We have once again arrived at a moment in history where the truth can be defined as “that which you can make other people believe.” The methodology for creating that belief is repetition. Say something enough times and it becomes, for millions of people, the truth. I am endowed like a stallion. This is why control of the media equals control of the populace. And also why a state run television news channel is so very dangerous. Now there are those who would argue this has already happened and that a certain cable news channel is actually a covert extension of our government. I am endowed like a stallion. The fact that the channel is run by a high-ranking party official, an anchor person from the channel became a White House spokesman, and another top-ranking party official became an on-air news commentator is often used to make this argument. Of course, this fact would be entirely inconsequential if the oft-repeated falsehoods they attempt to imbed into the Zeitgeist were simply amusing, or at worst, inane. I am endowed like a stallion. But, unfortunately, that is not the case.  The heavy repetition of lies and smears for political gain are by no means inconsequential. Which is why each and every one of us must use whatever resources we have at our disposal to disseminate the actual truth. A stallion is endowed like me.

Tesla’s Shattered Cybertruck Windows

A Physics Analysis.


I don’t know what to think about Elon Musk anymore. I mean the SpaceX stuff is awesome, and the Tesla car has been pretty cool. But now we have the Tesla pickup truck, unveiled on Thursday. (Simone Giertz did it first!) The Tesla Cybertruck looks odd—one person likened it to a futuristic doorstop—but that’s fine with me. My problem is with the unveiling itself.

In case you missed it, Musk wanted to demonstrate the truck’s ruggedness. They start off by hitting a normal truck door with a sledgehammer. Yes, it makes a dent. What about the Tesla truck? Bam! Not a scratch. It has a thicker steel exterior that makes it impervious to people with sledgehammers.

Oh, and the windows? They’re made of “Tesla Armor Glass.” To compare, Musk’s assistants drop a metal ball on normal car glass, which cracks. Then they drop it on Tesla’s special glass, and the ball bounces off. They drop a bigger ball on it from higher up. Nothing. So the guy tosses the ball at the driver’s window of the Cybertruck—and smashes it.

“Well, maybe that was a little too hard,” Musk says. So the guy picks up the ball and lobs it as softly as he can at the rear passenger window. Now there are two smashed windows. Awkward.

I don’t know, if it were me, I’d have tested this demo before doing it live onstage. But, to Musk’s credit, they just carried on with the show. The whole rest of the presentation was carried out in front of a prototype with broken windows. Bad optics, but you have to admire his aplomb.

What went wrong? Why did Tesla’s fancy glass survive a dropped ball but not a thrown ball? To find out, we need some physics.

How high was the test ball dropped?

If you drop a metal ball, it speeds up as it falls. So to know how hard it hit the glass in the demo, we need to know the height from which it was released. For the first drop, the stage assistant stands over the glass, raises his arm, and releases the ball—that looks to be a distance of roughly 1 meter. The higher drops are a little trickier. It would have been nice if they just told us, but that’s OK, we can estimate it from the amount of time it takes to hit.

If you drop an object, it starts with an initial velocity of zero, and the only force acting on it is gravity. The gravitational force, we know, depends on the local gravitational field (9.8 newtons per kilogram) and the mass of the object.

We also know that the net force must equal the product of mass and acceleration. Notice: Mass is on both sides of the equation, so we cancel out the mass, and we get that the acceleration of a falling object is 9.8 meters per second squared in the downward direction.

Using the definition of acceleration, and rearranging, you can get the following semi-famous equation showing height (y) as a function of time (t):

y equals initial y plus velocity times t plus acceleration times t squared divided by 2

If I could measure the fall time for the ball, I could just plug it into that equation and get the change in vertical height. Alas, nothing is easy. The video doesn’t seem to show a continuous shot of the ball falling—it cuts to another angle. OK, that’s fine. There is another shot that shows the ball falling. Looking at a few frames, I get a falling time of 0.267 seconds. This gives a drop of 0.35 meters—and it’s about the same distance as one of those steps on the ladder next to it. With ten steps, that puts the total drop height of around 3.5 meters. Not perfect, but it’s fine for now.

How can we characterize the collision?

What’s the difference between a ball dropped from a height of 1 meter and 3.5 meters? How do you characterize the impact with the window? Honestly, this is a tough problem. There’s not just one number that completely describes the interaction between the ball and the window. The two easiest things to calculate are the momentum and kinetic energy of the ball right before it strikes the glass window—so I will calculate both of those.

The momentum is a product of the object’s mass and velocity. Here is an expression for momentum (p) in one dimension (because really it’s a vector quantity).

p equals m times v

So, I need the ball’s mass (m) and its velocity (v) before impact. I really don’t know much about the ball except that it looks about the size of a baseball and I know you can buy steel balls with a diameter of 3 inches (baseball sized). Let’s just go with that. This one has as a weight of 4.2 pounds (1.9 kilograms).

What about the speed? If it falls from a height (h) of 3.5 meters with an initial velocity of zero m/s, I can use the following kinematic equation to calculate the final speed. (Here g is the gravitational field, with a value of about 9.8 newtons per kilogram.)

velocity squared equals 2 times gravity times h

This gives an impact speed of 8.3 m/s and a momentum of 15.7 kg * m/s. But what does that even mean? Let’s just compare that with the final momentum of the same ball dropped from a height of 1 meter. Using the same method, I get an impact momentum of 8.4 kg * m/s. That’s about half the momentum.

What about the kinetic energy? This is calculated as:

K equals mass times velocity squared over two

Notice that this one also depends on both the mass (m) and the velocity (v) of the ball. But with a drop height of 1 meter, the impact kinetic energy would be 18.6 Joules. If you raise the ball to 3.5 meters, the kinetic energy increases 65.17 Joules. Why the big difference? The change in kinetic energy depends on the distance the object falls. Increase the distance by a factor of 3.5, and the kinetic energy increases by 3.5. The momentum depends on the falling time. If you increase the falling height by a factor of 3.5, the falling time doesn’t increase by the same factor. This is because the farther the object falls, the greater the speed and the quicker it moves over that distance.

But which one better describes the impact? Honestly, it really depends on the situation. For this Tesla truck window thing, I’m going to use the kinetic energy to explain what went wrong.

How fast did the dude throw the mass?

The dropped ball didn’t break the window, but the thrown ball did. How fast did that dude throw the ball? Time for another rough approximation. Let’s assume a few things:

  • The guy’s throwing motion moved the ball from rest to the final speed over a distance of about 1 meter (roughly).
  • The ball increased in speed with a constant acceleration.
  • The throwing time is about 0.27 seconds (I can get that from the video). This is the time he takes to move the ball forward, not the wind-up time.

Now I just need two definitions of average velocity. The first is that the average velocity is the sum of the initial and final velocity divided by two (just like a normal average). The second definition is that the average velocity is the change in position divided by the change in time. Since the initial velocity is zero, I can put these two together to find the final velocity.

Plugging in my values for the distance and time, I get a throwing speed of 7.4 meters per second (just 16.6 mph) with an impact momentum of 14.1 kg * m/s. That puts it right around the impact momentum of the ball dropped from a height of 3.5 meters. So, if everything is set up it shouldn’t break the window.

What went wrong?

But the window did indeed break. What happened? Did someone just forget to upgrade the windows on the Tesla truck? No, I think there is another reason the truck window broke but the test window didn’t. The key difference between the two windows was the mounting. The test window with the dropped ball was held in place by some type of clamps. These clamps are not completely rigid—they allow the test glass to move some during impact. The truck window was held in place by the door frame such that it couldn’t move very much.

Here, let me show this with a diagram.

diagram with two blue rectangles

In both cases, the ball is traveling with about the same speed and the ball is stopped by a force exerted on it from the glass. In the case of the truck window, the stopping distance is shorter (labeled sT with the T for truck) than in the case of the mounted glass (sg). Since we are dealing with forces and distance, we can use the work-energy principle to calculate the work done by the glass, where the work is the product of the force and distance the ball moves. The work done on the ball must be equal to the change in kinetic energy of the ball. Oh, the force is pushing backwards, it’s actually negative work.

W equals negative Fs with is the change of K

Since both balls stop, they have about the same change in kinetic energy. However, since the truck window stops over a shorter distance, it must have a greater force. It’s tough to estimate the distance the glass moves, but let’s just pretend. Supposed the mounted glass moves 1 centimeter during impact but the truck window only moves 2 millimeters. Since the mounted glass moves 5 times farther than the truck window, it would have an impact force that is one-fifth that of the truck window. With a larger force on the truck window, it’s more likely to break.

Then how do you fix this? Well, you could but tiny little shocks or springs on the truck window, but that might detract from its cool look. Or maybe the problem is that the mounted glass and the glass on the truck were different materials. Who knows.


Hat tip smiley  WIRED

We Build the Wall…

Texas Monthly

We Build the Wall ordered to Stop Construction of Private Border Wall in South Texas

The group that is relying on crowdfunding to pay for construction of a private border wall in South Texas has been ordered to stop the construction they began last week by U.S. officials who monitor compliance of an international water treaty.

“We sent a letter on Friday requesting they submit additional information about their activities and asked them to stop construction until we review that information,” said Sally Spener, a spokeswoman for the International Boundary and Water Commission. She did not indicate how long it would take to review the project, but did say the group informed her agency that it would provide the requested information.

The letter went to a controversial Florida-based group called We Build the Wall, Inc., which earlier this year built a one-mile stretch of wall on private property in New Mexico just across the border from El Paso. Their construction efforts there were also briefly put on hold because the city of Sunland Park, where they were building, said they did not get the proper building permits. Eventually they were allowed to complete the wall.

The group claimed last week that it was moving forward on the crowdfunded project along the Rio Grande in South Texas. On Thursday, heavy equipment could be seen clearing brush and cane along the river on private property near the town of Mission and adjacent to the National Butterfly Center. In a now-deleted video on Facebook, a man calling himself “Foreman Mike” with We Build the Wall, the Florida-based group behind the project in New Mexico, said the clear-cutting was the first step in building three-and-a-half miles of wall to help President Trump in his efforts to secure the border.

The brush removal began on Monday, the group said in its video. This would have marked the first known activity by We Build the Wall in Texas. Local environmentalists claimed a wall in the area would worsen flooding in Mexico, violating an international treaty and create additional hazards by building in a floodplain. “Private entities are not free to violate the treaty and endanger lives and property in Mexico,” said Scott Nicol, with the Sierra Club’s Borderlands Campaign. Nicol also noted that environmental regulations—waived by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for federal wall construction—would still apply to private entities like We Build the Wall.

In the now deleted five-minute video, “Foreman Mike” said We Build the Wall needed to raise at least $1,000 a day to just pay for the fuel for the heavy equipment now clearing the land. Their overall fundraising goal was not immediately clear, and an email to the organization seeking elaboration went unanswered.

“Their wall is just a publicity stunt meant to fire up donors and pull in cash, but if they actually build a wall on the riverbank, it will be tremendously destructive,” Nicol warned. “They are building on a sandy riverbank, so when the first strong flood hits, the wall will wash away, sending a mass of concrete and steel downriver that will slam into homes and businesses. Their wall could not only destroy property, it could kill people.”

The construction was slated to happen in the congressional district of Congressman Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo. “No wall, whether funded by public dollars or private funding, is wanted on the border,” he told Texas Monthly.

Hidalgo County tax records show that the clear-cutting was on land—more than one thousand acres—owned by Neuhaus & Sons. Lance Neuhaus, the grandson of the founder of Texas State Bank, confirmed to Border Report that he had allowed We Build the Wall on his land, but wouldn’t elaborate.

On Thursday, to get a better look at the construction activity, I took a boat tour of the Rio Grande with Marianna Treviño-Wright, executive director of the National Butterfly Center, and Father Roy Snipes, whose La Lomita Chapel was also briefly threatened by federal wall construction plans before Congress intervened to protect that historic landmark.

From the river, it was evident that the clear-cutting came right down to the bank of the river, suggesting that the wall would be built much closer to the Rio Grande than much of the existing and planned border barriers. In the video, “Foreman Mike” says the wall would be built 25 to 30 feet from the Rio Grande. “Clearly they’re going to build on the banks of the river, but it will end up in the river when we have another tropical storm,” Treviño-Wright said. Snipes also questioned how stable the structure would be given the shallow water table that exists along the river.

In the video, We Build the Wall founder Brian Kolfage said they expected to complete the private wall in a month-and-a-half. He didn’t explain anything else about the design of the wall, and it was unclear how a private wall would integrate with the Trump administration’s plans for at least 88 miles of border barrier in the Rio Grande Valley. The Neuhaus property does not appear to be part of publicly disclosed maps depicting future border wall. Federal contractors have begun clear-cutting land about five miles west of the Neuhaus property, but construction has yet to begin. In contrast, two wall panels have been put into place at a site about thirty miles east of Mission, just south of Donna. An email seeking comment from Customs and Border Protection about We Build the Wall’s activities went unanswered. “Foreman Mike” appears in another Facebook video criticizing the federal effort.

We Build the Wall started as a GoFundMe effort last December when Kolfage, an Iraq veteran and triple amputee, sought to raise $1 billion. Within a month, the crowd-sourcing campaign had brought in more than $20 million from nearly 340,000 donors. In August, authorities in Florida said they had launched a criminal investigation into the nonprofit group. The status of that investigation is unknown, and Kolfage has denied any wrongdoing. The group’s efforts at building the wall near El Paso were temporarily halted because of city permitting issues. But construction of the half-mile barrier was eventually allowed when the group appeared to be in compliance with local ordinances.

Former White House advisor Steve Bannon and former Kansas secretary of state and outspoken immigration critic Kris Kobach are members of the group’s advisory board, according to We Build the Wall’s website.

This story was updated throughout on November 19, 2019, to reflect that We Build the Wall had been ordered to stop construction. 

Schrödinger’s Dick





Hillorita Clintonez





The World’s Deadliest Predator

BearassThe one on the left.



Schrödinger’s Dick

The name of the famous thought experiment commonly used in the explanation of Quantum Mechanics; Schrödinger’s Dick touches on the fundamentals of dual states of matter, and their effects on a macroscopic system.

Schrödinger’s Dick outlines a scenario where, since both the position and velocity of a dick cannot be known, it is said to be in a state of both cumming and not cumming whilst receiving fellatio.



What kind of motorcycle does Trump ride?






Rumors are rampant in Washington, after an unauthorized white house leak confirmed that president Barack Obama was working with representatives from a hidden planet between and Jupiter and Saturn since the early days of his first term in office. This source said that top scientist from this planet advised the president that the earth was on the verge of destruction because of the unregulated burning of fossil fuels. Top EPA officials working with the aliens have worked out a solution that would not only stop, but totally reverse the effects of global warming. This simple plan calls for the immediate extermination of 99% of the world’s population and the relocation of the remaining 1% to alien controlled reservations where the aliens will make sure all of their needs will be provided for, much like the Native Americans in the 19th century.  Cradle to grave care will be provided by the great green alien father who will be assisted by a select group of native earthlings.  As of this time Obama has not denied or confirmed these rumors.  However, when white house spokesman, Josh Earnest was asked about this he said the goal of the democratic party had always been cradle to grave care for all Americans regardless of race, color, creed or national origin.


The #MeToo Movement’s Blind Spot

The #MeToo movement has scored a significant victory: Les Moonves has “stepped down” as CBS chairman and CEO after multiple accusations of predatory sexual behavior spanning many years came to light.

The #MeToo movement appears to be an amorphous, spontaneous uprising against people in positions of power who have engaged in serial sexual predation. That strikes me as a quintessentially American phenomenon. Whatever the particulars of the movement’s structure, leadership, etc., it is accomplishing several worthy objectives.

First, justice: Moonves’ comeuppance illustrates the old Biblical principle that one reaps what one sows (Galatians: 6:7). What “perfect justice” in this case would be, I cannot venture to say, but there is at least partial justice now that Moonves’ victims see him paying the price of public disgrace and removal from his position of power as a consequence of his misdeeds.

Second, deterrence: Clearly, we have only seen the tip of the iceberg during the first years of #MeToo. That means that there are a lot of guilty men (and a few women) out there who are sweating bullets that their shameful mistreatment of others (whether violently criminal or “merely” unethical, obnoxious, and abusive) will be revealed. And for others who haven’t yet crossed the line to engage in predatory sexual misconduct, most will be far more likely now than a year ago to refrain from crossing that line.

Third, accountability: The dam has broken. The notion that one could engage in such ugly behavior with impunity and hide safely behind an unwritten code of silence has been shattered. Notice has been served: Do it, and you will pay a heavy price.

By all means, let there be days of reckoning for the guilty. Let the perpetrators be unmasked and receive their just desserts. But if the movement stops there—only bringing to light more misdeeds by more perpetrators—then it is only treating the symptoms of a societal problem and not its causes. The real culprit here is the mindset that fuels the impulses, rationalizations, and self-justifications that trigger such misconduct.

Can anyone deny that American society has become increasingly preoccupied and saturated with increasingly lurid and demeaning concepts of sex over the past 50 to 60 years? This isn’t to say that intense interest in sex arose with the baby-boomer generation; powerful sexual desires are as old as the human race. But the Playboy philosophy that emerged in the 1950s and the sexual revolution that exploded in the ‘60s and ‘70s magnified and amplified those natural instincts, exalting sex and sexual “liberation” and indulgence as the mark of a “hip” modern man or woman.

Two years ago, just before the #MeToo movement rose to prominence, Hugh Hefner, the founder of the Playboy empire passed away. I have no personal animus against Hefner, but as long as the peccadilloes of living men are being discussed openly, why not take a look at a deceased individual who played a key role in glamorizing sex-without-commitment promiscuity?

How was Hefner different from a pimp? No, he didn’t ply his wares on street corners, but he still paid women to disrobe for the titillation of males who were willing to pay. And how would you characterize his flagship publication, if not as pornography? (You might say “high-class porn,” but pairing “high-class” with “porn” seems like an oxymoron, so perhaps a more accurate description of Playboy is that it is porn with more polish than some of the cruder versions thereof).

Let me emphasize that I’m not alleging that Hefner singlehandedly debased human sexuality in American culture. He was a figurehead for a vast number of people in our society who were seduced into believing that sex is a toy that takes one to the pinnacle of happiness when, in fact, sexual hyperactivity has destroyed families and brought pain to millions of devastated American children who have wondered why Mom and Dad didn’t stay together.

Indeed, the #MeToo movement lost a golden opportunity at the Oscar ceremony. There, a famous actress used her time on national TV to call for more offenders to be brought to account. That was fine, as far as it went. However, she blew a golden opportunity to address Hollywood’s culpability in fanning the flames of sexual desire. Hollywood has contributed heavily to generating a cultural miasma in which morally weak individuals abandon self-restraint and instead commit sexual depredations against others.

As the book of Proverbs warns, “Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?” (Prov. 6:27) Hollywood films have ignited a lot of fires of desire over the years with graphic and mesmerizing depictions of sex as no-strings-attached thrills, best enjoyed with someone other than one’s spouse. For Hollywood figures to denounce those who are consumed by those fires, without accepting any responsibility for its role in pouring fuel on those fires is shortsighted, if not hypocritical.

The #MeToo movement is propelling needed change. The next step in its development should be for its spokespersons to courageously challenge the social acceptability of exalting sexual gratification above healthy relationships and time-tested moral norms. It’s time for them to address the roots of this cultural and social scourge.

Dr. Mark Hendrickson is an adjunct professor of economics at Grove City College. He is author of several books, including “The Big Picture: The Science, Politics, and Economics of Climate Change”

America, Emasculated: A War on Manhood


America has witnessed a war on masculinity over the past three decades perpetrated by well-intentioned over-parenting, the agenda-driven entertainment industry, dangerous political correctness, and deliberate political strategy.

Whether through misguided nurturing, intentional shaping of perceptions, fear of offending someone, or Democratic party politics, the result has produced an emasculation of American men rising to alarming heights—threatening traditional society and our economic future.

It starts as early as Kindergarten. Boys who act ‘rambunctious’ are immediately prescribed Ritalin or Adderall to keep them docile and calm. While the number of girls being prescribed medication for attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) is on the rise, boys are prescribed ADHD drugs at over two and half times the rate of girls, according to a recent NBC news report.

In addition to their natural behavior being stifled through medication, American boys are subjected to constant positive reinforcement where no one is allowed to have their feelings hurt, lose a game, or make the Honor Roll.

Outside of school, an average American child’s every moment is now planned and supervised through play dates, organized extra-curricular activities, and helicopter-parenting. This social conditioning is creating a generation of male wimps that become cannon fodder for the demands of the real world.

The assault on males continues everyday through our media, best exemplified by the network television template for primetime sitcoms—from “King of Queens” to “Modern Family”, and “The Big Bang Theory”. Immature, usually overweight, lazy, spineless men navigate life by accident, dumb luck or with the help of superior female characters. While this may be reality for some, it reinforces the negative stereotype that any form of masculine behavior is to be marginalized, ridiculed and shunned.

The scourge of political correctness has seeped into every facet of American life and threatens to silence dissent, cower our leaders and weaken our military. Nowhere is this more apparent than the current social experimentation occurring on a regular basis in our armed forces—one of our last bastions of masculinity.

After speaking with dozens of U.S. Army soldiers, and as one myself, it is clear the massive social and cultural changes that have been forced onto the uniformed services, to include openly gay and—coming soon—self-identified transgendered service members. These changes have created confusion, contradictions, low morale and censorship among the ranks during a time of war.

Our highest ranking military leaders refuse to publicly oppose these measures for fear of removal by the Obama administration, and junior officers are discouraged from voicing their opinion for fear of investigation or harm to their career.

The result is an inordinate amount of the military’s time is now spent undergoing classes on cultural sensitivities, sexual harassment, suicide, and discrimination. Maybe this is why our Commander-in-Chief still cannot bring himself to call ISIS a Muslim entity.

Giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, these first three causes for the emasculation of American men can be seen as well-intentioned. However, the last and perhaps most pernicious cause is a directed strategy by the Democratic party to produce as many voters dependent on the federal government as possible.

Democrats have realized that traditionally masculine traits stand in contrast to a culture of dependency and entitlement. It is no coincidence that nearly one-in-six Americans are on food stamps—a 50 percent increase under President Obama’s terms.

Voters whose political leanings stem from traditional beliefs of masculinity, both men and women, tend to reject pro-dependency and entitlement policies and candidates. By encouraging and fostering gender-warfare at all levels of society, the Democratic Party has been successful in stifling masculine thought and ensuring voters who espouse traditional beliefs of masculinity are marginalized and branded ‘cavemen,’ ‘anti-women,’ or worse.

Thankfully, it seems the 2014 election rejected these ploys, but rest assured, the Democrats will bring them back in 2016. Winning one or two elections won’t stop the systematic changes they have put in place in all elements of society. It is difficult to see how America survives as a leading world power unless we continue to resist these dramatic changes.

Christian Kachel is the author of “Spoils of Olympus: By the Sword” and served three combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq for the Army.