Tagged: women

Stuck On Trump’s Instinctive DEI Claim

It felt forced to me when Trump first claimed “DEI” was behind the mid-air collision. Something like, “Yeah, yeah. We know you want to conclusively put DEI to bed. But these investigations take time and this is too soon.”

Soon after, however, I began to wonder, “Crap. Was it a woman pilot? Or a minority? Sucks to be them.” Then we learned, in as terrible a display of thoughtless PR as ever, that it was a woman, and that she was a lesbian who clearly had not been inspired to be a military pilot after watching Top Gun or Top Gun:Maverick.

Now, a day after the facts came out, I can’t help but admit that Trump has some sort of Boss Level instincts. I know, I know. Fanboys and he have made this claim for years. But for years, I had been assuming he had someone filtering him or prodding him etc. My mistake. The precise moment I realized my mistake was when I saw that footage of him reacting to Harris’ DNC speech in real-time with a room full of his cabinet/staff. There was no filter, there was no prod. He actually operates on his instincts—seemingly constantly.

This “DEI” claim was more of the same, then. But this time it is remarkable to me because of the speed. Mid-air collisions should never happen. And they don’t happen very often. So when, presumably, he was informed it was a lesbian, low-hour pilot and put together that DEI could be smashed onto the mid-air in a way that literally saves future lives, he ran with it—no need to run it through a “steel man” exercise or anything.

The Golden Age of America started with the last mid-air collision, itself the last aircraft piloted by a DEI hire (hopefully).

The point is not, “Did I persuade you Trump is right?” The point is, “Do you see the instincts on this guy?” As a pilot who does, from time to time, base my decision solely on instinct, I can admit that Trump’s use of instinct is remarkable. And I hope that, as a result, all pilots see-and-avoid from now on.

Pumbaa’s Error

“Oh. I always thought they were balls of gas burning billions of miles away.”

How does Disney create the idea that Simba’s animism (the stars are spirits of the dead) is the right astronomical view?

Timon and Pumbaa laugh his notion off, and yet every movie watcher walks out of the theater happy that Simba believed his dad and the subsequent delusional interpretation of one bright night’s dynamic weather.

It all starts with Pumbaa’s error.

Imagine with me if the writer had an ounce of astronomy training.

****

Pumbaa: Hey, Timon, ever wonder what those sparkly dots are up there?

Timon: Pumbaa, I don’t wonder; I know.

Pumbaa: Oh. What are they?

Timon: They’re fireflies. Fireflies that, uh… got stuck up on that big bluish-black thing.

Pumbaa: Oh, gee. I always thought, when their light was analyzed with prisms, they were determined to be ever-changing balls of the very same elements that make up our world, acting, in fact, under the same forces and for the same reasons which carry both the sound of my voice to you but not much farther and the heat of this desert sand to our feet but not up our legs—but were like really far away and surrounded by LOTS of empty space.

****

Can you even imagine the ludicrous family tradition of past kings looking down following such a silly guess by the warthog?

No, no you cannot.

It’s not merely a killjoy, either. Plenty of ways to make the movie still work. Mufasa can talk about how his tribe had overcome great difficulties and that it took ridding themselves of envy and sabotage—and learning from whoever had something obviously better to contribute. And then Simba can simply remember this confirmable truth after a rebellious and disastrous few years of life with the poor—I mean—the wild animals.

On the Mid-Air in DC

Tragic. It is tragic. Utterly tragic.

From a pilot, from your trusted pilot, here’s how this happens.

Firstly, I was taught very early on, “100% of mid-air collisions never see each other.” (If you’re slow—this witty math-based proverb merely implies there are no kamikaze’s.)

Secondly, I have been on flights where the aircraft commander has said, “*Visual* (meaning “I have the traffic/plane/helicopter in sight)” but he DID NOT YET have the traffic in sight. One was in Balad, Iraq, then the second busiest airspace in Earth, and we “split” a formation of Chinooks (which any pilot knows is a clear display of utter incompetence as well as lucky as all hell to have survived). In other words, there is some great temptation to trust the system so completely, trust the “big sky” theory so wholly, trust the historical data of one’s experience that shows every single other time the situation resolves harmlessly so blindly, that you conclude to just “fib” a little (because you will see it ((and avoid it)) in short order) rather than inconvenience anyone. Seriously, the options are A. death or B. inconvenience.

And now they’re all dead.

Lastly, let’s skip to the end—because you faithful deserve the good stuff—the investigation will conclude (correctly) that it was 100% the army pilot’s fault. They may conclude some airspace changes or procedure changes are necessary—but you can’t let that distract you from the actual fault finding. The recording has the army pilot saying, “Have the CRJ in sight.” (You can hear this actual audio for yourself. See this guy at 4:25.)

It’s just tragic.

Re: The Drones. I Told You So!

I was right, naturally, but it wasn’t because I am a pilot. It was because I know how to listen. Here’s the original post that called ya’ll out as suckers. (It’s a pretty funny approach to the subject to me still; read it!)

https://petedeakon.com/2024/12/18/the-drones-are-operated-by-trolls/

And the important words from today, “…were authorized to be flown by the FAA for research and various other reasons. Many of these drones were also hobbyists—recreational and private individuals that enjoy flying drones. In time it got worse due to curiosity.”

I mean, I still feel like a million bucks cuz I was right!—especially because it sounds like I may be the lead writer on the conspiracy theory squad who gave her the script. I literally wrote, “And at this point I would drive out there and have a little fun with the morons, if only I had a drone.” Or as I decided to frame it for the MAGA crowd: “In time, it got worse due to curiosity.”

It’s Like Movie Stars Complaining About Discrimination

As I keep reading essays and books essentially on “the definition of science”, I can’t help asking, “Where does the conflict with religion come in?” I can readily admit that I feel the conflict, but after spending any time in contemplation on the supposed conflict, I resolve everything to, “It’s comparing apples and oranges”. The only conflict is between bad religion and bad science. The real deal of either each stands alone and never the twain shall meet.

This new thought (in the post’s title ⤴️) about the conflict occurred to me just now.

So let me get this straight. The authors of all the mainstream science textbooks that are endlessly promoted and in use (or their conclusions are—which is the same) by all major educational institutions, these authors uniformly decry religion as, in general, something that holds humans back. Or that it stunts the development of knowledge and civilization etc.

Yeah. Okay. I believe you. Just like I believe the claims of millionaire celebrities that they’re victims of discrimination.

Gimme a break.

I, 18CT Colorado Eggs vs. I, Government Commisioner

I am a 18CT Colorado Eggs—the ordinary packaged 18CT Colorado Eggs familiar to all boys and girls and adults who can open their refrigerator door.

I am a Government Commissioner—the ordinary imbecile Government Commissioner familiar to all boys and girls and adults who have come to expect nothing of value from any government official because of their ignominious utterances like the above idea that any economic experience is the result of only one factor.

****

No pencils were harmed in the production of this post. But I can confirm with special and satisfactory delight that three chickens died to make this post possible.

Eureka! Marriage Realities Exposed

I concluded my recent review of Joker: Folie à Deux with the pathetic (full of emotion…) question, “Why do we hurt each other?” Well, just this second the answer came me.

“We hurt each other because we don’t think we do.”

No, I did not just plop into a very full bathtub like ol’ Archimedes. But I am reading a book on the subject of the universe and one of the thematic points is the whole “mostly empty space” thing I mentioned in discussion of Nolan’s script’s mistaken definition of quantum mechanics.

So, if you need an analogy, use this. We hurt each other because we think of each other as mostly empty space. The truth, however, is we are all full. (Wow. That’s fun. No, not “awful”, but we all are full. We are full.) We are filled space. We are space filled full. (Not empty.)

But that’s just a fun physics analogy that may or may not tickle your fancy. Don’t miss the point!

We possess the power to hurt each other unintentionally.

****

PS – For kicks, the actual origin of this Eureka! moment for me is I believe one of my wife’s announced desires is surely destructive to our marriage and family and consequently insist she give it up. Whereas she believes god authored it or approved it or some shit. And as I was reading just now, after I stopped her from randomly starting the dishwasher without my dish in it and saw her eyes say, “Even this action is wrong?”, my mind wandered to the ongoing hellscape of my marriage.

Do you see? Her desire—to her—isn’t harmful to me. And my decree—to me—isn’t harmful to her. But I can assure you, as the nursery rhyme says, “Needles and pins, needles and pins, when a man marries, his trouble begins.”

The best part is Christianity is one of the last forms of order which unequivocally, unconditionally, and without exception places the husband at the very tippy top of the food chain, so much so that even in 21st century conservative, Biblical doctrine, the doctrine is simply avoided. “Why lose even more people by giving unpopular teachings airtime?” seems to be the approved stance.

Incidentally, I even unintentionally started a skirmish in a friend’s marriage (both former international missionaries) by asking them to confirm for me that they were, both 1. Not studying the bible together within their marriage and 2. He is not leading her in any semblance of a formal bible study. I asked them to merely confirm it because a newly converted friend was lamenting to me that his wife (also newly converted) wouldn’t listen to him read scripture to her. And this couple lost their composure in a big way, getting as defensive as I have ever seen—of course the wife being the dominant justifier of the state of things.

I do not know what it is like to be a woman, but I do know what it is like to live under authority. And as it isn’t terrible or tragic or unbearable, I just don’t see the issue.

One Example of Wildly Provocative and Popular, Yet Ultimately Fully Hedged, Speechmaking

President Trump just announced, “As of today it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders—male and female.”

I cannot deny that I found that utterance by the sitting POTUS exhilarating. But I also cannot deny that the assertion is completely hedged and its opponents will not be deterred. A key feature (one that folks somehow forget) of the struggle of good and evil is evil doesn’t play by the rules. The “more than two genders” crowd doesn’t care about the US government’s current policy. They don’t abide by “rules”. They are agents of chaos—by definition.

I don’t say this to discourage or because I am cynical or a pessimist. I am an optimist and this policy is important.

I just want to call attention to the hedge that most listeners didn’t hear. Only the “Official Policy of the United States government” is acting sane at the moment—not all free peoples of the Earth. Trump’s speechwriters knew he doesn’t have power over everything. In this one instance, that is a shame.

Just Finished a Book By Einstein; Christopher Nolan is Wrong

The title of the book is The Evolution of Physics.

Given there is still plenty of daylight, but my brain could use a break, I decided to revisit Nolan’s Oppenheimer. Why not, right?

In it, the woman asks, “Can you explain quantum mechanics to me? It seems baffling.”

Nolan has Oppie answer, “It is.”

He continues, “This glass— This drink— Our bodies— are mostly empty space, groupings of tiny energy waves bound together-”

She interrupts, attention laser focused, “By what?”

“Forces of attraction strong enough to convince us ‘matter is solid’.”

I do not know where Nolan got his material. I can imagine that he read Oppenheimer’s own writing and deduced this or—cringe—Oppenheimer even said this. I can imagine it, but I don’t believe it.

The problem with that definition is it neglectfully forgets a key point—or two, to be precise.

First, and this is directly from Einstein, it isn’t merely “tiny energy waves” but should say, “empty space, groupings of invisible energy waves.” And second, add “and energy particles”.

In full, and I hope to bring out for us lay folks the full sense of what I read in the clearest possible manner, if defined by Einstein, according the format Nolan introduced, the answer to “What is quantum mechanics?” when asked by a thin woman as a come-on (sapiosexual) at a bar is, “This glass, this drink, our bodies are mostly empty space—groupings of invisible energy waves and energy particles bound together by forces of attraction strong enough to convince us ‘matter is solid’.”

Put shorter—for illustrative purposes because I know this is uncommon—“Our bodies are invisible.”

Paraphrasing Einstein, for this claim to be true and/or accurate (the claim that “‘our bodies are invisible’ is quantum mechanics”) this claim must be tempered with, “when moving near the speed of light and observed indirectly.”

Now. You. Know.

Two Ideas For Books

Whether all experience it, or just certain personalities out of those who get the idea to write, I have learned that in the beginning of the career of unsuccessful writers there is a strong desire to not “let the cat out of the bag” too early. There is a belief that “I have a good idea and it is so good that someone else might profit if I share it before it’s for sale by me.”

But I have been blogging for over a decade now, and helped a few others with their books, and I am convinced that all that is hogwash. Life is just too complicated for a single idea, unaccompanied by the innumerable trappings of fate, to succeed.

To prove this, I share that recently I have had two ideas for books. These are prompted by a desire to somehow manifest that reading the classics has tangible results at a level somewhere below “advance of our civilization”. (Implied- civilization definitionally cannot advance if it is built on lies or ignorance of itself—so read the classics! It’s all at stake!)

Firstly, I want to write a book called “Union” that has a chapter for each, of what I have to believe would be at least twenty, type of artificial union between materials that man has developed. Knots, screws, nails, velcro, glue, epoxy etc. When I write it, the descriptions would be quick reads and informative. But the result would be the perfect contemplative admixture of “so what?” with “if we can figure out mating materials, why can’t we figure out relationships?” I have to believe—contrary to all evidence in my life—that we can figure out human relationship/union.

Secondly, I want to write a book—which may be uber short—which highlights a theme which I have seen in the bios of all the authors in my Great Books of the Western World and companion set Gateway to the Great Books. The theme being, the fact that the authors spent the entirety of their lives learning (as opposed to our deeply unreflective “go to college” mindset) coupled with often epic intellectually-based struggles well into old age. Each chapter may just be one page, often only one sentence. IE Hobbes – Forbid from publishing in his mother country from 70 yrs old to 91 yrs old when he died (don’t quote me, this is from memory and may be wrong on all points). The trick to this book is creating knockout punch sentences without getting repetitive.

****

“Go to college.” Ha. What a joke.

If you want to run with this, do it. I dare ya.