Death By Terrorism Unlikely, So No Worries?

Some people say that since the odds of being killed by a terrorist right now are much less than being killed by lightning, we shouldn’t spend much time worrying about it.  This position, that we don't need to fight terrorism because so far the odds of being killed by a terrorist are very, very low, reminds me of a bad joke. A man jumps off the Empire State Building. Half way down he comments, "OK so far!"

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/413932/why-terrorism-more-frightening-lightning-charles-c-w-cooke

Feckless Policies May Leave No Time To Recover

In the article linked below, Professor Thomas Sowell remarks that today’s feckless policies mirror similarly feckless policies of the 1930’s.  The Isolationism in the US and the appeasement of Hitler in Europe lead to World War II.  He then notes that during the war, the Allies took a long time to make up for the position their feckless policies left them in.  He commented that in a modern nuclear war we may not get the chance to make up for our mistakes.  I would like to explain further why that’s the case.

During World War II the Allies were able to trade space for the time needed to build up the armed forces we needed to win. In those days, flying across the Atlantic or Pacific was done in a B-17 bomber with a cruising speed of 182 miles per hour. Since the bombers range was only 2,000 miles you needed refueling bases to get all the way across. The need for airbases was the reason for the island hopping campaign in the Pacific. Today, a B-2 bomber has a cruising speed of 560 miles per hour and, with air to air refueling, can fly nonstop from its base in Missouri to anywhere in the world. While the distances are the same, the time you can get for a given distance is much less. And, as Professor Sowell says, the destructive power of nuclear weapons also destroys military forces much more quickly than conventional weapons did in World War II. War today is a come as you are affair with very little room for second chances. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/413953/nows-no-time-happy-talk-thomas-sowell

Sequencing DNA and Combinatorics Yield Intelligent Design

I don’t see much conflict anymore between intelligent design and natural selection.  Now that we are sequencing DNA we know that the genetic possibilities are not infinite and they are not random.  Applying a field of mathematics called combinatorics to DNA sequences, gives us a very, very large but finite number of genetic combinations that are mathematically possible. Of those, there are likely a lot smaller but still very large number of combinations that are biologically viable. At this point, if you want to consider the biologically viable genetic combinations intelligently designed I don’t think the science is changed at all.  The natural selection of Darwin chooses which of the biologically viable designs survive and which don't. There's no scientific conflict between intelligent design and survival of the fittest, but there is also no evolution driven by random events. The laws of genetics were all baked in the cake before the natural selection began with the original set of biologically viable designs.

The open questions have to do with the exploration of which of the mathematical genetic combinations are biologically viable. At the moment, we are in the early stages of genetics and can only glimpse that these questions will exist once we get further information. However, I would expect that eventually we will have models that will be able to explore the biologically viable combinations for clues as to hidden aspects of extinct lifeforms. If you want to dwell in the past conflicts of pre-genetic Darwinism versus creationism, enjoy yourself.

The creationists believe G_d designed man. The Darwinists believed man evolved through natural selection. At this point, our knowledge of genetics is leading us towards the position that both are right. So from a scientific point of view, we can stop arguing and get on with more interesting questions.  The only reasons left to argue this are political, not scientific. The argument allows Liberals to feel superior to Conservatives for being "scientific." But the science involved has moved on from the original argument.

Evolution is in the news lately, because Scott Walker refused to answer a question about it.  I think somebody should ask if belief in Darwin is a religious test for holding office in the US. Because any religious test for holding office is unconstitutional. Since Scott Walker refused to answer the question, I think they are assuming he has to answer the question and demonstrate a religious belief in Darwin in order to hold the office of president. They are saying failure to answer the question is disqualifying.

Netanyahu's Speech: Diplomatic Niceties or Nuclear War?

There is a lot of shocked reaction to Speaker John Boehner inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to give a speech to Congress and Netanyu accepting without either of them notifying the White house in advance.  Diplomatic niceties were not observed.  I think we need to put this in perspective.

Our Dear Leader’s deal at all costs behavior with the Iranians is paving the way for a general war in the Middle East, a nuclear war. Only the US Air Force has the capability to deliver a non-nuclear 30,000 pound bunker buster bomb capable of knocking out Iran's centrifuges in their deep underground bunkers. The Smartest President Ever is not going to order that attack even if the Iranians test several nuclear devices. The only Israeli weapons that have a chance at doing the job are nuclear weapons. The absolutely brilliant diplomacy of Barry the Magnificent is leaving Netanyahu with a preemptive nuclear strike as the only way to stop Iran from getting the bomb.

It seems to me that the existence of Israel is threatened. Iranian leaders have called Israel a "one bomb country."  It also seems to me that the White House has decided that a good relationship Israel is surplus to requirements and that our relationship with Iran is more important. The White House believes that an agreement with Iran which will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is very close. I believe that they have spent too much time in Colorado weed parlors, and that the administration's legacy in this area is going to be widespread nuclear proliferation and a general, nuclear, war in the Middle East. At that point, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu giving a speech to Congress without Obama's permission is a nice alternative to an Israeli preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. It seems to me that diplomatic protocol is a lot less important than preventing a nuclear war in the Middle East.

Also, let’s get real. The Chicago Machine Prodigy treats Congress like the Chicago City Council and Prime Minister Netanyahu like the head of the Republican Party in Cook County. Our Dear Leader is arrogant and rude early and often. Nobody should be shocked when his behavior is returned in kind.

If our Dear Leader punishes Israel for this breach of protocol, it will cost Democrats votes. People have started to figure out that the jump from anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism is very short. Voters are also noticing that the friends of Israel tend to be those right wing Republicans that liberal voters have been taught to hate, while Israel's enemies tend to be liberals with a narrative of Palestinian entitlement. The solidity of the liberal Jewish vote is cracking. My Jewish friends are asking me to explain my politics where before they just tried to avoid talking about politics. They have noticed who Israel's friends are. It's early yet, but the Chicago Machine Prodigy is alienating a lot of his former supporters with his antagonism against Israel.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397436/can-israel-survive-victor-davis-hanson#comment-1823847462