Monday, January 10, 2022

Why Pope Francis Is Totally Out Of It To Assert Couples Without Kids Are "Selfish"

 

"You all had better make more babies, or else!"

On the topic of American couples who  choose not to have children, I've written before, including why they have the right to decline  and that it's  no one's business but their own, e.g.

Brane Space: Abby Huntsman Displays Her Brilliance Again - on Childless Women (brane-space.blogspot.com)

 And that includes the Pope, who last Wednesday actually insisted couples with no kids - or who choose to just have pets instead- are "selfish".  He further warned that the decision to forego parenthood could even "lead to a loss of humanity and be detrimental to civilization".  A loss of humanity? Detrimental to civilization?  How about hyperbolic humbug from the pope, causing us to ask what exactly he's been smoking?  If he wants to talk "detrimental to humanity"  how about people like the Turpins who spawned 13 kids -  based on an insane religious code - and then let them wallow in feces,  filth,  with limited food (fridge locked up) and often chained to beds.  See e.g.


Abused Turpin Kids Now 'Betrayed' by Social Services System


And this is but one admittedly extreme example, but I could cite dozens where couples who had no business having kids delivered only negligence to their brood, abuse, and often caused them to become runaways.   Can we not agree  then that not all those who decline to have kids are selfish while many who do are selfish (like the Turpin wacko couple),  subjecting their offspring to hideous neglect and abuse out of ego, screwed up religious dictates, or plain desire to dominate.

At the same time let's educate the pope that exercising free will is not equal to being selfish. Can anyone with a working brain, including Pope Francis, process that?  According his scolding Wednesday as  CNN reported: 

"We see that people do not want to have children, or just one and no more. And many, many couples do not have children because they do not want to, or they have just one

And this denial of fatherhood or motherhood diminishes us, it takes away our humanity. And in this way civilization becomes aged and without humanity, because it loses the richness of fatherhood and motherhood. And our homeland suffers, as it does not have children."

The  " reaction was swift and loud" on social media, according to one WaPo account on Friday.   This should not have been surprising given all Francis offered was a form of religious bunkum in the guise of hyperbolic twaddle .  For one thing it takes no account that not all humans have the temperament or desire to have kids. 

 Dismissing that aspect is often what leads to so much abuse and neglect - leaving charitable or social service outlets to pick up the pieces.  This is precisely why it's good for a couple to KNOW in advance they are not "child inclined".   Thus,  Janice and I knew from the get go we lacked the interest, patience and energy to have children, raise them to maturity and all the rest. From the time of our marriage in 1975  we realized we were not cut out to care for kids, or to be there for them.  Further, we had zero inclination to alter the situation though one relatively brief experience with an "adopted" kid confirmed our beliefs.  

This involved  our agreement in 1987-88 to take in an American Field Service (AFS) student of 18 yrs.  At that time, while still living in Barbados,  we were informed "Julie"  was a "sweet kid" but had "a few problems" in two other homes where she'd stayed. Still, she wanted to continue her AFS year,  but wanted to live in a home with an American "parent".   So we agreed somewhat reluctantly to take the risk.   She was nearly a full grown kid so what could go wrong? Well, just about everything as it turned out!

 Alas, we quickly (within a week) realized the decision  was an unmitigated disaster. On numerous occasions the girl exhausted our patience and good will with her spoiled brat, entitled American behavior, e.g. snubbing the home-cooked meals we provided in favor of "American -style burgers and fries" at the Hilton down the road. By the end of her stay in May 1988, we were elated to see the back of her, so was our 19 year old niece Trudi - also living with us at the time.  When people ask why we never had kids we often point to this experience . When they usually add it "would have been different with a kid of your own raised from scratch" we both laugh and say, yeah right - if anyone else would have done the rearing!

Apart from the matter of personal choice re: procreation, let's admit there are already too damned many people on this finite planet, e.g.

We all have to make choices. some good, some bad.  In our case we ultimately decided that a choice to have kids was not only inimical to the kid's welfare but the to the planet's. 

In general, all humans use past experience and current insights (as well as self-knowledge),  to try to make the optimal choices for the people we have in our lives, care about.  These usually involve trade-offs. Most of us have made such choices and sometimes found they might be difficult.  Our "trade offs" entailed being able to travel at will, e.g. to the U.S. and Europe - and also enjoy our respective hobbies - which used money we'd otherwise have had to sock away for a kid's (or kids') education.   Those trade offs we never regretted then, and don't now.  

Why any of this should be so hard for even a pope to grasp is beyond me. Especially as erroneous Catholic dogmas (like against condemning  artificial contraception) do not apply to atheists, agnostics or most Protestants. Even good Catholics ought to question this dreck given those "moral injunctions" are issued out of the magisterium (or teaching office) and not 'ex cathedra' - or from the "chair of St. Peter".  Hence, technically, are not "infallible" edicts.

 It surely  ought to be a no brainer that any potential children coming into this world deserve the best lives they can possibly have, devoid of destitution (too little $ and too many mouths to feed), negligence or impatience that might draw harsh punishments.  Thus, the choice not to procreate can be as morally viable as one to do so - assuming it is made in good faith.  

We both made our decision not to procreate in good faith and it is not up to a pontiff, doctor, minister - or any other scold - to tell us otherwise. Especially a guy who already chose being childless!

See Also:

 
And:



Saturday, January 8, 2022

Looking Again At Cosmic Fractals

 


Having dealt at some length in previous posts  with basic  fractal features, then cosmic fractals and how to obtain their dimension and density, we now look again at the latter in more detail. What I will do is examine an ideal example of a type of simple topological fractal which, with suitable adaptation and modification (mostly by including many self-similar, complex parts) and which could double as a basic "cosmic fractal". I will then show an actual cosmic fractal (or perhaps more accurately what might be considered as such ) and how it compares to the ideal case. These fractal applications are important because they serve to enable us to perceive the cosmos in a new and more practical light, with centers of self-similarity and non-linear complexity that may explain some large scale cosmic attributes, up to an including (maybe) cosmic accelerated expansion.

The most basic way for the cosmos to exhibit a fractal nature is in terms of its dimension. Thus, the universe may well not be four dimensional, or five dimensional, but fractal dimensional with the dimension non-integer, say between 4 and 5. (E.g. 4.2). This sounds counter-intuitive but people need to bear in mind that one of the original founders of the calculus (Leibniz) left open the possibility for a fractal operator in his derivative of a function, F(x), such that:

Given: (d/dx) n  F(x)

The value of n need not be an integer.

In the case of the cosmos at large, one will wish to examine concentric spheres of radii: R1, R2, R3....R N and assess using these radii the density of objects within - assuming a hierarchical configuration. In the most abstract sense then, the cosmos' fractal dimension will depend on regularity between successive expansions factors k, k', such that the dimension will be:


D = (log k')/ (log k)

And one uses radii: r n  = k n  r 0


Where cosmic radius  r 0  contains  N 0 objects, and  r  1 contains  N  1  objects, and so forth.

To fix ideas, let the zeroth radius  r 0  = 1 pc (1 parsec, 3.26 light years). Let it possess  N 0 = 1 (1 object, say a star). Then we go to  r  1  = 10 pc and  N  1  = 100. Then,  r  2 = 1000 pc, and  N  2 = 10,000. 

If one truncates the data right here, then we can establish the expansion factor using the last two r-values:

 r  2   =   k n  r 0   = (1000 )  r 0   = 10 3  (r 0 )

r 1   =   k n  r 0   = (10)  r 0  =   10 1 ( r 0 )

From this we determine: D = log k 3 / log k1  = 3

Note, however, that if   r 2 = 1500 pc (same objects interior) then D = 3.17 and we have a true fractal dimension. In practice, the means to determine an overall cosmic density are nowhere this simple. The main problem is the ability to correctly assess the relevant objects (in this case galaxies, or galaxy clusters) interior to the respective radii.

In the figure, the basic template fractal is shown in 1A. Actually, it is a composite with two deterministic and two stochastic contributions. The deterministic fractals are the shaded and unshaded segments of the circle with radius r in the upper left of the sector. The stochastic parts refer to the fully shaded circle within the sector and and the (open space) set intersection between it and the other shaded deterministic part. The radius R s may be thought of as an applicable scale for the whole, which also subtends an angle q  in arc measure.

In Fig. 1B, the reader will see a sector subtending about five hours (~ 75 deg) of Right Ascension. This is a cosmic snapshot of galaxy distribution obtained using the Two Degree (2dF) sky survey. One comparative aspect immediately visible is the difference in void distribution between the ideal and actual cosmic case. To fix ideas, the void in the ideal fractal sector is more or less uniformly distributed, at least around the circular stochastic element. In the real 2dF sector, the void is distributed toward the periphery of the field. There is much greater fractal density and complexity toward the center of the sector.

Early on, fractal researchers and investigators like Benoit Mandelbrot realized that fractal dimension, D, was not adequate to to accurately assess or determine the topology. A new measure was needed that reckoned in void extent, and that was defined by Mandelbrot as the lacunarity. One may define the lacunarity, L, defined:

L = Nr(k>   R s)/R s -D  

I have taken the liberty of using  R s  in the abstract case (1A) to double as the scale size for the radius of the actual cosmic sector in 1B. There is no loss of generality here, though Mandelbrot used the capital Greek letter LAMBDA to denote it

We take the exponent D= D' = 2.5. In terms of 'N', the actual cosmic sector holds about 100,000 galaxies so N =  10 5. By comparison, the "objects" in Fig. 1A correcting for the spaces and density of deterministic and stochastic fractals are N ~  10 2 .

Now, the denominators for both are respectively, R s - D  = (1)  2.5  = 1

Thus, the lacunarity is solely dependent on N, and for the real cosmic case, the ratio of it lacunarity to that of the abstract or ideal example is:

  L  c / L = (10 5 )/   10 2 =  10 3

Thus, the number of voids is about 1000 times higher. This should not be astounding if one closely inspects 1B. Going through the sector we behold innumerable tiny white spaces , many more than in 1A. Again, for lacunarity, size of the voids is not the issue so much as the frequency of voids overall within the fractal structure. Above all, what we want to see is self-similarity revealed in cosmic structures and perhaps even in the cosmos as a whole.

What does all this have to do with parsing actual cosmic structure? Only that fractal analysis may be of some use in ferreting out the dynamics of cosmic expansion, say, and in particular why interspatial topology alters at a much more rapid rate than appears to be dictated by red shift measurements. Thus, although redshift (Hubble law) calculations show a universe 13.7 billion light years across, the actual radius is more like 46 billion light years- because of the accelerating interspace dimension

See Also:


And:




Friday, January 7, 2022

Biden's Blistering Speech Skewers WSJ Codswallop That Jan. 6 Was Just "A National Disgrace"

 

           Biden in Statuary Hall yesterday delivering a blistering speech against Trump - and a wake up call to the nation on how dangerously close we are to losing our democracy.


"Trump was willing to stage an assault on more than two centuries of democracy in America simply because his all-encompassing ego will not allow him to admit that he was repudiated by more than 81.2 million voters.

And most Republicans, it is now clear, seem just fine with that.  Remarkably enough, Republicans’ desire to cater to the whims of the orange emperor has not lessened in the past year despite his loss of power (and his Twitter account...Indeed, the entire Republican Party has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization.",  Max Boot, Washington Post yesterday, 'Biden Is Right, Trump's Wounded Ego Is Main Reason for Jan. 6'

The figures - political statistics-   I cited in my previous post on January 6th,  barely touch on the level to which our democracy has descended to near oblivion. Much of this is because of citizen complacency especially in an ongoing memetic war waged by the far Right to return this country to Trumpian authoritarianism.  The other part is owing to tens of millions swallowing lies wholesale about an election.  Thomas Jefferson warned of this potential if citizens ceased keeping their minds alert and "improved" - as he wrote in his Notes on Virginia:

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves therefore are its only safe depositories. AND TO RENDER THEM SAFE, THEIR MINDS MUST BE IMPROVED."


Jefferson's message was basically to warn citizens of his era - and all future eras- that government "degeneracy" is inevitable if trusted to the rulers alone.  Thus, the people can only prevent a government's descent - e.g. to autocracy - if the citizens are alert and aware, and especially able to parse rhetoric, see through lies and misinformation.  Hence, the injunction: "their minds must be improved."

 Leave it to President Joe Biden to make a heroic move to that end, in getting all dead heads back to reality about what the day meant.  Especially that it marked a "dagger to the throat of democracy"  - torpedoing the same day's WSJ editorial balderdash (Democracy Isn't Dying')  it was just a "national disgrace" (more on this below). Biden's speech, maybe the best of the past year, reminded the mental sluggards and inattentive just how perilously close we came to losing our 250 plus -year old American experiment.   In his stirring words:

“One year ago in this sacred place democracy was attacked. The will of the people was under assault. The constitution, our constitution, faced the gravest of threats...   The former president of the United States of America has created and spread a web of lies about the 2020 election,

“He has done so because he values power over principle, because he sees his own interests as more important than his country’s interests. Because his bruised ego matters more to him than our democracy or our constitution.

He can’t accept he lost, even though that’s what 93 United States senators, his own attorney general, his own vice-president, governors and state officials in every battleground state have said: he lost. That’s what 81 million of you did when you voted for a new way forward.”


Referring to the cretinous vermin who "used American flags as spears, defecated in the hallways and injured more than 140 Capitol police".   Biden didn't mince words in referencing by actions - but not directly naming  - the orange maggot  at the center of this atrocity: Donald J. Trump.  For spreading a malignant "web of lies" about the 2020 election that enraged his feral mob to violence and still has what's left of their brains in thrall.  As Biden put it" "He could not accept that he LOST!"   

And what did the orange traitor have to say after seeing Biden speak, apart from his deranged claptrap about "the crime of the century" being the 2020 election itself which was "the real insurrection"?:

"To watch Biden speaking is very hurtful to many people,"

Maybe, but in truth only hurtful to the ones who want to tear our Republic to shreds and who buy into Trump's malicious lies.  As for "patriots" - NO! Patriots don't smash windows, threaten lawmakers and defecate in hallways.  That is the province of vermin, of moral reprobates and renegades.  As Biden noted "they came there enraged, following the orders of one man!"  D.C. Officer Daniel Hodges only a night before - in an interview with David Muir of ABC  - related how he was being  crushed between two doors  and beheld his assailant "frothing at the mouth".  

Enraged, his reptile brain in the throes of hyper aggression spawned by Trump's  lies,   he frothed, barked and tried to crush Hodges.  But Daniel Hodges was nowhere near the only victim of the insurrectionists' violence, see e.g.

Capitol Police officer sues Trump on Jan. 6 anniversary, saying he ‘directed the mob’ to violence

As Biden asked:

"What kind of nation are we going to be? A nation that accepts political violence or the rule of law? 

 Well, first of all, as Biden observed - to be a "great nation"  means accepting the rule of law- and that means accepting the truth. Do we? No, not yet!  Let's go even beyond the disreputable spectacle of only TWO Republicans - Dick and Liz Cheney - showing up in the House Chamber  yesterday.  None of the other members, apart from Rep. Cheney, had the nerve to face the truth as dozens of fellow members related their accounts of that day in floor speeches.  No, the absent Reeps were busy applauding the traitor podcast of Steve Bannon featuring Marjorie Taylor Greene and alleged child sex trafficker Matt Gaetz.  The traitor pair also appeared in an alternate hokum media event claiming the Dems were behind the 1/6 assault, e.g.

          Quasi-convicted  (DUI) Reep criminal Gaetz uses bogus video to try to convince morons the Dems were behind 1/6

 How deep in shit are these Reepo brains?  Typical responses to CNN on Twitter featured chestnuts like this: 

"The Democrats were behind it all. There is no way Republicans would act that way!"   

 Actually, they would,  you stupid baboon - given the MAGA mob is on record as even sending tweet storms to FOX - in the days after -  to remind its gasbags it was THE  MAGAs  carrying TRUMP flags who "fought for freedom", not Antifa.  Well, at least they're honest to admit it, unlike the delusional asswits tweeting CNN.

 Then there were the more subtle language truth -avoidance tactics of the reactionary lying, spinning Wall Street Journal,  starting with the disgusting editorial ('Democracy Isn't Dying') with the claim January 6th, 2021 was "no insurrection".  According to these deflecting nabobs:

"The Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021, was a national disgrace, but almost more dispiriting is the way America’s two warring political tribes have responded. Democrats led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi seem intent on exploiting that day to retain power,"

These fools can't even admit that a "disgrace" doesn't begin to cover a direct and violent assault on our seat of democracy to the extent of  erecting workable gallows, using American flags as weapons, disabling police with bear spray, leaving 140 Capitol officers injured, dozens of windows smashed,  defecations in the hallways, and assorted pipe bombs, nooses, plastic ties brought in along with a Confederate flag.  Makes you wonder what type of dope combo these twits were on when they penned that bullshit.  Including that it can't be called an "insurrection" until the evidence appears about secret planning - by motley characters at the Willard hotel.    Don't worry, that evidence is coming and will be presented at the public hearings of the House Select Committee. 

But leave it to the Journal's hacks to be patently obvious in their purpose: basically conceding that for them to use the term "insurrection" would doom the GOP in the midterms.  They aren't worried about Pelosi being 'intent on retaining power" but on too many citizens seeing through the (FOX-WSJ Axis ) whitewashing efforts and rejecting the UNFIT GOP! As I wrote in my previous post, this is merely one of many "attempts to muddy the perceptual waters for the political gain of its ideological fellow travelers - the GOP traitors." 

Then in the same issue we behold a doubling down on this 'no insurrection' rubbish embodied in an insipid op-ed column ('Don't Call It An Insurrection', p. A17) by a blowhard, pedant  legalist by the name of Jeffrey Shapiro. According to this character:

“The demonstrators who unlawfully entered the Capitol during the Electoral College count were unarmed and had no intention of overthrowing the U.S. constitutional system or engaging in a conspiracy against the United States...a real insurrection would have required the use of  violent force and the aim of replacing one government or political system with another."“

It's understandable these Trump- GOP  apologists would want to jettison use of the term insurrection and replace it with an euphemism. It is in their political interest to do so, to ensure a GOP win in the midterms. But to act the part of an ignoramus as this joker does goes way too far.  If the rabble who invaded the Capitol "weren't armed" what does he call the weapons fashioned to injure over 140 officers? As even long time Reep strategist Karl Rove wrote in a WSJ op -ed yesterday: 

"Many wore tactical gear. Some came armed with chemical agents, flagpoles, batons and sticks."

 Going on to reference the havoc and injuries wrought. What does Shapiro call all those flagpoles, batons etc. wielded against the D.C. police- in a "medieval battle"-  to use the parlance of officer Michael Fanone.  What does Shapiro call the pipe bombs left at DNC and RNC offices?  What does he call the Molotov cocktails and rifles seized from one Alabama MAGA head?  Toys?  What is he, an idiot?  What about the bear spray that likely chemically suffocated officer Brian Sicknick and disabled others to the point of having to be evacuated to ICUs?  That bear spray was just innocuous vapor?  What is his IQ, 10?   Oh wait.  Maybe that's his legal I.Q.

Let's be clear the declared claim of the seething pro-Trump rats  included assassination (e.g. of AOC, Pence, Nancy Pelosi) and taking hostages using plastic zip ties.  The final tally of the dead was 5 but it could have been vastly worse, indeed in the hundreds. 

The other aspect of Shapiro's astounding ignorance is he has no remote  clue that the actual effort to replace the Biden gov't (with the loser Trump one)  was being attempted at the same time as the Capitol assault.  All that assault was intended to do was to delay the formal certification (by Pence)  long enough for the suits in Trump's White House and "war room" (including Jeffrey Clarke, Mark Meadows, and likely Jim Jordan) to get alternate electors set up for the key 6 swing states.  Then use the Electoral Count Act- objections raised by the Reeps in House and Senate - to hurl the end result into a de facto tie  (269-269) that would have required state congressional votes to break. And of course the Reeps lead in that dept.  That is a coup, but I also call it part of the insurrection.   

Let’s also note Shapiro was pulled up before on his “overly legalistic” definitions  - this time for  dismissing  “incitement” as a proper basis for Trump’s 2nd impeachment, i.e. inciting the insurrection. This was in the National Review article ‘A Former Prosecutor Misunderstands Impeachment’ (Jan. 11, 2021)  

I rest my case, and again assert Biden's speech - in the wake of all the attempted whitewashing and obfuscation - was badly needed and one of his best. I especially liked his vow to stand in the breach to protect our democracy, something none of the major GOP leaders want to do.  Why would they when they remain all in with Trump as their master and leader.  Where we are at right now is a major inflection point in whether this nation circles further down the drain of misinformation and division, or we come to our senses.  That depends ultimately on whether we follow Thomas Jefferson's advice, first by paying attention to the subversive undercurrents, and second improving our minds to the point we don't fall down a rabbit hole of lies and deception to enable the destruction of the country.   

If we are alert and aware we must acknowledge we cannot put the GOP back into power again until it ceases to be Trump's personality cult. To do otherwise is to invite disaster, not only for this generation of Americans, but many future ones. 

Most odious of all are those - like the deranged Reep mutts in Highland, Michigan yesterday,  who celebrated January 6th in a perversion of "freedom", and those renegades who assaulted the Capitol as "patriots".  There can be no national unity, no comity, until this lot are gone or leave this nation - maybe for Russia - which helped Trump get into power in the first place. In the words of one Denver Post letter writer yesterday:

The assaults on Dec. 7, 1941, and Jan. 6, 2021, are equal. Both were direct attacks on our government, our democracy. In the recent event, the terrorists wanted to totally subvert all of us who legally voted and the Constitution, which was forged over a long period of time to give us a logical, peaceful way and inclusive method of resolving conflicts. They care only about themselves and power.

I regard anyone who participated, gave encouragement or helped in any way with my total contempt. If only there was a way to send them to Afghanistan, Russia or anyplace with a dictator to really see what they were advocating. They don’t deserve to live here.

 Bingo and then some! 

And recall what the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. noted, that what we have most to repent about is not so much the vitriol and actions of the bad people- but the silence and inaction of the good people. More and more speaking out, as the letter writer did, is what is needed now - as opposed to burying heads in the sand pretending the threat isn't as bad as it is. (Or that I am being "hyperbolic" about it in this post.  If you believe that, you either aren't paying attention, or are gobbling too much nonsense from the wrong sources!)

 Reading back over this post, yeah, Janice might be correct there is struck "a highly emotional chord" - that may not appeal to all readers.  Well, ok, fire me.  I believe my Revolutionary War ancestors would be proud of my giving a full-throated defense of truth and genuine patriotism - not the fake B.S. pushed by the 1/6 traitors and their enablers like Tucker Carlson, Matt Gaetz et al., e.g.


See Also:

by Jeffrey C. Isaac | January 8, 2022 - 7:22am | permalink

And:

by Magdi Semrau | January 7, 2022 - 8:53am | permalink

Excerpt:

Over the past few months, the public has been receiving piecemeal information about both this violent insurrection and the quieter plots that preceded it. While there are many unknowns, here is what is certain: there was an attempted coup on American soil.

In the weeks leading up to January 6, Trump and allies plotted to overturn the election and undemocratically seize power from President-elect Joe Biden. Then, on January 6, Trump supporters attacked the Capitol, potentially delaying certification.

Many have viewed these two threads – the ostensibly soft coup and the hard coup – as perhaps independent events. It’s important, now, to outline what we know and what questions are outstanding about the extent to which these various plots – from quiet proceduralism to violent insurrection – were intertwined.

And:

by Joan McCarter | January 7, 2022 - 8:10am | permalink

And:


Excerpt:

Marking the one-year anniversary of the deadly Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol, President Joe Biden delivered his most forceful rebuke to date of Donald Trump, his incessant lying about the 2020 election, and his ongoing attack on American democracy.

Though Biden never once mentioned Trump by name, he repeatedly referred to him as "the former president," turning it into a blistering rhetorical cudgel against a man whose greatest mortal fear—it's indeed existential—is being a loser.  

"He's not just a former president, he's a defeated former president," Biden emphatically stated Thursday, about a third of the way through the 25-minute speech he delivered from Statuary Hall in the Capitol.

But Trump's loss wasn't just one pointed line Biden uttered on the way to making other points. "He lost" was, in fact, the central theme of a speech aimed at rallying every remaining sane American around the goal of saving our democracy.

“Here’s the truth: The former president of the United States has created and spread a web of lies about the 2020 election. He's done so because he values power over principle, because he sees his own interest as more important than his country's interest—than America’s interest—and because his bruised ego matters more to him than our democracy or our Constitution.

“He can't accept he lost.


And:

by Thom Hartmann | January 7, 2022 - 8:23am | permalink