Arab Spring Backfires In Egypt

Democracy in flames: protesters in Alexandria ransack the offices of President Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood movement

The "Arab Spring" in 2011 swept across the Arab part of the world and resulted in the overthrowing of a number of long standing dictators and powerful families that ruled Middle Eastern countries. The western media praised this uprising as a democratic revolution, and the US government widely supported the large-scale demonstrations and even militia groups that went to war with their governments in areas where a more peaceful resolution did not happen (ie. Syria, which is still locked in deadly violent civil war). The media praised the revolts against long standing governments as a new modern democratic wave, one that would pull these countries into the direction of freedom, civil rights, accountable government, and overall social progress. Egypt was the biggest and most notable country where these protests against a long-standing dictatorship rose up.

However, while the mainstream media was falling all over itself praising the wave of government toppling protests across the Middle East, many conservative writers were warning that this was looking all to familiar to what happened in Iran decades ago. Iran turned into a theocratic nightmare where extremist Islamists took over from a generally moderate leadership in massive social protests that the United States supported under President Jimmy Carter. Iran has been one of the most repressive and backwards Middle Eastern countries ever since. Instead of freedom, government accountability, civil rights and social progress, Iran stepped farther and farther back into heavy-handed government repression of the general populace. Iran traded bad and suppressive leadership for evil and cruel leadership. It traded generally stable dictators for radical terrorists. The same thing happened in the Gaza Strip when democratic protests broke out years ago there, also supported by the Western Media and many governments. The result? The terrorist organization Hamas won elections and slaughtered all opposition and has ruled with an iron fist ever since.

But that wouldn't happen THIS time, the mainstream media assured everyone. Egypt was going to be the beacon of new Middle Eastern freedom, a new wave of liberty and modernity... The former government was thrown out and protestors celebrated in the streets! Democratic elections were held all across the country and for the first time in decades, political parties other than the ruling dictator had a real chance of winning! Signs indicated before the elections that the Muslim Brotherhood, a large group of Islamic opposition to the former President of Egypt and heavily suppressed under his rule, would become the bulk of the new Egyptian government. Again, conservative writers warned that this was starting to look more and more like Iran, Lebanon and Gaza. But the media told everyone in the west that this was not the case, that the Muslim Brotherhood was these days a much more moderate, secular and progressive group, not at all similar to the hardlined religious leaders that had taken over Iran decades before. Anyone who's done any research into the Muslim Brotherhood and that was not blinded by starry-eyed dreams would know that this was mostly garbage. The Muslim Brotherhood very clearly wants the return of a powerful Muslim Caliphate like what existed centuries ago throughout the Middle East when Islamic government reigned supreme. The Muslim Brotherhood also has ties to Hamas, Al Qaida and other well known Islamic terrorist groups. Only the progress of time would tell which side in this debate was actually right.

So far, things do not look good.

The Muslim Brotherhood won the elections quite handily, easily taking the majority of the national vote. Minority groups such as the Coptic Christians and secularists barely made any splash at all, despite the mainstream media claiming that the Arab Spring was largely secular (non-religious) in nature and intent. President Morsi, of The Muslim Brotherhood, has recently been a beacon of terror, repression, religious intolerance, and government domination over its citizenry. Minorities such as the Coptic Christians have been fleeing Egypt in record numbers. Morsi recently passed government legislation that effectively makes him and whatever he does untouchable by the new law and justice systems of Egypt.

[Daily Beast (Dec 3, 2012)]:  Egypt To President Morsi: No Dictators Allowed

On Nov. 22, as Americans sat down to Thanksgiving dinner, Egypt’s first post-revolution president, Mohamed Morsi, issued a decree exempting all of his decisions from legal challenge. The move was a stunning power grab that quickly earned him the nickname “Egypt’s new pharaoh”—a title once bestowed upon his defunct predecessor. Hundreds of thousands of disbelieving Egyptians flooded city streets from Alexandria to Aswan with a familiar cry: “The people want the fall of the regime!” Tahrir Square came alive once again with tents and bullhorns and a howl so loud—so impassioned—that it was dubbed the “19th Day” of last year’s revolution. Angry female protesters returned in masses to Tahrir, resilient after months of deteriorating security that included repeated incidents of harassment and sexual assault.

Because of this and the severely deteriorating conditions of safety and law in Egypt under the new government, many people have once again returned to the streets in mass protest of the new government that they just elected into power with a huge democratic majority. Why? Because the promises made are evaporating in almost every single direction. Protesters are saying that at best, absolutely nothing has changed since President Mubarak was ousted. The reality, however, is that freedom and safety has significantly decreased and government repression of the masses has greatly increased. An example of how the government is running things in Egypt now can be summed up in a few very recent news reports.

[Daily Mail (Dec 1, 2012)]: Muslim Brotherhood 'Paying Gangs To Go Out And Rape Women And Beat Men Protesting In Egypt'

Egypt's ruling party is paying gangs of thugs to sexually assault women protesting in Cairo's Tahrir Square against President Mohamed Morsi, activists said.
They also said the Muslim Brotherhood is paying gangs to beat up men who are taking part in the latest round of protests, which followed a decree by President Morsi to give himself sweeping new powers.

[The Blaze ()]: Mob of 300 Reportedly Strips, Assaults 3 Women Near Mosque In Tahrir Square

... it is difficult to ignore the overwhelming number of sexual assaults reported not by lone criminals, but by frantic mobs.  The vicious attack on U.S. journalist Lara Logan during the advent of the so-called “Arab Spring” nearly two years ago has only been followed by a further deterioration of the rights of women and minorities under Muslim Brotherhood leadership, it seems.

[Telegraph (Nov 29, 2012)]: Egyptians Want Democracy, But Is Their Country Turning Into Iran?

Islam and democracy are not natural bedfellows, and Mr Morsi’s insistence, particularly in his meetings with Western politicians, that he has no desire to become Egypt’s “new pharoah” and is fully committed to upholding the country’s new democratic principles, does not square with his recent pronouncements. These assurances have been undermined by Mr Morsi’s blatant power grab, in which he announced that, in future, all presidential decrees will be immune from legal challenge.
The timing of this declaration is troubling, as the country is engaged in drawing up a new constitution which, in normal circumstances, would require the approval of the establishment. By placing himself above the judiciary, Mr Morsi has awarded himself the power to sanction the new constitution irrespective of any objections secularists may raise.

A similar pattern of behaviour was evident in Iran following the overthrow of the Shah, when Ayatollah Khomeini, the founding father of Islamic Republic, succeeded in imposing a new constitution on the Iranian people which was based more on the will of God than the rule of law. At a stroke, the pro-democracy aspirations of ordinary Iranians were crushed by the creation of an Islamic theocracy. As Khomeini himself warned secularists when the new constitution was drawn up: “Revolt against God’s government is a revolt against God, and a revolt against God is blasphemy.”

Essentially, President Morsi's government has made itself immune to any challenges to its power and authority. It gets the final say in everything, no matter what the democratic parliament says. Since people have returned to the streets to protest this, the government has sent in gangs of violent attackers to rape women and beat men in the streets to shut them up and terrify them into silence. On top of all this, Morsi's government is now rushing through Egypt's new constitution which reads like a large scale religious fatwa, based mostly on Islamic Sharia Law and NOT in any way conducive to western principles of liberty, freedom, civil rights, or anything else that the western world has appreciated for the past few centuries and more.

Egypt is very quickly becoming another Iran, exactly as conservative pundits and writers warned from the very beginning. The signs were strongly there from the start. Maybe now the governments and mainstream media will finally wake up to the monster they've gleefully and blindly supported.

[Reuters (Dec 6, 2012)]: Egypt Demonstrators Reject Mursi Call For Dialogue

Thousands of supporters and opponents of Mursi had fought well into Thursday's early hours, using rocks, petrol bombs and guns. Officials said 350 were wounded in the violence. Six of the dead were Mursi supporters, the Muslim Brotherhood said.

Operation Pillar of Defense: What The Mainstream Media Probably Isn't Telling You

Wednesday November 14 2012, Israel assassinated the leader of Hamas in Gaza by hitting his car with a carefully targeted rocket strike. The video released of the attack shows that the Israelis waited until the car was in the middle of the street intersection away from any bystanders and other vehicles, then they blew it up, killing the leader of Hamas. This was the beginning of "Operation Pillar of Defense" by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). They targeted numerous weapons supply depots and caches as well as terrorist headquarters of Hamas over the next number of days. After assassinating the leader of Hamas, Israel dropped tons of pamphlets into Gaza warning civilians to stay indoors and that Israel was only targeting Hamas leaders and known terrorists.


The Background

Israel's Iron Dome defense system launches a counter-missile to destroy an incoming missile from Gaza before it can strike.

Since January 1 2012, Hamas has launched over 800 rockets and mortars into Israel from the Gaza Strip. In Israel, every home in southern Israel is built with a bunker, a safe room to hide and wait out rocket attacks from Gaza. Imagine that folks. Your house being required to have a bomb shelter in it. Your local Walmart and Burger King having bomb shelters built into them to protect employees and customers visiting the store or restaurant for the next time rockets or mortars are launched at your city from across the boarder. There are 365 days in a year. Hamas has launched 800 rockets and mortars from January 1 to November 14. That's an average of over 2 rocket attacks PER DAY! It often comes in waves. The most recent wave began Saturday November 10 (4 days before Israel assassinated Hamas' leader). Over a 100 rockets were launched from Gaza at Israel from November 10 to November 14. November 14, Israel struck back, killing Hamas' leader.

What would the United States do if Mexico or Canada launched even ONE rocket across the boarder into one of its cities? How about if Britain's military and government launched a couple mortars and rockets into France? Any nation living under such war conditions has a mandate to protect its people. Israel is one of the only countries in the world vilified and demonized for doing just that, despite doing it with unbelievable precise care to limit any and all civilian casualties. Hamas, on the other hand, purposely targets Israeli civilians.

Honest Reporting: Operation Pillar of Defense: What You Need To Know

The Blaze: The Truth About Civilian Casualties In Gaza


"Pallywood": Hamas Lies And Plays The Western Media

A video recording showing injured Palastinians being pulled from rubble in Gaza made the rounds on the mainstream news reports like The BBC and CNN shortly after Operation Pillar of Defense began. One popular video showed an apparently severely injured man in a beige jacket being carried out of a damaged building to be taken to an ambulance. Unnoticed by the mainstream media, however, was the fact that 2 minutes later, that exact same man can be seen walking around completely unharmed. The event was staged. The man wasn't hurt. But it would look good for the cameras pulling him and others from rubble, so that's just what the Palastinians did.

The Blaze: Gaza Man Caught Faking Injuries

Gaza man carried passed cameras apparently injured in an Israeli attack.

The same man, moments later, totally fine.

This is known as "Pallywood" in Israel. Palestinians faking injuries, deaths, and staging events for cameras to make Israel look bad. Similar stories in the past have surfaced of Palestinians loading and unloading the exact same ambulance with the exact same injured victims over and over again in the background of news reporters to make it look like dozens of people have been injured. Such staged events are quite common.

On top of this, Hamas and the Palestinians often use victims of their own terrorism to try and pin the tail on Israel and make Israel look bad. For days a picture of Palestinians carrying the dead body of a boy and weeping over him was shown on front pages of western news papers. But as it turns out, the boy did not die from an Israeli attack. The boy died when a Hamas rocket misfired and blew up without ever reaching Israel. That's right. The dead boy used to finger Israel as evil child killers was actually a victim of Hamas's own rockets, NOT Israels!

Warning: The news report below shows the picture that was making the rounds of Palestinians carrying the dead child.

HonestReporting: Gaza Child Killed By Hamas


Hamas: Brutal, Murderous, Uncivilized

New York Post: Hamas Executes Six "Spies"

Hamas in the last few days has executed 6 locals it believes were spies for Israel. Hamas broke into a van these 6 men were traveling in, pulled them from the vehicle, laid them down on the street, a mob of Palastinians surrounded the precedings, Hamas members shot the six men dead, then the surrounding Palastinians proceded to stomp and spit on the bleeding dead bodies of the local citizens accused of being spies. Then, to top it off, the Hamas thugs tied one of the corpses to his motorbike and rode down the street dragging the body through the city. What a lovely people.

Terrorist bomb blast injures 15 in Tel Aviv Israel.

Reuters: Tel Aviv Bus Hit By Bomb: Hamas Celebrates

A bomb exploded on a bus in Tel Aviv Israel today, just hours before a cease fire agreement, injuring 15 Israeli civilians. The day before, Hamas threatened bombings and suicide attacks and after the attack said that this was only the beginning. Additionally, there have been reports of Hamas launching rockets from school grounds and a hospital in Gaza. They have absolutely no qualms about specifically targeting civilians and using their own children and sick as human shields.

The Blaze: Mother Goads Palestinian Girl To Push, Scream At IDF Soldiers

Palestinian girl taunts Israeli soldier.

Lucky boy! You get to show how tough you are next!

In another news report there's a video going around of a Palestinian mother and teenagers pushing children to harass and insult an Israeli soldier to try and goad him into pushing or shouting back. One girl practically loses her voice she's yelling so loud and so much at the soldier. "I spit in your face! Our soldiers are stronger than yours! I'll smash your head!" The mother and older teenagers push other children to harass the soldier too for the camera.


Ceasefire Called

Note that as of late November 21 (8 pm Israel time), despite a bomb having been set off on an Israeli bus in Tel Aviv mere hours before, Israel and Hamas signed a cease fire agreement. Neither side will launch anymore rockets or attacks at each other, for the time being. Now the world waits to see if it'll last.

Console Video Game Market Has Tanked

Not Even November Can Save U.S. Game Retail Now

Back in 2008, video games and consoles were "all the rage". People were buying systems and games like never before, spending so much money that the entire industry was outstripping music and even hollywood COMBINED! Gaming on the TV with your old Playstation 2, your new Nintendo Wii, your new Microsoft XBox 360 or your even newer (by a year) Sony Playstation 3, was popular like never before. The Nintendo handheld DS was screaming up the charts just like the console Wii system as well. People were lapping up systems and games like there was no tomorrow. The industry had never been bigger and more mainstream... Then it died.

Actually, the console game industry didn't really die, but since 2008 has contracted (shrunk) so substantially that these days (2012), the whole thing combined makes about the same as it did before the Wii, the XBox 360, and Playstation 3 ever hit store shelves. That's right, the industry is making about as much money now as it did back almost 10 years ago during the original XBox, Playstation 2 and Gamecube era. The massive explosion in popularity for game consoles and their games has all but vanished.

What the heck happened!? A lot!


1) The Economy Crashed

At the end of 2008, the world economy crashed. It's known as the financial armageddon that almost rivals The Great Depression of the 1930s. Tons of people all over the world lost their savings, their jobs, their cars and their homes. It was happening throughout 2008, but when the stock market and banks crashed near the end of 2008, that put a gigantic dent in the whole world economy. Since then, in most places, business has been at a crawl, jobs have been rare to come by, and money is extremely tight. All in all, there's just very little breathing room when it comes to personal budgets. The movie industry has been hit hard too. People are pinching their pennies, only buying the games they REALLY can't live without, and ignoring the rest. There's too many other important things monopolizing what little money people have, like food, shelter, transportation, healthcare, etc.


2) Apple's Handheld Products

Mobile gaming on cell phones, especially anything with an Apple brand attached to it, has exploded in popularity. It was going big back in 2008 too, but it's gone insane since then. The complicating factor in all this is that there's a LOT of cheap gaming content out there online and on cell phones, mp3 players and iPads that are sucking people away from high priced games on console systems. Why pay $60 for 10 hours of game play where you're stuck in front of your television when you can spend $5 and enjoy just as many (or more) hours of entertainment anywhere you want to go? Casual gaming is perfect for handhelds and Apple's products and App Store have grabbed onto that market in a huge and effective way.




3) Perceived Value

If people considered console gaming to be a big important part of their lives, they'd spend money on it. I think one of the biggest shifts in the market is that the perception of value just isn't there. Back in the boom years, people were loving their games like never before. The market had expanded by leaps and bounds as new gamers were diving into a world they'd barely ever experienced or even considered. Game consoles and the games available for them were hot commodities, they were greatly desired. Now, except for the rare few big name titles, the vast majority of people couldn't care less about what games are coming out. It's all gotten very apathetic. Call of Duty? Woohoo! Halo? Woohoo! Mario? Woohoo!... Does anything else exist? It used to, but not so much anymore.

I think a big part of the blame lies with the game industry itself. It got blinded by all these brand new "casual gamers" and the huge money hauls that were coming in off the biggest titles around. All these companies were trying to grab a piece of that pie and so they all started piling on, mimicking the big winners and scrapping everything else. First person shooters are a dime a dozen and only a few of them (the big name titles) do very well. The rest usually don't get touched much. On top of this, tons of game companies tried to latch onto the "casual" gamers with all kinds of really pathetic garbage. The Wii is overloaded with shovel-wear, stuff that no one in their right mind would even look at. Nintendo's games are, as always, epic and hugely popular, but most other companies found that their own titles were getting completely ignored. On the more hardcore systems like the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3, game companies did the First Person Shooter dance and over saturated the market the same way they did with Guitar Hero (which was huge, and then absolutely tanked). The companies also were doing all kinds of things to try and grab casual gamers by making the games easier, or simpler, or more ADHD friendly with quick mini spurts of intense fun that last for a couple hours then are completely void of any value retention.

Games became short (6 to 10 hours maximum play time), and they became hyper-focused so that there's little in the way of extras or longevity to keep you coming back. You play the game through once, and you've played it. There's nothing else to see or try. It's simple, it's easy, it's quick, and the perceived value by customers has evaporated.

But what about the big long titles or the games with awesome multiplayer? Well, the good ones are hugely popular. Skyrim has 100+ hours of game play in it. Call of Duty has almost no single player game any more, but if you like competitive online multi-player you can play forever. But people have gotten choosey. If your game doesn't meet their expectations or doesn't entice them, they're not going to bother touching it anymore. Not when there are much safer bets to be found elsewhere.

The cost of making games on the XBox 360 and the Playstation 3 have a ballooned exorbitantly this latest generation of game consoles. We're talking tens of millions of dollars, even hundreds of millions of dollars, to create a lot of these games, and there's just not enough interest. The industry has become a gigantic money vacuum and little else within its own business community as well as among the customer base. The love is gone, lost in a mountain of failure and debt. Actually, it sounds an awful lot like the global economy on the whole, doesn't it? Game studios are closing left and right because they spent all this money to make a game and no one bought it. Because the costs of making so many of these games are so high, you have to sell a LOT of copies to just break even. This kind of huge risk and expense did not exist in the previous generation of game consoles. You used to be able to put together a good sized game with a dozen or a few dozen talented people. Now you have teams of literally hundreds of people. You have voice acting, graphics, 3D modeling, motion capture, and on and on the list of high quality media content with a hefty price tag just keeps adding up.


4) Unmet Expectations

Let's face it. Gamers have gotten spoiled. When a game is done right, it's astounding how well it all works and comes together. You're in awe as you play it, enraptured by the wondrous spectacle. The vast majority of games, however, cannot hit that same high quality note. It's like we've all gotten spoiled with the very best of the best, and now everything else just doesn't compare. So we're disappointed again and again because our expectations of brilliance have grown so insurmountably high.



5) Risk vs Reward

One kind of amazing thing over the past few years is that what's known as "New IPs", or new titles that aren't directly connected to an established series (ie. not a sequel) are almost all dead in the water. Everyone complains that there's nothing new under the sun. But then when something kind of new comes out, they won't touch it because it's not from one of their much loved series.

This same sort of risk and death factor exists in the movie industry these days too. It's pretty hard to jump start a brand new unknown series or franchise. If it's new, an unknown, chances are good it's going to tank. That's why you see a billion sequels now. Studios stick with what they've already got because it's almost a "sure thing". It's safe.

The movie industry has got "indie films" to make up for this mega blockbuster black hole. They're low budget films done for the love of movies or story or acting or with meaning. Sometimes they hit it big. But they don't HAVE to hit it big to make a profit. They just have to do ok.

For games, however, "Indie" is still a very unsettled area. Very few small budget game titles manage to catch ANY audience at all. The successes, like Angry Birds and Minecraft, are extremely rare. So right now, when it comes to gaming, there is very little success on the low end, almost NO success at all in the middle range for games, and no chance at all of huge success on big budget triple A (AAA) games unless it says "Halo", "Call of Duty" or "Mario" in the title. Mid-tier studios have been closing their doors all over the place the past two years. It's a real shame, but it's because the game they're making just aren't making the kind of profit they need to be.


Can This Be Fixed?

In all honesty, it can't. Not really. Games, like movies, are often a fad, or like a video that's gone viral on the internet. Sometimes they explode in popularity as something new and fresh grabs everyone's attention, and then everyone reaps the rewards. But to have ever expected the market to sustain the kinds of numbers it was back in 2008 is a ridiculous pipe dream. Audiences and customers are very fickle. Their attention shifts like the wind. Games just don't have the broad "everybody" social appeal that so many other products have. A lot of the people that were buying games in 2008 are not the kind of people that will buy games often. They saw a few things they liked, they bought them, and that was the end of their gaming run. Then Angry Birds caught their attention, and off they flew.

The gaming industry CAN recover and CAN fix a lot of the apethy that has built up. However much of this will depend on the overall economy improving too. Until the economy improves, buying lots of games at $60 a pop is going to be a very tough sell. Especially if customers just don't see enough value in them anymore. Up the value content, or drop the price. Is that even possible with how expensive it is to make games these days? Who knows. I guess we'll find out.

What does this say for the near future of console gaming? Unfortunately, it doesn't look very good. The huge gains the industry made during the economic boom years have evaporated. An improved economy would help, but there are a lot of factors involved all across the board. Overall, however, it comes down to value, and people just aren't seeing it in console games anymore. The big titles are as big as ever (bigger even), but they're very few and far between, and everything else is getting completely forgotten. That's a TERRIBLE business model to run on and if it doesn't improve, it could very well mean that the next generation of game consoles could be very bad indeed. You can't run a game console business with just a couple game successes amidst such a huge list of total failures, unless you're going to start calling your system the "Halo Box" or "Call of Playstation".

"Ad Hoc" Explanations And Science

When a scientific theory requires a billion convoluted explanations and “just so stories” to explain or “prove” it is accurate, then the odds are good that the theory is seriously lacking, or possibly entirely false. This has been a fundamental truth within intelligent analysis of science and the natural world for a very long time, even in very ancient and early examples of scientific discovery and consideration. Ancient scientific theories that made little rational sense as data and evidence accumulated were dropped in favour of far better explanations and theories that more accurately fit and explained the known data. Often times, these new realizations and theories turned out to be much more simple (basic) than the theories that they had overthrown and replaced. You see, those “old” theories over time had evidence piling up against them, and in order to keep those favoured ideas from crumbling beneath the weight of such contradictory evidences, the theory itself had to morph, transform, and constantly modify itself in order to have any chance of survival. The theory had to somehow “explain away” the evidence that contradicted it, and so all kinds of additions and changes are made to the theory to try and keep it alive. Eventually, such a convoluted and top heavy theory invariably collapses because it becomes widely apparent that the theory itself must be severely flawed or completely wrong. The evidence against it is just too great, and the massive amount of replacement and complex changes and adjustments to the theory make it an absolute mess that ends up making very little logical and practical sense.

Why "Ad Hoc" Explanations Exist

Why does such a thing happen, even among professional scientists regarding scientific theories? It's important to briefly summarize why such things as “ad hoc” explanations are so often used to try and prop up a failed scientific expectation. The reason, is itself, very simple. Belief. We humans all hold beliefs, perspectives, ideologies, and ways of interpreting the world and universe we live within. Everything we believe and understand comes directly out of the knowledge we hold and the way in which we interpret that knowledge and the connected data. It all comes down to world-view, personal opinion and pre-conceived assumptions. There are many ways that scientific studies try to remove such potentially cloudy biases from interfering with the data collection process, but we are all human, and everything we do and understand is handled through interpretation. This is why “ad hoc” explanations happen. These extra explanations must be added on top of and in place of previously assumed systems to try and preserve that apparently failed system from crumbling.

For example, if I believed that the moon only appears at night after the sun has set, and live within a culture that never goes out or looks at the sky during the day, I am only left with two options if I step outside in the daytime and see, surprisingly, that the moon actually DOES appear in the sky during the day time. I must either throw away the theory that the moon only comes out at night, or I must explain away the reason for why this belief seems to have been so wrong. Essentially, option two requires a re-writing of history with a mental and intelligent warp. The prediction based on the theory was wrong, and so now unless you allow the theory to fall, you have to find some way (ANY way) to erase the apparent failure of the theory. Obviously a rational person not blinded by bias should probably go with the first option, dropping the wrong theory. But personal belief clouds this rationality and practically demands of the person's ego that the original theory CAN'T have been wrong. There must be another explanation! And that's where ad hoc explanations and reasoning comes from. Despite the probable reality, alternative and complex explanations end up added onto the original theory in an attempt to keep it from ultimately failing.

Now don't confuse this with actual scientific and rational attempts to better understand where a theory failed and why. Trying to better understand something and better explain it are good and noble causes. Just because a prediction has failed does not mean that the entire theory it was based upon is also wrong. There really are many possible reasons for a failed prediction (scientific or otherwise). So theories with many interconnected parts that better clarify a system of understanding are always greatly desired and needed. But eventually, if a theory is so heavily dependent upon questionable additions for explanation in order to prop up its regularly occurring failures, then in all likelihood something must be very wrong with the core theory itself.

To summarize, the more apparently contradictory and convoluted (messy and confounding) a theory is, especially with regards to the natural world, the more likely it is that the theory is flawed or wrong. The more things must be “explained away”, the more likely it is that the theory or belief is simply false.

Example:  Canyons And Uniformitareanism

A general scientific example of this issue in play can be taken from the adherence to the belief of Uniformitarianism (that the present average is the same as it has always been, the present is the key to the past). When a person who believes in Uniformitarianism sees a large canyon with a small river running through the bottom of it, he or she immediately surmises that the small river over many tens of thousands of years has slowly carved this canyon out of the ground. This is an automatic belief or assumption, just like a person who does not lean towards Uniformitarianism would be using his or her automatic assumptions if he/she believed that the Uniformitarianist explanation wasn't true or at work here. Both people are jumping to conclusions, though hopefully holding those beliefs and conclusions (explanations) very loosely, for now. Now if a wide range of evidence gathered in the area indicates that yes, the canyon was formed very slowly over a long period of time, then the Uniformitarean assumption will have been proven correct (or most probably correct), based on what we know. However, if there is widely contradictory evidence, some suggesting a long slow process and other evidence suggesting a very fast catastrophic process, then the truth of what happened is much harder to come by. If a great deal of evidence suggests a fast carving of the canyon, and the Uniformitareanist stubbornly refuses to accept what the evidence seems to be saying, and instead invents a pile of extra explanations and excuses for why Uniformitareanism should still be assumed and believed instead of a fast cataclysmic event, then the Uniformitareanist could very well be guilty of overriding the facts (evidences) with his/her faith (beliefs and assumptions). The same would be said for a person who stubbornly holds to a fast cataclysmic carving of the canyon when little or no evidence supports that belief, but the person continues to reject the evidence based on personal belief and bias. If there are multiple pieces of contradictory evidence supporting both possible explanations, then odds are good that one of the theories is wrong (or mostly wrong) in connection to this particular canyon, or more likely, BOTH explanations are true to some degree and BOTH scenarios have shaped the canyon in significant ways.

The Good And The Bad

Bias and assumptions can be ok, and even a good thing, because often times a person's convictions can be a strong motivator and end up producing excellent quantity and quality of work (scientific or otherwise). Beliefs and assumptions are not always a poison to scientific discovery or understanding. A person can't just toss out a scientific theory on a whim because not everything seems to line up with it as neatly as one would hope. If we did that, we'd never truly understand or learn much of anything. Trial and error are important factors in science and cannot be understated. But if a scientific theory becomes a behemoth (monstrous giant) of excuses in an attempt to keep it alive while it is clearly floundering, then that core theory or understanding needs to be seriously re-evaluated all across the board, because something somewhere has gone very wrong. It's like a liar who starts off by telling one or two lies and then must concoct an ever expanding fictional tale in order to try and keep those original lies from crumbling. Though with a liar the process is intentionally dishonest from the start, such a system of ever expanding excuses and replacements for a failing argument is still remarkably similar.

The point of this write up is to inform you, the reader, that science often relies on assumptions and beliefs. These beliefs and assumptions can be used at the beginning of a study as a stepping stone to better understanding, such as a hypothesis that you wish to test, or the assumptions and beliefs can be used on top of existing evidence and data to try and explain the gathered data. That second approach is more dangerous than the first, because it means interpreting the existing data based on personal belief, which might actually be wrong. This is where “ad hoc” explanations get thrown into the scientific mix to try and keep a belief system alive even when the evidence doesn't fit.

Even MORE risky is the creation of entirely speculative explanations. These theories and explanations exist with very little positive evidence to support them, but they must be created and believed in order to keep another larger theory alive and consistent. Evolutionism has been extremely guilty of this over the past century of its existence within mainstream science, the same as Uniformitareanism has. A quick example of this methodology in action can be seen in astronomy and the Oort Cloud that is believed to surround the outer edges of our solar system. Many scientists believe that our solar system is many billions of years old, but this means that short period comets (comets that regularly come into close orbit of our sun) cause a serious problem because they could only last thousands (tens of thousands) of years before melting away and vanishing entirely. In order to explain why we still have a number of short period comets traversing our solar system and orbiting our sun, scientists came up with the idea of a large sphere of ice and rock comets sitting way out at the farthest edges of our solar system that can constantly resupply us with fresh comets. There! Problem solved! We still have comets left over from the initial forming of our solar system because there are tons of them floating way out there just waiting to be knocked loose to make a run through our inner solar system for everyone to see. But besides this explanation itself, there is little solid evidence for the existence of the Oort Cloud. It exists mostly as an “ad hoc” explanation, a way for scientists to explain the existence of regular comets when their main theory about solar system formation would expect no such comets to still exist after billions of years.

Scientists DO often admit when such explanations are purely theoretical or hypothetical, but often times they treat these beliefs and speculations as being factual to “average joes” because to admit the creative imagination used on such explanations to regular people would make them doubt or question other important scientific beliefs, such as the age of our solar system. They can't have that, so to everyone else, the Oort Cloud is taught as basically proven fact by scientists, even though between each other (other scientists) they'll always consider it theoretical (speculative, unproven).

There are many science based beliefs out there like the Oort Cloud with little or no evidence to support them, yet these kinds of theories exist in order to keep other grander theories from crumbling or being struck with potentially serious problems. Evolutionism is one of the biggest areas in which such “ad hoc” explanations of every kind exist all over the board. This is because the theory of Neo-Darwinism is so critically important to so many scientists who desire to toss God out of the creation process of life and the universe completely. So their presumed beliefs are regularly contradicted by gathered evidence, which forces them to invent alternative and complex explanations for why their theory keeps coming up wrong. The modern day reality is so unbelievably stacked against Neo-Darwin Evolutionism that the theory is literally drowning in “ad hoc” explanations everywhere you look. Some of these “corrections” have potential (they might be real, but not enough is known to prove or disprove them), but many of them are extremely speculative, merely creative imagination at work rather than hard factual science. One of the most notable problems of Evolutionism is the many critically important beliefs and theories that have existed in direct connection to Evolutionism that have been completely overthrown and replaced over the years, and yet the core theory is still widely believed as fact. Normally when a theory ends up so dramatically wrong so many times, it needs to be completely re-analyzed from top to bottom and seriously doubted. But Evolutionism is special, because it is the fundamental ideology of people who desperately want God excluded from the origin of life and the universe. Some prominent atheists and scientists have even stated this quite plainly, admitting that Evolutionism is a total mess full of massive holes and failed speculations over the years, but they hold to it, admittedly, because to NOT believe it is true is to open the door for God, and that, they simply cannot and will not do.

Many "ad hoc" and replacement speculative theories exist across almost all scientific branches of study (biology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics, etc.). They exist to explain away apparent major problems with existing theories, and are often labelled "paradoxes" or "anomalies" in a scientific theory. These are some of the favourite areas of attack that Creation Scientists like to key on because they are so void of solid scientific proof to back them up, despite their widespread use and belief.

(In the future I'd like to point more of these areas of problem out for you guys, my readers, because it is important to see just how void of solid proof many of these areas and explanations in science are despite being used constantly to try and prop up God-less understandings of the universe, our solar system, our planet, and life within it.)

Innocence of Muslims?

The riots in the Muslim world in the past couple of weeks, besides being tragic for the damage and harm they've caused, have been a very interesting peek into social, psychological, and political study.

I do a LOT of current events reading, and I do a LOT of study usually before I end up writing any of my blog posts, in order to make sure I get the facts right. I have always believed that you cannot have a solid position on something unless you've actually taken the time to study it. If you have not studied something, then making any sort of claim about it is akin to a blind man trying to explain the colours of a rainbow. Political issues are rife with such blind "prophets" telling other people what to believe and why, but the true test of accuracy is not found in belief, but rather, in hard facts and actual truth.

Attack On US Embassy Pre-Planned

Muslims have been rioting across the globe since September 11 when a group of Muslims (evidence strongly suggests that these were mostly militia terrorists affiliated with Al-Qaeda) attacked the US embassy in Libya, killing 4 people and injuring dozens others. One of the people killed was the US ambassador to the region. The attack included the use of mortars and rocket propelled grenades and many witnesses and high ranking officials within and around the area have made it very clear that the bulk of the people involved in the attack were linked to terrorist groups. What's unsettling is that evidence also strongly suggests that the US government had plenty of warning in advance that this attack was coming. This entire incident was a pre-planned terrorist attack purposely intended to coincide with the September 11 date of the World Trade Center terrorist attack in the USA that killed 3000 people in September 11 2001.

I had a person respond to a previous blog post I made about this stuff telling me that the attack in Libya and the riots had nothing at all to do with the September 11 terrorist attacks. Sorry, that's definitely wrong. The attacks were well planned in advance and purposely carried out on September 11.

USA Today: Deadly Embassy Attacks Were Days In The Making

Days of planning and online promotion by hard-line Islamist leaders helped whip up the mobs that stormed the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and launched a deadly attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya that killed an ambassador and three others.

 Anderson Cooper, CNN: US Warned of Threats

Libyan officials say they warned the U.S. about the growing extremist presence three days before the U.S. Consulate attack that killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi. CNN's Arwa Damon reports.

 Libyan President: No Doubt Attack Planned

Libya President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf said Sunday that 50 arrests have been made in connection with last week's "preplanned" attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.

CBN News: Preplanned Attack Or Spontaneous Riot?

The president of Libya said he believes al Qaeda is responsible for the deadly attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

The USA has from the beginning officially stated that this was a random riot instigated by a film trailer that insulted Islam, however a huge bulk of evidence that has been piling up since the original attacks on September 11 have made it pretty clear that this was all planned well in advance of September 11 by terrorists. In fact, the personal journal of the US Ambassador to Libya even makes it clear that he was getting very concerned with the recent increases in threats and was asking for more security because he feared something might be coming in connection to September 11. Currently, the US government still says it believes the attacks were spontaneous but at the same time it has said that clearly this was a terrorist attack, and they're still investigating.

Not All Muslims Riot, But All The Riots ARE Muslim

Since September 11 2012 when the attack in Libya took place, Muslims all over the world have been rioting and protesting in connection to a film trailer called "Innocence of Muslims" that insults Islam. Some people out there have been saying that the riots have nothing to do with Islam, or Muslims, and that to label these rioters as such is wrong because it paints a bad (politically incorrect picture) of what's really going on.

But here's the thing. ALL of these attacks, riots, and protests, are being carried out by Muslims and they are doing it because of a video on YouTube that insulted Islam. They're not rioting because of taxes, high gas prices, not having the latest iPhone, or because Britney Spears is a new judge on the talent TV show "X Factor"... They're rioting over a movie that insulted Islam. Islam is the key, the factor, the core of this whole mess.

Is it all Islam? All Muslims? Absolutely not! Islam is the second largest religion in the world (a close second to Christianity). There are literally billions of Muslims across the globe and only a miniscule minority are the ones rioting. But it cannot be forgotten that the ONLY people rioting about all this ARE Muslims. It's all about the insult to Islam. That's the cause, the trigger, the reason. Not the religion itself, but the insult to that religion. That means that the riots are religiously motivated and the religion is Islam.

If this were just a small localized thing you could brush it off and say that it was a bunch of hyper sensitive bad apples in one area. But it's NOT just one little area. It's world wide!

Wikipedia: Protests Against "Innocence of Muslims"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(UPDATE: I originally wrote the rough draft of this article late September 24. The Wikipedia page listing the summary information that I partly used for the following lists of riot locations and casualties has since been removed by a Muslim Wikipedia group as it obviously looked bad for them. Thankfully, I had a feeling something like this might happen, so I screen grabbed the website yesterday before this change took place.)

The Wikipedia group that has modified the article:

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia.

Here's the original Screen Capture, before the information was removed (September 24). The webpage was saved in an internet archive format. I made a screenshot of that saved page this morning so I could post it here for you all to see. The summary box on the right hand side has since been removed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The above link to a Wikipedia page has been tracking the incidents around the world. It does not list all of them, but it's a good place to start so you can see just how widespread and violent this whole explosion has been.

These are the places where violent protests and full fledged riots of Muslims have broken out since September 11.

Libya
Yemen
Tunisia
Sudan
Egypt
India
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Lebanon
Israel

France
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Denmark
Greece
Australia

And the list continues to grow every few days.

79 deaths, 687 injuries, and thousands of arrests.

Folks, this is NO minor incident. This is a global crises. A world wide violent uprising and it's been going strong for two weeks. Greece was just added to the list a couple of days ago. The US has closed its embassies in many Muslim countries to try and protect its citizens that are working there.

In most places these violent attacks have been small, consisting of fifty to a few hundred rioters. People have been injured, killed, and have destroyed buildings and cars. The harm and damage has been substantial, far worse than other riots in recent years that have taken place in western countries over the economy (as in Europe) or the riot in Vancouver Canada because the Vancouver Canucks hockey team lost against the Boston Bruins in the NHL hockey playoffs a couple years ago. This is much bigger and much uglier because people are being killed and it's happening all over the world at the same time.

This does NOT represent all of Islam, not by a long shot. But it DOES represent SOME of the people that follow it as their religion and belief system. The whole upheaval is because of an insult to Islam, and these are Muslim people (Muslim people only) committing the mass violence and crimes on behalf of their religion. There is NO getting around that fact. That this has happened in so many countries and so many cities should be a wake up call to anyone that thinks "Islam is the religion of peace". It's got a nasty violent underbelly that though a minority, still packs a heck of a bloody punch (or sword), and it's global.

Study Reveals Terrifying Climate Change Future

Haha! This reminds me of a horoscope I read once. "If you quit your job, it'll go no where."... You think!?

"if global temperatures reach levels at which coral reefs are damaged, then coral reefs will be damaged."

American Thinker: Reefer Madness (Climate Change Edition)

This (and "man-caused climate change" in general) is an excellent case of science and scientists that build an elaborate theory and science-based scenario on top of gigantic unknowns and "maybes".  

Our findings show that under current assumptions regarding thermal sensitivity, coral reefs might no longer be prominent coastal ecosystems if global mean temperatures actually exceed two degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level.

This is one of the big reasons I was never convinced by Evolutionism and Material Naturalism as an explanation for life. You can't build a solid scientific theory on little more than conjecture! This is like the "just so" stories rampant throughout Evolutionism. "Such and such lifeform MAY have evolved such and such trait (since it exists, though we don't know how exactly that came about) because of changes in climate, food sources, competition, and any and all other possible environmental or evolutionary changes around it..." Wow! Really!? You think it maybe could have because of maybe this and that if these things happened? Astounding factual science there folks!

In the climate change study example of the article I've linked to, the study basically says that IF previous predictions about climate change pan out (come true), and IF it has the effects they think it might on corals, then all their predictions that they THINK might come true, WILL come true... So, "If we're right about this, that, and those other things, then this and that will probably (more than likely) be the result, just like we predicted and expected..."

And so the "science-based" monstrous fictional construct grows and grows, study upon study upon study connected, interconnected, attached and expanded upon until it's so huge that how could anyone possibly deny its reality!? And they completely forget that the entire theory at every single point along the extensive pathway was based on unproven speculation and guess work that has never actually been solidly and convincingly shown to be actually true. It ultimately becomes a grand fairy tale with scientific bits and pieces mixed in, though actually digging reveals the gaping holes and gigantic creative imaginative story telling that underlies the entire thing.

When you go digging for solid answers and are left with little more than these sorts of ephemeral "maybe if" explanations as the believed truth, then your "scientific theory" isn't actually science, it's just creative science fiction.

Offend Islam, Cause Riots And Violence

YouTube: Egypt And Libya Riot Over US Film

"... It [the video] was produced by a real-estate developer from California who put its trailer on YouTube, something that very few people saw before a preacher from Florida, Terry Jones, started promoting it. The same preacher who's burning of a Koran last year triggered riots in Afghanistan. This latest film obviously caught fire with Islamists, with people in the part of the world where they don't just let things like that go, as they didn't with the caricatures of Mohammad in a Danish newspaper in 2005. That triggered a lot of riots, as we remember. Also as they didn't let go with a number of other incidents."

A couple weeks ago, on September 11 (the anniversary of the horrible Muslim extremist terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York that killed over 3000 people), Muslims across the globe showed their solidarity to combat terrorism by rioting and attacking US embassies, injuring many, ruining property, and even killing a US ambassador inside one of those embassies (in Libya). The entire eruption is being blamed on a short little video online that insults Islam, though the video has actually been around since 2009.

Islam's response to insult is drastically different from the response of Christians. Christians will say how offended they are about something, but won't riot and physically attack people over it. Because of this, we get all kinds of blatant over the top crude and truely horrible insults against Christianity, God and Jesus Christ constantly. By and large, we get upset, but don't attack. We turn the other cheek. In fact, if we DO make much of a fuss about such things, we're told to shut up because it's all a matter of "free speech". Blasphemy is protected under "Free Speech" and the courts will side against the offended Christians on that basis. So we get absolutely heinous blasphemies all over the place, even in museums and universities and it's all labeled "art" and "free speech".

For example, I read a while back about a big name university (sorry, I forget which one and don't have the link) in the United States banning a small Christian group from showing Passion of The Christ on campus, meanwhile, that same university a few months later put on a production of "F***ing for Jesus", a play ridiculing and insulting Christianity, God, and especially Jesus. "F***ing for Jesus" is art protected by free speech...The list of examples likes this is endless and disgusting. But Christians, even if we make a bit of a fuss (noise) about something, are told to shut up.

Islam, on the other hand, goes into a violent rage whenever the religion is insulted, even a little. Muslims riot, protest, damage property, attack and kill people, threaten death on the blaspheming infidels, and pretty much go mad with exacting retribution. Don't get me wrong, this is by far a minority. For every 1 Muslim in the world that reacts violently to perceived insult, there are hundreds more that respond peacefully (if at all) much like Christians do. A classic example of this is if a Bible is burned by someone in a show of hatred towards the Bible or Christianity, Christians go, "That's not very nice. Now back to our lives we go." When the Koran gets burned you get riots, violence, injuries and death in the streets of Muslim nations. Death to the infidel!

Appeasement And Double Standard

What's shocking is how the Western World is responding to this sort of over reaction. Property is damaged, people are injured and even killed, and the media and government goes, "The violence is the fault of the people who insulted Islam, not the Muslims and their religion of peace..."

Everyone is blaming an anti-Islam short video for the latest rash of violence, but the truth is that there's always something. Cartoonists who make a joke about anything related to Islam get death threats, their houses are fire bombed, their families threatened, and some even flee for their lives. And that's in Western countries! In some Muslim countries if you dared say anything bad about Islam, there's a good chance you'll end up dead. Heck, just being a Christian in many of these countries is qualification for being attacked, raped or killed (your family included). Yet the bulk of the blame always seems to be pointed at the person "igniting" the flare up, the person who somehow insulted Islam, and not the people actually committing the atrocious crimes.

You know how I mentioned that Christianity has to take insult and blasphemy as "free speech" and not make a big deal out of it? Islam seems to get the opposite treatment. The White House actually told YouTube and Google to take the offending anti-Islam video down. That's right! The US government is actively trying to block content that might offend Muslims online... Government law enforcement officials even hunted down the makers of the movie to intimidate and "re-educate" them so that they won't produce such things again. Politicians are apologizing for the video's existence and saying how terrible it is that someone would make such a thing. Meanwhile, Muslims riot for justice and vengeance... Even more shocking is that Hollywood, the bastion of "freedom of speech" excuses for content that ridicules Christianity on a VERY regular basis, is in agreement with the government and mainstream media! Block the content! Stop the insults to Islam!... Talk about being monumentally hypocritical!

Conservative commentators have been talking about all this and through interviews with "people in the know" and from the words that Muslims across the world are saying every day, it's becoming clear that such angry violent responses are done with the full intention of making it illegal to insult Islam on a global scale. The idea is to scare and terrorize the world into submission. It's a coordinated strategy, and it's working.

Christians get "F***ing for Jesus" and told to shut up when we complain about it. Islam gets protection from insult under the law... That's right! Many Western countries have adopted or have been slowly adopting (or currently calling for the adoption of) laws that block free speech with regards to Islam, making it illegal to insult the religion or Muslims in any way. Even just the perception of insult or offense will get you in trouble with the law. It's been pushed forward under the banner of respect for religion, culture and people, and it trumps freedom of expression and free speech, just like how homosexuality trumps freedom of religion (or Christianity anyways) and free speech.

Maybe Muslims have their strategy right. Maybe it takes violence to stop people from insulting your religion of choice... No, probably not. If it was Christians behaving this childishly and violently, it would be the Christians that get squashed by the law, not the people insulting them in the first place. It really wouldn't matter what we do. Somehow Christianity is absolutely free game and Islam is off limits, and both stances are protected under law.

New TV Show "Revolution"

New NBC Show, "Revolution", Monday nights 10 pm.

What happens to the world when suddenly all electricity and technology stops working? That's the theme of the new NBC serialized action adventure drama that premiered Monday night September 16.

The Good

The show's visuals were quite good. The visual effects were pretty good. Scenes showing nature over run city scapes like from "I Am Legend" and "After People" (or whatever that Discovery channel show was called where all people on earth suddenly vanish) were cool. The nature backdrops of forests, fields, farms, streams and waterfalls were beautiful. It's a post apocalyptic world where nature has "taken the world back" instead of having been wiped out, which is kind of different.

The mysteries surrounding what caused the electricity to stop working and how are quite interesting, but hardly get touched on at all in the first episode of the show. It basically just happens, and there's a couple characters that might know something about what caused it, and that's about all we know. There's a hint suggested by one geek character that it's much more than just an EMP (electro magnetic pulse), that something big like physics itself going wonky, might be at play. Why and how, we have no clue at all and the few people that do know (or did know), aren't saying anything to anyone.

Three characters stood out to me as the most interesting parts of this new show, Miles (the former soldier turned mercenary on the run who might know pieces of the big puzzle), the Captain of a militia group hunting down Miles and his relatives (one of the most engaging characters of the show so far, well acted), and woman named Grace living alone on a farm with a secret attic full of interesting mysterious stuff.

Interesting characters circled.

The other two characters and actors that had real potential but unfortunately died before the first half of the episode was over were the mother and father of two of the show's lead teen characters. The parents were a heck of a lot more interesting and grabbing than the two young adults were, in my view, but unless we get to see them in lots of flash backs, they're now out of the picture to be replaced by their pretty looking but ho-hum character young adult kids.

Lots of action, but a little too violent + a big body count.

The biggest thing going for the show is the mysteries and the action. If the show can buckle down on some of the good characters and focus more instead of this all over the place jumping and poorly executed plot points, it has potential.

The Bad 

The first and most notable "bad" thing is the obvious Hunger Games Katniss rip off. Charlie is a touch adventuress girl in a brown leather jacket with a crossbow who likes to hunt. *rolls eyes*. And the clothes she's wearing looks very out of place and impractical. Low riding leather pants? Seriously? The world has all but ended and she looks like she's dressed for class in high school, as does her super model looking brother. Both those characters didn't do anything for me.

The show gets rushed along through a pile of different scenes that are fast paced but are so haphazard that they feel overly forced. The show could have been much better if it had been given 2 hours to draw some of the characters and events out. Instead, we're left with people making very stupid decisions without any real explanation as to why so that they can push the story in a particular direction. It feels like way too much shoehorning all the way along, like they were aiming and needing certain spots to hit and just jammed them all together.

The Verdict

The show has potential, but it has to focus on the more interesting characters and story aspects and quit with the "don't they look pretty" and dumb forced plot points. Stick to the interesting stuff and the interesting characters that were very briefly touched on in the pilot.

Overall, I'd give the show many a 6 our of 10 mostly because of the glimpsed potential and interesting theme. Over the last few years I've seen a lot more new series pilots that were way better at developing characters, grabbing the audience, and dropping you into the world than Revolution's opening did. Similar shows like Invasion, Jericho, Flash Forward, The Event, and Tera Nova all had much better opening episodes (in my opinion), but none of them lasted beyond 1 season.

Unless the show can transform itself beyond what was shown in the 1 hour series premiere, I can't imagine this show lasting beyond half a season. It's initial viewership ratings were pretty good for NBC, but how many people return for the 2nd and 3rd episodes will be the real benchmark.

Rated PG?

Just a quick side note... The show was rated PG and aired at 10 pm. This show was not PG in my books. It should have been PG-13 or 14A. There was quite a lot of violence, including some gun shots and sword slices that included mild blood spray. A large number of people are killed in close combat by way of guns, arrows, and sword and knife slices and stabs, some in the slow "Ugh, I've just been stabbed, am dying, and can't believe it, I'll fall down now in shocked surprise," cliche. Two bad guys cough up blood and die after drinking poison by accident, and the lead young adult girl (Charlie) gets rescued from an attempted rape (she gets dragged away but the bad guy is stopped after a short wrestle with her).

The Origin of Life Simulated

I decided to do a little experiment on my computer. I'm a hobby programmer. I like to program for fun. I created a program that would generate and store lots of different numbers at random, mixing, combining, removing and adding numbers over and over again, all with the hope of something akin to life eventually making an appearance somewhere in the mix. This might surprise you, but nowhere in the trillions upon trillions of numbers did anything remotely resembling the ordered complexity of life emerge. Not in the slightest, not even once, despite trillions and trillions of "generations". Why is that, do you think?


The Problem For Materialist Scientists

People that believe in a purely naturalistic material universe have to try and account for the origin of life somehow. They cannot simply say, "It's always existed," because we know without doubt that this is not the case. Everything that exists in the universe as we know it had a cause, a beginning. And so just like everything else, life had to have also had a beginning. But life is so incredibly complex and stuffed full of highly detailed instructional information and functionality that it just could not have happened by random chance. Simply throwing a bunch of molecules into a big box and shaking it up will not come anywhere close to making a living organism, even a "simple" life form, because there is no such thing as a "simple life form". It would be like throwing trillions of english letters and punctuation symbols into a box, shaking it a lot for a long time, and expecting them to come up with one of Shakespear's famous manuscripts with only the slightest bit of spelling errors throughout. It's not going to happen. Mere randomness is NOT going to ever be able to "come up" with something like life. Never!

And thus, my program, my computer simulation based entirely on randomized numbers over and over again, will NEVER come up with anything resembling life. Random = Random, chaos, no order, no structure, no functional information, just meaningless useless garbled data with absolutely no point, pattern or structure.


My Simulation vs Nature

My program fails for one very important reason. There's no influences working upon the meaningless numbers. There's no potential of any kind there. Random numbers are random numbers and nothing more. What is it that would transform my simulation into something more similar to the universe that exists all around us? What would make my simulation more like "real life"?

Controllers, influences, connections, natural laws of physics and chemistry and all things that underlie the entire fabric (invisible and otherwise) of the universe itself! The systems and structures described in science are the heroes, the reason why random becomes non-random, in the origins of life debate. But does it really solve anything?

Here's the problem... All these complex and simple mathematical and scientific laws that govern everything in our universe from all matter to all energy are in and of themselves, information. *GASP*! That's right folks! A single basic molecule is itself information, a set of particles that have come together in a specific way to form a specific unique molecule with its own unique properties. The laws of physics and chemistry that underlie this entire structure are ALSO information because without them existing in the first place, the molecule itself could not exist, ever! The molecule requires the laws of the universe and those laws enable the particles in matter and energy to take form and have meaning.

2 + 2 = 4

Now remove the "equation" part, the operators.

224

What does that mean? Does it mean the same thing as it did before? No, obviously not. Now it can be read as "two hundred and twenty four", a whole number with 3 digits. But what makes 224 mean anything at all? The information that we use to interpret and understand that number.

That's the whole point. Nothing has any meaning except by way of interpretation and result. Think of it all like a giant equation. Meaningless random garbage + natural laws of the universe to shape it all = the actual universe. If nothing has meaning, than nothing = nothing and everything could not exist in the first place. Everything that gives our universe structure and any sort of order comes out of the fundamental underlying mathematical and scientific systems (the "laws") that dominate all matter, energy and whatever else exists out there. Without that "meaning", there is empty nothing.

The entire universe is a gigantic system of mathematical and scientific structure. Atheists and their like will argue that "there is no meaning to any of it, it just exists", but it could not "just exist", ANY of it, unless the rules and laws we discover and analyze through science and math were running and in operational order in the first place.


Conclusion

My simple computer simulation could never randomly come up with anything remotely similar to life. All it does is randomly generate numbers and mix those numbers in all sorts of strange and purely random ways. But there are no real controllers or systems involved in any of it. It's just random numbers, always and forever. Something must effect those numbers, operate on those numbers, for anything to take shape or change.

Our universe is not random nothingness. Instead, there are mathematical and scientific laws that govern absolutely everything in our universe and allow it to exist and be understood in the first place. Without these laws and systems, there would literally be nothing at all. The systems, the structure, the laws, all give everything meaning and substance. In fact, all of these laws are so incredibly well fine-tuned, that if they were different by even a tiny fraction, our entire universe would completely fall apart. This is what's known as the "fine-tuned universe" conundrum.

So where did those consistent laws come from? Where did the math and science that holds our universe together come from? Not our understanding of it, because it doesn't require us to understand it for it to function. Where did it all originate? It cannot have been the result of anything other than guided purpose. Our universe is intelligently, intentionally, programmed, because absolutely nothing can create such ordered structure and purpose except for a rational intelligent mind.


Take my computer again as an example. Unless I implement some sort of informational system of structure, meaning, and methods to my simulation of randomly generated numbers, the numbers simply are, with no rhyme or reason. It's when I start making the numbers mean something, have some sort of structure and connection to each other, that they become more. Matter, energy, and the universe itself, is information with meaning, understandable, examinable, calculable, all because of the mathematical and scientific "laws" that underlie the whole thing.

THAT does NOT and CANNOT spring from nothing. No giant explosion can cause that. No millions upon millions of universe iterations can produce that. SOMETHING intelligent has to cause it. The very fabric of space time, energy and matter, are all based upon informational structure. So even if you want to imagine that these "laws of physics and chemistry" can actually somehow have generated life itself (which by the way, is 100% impossible), as the material naturalist you STILL have to account for the existence of the informational systems that underlie and run the entire universe.

And here we are, mankind, capable of actually measuring and trying to understand all of this. God's living handiwork, trying to understand God's handiwork all around us. Absolutely incredible!


Follow Up: The Fine-Tuned Universe

There are a few naturalistic theories out there that try to explain this very serious dilemma of the "fine-tuned universe", however none of them are all that good. Mostly, they revolve around the idea of infinite possibilities, that our universe is one of an infinite number of universes and our universe just happened to "get it right". Another common idea is that somehow at the "Big Bang" event, the very laws of the universe did not apply as they do now, but somehow "fell into place". Why? How? Any proof? No answers to those questions exist, and neither does any sort of proof to support the few "best" materialistic theories that exist.

It would be like trying to explain the origins of a book by denying that the book was ever written in the first place, and that the information system or language that the book was written in, does not exist. Good luck with that!

Evidence For The Fine Tuning of The Universe

US Economy, Bush vs Obama (Part 2 of 2)

In part one [US Economy, Bush vs Obama (Part 1 of 2)] of my analysis of the USA's economy under George W Bush and Barrack Obama, I discussed the Global Financial Crises and how none of the economic numbers of either President can be taken straight "as is" without considering that terrible economic crash. Through a mix of government action and inaction that added up over the years (a mix of forcing banks into making bad loans while at the same time de-regulating strict codes of conduct for bank finances), the economic system of the US spiraled and collapsed beginning in 2007, triggered in part by a crash of the overly inflated housing market (caused by bad sub-prime bank loans).


Economy Under George W Bush

George W Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, a Republican, entered office in January 2001 and was replaced by Barrack Obama of the Democrats in January 2009. George W Bush became President under a flagging economy, one that had been quite strong under Bill Clinton for most of his run, but that had taken a serious hit from the "dot com" bubble and crash. There were fears of recession on the near horizon as economic numbers were almost all going in the wrong direction. Making matters even worse was the September 11 terrorist attack on the United States that caused a very serious hit to the economy as world confidence in the USA's security took a major beating. Note that despite the fact that President Bill Clinton (a Democrat) was the last President to have non-defecit national budget (the government was actually taking in more money than it was spending!), many signs of a bad economy (and what was coming to fruition by 2007) were already well under way. The biggest indicators of bad things to come were that the debt of Americans was increasing substantially while the savings were evaporating, even before Bush became President. That trend continued to escalate right through until the financial collapse epitomized by the crash in the stock market in late September 2008.

In 2001, when Bush became President, the US economy was in recession (beginning in 2000) with a GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth rate of 0.3%. Investments were way down, the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) was wavering up and down right around a 0% increase, and unemployment was going up. George W Bush became leader of the US in the midst of a flagging economy (of course, "flagging" is much better than outright collapsing, like Obama faced).

Now for some specific numbers. Remember that Bush was President for fully 8 years, while Obama has been president for only just under 4.

Annual GDP Growth: 2.5% average over 8 years

Job Growth: Bush had job growth 52 months (4.3 years) in a row until the economic collapse.

Unemployment Rate: Bush had a larger total labour force to work with than Obama and had an amazingly low unemployment rate of 5.3% average over 8 years. The Unemployment rate at it's best was 4.4% in March 2007 and before the economic collapse was at its worst in June 2003 at 6.6%.

Federal Debt: George W Bush accumulated one of the largest national debts in US history, largely thanks to the 2 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq followed by the huge economic stimulus package and bailouts at the end of his Presidency. Under Bush's administration, the national debt doubled in 8 years (from before his first budget to his last budget). At the time, such a massive rise in government costs over 8 years was shocking. 5 trillion in 8 years!

Income Inequality: Under George W Bush's economic policies, he was lambasted for the fact that the richest 1% of the US population were getting much richer during the economic boom (good times) than the average American citizen, getting 65% of all growth in earnings compared to the rest of the population.

Poverty: Before the recession began in December 2007, the percentage of US citizens at or below the poverty line was at 12.5% of the population.


Economy Under Obama

Job Growth: Obama has had 12 months straight of job growth (1 year), from August 2011 to August 2012.

Annual GDP Growth: 1.5% 2012 so far, as of August. A 2% growth rate or above shows good economic growth. A rate below 2% indicates a bad economy. Economists say that for the Unemployment rate to drop much, the GDP will need to increase to 3% or higher over the next few years.

Unemployment: Currently as of August 2012, 8.1% Unemployment, but with the lowest total labour force (# of workers) in 30+ years. The huge drop in labour participation accounts for most of the apparent drop in the Unemployment rate under Obama (10.4% Unemployment at its worst). If Obama had the same labour force levels as Bush had at their worst, the US unemployment rate would currently stand at 11.2%. It is also notable that the vast majority of the jobs that were lost since the recession were full time jobs whereas most of the jobs added under Obama have been part time jobs, not full time jobs. A part time job, though, is obviously better than no job.

Income Inequality: If George W Bush was attacked for the growing disparity between the rich and the poor, Obama has REALLY screwed it up. The richest 1% in America have accounted for 93% of all earnings and wage increases in the past 4 years under Obama. The rich are getting far richer in the last 4 Obama years than they did under 6 years during Bush's economic boom, and the middle class has been shrinking and bleeding money while the poor are even worse off. What's especially shocking is that this is the exact sort of thing Obama promised he was going to do away with, the rich getting richer while everyone else was getting poorer. Instead, it's gotten much worse as more of the wealth has transferred up to the rich and away from the lower and middle classes. Huffington Post (April 11, 2012): Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W Bush.

As the Huffington Post says:

That means the rising tide has lifted fewer boats during the Obama years -- and the ones it's lifted have been mostly yachts.

Poverty: A record number of people in the US now live below the poverty line, which accounts for 15.7% of the population. USA Today (July 22, 2012): USA Poverty On Track to Rise Highest Since 1960s. The Economic Collapse (November 12, 2011): Extreme Poverty Now At Record Levels.

Federal Debt:  In just under 4 years of government, Obama's government has spent about as much as Bush's government did in 8 years plus two wars.   ABC News (March 12, 2012): National Debt Has Increased More Under Obama Than Bush.

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.

Unlike Bush's $5 trillion in 8 years. Obama's got $5 trillion in just under 3 years. National debt is an important factor when considering an economy because federal debt has a direct impact on all financial investments, international trade, and overall consumer economic confidence. You'll find that usually when an open government has a surplus or a neutral (even) yearly budget, their economies tend to grow.


Conclusions

Who's economy was better? Clearly George W Bush's, and that's despite coming into power during an economic recession, which his government quickly turned around. Of course, it could also be argued that a substantial portion of the "boom" (or growth) in Bush's years as President was based upon a massive economic bubble (unsustainable fast growth that was based upon a fairy tale instead of solid math), which then popped and crashed in the last 2 years of his presidency. Which then left Obama becoming President amidst one of the worst economies in US history, comparable to the crash in The Great Depression.

The big news, however, should be where the economy goes from here, and how well has Obama's administration managed to turn the economic ship of the United States around (like Bush did for the recession in 2001 when he became President).

Unfortunately, none of those numbers are all that good for Obama. It has been by far the slowest recovery from any recession on record, even when compared against The Great Depression. In fact, it has been so slow and lackluster, that there is still a lot of talk about whether or not the US economy is even IN a recovery at all. Forbse (August 1, 2012): Obama Wins Gold For Worst Recovery Ever. If the US economy crashes again (which tragically, it very well might within the next year no matter who becomes the next US President), then historians may end up grouping this "mild recovery" in with the greater whole of a decade long depression like what happened with The Great Depression of the 1930s.

The current signs of a high unemployment rate, a record low in labour force participation, record highs in government spending, record highs in poverty, food stamp and welfare usage, and a small growth in annual GDP make the "recovery" very weak, especially as the disparity between wages for the rich and the poor continues to widen. That means that most Americans are seeing little or no difference now compared to when Obama first became President.

At the very least, it'll be interesting to look back on this 10 or 20 years in the future and see how history and time has changed (or not changed) the perception of President Obama's economy compared to President Bush's.