Friday, July 29, 2011

.
.
Have you ever wondered what money, big money, and the national debt look like, in real terms (both funded and unfunded, the latter of the two is rarely if every actually discussed)? Well, here is what real money and debt looks like. (Shamelessly stolen from Ace of Spades HQ, who they stole it from shamelessly is anyone's guess.)


This is a gun I really like and want. The only thing better, to my mind, would be a solidly designed (for survival) semi-automatic design. Still, I think this gun would do much better in the long term. She might not be a beautiful thing to some people's eyes, but she would be one of my pride and joys. (Shamelessly stolen from Desert Cat, who is doing freelance advertising (and causing some of us to drool.))

I've been watching the Catholic channel a bit. They have a priest who happens to be a physicist who has his own show. It is rather interesting. At first I was quite off-put by the combination. Well, more the physicist part of it. No, I don't mind physics. My problem is with physicists. They are often so sure, so public, and so wrong. In any case, after getting over my reservations, having seen bits of his show several times, I decided to give him a bit a chance. He, as a physicist, is still a bit preachy. But what he does have to say is quite interesting. Today, he came down to a main point. Physicists, solid ones who know their stuff (as it stands today), come down in one of two schools. Either they believe in a maker, a super entity that created everything and all (whether in a relationship or not is another thing). Or they believe in infinite alternate universes (which can neither be seen, nor visited, nor really tested for in any manner) which allows for the understanding currently accepted. True? Probably. I have been sort of watching physics off and on. It seems they are spending fortunes and huge amounts of time trying to theorize and prove alternative universes and such. This is often seen in science fiction as well. In any case, it was interesting.

While watching his show, I actually gained some idea of why science went secular and on to what it is now. Without someone to be current with the sciences and in the community who can tie religion to science and make sense of things, purely dedicated scientists are so involved with their work they simply cannot make any such connection. Further, those who choose to study science have traditionally been of a libertine nature, initially only nobility, then on to the children of the extremely wealthy. At one time, they had peasants standing around to do things for them, like holding numbers or objects in large groups, so the scientist could sort of have a "computer" of sorts, or visualizations. The combination has lead to what we have today. It is much like when you go to college and pretty much finally understanding your major (as it is taught), then discussing this with your parents. They simply don't "get it", what you are being taught and what you are figuring out. So it might be simpler to just consider them fools. At some point you figure out they have learned everything you have and rejected what of it they personally or professionally do not need and sifted out more of what is purely fiction. But it takes time. Why science has taken so long apart a whole other story. It does make sense though.

We would all love to be idealists. We would love to just have everything be fair, all people be equal, that health and age and on to death not be a reality. But that just is not the way it is, here, as things stands. Christians, of course, do or should believe there will be a time and place where this will happen. But not here. Socialists and communists believe they can make that heaven or whatever it really is here on earth (tower of babel), excluding God, created by the hand of man. I guess it comes down to whether you believe we (which comes down to you) can make heaven on earth or whether we have to wait, abide our time, and possibly be punished for doing good things as the way of it. Funny, there would be a great deal less horror if people would accept that heaven cannot be found or created on earth! How odd.

Well, on to... something. Have a great afternoon.

5 comments:

  1. Ah. So it's a blondes vs. brunettes thing, tits vs. ass, PC vs. Mac.

    I can understand the appeal of a well-finished wood stock. None of my firearms have a wood stock however. Black polymer is sexy in a dangerous way, sort of Trinity vs. Monroe. Marilyn was a doll, but for serious business in a hostile environment I'd rather have Trinity at my side. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, not at all. I HAVE a "wood", thinking about that gun. I used to love wood over "plastic". I truly despised the Glock, but if you ever felt one, it wasn't just the plastic (if I didn't realize that at first). I am sure some can and do love wood to exclusion. I understand, until the (MY) XD no other plastic would have worked. But after the (MY) XD, fuck wood. If I were a rich man, sure, more often anyway (but I would still cc the (MY) XD. But I am not rich. Further, plastics of the sort on these new guns will outlast any wood structures on a gun, and often the guns delicate enough to be enhanced by wood. (Maybe I go a bit far, but... I guarantee I would shatter the wood stock on my 870 before I could break the butt on the KSG and I am pretty sure the (MY) XD would outlast anything thrown at a wood-handled pistol and probably the pistol those attach too).

    No, I am very excited about the release of this gun. I am guessing it will take a very long time to get one. I am guessing the company is dragging out release to drum up drool. All of it pisses me off, but what can you do. They are like strippers, only you might get some. Ha. I do love their bullpup 7.62, but $1.8k is out of my neighborhood, up the hill, and I have an AK carbine that will work as a minor mbr.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I shot a few glocks out of the rental case at a local range. I hated them. They don't point naturally in my hand. Not the plastic--it's the whole design.

    ReplyDelete

Backsass Here