A Movie's Real Benefit.

Space Colony at Earth-Moon Lagrangian points L4 and L5.

Neil DegrasseTyson was criticising Gravity. Perhaps Tyson might be missing the major benefit of such a movie. Perhaps a personal story might illustrate.

While in high school I saw a movie about a kid who joined the Navy and was on the USS Skate when it went to and surfaced at the North Pole (1957). A few years later, I signed up for a program that would get me aboard submarines and learned enough technical stuff to make a living most of my life.

I also wear a ball cap with the Dolphins (submariner wings) and often think of them as one of the greatest accomplishments of my life. To give you an idea, all crew members of all submarines are less than the crew of a single attack aircraft carrier--or approximately that number. 

Submariners in World War II were only about 1% of the Navy but sunk 60% of all Japanese shipping, merchant and men-of-war. It's a pretty select bunch. I'm pretty proud of those Dolphins.

The point of the story is that one movie whose title and plot I can no longer recall, had a major effect for good in my life. The space movie may be equally effective on some kid who will later walk on the moon, Mars, an asteroid, or man the permanent space colonies at L4 and L5.

Comparative International Educational Testing Over the Years

The test measures ability to think in reading, math, and science. The only thing the United States is number one is spending per pupil. Although Luxemburg actually spends more, it has a population less than Nashville.

The item I found of most interest is that there is a one-to-one relationship between a nation's scores and that nation's long-term economic growth. Guess there is value in students, who will become workers, being able to think analytically. Imagine that.

The other thing the graph illustrates is that a nation's scores can be improved over time--dramatically.

The Smartest Kids in the World: And How They Got That Way by Amanda Ripley.

 

 

Arctic Ice Increase

The increase in Arctic ice is equivalent to about one-third the area of the United States. Guess the polar bears won't go extinct quite yet.

Of course, 6000 years ago, the world was much warmer and Arctic ice probably non-existent as indicated by ice cores and the fact that bananas grew in Sweden. That also explains why Finnish and Hungarian languages have some Japanese roots.

I wonder why the polar bears didn't go extinct then. Perhaps they didn't get the memo.

 

The Hockey Schtick and Arctic Ice

The small rise coming out of the Little Ice Age at the extreme right of the graph shows the "hockey stick" of Gore's "Inconvenient Truth." The portion of the graph to the left of the Little Ice Age shows the balance of this interglacial period, indicating the "hockey stick" should be called the "hockey schtick."

The graph shows it was much warmer than today for the thousands of years of this interglacial, indicating the Arctic was ice free for those thousands of years. It also indicates the dire predictions of an ice free Arctic have already not happened aka are BS.

False Flag For What?

Obama asks Senate for an Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) in Syria over an alleged chemical weapons attack. That AUMF was already worded incredibly wide, allowing the president to wage unlimited war over all the Middle East and beyond. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee widens even more so Obama can wage unlimited war in Syria and earth-orbit environs, as he wishes.

The Syrian gassing appears more and more to be a false flag which is being used for what? One begins to suspect the real intent is not just to fly a few cruise missiles into Syria, but a beginning to go after Iran and its nuke program.

If so, a lot of things make sense that otherwise make the National Command Authority look like it doesn't have sufficient brains to blow its nose. It does.

Syria Strike

Unfortunately, a Syria strike probably became inevitable when someone opened their mouth a year ago about not using chemical warfare.

The puppet masters in Russia and Iran immediately spotted the opportunity: If someone did nothing, it would weaken him around the world; if he did something, it would further alienate him from the Arab world. So they perpetrated an incident. When it got mealy mouthed, the second, larger incident on the anniversary of the red-line statement couldn't be ignored.

We will probably hit some targets with cruise missiles to no great avail, and it will be over in a matter of hours. The bad guys will seek revenge by taking Americans hostage and/or other terrorist acts.

It's the price of an OJT president up against Darwinian-survivors of their climb to the top. The President has bad advisers or didn't listen to them before speaking. He is now in a no-win situation, unnecessarily.

What scientific evidence of warming?

What scientific evidence of warming? Warmistas immediately go to "consensus" or "authority says," after denigrating anyone who wants to discuss the subject.

Here is scientific evidence. Global warming is the small rise coming out of the Little Ice Age. Note it is still a degree cooler than the Medieval Warming, two degrees cooler than the Roman Warming, and almost three degrees cooler than the Minoan Warming. The graph also shows the thousands of years of warmer climate at the beginning of the Holocene Interglacial.

What scientific evidence of warming?
--------------------------------------------------

Some detail of the Medieval Warming, see Global Warming--Much To Do About Not Much.

Perspective of climate model performance and solar alternative: The Cold Experiment.

A look at CO2 as the cause of warming and prevention of cooling: Time for the Cold?

 

The Illusions of Democracy

Democracy has been defined as two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch. The classic story of this is the death of Socrates. The democratically elected city fathers voted to kill Socrates, reputedly in hopes that he would leave Athens. He did not, instead accepting the judgement and drinking the hemlock.

Today, we are not short of examples. Condi Rice insisted the Gaza Strip hold democratic elections and they replaced the PLO with Hamas. Egypt replaced one dictator with the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood, who immediately replaced the Egyptian constitution with a theocratic power document and the democratically elected president assumed all powers unto himself. All persons not fundamentalist Muslim came under attack, often fatal. The previously secular society had its economy implode, so the Egyptian army stepped in. It appears they may well have a civil war to decide the outcome.

We have various senators now calling on the Egyptian military to quickly return to democratic rule, even though a new election would re-elect the Muslim Brotherhood with the same consequences. In the meantime, these senators demand the military should not suppress the riots--which are burning Coptic Christian churches and killing Christians.

Our illustrious senators also call for an immediate cessation of the $1.3-billion in military aid. Considering the other Arab countries, opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood, are already supplying $12-billion in aid, cutting off the US aid would have little effect other than removing the US from any future influence. If the Muslim Brotherhood wins, we will have no influence; if the Egyptian army wins, the secular society will be to their benefit and the reason they strive--not our 10% contribution to their aid.

This is an Arab argument about who they want to be--and inserting our two-cents worth will be resented.  The Muslim Brotherhood has telegraphed they will not give up, so the Egyptian army will have to destroy them--and they know it. That is why they are receiving the $12-billion from other Arab states.

This potentially dark side of democracy is also why revising the vote in the US Senate to a simple majority is not the best idea. If an idea cannot accumulate a few votes from the minority party, it probably shouldn't become law. This seeming inefficiency is a major check for minority rights.

As Mr. Franklin so adroitly put it, "We have a Republic, if we can keep it."

Evolution Continues

The four major inventions of history are thought to be the wheel, the plow, the printing press and the internet. I would argue the digital computer belongs on the list whether in addition to or in place of the internet. I favor in addition to.

In fact, the computer may well be the invention that replaces us. By simple projections of Moore's Law, a computer with the capacity of the human brain is within ten years, and in another ten years, will cost less then $1000. Where will your job be then?

By 2068, the computer will be able to think all the thoughts in the history of man in less than a second; by 2088, it will measure only a cubic centimeter and cost less than $1000. Where will you be then?

The projected computer makes a natural space explorer since it can exist in space and draw energy naturally. These will be the real explorers and, indeed, inhabitants of space. This, I suspect, answers Fermi's Paradox.

The Singularity Is Near 

Water shortage?

I am amused.

"Global Water Shortages Grow Worse But Nations Have Few Answers"

70% of the earth's surface is water, but we are short?

97% is salty and another percent or so is locked up in Antarctic ice, but Nature evaporates billions of gallons per day and transports it inland. We let it run back into the sea, but we're short?

Polluted water can be cleaned with dollar filters, which are now being distributed to the undeveloped world to prevent the deaths of millions each year--but that is being done with mostly private funding--not the hundreds of millions supposedly spent by governments.

Millions of gallons per day are evaporated in cooling power plants, but that just goes into the atmosphere rather than being recaptured for fresh water supply.

On the grocery store shelves, I see water from Tahiti and Kiwi water, imported from around the world for the most fickle taste.

So, I conclude "water shortage" is lack of imagination, topped by lack of political competence, but most likely topped by a desire for an increase in the $700-million per year spent on the problem. "Spent on the problem" does not mean "spent on the solution."

The Arctic has melted!

The Cold Experiment

The reduced solar activity of this solar sunspot cycle is similar to the Dalton Minimum of 1790-1820. We are engaged in an involuntary experiment to determine if solar activity is the major driver of climate variation. Good luck.

To put the Dalton Minimum in perspective, the Little Ice Age was 1.5-degrees Centigrade lower than present. At that temperature, the Thames froze each winter sufficiently to drive horse-drawn sleighs and to hold the annual "Frost Fairs" on the ice. The Thames has not frozen during the lifetime of anyone living.

As to the cooling of 1880-1915, I used to talk to some old timers who logged the most northwestern county (Ashe) in North Carolina. They would log during the winter because they could sled timber out on the frozen river. That river hasn't frozen since that cooling period ended, thus during the lifetime of any but the most eldest of citizens still living.

 

Lethal Assumptions

Both Martin and Zimmerman went into their encounter with stupidly invalid assumptions. Martin's proved lethal. Had either held more accurate or mature viewpoints, the encounter would not have happened. However, stupid isn't against the law.

Zimmerman's defense for killing Martin was not "stand your ground" as so many in the media believe or would have us believe. It was simple "self-defense" which is by and large valid in any state or jurisdiction where the weapon used is a legal carry.

Martin was sitting on Zimmerman's chest, pummeling his face. This scenario is substantiated by grass stains on Zimmerman's back and Martin's knees, Zimmerman's bloody, swollen nose and lacerations to the back of his head. Zimmerman is not require to give Martin oh-so-many blows or minutes to determine whether Martin's intentions are to kill or merely maim.

This is enough for self-defense or at least reasonable doubt. The jury is not required to determine which, only that it's one or the other. It was.

The lethal assumption by Martin is that before sitting on someone's chest and pummeling them, make sure rather than assume they are unarmed.
---------------------------------------------------------
• Martin, a 6'2" 175 pound black man could have JOGGED and outrun chubby, short George Zimmerman, but he chose to attack him.

• Martin didn't NEED to sucker punch Zimmerman and break his nose saying "You're gonna die tonight mother***er!".

• Martin also didn't NEED to then get on top of Zimmerman pummeling him with punches and slamming his head into the concrete while Zimmerman screamed for help that wasn't coming.

• No, Martin didn't NEED to die that night. But he brought it on himself.
---------------------------------------------------------
http://pjmedia.com/blog/martin-zimmerman-misperceptions/?singlepage=true
---------------------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqLc5adFy_Q

Heat in the West

Climate alarmists have declared that 110 degree weather in Arizona proves that the world is warming. Let’s check by looking at the stats. Parker, Arizona has had 3,525 days since 1893 over 110º, 690 days over 115º, and 51 days over 120º. Parker has also had five days over 125º, all of which occurred in June 1896 and July 1905.

Someone has perhaps been drinking too much green kool-aid?

An Inconvenient Fact

After 16 years without temperature increase, it might be time to discount "Climate Change Models."  During those 16 years, CO2 continued to increase, but that did not result in the projected temperature increase. When observations do not support predictions, the predictions are wrong--not the inverse.

Global Warming--Much To Do About Not Much

Here is a historical temperature representation from a Greenland ice core. Note the rising squiggle on the far right, coming out of the Little Ice Age. That's Global Warming--or much to do about not much--but keep those research grants coming.

During the Medieval Warming, grapes were grown in Britain, but as the weather cooled, the grapes were frozen out and replaced by grains that go into beer and whiskey. This was still several hundred years before corn and potatoes were imported from the New World.

Also, during the Medieval Warming, the Vikings colonized and named Greenland. During the warmth, their diets consisted of 80% from land sources and 20% from ocean. As the cold infested the island, the winters lengthened and their grazing animals became so weak in winter shelter, they had to be manually carried out to be put on pasture. The Viking diet shifted to 20% land sources and 80% ocean. When the cod moved south because of cooling, the Vikings left, froze or starved. In the end, the island was left to the "ugly, little people," as the Vikings called the Inuit. 

The grapes have yet to return to Britain, and the Vikings to Greenland. When Scandinavians revisited Greenland, they found no Viking descendants, so Christianized the Inuit--then left.  The warmth has yet to return, and whether it will or not before the advent of the next ice age is at best questionable.

Geothermal Fumble

Development of California's geothermal potential began in the 1960s, and today produces 4.5% of California's power. After fifty years, might one reasonably expect more since the energy source is free for the taking and plentiful in extent?

There is no shortage of energy in the world; only a shortage of  imagination and leadership in turning it into power.

Time for the Cold?

A lot of scary noise has recently been generated about CO2 being high, with accompanying statements that we could warm to conditions not experienced since before the ice ages began 3-million years ago. Crap!

Attached is the previous interglacial warm period, the Eemian, 130,000 years ago. Please, note that CO2 rose 800 to 1300 years after the temperature, then continued for 4000-years after temperature deteriorated back into glacial cold.

The logical conclusions one can draw are that 1) CO2 did NOT cause temperature to rise, and 2) did NOT prevent it from falling. It most probably won't again.

The previous interglacial warmth was about 12,000-years long; this one has lasted 10,500 years, unless one counts the Younger Dryas as part of this one--in which case, this one has run 13,000 years, and the cold is overdue.

Speculations on the Demise of the Neanderthals

At one time, the Neanderthals occupied all of Europe or at least all of Europe not covered by the ice and tundra of the ice age. The ice itself was as far south as the English-Scottish border, but what are the rich farmlands of France today, were tundra without forest to break the cold winds constantly blowing off the glaciers toward the south. Winter was ten months each year, with only two months of warmth that might have grown grasses for migrating herds of caribou. The northern extent of even the Neanderthal was the coniferred valleys in the mountains of southern France. Here, the Neanderthals could prey on the migrating herds as the crossed streams and passed through valleys, killing enough to keep them supplied through the long winters. Refrigeration was free.

Neanderthal was built like a short version of WWE wrestler or NFL lineman. They could bench press 350 to 500 lbs, and hunted with a spear. Brain capacity was larger than homo sapiens, but language and other capabilities are unknown. Since many have healed bone breakage, it appears they killed up close and personally rather than having standoff killing capabilities.

Their range at one time extended over the entire southern tier of Europe, extending into the Sinai connection between Africa and Asia. One author (Nicholas Wade, Before the Dawn) speculates that homo sapiens left Africa 50,000 years ago, crossing the twenty-miles wide southern narrows of the Red Sea because Neanderthals inhabited the Sinai. It does appear that homo sapiens moved east for thousands of years, even sailing to Australia, before moving north and west into Europe.


Instead of Neanderthals being an impediment, it may have been just too damned cold. This was 30,000 years before the ice age began to thaw, and about the time the ice age became harsher yet. Homo sapiens were coming out of Africa, a much warmer climate, and when given a choice between north or east, picked east as the logical choice. Instead of population pressure from homo sapiens, Neanderthals may have been overly challenged by the increasing harshness of the ice and may have already been diminished by a second factor that had almost eliminated homo sapiens, even in relatively warm Africa.

Based on variations in human or homo sapien mitochondrial DNA, the breeding population of females was reduced to around 2000, but no more than 10,000, between 70,000 and 80,000 years before present. This small remaining population was located in Africa. The only known event that could have had this effect occurring during that period was the explosion of Toba, 74,000 years ago. Toba is one of ten or so super-volcanoes on earth, the explosion left a lake 30 by 60 miles in the mountains of the island of Sumatra.  This was many thousands of times more detrimental than Mount St. Helens, and dropped the temperature during the ice age by as much as 5-degrees Centigrade. Compare this to today's most dire warnings of possible global warming of 2-degrees Centigrade.

Considering such a drastic impact on homo sapiens in Africa, could if not have an equally severe impact on Neanderthals in Europe and Homo Erectus in Asia? I think it could not fail to reduce their population and also their range. When, 25,000 years later, homo sapiens went to leave Africa, there may have no longer been Neanderthals in the Sinai.

Later during the ice age, the temperatures recovered a couple of degrees, then fell even further about 30,000 years ago. At that time, there were still Neanderthals in Europe, but, by 25,000 years ago, they had been reduced to a few cave dwellers on Gibraltar.  By 20,000 years ago, when the world began to warm and the glaciers retreat, the Neanderthal and Homo Erectus were gone. Homo sapiens began their move en mass into Europe and more northern Asia, then into North America.

Homo sapiens had at least two advantages over Neanderthals: First the atlatl gave a higher velocity, longer range spear throwing capacity--or a stand-off kill capability. That eventually evolved into the bow and arrow. Second was the sewing needle, which gave tailored clothes to better protect the person from the cold. Neanderthals did not have these, although they did have equal or superior flint knapping ability.

In spite the favorite hypothesis being that homo sapiens killed off the Neanderthals as they would later supposedly kill off the mega-mammals, a cold nine-degrees lower than the current average after the detrimental impact of Toba seems a more likely explanation.

Note to Shara Jo

Shara Jo, let an old person assure you the world was worse in the past, and is getting better. Don't let the news coverage convince you otherwise, which it tries mightily to do so it can increase its ratings.

In August of 1914, 100 years ago, next year, World War I started. The British alone lost 3000 men per week, when nothing was happening. They called it "wastage." When something was happening like the Battle of the Somme, they lost 60,000 men before breakfast and 400,000 in the next few months.

In total, an estimated 11-million were lost in the four years of World War I. In 1918, the Spanish flu broke out and killed an estimated 50- to 100-million in the next year. In the US, 625,000 were lost, exceeding the number killed in our Civil War over four years. The average age of death in the US fell to 37.

In the decades of World War II, an estimated 57-million died worldwide. Since the nuclear bombing of Japan in 1945, only a million have died worldwide per year on average because of the horrific constraint of nuclear war. More people are lost to malaria each year than war.

Because of hyper-conventional war, war appears to have been reduced to small incidents. In ten years of Iraq and Afghanistan, we have lost less than 10,000 killed. Compare this to the 58,000 lost in Vietnam over ten years, or the 52,000 lost in Korea over three years.

In spite of the news, crimes are actually going down each year, and have been for years. Two out of three gun deaths in the US are suicide, not homicide. Most gun homicides occur in cities that have the most stringent laws against being armed, and happen in big cities. I suspect most happen in gang warfare, and involve fighting over drugs and turf. They are easily avoided by staying out of big cities, especially the impoverished parts.

But the news would lead you to believe otherwise simply because of their unofficial motto: "If it bleeds, it leads." Tonight, with the Boston coverage, we will get 24 hour coverage of 2.4 minutes of news. Don't let it depress you, because that is the intent. It increases ratings and, in spite of one channel's BS, they are NOT looking out for you. All TVs come with an OFF switch. Don't be afraid to use it.

Stormy Times Return

During the 1950s, "beach cottages" along the Gulf Coast in Florida were uninsulated shacks furnished with stuff a second-hand, consignment furniture store wouldn't take. The reason was simple. Hurricanes were common, hitting each year, so the uninsurable "cottage" was sure to be destroyed sooner or later.

Hurricanes went into a thirty-year hiatus and special interests (read: realtors, banksters, and government entities profiting from property taxes) got the federal government to insure property along the coast and in flood plains for a fraction of the eventual cost. You might remember that $9 billion of the $61-billion Sandy relief funding was to replenish the exhausted insurance fund. Attempts to regulate building in these areas was ruled by the Supreme Court as "a taking" so had to be compensated by the regulating authority. The gold rush was on.

Seems the storm hiatus is over and storms are back. In the 1993 flood of the Mississippi flood plain,  the insuring authority paid for the homes destroyed, but said they would not insure any replacement housing built in the same location, unless elevated. One town moved its entire population to higher ground. These folks were rural middle-class citizens, so the insuring authority has greater leverage. On the coasts, the recipients are more often rich and influential, so the insuring authority less often dictates.

Of course, the reason often heard for new restrictions is that the ocean level is rising because of global warming. The ocean is rising, but the rate is 2.5 millimeters per year, probably from warming coming out of the Little Ice Age.. However, there seems no shortage of stories that speculate "if the oceans rise 3 feet..."  

CO2 and Temperature Correlation

Al Gore, in An Inconvenient Truth, had a two-story graph on CO2 buildup as the temperature rose. It does, but with one problem he didn't tell us about--the CO2 lags the temperatures coming out of glacial periods by 800 to 1300 years. I guess it was difficult to make a cause-and-effect case with this correlation.

This relationship is determined from ice cores drilled in Greenland and Antarctica. The graph shows two Antarctic core results, clearly showing temperature leading CO2 content. The interglacial or warm period between periods of glaciation shown is the previous one, named the Eemian. It started 132,000 years ago, then ended 118,000 years ago. Not only did CO2 lag the temperature rise, its high level did not prevent the drop back into a new period of glaciation.

 It won't prevent this interglacial period from dropping into another glacial period either. It might be noted this interglacial is aging and another glacial period may be near. We might well wish CO2 did have the capability of maintaining warmth.

In the meantime, we might better spend the tens of billions of dollars now expended to prevent global warming by control of CO2 in technology to grow food and keep warm during an ice age  -- economically. The need is inevitable.

Carrying Capacity

Carrying capacity is an ecological concept concerning the population any environment can maintain. A maximum is determined by the availability of food, water, and shelter from adversity such as weather or predators. In a meadow with a stream, for example, the number of mice would be determined by the amount of food available.

In 1856, when the first commercial oil well was punched, world population was 1.2 billion. Today, 166 years later, world population surpasses seven billion, and for the most part people are better fed than the 1.2 billion in 1856. For example, 4% of the population of the United States are involved in agriculture, but American agriculture feeds 16% of the world. Considering United States population is 4% of world population, 1.6% of the world population is feeding 16% of world population. That's truly astonishing.

This is made possible by the energy liberated by that and follow-on oil wells. Perhaps this is best illustrated by the increase of GDP per capita in spite of the six-fold increase in population.  Note how well it correlates with bringing petroleum online after centuries of virtually flat or little progress.

In 1968, the book, The Population Bomb, became a best seller. It began "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..."

That, of course, didn't happen, and won't unless the greens realize their goal of de-developing the world. Almost every energy project, whether just another well or a major pipeline such as Keystone XL, meets opposition using any means possible.  The United States is already crisscrossed by numerous pipelines, so another hardly merits the attention it is getting. Note, too, many pipelines already cross the borders with both Canada and Mexico, so Keystone XL is nothing new.  The heavy oil of the Canadian tar sands is meant to replace the heavy oil now coming from Venezuela. Converting the refineries that now handle heavy oil would be difficult and expensive, and Canada would be able to receive an additional $30 per barrel they now must discount their oil because of the transportation difficulty and expense.

In other words, factual truth seems no impediment to stopping any energy project. Were the greens able to "get rid of oil," the consequent question would be "How do you intend to kill the six billion increase of population petroleum supports?"

Tyranny of the Immediate

I am aware of the tyranny of the immediate. We lived during the time Noyce, Moore, Grove, Hoff, et al, changed our futures and we could have, if nothing else, been employees of their company. They initiated stock sharing and options for everybody in Intel.

I contracted for a few months at Microsoft in Charlotte, NC. They have a help center there as well as Texas and Washington. Some of the long-term (10-15 years) employees were still making in the $20-$30 per hour range, but their stock sharing and options had long ago rendered them millionaires. One in the Excel group wasn't married (and never would be), had several dozen kids pictures over his desk. He was currently supporting them through various organizations all over the world at the then going rate of $19 per month each, basically his entire salary.

We indeed lived through a special time in history, and weren't really aware of it, mainly because of the tyranny of the immediate.

Another, more mundane example involves my experience with Chrysler. During the management of Lee Iaocca, Chrysler had dropped to near $1 per share when Iacocca was negotiating a special loan guarantee from the federal government. I thought to go down to the credit union of the company I was then working for, borrow a thousand or so, to buy 1000 shares of their stock. I got caught up in whatever were the tasks of the day, and forgot about it until sometime later. It was up to $10 per share. It finally peaked at $43 per share.

Yep, there is tyranny in the immediate.

Society has changed

Society has changed. LBJ started two wars and we've lost them both. First, of course, was 'Nam. Second, was the War on Poverty. Welfare became a profession since government paid "bucks for bastards." A single mom could draw until their kid was 18, as long as no male capable of support was present longer than sperm-donor requirement time. Further, when their daughter came into puberty, she could start a second check coming into the household. Culture became tolerant.

 'Nam also made an entire generation disrespectful of authority. You can still see that in the history of Kerry and Hagel. Many stayed in education to maintain their 2S draft status, and perhaps that explains the uber liberal position of much of education, even to this day. After World War II and that GI Bill, I assure you that wasn't so before 'Nam. Shacking up became common.

 Illegitimacy rates went from single digits to their current over 30% overall, and over 70% for blacks.

Many single moms go to heroic efforts to raise good kids; many don't. Males, especially, are kicked to the curb when they become old enough to support anyone. They joined gangs in droves. The crime rates skyrocketed.

During the 1990s, crime rates began dropping. Although many tried to claim this came from increased policing efforts, the correlation was to Roe v Wade. Abortion was taking them out early. Six states legalized abortion two years before it became national, and, sure enough, the crime rates dropped two years earlier in those six states.

Another tread was the change in economics for the middle class. At one time, the norm was one wage earner per household. It began shifting to where it required two wage earners, and single parenting became impoverishing.

This was, as we now know, finance taking over the world. At the start, finance was 10% of the total economy; it is now over 40%. We went from making stuff to making stuff up. Now, they need to remove the safety nets to extract those last billions. That requires a disarming of America. Starvation drives people to violence.