Gun Control - A Brief Look

   I think we all agree suicide terrorist missions are really unstoppable for someone determined to create havoc,  I am focusing on the larger problem and frankly a more serious one of violence In almost every walk of life in America, starting with our government and its perpetual war policy.

  And yes, entertainment does shape culture, and culture does shapes behavior, otherwise why write poetry. And yes again the first Hunger Games movie was totally disgusting and symptomatic of what we call entertainment America. Spend 10 minutes watching a TV zombie movie or show and you will find how many ways the human body can be destroyed. Also disgusting. Violent and misogynistic rap lyrics also are part of the mix as is extreme political demonization and the movies that make heroes of gangsters and murderers. Are we supposed to care about and sympathize with the Corleone family?

  If you think culture has no impact on behavior, well, that's the point we are going to have to agree to disagree.

  The problems for me with the arguments regarding gun laws is that they are mostly anecdotal (someone was saved or someone was killed) or when statistics are used they never compare similar demographics and socioeconomic groups so the conclusions are meaningless. That’s why there is so much debate about the statistics. They don’t give a clean picture.

  Yes there is room for sensible gun laws such as those in California and Chicago. BUT clearly they are not stopping gun violence. Castigating the NRA may feel good and righteous, but they are not the problem.

  WE HAVE CREATED A CULTURE THAT CELEBRATES VIOLENCE AND THEN ARE SHOCKED WHEN THE CONSEQUENCE IS VIOLENCE. We live in a society that calls violence  entertainment. 

  Welcome to entertainment in America.

The Future of the Muslim World

   Having delusional leadership does not lead to a winning strategy. Mr. President, the "I" in IS stands for ISLAMIC. While of course not every Muslim is a terrorist but pretty much every recent terrorist has been a Muslim. To ignore this obvious fact limits thinking when looking for a solution. NOW WE HAVE MORE BOMBING BY MORE WESTERN COUNTRIES. Does this sound like Einstein's definition if insanity? 

- How about acknowledging the obvious and instead of bombing we offer help. And encourage a mostly moribund moderate Islamic leadership to take on and challenge the ISIS movement ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS. If ISIS is distorting Islam, protect Islam. How about a fatwah against the ISIS leaders instead of cartoonists. GET THE DEFENDERS OF THE FAITH TO DEFEND IT IF IT US SO PEACEFUL AS THEY CLAIM AND IS BEING MISREPRESENTED.

- We should not be waging a war of ideas with IS. That is the job of the mainstream alleged moderate Muslim clerics. They need to show what they're made of and defend their faith from those WE claim hijacked it. So far they have been AWOL as have the political leaders of most oil-producing Arab countries.

- A president who seems paralyzed by the fear of offending Muslims inspires very little confidence. Put the ball in the court of the so-called moderate Arab clerics. DRAIN ISIS NOT OF WEAPONS BUT OF THE RELIGIOUS LEGITIMACY YOU REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE!

- This should not be a Western-style war. This should be a war for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world FROM WITHIN the Muslim world.

Start-ups Take on Challenge of Nuclear Fusion

I read with interest Dino Grandoni's article in the New York Times. Being a physicist and interested for many decades in this subject I was not surprised to find yet another article on laser-fusion energy that fails to mention  the company KMS Fusion. This was a small startup founded in 1969 by physics professor Keeve Siegel for the sole purpose of developing controlled nuclear fusion for energy production. By 1974 it had achieved with an investment of about 10 million (not billion) dollars the production of fusion neutrons using their single laser and brilliant design. Their claim to have succeeded in the first step towards successful fusion energy was verified by the American Physical Society and other credible experts. By 1975 the company was essentially on life support and eventually closed, driven to an early death by the vicious jealousies of unsuccessful scientists working at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and by government bureaucrats determined to keep private companies from researching nuclear energy. Incredibly professor Siegel died of a stroke at the podium while testifying before the Joint Congressional Committee on Nuclear Energy about the harassment his company had endured at the hands of the federal government. FORTY-ONE YEARS AGO this company had achieved on a shoestring what other labs are only now managing to duplicate despite the fortunes thrown at the problem over the intervening years. I always find it strangely reminiscent of the novel 1984 how successfully the history and achievements of this company have been erased from scientific awareness or mention. I met personally with Professor Siegel and was privileged at the time (1974) to tour his laboratory. There were no smarter people on earth than those working for him. 

Capitalism vs Environmentalism 1

Unfortunately with the demise of communism, the only system left standing is capitalism. That gives the impression that capitalism is the better economic model. Part of the problem with this is that capitalism has within its nature the seed of its own (and our) destruction: continual growth in a closed system. It is not possible and only leads to eventual ruin. What is missing is an Adam Smith or a Karl Marx who can articulate a DIFFERENT system that does not lead to ultimate exhaustion of resources and destruction of a human-friendly environment. It's not enough to be "against". What is missing is the clear vision of what to be "for".

Republican War with Science. What killed the dinosaurs?

What is it with Republicans and Climate Change? According to every Republican talking head, global warming and its associated climate change are a huge hoax perpetrated by a conspiracy of Democratic Party talking heads and the worldwide community of climate scientists who are making false claims and alleging a false consensus because they are getting paid to do so. In support of these startling claims, they cherry pick data so as to create the appearance of doubt and confusion where none really exists. This tactic has been used successfully for years by the tobacco industry to undermine the credibility of the science relating addiction and cancer to cigarette smoking. For decades people died, confident that the link to cancer had not yet been “proven.” Finally, the evidence became so overwhelming that the deniers could no longer convince enough people that doubt was the wisest conclusion regarding whether smoking was safe or not.

      The same strategy of spreading doubt and confusion where the science is clear is now currently being waged by the Republican party. The hope is that doubt will be maintained as the wisest conclusion regarding the burning of fossil fuels. Just as with cigarette smoking, confusion and doubt are the friends of the moneyed interests. Even among the Republican deniers there is confusion as to what to confuse. 

Republican talking heads at all levels confuse two issues: 1. Is the average temperature of Earth rising? The evidence for this is overwhelming and not an item of belief but of fact. Some of the currently observable indicators of global warming, trends that take decades to establish, are

·      disrupted weather patterns and severity of storms

·      changed migratory patterns

·      rising tree lines to higher elevations

·      diminished glacial melt due to diminished glaciers

·      rising sea level due to thermal expansion

·      net loss of polar ice

·      diminished thickness of arctic ocean ice

·      accelerating melting of the Greenland ice pack

The consequences in coastal real estate lost and the increasing height of tidal surges during hurricanes as the ocean rises have been widely discussed. However, more serious than real estate investments is life itself.

About 30% of the world's population depends on glacial melt to supply its drinking water. With glaciers disappearing at an alarming rate, available drinking water is endangered as well. Think about where loyalties should lie: with the moneyed interests who own coalfields or with humanity. That's a pretty stark choice, but not a scientifically implausible one. And it is beginning to happen before our eyes in Asia. Global warming threatens drinking water security.

      All these indicators are equivalent to looking out the window to see if it is raining. Republican talking heads will point to some measurement or other that by itself would seem to suggest no global warming. That’s like pointing to some model that says the chance of rain today is 60% while the head out the window sees the rain. That’s what is meant by cherry picking the data. The science is settled. The warming of Earth is readily visible by the effects of climate change and disrupted weather patterns as well as by independent measurements from monitoring stations worldwide as well as from satellite data.

       The other issue for Republican attack by sewing doubt and confusion  with confidence is whether human activity (burning fossil fuels) is driving global warming. Republicans conflate the certainty in the case of global warming and the high probability for the case that human activity is a major driver for global warming to diminish the credibility of the climate change argument. Their claim is that where doubt exists, the science is not settled. In other words, the case for human influence is not proven. This is a bogus argument because very rarely does empirical science deal with proving anything. Its business is to establish a high probability that its conclusions are correct. That is exactly the case with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Experimental scientists leave “proofs” to the mathematicians.

      However, let’s take a closer look at human influence on climate. It is well known that carbon dioxide, CO₂, is a significant greenhouse gas. Indeed, so is water. The major products of combustion of fossil fuels, besides ash, are CO₂ and water. Let’s look at the human contribution to putting theses gases into the atmosphere.

      There are about 23,000 coal-fired power stations in the world. An average 500-megawatt station takes about 14,300 train cars a year just to supply just one of these power stations with coal. That's 329 million train cars of coal in one year worldwide. Just one power station produces on average 6 billion pounds of CO₂ per year. For all the power stations worldwide, that's 138 trillion pounds of CO₂ per year going into the atmosphere. Every year! Think about how much gas it takes to make one pound of gas. Take a container and keep pumping gas into it until its weight has increased by one point. Gases are almost weightless, right? So it takes a lot of gas to make a pound. We are talking about putting more than a hundred trillion of pounds of gas into the atmosphere every year. How can Republicans claim with such certainty that the influence of such massive human activity is negligible? Even if the science seems sketchy to them, how can they be so certain there is no human influence? Could it be all about money?

      The numbers above regarding the burning of coal (just one of the fossil fuels) show there are very large dollar amounts at stake here. There are about 100 tons of coal in an average coal train car. At about $50 per ton of coal that’s about $5000 dollars per car load. At about 14,300 car loads per year at one station, that’s about $70,000,000 per year for the cost of coal for one station. There are about 600 coal fired power stations in the United Sates alone. That amounts to a minimum of about $40,000,000,000 per year just in the US, every year. People have been killed for a lot less than that, much less lied to. This amount of money can turn otherwise reasonably intelligent people into dangerous advocates of something really bad. And has.

    What Killed the Dinosaurs?
    by David H Spielberg

    killed the dinosaurs? Really?
    Was it climate change?

    A virus?
    A meteor?
    Or was it simply
    that they'd held the stage too long

    had lost their edge

    and that their time was up?