I'm trying to learn to do a handstand. I found several guides online, but at this point I'm still getting over my fear of falling.

Inorganic life in the plasma clouds of space? I couldn't but think it would make a good Star Trek plot. I wouldn't be surprised if they already had.

I made up a random phrase today that I much enjoy;

If wishes were fishes, my yard would stink.

I read an article linked to on Slashdot yesterday by an Australian journalist talking about reasons why we should continue exploring space and aim towards colonizing out there. I thought it was a nice piece, full of optimism about humanity and technology. The comments, however, were rather sickening. Probably 75% were full of self-hatred and pessimism and doomsaying. When did humanity get to crotchety? The most dispiriting to me were the comments that reflected a hatred for everything human. People seem to think that technology has made us evil and destroyed the planet, but forget that even the "peaceful, noble, living in harmony with nature" American Indians did their best to adapt the environment to them, not the other way around. And as far as colonizing space, many of the comments revolved around how we'll never be able to go faster than light, or even close to it, and so we might as well forget colonizing the universe and concentrate on lowering the population here on Earth so we don't destroy Gaia and the squirrels will be able to survive. First off, why are squirrels more important then humans? And, if Gaia/Earth is really a giant organism that we are changing... Well why can't Gaia evolve/adapt to us some? What's so wrong with that? As far as not being able to go faster than light, that reminds me of the head of the US Patent Office in the late 1800's who claimed that everything that would ever be discovered/invented had already been discovered/invented. If he were alive today, obviously he would eat his words.

We are already seeing scientists coming up with demonstrable and repeatable experiments in which they slow down or speed up light, which tells me the limits such pessimistic people as the aforementioned negative commenters put upon the capabilities of humanity are utterly wrong. We will discover so much over the next century that if those people could be transported 100 years in the future, they would have to eat their words. Of course after adapting to the new paradigm of a century from now, those pessimists will then say, "Well I was wrong back then, but I'm not now. We are at the peak, and there is nothing more to be found." Such shortsighted B.S.


I'm about as optimistic and hopeful for the human race as anyone I have ever met. Every problem humans have ever faced, we have solved. We are immensely resourceful and creative, and we will find a way to travel faster than light some day, or some differing equivalent. Most likely we will find that time and space are somewhat different than we previously thought, and that traveling faster than light in the traditional sense of a spaceship with a big engine is not going to happen, folding space, or hyperspace, or some other science-fiction-seeming idea is not too tough. 10 seconds to Alpha Centauri. I am 100% sure it will happen if the pessimists do not destroy us first. And if humanity does die out, it will be because of the pessimists constantly hamstringing the optimists.

Be pro-science. It's a lot more fun than being a Luddite.

After looking more in depth into the temperature adjustment thing I mentioned a post or two ago, I just wanted to post for the record that the revision is meaningless on the whole and shouldn't have any effect on arguments for or against global warming theories.

It does make you wonder a bit.... The US is generally considered to have by far the best records on temperatures over the last hundred years, and if our records are that messed up, how much worse are other countries? Remember, the US is one of the few places in the world that has had a relatively peaceful, stable government without domestic wars over the last century, and apparently even our records are not completely trustworthy. And that means that climatologists are making these theories based on possibly bad information. Plus it's a pretty new science, and to believe that computers can accurately model a system as complex as the planetary climate is kind of ridiculous. We are making better and better models every day, but what scientists have today will probably be laughed at and considered completely obsolete in 20 years. That's why global warming has become as much a religion as a science. It takes a whole lot of faith to believe in it completely. And anytime someone tells me there is a consensus on something, I automatically distrust it. Consensus is a word used to make you think there's no point in arguing to the contrary, but I can find no end to the number of scientists that disagree with current findings.

I read a hysterical article the other day in which they mentioned that, horror of horrors, some land in Scandinavia somewhere is going to be uncovered by ice for the first time in 10,000 years, as if that is proof of human caused global warming. Except that 10,000 years ago humans weren't polluting the atmosphere with CO2, yet somehow it was hotter back then than in the 10,000 years since. Doesn't that add credence to the idea that the planet goes through temperature changes all on its own?

My theory is that even if the global warming people are 100% correct, in 20 years we will have some new technology that will quite easily solve that problem without humanity having to stunt its economic growth.

As interest rates rise, home prices fall. This is pretty obvious, and the reason I left the mortgage industry in 2004 to work at the Fed. Business was sinking, and I didn't want to drown. Now sub-prime loans are being defaulted on all over the place, mortgage companies like American Home Banc are declaring bankruptcy, and homeowners are finding their main source of equity falling in value rapidly.

Here's what happened by my initial view. Rates fell to a historical low in 1993-1994, so lots of mortgage companies formed to provide refinancing and loans for new purchases. Once most of the easy one had been taken care of, all those new loan officers needed something to do to keep their jobs, so they pushed into the sub-prime market and allowed far too much risk into the equation. Now those risky loans are coming due, and ARMs are rising, and people are defaulting.

However, I read another compelling theory that I want to do a bit research on. One blogger I read said that the push for sub-prime loans came from our economically ignorant elected officials who pushed for expansion of sub-prime lending so that the poor could get in on home-purchasing bandwagon. Great idea for a couple of years, but the consequences turn out to be far worse then the short-term gain. This fits right in with my view of many politicians and their short-sighted urge to help the poor in order to gain easy votes, but I don't know if the theory has any credence. I'm going to do some searching and see if I can find out more to support it. For now I'm sticking with my initial theory.

There's some new and interesting news on the climate front. Various media sources have been citing 1998 as the hottest year on record. Well NASA just published findings showing 1934 was the hottest year on record, and 5 of the top 10 hottest years happened before World War II.

Though admittedly right now feels about as hot as I can remember, but that's obviously a small and irrelevant sample size. It does make you wonder whether the global warming people (Al Gore and the fake scientific consensus) will integrate or ignore these new findings.

A congressman has proposed a $.05/gallon increase in the Federal gas tax to pay for infrastructure improvements to prevent future disasters like the bridge collapse in Minnesota. This is yet another example of politicians using bad news to increase their control over US citizens. It's a simple fact that the amount of money spent by Congress on pet projects and unimportant pork far exceeds the revenue this tax increase would generate. A politician with a proper understanding of economics, and a desire to do the best for the country would know that the money is already out there being wasted. Why are we building "bridges to nowhere" and the like when the money could be better spent fixing existing bridges and roads? And lest we forget, a five cent increase on every gallon of gas sold would have a chilling factor on commerce and shipping.

Congress, the money is already out there and you know it. Stop wasting it and trying to extract more from taxpayers, and start doing what you were elected to do. Help Americans, don't give them the shaft. The contempt Senators like Ted Stevens and David Obey demonstrate for the average taxpayer is disgusting, and their rush to increase taxes while still holding on to their unimportant pet projects demonstrates just how little they care about us, and how much they care about their own personal power.

I saw The Bourne Ultimatum, and man oh man was it great! Best of the trilogy, and left plenty of room for a sequel, even though it sort of came to a conclusion. Rarely does the third movie in a trilogy get better. Now I will grant one complaint people have had, the plot is sort of weak, but who cares? The plot is good enough to drive the action and any holes don't distract from it. If you haven't seen the first two, or don't remember them too well, I think it definitely benefits to rent them. I think TNT or USA has been showing the first one a lot lately.

The media has brewed up a ridiculous Fred Thompson scandal that no one will remember in a day or two. I think the left wing is scared of the guy, so they are throwing a bunch of shit at him, waiting for something to stick. This time he was filmed responding yes to the question, "If the FairTax bill passes the house and senate, would you sign that legislation?" Well duh, the typical thing for a President to do after a bill has passed the House and Senate is to sign it. Unless he wants to veto it. So not a big surprise that he would sign it at that point. The controversy comes when he was asked a similar yet different question a few days later, basically was he really a Fairtax supporter? He, or his office, said no, so the media jumped on him as being a flip-flopper. But that's retarded. Asking if you support something is totally different than asking if you would sign a bill that has passed both parts of Congress. And the mainstream media wonders why their ratings/circulation are constantly falling? Maybe it's because Americans know that they don't get the truth, they get reality filtered through liberal media glasses.