I wish I could take credit for this, but it's Fark:

Professors increasingly staying in classroom until their 70s, effectively avoiding real life all together

...Yup, that's about accurate.

Honey, it is because I love you that I am ordering you to mop the floor and make me a pie. It's for your own good, really.

Oh and I almost forgot... without imaginary numbers, we wouldn't have pretty pictures like those of the Mandelbrot set or Julia sets.

Matt, I'm so excited I just peed my pants!

I ♥ i

This is the kind of situation where I wish we had an "extended entry" option. I bet the "new version" of Blogger would let us do that, but I can't be bothered to figure that all out right now.

Imaginary numbers, though, I can be bothered with.

Back in the 16th century or so, when mathematicians were doing a lot of work with solving polynomial equations—specifically quadratics—they would use the formulas that they had come up with on certain equations, and it would require taking the square root of a negative number. At the time, they just treated that as meaning there was No Solution, since negative numbers clearly had no square roots. So they didn't really think of such things as anything more than a "dead end" of sorts.

At some point, they began to realize that such numbers did have their own kind of structure. That, for example,

√(-4) = √(4)√(-1) = 2√(-1).

So if you suppose that there is a square root of -1 (and you call that entity i) then there is an arithmetic that arises naturally. There is a natural way to add, subtract, multiply, and divide these numbers. So mathematicians can just take that and run with it—which just means investigating all other properties of these "new" numbers.

So at first these things were only of interest to mathematicians, since you couldn't exactly measure 3 + 4i cubits or owe somebody -2i florins.

However, it turned out that the properties of imaginary/complex numbers modeled some natural phenomena that were observed in more modern disciplines like electrical engineering, fluid dynamics, and quantum mechanics. This is just one of a number of instances where the mathematics developments came first, in and of themselves, and then the sciences eventually found applications for them without even trying!

Are you excited yet?!?

In Other News

We had 4 days of Christmas gatherings. Everything went really well (even though I was sick for a few days, and now Michelle has caught it). Again... you all make me very thankful for the in-law relationships in my marriage--on both sides.

Tomorrow Luke, Katie, Michelle, and I are going to Michelle's parents' place to meet up with her sister and brother-in-law, and we are going to do some Wii-ing on their big ol' Sony WEGA TV.

You all have heard of Wii, right? Luke got himself one about a month ago, and has been spreading the gospel of Wii wherever he can since then. I think it is really going to succeed in bringing video games to new markets, and making them more accessible to people who wouldn't normally be interested (i.e., Michelle). It's a lot of fun. Y'know, if you've got an extra $300 lying around.

Happy New Year...

A few things-- First, I finally got around to reading 1776. Wow. Great read.

Second--I was thinking this morning, Matt--what exactly is the purpose of imaginary numbers? Like, what are they used for? -- or is it another "just because we can" kind of thing. /just curious.

Glad to see you're alive, Tim.

Strange that you say that, Tim, because I had heard that "the dude" was very disatisfied with "the stuff" and was even concerned that it might lead to deaths in "the place." This, of course, came to me on the low-down, so I can't really talk about where I heard it or even why I am in the loop. But I just thought you ought to know that things are not looking good and "the man" is strongly considering "going medieval" on you.

As for me, my wife and two sons, we are doing really well. Christmas passed without any major flare-ups, so that was good. Can't say that much of interest is going on. Gearing up for another fundraiser, getting ready to launch a church (in September) ... Just day to day stuff really. Well, day to day not including my "work" with "the dude" on "the project" if you know what I'm talking about ...

Merry Christmas!
This (nearly) concludes what is currently rated as the hardest year of my life. While my job can be interesting, it also gets really busy and stressful when they start testing our stuff. Couple that with the insanity of trying to go to school at the same time and you end up with a very worn out person. T-minus 1.5 years of schooling to go.
You'll all be glad to know we passed our tests at work for the 'stuff' in the 'place' that the 'dude' is interested in. Hopefully, we will get some follow on work. Anyway, both sides of the family came to our house for Christmas and things went well so that's a blessing. We haven't locked down any new years plans yet...what are the rest of you up to?

Don't know if you guys saw this or not, but World Leaders Call for Peace on Holiday. This historical illiteracy of such stupidity astounds me, as they have entirely forgotten the '73 war.

Merry Christmas all. In-law free holiday ran smoothly and utterly without incident.

Apparently, Saint Bono is now Sir Saint Bono.

"While Bono's anti-poverty crusade has earned widespread respect, some of his other activities have provoked controversy, such as moving his music publishing to Holland to avoid Irish tax."

Do what I say people, not as I do. And if you make enough people feel guilty, then you'll get all kinds of further recognition! Forget dealing with the real issues, such as the Chinese lending sharks. (I guess white guilt doesn't apply to the non-white?)

I have input...

First--your son is: High energy? Stubborn? Ferociously independent? There is no gentle way of saying this--I think a paternity test is in order. Surely, that cannot be your child.

And in all honesty, it sounds like our two wives could really appreciate each other—as they face many similar issues. (Let alone us…)

For years, I saw my wife’s parents emotionally abuse her (and me), and I resented the hell out of it. I did everything in my power to protect her and empower her to recognize the insanity. And my attempts failed every time they were tried. And that hurt me, not so much because her parents would say evil and spiteful things to her (and usually about me), but because I could not protect my own wife. And as my wife resisted and even resented my efforts to protect her from her own parents, I finally became exasperated, wised up and let nature take its course. I couldn’t protect her from them, and even if I tried, she wouldn’t let me. So I became apathetic relative to their abuse. I made no comments, no judgments; I just let her get hurt. She did. And that was the turning point in all of our relationships, and one for the better.

Since then, my wife has described what feels ostensibly like a grieving process, as the relationship between her and her parents experienced a slow death. With time and a few years of counseling, her parents’ values of denial, deceit, selfish commoditization of people, financial abuse of their own children and utter disregard for everyone other than themselves became antithetical to the values of my wife and my family. And the dealth of the relationship almost became zombified (i.e., the walking dead), as for years, she allowed the facade of a relationship between her and her parents to continue out of her convenience. Further emotional fall-out wasn’t worth forcing them to deal with their new reality.

Until now. The confrontation, which I felt should have happened some 12 years ago, is finally falling into place. And it’s ultimately one of values. Our two family values are essentially mutually exclusive. And now that there is a child involved, our obligation to protect our child (from their values) forces the issue.

So when I read your post, Scott, I immediately felt empathy. There’s no parenting text, no text dealing with how to deal with your spouse being abused by her own parents. And what you have experienced (in which I have not) is what I consider to be the abuse of your son.

And from what I have read, as far as I would be concerned: game over. The existence of a grandchild cast system? Fall-out over a remote control? (And for the record, I wouldn’t have offered to replace it; I would have replaced it with a better unit simply to take the issue off the table, thereby undermining their power.) I expect there’s more to the Santa incident than what was written; but I am at the point now where (abusive) grandparent desires are utterly irrelevant.

So I honestly don’t know if I’m leading the family in the right direction. But I believe in the power of reputation. And some people have created a reputation of abusing or taking advantage of others. So when given the dichotomous choice between putting those that I love within the powers of the wicked or abusive, I opt otherwise.

I wish I was overlooking something, but it almost seems like the terror question. Does one try to appease the wicked, or stand up to them? I am choosing the latter.

P.S. You’ve got to admit that my WWBD references were hilarious.
P.P.S. Your favorite singer sucks.

Parenting ...

So I read your recent post on parenting, and it triggered a boatload of thoughts. This has been on the forefront of our minds recently, as my wife's parents have decided to make it an issue. The long story boiled down is as follows.

Several years ago, my wife and I made a decision to root our lives here, in the Chicagoland area. We did so for two reasons.

1. Chicago was the compromise location. I gave up my vision of leaving this state and she gave up her vision of living within an hour of her parents.
2. By maximizing the distance between our family and her parents, we could minimize the impact that they had in terms of reinforcing values in our marriage/children that we do share. We have seen this influence play out in her sister's marriage and family; and we wanted to avoid that in our own.

Consequent to our decision to live three hours away from her family, we have dealt with a near-constant reminder that her sister chose to live in town while we "wrongly" chose to live farther away -- implied evidence that we are not as committed to the family.

Now consider the issue of children. The sister has two children, one girl and one boy. The girl is the chosen grandchild because she is of the proper gender and she is the first-born. My in-laws raised two girls themselves; and consequently have no idea what to do with boys and their high-energy output. So put this all together:

1. We are bad because we do not choose to live in rural America near them.
2. The sister is good because she chooses to live in rural America near her parents.
   
3. Girls are best because they are easily controlled and do not disrupt the household in the same way that boys do.
4. Girls who live close by are best because ... they live close by.

So what does this yield? A telephone call from my father-in-law explaining that they do not care for our parenting. Their evidence:

1. After waiting in line for 45 mintues, our oldest son cried hysterically in front of Santa because he was flat out done with the whole experience.
   
2. Our son broke the battery plate on their remote control (a remote control that we offered to replace because our son failures are our responsibility)
3. We fail to discpline our child in the same way that my father-in-law chooses to discipline. In other words, we fail to spank our child so harshly and to scream so loudly that he cowers sobbing on the couch for five minutes before he is brought to stand before my father-in-law a second time for more screaming. We fail to be so intense with him that 15 mintues later, he will not allow me to put him down and physically trembles at the sight of his grandfather. We fail to be so intense that a week later, when my father-in-law's name is brought up, my son begins to cower all over again.
   

So where does this leave us? For the first time in our marriage, my wife has said to me that she does not wish to go to her parents for Christmas. She does not wish to purchase presents for her family. She does not wish to go down for several days after Christmas -- something she has done every year for the last six years.

The wierd thing is, all of this has lead to us doubting ourselves. Our son is very high-energy and he is very stubborn and very independant. But he is also two-and-a-half and is extremely well behaved everywhere else we take him. Are we failing as parents and allowing him too much freedom (e.g. we allow him to explore his environment including remote controls)? I don't know. But your point about there being no great parenting manual is something that we have been struggling with ourselves. How great would it be to have an authority that you could appeal to in every circumstance.

I have to run now, but if you think about us, please pray for my family. We are going down to my in-laws this Christmas (for less than 24-hours). We are doing so not because we want to but because we desire to minimize the emotional fall-out that would surely follow if we dared not show up for a family gathering. In the end, we are still trying to make this work. While I am at a place where I sincerley doubt that it ever can work (due to differing values), I want to give my wife as much latitude as possible to reach her own conclusions. (Of course, this latitude is restricted by their behavior towards my children. They will no longer be allowed to be near my children unsupervised, nor will any comments comparing my child to the "chosen girl" be accepted.) More specifically, please pray for my wife. This has been a very trying time for her as she is witnessing her family behave in a way that is causing a rift that separates us from them. I love her dearly, and it pains me to watch her suffer like this.

P.S. Greg, please note that I will no longer rise to your obvious Bono-baiting. You must find someone else to taunt. ;-)

Bono is working hard to spend American tax dollars...

I also found this of interest, relative to foreign policy and African debt. I wonder WWBD?

China Runs up African Debt

The debt-relief deal struck at last year’s Group of Eight (G8) summit, where rich countries promised to forgive about $40 billion in debts owed by poor countries, was supposed to be a turning point in Africa’s development, a chance to wipe its economic slate clean. Then came China. The rapidly industrializing country has emerged as a top lender to poor African countries, and that has many international development organizations worried that years of campaigning for debt relief will be set back by a new wave of bad loans.

The World Bank estimates that Chinese loans for African infrastructure already total more than $12.5 billion. In November, Chinese President Hu Jintao promised to provide another $5 billion in loans to Africa by 2009. Many of these deals are believed to be similar to commercial loans rather than the low-interest, long-term credits extended by multilateral development banks. It’s hard to know the full extent of the risk because China usually refuses to divulge the terms of the deals. Development experts now fear that aggressive lending by Chinese banks will land Africa back where it started—in the red.

So today I re-discovered the obvious: the Jews were looking for a savior relative to their biggest perceived threat: Rome. However, God thought differently, as he provided a savior from themselves. And that’s precisely why I sometimes wonder how valid our Biblical interpretations even are. ? Just from my layman’s perspective, our theological interpretations have shifted quite a bit over decades and centuries past—and I fully expect that my own is largely invalidated by the sand in my eyes, caulk in my ears, and holistic misguided understanding of the real issues… But I digress...

Secondly, having a kid has really mellowed me out in a few ways. Before having one, I was always very careful to personally and pubically recognize that I was going to make a whole bunch of parenting mistakes in which my offspring would spite me. And I still believe that; perhaps even more so now. But what has changed is my view (or judgment) of other people’s parenting. Parenting is all theoretical, and seemingly untestable. For too many situations, I’ve got no real idea what to do. I just kind of make an executive decision, go with it, and hope that the result doesn’t suck. The lack of a good parenting 101 text is somewhat annoying. Example: You see a kid picking on yours. At what stage (of picking) do you intervene, if at all? You then see your kid picking on another. At what stage (if any) do you intervene? You walk into a restaurant with a bit of personal anxiety, hoping that you don’t become “that family” with “that child”. The thing about having a child that surprised me is how little one knows; suddenly, there’s a whole lot more acceptance of differing parental tracts. When I look at other parents struggling with their kid that's having a bad day, I no longer look at them with some type of inner-judgment, but rather a certain amount of empathy. (All within reason though; values are still values.)

But yesterday at the playground, I observed something that I *really* didn’t expect to see. This one liberal-academic-elite looking father and his two sons. One son repeatedly came up to the father on claiming abuse or beatings from other playground kids; the father’s response, to my surprise, was actually something to the effect of—“Well, you incited it. Kids just don’t go around beating up other kids, so you must have done something to deserve it.” And I mean—whatever works for them, even though growing up as I did lends support to the belief that thugs do exist. But another part of me saw white guilt and appeasement-based international politics in its incipient state. Anyway—just something that I saw and thought about a little…

Can't argue with you for a second... although I see so many issues here. From what I read, it sounds like a mockery is being made of a once-noble sport. I could go on, but I'll just stop at that. Suffice it to say that I find it shameful. *t-r-i-e-s--t-o--m-u-z-z-le--self*

So slight thread-jack: Given that we probably all agree on the scary state of (public) education (female high school science teachers excluded), what are you guys going to do? Suffer through the educational and moral battle ground that is the public school? (Got cucumbers anyone?) Make sacrifices to find an fiscally obtainable private school? Or perhaps, even try home-schooling-- which (from what I understand) is really growing in popularity? (Got a family in my dept. that does that; the 7 year old is a freakin' genius. Whatever they're doing, they're doing it well...)

This just in: Debate no longer about argument and reasoning

Unbelieveable. Way to go, postmodern deconstructionists... now we have "performance debate" teams on college campuses.

I love how it's couched as giving "underprivileged" students a better shot at doing well, when it's really as racist as they claim the "traditional" debate teams to be. They're saying that these "underprivileged" students can't cut it at the usual levels, so let's find something they can do well—like, y'know, rap, or pretend to slap a teammate out of exasperation—and call that "debate" instead.

It's just more dumbing-down, and it really is worrisome.

Biblical Baby Boomer(s)

Am I trying to make something that isn't there? Here's what I'm thinking. David, while flawed, was a good king, bringing many military victories (and subsequent geopolitical peace) to his people. He also was a pretty lousy father, and sired any number of punk children. Just wondering if the same, "I've fought all over the world so that my kids don't have to be disciplined" phenomenon occurred then as it did now.

Secondly--How on earth can this Nifong guy live with himself?

I expressed all this to Michelle recently, who asked me if I would be having this reaction if he were a Republican.

With all do respect, Obamarama wouldn't have occurred if he wasn't a Democrat. Just look at the abuse Michael Steele experienced for going against the grain (of his blackness). The whole notion reminds me of the scene in Chasing Amy relative to the existence of a male-friendly lesbian, a man-hating dyke, Santa Claus, and the Easter bunny; in other words, a counterpoint has little validity if the hypothetical character in question is make-believe.

Although, this does remind me, in a sense, of Colin-mania.

Don't know if you guys have been following what the nut has been up to as of late, but all he needs to do is come out with a book detailing his genocidal plans, and we'll nearly be there... Nice to know that David Duke may consider denouncing his US citizenship...

Obamarama

I'm already getting real sick and tired of Barack Obama. The females around school (even the ones who like females) are absolutely swooning over him, and the media is similarly goo-goo-eyed. And why? Because he made one feel-good speech one time about bipartisanship and unity. Oh, and he wrote a couple of books. Who cares what his voting record is? Who cares that he's been a senator for less than two years? We want him to be president, dangit, because he's handsome, he's nice, and having a black president will feel good and help me convince myself that I'm not a racist.

I expressed all this to Michelle recently, who asked me if I would be having this reaction if he were a Republican. I'd have to say most likely not. It's true I would be happier if he were a Republican, but I wouldn't try to pretend that I'd vote for him for any other reason than... I agree with his stance on most of the issues!

Anyway, local radio host Jay Severin posited yesterday that Hillary is only allowing all this fawning to continue unanswered so that she can absorb it when she selects Obama as her running mate. I wouldn't be surprised.

After the Haggard scandal, I spoke with a few people, and I was really interested by their responses. One friend took the approach that scandals like this don't surprise him, they simply make him appreciate people like Billy Graham, Bill Hybels, etc... all the more. My second friend approached it from this angle: if a man like Haggard can fall -- a man who is deeply accountable to his elder board -- how much more probable is it that I can fall if I am not accountable to others? As for the third, he was just ticked that another prominent pastor fell and defamed the name of Christ.

For me, the interesting piece was that each of these people are solid believers who are actively trying to walk with Christ. How interesting that their responses are so different ...

Again? We all have a thorn, by why does this one seem so prevalent?

A couple of things…

1. When I was in Antarctica, I became friends with this terrific WWII vet. He was a pilot and a flight instructor, and he trained the Chinese to fly (w/o speaking their language) such that they could defend themselves against the japanese imperialists. I asked him how it worked out, and he replied—not well. They all pretty much died. Didn’t ask whether it was equipment, seat time, or both. But anyway—he said one very profound thing to me, “People today do not know what it takes to defeat a culture.” And so my view on military conflicts changed.

2. Matt—I think you’re making my point. The military doesn’t take stutterers. But I’ve got a PhD for cryin’ out loud; I research prosthetic management, and could fool any recruiter quite easily. Not sure what would happen once in, but I doubt they’d discharge me. Yet, I do not. Your critical threshold seems to be an entire city, provided you’re single; but now that you’re married and thinking of family expansion—all bets are off. I guess my point is, (if and when we get serious,) you will fight because you have a family. But until there is a level of whole hearted seriousness, I do honestly wonder if it is worth the sacrifice. Although it greatly pains me to type this…

3. Scott—the nuclear arsenal made all kinds of sense relative to the cold war. That’s what beat the soviets; not the arsenal itself, but the production of said arsenal. And then Star Wars came along and threatened the validity of their ICBMs, thus rendering their arsenal significantly less useful. The economics of the nuclear arsenal allowed communism to collapse inward on itself. But as you point out—now, we’ve just got a whole bunch of crap that we have to maintain and don’t use.

4. And the more I think about it—the baby boomers have systematically undone nearly every (if not every) single advancement that their parents provided. The US used to be feared and respected. Now, even 3rd world countries make fun of us. And why shouldn’t they? Look at the ominous threat that we have become? An exceedingly good military undermined by our own values.

4.5 A few months back, I wrote an opinion stating that moral relativism was the single most detrimental factor within modernity. And I still stand by that statement, as moral relativism is the systematic attempt of humans to not only replace, but become, god.

5. Scott—to answer your question… They’re not winning; we’re just not fighting. We’re trying to swat at individual gnats, when we’ve got tubs full of DDT just sitting there. I can’t see the radicals going anywhere, and they will become more emboldened with every weakened step in which we limit ourselves. And this is entirely different from that of the cold war. A communist Vietnam really didn’t directly threaten our national security all that much. But a couple kooks and a nuc do. My friend and I have played this conversation out too many times. It’ll take New York city, the Washington Metro area, and perhaps another major metropolitan area before we pull out the DDT. (If the radicals were smart, they'd space each hit about a decade apart. It'll be interesting to see when and how they go about doing it.)

6. But as an aside, my grandparents (the ones you all never met) got to live with us for a few years when I was a kid, and that was quite an experience. She was convinced that the Soviet Union was the antichrist, and tried to get my dad to pay for a bomb-shelter. I can still remember her reciting scripture (?) about the “hook drawing down the bear”. (She suggested the bear was Russia; I don't even think this prophetic memory is even biblical.) Even as a kid, I questioned her views. But as an adult, I often wonder if Islam isn’t the antichrist? In a sense, I’ve made it make sense. I haven’t read Revelation in a while, and even when I did, I didn’t understand it. But the battle of Armageddon (in terms of location) makes more sense under this scenario. As does the use of embedded personal identification RF devices, due to closed borders and increased national security. And I do not profess to understand the way in which God or Satan work, but with the issues surrounding Ishmael and Isaac, I just wonder if there’s something there.

So in closing, Scott, I don’t know what it will take to turn this thing around. I’m not even sure if it is (or is destined) to be turned around. And that’s a pretty frightening concept.

P.S. My Mom's organization got some press on their local news.

Yeah ... [sigh] ... I have to say that, broadly speaking, I agree with you both. It just seems that we have, as a nation, arrived at a point where we no longer believe in anything if that "anything" is going to personally cost us something. Moreover, I think Greg's point about moral relativism is probably one of the most insightful points I have seen made on this subject.

Furthermore, I have to admit that I have often wondered about the point of possessing a nuclear arsenal if we have no intention of using it. That's not to say that I advocate nuking the Middle East. I just don't understand the point of sinking millions upon millions upon millions of dollars into projects that we lack the collective courage/conviction to utilize.

But here's a question for you. What do you honestly think it is going to take to turn this thing around? Moreover, do you even believe that it can be turned around? There's an awful lot of world history that suggests that "empires" crash when their value system turns to mush (e.g. the Roman Empire, the British Empire, etc...).

I didn't feel "picked on", Greg; it sounds like we largely agree.

So if you opine “we no longer have the fortitude as a nation to win a war”, are you willing to make the sacrifice? If not, then who exactly are you talking about? A successful war campaign comes at the collective sacrifice and the mobilization of an entire culture. Who among us is willing to do that? [I’ve looked into the military; they don’t take my kind.]

I've actually thought about stuff like this. If I didn't have a wife, and one of our cities were to get nuked, I'd probably be at the recuiter's office the next day. (I'm not sure what they'd find for an out-of-shape, uncoordinated nerd to do, but at least I'd be a warm body.) But I do have a wife, and that makes it significantly less probable. If I had kids, that probability would probably go down to zero. Yes, I know there are thousands and thousands of military men that routinely leave wives and children at home. I don't know how they do it. They've got more "fortitude" in their pinky finger than most of us do in our whole body.

Were there other sacrifices that you had in mind?

Are you prepared to win?

I’m not picking on you M, because I honestly don’t know how you feel on things... And everything I type applies equally to myself as it might to others...

I can’t remember the date (and I don’t feel like checking), but sometime prior to the German invasion of Poland, the British Parliament had a vote relative to standing against the Nazis or to continue their policy of (functional) appeasement. They voted to appease, and Winston Churchill (my man) said something to the effect of, “you voted for appeasement, which also means you voted for a war.” Profound statement, I think.

I support the war in Iraq. And not for the reasons that the Bush administration so seemingly and ineptly misarticulated. The middle east appears to be a region gone nuts, fueled by radicalism, which inherently limits personal freedom, the free market, and other symptoms of capitalism. Instead, radicalism feeds itself by limiting freedom, keeping people impoverished, and indoctrinating them with hate since birth.

In short, my premise is that free and successful people personally don’t go commit suicide/terror against the infidels. And the best way to free people and allow them to become successful is to provide them with the opportunity of self-reliance through a democratic republic and capitalism. It is a theory, and as such, a gamble. But what other choice is there? Wait and do nothing? Talk to them? Appease them?

(For the record, with all the crap that Russia has done and is doing, I have every reason to suspect that there has been some funny business relative to the pre-war intelligence that every industrialized nation agreed upon.)

Make no mistake about it: war is historically waged between cultures (American Civil War aside); this is no different: islamic vs. Judeo Christian cultures. Second, lasting peace only comes through unabashed victory. Third, victory comes from a sound and thorough defeat (i.e., unconditional surrender) of one side relative to another. Fourth, victory has never come from a limited campaign. (e.g., Korea, Vietnam, Gulf part I). The only way to win is to thoroughly devastate the opponent (i.e., opposing culture). Period. (It's no wonder the old testiment is written as it is.)

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no major conflict “won” by a limited campaign. To win a war, collateral or civilian losses are not a bad thing; they are a good thing, because it limits their ability to wage war. And that act shortens your war, which saves your lives. Today’s paradigm almost seems to assume that the enemy must be choosing their evil by some cognitive deficit in which they cannot control; as such, we continue to deal with them as one would a child mentally disabled person who cannot be held accountable for their actions.

Our nation, driven by the lost generation (otherwise known as the baby boomers) have misguided American pop-values from reality into fantasies of some kind of white-guilt mythical utopia, where “talking” to one’s adversaries is better than beating them. Where your political opponent is more hated than the one that wants to kill you. Where we are worse than our own enemies who have attacked us.

This nation has just become historically illiterate. That nut in Iran is almost mirroring what Hitler did prior to dub-dub-2. And it’s incredible that we’re ostensibly dumping much of our national security on a country that doesn’t have its head in the sand (i.e., Israel). And based on the Lebanon fiasco, I’m not sure they have what it takes either.

And how's this for a mental exercise: We're refusing to use our nuclear arsenal--until they use theirs first. On a humanitarian level, it makes sense; on a rational level, it does not. How many Americans have to die until we get serious?

I’ve had this conversation ad finitum with one of my best friends, and we’ve both independently come to the conclusion that it’ll take another 2 or 3 hits (on a city-level) for our nation to re-derive their values such that this can be won. At this point, we're so soft that we'll only be motivated by direct and personal fear.

Or perhaps it is this: A successful war effort cannot be derived in a culture of moral relativism. If we’re not better than the radical terrorists, then how can we kill them? I do not subscribe to such a theory; we are better than the radical terrorists, thus giving us the right to kill them.

So if you opine “we no longer have the fortitude as a nation to win a war”, are you willing to make the sacrifice? If not, then who exactly are you talking about? A successful war campaign comes at the collective sacrifice and the mobilization of an entire culture. Who among us is willing to do that? [I’ve looked into the military; they don’t take my kind.]

There is no winning a limited campaign; victory only comes from full, unrestricted war yielding unconditional surrender. Thus to me, it is apparent that we do not have the values such that we can wage an unrestricted and fully mobilized war. And modern day terror isn't that far off from radical japanese imperialism. Both were suicidal and fought to the last man. They’re not winning; we’re just not fighting.

Comments?

When people go on and on about what a mess Iraq is, and what an idiot Bush is, I get upset. Not because I necessarily disagree, but because of what it says about us as a country. We no longer have the fortitude as a nation to win a war. September 11th was so five years ago, and we have our head stuck in the sand, not wanting to hear that this war will either be fought over there or over here.

"Doves believe that the choice is between fighting and not fighting. Hawks understand that the choice is between fighting now or fighting later." - Bill Whittle

So I can't stand hearing people practically celebrating our defeat (and Bush's downfall), saying, "See? We told ya so." Yeah, congratulations. Come get us, terrorists! We won't fight back with any real force or committment.

Another person saying similar things is an editorial writer at Investors Business Daily.

This plane riddle has been the best I've seen in a while. And, at first, I used the same logic as Matt. However, I continued reading and came across this quote:

The implicit assumption is that if the conveyor belt's speed backward exactly counteracts the airplane's "speed" (whatever that means) forward, the plane remains stationary relative to the earth and, more importantly, to the air. (We assume the winds are calm.) With no wind moving past its wings, the plane generates no lift and can't take off.

But the assumption is false. While the conveyor does exert some modest backward force on the plane, that force is easily overcome by the thrust of the engines pulling the plane ahead. The plane moves forward at roughly its usual speed relative to the ground and air, generates lift, and takes off. Many people have a hard time grasping this (although it can be easily demonstrated in the lab), but eventually they do, smack their foreheads, and move on.

And as an aside, today is December 7th. 65 years ago this morning, the Imperial forces executed a preemptive strike on US forces stationed at Pearl Harbor, rending the bulk of our pacific fleet in ruins. This reality lead the navy admiral to abandon US forces stationed on Wake Island, who fought exceedingly hard against the Japanese invaders. (The story of Wake Island is well worth your time.) Wake Island fell, as did Guam and nearly all other US territories in the Pacific, as the US entered perhaps one of the darkest periods in the Pacific Theater, until the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway--which are largely considered to be the turning points of the campaign. (Run-on sentence!)

I don't want to look and see what other people say before I've given it my best effort. Which is not much.

Isn't lift only created when the wings are moving through the air quickly? Those engines can hum as fast as they want; if there's no air movement across the wings, the plane ain't goin' nowhere.

Interesting Mind Twister

I’ve run across this riddle a few times before, but it popped up again today and I thought it might be interesting fodder. (M—could you use this kind of think in any of your logic or math classes?)

Here’s the scenario. You’ve got an airplane. This plane is equipped with fixed horizontal engines and wheel landing gear, and is placed on a huge treadmill runway. The treadmill has a clever design and always matches the speed of the plane, but runs in the opposite direction. Will the plane take off and fly or not?

The first time I saw this, it took me a few minutes to figure it out. Now, I just like reading people’s comments about it—as they’re figuring it out for themselves…

Uhm... This may be worth your time. Imagine if you could write a letter to a friend or loved one after the Great Day of Reckoning. Yeah. This site, of similar concept, may be worth a look as well.

So guess what? I'm on Facebook. That's right, it's not just for students anymore.

It's pretty addictive, but I'm not sure how many peers you'd be able to find (other than me). There are some other old fogies on there (including Nick Heiliger!); in fact there are a number of Groups for just such people. I only like it because I'm re-connecting with some of my students from when I taught in CT. Plus it's fun to look for--and join--Groups. My sister made one called "I Am An Enlow, Therefore I Am Awesome", just for people with the last name "Enlow". We have 13 members now, three of which are me and my siblings! Who are these other people?!? Anyway, just a fun way to waste some time.

I haven't "friended" any of my (current) students, and don't really want to. I think I'd just rather not know some things.

What about that story requires explanation? The "fuss," or the lack thereof?