an operating system.
Nor does blockchain lend itself to efficiently communicating between systems in a secure manner.  Yes, it can do that, effectively and securely.  No, it can’t do that efficiently, and furthermore, the size of the chain increases for every transaction.  When communicating between various IT-enabled devices from your fridge to your smart phone to your bank account, motor vehicle, etc., you do NOT need a ledger.  You DO, however, require rock-sold encryption and authentication for each communication “session.”
A session might be as short as something like this:
Dave:  Hi, Bank Z, I’m Dave X and I’d like to transfer $200 from my ABC account to my XYZ account.
Bank:  Hi, Dave X, you’d like to (repeats request).  Do you confirm
Dave:  Yes
Bank:  Ok, I’ve (confirms request).  Your new balances are…
Or, a session might involve the complex, thousands of times a second communications between three flight computers, five avionics computers, eighteen subsystems, several hundred sensors, hydraulic motors, electrical actuators and pumps, and inputs from two pilots, and via satellite, the corporate maintenance office.  Even attempting to use blockchain for this would result in a very large and unforgivably slow system that would never get off the ground, much less fly halfway around the world.
Alternatively, the Intel i-family of processors already includes dedicated support for AES-256, which has never been cracked despite the best of attempts by the world’s top experts in its 17-year history since establishment by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in 2001.  Furthermore, TLS (https://) 1.2 and beyond includes expansion of support for authenticated encryption ciphers, used mainly for Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) and CCM mode of Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) encryption.
TLS provides privacy and data integrity between two or more communicating computer applications.  Specifically, the connection is secured via symmetric cryptography with per-session keys between each pair of communicating devices initiated with a shared secret unavailable to man in the middle attacks.  The identity of the communicating parties (devices) is authenticated using public-key cryptography.  Finally, the connection is reliable because each message transmitted includes an integrity check using message authentication code to prevent undetected loss or alteration of the data.
Unlike blockchain, TLS is ideal for use in communicating between a very wide variety of computing devices, including the various systems aboard a modern airliner.  Each device would be keyed with shared secret just once, and once keyed, the key cannot be read outside of the device itself.  Before take-off systems checks include a full message security and authentication checks with all devices.
This same technology is already in use by many businesses around the world.  It’s not an operating system.  It’s a secure communications system.
The problem is, I would never use it aboard an aircraft because it is a computer and computers fail.  This is why aircraft have hard-wired communication between components.  They are physically protected and not open to the outside world, so they don’t require security.  The few systems aboard an aircraft that are open to the outside world do employ secure communications.
So, back to what the operating system of the future might look like:
1.  Files will be stored online and backed up locally.  For speed, you’ll access the local files, which will keep the online files synced, but the online files, which are redundantly stored throughout cyberspace, will remain the masters.  
2.  User files will no longer be deleted.  That’s not so the feds can get to them.  It’s in case you change your mind ten years from now and realize your wicked mother wasn’t so wicked and you want to bring up the only photograph you ever had of her, the one you deleted ten years before.
3.  Files will no longer have recognizable names. That photo you took at the wedding? It might be names 6tn3h2hHtPE7Ns2q4vosK. The first 12 characters are unique to the individual while the next 9 are unique to the file on the individual’s computer. Windows 10 currently allows 260 characters per filename, but in reality, using just 9 lower, upper, and number characters, you can generate a billion times more unique filenames than are currently required for a large Windows 10 installation. The first 12 characters allow some 300 trillion people each to have 1 million separate identities. But hey, I’m sure we’ll find other uses for more characters, so let’s make each filename 72 characters long. That’s still far below Windows 10’s maximum 260 character limit.
4. All files will be thoroughly cross-referenced, and the strength of those references will be pattered after the way our own brain associates memories. After taking video and photos at the wedding, you say, “All photos taken over the last three hours are from Karen’s wedding.” Your computer might recognize a name and ask you, “Karen who?” to which you reply, “Karen Johnson. She just married Zack Davis.” So now your computer knows her maiden name, married name, and husband, date of the wedding, and through facial recognition, the names of who attended. You can then ask, “Bring up pics of everyone at Karen’s wedding I don’t know,” and your computer will display all people for whom it has no names as cross-references.
5. The interface will be through retinal pattern transmitters. That’s a fancy term for saying a tiny 4k resolution (that’s better than your eyeball) RGBCYM laser projection that reflects its signal off a slightly silvered but mostly transparent “angled mirror” in front of your pupil. This device could equally be meta-material embedded in a pair of glasses that twists light generated along the rims and sends it to your eyes. Provided you’re in a safe situation (seated, not in a car, on a bike, etc.), you can select a black background for crystal clear images. Otherwise, the projection will allow your normal visual field to predominate. Those same glasses will include earbuds and a microphone. But your glasses aren’t the computer. They’re merely I/O devices. If you need a cursor, the same projection system always measures precisely where you’re looking, and a single tap on, say, a belt-mounted button, produces the same effect as a left click. Mice, keyboards, joysticks, touch pads, and other controllers will be available, as required.
6. “Your” computer will reside on your belt, your desk, or anywhere near to your I/O devices. All it is, however, is a local storage and processing device. Most apps will reside in the cloud, to which your local computer connects on a constant basis. Repeaters will be installed in every coffee shop, street corner, motor vehicle, airplane, etc. All files will be encrypted before leaving your device, and if they need to be worked on by one of the apps you rent in the cloud, they will be unlocked by your session key and personal credentials, worked on, then re-encrypted for safekeeping.
7. The cloud operating system and apps will not have direct access to the unencrypted contents of the files themselves. Rather, an app will “loan” it’s code to your personal node in the cloud where it will perform the necessary functions within your node’s protected space. Your unencrypted files never leave your security envelope, and only you can access them. No backdoors, with open source code any expert can verify. Furthermore, they’re backed up, so you never have to worry about losing your data again.
8.  Since we are indeed a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and the Fourth Amendment’s protects against warrant-less and unreasonable searches of our “papers and effects” (this includes computer files), and since we have the technology to tell the feds to go jump in the lake, laws will change to suit the needs of the people, meaning individuals, in support of our freedoms, rather than the erosion thereof.
Well, that’s my 2 cents. 🙂

The Lowdown on Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change

As a registered statistician and well-educated scientist (3 degrees and 37 years of experience), I’ve been all over the IPCC’s and others’ data they use to justify the claim that rising CO2 levels are responsible for global warming. Here’s what I found:
1. There is indeed evidence that the Earth has gone through a warming period over the last 70 years, one that was interrupted for at least 12 of the 18 years since the turn of the century.
2. There is indeed evidence that CO2 levels have also risen during the last 70 years.
3. CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas,” meaning it tends to trap a portion of IR (infrared) radiation (heat) from being radiated back into space.
4. CO2 is by no means the most potent greenhouse gas out there. In fact, both water and methane are far more potent.
5. While animal husbandry does produce some methane, termites and microbes produce far more, and deforestation is a leading cause as it interrupts the biological role of methane in the environment.
6. Patterns of atmospheric H2O have been significantly changed by aviation. In gaseous (invisible) form, water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. In condensate and crystallized (cloud) form, H2O reflects sunlight back into space, but it also reflect Earth’s IR energy back to the ground. In most instances, clouds retain more heat to Earth than they protect Earth from acquiring. Both the shape and altitude of the clouds determine the net IR energy flow.
7. While CO2 and global warming over the last 70 years are correlated, there is no statistical evidence that either one has caused the other.
8. The amount of global warming occurring over the last 70 years is minuscule as compared to the temperature swings associated with the comings and goings of ice ages.
9. Prior to the start of the last ice age, the temperature also took a sharp, but small and short swing upward, and it, too, was accompanied by a short rise in CO2 levels.
10. We’re about due for another ice age.
11. Scientists still discount the role of sunspots, despite the fact that sunspots are strongly correlated with Earth mean temperatures. Since the Earth is certainly not affecting the cycle of the Sun’s sunspots, simple deduction says that sunspots do affect Earth’s climate.
12. Scientists who study the dynamics of sunspot formation have determined that sunspots are formed by the Sun’s magnetic activity, which undergoes periodic cyclical change.
13. Indications are strong that the Sun is close to entering a period quiessence, where very few sunspots would form, thereby resulting in an accompanying cooling period — even an ice age — here on Earth.
My recommandation: Hyper-insulate your house and stock up on snow shovels. Even if you wind up not needing the shovels, you’ll save on cooling. 🙂

The Medical Science Behind Transgenderism and Athletic Competition

Transgender track stars” Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood can speak out all they want.  What they and their supporters are claiming violate very well-known and long-proven medical FACT.

Here’s what those FACTS have to say:

1. A genetic male begins producing testosterone between weeks 9 and 12, changing the body, including differentiation of sexual organs.  Sex differences in humans have been studied in a variety of fields. In humans, biological sex is determined by five factors present at birth: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, the type of gonads, the sex hormones, the internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus), and the external genitalia.  Genetic sex is determined solely by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome.

2. Even well before puberty, the female skeleton is generally less massive, smoother, and more delicate than the male. Its rib cage is more rounded and smaller, its lumbar curve greater, and a generally longer and smaller female waist results from the chest being more narrow at the base, and the pelvis generally not as high. The pelvis is, in general, different between the human female and male skeleton. It differs both in overall shape and structure. The female pelvis, adapted for gestation and childbirth, is less high, but proportionately wider and more circular than in the male; its sacrum—the triangular bone at the upper posterior of the pelvic cavity, serving as base of the spine—is also wider. The female pelvis is tilted anteriorly, often resulting in the more sway-backed appearance.

Even well before puberty, boys, on average, have significantly greater muscle mass, physiological leverage, overall muscle strength, and run faster than girls.

The changes in body structure are sufficiently pronounced by the fourth grade that both male and female school children between 9 and 12 years old can, with an accuracy exceeding 80%, correctly identify the sex of their same-aged peers by looking at face-only (no hair, makeup, or jewelry) photographs.

Indeed, the scholarly article entitled, “Genetic influences on the development of grip strength in adolescence” clearly reveals “Enhanced physical strength is a secondary sex characteristic in males. Sexual dimorphism in physical strength far exceeds sex differences in stature or total body mass, suggesting a legacy of intense sexual selection.”

Furthermore, a study by “Leyk, D., et al. “Hand-grip strength of young men, women and highly trained female athletes.” European journal of applied physiology 99.4 (2007): 415-421.” reveals that even an average human male has greater grip strength than female Olympic athletes.

3. At puberty, these sexually dimorphic differences accelerate, resulting in young men and young women capable of successful reproduction, not to mention significant physical differences in bony structure that no amount of subsequent anti-androgen administration can erase.  Indeed, forensic anthropologists can determine the sex of a human skeleton by quick examination of many different sexually dimorphic skeletal characteristics.

4. The administration of testosterone-suppression drugs, even if begun before puberty, do NOT reverse the significantly distinct physiological characteristics and both strength and mechanical advantage which has already developed.

In summary, regardless of when they began taking anti-androgen drugs, Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood have, since birth, been developing the masculine raw muscle strength and mechanical joint leverage advantages which enable them to beat genetic females.

Allowing them or any other MTF transgender people to compete against genetic females is a HEINOUS affront to the spirit of fair competition throughout the world of sports, not to mention firmly established medical science. The various legislative bodies who signed off allowing MTF transgenders to compete with genetic females are obviously totally ignorant, grossly mislead, or attempting to advance an agenda contrary to every known medical and scientific finding on sexual dimorphism.

STOP this madness. NOW.

Let them compete in academia, where there is no known sexually dimorphic advantage.  Environment, yes.  Genetically, no.

A Simple IQ Test

When I was a child, the teachers couldn’t figure out why I never paid any attention in class.  After a couple of visits to a psychologist, and following the administration of an IQ test on which I scored 130, he confirmed I my mind was simply in 5th gear as the teacher was presenting second grade material.

In the Spring of 1985, a bunch of people were gathered on the lawn of my college apartment complex for a picnic.  I recognized a friend and stepped outside to join her for some conversation.  She said her father, one of my former professors, was holding a Mensa outreach picnic and invited me to join the group.  A couple of weeks later, I took the test, and walla!  I was in Mensa.

I have since taken a number of IQ tests such as the one below, with scores of 120, 133, 139, 140, 167, and 180+.  What’s going on?  Why the variation in scores?  Let’s take a look at an IQ test I took this morning as we examine why.

IQ Test
IQ Test

Even though I answered all questions correctly, the test shows a lower IQ than my actual IQ.  Nevertheless, it’s statistically accurate, in that there were only 20 questions.  Even though I scored a 20/20, provided the IQ test contains questions of equally distributed difficulty, one cannot say for statistical certainty that it’s any higher than 133.  There simply aren’t enough questions.  A score of 40/40 might result in an IQ score of 140; 60/60 might result in an IQ score of 150, and 100/100 questions might result in an IQ score of 160.  The more questions on the test, along with the more people tested using that particular test, then the finer the granularity with which the test can pinpoint your score.  When it comes to scores with the middle 85%, it’s probably reasonable accurate, +/- 10 to 15 points.  When it comes outliers, however, it cannot differentiate between a score of perhaps 125 and a 200, so it picks the statistical median of all scores higher than 125, which is 133.  A test with more questions would be able to pinpoint that to perhaps 128, or 132 or 150+.

The thing about it is the furthermore down or up the scale you fall, the more of an outlier of your score, then the more questions are required to definitely assess your score AND the more people have to take the test against which your performance can be measured.

With that in mind, let’s see where these scores originated:

120:  Given to me by a forensic psychologist at my request, along with a large battery of other tests, in order to determine suitability for visitation and custody during divorce proceedings.  I’d experienced severe chronic insomnia for six months straight prior to the test, and probably got all of about four hours of sleep the night before, so, no, I didn’t do very well!

133:  Score obtained by correctly answering 20 out of 20 questions.  You can take the test yourself by following the links, above.

139:  Test I took in second grade, administered by a child psychologist.  The test didn’t go any higher than 139, so 139 it was.

140:  Test I took in the Air Force, as part of a low-key study conducted by our squadron.  Again, the test didn’t go any higher.

167:  An experimental but reasonably accurate test designed to measure people with a high IQ.

180:  An actual IQ test.  The score doesn’t go any higher.  I think I was lucky, as I was feeling exceptionally well-rested and alert that day!

So, what’s my actual IQ?  Well, it’s certainly higher than 120, that’s for certain.  I believe it’s higher than 139/140, as those were my scores — and the top score — on two standard IQ tests widely used and accepted throughout the arena of psychology.  I’m reasonably sure it’s higher than 150, as I did become a member of Mensa.  I think it may be as high as 180 on my best days, when I’m firing on all 100 billion neurons.

However, given more than half a century of experience interacting with other people, I’m inclined to believe I have an IQ of 167 +/-15 pts.  Again, while it’s relatively easy to pinpoint an IQ ranging in the middle 83% of the pack, between 80 and 120, the further out you go in either direction, the more difficult it is to accurately determine one’s IQ score.

If you want to take either a short or a long free online Stanford-Binet IQ test, click here.  For kicks and grins, just to see what a really low score might feel like, I took the long test of 100 questions, randomly answering at least 3 out of 4 questions, and only thinking about the ones where I liked the way the question looked.  If it looked like I might have to think about it, I skipped it.  My score put me in the 83rd percentile, which corresponds to an IQ of about 116.

Tiny Homes and 3D Printed Homes – Cheaper and Better Than Traditional Construction

Traditional builders continue to reject and exclude both Tiny Homes (usually built by their owners) and 3D Printed Homes from within city tiny homelimits, citing all sorts of made-up CRAP, including FALSELY claiming the technology is “immature” and “won’t hold up over time” or “under severe tiny home - cottageweather conditions.”

I think Traditional Builders are DINOSAURS and it’s high time cities give their equity-robbing souls THE BOOT.

In FACT, 3D printed homes correct many of the problems associated with traditional homes, including avoidance of materials that warp and degrade over times. Unlike traditional homes, their shapes are highly resistant to wind, are far stronger than traditional construction, and far less expensive.

In FACT, Tiny Homes solve many of the problems encountered with mobile tiny home homes, most notably, cost and resale value, as a good Tiny Home costs, on average, about a third the cost of a mobile home, and they’re being resold for two to three times the cost of materials used in their construction.

Smaller? Yes. However, they do NOT waste space, as do traditional homes. They’re far cheaper, stronger, more unique, more comfortable, and generally a HUGE step in the right direction.

What do you think about Tiny Homes and 3D Printed Homes?

Discrimination vs the Free Exercise of Religion

I have absolutely no issue whatsoever serving anyone, regardless of their race, religion, creed, age, gender, orientation, or belief. That’s one issue, the one involving discrimination.
I absolutely will not ever, however, allow any individual to force me to do, make, say, create, write, photograph, or otherwise use my skills and resources in a manner that violates the free exercise of my religion. That’s the second issue, the one involving our First Amendment.
Two separate issues. Two separate responses. Dear Media, liberals, Democrats, and others: Please STOP intentionally confusing the two.
There is a vast difference between refusing to serve customers because of discrimination and refusing to use one’s skills and resources to promote, exalt, or endorse a message that violates one’s free practice of their religion.
Liberals, mudstream media, and the Democrats refuse to consider the fact these are separate issues because they’re trying to use one issue — discrimination — to force artisans of all types into promoting behavior which violates their religious convictions.
Our First Amendment, however, very specifically protects those religious convictions where it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.”
The free exercise of one’s religion usually requires its adherents to say, “No” to a great many things this world claims are OK and even glorifies. Indeed, our Ten Commandments contain 8 negatives and only 2 affirmations. “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” – James 1:27
Our First Amendment protects our right to freely exercise our religion. Our religion specifically requires us to keep ourselves from being polluted by the world. Being forced to incorporate messages or images into our creative works violates the very foundations of our religion and as such our government is expressly forbidden from forcing that upon us.
I have absolutely no issue whatsoever serving anyone, regardless of their race, religion, creed, age, gender, orientation, or belief. That’s one issue, the one involving discrimination.
I absolutely will not ever, however, allow any individual to force me to do, make, say, create, write, photograph, or otherwise use my skills and resources in a manner that violates the free exercise of my religion. That’s the second issue, the one involving our First Amendment.

Two separate issues. Two separate responses. Dear Media, liberals, Democrats, and others: Please STOP intentionally confusing the two.

And Courts, stop allowing these lawsuits.  They’re both frivolous and injurious to the entire system of jurisprudence.