Ninth Circuit Court Overturns Prop Eight

"If you were able to mandate Love, then Love would be

 inherently lessened in value like an industrial item in mass production, 

and Love would not be the one thing 

which even God doesn't seem to be able to attain.

The big story of the day is that the Federal Ninth Circuit Court has ruled that gay marriage is legal in California and by clever “poisoned pill” wording, the opponents are discouraged from appealing this ruling to any higher court because it was stipulated that this ruling applies only to people in California, who approved this ballot measure.  Since this ruling is not a ruling on legalizing gay marriage as a “national right” some legal experts say that it cannot be appealed.  The ruling that Proposition 8 being unconstitutional is just another step in this absurd trend of legislating from the bench and inventing rights that are not there but, in fact, would be abhorant to any author of the fourteenth amendment, from whence this ruling is said to stem.   In strictly legal terms there is no fourteenth amendment problem since that the law stipulates one is to marry one of the opposite sex applies to everyone and does not discriminate, and as such everyone has “equal protection”.  On the issue is Justice Walter being gay, I will agree with the left, and that his sexual orientation is utterly immaterial as to his fitness to rule here.  I am not happy about the proliferation of gay marriages anywhere in America because I believe any day where a five thousand year cherished institution is slimed and debased is not a happy day, either for us now or for World Civilization in general.  Gay “marriage” was certainly a subject that was never even broached in the Bible.  It was that unimaginable.  Not even the licentious Greeks and Romans dared propose such a thing.  And one will note that in Greek and Roman mythology with all the depraved deeds of their vast pantheon of Gods,  I know of no myth that involved two Gods of the same sex being either married to each other, or proposing that such a right should exist.  This ruling cannot help but underline the cement of marriages everywhere.  Like it or not, people are bound by a certain “moral glue” and an ingrained sense of propriety- - and to tamper with this “natural protective device” cannot be a good thing.  I would now like to venture into another area where me and the liberals can find greater “concordance”.  This is the commercial with Clint Eastwood during the Super Bowl last Sunday, which is kind of a “hurray for America” pep talk on how “America is back” and is now building up a healthy car industry.  Leave it to people like Bill O Riley and other right wing whack jobs to claim that it’s a “conspiracy to the commercial media to re elect Obama”.  I don’t know how we EVER evolved into this state of perverse, backward thinking.  Obviously we have no business trying to invent motives for people that we not only have no basis for, but are also completely false.  Eastwood is a Republican after all.  The other day Dr. Levy wanted me to make some moral judgement about a decision some woman in the group should make.  I told Dr. Levy that her decisions in life were not my affair when I don’t know her and would have no basis to make any sort of judgement at all as to her needs and values and the rest.  I think we need to just let people be people and make their own decisions in this country and not trying to overlay some mantle of “political correctness” over each individual decision.

You know – I like Newt Gingrich’s new slogan “People Power – not Money Power”.  This is indeed a people and not money.  Money and corporations are not endowed by their Creator with any inailable Rights.  People by their numbers sway the power of the nation.  One of the sayings we did in Dr. Levy’s class yesterday was something like “Man’s humanity enables a sense of Justice, whereas man’s propensity for unfair abuses of that system necessitates Democracy.  As John Lennon says “Only people know how to talk to people”.  The Bible itself says, “There is wisdom in numbers”.  People – Despots- - run a risk any time they allow others besides themselves to make a decision on anything.  They run the risk that their depravity and “iniquity” if you will not play well in the moral light of day.  Classicly – tyrants have never regarded themselves as having to play by the rules the rest of us do.   I believe in the adage of “No man is above the law and no man is beneath it”.  In saying this I don’t mind one bit being labeled a “Legalists”.  I much prefer that to the alternative.  But these candidates in desperation will claim to embrace issues they have no convictions about at all- - such as Newt Gingrich suddenly announcing now he’s developed a new Compassion for the Poor.  Not Mitt Romney seems to lower his overall integrity in the interest of sprucing up his image among the Tea Party voters.  So now Mitt Romney is playing the Religion card.  In terms of violence and destruction with our protests pragmatists every are saying “Count me Out” along with John Lennon.  Sol Allinsky is apparently running the Presidential Reelection campaign from the grave, according to the tea party.  Sol Allinsky believed in People Power.  He did not believe in Violence and destruction of property.  You have to hope and pray if you are a Republican that the democrats never actually Follow the teachings of Sol Allinski because if the democrats ever do, the tea party knows they are toast- - or to be properly British, make that crumpets.

Everybody hates a hypocrite.  Especially one of multiple disaster marriages, whom the opposite warn each other of the danger of.  There is an inherent ugliness about preachers or "morality" who seem to lack all evidence of that particular virtue themselves. A certain of  Michael Benner style “button pressing” occurred today on Days of our Lives.  This occurred when Samantha flew into a tyrade about her husband being caught kissing his fellow business partner, Carrie in a moment when they were both caught up in emotion.  Raphael, her husband readily admitted he was in the wrong and shouldn’t have done it and takes the responsibility for it.  However Samantha, once she gets on a rant, doesn’t stop and wasn’t listening to a word he said but wanted him out of the house as of five minutes ago.  Raphael reminded her that marriage is a relation – involving two people – and “things haven’t been right between us for months”.  James Dobson would agree on this that feelings need to be looked at and examined and traced down as to how they got the way they were – and then “fixed”.  There’s that word again.  It isn’t some game of blame shifting volley ball- - or just shoving issue after issue under the rug (and hope it isn’t attracting cockroaches).   One family counselor we saw once in July of 1968 advised me to practice this “shove it under the rug” philosophy myself.  Well, we never went back.  Then there is the whole “turn and attack” and “the best defense is a good offence” rule.  Samantha is practiced at this.  Yes this is the same woman who during a recent family crisis was off having really passionate pent-up sex with E J Di Mira.  And she didn’t say word won about this whole affair.  She was being a regular Newt Gingrich about it.

Now the news media is telling us that since the economy is improving so much, the focus of the republican campaign has shifted to the social, moral, and religious issues.  These issues are more to my liking, that’s for sure.  I’m not really sure myself about Catholic hospitals being required to provide abortion and morning after pills for rape victims.  Something might be the moral thing to do, but all the same you may have a religious first amendment right not to do it.  There are other hospitals out there.  This is still America.  I still continue to oppose compulsory health care coverage.  I for one would be delighted if the Supreme Court struck down Obama-Care.  It would take the issue off the table for the November elections and there would therefore be no “If I’m elected president the first thing I’m going to do is eliminate Obama-Care”.  I do not believe American as a price of being born and breathing air has to be criminalized if he doesn’t provide what amounts to some fascistic union between the Government and the Health Care Providers.  What are they going to outlaw next- consumer boycotts?  This is the sort of thing I was referring to when I talked of the freedom to make personal decisions about your life free from the dictates of government.  If we don’t spend the money here, we will have it for other more vital and relivent things like jobs programs and infra-structure repair- - and dare I say, maybe even a little something for NASA.  I think to a degree the media has hyped up this whole health insurance crisis to begin with- - and it would seem that the incidence of abuse are far lower than the media would have us believe.  But if they occur, and they do, the Courts are the place to resolve them and not the law.  Just as in other cases- - Congressional bills are the place to resolve these issues rather than Court Rulings.  Everything in its place is what I say.

A RANT ABOUT LENSES AND OPTICS

This is an overcast Tuesday afternoon February 7, 2012, the day of the Minnesota caucus - and I finally got around to changing the calendar for this month.  Let’s kick things off here with an incident on last night’s “House” episode that triggtered a little distracted thought.  One doctor was razzing another doctor about an eye patient who squinted every time he looked at the chart.  Squinting is something near sighted people do.  Far sighted people don’t do it because it doesn’t do them any good.  (far sighted people just get headaches)  I don’t know about the actual biology but I imagine squinting causes the vitrius humor to press up against- more the center of the lenz compressing the lens in at the center and decreasing the convexity ( ) of the lens causing the image to be focused on the retina and not in front of it.  Of course the images of far sighted people focus behind the retina.  With telescopes, you move the eye piece in to focus further away or “move in on the image” whereas if you see a fuzzy object too near you back the eyepiece off (pull it out) to back up to the image.  I think that the optical power of the telescope is a function mainly of the focal length of the main lens that lets in light- - and also the eyepiece that focuses in on the “real image” that hangs upside down in the ether (in ethereal space).   A more convex eyepiece will generate more power because the focus length divisor is smaller- - and the more convex lens needs to get closer to the “real image” to focus on it, but also at the same time like a Camera and the Zoon,  the image is bigger but of lower resolution for less light is let in.  In a camera- - I have concluded that the F stop rating or the base rate of the lens itself- - is a ratio between the focal length and the apiture or the width of the lens.  Therefore a smaller diameter lens of the same focal length will generate a bigger optical image, but let in less light.  Dad spoke of there being an ideal F stop rating with the same “perportions” as to what is seen with the naked eye.  One time I asked him about a shot taken in a room of the Primrose house and I said “I was in there and the rooms are not that big” and he reminded me it was a somewhat wide angle lens.  I think the angle settings in Sketch are probably mathematically relivent for this purpose of naked eye comparison, and the image is optimally viewed at that spread angle from the- - - flat - - screen.  I told you Sketch images were designed for the flat screen.  But I know of no camera that generates that exact type of image.  Cartoon simulations yes, but not photos taken with cameras.  They can’t.  Here’s why, as far as I’ve been able to figure out.  First of all I wouldn’t change the mathematical algorithm for Sketch.  However the human eye works much more on the “inside the crystal ball phenomenon” we’ve gone into before.  This is where lines that are actually curved appear straight when processed by the human brain.  The question on my mind has been “cam a camera lens be constructed to somehow duplicate the Sketch effect?”  The answer seems to be “No” for the same reason you can’t invent dehydrated water.  (The best you could do would be to go to a country stream and use some kind of “essence of urban blight” powder flavoring)  Camera lenses do have the task of focusing on a flat surface, which is inherently more difficult than what the lens of the human eye has to do.  The solution is to bow the bilateral axis of the lens out in a convex fashion.  This will remedy the disparity of focal length between the sides of edges of the film plate as opposed to the center.  For perpendicular or center point light, the only thing that is difference is that the focal length might be a millimeter longer or something than a straight line axis convex lens would have to have.  Flat glass on an angle will shift an image without changing it but glass is usually so thin you never notice it.  Lens materials may have a higher refraction index than ordinary glass to begin with.  (I’m just guessing)  Now an object from the left side of the image view area would enter more perpendicularly on the left side of the lens than it would enter the right side and for a location on the right- - this would enter the right side of the lens more perpendicularly than the left.  The amount of flat refraction image shift, as I call it- - would cut the focal length of the lens more where it entered more obliquely - - and where it has the shortest distance to travel - -  and in the area of greatest perpendicularity- - the focal length would be the longest, and it’s also need to be.  Hence as I see it you can have a lens of varying de-facto focal lengths in the same lens- - that would handle images from different locations and make sure that they were projected in proper focus.  But to do this the front of the lens cannot be flat- - and so you can never have the sort of “straight line math” imagery of a Sketch program.