One of the many things I learned from aviation is that we see the best clarity and color directly in front of us, but our eyes our wired to detect motion in the periphery.
If you’d like to read more about the technical aspects, start here, with Transduction and the following sections, as well as another entry on Motion Perception.
So why am I writing about this? Our brains developed in lock-step with our eyes. We only see, and understand, what’s going on in the periphery if there’s enough motion in the periphery to cross a certain threshold.
Years ago, I was taught to look to the right of the road when driving at night in order to prevent the bright lights of the oncoming traffic from both killing my night vision as well as distracting me from peripheral vision cues.
The parallels for what’s going on today are astounding.
Charismatic behavior usually instils a sense of “over-focus” in those who hang on their every word. The term “deer in the headlights” come to mind, where the deer focus on nothing but the the light, to the exclusion of everything else going on in the periphery i.e. the sidelines. The visual cortex contains by far the most dense path of neuron activity to the brain, and bright lights in that channel of information tend to overload others. Unless a deer is trained to recognized bright lights as potential threats, it simply stares at them until BAM!
Meanwhile, our visual periphery, as well as the areas of our brain most closely associated with it, are very well attuned to detect changes in the visual environment i.e. motion, but not much else.
So, recap: Visual cortex (brain focus) sees colors, details, and patterns, while the visual periphery (brain sidelines) sees changes.
Knowing this, knowing how both the brain and the visual system are inextricably intertwined, how might someone who wanted change a society, go about doing so?
First, they’d have to over-illuminate the visual cortex, or at least the portion of the brain which responds to such cues. Second, they’d have to minimize movement on the sidelines, as that might distract folks from their attempts to blind them, then run them over.
Oh, come on, don’t you get it? Obama’s headlights, those who can’t differentiate thereof are the victims, and one of two facts remain: Either they are ignorant, or they’re duped.
The question becomes: Who do we want representing our country – those who are duped, or those who adhere to the United States of America. I think, at this time, that is all. That is enough, that we all adhere to the United States of America.
There’s a book I’d like to recommend: “Christianity and the Constitution – The Faith of our Founding Fathers,” by John Eidsmoe, 1987, Baker Book House Company, ISBN 0-8010-5231-9.
I’d like to share with you an excerpt from the Dedication:
“This book is dedicated, in the words of the Mayflower Compact of 1620, to “the glorie of God and advancemente ye Christian faith.” That Americans may better understand, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” which are the only sure foundation for the God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; so that with a “firm dependence on the protection of Divine Providence,” we may, in the words of the Preamble to our Constitution, “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
When read in context, it is impossible for any rational human being to deny that the United States of America is a Christian nation, founded solidly on Christian principles. Even its tricameral structure of government is pattered after the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The emphasis of the Constitution was to fully respect the rights of the states and of the people, just as God only knocks at the door – he never barges in.
People like this Brit and Obama himself, along with all others who want to eradicate Christianity from our Christian nation do not understand the basic concept of respect. Thus, they’re barging in. Atheists, like Muslims, will not stop until they’ve accomplished their goals, what have nothing to do with respect, but with domination and eradication of all who refuse to buy into their rhetoric.
A few days ago, following the recent tragedy in yet another of America’s many gun free zones, I examined every shooting spree since the end of WW II. Of the 52 massacres over the last 65 years, ten were rejected because they didn’t fit the typical shooting spree and involved things such as deliberately set fires, bombings, and situations where the public was never in a position to return fire (such as the Kent State Massacre).
The results with respect to the 42 remaining shooting sprees will astound you. More than 75% of them occurred in so-called “Gun Free Zones,” which occupy less than 10% of areas frequented by the average citizen on any given day. Statistically speaking, your average citizen is THREE TIMES more likely to die of a shooting spree in a Gun Free Zone than they are to die of a shooting spree in an area where people are allowed to keep and bear arms.
It’s clear that the whole idea of creating a “Gun Free Zone” does not protect citizens from firearms. Far from it. Establishing such “Gun Free Zones” actually triples the danger to the lives of those who must frequent those zones, whether they be children or mall employees. The following graphic tells story of how the United Kingdom (UK) opened the door wide to violent crime by disarming its citizens. Click on the graphic to see the details in the full-sized version:
Let’s face it: The nutcases who conduct these shooting sprees may be insane, but they’re not stupid. The media itself has clearly revealed the amount of planning that goes into most shooting sprees and the conclusion is inarguable: Most perpetrators specifically target Gun Free Zones, almost certainly because they believe no one will be shooting back at them.
On a similar note, more than 50% of all shooting sprees are stopped, not by cops, but by law-abiding citizens, two-thirds of whom are armed.
So again, the question of why we’re disarming law-abiding citizens (less safe) and creating Gun Free Zones (WAY less safe) MUST be called into question at every level.
Nothing highlights the fallacy of gun control more than “Gun Free Zones.” They’re the epitome of control, yet the most dangerous knee-jerk response by far. Clearly, more control is not the answer. Never in the history of America has gun control ever reduced crime. In fact, time and time again we see the same repeating pattern: When gun control in an area is relaxed, crime drops. When gun control in an area is increased, crime rises.
Jan 1, 2014 Update: Ever since a federal court forced Chicago to process concealed carry applications, crime dropped. In less than six months, it has dropped by more than 30%. That’s MASSIVE.
These are facts, people. I’m asking to you remain cognizant of these facts, and to base your decisions upon the facts, rather than siding with a bunch of hysterical, nonsensical, and ignorant rhetoric lifted from the whiny ramblings of a few emotionally-driven special interest groups.
Siding with FACTS will help keep American citizens safe. Siding with ignorant rhetoric will not. For the sake and safety of ourselves and our loved ones, let us please stick with the facts.
Addendum: The following letter from a man in Australia was supposedly debunked by the liberal rag SNOPES, but was confirmed to be true by a friend of mine who was born and raised in Australia and who lives there to this very day. Like the statistics gleaned from the UK’s disarmament mess, the Australian government has learning the hard way that gun-free zones do not work, and when you try to create one big gun-free zone for your entire country, well, that’s just particularly stupid:
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in: * Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent … * Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent … * Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in ‘successfully ridding Australian society of guns …’
You won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
When it comes to food quality, most European countries tend to err on the side of caution. There are MANY questions, concerns, and controversies over genetically modified foods, the most solid of which is that despite the fact that we’ve mapped genomes, we still have little to no understanding of what many genes do or how they interact with other genes.
We we do know is that modifying one gene for a desirable effect will almost certainly affect how other genes behave. That may involve raising or lowering the threshold of environmental stimuli required to turn the other gene on or off, or turning the other genes on or off completely.
Since we have a poor understanding of what the various genes in a specific plant do, this may introduce toxins into the life-cycle of the plant, toxins which may not harm the plant at all, but which may prove to be either acutely or chronically harmful to humans. It’s fairly esay to detect any acutely harmful chemicals in trials. Chronically harmful chemicals, on the other hand, take years to detect, requiring very long-term studies involving tends of thousands of people.
How prevalent is this threat? According to the American Cancer Society, “Environmental factors (as opposed to hereditary factors) account for an estimated 75%-80% of cancer cases and deaths in the US.” – p. 51, “Cancer Facts and Figures 2012,” American Cancer Society. We’re aware of some carcinogens, but strongly suspect there are many more low-level carcinogens. We also suspect that because of their high numbers and widespread use throughout modern society, they are responsible for much, if not most cancer in humans.
Cancer, however, is merely one of many human ailments known to be affected or caused by environmental factors.
Our bodies evolved over millions of years to work in harmony with nature, including being resistant to most things in the environment which would have otherwise caused us harm. When we introduce new environmental factors, whether they be in the form of man-made compounds, increased concentrations of compounds normally found in nature, or genetically modified foods, we have introduced an unknown factor.
The bottom line is this: Short-term trials do not uncover long-term health concerns. Only long-term studies will do this, and it’s both premature and irresponsible for any government or scientific body to declare genetically modified foods as “safe” on the basis of short-term trials.
I agree with the graphic. Just label it. We’re not asking you to pull genetically modified foods off the shelf. We do, however, reserve the right to decide for ourselves whether or not we want to eat genetically modified foods.
I received an excellent question from a friend about retired officer status. I’d like to share the results of my research with others who may be wondering about this themselves:
Short answer: According to Air Force Officer’s Guide, 34th E., 2005, Stackpool Books (ISBN: 0-8117-3194-4): “An Air Force officer placed on the retired list is still an officer of the United States.”
Long answer: As a retiree, you remain a commissioned officer in the Air Force, and the proper form of signature is Joe R. Citizen, Rank, USAF (Ret). Although you’re not on Active Duty, you are in the Retired Reserve, which consists of all Reserve officers and enlisted personnel who receive retired pay on the basis of active duty and/or reserve service.
For all practical purposes, however, you’re a civilian with pay and privileges commonly afforded to retired service members. You no longer have statutory authority to issue orders, but you’re not under anyone else’s orders, either, except functional ones involving proper conduct while on base or use of the facilities. You’re authorized to wear your uniform at certain functions, such as funerals and parades honoring of our country. You are authorized travel aboard military transportation, but at the lowest priority. You are not under authority to follow gag orders issued from within the chain of command, as are active duty service members. You must, however, safeguard classified and FOUO information.
Also, once you’re retired, that’s it. You’re out. You’re subject to recall, but only under very specific and restrictive circumstances. Specifically, “In the absence of fraud, the retirement of an officer under a particular statute exhausts the power of the president and the secretary of the Air Force … there is no authority for the restoration of a retired officer to the active list for the purpose of being again retired.” – ibid. Put simply, once someone’s DD-214 is cut, it’s set in stone. The laws governing this were specifically created to prevent higher-ups from recalling a retired service member to active duty for the purpose of either punishment (reduction in rank) or reward (promotion) and then retire them in their new rank.
Many more privileges and restrictions exist for retirees, and the Air Force Officer’s Guide is a great place to start!
If anyone finds anything wrong with the above please bring it to my attention, with sources.
This urban assault nightmare should never happen here in America. Unfortunately, it has happened, far too often, and often illegally. This happens when the following three things exist:
1. Congress refuses to remove the un-Constitutional provisions in the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).
2. Obama refuses to remove the un-Constitutional provisions in his Executive Orders.
3. Sworn law-enforcement, military, and civilian authorities refuse to honor their oaths of office.
Conversely, when sworn authority is given an unlawful order i.e. one contrary to the Constitution, and they do their duty and refuse the unlawful order, the urban assault nightmare will be averted.
Similarly, if Congress impeaches Obama, as is their duty to do so, this nightmare will be averted. If they bring the NDAA in line with the Constitution, as is their duty to do so, this urban assault nightmare will be averted.
If Obama, brings his Executive Orders in line with the Constitution, as is his duty to do so, this urban assault nightmare will be averted.
This is why we have checks and balances here in America – to avert nightmares such as the one depicted above. Only two requirements must be met in order to avert disaster: Adhere to the Constitution, and do your duty. That’s it! At it’s heart, our system of government is very powerful, yet very simple.
Ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We have the authority, the responsibility, and the duty to tell a wayward government “NO!” They have the responsibility and the duty to listen.
When people at any level, from the joe citizen to Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, shirk their duty to support and defend the Constitution, and instead do whatever they want, the system crashes. It is long overdue for everyone, everywhere, to start doing what’s right by our nation. The best way to begin is by reading, understanding, following, supporting, and defending the Constitution of the United States of America.
Had our President and members of Congress done that, we wouldn’t being hurdling over this fiscal cliff. Our economy would have been strong, and our national debt low.
Please think about this. Think about why consumer confidence tanked just after Obama was re-elected, when it had been on the verge of making a comeback.
Friends who would be your enemies if you did not give them your lunch money are not your friends. They’re you’re enemies! The only way to deal with a bully is to put him in his place.
I was bullied on a number of occasions growing up. When that happened, I tackled them, and sat on them until they cried, “Uncle!” After that, no more bully! At least not to me, anyway, and usually, no longer to others.
When a country or a religious group gets out of line and starts bullying ourselves or others, they need a swift kick in the pants. You don’t need to enter into a prolonged conflict on their soil. You just need to hit ’em hard and fast, while telling them “KNOCK IT OFF!” If they don’t listen, hit ’em again.
Sooner or later one of two things will happen: They’ll either knock it off, or they’ll declare war on us. If the latter, no matter. Doesn’t mean we need to go fight them on their own soil. That’s what they WANT us to do. We have superior intel and firepower, so, sit back and let ’em stew. They’ll either forget about it or will continue to “wage war” against us. If the latter, then impose and enforce trade sanctions. If they build something that’s bad, take it out. If they start waging ware on our soil, take them out.
Whatever you do, DO NOT give bullies your lunch money!
Sadly, our burden of Obamagrift runs into the TRILLIONS of U.S. dollars. He is fiscally raping our nation, and this must stop. What do you tell a rapist? You tell him “NO!”
Write your Congressman, whether they agree with you or not, and tell them “NO!” Write the President and tell him “NO!” Tell them, “It’s our country, and you can’t have it!” Tell them they’re not authorized to give it away, either. Be polite, but be firm, and never back down. Remember, ours is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.
This only works, however, when WE THE PEOPLE stand up and take our country back from those who would run it into the ground.