Science!™ vs science and a proposal for the First Lady of the United States

I'm lost. I don't know what to do. The First Lady has not provided me with instructions. Should I just eat what I want to? This is so confusing! I'm actually kind of offended that I am cared for so little. So, not lost, but offended am I. I need to be ordered around because I am unfit to decide things for myself. Why won't the First Lady order me around self righteously? Heartless fascist!

On a quasi related note, I want a burger. I have not had one in ages, and even though I know it will flush my guts out, I want one.

On a genuinely related note, what I'd really like to see the First Lady lead the charge on is science in schools. I came across an article on the esteemed Beeb about scientists being unable to replicate experiments...both of other boffiny types, but more distressingly, their own.

Looks like we need to get back to basics on the science, eh? I have noted that way too much "science" these days is theory, hypothesis, dogma, or, worst of all, lies. Science is based on the scientific method, wherein the scientist devises an experiment to test a hypothesis. Bonus points for publishing, obviously, but the key is to question, then test. You then go into the test not with an answer in mind, but with an open mind. The results are what they are, and if they can't be replicated, the experiment is defective of the hypothesis is wrong. Not difficult, unless you are using science as propaganda, and that is not something any scientist should tolerate. There is no room for dogma, prejudice, or persuasion in science. A thing is true or false, and if neither can be proven, you are off in the realm of theory.

I leaned all this as a kid, but it seems I was lucky.

More science! All the science! So much science! But let's do it for real...
Take it away, First Lady!

No Justice, no peace

Please allow me to indulge in an almost pointlessly long hypothetical rhetorical experiment.

Cool, thanks.

You turn on the news (ha ha, how quaint!)... okay, you click on done link at whatever the cool kids read on the internet, and you see that Neil Degrasse Tyson has been invited to speak at OBU... only the student body is so enraged that they are setting things on fire, smashing car windows, and blocking access to the admin buildings on campus.

What do you feel?

Is there any excuse for this?

But Chuck, you made a bad analogy! NDT is awesome and nobody could possibly disagree with him! These other folks are EXTREMISTS! They are fomenting HATE!

Uh-huh.

So what if it were Richard Dawkins? Spike Lee? Robert Mapplethorpe? Does it matter? Have we really reached the point where we tolerate setting things on fire better than ideas we disagree about?

I'd like to see a much more robust response to these thugs. Yes, not protesters, but thugs. Protesters do not break things. Thugs do. I'm puzzled why it is that there is any sympathy for them. This is not how to be an adult, this is not how to be a citizen of a free republic... our really anything else save a banana republic.
These thugs need to be arrested and charged with the crimes that they are committing. To let them go is to abridge justice...

Someone once said that a nation gets the the criminals that its justice system deserves. What do we deserve? Lawlessness and riots? At this rate, yes. If we do not bring the thugs to justice, there will be no peace.
Time will tell.

Kaboom

Chemical weapons are bad.

Okay, but anything can be weapon. Killing is bad. Why does it matter how we kill?

A chemical weapon really can't be moralized at all. It's random, kills or mains all, and worst of all, is cruel. To quote the hero of Canton, "I'll kill a man in a fair fight, or if I think he's gonna start one... but cutting people up? Where does that get fun?"
If you need to use a weapon, you have a moral obligation to use it only as needed and only on they that are attacking you. Even a nuclear weapon can be used under these rules. Chem, bio, and radiological weapons can not.

Where am I going with this?
In Syria, we just blew up an airfield. Some are outraged. Why?

Is there any excuse at all for gassing people? If you must kill, kill. Do not cause suffering. But, for crying out loud, why do civilians need to be killed? For disagreeing? For being in the wrong place? The only justification that exist to kill a person is that they are a threat to your life. If they disagree with you, well that's too bad unless they want to injure you. If they don't want to put up with your shit any more, consider less shit.
Assad is a murderer.
Chemical weapons have no place in the world.
Assad should not be allowed to have such weapons.
How could anyone disagree with this?

What about nukes, you say?
What about them?
It sure would be nice if there weren't any, but there are, and not all of them are in good hands. Until that changes, the good guys (those nations that have free elections and recognition of human rights) need to have nukes. Nobody needs chemical weapons. Militaries that use them ought to be punished by the international community by having their stuff destroyed.
Again, there is no reason to have this stuff, it should not be tolerated... especially when we witness it being used on civilians.

I'd love to blow up every base on the planet that holds the stuff.

Trump did us a favor by enforcing Obama's policy.
Also, I don't see a difference, morally, between Assad and Hitler. Both gassed civilians. Gassing one, gassing a billion...you're a monster either way and need to be put down. Maybe lay off the press secretary. Stand in his shoes for a day and see how bad you screw up. The real bad guy here is Assad...and Putin for defending him.

Long live the Blog

By special request, I'm back.
Much has changed.
Much has not.
I still believe that the United States is the greatest nation on the planet, though not without warts. Shout out to Canada, Sweden, and a few others... love you guys!
I still think liars are unfit to lead.
I no longer care about a lot of stuff.
I have developed an affinity for Poe and Thoreau. I still like Lovecraft. I discovered Margaret Atwood. I read a bunch more LeGuin.
I play DnD instead of WoW now.
I own a television.
My office still has no windows, though I work outside a lot.
I still think I'm surrounded by the insane and that most aspects of "normal" life are insane.
Stay tuned.