The problems many have today appear to me as follows:

‘Religion’ was once the part of society concerned with answering the questions of the soul. The fundamentals were first learned at the knees of the parents, in the same manor as all other important fundamental knowledge and skills. From there teachers from among the community taught the advanced knowledge, and where to go to find out about the specialized questions as each individual desired to answer or have answered.

Evil seeks diligently to destroy both the institutions of Family and Religion, and replace these with itself if anything at all, today usually in the form of Government.

Religion is attacked by internally damaging the true teachings it has, and then exposing or replacing them, thereby destroying confidence in religious teaching in general. Religious Organizations are attacked in the same way that all organizations are: by getting and then exposing people within the structure who are more concerned with their own power and prosperity than the message and goals of the organizations, thereby destroying confidence in said organizations.

Family is attacked by destroying support for its natural form, one man and one woman being married and parents to the children in their care, and replacing this with any and every other idea evil can concoct. In the USA this has been partially accomplished by, but not limited to, replacing Fathers and Husbands with the Welfare State; and now by attacking traditional and historic societal definitions of marriage, and personally attacking the personal morality of the defenders of traditional morality.

The point of this monologue:

Religion is supposed to teach the answers to the questions of the soul. But confidence in religion has been shattered over the last several generations, and the answers that are given by most religions today are not trusted, if not completely discarded.

Traditional Religion having proven inadequate, answers are looked for in ‘Science.’ But the answers cannot be found there, or they would have by now.

Family is supposed to lay the foundations that Religion should build on, but families have also been shattered and the heads of many families today rejected the answers to these questions they were given by their parents, or were never given answers to begin with, and do not have satisfactory answers of themselves to give to their offspring.

I submit this is why so many people cannot answer these questions.

Solution: Find True Religion that evil has not and cannot corrupt. True Religion does and will answer questions of the soul. What answers it cannot provide, it is honest about not being able to.

Book Cover Ideas.

About time I actually put some doodles on this.

Here are some ideas for the cover of a book I am working on. I am trying to decide which would be best. None of these are remotely final. I am just trying to throw stuff up and see what sticks. The font is not fixed.
#1
#2
#3
#4
Another ideas involves a star field. The story happens on a different planet form Earth, though part of the story does happen here.  #5
Still other idea that I have not yet sorted out is using the text as a mask between the star field and the hills on the horizon. for that I would like a larger, block font to use for the mask.
Other ideas also include stills of some of the settings, or scenes from the text. or a blank field with a symbol of some kind with the title and by-line grouped together or at opposing positions.
Hopefully without being too pretentious, it is book 1 of several. That is how writing the story has gone.
The story these are cover options for is found here: http://jabberwalky.squarespace.com/tywacomb-book-1

Progressive? Regressive? What are you talking about? I'm a conservative.

Robert Reich posted on Facebook

What’s the difference between progressives and their opposite – regressives? Progressives believe we’re all in it together: We all benefit from public investments in schools and health care and infrastructure, and from efforts to reverse climate change. We all do better with strong safety nets, reasonable constraints on Wall Street and big business, and a progressive tax system. Progressives worry that the middle class is shrinking, a quarter of our nation’s children are poor, and the rich and privileged have become powerful enough to undermine our democracy. The issue for progressives isn’t the size of government; it’s who government is for: It should be for all of us, not a privileged few.

Regressives take the opposite positions. They believe each of us is on his or her own: Investments in schools or health care or infrastructure are better done through private individuals and corporations than government. Safety nets coddle the weak. Those who are losing ground lack adequate education and ambition, and must learn to take responsibility for themselves. Those who are thriving are entitled to their rewards; constraints and taxes on them only reduce their incentive to invest. They have every right to their disproportionate power and influence. Regressives want to take us back to 19th century social Darwinism

Rebuttal: point by point.

Progressives believe we’re all in it together.
Of course. But what is the order of priority: Most Conservatives choose Self – Family – Neighbor – Community – State – Nation – World in that order. The Religious ones include God in there somewhere.

“Ask NOT what your county can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

What I cannot do by myself, I will seek help from family to do.

What they cannot help with, I will seek help from my neighbor to do. This was the genesis of the many benevolence societies, which Big Government and progressives have waged ideological war against.

If my neighbor needs help, I will help to the best of my ability and means.

What my neighbor cannot help with, I will seek help from my community and the Free Market to do.

Government’s Job is to do for the various levels from Community and above what cannot be or should not be profitably done by the Free Market or individual. In regards to the relationship between Government and Free Market: it should be more in line of Referee, enforcing the agreed upon rules of the Market thought the Courts and Judicial Authority, rather than riding roughshod and trying to control it by bureaucratic regulation. Government is best kept Local, with those governed involved in the governing.

A Moral People are internally regulating, and do not usually need external regulation beyond Religion. Immoral People, on the other hand . . .

We all benefit from public investments in schools.

Where is it said this is Government’s responsibility or job?

This is best done at the Self – Family – Neighbor – Community level, rather than any higher one. Big Government need not to be involved.

We all benefit from public investments in health care.

Where is it said this is Government’s responsibility or job?

The Free Market was doing a good job before Big Government got involved.

Some things require more than one is immediately able to pay. the Free Market had ways of handling that.

Some things are better done outside of the profit motive. But there are non-profit organizations in the Free Market that can take care of these. Also in-industry certifying bodies can provide internal rules and penalties. Big Government need not get involved beyond refereeing the Immoral and Criminal.

We all benefit from public investments in infrastructure.
Agreed. Local Government and the Free Market working together usually produce the best results. Granted there are some places where extra help is needed, or the project is larger than the immediate Local Government can handle. Then apply to the appropriate closest level of Government.

We all benefit from public investments in efforts to reverse climate change.

Where is it said this is Government’s responsibility or job?

I seriously doubt Man-Caused-Climate Change to begin with. On a small scale where man has built up significant areas of increased thermal mass – i.e. large stone and glass and steel cities – or where Man has carelessly caused damage in some areas, yes there is some. But global scale? No. The cycles of the climate are driven by much more than Man could affect.

Is this claimed damage as large as the Man-Caused-Climate Change advocates say? I do not believe so.

Is there good to be done? Of course. Clean is profitable.

I think this is one more wedge issue used by those seeking for power over their fellow man.

We all do better with strong safety nets.

Where is it said this is Government’s responsibility or job?

Free Market Non-Profit Benevolent and Religious Organizations handled this well, until Big Government muscled in and took over most of the market.

Further, Big Government has changed this from a safety net program that helps people get through hard times and recover from disasters, to a Dependency-in-Perpetuity Big Government Program that encourages abrogation of work ethic and responsibility.

We all do better with reasonable constraints on Wall Street.

Making a profit is not evil. Government’s Job should be more in line of Referee, enforcing the agreed upon rules of the Market thought the courts, rather than riding roughshod and trying to control it. Further it has a job of enforcing society’s laws upon law breakers.

A Moral People are internally regulating, and do not usually need external regulation beyond Religion. Immoral People, on the other hand . . .

We all do better with reasonable constraints on big business,

Yes, Moral Constraints on the individual. See above, and below.

We all do better with a progressive tax system.

A Progressive Tax System is not designed to generate revenue to fund the Government. It is designed to artificially constrain wealth creation and generation, and to redistribute said wealth from the producers to the non-producers. It robs the individual of the incentive to work hard by eliminating the profit motive, and thus destroys the work ethic.

A Flat Rate Tax System with equal application to the whole population, and no extra regulations and ‘loop holes’ is preferable.

Personally I would do away with withholding and require citizens to pay on their own.

Progressives worry that the middle class is shrinking.

The best cure for a shrinking middle class is manifold.

First: Shrink Big Government, and return as much of the Government’s activities to the local or otherwise appropriate level as possible. Thus let the economy loose to grow, enlarge and enrich the middle class.

Eliminate as many redundant and obsolete regulations and rules as possible. This is done by auditing the entirety of the Code, and passing through Congress appropriate legislation to be enacted by the President to eliminate said pieces.

Auditing all regulations of all departments and likewise removing redundancies, obsolesce, overreach, loop holes, etc. This done by Congress passing appropriate legislation, which is then enacted by the President.

Eliminate as many redundant, unnecessary, and obsolete programs and departments as possible. This is done by consolidation of existing departments and programs to the appropriate level of Government, and elimination of departments and programs by Congress passing appropriate legislation, enacted by the President, by other appropriate levels acting accordingly.

Require Federal departments to justify their existence, new regulation and budgets before the Congress, and their activities before the Executive and Judicial branches. Echo this across the other levels.

Second: Eliminate the Progressive Tax System and all other taxes; individual, corporate, death, etc. Install a Flat Rate Tax System based on two main principles. The first principle is allowing generation, control and distribution of wealth by individuals in the Free Market. The second principle is funding the Government, with a minimum of deficit, by equal percentage contribution of all governed.

Third: Control the National Border and manage the incoming and outgoing population of foreign nationals. In doing this, make the system as simple as possible, as friendly as possible, and easier and more desirable to deal with than not.

Forth: Restore the Free Market, with appropriate Governmental Refereeing. Allow refereeing of commerce to return to the appropriate other levels of government. Referee international trade, applying appropriate tariffs and trade barriers and restrictions. Protect intellectual property and rights thereunto.

Fifth: Encourage the transition of Unions (organizations that pit management vs. employees, shrinking the knowledge and job pool) to Guilds (organizations that encourage management and employees to work together, increasing the knowledge and job pools.)

Sixth: any and everything else not covered here that encourages freedom, responsibility and independence.

Progressives worry that a quarter of our nation’s children are poor.

Agreed. Remove all Big Government blocks to economic growth, all incentives to government dependence, all governmental incentives against and disincentives toward the formation of the traditional nuclear family.

Encourage family and parental responsibility, and work ethic. Everything else will happen by matter of course.

Progressives worry that the rich and privileged have become powerful enough to undermine our democracy.

Class Warfare. Since the Progressives generally ARE the rich and privileged in the public eye, and since a Democracy was generally defined by Aristotle as a government composed of a lot of people working in their own interests instead of the interests of their neighbors, and an Oligarchy as a few working in their own interests instead of the interests of their neighbors; I agree heartily.

Solution: get the not-rich, not-privileged, not-in-the-public-eye reengaged in their Republic (generally defined by Aristotle as a lot of people working in the interests of their neighbors). Restore the republic, as narrated above, and the rich and privileged (i.e. Progressives) will be compelled by societal pressure to a more benign position within it.

Gee, that sounds to me like the origin of the Tea Party. (Decide for yourself it that is where its at today.)

The issue for progressives isn’t the size of government; it’s who government is for: It should be for all of us, not a privileged few.

Of course, the issue is not size of government. Many progressives see one of the functions of government as ‘make work for the masses.’
Aristotle defined a Republic as a lot of people working in the interests of their neighbors.

Local Government is the best government: it is most reactive to those it is empowered by and least likely to be corrupted in the long term, particularly when everyone takes their turn in it.

A large centralized distant government is not responsive to those it is empowered by, is prone to long term corruption, and comparatively few ever work in it. History shows it becomes for only the privileged few.

If progressives were truly worried about solving class warfare, they should stop stirring it up.

Regressives take the opposite positions.

Regressives, sure. Conservatives as far as I know them, do not.

They believe each of us is on his or her own: Investments in schools or health care or infrastructure are better done through private individuals and corporations than government.

See above, lest I repeat my self.

Safety nets coddle the weak.

Safety nets are necessary. Their conversion to a Hammock and Dependency-in-Perpetuity is to be discouraged, shamed, and avoided.

Those who are losing ground lack adequate education and ambition, and must learn to take responsibility for themselves.

Many of these are victims of generations of:

Big Governmental economic and social interference;

ill-conceived social engineering that has destroyed the traditional nuclear family for generations;

institutional progressive indoctrination against the history and traditional values that underpin moral individuals, families and society.

Those who are thriving are entitled to their rewards; constraints and taxes on them only reduce their incentive to invest.

Since the Progressives generally ARE the rich and privileged in the public eye, they project or are assigned the attitude that they are entitled to their rewards. Since human nature is to retain what you have, of course they resist and avoid anything that reduces their riches and privileges.

The 'thriving' that I know are working their fingers to the bone just to keep financially afloat and independent.

They have every right to their disproportionate power and influence.

Do they? The power to govern devolves from the consent of the governed. I never gave consent to the governmental overreach and expansion that is going on.

No one has an inborn right to govern.

No one has divine right that was not publicly installed by God. There were many that claimed this by theater, but God has not made much loud noise on this front is some time. He allows men to create political constructs, but will hold them accountable for their individual behaviors.

Regressives want to take us back to 19th century social Darwinism.

As opposed to the 21st century social Darwinism? I though Darwinism was part of the religious catechism of Progressives, and their related collectivist cousins Socialists and Marxists; as part of their rejection of revealed religion and God.

To summarize Conservatives as I know them, on these principles:

We are in this world together, with the following priorities: Self – Family – Neighbor – Community – State – Nation – World in that order, with none left out. The Religious ones include God in there somewhere.

Individual Liberty, Responsibility and Independence of Moral Individuals are of greatest value.

The Free Market is not synonymous with greed (to say it is, is to perpetuate a lie); personal investment does reflect personal priorities. When paying for schools and education as in all other areas of the Free Market, where the money goes should be dependent on the quality of the education received. Health Care is the responsibility of the individual and family, and best handled in the Free Market; this is not to exclude others getting involved as invited, or required. Infrastructure is a joint responsibility, with the Government contracting with the Free Market to maintain and expand it as needed. Safety nets that help people get through hard times and recover from disasters are desirable, but dependence on them is not. The Free Market where participated in by Moral Individuals is self regulating, because Moral Individuals are self regulating.

Moral Individuals will look after the poor, and seek to help each other elevate themselves so far as the individual is able and willing. This leads to a minimally sized Republican Government doing only its assigned jobs, built from the Local level through ascending levels of society where everyone is invested, interested and equal before the law.

Its an Enigma. Ciphers, codes, and languages

Something I have been reading and thinking about lately.

Where it started: Numberphile is an amusing website of math related videos.

First - video: Numberphile – on YouTube. This one is looking at an Enigma machines and the math behind it. Also some tangents about other things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2_Q9FoD-oQ

Second - video: further information about Enigma, and the math, and some exploration of the men worked on breaking Enigma. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4V2bpZlqx8

Third - video: this looks less at Enigma specifically and more at cryptography in general. I will let the video speak for itself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2_Q9FoD-oQ

There are a handful of other tangentially related videos on the ‘also watch’ list for this video, of varying quality and information. Feel free to browse.

For further cipher machines and the efforts to decrypt them, look for the ‘Lorenz cipher’ and the ‘Colossus machine.’ Also ‘Purple’, and ‘Ultra’ ciphers. Most all of these came before or during WWII.

Forth – book: the third video references this book. “The Code Book” by Simon Singh. http://www.amazon.com/Code-Book-Science-Secrecy-Cryptography/dp/0385495323/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423511484&sr=1-1&keywords=the+code+book

I found this book first at the library, and then popped for a copy from Amazon. It is very interesting in its discussion of cryptography, and telling a brief overview of the history of the subject. Some parts of it you may need to chew on to get through.

Many of the ideas that the book addressed are in the above third video.

-          Cipher shifting, where you scramble the alphabet by moving the whole alphabet x characters in a given direction. Related are all the variations possible for a given alphabet (in this case it concentrates on the Roman alphabet.)

-          Frequency analysis of the characters in a given alphabet, and comparison of the frequency of the characters in an encrypted message. The output of this idea is not unfamiliar to “Wheel Watchers.” Thought never mentioned in the book, “Wheel of Fortune” contestants use this frequency analysis in its puzzles. ‘R,’ ‘S,’ ‘T,’ ‘L,’ and I’d like to buy a vowel ‘E.’

-          Mechanical ciphering, where a machine is used to encrypt the message. Enigma gets the spotlight, but Lorenz, Ultra and Purple get some mention.

-          Language ciphering, where instead of using the same language or character set to encode the message, you switch to a completely different one. This is much harder to do mechanically, with analogue machines.

-          Digital ciphers and public encryption with private keys. This is one area that was only theoretical until the technology caught up to it. Read the book for more, as there is no way I can begin to describe it.

There are a handful of names that show up in this book that have a bunch of influence in other things, and a few that do not get their just due.

Notables on Ciphering

Vigenére – developed the concept of cipher shifting beyond using a single shifted alphabet.

Babbage, Kasiski – defeated the Vigenére cipher. Babbage also developed the concepts of a programmable machine, in ‘Difference Engine #2.’

Notables on mechanical ciphering.

Marconi – developed the radio, requiring the spreading of Morse code. (An open key cipher)

Scherbius – developed the Enigma machine, and built the company that made them.

Rejewski – first broke the Enigma for Poland before the war started, building off of French intelligence. Developed a technique to break the code from which he developed the design of and built the first bombe, in Poland.

Turing – built on Rejewski’s work after the fall of Poland, and improved the bombe.

Peripherally involved in the construction of Colossus. Developed the principles for the architecture of the modern computer, knowingly or not echoing and expanding on ‘Difference Engine #2.’

Notables on language ciphering

Young – linguist who began cracking open hieroglyphics, from the Rosetta stone among other sources.

Champollion – archeologist who built on Young’s work to reestablish Hieroglyphics, and developed further principles for translating lost languages.

(A whole group of people who cracked and opened up Linear B.)

Johnston – presented the idea of the Navaho code talkers to the U. S. military. Helped develop the training and recruitment.

Notables on Digital Ciphers

A whole group of people exploring new ways to encode and decode information, particularly with the advent of digital computers.

This stream of though pools with another that is sourced around John Von Neumann. I will leave exploring that for another posting.

One side note:

The Prophet Joseph Smith and the translation of languages. The traditional and held to statement is he accomplished the work of translating the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. But many wonder as to the actual mechanics involved. I am not going to begin to explore this.

Rather looking at the above principles of ciphers and decoding, I am curious how long it took him to learn and read the language on the plates? Not addressing the process, just the accomplishment. Then building from that reservoir of knowledge, how hard was it to begin to translate the scrolls that came into possession of him and others in Kirtland Ohio, in about 1835?

The Book of Mormon tells us that the language on the plates was a 1000+/- years removed variation of Reformed Egyptian. Also this language was had in its original on the Brass Plates that Nephi originally took at the start.

Nephi was in Jerusalem in 600 B.C. The written Egyptian languages at the time were hieroglyphic, hieratic and demotic. Hieratic was a shorthand or lowercase of hieroglyphics, that was initially common use and later moved to being primarily used by the priest-caste. Demotic was developed about 660 B.C. and used everywhere hieratic was not.

Question: which script were the Brass Plates written in?

Answer: we don’t know.

Question: which script was the Nephite variant Reformed Egyptian based on?

Answer: we don’t know.

Question: what language was on the scrolls that came into the possession of Joseph Smith and others in Kirtland?”

Answer: I do not know. Scholars who have access the remnants may know. But this gets to my point: I think that Joseph Smith had enough memory of the language on the plates, to pick up similar characters on the scrolls, and thus have an easier time of translating them into what we have of the texts.

Tangent: What all was on the scrolls? Answer: Go ask John Gee at F.A.R.M.S. http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/20/1/S00009-5176a4d94ae9e10Gee.pdf

Don't Run, Forest! Don't Run!

MITT for President!

Ann Coulter for President!

Jeb for President!

Mark Levin for President!

Sarah Palin for President!

Hillary for Emperor!

JoeBiden for Gaffer-in-Chief!

Ron Paul for President!

Bo Grites for President!

What I really want from the political class is a year of silence about ANYBODY running for President. If they really want my vote, let them shut up about elections, and go out and sell the ideas.

Ronald Reagan spent years going around the country talking to and with the people about ideas and listening to what the people wanted. The current political class lectures the people about what should be done and how the politicians are the ones to do it.

What I see is a Cult of Personality doing its best to get me to worship at its altar.

What I want is a Cult of Ideas doing its best to sell itself to me.

So shut up about “I’m running for President” and start talking about the ideas you want to implement, and listen to the ideas the people want implemented. Figure out how to reconcile the two and talk about how anyone can do it.

Unfortunately this appears to be a pipe dream.

Lastly:

MITT: I agree with your Wife: DON’T RUN!

JEB: listen to your Mother: DON’T RUN!

'Have you been saved?' 'Have you been forgiven?' Do you use the same vocabulary?

Starting point of division: Conception, perception and understanding of the nature, and characture of God.

The world teaches that god is a thing that is unknowable, unpersonable, and uninterested.
The world teaches that the church is a corrupt organization set up to:
- empower those within its structure, and protect them from any consequence of their wrong doing
- to stifle and oppress everyone else
- compete with any and every other benevelant organization that seeks to do good.

This as opposed to:
A god who created man in his image, is very knowable, is interested in man's wellbeing, and waiting and eager for a personal relationship with each man individually.
The church is an organization for:
- the teaching of the principles by which this interested God would have man live in peace and joy, then allowing each and all to govern themselves
- seeks to enoble and uplift all so far as each is willing to abide truth
- set a pattern and framework for serving and doing good.
- - -
It came to my attention while listening to a man on the radio that the LDS church does not have the same conception of Grace and Forgiveness and 'The Cross' that so many in the sectarian community appearantly do. That when asking if a member of the LDS church is 'forgiven' the LDS person cannot answer with faithful assurance that he has and is.
'They' are right, somewhat. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we do not emphaisize this doctrin as much as some suppose we should.

I am not versed in apologetics, and am not going to try to give a scholarly answer.

My perception of Grace, as taught in the LDS church and from the books we hold to be scripture is mainly two fold: 1) God doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves, 2) God in his mercy giving to us what we do not in justice merrit.
'By grace ye are saved after all ye can do' is the phrase from the Book of Mormon. This is taught to mean that Jesus as the Messiah and arbitur of the atonement, or 'The Cross', has right and authroity to set the conditions of it. Which conditions are to:
- exercise faith in Jesus as the Savior
- repent of my sins
- recieve the ordinances and associated covenants from those who have the authority to administer them
- then live by those covenants seeking to be 'perfect as the Father which is in heaven is perfect.'
In return he will and does forgive my sins, he also empowers me to be and do greater good according to my obedience to the principles of the covenants from the ordinances.
I understand 'The Cross' to be sectarian vocabulary for 'the atonement of Jesus Christ' drawn from Paul's letters in the New Testament. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints we understand this principle to essentually be:
- Jesus took upon himself the just punishment of all mankinds sins
- in this He redeamed Man from the Fall, and overcame the 'second death' or death of the spirit wherein man is forever cut off from God the Father.
- and then died and was resurected so that we may all be likewise resurected, and overcame the 'first death' or death of the body wherein man is left without a physical body.
Our understanding is that this did not just happen at the cross, but also in Gethsemany at the time when he sweat blood, and at the tomb. I.E. the whole passion, not just the cross.

Summary: when asked 'have you been saved?' or 'have you been forgiven?' the faithful Latter-Day Saint should automatically answer 'Yes.' Except that that is outside of our vocabulary.
Being outside of the vocabulary is not outside of the truth.
'Have I been forgiven?' meaning have I recieved the grace of god whereby I have been absolved of my sins? I try to be. But I am imperfect and keep adding to the burden, and have to go ask for more. Forgiveness in not a one-shot deal but a daily struggle coupled with the daily struggle of obedience. That is why The Sacrament is a weekly event. Have my past sins been forgiven? Yes. My future ones? Only if I repent of them, or don't make them.
This goes back to the 'second death' and being redeemed from the fall and from sin. Obedience to the law of repentance is Jesus' condition for this.

'Have I been saved?' meaning have I done all that Jesus requires of me to enter the Kingdom of God in this life and the one after the resurection? Yes.
This goes to the 'first death' or the seperation of the body and spirit. By the grace of god all recieve this gift who meet the condition. Which condition is to rcieve a physical body.

Should this difference in vocabulary be emphasized more? Perhaps.

XP vs Linux

My desktop computer's motherboard died 18 months ago.
My laptop has been running XP, but is too old in hardware to migrate to a newer version of Microsoft Virus OS.
So I am considering making the jump to Linux for my old hardware.
Money has been a chief consideration for the last years. Thanks to my being chronically underemployed i have not had the spare change to replace or upgrade my computers.

All my written documents are in .doc format, having resisted making the switch to the .docx. I have been paying with SketchUp, since my laptop can not run Maya. I have been playing with AutoCAD some. I have a bunch of stuff that i play with in Photoshop.

I understand that there is a comparable office suite, image manipulation program, and internet and email setup available. Autodesk has had a good relationship to Linux, so those programs are not a great hassle.

The problem is still money vs. license availability, for some of these programs.
Of course if somebody out there thought I was worth employing, my money issues might be a little different.

Either way, I am giving Linux a try.

Familiarity vs Proficency

Being familiar with a piece of technology means you can do with it what it was designed to do.

Being proficient with a piece of technology means you can do what it is capable of, beyond what it was designed to do.

Where do I go from here?

I have been having the feeling that I need to use my websites better than I have. but I don't really have a clear idea how. I have clues. I have observed how my sister and others use their Facebook. I have read Breitbart's book where he mentions using social media. I have seen other books on the subject and, receive annoying mails and notices about using my sites, which I have left fallow for some years.
I am an introvert, and a bit of a Luddite. I value my privacy and because of my experiences growing up am loath to show my work to others who I do not trust to appreciate it.
I have been un- and underemployed for the last three years. I do not see any jobs available that I am qualified for; some that I am overqualified for, most that I am under qualified for. People who generally fall into two categories: those willing but unable to help, who would like to be of service, but have no extra means at hand to do so; those who are able to help but unwilling, who are not willing to put themselves into a position of attracting government attention by helping others that they might otherwise be willing to assist and employ.
So how do I create employment for myself?
I've never been able to figure this out, and never recognized anyone trying to instruct me in this.

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IS JUST SAYING "NO" TO THE DESOLATION OF OBAMA-NATION.

I will not sign up for Obama-care.
I did not Vote for Obama-nation.
This is not the change I hoped for.

I have been under-employed for two years, and unemployed for a year before that.
I do not have any current hope of faith in finding a job in this economy.

Square Deal, New Deal, Great Society, Raw Deal, Big Con

In the 1900’s Teddy Roosevelt started to give us a Square Deal.

In the 1930’s his cousin Freddy Roosevelt gave us the New Deal.

In the 1960’s Teddy Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson gave us the Great Society.

In the 1990’s Billy Clinton gave us the Raw Deal.

Now, in the 2010’s Barry Obama is giving us the Big Con.

How's the Hope'y Change'y thingy going for you?

There are those who say the current cultural and economic circumstances are a result of the current President’s incompetence, and the running rampant of his unbridled minions.

I don’t think so.

I believe the current President is deliberately working to sabotage the economy and political culture of the United States of America. And the Progressives in BOTH political parties are supporting him in doing so from wherever they are employed; be it in elected, appointed or bureaucratic government office, or in the private sector.

Their basic tactics: overwhelm the system and their political opponents by:

-          SPENDING: by government and otherwise, and in so doing, create the ‘too big to fail’ idea, requiring that the government step in and insure the stability of these organizations.

o       I submit this is why there has not been a Federal Budget submitted in any of the years of the Obama Presidency. Were the Budget submitted, then critics would have a measuring stick to gauge the spending against. With the raft of Continuing Resolutions, that measuring stick is not usable.

-          TAXES: confiscate and redistribute all wealth. As the government is the source and arbitrator of wealth and value, it cannot allow anyone to collect any wealth, and instead must collect all of it, and then redistribute it according to what the government decides is needful.

o       This is an application to the extreme of Morton’s Fork. — “A person who lives in luxury and has clearly spent a lot of money must obviously have sufficient income to pay as tax. Alternatively, a person who lives frugally and shows no sign of being wealthy must have substantial savings and can therefore afford to pay it as tax.” Named after John Morton, Tax Collector for King Henry VII of England.

-          ENTITLEMENTS: create government programs to distribute money, to create dependency. Then tell the recipients that they are entitled to this money. Then whenever anyone suggests that this program be modified in any way to reduce or eliminate the funding and program, scream about how that person is heartless and wants to hurt the dependents. As well create a shadow level of dependents, in the bureaucracy, who skim off their share of the money laundered through the system, as it travels from the taxed producers to the recipient dependents.

o       Continue to create new mandates and entitlements until every aspect of the economy is permeated by government influence.

-          DEBT: Run the system so deeply into the debt that it cannot rationally meet its obligations in any feasible situation while maintaining the level of spending and entitlements.

This is done with the expectation that the capitalist system will collapse under this burden. The people will then clamor for the government to save them and provide for them. But this is based on a few false preconceptions:

False conception 1: Judeo-Christian values are obsolete and oppressive.

False conception 2: Free Market Capitalism is immoral and unethical and therefore should be destroyed.

False conception 3: When a business collapses, a conservative will go crying to the government for help and relief.

1: Judeo-Christian values are timeless and based in truth, and when lived and practiced, ennoble and elevate all men and women in equity and justice.

-          The problem is not the values: the problem is not living completely by them.

2: Free Market Capitalism is moral in its foundation, and is the best method for allowing all men and women to provide for themselves and their families, and have extra to save for emergencies, and use to help their neighbors.

-          The problem is not the system: the problem is the immorality of the few who abuse it.

3: Conservatives response to a business collapse is they get back to work and rebuild. Their only cry to the government is to get out of the way.

Moral men and women will practice that morality in their religion, in their economics, and in their personal interactions.

The problem is not the system, or the values, but in the men who refuse to abide them.

I believe the current President refuses to abide these, and is deliberately surrounding himself, and installing into the system, people of similar stripe and allying with those already in place to destroy the American Economy and political system, to replace it with some form of totalitarian regime, with themselves at its head.

Question is, can these potentially treasonous people be removed by anything short of force of arms?

Can we erect a gallows on the National Mall, and use it to put these treasonous Progressives on permanent display?

Can we get an adult in charge please?

First:

The current international goings on are being handled by the current presidency in the same way that the domestic stuff is:

He calls for his preferred deliberative body to agree with him. When they don’t agree with him, he goes around them pronouncing them useless, and expands his unconstitutional imperial power.

Second:

The president said things that have now backed him into a corner. So he must act in a way he does not want to.

Personally I think it is time some adults stood up and told this spoiled little boy to go sit in a corner while adults clean up the mess he has made.

Problem is he has surrounded himself with yes-men and juveniles of like minded ideology.

Third:

I hear people on some radio shows talking about this being the end of days. But I think they miss two points.

a) The two witnesses in Jerusalem, as in Revelation and Isaiah. They are not yet in place, or the world would know about it. In tangent, admittedly the battle of Megiddo is not happening yet, either. Until they show up the world is on at least a three and a half year plus clock.

b) The gospel preached to all nations. There are some nations now where it is illegal to preach anything but the gospel of Muhammad.

The fulfillment of this one may be accounted for in a historic manor or here and now. But this depends on the answer to two questions:

-Is priesthood authority necessary to perform the ordinances of salvation?

-Where is it/who has it?

This is structured thus:

Q1 – “no” –go to Protestants.

“Yes” feed forward to Q2.

Q2 – “Maintained in the church for the last near 2000 years” – go to catholic, or orthodox of whatever stripe.

“Lost by historic church, need restoration from heaven.” – go to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

God is not the author of confusion, therefore the myriad of churches claiming to be his one true church cannot be by God’s doing, but by man or the devil.

So fulfillment of ‘all nations’: if historic, then the requirements for many of the now Islamic nations was met by the church in the centuries before Islam rose to prominence.

If current fulfillment, then there are many nations that need to allow the gospel of Jesus Christ to be preached in their nations.

In short there are many years yet to go. The sky is not falling yet, but 'Noah is building that ark, so watch out for rain.'

Forth:

It appears to me that according to the current ideology in the government 100% employment will be when everyone receives a government check.

Just a thought, from recient news.

I have listened to the news from the Fort Hood Terror Attack trial with some amusement. Several ideas have come over the weeks.

What does it say about someone when that person refuses to let another define himself as the enemy of the first?
This comes from hearing about how the defendant was trying to present himself as a jihadist, and the courts martial would not allow it.

If this defendant is so anxious to die, oblidge him, as inconveniently as possible.
The story goes that General Pershing did that in the Philippines when he captured 50 jihadi insurgents, prepaired a mass grave, slaughtered a herd of pigs into the grave, had the subsequent ammunition soaked in the spilled blood, then shot 49 of the insurgents, buried them with the pigs, and let the last go. There was no jihadi trouble after that.
It appears that this defendant is anxious to be found guilty and executed,so as to claim martyr status.
Well then. I propose on finding him guilty, take the prisoner in full formal dress for the service he is on the rolls of, including all his ribbons, badges, medals, etc. Stand him up before Fort Hood in full assembly, and ritually strip every last item from the uniform down to and including the piping and buttons. This to remove from the prisoner all acolades from his time on the military rolls.
Then turn the prisoner over to the appropriate command to transport the prisoner to the approximate location of Osama's resting place. Secure a weighted vest to the prisoner. Secure to the prisoner 12 hogs. Shoot the hogs, and then slice them open. Take every weapon that the prisoner had on his person when he committed his act of terror, and soak them in the hogs entrails, and secure them to the prisoners person.
As the prisiner will be lonely, let him take a koran with to read.
In the appropriate location, dispatch the prisoner and the hogs to go stand vigil at Osama's grave.
Give the prisoner a long enough drop to yell as loud and long as he cares to, to let the dead know he is comming.

Not quite sequiter thoughts.

I recently heard a discussion about there being Three Levels of Law:

1. God – Natural Law
2. Family – Husband and Wife, Parent and child
3. Community – Neighborhood, Town, Nation

Other subsequent things I listened to discussed how a community is bound together by its Rites. It got me thinking about how Rites teach what a persons Rights are. The following is what assembled itself in my mind:

 - Rites of God – Natural Law:

1. Faith in the moral behavior of things. The assurance of past experience that things will do as they have done.

2. Repentance of own short comings

3. Forgiveness of others shortcomings

Rites of Revealed Religion – How to connect to God

1. Obedience to God’s revealed commandments(See Samuel to Saul, 1 Sam 5: 22)
2. Sacrifice of my will to do God’s will  (Matt 6: 10)
3. Baptism – Ritual Cleansing (No unclean thing can enter in the presence of God)
4. Confirmation (Acts 19: 1-6)
5. Sacrament of the Lords Supper – Weekly renewal of Baptismal Covenant
6. Ordination to Priesthood – power to Serve Others (Acts 6: 1-4, Rev 5: 10))
7. Endowment with Power – power to become “at one” with God (Matt 5: 48)
8. Marriage – Formation of Family by Covenant (Gen 2: 24; 1 Cor 6:16, 7:2)

- Rites of Family – Honor Father and Mother, Cleave unto Spouse

Dependence

1.      a. Birth

b. Adoption

2.      Nurture and instruction of growing children

Independence

3.      Moving out on own, provide for self

Interdependence

4.      Establish Household with Spouse

5.      Physical, Emotional, Intellectual, Spiritual Intimacy with Spouse. – Becoming “at one”

6.      Division of Labor as Equal Partners

- Rites of Community

1.      Sovereign Franchise – The Vote

2.      Serve on a Jury

3.      Serve on the Militia

4.      Take Turn in Public Office

5.      Own/Poses/Steward property 

This is not trying to be a comprehensively exhaustive list.

I see this order being turned inside out by the Progressive Ideology:

God and Natural Law becomes Government is god (Idolatry)

  “You didn’t build that.”(also the first and second laws of bureaucracy). . .

Family becomes Community (Love makes a ‘family’, not Covenants.)

  Gangs, Things are more important than people. . .

Community becomes Your Group (demographic division)

  ‘From each according to their means to each according to their needs.”

In all the U.S Government scandals and hubbub going on, I doubt there will ever be shown to be a specific trail of conspiracy in the current batch.

Rather what is going on is a Conspiracy of Ideology, which is becoming a holy war against the classical society. We have a big-government-bureaucracy full of like thinking people who are completely willing to ignore existing law, to do what they think should be done.

Many failed to change the system from the outside in the Sixties so they put on camouflage and went into the system and once they got into positions of power they are now seeking to effect the changes from within.

They ignore existing law. They only enforce such as they chose to. They reject classical morality and do note even instruct it.

I see that the Democrat Party is reliving the 1930's to 1940's. The Progressives there are doing all they can to insure that they remain in political power for another generation, with the opposition party reduced to impotence and destroyed into obscurity.

I see that the Republican Party is reliving the 1970's. The Progressives there are doing all they can to reduce the power and influence of the Conservatives and Constitutionalists. They are content to live in the obscurity of being the opposition party.
 

When the revolution started, they seized the telegraph office, the schools, and the presses.

That is where the counter revolution needs to be originated from.

Including, but not limited to Sunday Schools, Home Schooling, and Desktop Publishing.

Perception drives reality. Control Perception, and you control reality.

Control Perception by controlling Information.

Control Information by the Media, the Education and Communication Systems.

God controls Information by dispensing it to everyone, as they choose to receive.

He teaches correct principles, and allows us to choose for ourselves.

As we receive, abide and obey true principles, we perceive reality by those correct principles. Thus the rites, and rights.

some ideas about the basics about god

Listening to Michael Medved this afternoon, he had two notable guests talking about Religion vs Science.
Several of the points were, in summary, that science is coming to the conclusion that there must be some form of god, meaning that there is some organizing something that made the universe and set up the place to be favorable for life as we know it.

As I listened I was impressed by and reminded of a few points:
1) It takes as much and more faith to believe in the stances of not having some kind of god, than it does to believe in some kind of god.

2) 'Religion' is to 'realign' one's self in relationship to deity. The deity's given priesthood are to dispense the method of realignment in instruction and performances; the worshiper receives the instruction and participates in the performances. 'To get religion' was for a worshiper to feel a connection to 'god'

3) Through this connection, 'god' will define itself to the worshiper.

4) Many of the arguments against religion argue against a given 'church' (christian in particular, but others in general) as a historic organization, rather than against the teachings that organization.

5) Many of those who claim atheism appear to fall into one of two camps: those who do not want to have/exercise/believe in 'faith', however the given individual may define it; those who have not had or discount having the experience of the existence of god. In short they want 'God' to appear before them before they will believe and have faith in said deity.

-
Other points that occur:
Many reject organized religions because of the history, or present, of the given organization, and is so doing reject the teachings of that organization, without considering the teachings.

Many reject the teachings of the organizations, as corrupt, because they are not the teachings of the original organization, as the individual determines in his own research.

Many reject 'god' because they do not agree with the definition of 'god' given to them by others, and miss the better point that they can and should allow god to define itself to them, by getting religion individually.

There are many who might do better to wipe all the competing definitions of 'god' off the proverbial table and seek got for themselves and allow god to define itself to them.

The more biology examines the processed of cells, the more the principle of 'irreducible complexity' becomes apparent, and that the DNA molecule in its digital functioning cannot be the result of change in whatever guise it is presented: there must be some kind of designer.


Then there is the eagerness of adherents to witness and evangelize/proselytize their beliefs: on one hand presented wrong, this is annoying at the least; presented correctly, this leads a person to further seek for truth.
The next question is 'what is truth?'

seeking direction, and companionship

I have had the feeling to use this as a forum to start posting some of my writing. Or elsewhere. also to start posting a webcomic.
It can be done, I just need to figure out how others have done it, and find the best way of those solutions, and go my self.

"It's dangerous to go alone, here take one of these."

What is wanted? A companion who is well-mete for me, for whom I am well-mete. Anyone know where I should be looking for her?

Here is a recent post of mine: http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1931578-tywacomb-pges-0-4
So it begins.
Now I need to keep it going.

Two constants - Death and Taxes

"There are two constants in this world: Death, and Taxes. Taxes are worse, Death only happens once."

Quibblers would say that to some people Death can happen a few times, if a person is revived. That is beside the point of my thought.

To wit: A reading of the Judea-Christian Scriptures tells us that Death is a programmed part of God's plan for us.

Were it otherwise the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as celebrated at Easter, was not necessary. The Death of Christ was part of the Atonement he wrought for us: without it he could not Resurrect and open that gate for the rest of us. Without resurrection, man could not be glorified and return to live in the presence of God, and fulfill the command 'be ye therefore perfect' as the end of the sermon on the mount.

Taxes, on the other hand, are at best a necessary tool of the governments that God allows man to set up: render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and so forth.

At worst, Taxes are an instrument of that rebellious one who seeks to use the treasures of the earth to reign with blood and horror for as long as he can.
By taxes he seeks to take from the prosperous and industrious and thereby dispirit them from producing more and increasing value.
He gives from the taxes to some so as to engender ill-placed gratitude and ultimately dependence and slavery.
He uses taxes as war plunder, to inflict punishment upon the looser of conflict, engendering further strife.
He uses taxes as a score card to judge who has the most value, engendering envy, covetousness and worse.

In the United States, it could be said that he has whispered to those in power to create a holiday for the collection of taxes, and place it on a fixed day in proximity to the day we celebrate the triumph of our Savior, is as much as a personal 'take that' and for any other rational reason that could be conjured.

--

As an aside, I see the rise in vampire and lycanthrope and similar fiction as a reaction to misunderstandings of the reason and nature of death, and the nature and destiny of the soul of man.

Those who seek to avoid death beyond the natural bounds God has set, by some accounts doing so by the selfish consumption of the life of others, as vampires do, or by other accounts to surrender their humanity and reduce themselves to the level of the beasts, effectively commit evil by feeding on the life of their fellows, or by willfully rejecting the status and stewardship God gave man in being a benevolent ruler over the whole of the earth. God made man to be better than that, and in so doing, death is part of the plan: put it off until your assigned tasks are done, and embrace it in due time when it justly comes.

I make no comment here about death by conflict, beyond that generally it is not part of God's plans.

Zombie fiction is also an outgrowth of this misunderstanding.
 As is the misuse of the word "resurrect" and its derivatives when the word "revive" and its derivatives should be used.
Resurrect - a permanent change of state, from death to immortality, as Jesus on the third day (Matt 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20) and 'many bodies of the saints' after the resurrection (Matt 27:52-53), and all in either the first or second resurrection.
Revive - a temporary change of state, from death to mortality, as Lazarus (John 11), the son of the woman of Nain (Luke 7:11-17), and the daughter of Jarius (Matt 9:23-2, etc.). Or all those who have had and reported 'near-death experiences.'

--

Summary: Death is better than Taxes.
Death is part of God's plan for His children - Man.

Taxes are a tool often misused by the enemies of god to subjugate men.

here's and idea for the next starwars that I doubt will happen

I have been sampling among other things the hubbub around the creation of Star Wars VII.

I have had an idea come to me that might solve a lot of the frustration:

DISNEY should have all subsequent Star Wars shows done in CG by/as The Clone Wars, shown on Cartoon Network, is done.

This solves many problems:

Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher will not need to go to a gym to get back into fighting trim, and will not need to learn how to jump about the way the Jedi are want to do.

They will not need to learn how to fight the way Jedi are want to do.

All the original actors can 'phone it in,' and allow the CG-double do all the heavy lifting in front of the camera. Mark Hamill already has a flourishing career doing this and could give tips to the rest.

A quality character drama (the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker) and space opera (Rebels vs Empire) done as a CG show is a poke in the eye to those who insist that CG and Cartoons are a genera not a medium.

It is a poke in the eye to those living in the Animation Age Ghetto, particularly those who want to see Star Wars 'done right.'

The CG Star Wars already nods to, acknowledges and draws from the extensive pile of written material know as the Extended Universe. Further new stories could more easily draw therefrom as CG than Live Action can, for characters, for settings, and for fans favorites in these.

There are lots of plot points that can be explored in better detail by the CG shows than the live action movies have time to.

Episodes I, II, and III already gave us extensive CGI sets. Doing the whole thing CGI will have everything looking consistent. Without a jitter cam or lens flares.

With more people involved, perhaps we can get better dialog than appeared in Episodes II and III. George can tell a great story, but he can't do dialog for nothing.

As The Clone Wars proceeds, they are moving into a sixth season. According to the movies, the clone wars last three years, approximately.
As I see the time line the Clone Wars cartoon covered the first six months of the war, chronicling Anakin's elevation to Knight, and some subsequent adventurers and flirtations with the dark side.
The Clone Wars picks up with Asoka Tanno being assigned to Anakin as padawan, and covers the next two years. With the close of the fifth season, I suppose that they have about six months of the clone wars left to cover, before running into the wall of Episode III.

If the crew working on The Clone Wars wants to keep going after bumping into Episode III they have three choices of time frame and characters to explore:
A) jump over, around and past Episode III's events, and explore the first years of the empire.
B) take their own stab at the post Episode VI times, though that area is being explored by the EU.
C) jump to another time point completely, forward or back, and start telling those stories, again being respectful of the EU.

Just some ideas.

Two thoughts that struck me this week

Subject:  Women In Combat.

In much of the occidental media that I indulge, where the subject of women in combat is encountered, the usual reason NOT TO boils down to the instinctive drive of men to defend the woman. I.E. putting a co-ed combat platoon in the field in realistic conditions relative to a healthy moral society, the men will instinctively move to protect the woman, beyond normal means to protect their brothers-in-arms, at the peril of obtaining the objective.

The usual reason TO boils down to if she can do it, let her. I.E. the situation is going to happen one way or anther, and historically always has.

Fine. My conclusions, without belaboring the issues:

To the first: No co-ed fraternization in the front line or active units: i.e. segregate the combat units by sex. Of course this will lead to some wanting to further segregate the units by sexual orientation, but that goes beyond my current point. As a secondary point, require some kind of fertility control on one or both sexes while in theater.

To the second: Particularly in the elite units, there are physical restrictions on who can qualify to join. Political Correctness lasts a shorter time on the battlefield than well made plans, and is quicker to get people killed. Therefore do not reduce the physical qualifications for the special units: there are many men who would like to serve in those units who do not meet the physical qualifications. Time has shown that where the qualification are viewed as a benchmark to strive for, members of either sex will meet the benchmark if they work hard enough. E.g. female firefighters.

Summary: if they can do it, let them, but organize things rationally so that the combat effectiveness is not compromised. This is usually done by initial segregation, which segregation obtains until all are willing to accept the competence and qualification of all.

Subject: the morality of modern media

I recently graduated with a Media Arts and Animation degree, but find myself having trepidations about going to work in the available industries.

Video Games: I find myself turned off by the realistic combat and First-Person-Shooters and by the violence and moral vacuity portrayed by so many of the popular games, and do not want to work in an industry that promotes such moral vacuity. I am less bothered by a good ‘bug-hunt’ video game, but still recognize the latent hypocrisy there.

Further to that end, I rejected opportunities to work in the Gaming Industry that supports gambling, for the same basic reason.

Television and Movies: I have found that the writing quality and morality of the broadcast and film industries is increasingly lacking, and drifting father from the traditional morals of civilized society.

- Father no longer knows best, but is instead a buffoon whose only purposes are to donate sperm at the wish of the woman, and be the nominal income source, after whatever goodies and handouts the government and mother provides.

- Mother knows best, and puts up with the afore mentioned buffoon only as long he amuses her. She works away from the home, provides for herself and what ever offspring happen to reside under the same roof.

- so many of the current crop of shows delve into investigation of the deviant and psychologically sick, and to some extent show that the ‘hero’s’ are just as damaged as the villains.

- nobody preaches or lives traditional morality without some sneering and jeering by the peanut gallery. After all, it’s all relative, and you should choose for your self, unless the god-that-is-government has made a law that says otherwise.

And all problems are solved by the closing credits.

Maybe I am too puritanical, or too Christian, or too old fashioned, or just not politically correct, but I am sick of ‘good writing' being the only thing a given show has to promote it. Particularly when the writing is a continual exploration of depravity and evil.

Summary: If I am going to work in these industries, I want to do it among people who uphold and put forth morals similar to my own, and produce product of uplifting and obvious moral caliber.

‘‘Truth, Justice, and the American Way’? You will be fighting against every elected official in the land.’

No: just those indoctrinated by, and living according to evil, and moral relativism.