The homeless are no longer allowed to be legal residents of Oklahoma

With all the new security measures in place in the U.S. these days, REAL ID, etc., it's hardly surprising that new opportunities would arise for States and the Feds to deal with various social issues and problems. In Oklahoma, and probably other states, they have used this opportunity to create obstacles and problems that could effectively solve the problem of the homeless. Simply make it difficult or impossible for them to prove their identity as legal residents! Until about a year ago, it was very easy, and not particularly expensive, to obtain an Oklahoma State ID, with picture and fingerprint proof of identity. Simply go to one of many conveniently available tag agencies, get photographed and fingerprinted, and your new ID was immediately produced and available to be taken away on site. Not anymore! Now, you make an appointment at a tag agency. They may or may not be available at your appointment. If they are available, they will take fingerprints and photograph, but, instead of being immediately available, your ID will, supposedly, be mailed sometime, from somewhere, out of state. No responsibility is taken for when, or if, you ever receive your ID at all. A reliable mailing address is necessary, which is often difficult or impossible to arrange. And, the state legally requires that some kind of "residential" address be provided to be put on the ID, even if the applicant is homeless, and actually has no residential address, at all. No doubt, the residential address and mailing address are easily confused, and are frequently confused. Great system! This system should effectively end the problem of homelessness in the state of Oklahoma. The State of Oklahoma has legally arranged to deny the existence of homelessness in their state.

What if John Brown had raided Harpers Ferry in 1857, instead of 1859?

John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859 is widely credited by historians with having precipitated both Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860, as President of the U.S., and the Civil War which immediately followed on this election. Although pathetically unsuccessful as a means of causing direct insurrection against slavery in the U.S., the raid, Brown's trial and its aftermath, and the response of both Southern White supremacists and Northern intellectuals such as Emerson and Thoreau, had such a polarizing effect on public opinion that a bloody conflict between North and South became inevitable. But, let's just suppose that John Brown had decided to stage the raid in 1857, instead of in 1859. Say he manages to speed up his fundraising, and gets sufficient money for the raid in just a year, instead of the two or three years required, OTL. What happens? I think things might have been rather different. After all, states rights advocate James Buchanan is just one year into his Presidential mandate, and will have three more years in which to try to negotiate a civil solution to the conflicts between North and South. There will be a congressional election in 1858, and the results of this election will no doubt reflect the polarizing effects of John Brown's raid, which likely would have been virtually identical in 1857, to what they were in 1859. So we will have a violently divided Congress in 1859, even more so than OTL. However, we will still have an executive branch seeking conciliation and states rights. And, Congress must seek compromise in order to legislate. One possibility, is that the South may simply secede at this time, in 1858 or 1859, and Buchanan, as a proponent of states rights, may simply accept secession, without any recourse to using military force, at all, to suppress it. Another possibility is that in an effort to avoid secession and/or civil war, both North and South agree to some kind of compromise position -- say a gradual phasing out of slavery over a period of decades, starting, perhaps, with an automatic manumission of all slaves who have been in service for twenty years or more. In either case, slavery would be likely to continue much longer than it did OTL -- probably until 1900, or even later, in parts of the U.S. In this context, Brown's timing of the raid in late 1859 may have had a genuinely prophetic and politically brilliant element to it for which John Brown is not generally given credit. John Brown may have chosen, quite knowingly, the perfect moment in which to stage his raid, a raid he knew could not possibly succeed, but, which would inevitably precipitate a catastrophe which would end slavery much earlier than would otherwise have been likely, or possible.

Why does crime writer Patricia Cornwell have fantasies about male serial killers who are only capable of being sexually attracted to women in comas?

Now, I really do believe this question has implications on a number of levels. First of all, I've never actually heard of any man in my life who was sexually attracted, at least as a general rule, to women in comas. It doesn't really make a lot of sense from a biological point of view. After all, being in a coma is a very unhealthy state indeed. Sure, you might recover, but, in general, probably not. And, death is usually a serious obstacle to effective procreation. So, it's really a total waste of effort to "seduce" a woman in a coma. Sure, it wouldn't be that all much effort, but, even so. Now, I suppose, there could be a sense of power and control in "sexually dominating" a woman in a coma. But, not really that all much. After all, she's in a coma, she can't respond, really, at all. Much, much less sense of power and control than over a conscious woman being dominated physically in some way or another. There, you could be dealing with a high level of gratifying emotional response, if that is what you seek. Really, a woman in a coma is scarcely better than a corpse. Indeed, in some ways, she's even worse. After all, she has to be kept alive somehow, in a coma, and, that tends to be a very great deal of trouble, indeed. Who needs it? Why not go straight to necrophilia, why waste time and effort with the comatose? So, what this brings to mind, is why precisely, crime writer Patricia Cornwell has written at least one book that I read years ago, on this particular theme. A male movie star had worked, prior to his success in films, in ICU units as a nurse/technician. And, apparently, he'd had some "meaningful relationships" with some of his female patients there. Somehow, I really doubt the practical opportunity would arise for this, but, whatever. And, by the time he became a movie star, he really wasn't interested in women anymore except under these rather particular circumstances. So, he used his money and power to arrange "dates" with suitable women, to satisfy his unusual emotional needs. Of course, they did not survive these "dates". Now, of course, as a writer, Cornwell must try to attract attention with the novel and unusual, perhaps even with the impossible. But, actually, there is, I believe, more of a tendency for female nurses to actually murder extremely vulnerable patients than male nurses or doctors. It's the female nurses who murder neonates, not the men. The combination of nurturing, abuse and murder fits in better with female maternal instincts run askew, than with male predation, which favors simplicity. So, I wonder if Patricia Cornwell isn't, just possibly, projecting some of her own inclinations, in this particular case. So, if you're a pretty young woman, Patricia may be visualizing you in a comatose condition. If she offers you a drink, please, decline it.

Could Dark Matter effectively falsify both Newton's concept of universal gravitation, and Einstein's theory of relativity?

Isaac Newton made two fundamental assumptions in his model of the universe. The first was that space was absolute. Effectively, modern physics has discarded this first assumption in favor of Einstein's theory of relativity. The second assumption he made was that all matter attracts other matter in direct proportion to its mass. Dark Matter has for several decades now been a speculative assumption based upon the fact that the universe does not appear to be structured quite the way it should be, presumably because large amounts of matter exist that are exerting gravitational effects, but, are otherwise invisible. However, suppose that Newton's concept of universal gravitation is false? In this case, a wide range of other possibilities would exist for these apparent gravitational anomalies. We would have to develop an entirely new concept of gravity, as a flexible force, following more complex rules than we currently understand. Not only this. We must accept that most, if not all of the proof for Einstein's theory of relativity is also based on the assumption of universal gravitation. So, all of the research supporting relativity theory would also come into question. Towards the end of the twentieth century, physicist Stephen Hawking speculated on the "end of knowledge". Other physicists developed "string theory", a theory of everything. Dark Matter might suggest that we are at the very beginning of knowledge, and that physicists know absolutely nothing!

Are there any practical approaches to reducing the explosiveness and radioactivity of H-bombs?

Now I realize that your friend and mine, Ted Teller, did indeed create the H-bomb as a weapon of mass destruction, not as a civilian source of energy. However, given how unsuccessful "controlled nuclear fusion" has been over the last seventy years or so, I was just wondering if there might be any approaches at all to "deweaponizing" the H-bomb, and making it more usable for powering spacecraft or providing a practical energy source, as a possible practical alternative to "controlled" nuclear fusion, as we've been pursuing it, anyway. So, any ideas at all on making the H-bomb less explosive and less radioactive, hence, less of a weapon of war, and more of a civilian energy source. Any ideas?

What if Tamerlane the Great had obliterated the Ming Dynasty?

Towards the end of his long and bloody reign of terror throughout Eurasia, Tamerlane the Great received some ambassadors from the newly established Ming Dynasty in China demanding tribute from him. Needless to say, such a request from the Chinese was not a very bright idea at all. It was about as bright as the Fire Inspector who attempted to fine Jewish Bronx gangster Dutch Schultz in the 1930's, and was immediately torn limb from limb by the "Dutchman", for his trouble. Or, as Dutch succinctly put it, "What next, Mailmen?" Tamerlane had actually been unaware of the Ming Dynasty up to that point, and, it would have been much better for them if he had remained that way. Because Tamerlane immediately began planning a full scale invasion of China, and, Tamerlane was rather good at that kind of thing. He'd crushed the Muslims, the Mamluks, the Ottoman Turks, the Mongol Golden Horde etc. etc. etc. All of them, rather more martial and militaristic than the business and administratively oriented Chinese. So, it's rather likely that, had he lived a few years longer, Tamerlane might well have crowned his glorious career of slaughter, theft and carnage with an even more glorious extermination of the Chinese, probably escalating his killing from millions to tens of millions in the heavily populated Chinese empire. So, let's suppose that Tamerlane does live a little longer, and does exterminate the Ming Dynasty, as he might well have done. How, does this change history?

What if there had been no "Night of the long knives", in Germany, in 1934?

One of the defining moments of the Nazi regime in Germany was The Night of the Long Knives, in 1934. In this "internal purge", Hitler and the SS executed Ernst Rohm, a close friend of Hitler's and one of the founding members of the Nazi party. The primary reasons for this internal purge were the disruptive nature of Rohm's Storm Troopers, a kind of paramilitary force with a huge number of members, and Rohm's revolutionary, socialist leanings towards massive wealth redistribution. The official explanation for the purge was that Rohm was plotting a coup, but, there appears to be very little evidence for this. By 1943 or so, even the closest members of Hitler's inner circle who encouraged Hitler to kill Rohm -- Goering, Goebbels, etc. -- were openly saying that they'd made a mistake in killing Rohm, as Germany plunged towards a final apocalypse. Essentially, with the death of Rohm, Hitler abandoned any further pretense of social revolution, adopting an essentially nationalist agenda in which wealth was acquired first by massive deficit spending, and then by war and exploitation of conquered territories. So, suppose, instead, a compromise with Rohm had been adopted, and wealth had been redistributed along a somewhat socialist model, in order to raise the living standards of the majority of the German people. Do we still have a second world war? What does the future of Germany look like under these circumstances, and how does it differ from what happened OTL?

American women want Donald Trump to experience the pain and humiliation of an unwanted pregnancy

Anyone objectively following the current Democratic legal feeding frenzy on former President Donald Trump can't help feeling a certain sense of shock and astonishment at its ferocity. After all, this was a man who for some seventy years or so was a rather popular public figure, first as an innovative real estate entrepreneur, then, as an actor and entrepreneur in the entertainment industry. He wasn't universally loved, but, he was considered an interesting and fairly useful character. Now, apparently, nearing the age of eighty, he has suddenly become public enemy number one -- a tax evader, a rapist, and, most of all, a traitor who attempted the violent overthrow of the Federal government of the United States. Now, I think there's a certain fundamental problem particularly with this final, and apparently most serious accusation. I would argue, that accusing Donald Trump of trying to overthrow the government of the United States would be somewhat analogous to accusing Forrest Gump of trying to join MENSA, the high IQ society. It just wouldn't have worked. He simply doesn't have the intelligence, the ability, the skill or the experience to do it, under any circumstances whatsoever. And, one of the basic principles of law is that people have to at least have some possibility of doing damage, to have committed any crime whatsoever. Merely wishing, or talking vaguely about taking over the country, is not a crime, even for the President of the United States. Not if there's no way you can do it. Trump has a big mouth, and Trump rambles on about all kinds of ridiculous things, all the time. And, everybody knows this. So, what's going on here exactly? I think, basically, Donald Trump was not expecting to be elected President of the U.S. And, I think he would have been much better off if he hadn't been elected President of the U.S. As Clint Eastwood so wisely tells in "Magnum Force", "a man's got to know his limitations". And, Clint Eastwood himself was briefly in politics, as mayor of Carmel California, was popular, did a pretty good job, and decided enough was enough. As Clint put it "I'm not sure my life would bear the kind of scrutiny necessary in politics." In other words, he probably didn't want to called by political opponents on all the pretty young women he might or might not have raped in his very long and illustrious romantic career. You see, politicians make enemies. Big, bad enemies. And, I really don't think Donald Trump understood this small point when he entered politics at the very highest level. The level at which you make the biggest, baddest enemies. He thought it would be just like running any other company. He thought he could do whatever he wanted, without getting into particularly serious trouble. And, that was a big mistake, on his part. How did Trump manage to defeat Hillary Clinton? Well, all you have to do to understand that is to read the two novels written by Bill Clinton with James Patterson. Now, I enjoy James Patterson's innumerable novels and books on all subjects. Given how enormously prolific he is, Mr. Patterson maintains an extraordinarily high standard of writing, plotting character development, and, even non-fiction writing at times. However, with Bill Clinton as his "co-author", you can see just how revolting the Clintons are as people. I'd always had a fairly positive impression of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, but, the personality that comes out in these god-awfully bad books is so disgustingly loathsome that it's almost mind boggling. Basically, Mr. Trump is simply a much more charming and appealing character than Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. However, the Clintons do have some idea how to protect themselves. Mr. Trump does not. So, why is Mr. Trump currently being eaten alive by the American legal system? I think the answer is quite specific, and it's not being publicly presented. Mr. Trump was personally responsible for appointing judges to the U.S. Supreme Court who overturned Roe V. Wade, the great protection women had in obtaining legal abortions. Now, personally, I very much doubt that Mr. Trump has very strong opinions on this issue, one way, or another. I don't believe he's at all religious, and I don't think he hates women. It just proved politically expedient for him to adopt an anti-abortion position, in order to attract Republican supporters. It was a purely cynical, calculating move on his part. And, as a result, Trump may not hate women, but, women, certainly do hate Trump! So, the situation now, is that Trump represents the symbol of female oppression to all American women, and women want him to feel their pain. They want him to suffer, and be humiliated, in exactly the same way that a poor woman who can't get an abortion now, and is forced to bear an unwanted child, suffers. And, by way of the legal system, that's exactly what's being arranged for Trump. He's suffering like he never has before, in his life, he's being humiliated in ways he thought were impossible for someone in his position. Just like a woman having to bear a child she really never wanted, and doesn't want, but, now, can't legally get rid of. Is this justice? I don't know. Maybe.

What do we really need scientific theories for?

In Steinbeck's novel about a family of inventors, "East of Eden", it is observed about one inventor "Like all true empiricists, he had a horror of theory." This could equally be said of Galileo Galilei, who was persecuted by the Holy Inquisition specifically for failing to develop a theoretical alternative to the Ptolemaic System of the Universe, while trashing it completely, in favor of Copernicus' Sun centered view of things. Galileo loathed theory, all theory, and even failed to get his University degree specifically because of the emphasis in Universities at this time on the world's first great theoretician, Aristotle, who Galileo thoroughly detested. Galileo was an empiricist, he believed in mathematics and data, and so no need to make assumptions, so no need to speculate about absolute universal rules for anything, since such could never be proven, and represented restrictions on freedom of thought. Now, of course, there's a very good reason why governments and powerful bureaucracies like theories. They like rules, they like structure, they like power. Truth itself is unpredictable, and doesn't represent a very good basis for building powerful systems on. Currently, in science, Einstein's Theory of Relativity represents the Gold Standard of theories. A total model of the Universe, based on the incredibly simple mathematical principle that nothing can possibly go faster than the speed of light. And this brilliantly explains the wave properties of light in a vacuum. Einstein tells us "When you ask simple questions, and the answers are also simple, you know you hear God thinking." Of course, when you ask simple questions, and the answers are also simple, you may be oversimplifying. And, that's the big problem with theories, in general. Anyone questioning Einstein's Theory of Relativity these days is ridiculed as a "flat earther". The evidence for it is described as "overwhelming". Physicists will claim that it could only be "added to", it couldn't possibly be overturned, just like Newton's model of the Universe wasn't "overturned", just added to. Is Newton's Principia really a "theory" at all, or is it just a summary of data? Other than Universal Gravitation, which is something people have always been aware of, one way or another, there don't seem to be any assumptions in Newton's conceptions at all. In contrast, the average person still has no particular impression whether light is an absolute limit, or not. Sure, GPS is now cited as evidence, by engineers, but all GPS shows is that gravity has very small effects -- microseconds on the hour -- on atomic clocks. And, in general, gravity can affect clock mechanisms, without affecting time itself. There's other evidence, but, it all can be easily dismissed as confounded. And, now, with Dark Matter, we know that the vast majority of matter in the Universe doesn't even interact with light, at all! But, have we found any Dark Matter particles that actually travel faster than light? Is anyone really looking, or would they accept evidence, so inconsistent with the magic of Albert Einstein? Galileo recognized that scientific theory could blind people to reality, and discourage them from looking at what was really there. But, power structures love theory, don't they?

The "coup" in Russia gives Prigozhin's Wagner mercenaries the perfect cover for "counterterrorism" in Poland

There was something very odd about the "coup" in Russia recently. In particular, how almost nobody ended up dead, in particular, the coup leaders. And how it doesn't appear to have had any noticeable effect on the Russian government, at all. Also, how the main result of this supposed coup was the relocation in Belarus of the largest and deadliest Russian mercenary organization -- where they have ready access to both Poland and Ukraine. What does seem quite clear is that the Kremlin is very anxious to distance themselves as much as possible from the Wagner Mercenary Group's activities, even, and especially when, their activities quite clearly favor the interests of Russia and the Kremlin! So, in the recent coup in Niger, the Wagner mercenary group overthrew the current government in favor of a pro-Russian regime, but the Kremlin expressed deep concern over this event indeed, and categorically denies any involvement in it, at all. Now, currently, the Polish government is expressing deep concern, not over the possibility of an actual, open, armed attack by the Wagner mercenaries, which they could probably repulse. But, rather, the Poles are worried about the likelihood of hundreds of Russian mercenaries infiltrating into Poland under cover, and sabotaging military installations and weapons stores destined for Ukraine. Now, that does seem like quite a legitimate concern for the Poles to have, doesn't it? Of course, if the Poles could make a case that Russians in numbers were attacking, with government backing, Polish territory, then they could attempt to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Accord, and obtain armed support from any and all NATO members to retaliate for said attack. And, although Russia's contempt for NATO is becoming more and more apparent as NATO's most advanced weapons systems continue to fail miserably in the current Ukraine War, still, the Russians would just as soon avoid the invocation of Article 5 if they can avoid it. So, that's precisely why we have such an elaborate campaign of deception on the part of the Russians to try to distance themselves from Wagner's activities, and maintain an air of plausible deniability regarding anything whatsoever they might do, however much it might clearly be in Russia's interests for them to have done it. So, if all of the sudden, which is very likely indeed in the very near future, weapons stockpiles in Poland destined for the Ukrainian resistance start blowing up for no apparent reason, then the Russian politicians can maintain a virtuous wide-eyed innocence in facing the world press. Even if Russia's Wagner mercenaries themselves are captured red handed engaging in obvious sabotage in Poland, the Russians can point to their own "horrible experiences" with these same mercenaries -- "Why they tried to take over the Russian government itself! How could we possibly have any involvement with them, at all? How can we possibly control them in Poland, when we can't even control them in Russia? They're crazy wild-men, who knows why they do anything, at all, but, it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with us!" The fact is, the Russians are very good at what they do, and what they do is military conquest and control. And, they've been at it for close on a thousand years now, largely following up and improving on techniques adopted from the Mongol Golden Horde. Although the U.S. may have "won the Cold War", Russia is cleaning the U.S.' clock currently, and making the military leaders in the Pentagon and in NATO look like total fools. And when all the Ukraine's stockpiles of weapons in Poland start blowing up spontaneously very shortly, we'll all know who's behind it, won't we?