Freedom of Speech

Regarding Gwen Berry, the athlete that turned her back on the anthem. And, yes, I know this will upset some of you. But I don’t care.

It’s called freedom of speech. Freedom of speech doesn’t just apply when the majority of people don’t want you to have freedom of speech. It applies always. Including if someone wants to yell out “fire“ in a crowded theater. (SCOTUS be damned.) That would be a dick move, but that person will probably not be allowed back in again and rightly so.

While I, as a military veteran of three tours overseas, don’t appreciate her actions I can respect them. I put my life on the line for her right to be a dick. That’s called freedom. She wasn’t putting anybody else’s life in danger, so if that’s how she wants to protest then I’m OK with it.

Why is there a national anthem again? Didn’t we get out from under the thumb of the Crown so we could start a new country free from dogmas and superstitions? Why do we have compulsory pledges to a flag in our public schools? (I know why, but do you?)

So, yeah… If she wants to do that, OK. We live in a partly free country. (But that’s something I will be addressing in my book.) But if you’re going to be upset about something, how about we stop bailing out banks, sending our troops overseas to help the banks get more power, stop setting one set of laws for one demographic while the wealthy demographics have a different set of laws, stop having different rules for drug users when cocaine gets you 10% of the time of a crack user, stop sending our troops to VA centers that don’t give a crap about the veterans, etc etc etc.

But yeah, totally be more upset about a US citizen protesting at a fucking game.

Take care of this planet.

(Taken from a blog post from three years ago.)

I finally have time to spout my opinions on this winter vortex, so please enjoy. Or move on. Especially if you still believe the earth galaxy and universe are all less than 100,000 years old. This won’t be for you unless you’d like to learn a little real science. 🙂

So, the earth has been through four or five ice ages, (depending on the scientific community to which one subscribes), and it was supposed to start its latest one about 10,000-25,000 years ago, (see first parenthetical). What’s causing the earth to delay the latest ice age? In my humble, unassailable, highly-informed opinion: two things could be causing it.

After each peak of ice coverage in each ice age as the ice started to melt away, CO2 levels peaked [relatively] shortly thereafter, then receded. After the last ice age one major thing sticks out: Us. We started farming, cutting down trees, etc. which released all of the CO2, that plants normally hold inside, into the atmosphere. Core samples show that after the last ice age CO2 levels rose to the [relatively] same peak, but haven’t yet receded and have trended up and down over the past 40,000 years depending on population density and such. Could this be playing a factor in the delay of the tardy ice age? Possibly. Could the recent and sudden cold snaps be a precursor to its coming? Perhaps. But we don’t know, because we’ve never been able to study an ice age first hand and carbon dating has a wicked margin of error. So we shall have to wait and see if the Earth will compensate and follow its normal cycle, which leads me to option 2.
Now then…the earth is a really big place and has maintained an equilibrium with its passengers for a reallllllly really long time. Up to 25 different species of animals die off every day due to environments constantly changing and adjusting to the constant changing and adjusting in every single facet of this planet. Things that determine just the temperatures on our home include the axis of the earth (intensity of direct sunlight), the earth’s orbit (which isn’t a perfect elliptic but more like a drunken sailor running around a race track) the cycle of the sun (about every 11 years it goes through varying degrees of hot and not-as-hot) and a few other things I cannot remember off the top of my shiny head. The “optimum” combination of these variables led to the previous ice ages, and the internal things like CO2 levels were a by-product.

So with all of these things that humans cannot affect, is it possible that when the next ice age comes it will be more of a body slam instead of a gradual process because of humans keeping CO2 levels from decreasing like they historically have done? Possibly.

Do any of us know for sure? Nope.

Should we make drastic decisions about trying to control nature and bend it to our will? Nope.

Should we squander resources and be wasteful all in the name of profit or trying to be the “best?” Nope.

Basically what I’m trying to say here, is that we really are super young as a species and really pretty much don’t know jack about jack in the big scheme of things. But we should still be mindful of how our actions affect our home, while understanding that our home doesn’t care about us and is going to do whatever it’s going to do regardless of our wishes/beliefs/tactics/etc.

So stop with the “global warming” crap because if we hadn’t created global warming there’d be no New York City or Green Bay Packers or or or because the ice would be covering the majority of the northern hemisphere and you wouldn’t be here to complain. So be grateful. 😉

And understand that whether or not we reduce CO2 levels in our lifetimes or the next, eventually this planet is going to do what it normally does: float around the sun and not care about anything. It’s our job to care for our home if we’d like it to not turn into a barren wasteland due to our poor housekeeping. Aside from that, you should all move south of the Nebraska-Kansas border’s parallel eventually. Like…within the next 1,000 years or so.

Cognitive Dissonance

A quick but really unsavory progression for you:

When presented with evidence that contradicts something you previously held to be true, you instantly enter a state of cognitive dissonance.

**Cognitive dissonance is a theory of human motivation that asserts that it is psychologically uncomfortable to hold contradictory cognitions. The theory is that dissonance, being unpleasant, motivates a person to change his cognition, attitude, or behavior.

Next up, you go through a process of deciding if the evidence warrants a change of position on the subject and if the evidence is strong enough, you would be wise to change your position. However, if the contradictory evidence challenges something in which you have vested your entire life’s meaning then, most likely, you will be subjected to cognitive bias.

**A cognitive bias is a mistake in reasoning, evaluating, remembering, or other cognitive process, often occurring as a result of holding onto one’s preferences and beliefs regardless of contrary information.

And finally, if you have so thoroughly convinced yourself that the evidence presented is not personally acceptable to you, then you unwisely end up in the arena of confirmation bias.

**Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one’s beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one’s beliefs.

So the question is this: will you choose to grow as a human being and become more intelligent and learn as much as you can in your lifetime, never being afraid to admit when you are wrong, thus becoming a fountain of knowledge from which future generations can draw understanding thereby leaving this world in a better condition than the one it was in when you entered it?

As Isaac Asimov stated, “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!) but ‘That’s funny…’”

Choose wisely. 🙂