Dan Lipka Web Log

If the country feels that border security is critical, then the Democrats either need to 1) clearly disprove that the current system doesn't contribute to illegal immigration or crime, or 2) create a detailed plan of their own to improve border security. There are no other reasonable options, yet they continue to do neither. If a wall isn't feasible, then come up with something that is. The cost doesn't matter, just take it from the military budget. The failure of the democrats has led to the inevitable crisis, which is that Trump will shut down the government (or hold the country hostage) until he gets what he wants. Shutting down the government will be very popular among his base that thinks the government is dysfunctional and should be diminished. I was shocked when he didn't do this last year. Of course if Trump was smart, he would say "I'm getting out troops out of countries we should have never been in. With the money I saved, we can fund the wall.  A

It is unfathomable, both how big the universe is and how small subatomic particles are. But how big am I? If there was a scale, with the known universe on one end (at 100) and the length to a theoretic quantum string on the other end (at 0), were would I fit? Turns out wikipedia already did all the work? 10 −35  Size of a "string " or 1  Planck length 10 26 Observable universe (100  yottametre s) Both exponents are normalized to be in meters. Although it may seem that we are somewhat in the middle, which would be somewhat accurate from the point of view of the string or the universe, but the actually middle is 4,500 times smaller than we are. Each additional number in the scientific notation represent a factor of 10. For example  10 −35  is 10X smaller than  10 −34 .  So, if I'm right, from our point of the view, the smallest thing is 10,000,000,000 times smaller than the entire universe is big.  Again, that is unfathomable.

I predict that Vladimir Putin will name himself King (or Tzar) within the next year. He will get overwhelming support from the legislature, which will probably create an entirely new constitution for their new Monarch. The sham of the current voting system in Russia is just a waste of his time, so why bother? Plus, he had spent decades creating propaganda to dismiss democracy as a viable form of government. Russia was on the brink of collapse after the Soviet Union fell apart and many of the Russian people are grateful to him (right or wrong) for rebuilding their country. Monarchs are still accepted forms of government throughout the world (there are 16 monarchies in which the King actually runs the government).  I see no downside for Putin and it would certainly fit his personality as an egomaniac (there is nothing like a crown for such things).

Over the past two years, the Democrats have doubled down on moving further to the left, without really having a comprehensive agenda (or specific goals, like ending child poverty, enacting term limits, border security, etc.). They are appealing to their current supporters and like-minded people who haven't voted before. However, the have done nothing to reach out toward those in the middle (they may make some gains in the middle, but it will anti-Trump and not pro-Democrats). If the Democrats win the House through this strategy, they will continue with more of that same (and will continue to be wildly unpopular and unsuccessful (the status quo for both parties is that they do not achieve meaningful goals, which explains why their approval rating is so low).  More of the same will lead to greater division in the country and will energize the right once again. What if the Democrats actually made compromises, like pledging significant investment in boarder security and a pledge not to

Over a year ago, I told the world of my plan to switch from being a Jets fan to become a Giants fan. There were a lot of reasons for this, but it came down to the Jets failure to run a decent organization or go to a Superbowl in my lifetime. The Giants, on the other hand were well run, professional, and win Super Bowls every once in a while. How did this work out?  Well the Giants, who were hoping the make the playoffs, finished last year 3-13, in last place; their worst season ever! This year, they are 1-6, tied for the worst record in the entire league. The Jets are slightly better, at 3-4, although things don't look great for their future either. So, is the collapse of the Giants my fault...probably not. More likely, it is the vastly declining skills on Eli Manning and the teams failure to have an acceptable alternative (Teddy Bridgewater would have been perfect).  I watch the games, and it is true the O-line is bad, but Eli Manning is worse. He checks-down without considering

What have the Democrats done in the past two years to get any Trump voters to change sides. His "base" continues to support him and candidates in his pocket. As Democrats move further to the left, they actually are losing votes and not gaining them.  Despite Trump's many failures as President (and his ridiculous and unethical actions), Democrats are not proactively doing much of anything. They have no plan that appeals to moderate, like increasing taxes on big corporations and also further lowering taxes on small companies. They are just hoping to get a larger turnout from their base, but the Republicans will do the same. If the Democrats don't take over the House (which I predict they will not), will they go back and fundamentally change their message and policies?

Sometimes the classics are classics for a reason.  I recently finished On the Road, by Jack Kerouac. Going into the book, I had no expectations and didn't even have an idea of what it was really about or why is was so renowned. However, I quickly realized that the style of writing was exactly what I love. It is written beautifully, without any extra words or unnecessary ramblings.  In essence, it is dozens of short stories, written across time, featuring the same characters, perfected blended together. The book chronicles the adventures of  Sal Paradise and his criss-crossing travels across the US in the 1940s and 50s. The motivations for travel (jazz, sex, adventure, love, destiny, etc) were sublimely etched on the pages, easily conferring feelings that I had no experience with or context to understand. But more than anything, every sentence seems to have a purpose and nothing is left unsaid. What makes it exceptional is a ranting, poetic style that usually emotes self-indulgence.

I was recently reading this article , in Politico, about mid-term election polls. Throughout the article, they wrote things like "Blackburn led Bredesen by 3 percentage points", or "Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema with 47 percent to 45 percent for GOP Rep. Martha McSally".  They make it seem like that person is actually in the lead, but it wasn't until the very end that they wrote "All five polls had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points".  All polls have a margin of error and it is extremely important to realize what that means, which is that the results fall within a range, not an exact number. So the "leads" they talk about are statistically fiction and don't mean anything.  Realistically, the should say that Kyrsten Sinema may be leading by up to 5%, or maybe she is actually down by 1%, we have no idea, but it is likely to be somewhere in there (and depending on how the calculate the margin of error, you can determin

The names have changed, but over the last 500 years there has been a constant political battle.   It has taken many forms, often depending on the wealth and resources of the country. It is a simply battle, those with power/wealth against the people who work for those people. In today’s CNN/Fox News style, the miserable and the outrageous get all the attention. Things that are good are dismissed because they are not good enough. Things that are bad are made to be the end of the world. We expect change quickly, but what if a culture takes several generations just to ingrain basic change. Look at the big picture and you will see a very constant and very slow increase in the quality of life for almost all people, across the world. The workers have constantly pushed for changes and (over time) gained much. 500 years ago slavery and indentured servitude very commonplace. There were no laws protecting workers, children, civil rights, or the environment. Extreme poverty has decreased

Here is a useless post that I felt like sharing...The NFL has a salary cap that each team can spend in a given year.  Some teams spend every cent, while others have extra space to sign future players or just save money. According to spotrac.com, the Browns and the Colts have over $50million in un-used cap space for this year. With so much room, they are missing on a unique opportunity to retain players in the long-team (and not hurt their cap flexability).  Basically, instead of signing a player for $40million over 4 years, at $10million/year (random example), they could sign the same player, but pay him all of his money this year. For the rest of his contract (after year 1), his cap hit would be almost nothing, opening up more space to sign other quality players. Of course, there is some financial risk, but very little risk on the field. Having un-used cap space is just inefficient.

I am listening to Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh speaking before Congress as he is vetted for a position on the US Supreme Court. Like previous nominees, he just said "My personal belief will not impact my decisions".  This very concept does not make any sense. If you're personal believes don't impact anything, than why are you more qualified than anyone else. If all judges say that, why do they differ on their actual judgements. It is a complete cop-out to say that personal opinions are not relevant when they are clearly extremely important.

As newspapers get attacked as fake news, why don't they start running historical articles that showcase how they uncovered corruption, or publicized dangerous situations, or generally added to the quality-of-life of society. People need to be reminded that most of these newspapers have spent decades telling the truth, with a positive impact, and they are doing nothing different now. Was it fake news during Watergate or the investigations into the Catholic Church (or thousands of other local, national, and international stories). They need to questions why their news is all the sudden fake? They need to remind people of how they built their reputation (in order to save it).

If a politician that advocates for all the policies that you love, and also happens to be a proven liar, do you care? What if that person was a proven criminal? This is the question that probably will be answered in this country. For decades, Donald Trump has had to deal with a number of legal problems and usually comes ahead. Part of his advantage is that his organization is completely insulated, with no outsiders ever let in (either as investors or senior staff). As a private organization, that fully utilized every last loophole, they built a small empire (very small, by NYC real estate standards). However, it seems that Trump's most loyal confidants(historically) are being put in a very tough position. If any investigation finds evidence of illegal activity, it is likely that Trump's former allies will save themselves, receiving sweet deals to tell the entire truth. If that truth makes it clear that Trump has knowingly broken the law, will anyone care? More importantly, will

What if the NFL just let players protest whatever they want. If their original statement was "This is America and people can protest whatever they want, whether it is high taxes, war, police violence, or civil rights. We encourage everyone in the country to passionate advocate for the things they believe in."  Followed up with, "In regards to the current protest, the NFL clearly opposed unnecessary police violence, on any kind, against any person. Overall, the police do an amazing job of protecting citizens and maintaining law and order and we are grateful to the millions of officers around the country. However, we should all be against unnecessary police violence. Players are protesting something that everyone should be protesting. The police are supposed to protect us and they should do everything they can do to rid themselves of any bad apples, bad precincts, or bad policies. Although the NFL's policy is to stay neutral on any issues that may be considered politic

When a person is on trial, what is the point of having the accused in the courtroom and visible to the jury. The accused should be judged based on the evidence,  not of how they look. Numerous studies have shown that both judges and juries have tendencies (on average) to adjust convictions and sentences based on race and gender.  If we want a more fair Justice system, why not just make that impossible. Don't have the accused visual to the judge or jury; and don't use their real name or anything else that could be indicate a person's background. This wouldn't be optional, even for people that think their appearance would be helpful. Of course, if somebody's physical nature is part of evidence, it can be entered with the judge's approval.  What is the downside here?

What if Russia, China, the US or any other power started teaching all their children to be hackers and computer scientists. Could they develop the refined skills to jump a generation ahead of other countries. Of course, in countries like Russia or China it would be a lot easier to hide these efforts or convince the public to get on board.  Would America respond by forcing our next generation to be programmers and coders (probably not). So image a country with millions of hackers, organized like an army, and state-of-the-art technology.  They figure out one seemingly reasonable skill, which is to  make it impossible to trace their hackers back to their country.  We already know that hackers can infiltrate the highest levels of our government and institutions, and just imagine if their skills continue to outpace ours. What would happen if they attacked, on mass, against as many US based locations as possible. They might not bring down the Pentagon, but I'm betting that their army (wi

Just make OxyContin,Vicodin, and other similar, addictive drugs illegal, under prescribed in a hospital for use onsite. Everyone else will just have to use other pain medications.  Done and Done. OxyContin is a drug, just as addictive as any illegal drug out there. The pharmaceutical companies are just drug dealers (worse than street dealers). They have no interest in helping people and just want more money. However, because they are legal organizations, they have the legal right to give unlimited campaign contributions. This is exactly the same as a drug dealer giving the mayor a bag of cash. And we wonder why nothing is being done. People can get addicted to these drugs by accident. Get some dentistry work done and the doctor gives you percocet for the pain (this happened to me). I didn't even need it, but the doctor just gave it to me anyway. Some people can get addicted from just this type of prescription. It won't stop the entire problem, but it will help. Just make th

As my children grow older, I have started to become more aware of what they see on TV, especially the commercials on non-kids channels. Recently, I've noticed an overwhelming amount number of commercials for hard liquor (whiskey, vodka, rum). Some of the commercials are trying to be sophisticated, but most of them simply want to associate their product with fun, winning, adventure, being a free-spirit, and not following the rules.  "Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years. 1,2  Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years. The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2010 were estimated at $249 billion, or $2.05 a drink. " - Center for Disease Control. That's right, alcohol is a plague on our society. What is rea

Most people will do whatever it possible to avoid admitting that they were wrong. They will come up with excuses and justifications, for as long as possible, to try and validate their original choice. People are stubborn. I believe that one of the major problems the Democrats currently have is that they don't realize how strong a factor this is.  They can point out all the faults of Trump, but it just doesn't matter to Trump supporters, as long as they have something to hang onto. In this case, that "something" are this campaign policies (protect the boarder, increase tarries, reduce safety net programs, make america great again (whatever that means). There is absolutely nothing Democrats can do to prove that these policies are categorical wrong.  The Democrats need to change the context of the entire conversation, but it will come with risk. If they validate those policies (saying that they are reasonable, but we don't agree), they have a chance to separate Trum

There are a few sounds from my youth that still bring joy to my heart. Tops of the list is the Ice Cream Truck song, which just activates happiness in my brain (more in this below*). Slightly behind that sound, is the Toys R Us jingle. There is just something so pure about the idea of not growing up, so that you could play with toys forever, that resonates perfectly both in my childhood and as an adult. All over the country, Toys R Us stores are scheduled to close down forever. The one closest to me, just shut its doors for the last time. Although I'm not very emotional, I felt a genuine sadness when I realized it was the end. Toys R Us might have been the single locations that brought me the most joy, without ever causing sadness. The expression on my face of picking out GI Joe's when I was little, is the exact same when I took Destiny there just a few weeks ago. It is a childhood Mecca and now it will be replaced by Amazon, Walmart, and boutique toy stores. Toys R Us was more

Trump: We will give you everything you want to get rid of all your nukes. Money, treaties, and our most formal agreement that we will never, ever, attack you or interfere in your country.  But you have to get rid of the nukes, that is non-negotiable.  Kim: Ummm, how can I trust that you won't attack us one day. Can't the next US President just cancel this whole agreement...like you literally just did in Iran. Trump: No, this will be different, believe me, this will be better. Did I mention we would lift all the sanctions, plus give you billions in aid.  Kim: I really need to keep a few nukes, just in case Hillary becomes the next President. I need to project power in the world. You understand. Trump: Well, I said that you would get rid of your nukes.  Did I mention that we would give you tens of billions of dollars in aid...But about those nukes Kim: No, you said that we would get rid of our ability to make anymore nukes. That is how Fox News remembers it.  All the pr

From the very beginning, I never understood why NFL players protested during the national anthem. Let me clarify, I completely understand why players would protest in general. There are very serious social and safety issues that are routinely ignored by the public (with no practical solutions ever actually implemented).  Professional athletes, and all public figures, have an unique opportunity (perhaps an obligation) to use their platform to advocate for issues that concern them. When those issues are valid (based in reality), it makes their actions all the more important. So I believe and support the NFL players raising awareness of issues facing their community. But why during the anthem. Yes, it got a lot of attention, but the end goal was social change, not attention for attention's sake. The entire conversation has been co-opted by the media, and others, as a general battle of freedom of speech against being unpatriotic. Although those are interesting topics, they are missing

Why did North Korea build up its nuclear capacity, only to start peace talks when their arsenal is finally adequate. What is the end-goal? 1) They want to ensure that no country will invade North Korea. The threat of a nuclear strike is enough to scare almost any country, particularly the US and our allies. Prior to this point, North Korea was able to threaten destruction of Seoul, with conventional weapons, as a deterrent. However, now those conventional weapons are largely unnecessary.  If this is their goal (to 100% avoid invasion), I don't see why North Korea would ever remove their nuclear capacity.  But maybe they don't have to.  2) What if North Korea wants the removal of sanctions. I think the world would accept a deal to remove sanctions in return for complete removal of their nuclear weapons and programs. But the nuclear weapons were what caused the sanctions in the first place (not the government's treatment of their people).  It is possible that the sanction

As I look towards the mid-term elections, I see a fundamental choice the Democratic Party has to make (although it seems like they already made it). I currently believe that there is a significant number of Trump voters that are not happy with how things are going (this could be said for almost any President after a year in office).  For those voters who are dissatisfied, they really only have one other choice, the Democrats. However, as they look at the Democratic platform, the see a party that is moving further to the left. These voters would probably support a Bill Clinton Democrat, but not a Chuck Schumer one.  (When I was in Texas, I saw a map of the United States, and over New York and California was a cutout that read "Not America", yet here are the Democrats shoving stereotypical representations of these states as their leaders). Choice 1: The Democrats could try to create a big tent. Snap up all those votes, but sacrifice some agenda items. They could say "