A Multiverse of Possibilities

For my own entertainment... I'm going to try to break your mind with this one.

With all of the video games that promote choices, as well as comic books, and movies, and books that rely on this premise, I find that a lot of people I know haven't thought very hard about the mechanics of a multiverse and alternate realities. I'll warn you right now that at least some of this is going to verge on time travel territory and you know what I always say about even thinking about time travel, right? (You never say anything about time travel, says the reader).

If you think too much about time travel then your brain will explode.

True story.

Regardless of that, there are two main types of universes I'm going to talk about here. The first one is an adjacent universe. This one is easy to visualize (more or less). If our universe is expanding (it is) then what is it expanding into? The answer that seems obvious to me would be other universes and the space between them. It's like spreading out a bunch of coins on a table, where each coin represents a different universe. They may have different sizes, but each one is its own independent entity.

The fun thing here is that there is no reason to think that adjacent universes all act according to the same physical laws inside themselves.

What does that mean? Well, it means that there very well could be universes extremely similar to ours, except that the laws of those universes might allow for magic, or faster than light travel, or any other fantastical thing that we can only dream of.

That's the simple part to think about. Things get much more complicated when you add in alternate realities.

If adjacent universes are like coins spread flat on a table, then alternate universes would be like stacks of those coins on the same table. You might have a stack of pennies standing next to a stack of nickels or loonies or pesos. Each are very different from the other stacks (adjacent universes) but are very similar to each other. Of course, even within a stack of the same coin, each coin will bear slight differences from the others of their breed.

Alternate universes are generally stacked on top each other, but probably not in the same sense as the stacked coins. In Star Trek there is the idea (I'm sure it shows up in other places) that every piece of matter has a certain quantum frequency, that's part of why, despite the huge empty spaces between atoms and molecules things don't simple pass through each other. But if every alternate universe has a different quantum frequency then a limitless assortment of universes could inhabit the same physical space without interacting at all.

How does it feel to have a cow and an airplane standing in your chest at the same time?

I guess it's more common for alternate universes to be called parallel universes.

Well... here is pretty much THE episode for parallel universe exploration.

If we suppose that adjacent universes all form more or less the same way, how then are parallel universes created?

I think it would depend on who you ask, but from a storytelling perspective, it seems to come down to the choices of sentient beings.

There are two ways to think about this. In the first view, time is much like a tree, where history forms the trunk and main branches, and the outcomes of major events create different branches. This is the main model used in comic books and a lot of pop culture when characters time travel.

This is the route that X-Men takes with both Days of Future Past and Age of Apocalypse (although I have no idea if they'll do that with the upcoming movie version). But both stories involve one or more characters travelling back in time and changing events to create a new timeline, and by extension a new parallel universe. What these stories do not say is that while the characters think that they are changing the future, their original universe will continue to exist in its own bleak form. When they arrived in the past their presence simply caused a new split in the branches. So... Simple, right?

The other way to view time and parallel universes, is to liken it to a rope, or even a bunch of ropes, bound together with each thread representing a universe. The threads in one rope would be a group of parallel universes close enough in similarity as to be almost indistinguishable. These different universes are caused by every decision that every individual makes in a day. In the morning, I exist in one timeline, but when I choose to wear my yellow t-shirt instead of my red one, I create a split where I am actually wearing both.. but since the choice of a color of shirt rarely makes for a meaningful difference in a day or a life, then when I take my shirt off at night, both timelines fold back into one. (You can stop imagining me shirtless now. You're making me self-conscious)

But when say, the President of a nation declares war upon a neighbor instead of seeking peace, that creates a rift that would lead that rope of a timeline to split into two very different ropes that will never mend back into a single timeline.

That made at least some sense, right? I think it would be too easy to end up gibbering like a madman trying to explain all this.

But really, even though there is scientific/mathematical and heck, even religical proof for a multiverse (see string theory, for one) I am mostly coming at this from a story telling point of view.

So what does all of this mean? Whether fictional or real, this view of existence gives us a truly infinite multiverse of possibilities. And in an infinite existence, anything we can imagine can exist. The worlds of Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, and more could very well exist out there somewhere. And that makes me kind of happy.

Who's Feeling... Superheroic?

I had a friend recently tell me that he thought a post describing my feelings on a few of the upcoming comic book movies would be interesting.

This is that post.

So if you haven't seen the details on the upcoming slew of comic bookical moving pictures, take a moment to peruse the calendar below.

Finished? Good. Let's get on with it.

The movies that my friend wants to hear my opinions on are Dr. Strange (2016), Aquaman (2018), and Captain Marvel (2018).

I'm excited for Doctor Strange. You've got Benedict Cumberbatch all but confirmed to star as the mystically inclined surgeon, AND if you don't know that much about Doctor Strange well... He is the Sorcerer Supreme of Earth. The most powerful mortal mystic in the universe (although a few people can occasionally come close like Doctor Doom [did he ever actually get a doctorate?] or Scarlet Witch).  What we have in this movie is the opportunity for one of the funnest and trippiest Super Hero movies... ever. Magic and planar travel, Dark Dimension gods and treacherous wizards. This'll be a fun one.


Aquaman, on the other hand, is always the butt of jokes, right? Oh, Aquaman, outside of the water he's so useless...
I was going to put a video link here... but they're all just terrible, terrible quality.
The best reason to look forward to this movie, and I really cannot stress this enough, is Jason Momoa as Arthur Curry. I don't think that anyone could watch this man do this:



And think that the Aquaman movie will be anything but badass. Aquaman is the warrior king of Atlantis and with Jason Momoa in the lead I'm pretty sure that even Supes and Batman will get intimidated by this guy.

But really, there's been a dearth of female heroes out there. We have Black Widow and... occasionally Wonder Woman. I don't doubt that Gal Gadot will be wonderful as Wonder Woman (that was unintentional, I swear). But the way that DC is going they're going to take just about all of the fun and hope out of the character. It's all dark and gritty, dark and gritty with DC. That's all fine and good with Batman, but it doesn't work as well with their other characters.

That's why everyone should look forward to the Captain Marvel movie.

Carol Danvers was an air force pilot and CIA operative (and in some universes Shield Agent) before she got caught up in the Kree Captain Mar-Vell's shenanigans. Then she got whammied by a Kree wishing machine (basically) and some of Mar-Vell's alien DNA to gain powers that, honestly, are quite a bit more powerful than any other Kree's.

Carol is a strong female character who can lead others in battle like Captain America, is strong enough to go toe to toe with guys like Hulk and Thor (although she may need to absorb some energy first). She can fly, and as I just mentioned, she can absorb and direct energy. With that energy she can either shoot it from her hands, or boost her other powers.

The only thing to be disappointed with Carol Danvers about, is that her date with Spider-man did not go well at all. But that's just a small quibble that has nothing to do with anything.

No actress has been announced or even rumored to play her (although there are some interesting wishlists some people occasionally put out. I rather like the idea of Katheryn Winnick from Vikings fame), but with Marvel Studio's overall record, I'm confident that this is going to be a movie that everyone is going to want to see.

I'm not going to lie, I'm probably going to go see just about every movie on the list as it comes out. It's just what I do. But on the other hand, this glut of movie knowledge is kind of disappointing. Most of us can remember the first time we saw the after credits scene for Iron Man, right? How awesome was it to see Samuel L. Jackson show up as Nickolas J. Fury and talk about the Avengers program? Seeing Thor's hammer at the end of Iron Man 2 or an invisible Loki manipulating Dr. Selvig after Thor? That kind of excitement is mostly over until the end of Phase 3.

Cracked.com already ran an article about those complaints though. So read through that for a better analysis.

Most of the movies are going to be great. I have faith. It's just kind of a shame that the excitement of not knowing exactly what's coming is gone.

Thanks for bearing with me. Enjoy this video.

This Durn Edjamacation

Man it's been a long time. I guess I enjoy slacking too much. Anyway...

So a while back I saw this meme a few times:

And it got me thinking about the whole education thing. Not even thinking about the mess that is Common Core (although that is a symptom of the problem, I think).

Well, looking for an actual picture of the meme I read a bit about Joseph Sobran and I just read a bit more about it. Politically the guy (who has now died) ended up being some weird iteration of Libertarianism, but the thing that gets most people's goats is that several of his columns can easily be construed as anti-Semitic (which you can probably figure out how I feel about that) and/or Holocaust denying. The point is, Sobran was controversial, but I think he has a point here.

What are we actually teaching children these days?

I tutor my nephew with his math and English a little bit, and I try to keep my eyes open for other goings on in education (just because you don't have children yet doesn't mean that kind of thing doesn't effect you, right?).

Education right now looks, to me, a whole lot like indoctrination to create unthinking and compliant adults.

One thing I've read, by someone trying to point out the flaws in Sobran's statement is that, a hundred years ago, only about 20% of the population could afford to go to secondary education. Now, I think that the person who wrote the article missed the point of the quote he was trying to refute. Sobran wasn't talking about who could afford to go the high school but about the actual curriculum of it.

The point is this: In the last hundred years, we have stopped teaching subjects that force people and students to learn and employ actual critical thinking, discipline, and other skills important for functioning adults in the real world.

And it certainly isn't like money is really an issue with most school attendance anymore. According to this article I found by the Heritage Foundation, the Federal government spends, on average, $9200 per student every year, to the tune of several billion dollars of about 4% of GDP.

Heck, since the Education act that was passed in 1965 spending per student has just about doubled

And yet scores have remained pretty flat. Kind of reminds me of the whole War of Poverty thing (also started by President Lindon B Johnson) where we still have 20% of the population below the poverty line despite trillions of dollars thrown at the poor. But... that's a different topic...

So money certainly isn't the issue here. And I find it interesting how standards keep getting lowered and yet test scores basically remain the same.

Maybe the problem is that there are too many students now and not enough teachers? This... might actually have some ground to stand on. Driving around town it certainly seems like every elementary (except this one in Salt Lake City that looks to be about twice the size of my high school) has multiple portable class rooms because the schools weren't built with so many students in mind. Of course, this could also simply be because I live in Utah which has the highest birthrate of all the states and fourth highest birthrate of all US territory.

Huh, a short aside. The birthrate needed to maintain a population is 2.1. Only five States in the Union have rates that high or higher. That's... concerning, for more than a few reasons.

To get back on topic, I suppose that there could be too many students per teacher, and in some places that could certainly be the case but... when I was going to college, I could swear that every other girl I met there was getting her teaching degree. So I only partly buy there not being enough teachers.

Honestly, the problem has the be in the way that the whole system has been set up. I mean, we always hear about how stupid Americans are but...

Sorry about the language, but that's people from the US and the UK comparing grading scales. If there's any truth to that at all then an American C is a British A.

So here's my attempt at a solution. First off, we need to get the Federal Government out of education. The Feds are completely incapable of not mucking things up and I think history backs me up pretty good here. Especially recent history involving, you know, the health care debacle. Second, we need to take a good long look at the curriculum(s) that were taught before the Feds got themselves involved and update subjects like science and add in things like computer technology where necessary. Third, relax the grading scale a little so that students can focus more on actual learning and less on stressing over what are essentially meaningless grades. Finally, in places where there are too many students per teacher, the States could look into additional incentives to... lure... I guess is the word, more people into the career.

Now, I know that there are plenty of students who have learning disabilities, and they should be attended to with the proper care, but overall, I think that I have a pretty good approach here.

Thanks for reading! Now enjoy a comedian making my point.

On Learning to Go With the Flow

I recently began a Dungeons and Dragons campaign with four of my friends. I volunteered to be the Dungeon Master and run the world they were going to play in.

Now, the world that I created is basically a mash-up of David Gemmell's Drenai series, Glen Cook's Black Company series, and a few bits and pieces from Skyrim all within the framework of the 3.5 ruleset. 

Basically, I set it up so that there were pretty clear 'good guys' and 'bad guys' in this world and I was interested to see if my friends were going to choose to become heroes intent on deposing the Dominator and his evil empire, or villains to enslave the last few bastions of free and good people. 

My friends chose to become con-men.

I was prepared for brutish warriors, intellectual wizards, and greedy rogues ready to be anti-heroes or villains looking to slaughter villages for the fun of it.

But how do you handle a group of people who, with world shattering events happening around them, simply want to dupe everyone they meet out of their money?

From a story telling perspective, what they want to do is actually kind of hilarious. And they do make me laugh a lot.

From the technical aspect, that laughter usually ends up in the tired/incredulous category with me wondering "What's the rule for that?"

This last time that we played was pretty much the best example I can come up with for their behavior. 

After scamming a military officer out of 2000 gold pieces, the party took a boat headed for the south. Unfortunately, during a random encounter with dinosaurs (because I can, that's why!) one of the party members turned into a werewolf for the first time (whoops). When everything was settled, the ship's crew was a little... miffed... that one of their passengers has torn out the throats of some of their friends. A little bribing and a lot of high diplomacy rolls convinced the captain to allow the party to stay onboard until they made port the next day.

So what do my lovely little scoundrels do the moment that their feet touch dry land? Well run a huge scam of course! First they found passage on another ship heading along their course leaving in two days (that's important), forge some official looking documents, and then they hire a bunch of unskilled labor to begin constructing a ring for a tournament. They make posters and hire town criers to spread the word about a single combat tournament that's happening in three days. So one of them sits and takes admission fees from hopeful fighters from all walks of life, another sits and sells tickets to the rich and poor alike, while the last two help the town criers. The morning of the tournament they're on a ship heading south with a few hundred more gold than before and they didn't even leave so much as a note saying sorry at the unfinished stadium.

The most annoying part is that no matter what I set the dice checks for their rolls,they made them. The only control I had was how much they made.

And of course, on their new ship, they just had to look for things to steal. Well, they found some, and in the process, they killed a guard, a druid, and framed an innocent indentured servant for the crime while making it look like one of the Dominator's lieutenants was responsible for instigating the act against another lieutenant even though the druid was creating gifts for the former at the behest of the latter.

This story is getting complicated.

Like I said, I was ready for the normal archetypal characters that most people make, and I thought that I was ready for the chaos that inevitably follows the actions of two of my friends when they're players (when one of them is DM and the other is a player they tend to counter each other fairly well).

You can see why I have fun with this even though they make my brain tired.

There are some DM's who will try to control and influence the path of their players as much as they can. Some groups are just fine with that, but that's not how I want to play. I'm going to keep giving them the opportunities to interact with the big events happening in the world as the Dominator keeps trying to, well, dominate it. And if they want to keep pulling scams and running away from angry mobs well... I guess I'll just have to deal with it as best I can and learn some new rules. 

Thanks for reading!

Is It Just Me, or Are Things Getting Biblical Up In Here?

First off, I just want to apologize for missing the last few weeks. I've been in something of an energetic and creative slump. I'll try to do better, I really will.

 Anyway, a topic that's come up a few times with my friends and co-workers has been prophecy. Particularly prophecy concerning the last days before the Second Coming. And I have to tell you... I find it rather convincing and extremely interesting.

 One thing I remember is reading through Revelations back in Jr High, and it talked about huge armies besieging Jerusalem. At the time I couldn't imagine where those armies would even come from. I don't think we really need to imagine anymore. Israel is surrounded by Muslim nations just waiting for the right moment, ISIS is cutting a bloody swath through Syria and Iraq trying to establish a new Caliphate (and right now the US is letting the barbarians do it). We have widespread violent persecution of Christians and everyone not Muslim...

 My point, that I'm so inelequently trying to make is that Islam is making itself pretty clear to be one of Satan's mockeries of more divine systems.

 This article makes that point fairly well, I think. Don't get me wrong, not all Muslims are violent extremists, but it's becoming fairly clear that any Muslims that take their 'religion' seriously should be dealt with cautiously. There have been too many cases of "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" not to.

Seriously, the symbol of Islam is the Morning Star... also known as one of the Devil's titles.

During a lunch break a week or two ago, one of my co-workers brought up Jewish prophecy concerning different periods of time that are about fifty years, I think... I forgot the term he used, but essentially, the British (an overseas empire) ruled Israel for 2 or 3 of these periods, and the Prophecy says that the Jews will self-rule Jerusalem for one of these periods (which I believe started in 1967 and look at that, ends in 3 years...). Apparently every time that there's a blood moon something big and/or bad happens... and we've got 2 or three more to go before 2017? My Co-Worker also said that the prophecy talked about a Pope who resigns without the cause relating to health, age, or death and... That gives us Pope Benedict XVI. And after that Pope will be the last Pope, who came out and said that he probably only has about, get this, 3 years left.

My co-worker made a much better presentation of it all, and he does have the gravitas of age and experience, but isn't that cool? We've got Christian and Israeli prophecy coming to be all the time. Honestly, if 2017 isn't a big year I'm going to be disappointed. At least there'll be 8 comic book movies that year to take solace in.

Was this a depressing topic? Because it's one that I enjoy talking about and hearing about. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Thanks for reading!

Let's Have Us a Little Talk About Rights.

I recently read a lovely blog post by Matt Walsh about some of the recent... nefariousness of the homosexual community.  I really don't know a better way to put it. And to go along with all of the stories that I've read, and that Mr. Walsh listed of homosexual couples suing and forcing people and businesses to cater to their weddings (which why you would want to force someone to participate in something that personal I have no idea), I have also noticed a few stories of Muslims doing the same sort of thing to at least one business.

This has all had the effect of telling me that most people don't really understand what Rights actually are.

As Mr. Walsh says in his blog:
You're feelings are not constitutionally protected.

You do not have a right not to be offended.

You do not have a right to force your opinions on others.

You do, however, have the right not to be harmed by others. That's the right to life. The Declaration of Independence states that all Men (in the all inclusive human race sense) possess the Rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Not a guarantee of happiness, but the right to pursue it.

One thing that I picked up from my philosophy classes was that your rights end where the next person's begin. I don't want anyone to think I'm saying anything that I'm not here. All actions have consequences. You can't just go and shoot someone in the head if you feel like it because that violates their Right to life. You can't take a random person off the streets and lock them in your basement because that violates their Right to liberty.

But really, the Right to liberty is much deeper than simply being free to locomote where ever you want to. It is the Right to live your life as you see fit without undue interference.

Mr. Walsh writes very eloquently about the problems of forcing people to change because they somehow offend a few people with something that really isn't that big of a deal.

I'm writing today about Rights themselves. Where they come from and why they're enshrined within the Bill of Rights.

The Founding Fathers really were amazing men. They had a depth of understanding of philosophy and politics that is exceptionally rare, especially today. Modern day education is very much assembly line indoctrination... but that's beside the point.

The philosophy of the 18th century was based upon Natural Rights. These rights weren't provided by any organization or government. Natural Rights are based upon universal laws.

Natural Rights are not opinions, or desires. You can want a thing but that doesn't give you a right to it. Natural Rights are those things that are required for sentient beings to exist and live with dignity.

That is the idea that the Bill of Rights was written upon. The Founding Fathers wrote that Bill so that the Rights of the citizens of the new nation would not be abridged by its new government.

You know what? Watch this video. This Bill Whittle fellow says what I'm trying to say much better than I am.


So we're clear now, right? Rights are provided by some force larger than human organization. Governments that do not rule according to Natural Law do not rule lawfully. If you're forcing someone to do something like say... host your wedding, then you are violating their Rights.

If you want to learn more about Natural Law and good government from the same source as our Founding Father's here's a .pdf of John Locke's Two Treatises On Government.

Here's another video that you might find interesting as well. A little bit more of that old Templar vs Assassin duology.

Thanks for reading!

Libertarianism and the Battle for Freedom

I recently started playing Assassin's Creed: Black Flag, and it reminded me that I really I really enjoy the Assassin's Creed games. And not just for the really fun game play, or the interesting stories. I like the games because they set up an important dynamic between eternally combating forces. Freedom verses Control. This dynamic is being echoed in popular culture more and more, but I think that Assassin's Creed is a good example.

On one hand you have the Templar Order, it's symbol supposedly based on the Mark of Cain. The Templar's main goal is to control people's lives and minds. Templars seek to create a perfect world full of order and control and woe be unto anyone who does not display the correct thinking or stands in the way of that perfect world. (Sound familiar? If it doesn't I'll spell it out later). In the Templar world, freedom and individuality aren't just overrated - They're dangerous. Templars seek the dominance of the state over the individual.

On the other hand you have the Order of Assassins, also called the Liberalis Circulum (Circle of Liberals), that fights against the Templars in order to preserve the freedom and the progress and growth that comes with it. I like what the Assassin's stand for so much that I once designed a Liberalis Circulum Agent prestige class for Dungeons and Dragons 3.5. But that's beside the point. The Assassins are almost always few in number compared to the Templar, and the Templar always seem more powerful, but the Assassins make up the difference with pinpoint victories. 

I mentioned earlier that the dynamic is increasingly present in pop culture.  In two fairly recent movies the topic has come up and the outcome of the stories were heavily weighted, I think, in favor of the Liberalis Circulum ideology. 

In Captain America: The Winter Soldier, the insidious force of Hydra hijacks SHIELD to try and take control of the nation while eliminating powerful and dangerous individuals like Tony Stark and Doctor Strange (that mention was a great geek out moment) who can confidently say that they can run their own lives and business better than the State. When viewing the helicarriers that Hydra would eventually use, Steve Rogers replies to Fury's rationalizations with "This isn't freedom, this is fear!"

In Divergent, the system in future Chicago groups people into five 'factions' and those who don't belong... die or disappear. A few people who are labelled as 'Divergent' for having a little bit of individuality basically save two of the factions from a third (Erudite, the "we're smarter than you so we are the only ones who know how to run your life people) and still end up hunted and on the run.

I'm a classical Liberal, which means that these days I'm a Libertarian. Modern Liberals are statists who have usurped the good name of the label. They've done the same with Progressives. President Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive, but he wouldn't recognize modern progressives as anything remotely connected to his ideals. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal, but he had nothing in common with today's liberals.

The words liberal and liberty have the same root word, and both do (or at least should) mean freedom and free-ness. This isn't freedom from responsibility or consequences like so many people want to think, but rather a freedom to act and live unfettered from outside influences such as government. 

If you want to see what real "Templars" would do with power and influence then you have no farther to look in life than the 'liberal' Left in this great nation. They have no higher cause than themselves and their perfect world. They have control of the government bureaucracy and the media, and what have they done with it?

- They have become thought police, trying to destroy anyone who thinks differently or freely. Examples of this have been seen with the furor over Hobby Lobby and Chic-Fil-A, and more acutely with the bakers and wedding planners who have been forced by the government to cater to homosexuals against every belief and moral of their beings.

- They have convinced Americans that we aren't simply Americans. You have to get the black vote, or the latino vote, or the women vote... They've factionalized America and far far too many people are okay with it. The value of a person is in the content of their character, not the color of their skin or the shape of their genitals. An American is an American.

There are more, but I don't feel like remembering them. But essentially, the Left wants a permanent underclass that will only vote for them, while eliminating anyone who doesn't agree with their thinking.

Libertarians are a different beast entirely. They're much more chaotic and individualistic than the Left or the Right. They have all manner of personal opinions on everything from drugs to guns to energy production, but they all agree on one thing: People can run their individual lives better than the government can. 

I find that the main difference between statists and individualists comes down to their perception of humanity. The statist believes that in any given situation, a human will act poorly and selfishly. The individualist believes that a human will act beneficently and selfishly in any given situation. The statist believes that human nature needs to be curbed by powerful organizations or else destroy everything. The individualist believes that human nature is an engine of creativity and goodness. Pessimism and Optimism. Control and Freedom. One believes that the world works better when other people run your life, the other believes that the world works better when you run your life.

History has shown again and again and again which way actually works. The statist 'utopias' of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China are just recent examples of what happens when the pessimistic view takes hold. Inevitably, those statist bastions caused death, destruction, suffering, evil, and stagnation far far beyond anything that the Left or other statists will admit. 

In contrast, those nations and eras built upon individual freedoms have thrived and become innovative, optimistic, and closer to ideal. 

Will the world ever be perfect? No. But an honest look at history shows the best way to go about life. To paraphrase Thomas Paine, "Government at its best is a tolerable evil, and at it's worst an intolerable one. Even so it is evil and must be fought against." Government is a consumer and not a producer, no matter what government lackeys may try to tell you. Left unchecked government grows into the monstrous pile of bureaucracy that we're dealing with today. 

There are good things worth fighting for in this life, and freedom pretty much tops the list. So are you a statist or an individualist? A pessimist or an optimist? 

Are you a Templar or an Assassin?

Israel: the Battle of Good and Evil In Action

This is a little late... the post itself and the topic. But that's what you get for lending me your ears.



This topic is rather important, though. For everyone. I mean, Israel and the people living there are kind of amazing. They've inhabited that region for three thousand years or so, they've survived ridiculous persecutions (I believe that the holocaust killed at least half of the world's Jews at that time), they revived and speak a dead language (only time that's really happened) and on and on.

Every time that Israel is attacked, their the first one's at the table to bring back peace or a semblance there of.

So lately we have little Israel, the only real peaceable and Democratic nation in all of the middle east, on a plot of land smaller than the state of New Jersey under nearly constant attack by their closest neighbors. The people attacking Israel (Hamas) store their weapons in schools and hospitals. Israel defends itself like any self-respecting nation would... and the world condemns them for that.

Isn't that insane? Maybe I haven't framed the situation in the best way, but really... things are insane here. Hamas is recognized as a terrorist group by just about every authority that matters, but when they attack Israel, they ask Israel to stop provoking the terrorists... who were provoked simply because Israel exists.

If you're not up to speed on the history of the area and conflict I'm posting some useful videos below. Go ahead, I can wait.

The Middle East Problem


Debunking the Palestine Lie


What is Palestine? Who are the Palestinians?

When else in history has a nation born such a burden of responsibility for the civilians of the group attacking it? People (usually very poorly informed 'celebrities') keep putting Israel down for bombing schools and hospitals... but that's where Hamas and the PLO keep their rockets. Israel keeps going out of its way to spare and protect noncombatants, they give areas they are going to attack 20 minutes of warning.

Hamas threatens and kills those people who try to heed those warnings.

Why do we keep harrassing the Jews for trying to live, and supporting the Arabs that are endeavoring constantly to wipe them out?

"If you mean whose side should we be on: Israel or the Arabs? I would certainly say Israel because it’s the advanced, technological, civilized; country amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages." --Ayn Rand

I find Ayn Rand rather interesting. Some of her quotes I agree with, others not so much. This one I like. And if you need proof that Israel is surrounded by savages well... there are plenty of accounts of honor killings and maimings, child-brides and women used as chattel. Sharia and the Islamic culture that it inspires... sicken me. I could easily find plenty of links and videos to show you what I'm talking about, but I don't want to get that angry right now.

Israel is a civilized and reasonable society that is a force for good and progress. They're surrounded by people who resort to violence and force almost at a whim. They terrorize and destroy.

There are six million Jews in Israel, and one point seven billion Muslims in the world who have 22 recognized nations. Why are they so threatened and angered by such a paltry number of people on a plot of land smaller than New Jersey? It's just ridiculous.

I am firmly convinced that Islam is the greatest threat to freedom, peace, and progress. Now, you're probably thinking, but surely you can't mean to slander all Muslims with such allegations! Well, perhaps not all of them, but while there are good people in any group or population, the actions of that group tends to speak louder than their words.  When more than half of anyone's top ten terrorist groups consists of organizations from one religion, there's something fundamentally wrong with that religion.

Time for a little math. According to a survey quoted by Pamela Gellar, there approximately 15-25% of the world's Muslim population identifies as actively fundamentalist or Jihadist. 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide, so that translates to 255-425 million people around the world that want to destroy democracies and freedoms around the world. I really wish I could find the video where she quotes the statistics, because there are more and they are telling.

When your religion says that people of other faiths must convert, submit, or die; that is a fundamental problem.

The thing that angers me the most is how Islamists treat women. I was raised to be a gentleman, to protect women and to treat them with respect. Muslims rape virgins so that they won't get into heaven. Raping non-Muslim women doesn't count as a sin because they aren't Muslim. The... the violence and perversion that is institutionalized by Islam and Sharia is sickening.

One in four Swedish women have been raped by Muslim men or gangs of Muslim men. And all of the West's liberals and supposed feminists stay silent.

There is no such thing as a moderate Islam. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan rejected attempts to call Turkey the representative of moderate Islam. "It is unacceptable for us to agree with such a definition. Turkey has never been a country to represent such a concept. Moreover, Islam cannot be classified as moderate or not."

This went a in a little bit different direction than I originally intended, but when a group consistently acts in a way inconsistent with life and peace it needs to be pointed out.

Thank you for reading. Here's one last video to feed your thoughts.

We Need You To Dream Again

I'm going to touch on a few subjects this time around that I'll get to on other weeks, but bear with me because it'll all tie together by the end, if not sooner. This is a going to be a long one.

The world is in pretty bad shape, right? We've got at least one deadly disease spreading across the world, our southern border has been all but dissolved by our corrupt federal government, we have a corrupt federal government that would make any dictator proud, there's the Russia-Ukraine thing that's ongoing, the Israel-Palestine thing that's ongoing, Antisemitism is on the rise in Europe (never a good thing) and seems like everywhere else, you have a militant Islamic movement taking over Syria and Iraq that's committing all kinds of barbarisms and atrocities against... well, pretty much everyone they can get their hands on, but mostly on the region's Christians. I'm sure that China is up to something (because they always are) and there's probably a few natural disasters running about.

But we don't have to get depressed. The future doesn't need to get worse. We can dream again.

I grew up in the 90s and the 2000s and while some distasteful things happened, I remember an overall optimism about the shape of the future. Now it is hard not to be pessimistic, isn't it?

Fixing the United States government will be hard but simple. We need to vote out the socialists and the communists (same difference) and the statists and the big government activists this fall and replace them in congress with good reliable responsible small government conservatives. Or better yet, vote in Libertarians. No matter what their personal views on social or financial issues are a good libertarian supports full freedom and the smallest government necessary.

"Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
-- Thomas Paine, "Common Sense"

Alright, I'm a little off the topic I want to discuss here. Politics is for another post. What I really want to talk about is dreaming, and the inspiration for dreaming.

I can just as easily say hopes instead of dreams. But... dreams work better. Dreams provide a goal. Dreams can be more active than a hope.

I like Star Trek. No. Actually, I love Star Trek. Star Trek followed an era where before the closest to flight we could come to was an air balloon, was replaced by actual flight, and then regular flights leading up to almost routinely putting men on the moon (and then explosions and sadness).  Star Trek was inspired by the hope and dreaming of that progression.

I don't know how many of you have read or watched interviews of scientists and engineers, but a goodly portion of them were inspired to go into their fields by Star Trek. And now we have cell phones, and 3D printers, and tablets all because one show inspired people.
The original series of Star Trek, as well as the Next Generation were conceived of as a Utopia. A point where humans had (mostly) made peace with themselves and moved beyond most material greed (the proliferation of replicators probably helped with that). The people are still human (the ones that ARE human), but they still aspire to be better and to learn and create and are everything that make humankind great.
Star Trek inspires people to be better people, as well as to create a brighter future.

I do not like Star Wars. It is a fun enough series, but... that's about it. I suppose it could have inspired some people to go into robotics (although how C-3PO could have done that I have no idea). I just... for everything that happens in the Star Wars universe, it is a very stagnant place. I guess the stories are meant to be cyclical, but it just tells me that that galaxy is stuck in a rut. Star Wars has a history spanning about 20,000 years. In all of that time, you have the story of dark side and light side repeating endlessly because after 20 millenia of mostly unbroken society obviously no one is going to learn a durn thing about curbing excess destructive tendencies.
And their technology... ugh. In 20,000 years you know what the major technological advances are? Smaller batteries for lightsabers, and the Death Star. And the Death Star was just a huge upscaling of existing things! If you took a starfighter from 5000 years before the battle of Yavin (Episode IV) and pitted it against with something from say... 7 years after the battle of Yavin (Episode VI) the performance would be extremely comparable.
No, I do not like Star Wars.

There is so much more to our world than most people realize.

One of the most important steps to moving towards a better and brighter future is cheap, clean, and abundant energy. A few years ago I watched a TED talk on liquid Thorium reactors. It was cool, but I didn't give it too much thought at the time. I think it was this one:


I don't think that he goes into it in this particular video, but Thorium is an amazing power source that, compared with everything else, produced electricity costing pennies on the dollar. That's compared to fossil fuels, solar, wind, and other nuclear power.

Thorium cannot be weaponized, or at least it can't be done easily. The liquid-salt fission reactors don't melt down and spread radiation when something goes wrong and things shut off. They are vastly smaller than current Uranium fission reactors, which makes them potentially very portable.

There was a video making the rounds for Solar Freaking Roadways! a while back that would be awesome, and I am all for that. But I see Thorium reactors as a much more efficient and economical means of meeting the world's energy needs.

With energy from a Thorium reactor, the fuel used per person per year in the United States would be about 4 grams. 4 GRAMS! That's like 2 paperclips! A handful of Thorium provides all the power you should need for an entire lifetime. I watched a video earlier that said the average person in the US uses about 57 gallons of fossil fuels every year right now. All of those fossil fuels pump out a lot of pollutants (and I'm more worried about health effects and genetic anomalies caused by that than any supposed climate change). Thorium reactors are contained in such a way that their only output into the world is energy in the form of electricity or heat.

Can you tell that I'm in love with this idea? I have a vision in my head right now of a world powered by Thorium reactors and Solar freaking roadways!

You know what makes liquid-salt reactors even more awesome? They'll be perfect for space travel and space colonies. Right now our space efforts rely on batteries and solar panels for watts and kilowatts of power... ok... but a liquid-salt reactor will provide them with 50-100 MEGAwatts! Enough to power an engine, and life support, and computers, and who knows what else.

That kind of cheap, clean, and abundant power won't fix every problem on our planet, but man will it be a step in the right direction. There are so many amazing things going on in the world. Support them, and please don't dwell on all of the bad stuff. Act when you can, and things will start looking up.

Thanks for reading. I'll just leave you with a few more Thorium videos and links.



Taylor Wilson: My Radical Plan

Thorium Documentary Summary

Everyone Should Play More Dungeons and Dragons

Yes, I really am promoting what the title says. I'm not saying everyone should play the video game versions, although there are at least a few based on Dungeons and Dragons video games worth some time. I'm talking about the good old fashioned pen and paper sit next to your stinky, argumentative friends Dungeons and Dragons.

I'm just going to refer to it as D&D from here on. Lots less typing.

Really, I'm saying that everyone should play pen and paper games. There is a huge variety out there like classic D&D (they have five versions out now, from the complex rules smithing of 3.0 and 3.5 to the easy beginner's 4.0 to the 'as simple or complex as you want it' D&D Next that's coming out this fall), pen and paper Star Wars, War Craft, Pathfinder, and more that I'm sure I have no idea about based upon the d20 system.

But you're sitting here thinking "That's all well and good, you handsome devil, but you haven't even begun to tell me why I should even consider your premise."

That's a good thought, citizen. I'm working up to it. If you know how pen and paper games work, you can probably skip this paragraph. If you don't, hold on for a second. with these games, the world everyone plays in is built, developed, and run by a Dungeon or Game Master. He (or she) controls everything about the world that isn't the other people's characters. He controls the npc's, the monsters, the weather, the treasure, and even the experience points. The players, on the other hand, build the characters that they're going to live through in the world according to the rules the GM has set forth. The rules provide numbers and benefits and drawbacks of all sorts that players can choose from and within most rule sets you can achieve a lot of unique characters even with the same race or class.

So now that you know how this type of game works (At least basically. I'm glossing over a lot because, let's face it, it really doesn't matter right here and now), I'll consider getting to my point.

Essentially, D&D and other p&p games are games of imagination. The GM and the players are all imagining the same world, and they're all imagining what's happening. The GM is forced to think broadly, he controls the world and the story, after all. And the players get to focus narrowly.

I think this is great for everyone involved. I mean really, what do most people imagine these days? Don't most of us seem to be limited by what we see on TV and movies, and spoon-fed to by video games? I've only GM'd myself once, and it was great. I created a new and unique world. I designed kingdoms, and gods, and devils. I developed a concrete universe for my players to create their characters in so that they had concrete histories and motivations. I'll admit, I made a few mistakes in my narration, and I had to move before we could finish the story, but just the experience of making a world, isn't that amazing?

Most of my experience with D&D has been through the eyes of a player, though. Like I said, a GM has to think big and broad, but as a player your only real focus is on your character. You choose their race, gender, class, skills, abilities and more. As a player, your character can be wish fulfillment, or exploration of traits you're curious about. Your character can be a reflection of you or be nothing like you. You can play as a paragon of nobility or vileness. I wonder what it says about me that most of my characters end up as madmen... Oh well, crazy and random is fun.

Yep, this was taken during a D&D session.

I love the creativity involved in just about every part of D&D. In fact, one of my little joys is to go online and read people's funny stories. One of the best is about Mr. Bearington and I fully recommend giving a read if you have a minute. Here's another one about the hilarious dangers of introducing a new and untested game mechanic.

But the imagination, man! (or woman, who am I to judge? D&D needs more actual women) You get to imagine new worlds, ferret out details, determine motivations, history, back stories, and more. If you're a writer, what could be better practice for getting into that creative kind of mindset? If you have no intention of writing then you still get to push the limits of your imagination. It's a chance to have some fun and take a step away from rigid mindsets about how things have to be. Go throw a fireball! Go slay a dragon! Why should something mundane keep you from having fun? Expand your mind, man! (Now go back and read that last sentence with a hippie voice. It makes it infinitely better).

And on top of all that fun and benefit, D&D is at its heart a social and cooperative game. Computers my occasionally be involved but the majority of the time you have to be in the same room as your friends, occasionally some strangers, working together to tell a story that can be as fun, beautiful, intelligent, or mind-appallingly stupid as you want (I remember having a barbarian character once who could not for the life of him break through a wooden door with his hands, but broke it with a headbutt. I love the vagaries of the dice). But you will be making those stories and doing those insanely weird and stupid things with your friends.

How many games can really say that? There are board games, sure, but they're so limited. You can most video games these days with your friends, but they come nowhere near to the same level of interactivity and immersiveness as a well thought out game of D&D.

So I recommend, if you haven't played before, getting a set of books (and dice) from Amazon, Ebay, a used bookstore. Heck, buy the books new if you're feeling cocky. Then get your friends together and go on an adventure. And remember, if you aren't laughing about something ridiculous, you just might not be playing right.

Thanks for reading.

PS D&D is only the Devil's game if you play it that way. In which case you better either be trying to stop the Devil, or you need a new group of friends.

PPS Here's my dog. Enjoy.

The Nature of Evil... and a Llama

I'm going to level with you. There isn't actually going to be a llama anywhere in this post.

This is something I've been pondering for a few years, and I'll try to stay on topic. It started close to when I really got into philosophy for my bachelor's degree. Namely, what is evil? What is sin?

From what I understand, most religious people would probably say that evil is equivalent with immoral actions. Sin would therefore be the willful committance of those immoral actions. And immoral actions are those things that God has forbidden. But... I want to find the more basic truth than that.

I think that the best definition of evil comes from philosophy and the dictionary. Evil is suffering. I like this quote from Raymond Smullyan's book The Tao is Silent: All arguments of the moralists - all the alleged reasons why people shouldn't commit evil acts - simply pale into insignificance in light of the one basic truth that evil is suffering (100).

Evil acts are kind of unavoidable for sentient beings. We can be self-absorbed, or get distracted, or simply experience a moment of thoughtlessness that can create immense suffering. Is it really good enough to say that evil is suffering? Sin would then be purposefully creating suffering. That could work...

But then I think of natural disasters. They create suffering, but they can't truly be said to purposefully be creating that suffering. Is a hurricane evil? Is an earthquake?

I honestly believe that evil is a thing that can truly be created only by beings who are aware of themselves as humans generally profess to be (you can't expect me to believe that every homo sapiens sapiens is self-aware). The state of things, be it hurricanes, or volcanoes, or simply wolves eating deer... I can't call that evil. I can't really call it good either. They simply are. Evil only gets thrown into the mix when you're conscious of things beyond immediate material needs.

What if... what if evil is simply the awareness of suffering, and good is the alleviation of suffering? Sins would be the willful actions of creating of suffering, pain, and destruction, and virtue would be willful acts of replacing that with succor, hope, and growth. I'm liking this one, although I'm not sure if everything lines up exactly right. You don't want to define things so broadly that good kind acts are labelled evil (such as a surgeon cutting away diseased tissue. Cutting a person is bad, but sometimes you must harm a little to heal a lot) and you don't want to define so narrowly that things most people instinctively know as evil and intrinsically harmful go unnoticed or unpunished (as the case may be).

 I've just kind of gone in circles with this one. I hear that happens a lot when you go after the big nebulous ideas like evil, or 'the good'. Evil is suffering, and Sin is creating suffering, whether for yourself or for others. So listen to Bill and Ted and be excellent to one another. Right? Right. Good. Go get'em, tiger.

And here's a little last bit of food for thought in a video I saw last week. Enjoy.

Post by Life Centre International.

I should really think about a more fun subject for next week. This was too serious. Or not serious enough.

Oh, all right. Here's a llama for your time.

Superman Versus Thor

     My first real blog post. Exciting. I thought about a quick post giving my thoughts about some of the recent announcements about Marvel's big three heroes, but that's not super interesting to me. Oh no! Thor's a girl now! Except that Thor is still going to be Thor but someone (we don't know who yet) will be using Mjolnir to be Thor and they will be calling her Thor. That'll be more confusing than when there were three or four Spider-Women running around. I think this'll make classic Thor all the more interesting since he'll still have his inborn powers, and his ax Jarnborn while he's unworthy of Mjolnir. This won't the the first time that Thor has been a woman though despite some claims to the contrary.
     That's a lot of names, I'm sorry. The other big news from Marvel is that Steve Rogers has been de-supersoldierfied and is now a weak old man who is being succeeded by his longtime friend and partner Sam Wilson (the Falcon, seriously, they've been working together since like... the 70s.) This won't be the first time that there's been a black Captain America either (see Isaiah Bradley and his family). Really, all this news says to me is that there is going to be some great story potential for the next few years for some great characters before everything goes back to status quo.


Now, to the meat of this meandering post I call a blog.
I'll admit, I've been thinking about this one for... probably a few years. Who would win in a fight? I mean, Thor is basically Marvel's Superman, right? (And yes, I'm ignoring Hyperion, Gladiator, Blue Marvel, The Sentry, and probably a few others). Everyone who knows me knows that I tend to favor Marvel over DC in just about every regard, so I'm going to try to ignore my bias and do this as best I can.


For Sources, I referred to the Screw Attack's Death Battle! Video series
Thor Origin and Stats
Superman Origin and Stats
The Marvel and DC Wiki pages
and their respective Comic Vine pages
Thor  --  Superman

Comparing Strength
     The various wiki sources agree that Supes and Thor are both Class 100+ in strength which means that they can both lift well over 100 tons of weight. The problem with comparing the two comes from their feats... I had trouble finding specific instances for both. Thor's comic vine page says this: On occasions Thor has shown the ability to destroy moons using his bare hands and can also destroy planets with his powerful strikes. He displayed this ability when he hit Beta Ray Bill so hard that he destroyed the planet that they were on. Thor has also been shown to be powerful enough to hit an enemy with such a force that a black hole hole was created and his opponent was sent right through it. Which, to me, means that Thor can hit at least as hard as a Death Star's main laser.
    Superman's greatest feat, on the other hand, seems to be universally accepted to be when he moved the planet Earth which, according to Death Battle! puts Supes' strength level at at least 6.6 quintillion tons.
Destroying a planet seems like it would be easier than moving a planet, so I have to give Superman the edge here.

Comparing Durability/Invulnerability
    Thor has survived planet destroying bombs, the surface of the sun, and the point blank detonation of a nuclear bomb. Thor can survive unprotected in the void of space.
     Superman has survived "He has been shown surviving the blast of nuclear warheads,entering the Earth's sun and emerging unharmed, and surviving the impact of an exploding sun" (wiki source). Superman can survive unprotected in the void of space.
Honestly, the "surviving the impact of an exploding sun" sounds impressive, but I'm calling this one a draw.

Comparing Stamina and Senses
     Looking at the Comic Vine and Wiki entries, these two sections read almost identically. They can both fight for days and see things moving faster than light. Thor can apparently be aware of things happening at the edge of the solar system, so I suppose that there's that.

Comparing Speed
     Thor has flown faster than light on several occasions, and he can run faster than the finest human athlete (although the limits of his running speed doesn't seem to be known since he usually either walks or flies). There are several instances of him swinging Mjolnir several times the speed of light, and with his hammer he can teleport across vast distances.
     Superman has also flown faster than the speed of light. We've seen Supes' running speed several times in comics and cartoons that shows that, while he isn't as fast as the Flash, he is still capable of running at several Mach.
Here's another draw in capabilities.

Comparing Less Physical Traits
     Thor can naturally control the weather, and this ability can be refined and focused through the used of his hammer. He can call powerful lightning and storms. Thor can control the Earth thanks to his elder god heritage which lets him create powerful earthquakes and rifts.
Thor is a master tactician and combatant, having had thousands of years to perfect just about every stratagem and fighting style (this includes both ancient styles and many modern ones). Thor has an indomitable will that allows him to overcome compulsions and influences from most sources (Magical or otherwise). He possesses a gifted intellect that, through his Donald Blake alter ego, allowed him to create an android that had an IQ of 375 and was durable enough to withstand several blows from Mjolnir.
Thor, though observation and long association with Loki, has developed some limited magical ability and has cast an illusion.
     Superman has several visual abilities, the most combat oriented of which is his heat vision. His heat vision can potentially rival the heat and intensity of the sun, but drains his power reserves faster than any of his other abilities. He has ridiculous lung capacity that allows him to produce hurricane force winds or freeze a target.
Superman is an advanced combatant having been trained in boxing and several Kryptonian martial arts. He possesses a genius level intellect with great analytic powers.
I think Thor has the edge here in both capability and experience.

Comparing Weaknesses
     Thor has no overwhelming weaknesses. He can be damaged by high level magic. The wiki also notes the Warriors' Madness: also known as the Sin Unpardonable. Warrior's Madness is the most forbidden malady in Asgard by law of Odin. Any who fall under it must pay the penalty, only the most bitter sacrifice can atone for it.Despite this allowing Thor to increase his strength and stamina tenfold, this threatens Thor's sanity. Symptoms include massive headaches, mentally erratic, savage, animalistic, uncontrollable behavior, and unreasoning. In some cases the Warrior's Madness could be seen as a potential boon in times of desperation.
     Superman has several weaknesses, but the only one that really matters here is his weakness to magic. Magic can often disrupt the bioenergy field from which he derives his powers. "Superman's vulnerability to magic varies depending upon the special effects of the magic. No magic seems to be able to directly destroy him unless it comes from a semi-divine or divine source. He can be injured and worn down by magical entities."
Superman's weakness here is definitely a huge liability given his opponent. Edge to Thor.

Mjolnir
     Given that it is basically an extension of his body I feel like I need to include at least a little bit about Mjolnir.
You can read about it here or here.
     Mjolnir enhances many of Thor's innate abilities and gives him access to several more. The most pertinent ability here though, is the Godblast.  "Thor is capable of channeling different amounts of his godly energies in combination with the mystical properties of Mjolnir can be channeled through his hammer for a single massive blast known as the God Blast. His godly energy is so vast and powerful, that even when reinforced with the Belt of Strength, which should double Mjolnir's fortification and durability, when Thor channeled his godly energies into Mjolinr to destroy the Brain Dome of the mighty Celestial Exitar, the hammer shattered from the amount of power Thor channeled. The God Blast is so immensely powerful and destructive that it has proven capable of destroying beings as large and as powerful as the Midgard Serpent and even causing such a great degree of damage to a being such as Galactus that he was forced to flee for his life. Thor can send the God Blast to the core of Ego the Living Planet and Alter Ego and render both comatose. He has also used the God Blast to defeat Surtur, Ymir, Juggernaut, and Zelia" (Wiki)

Conclusions
     If this were a purely physical fight I have no doubt that Superman would eventually overpower Thor as Superman is at least somewhat stronger than Thor As long as he has access to the Sun, Superman can basically go on forever while Thor would eventually need to eat or sleep (albeit that might take days or weeks until he needs to do so).
    But this is not a purely physical fight. Since both fighters can easily withstand contact with the Sun, their individual ranged attacks (heat vision and lightning, respectively) might hurt, but wouldn't really damage. Hurricane force winds or freezing breath would not really hurt or affect Thor, and Thor's storms would likely not really hurt of affect Superman.
    The big thing in this fight is Thor and Mjolnir and their divine or semi-divine and magical natures. Superman and Thor are so closely matched in speed that I think it is reasonably safe to assume that if they really want to hit each other, they're going to be able to do so, especially Thor with all of his combat experience. This is important because Mjolnir is going to really really hurt Superman. Superman does not have any more resistance to magic than a normal human, and I'll refer you to this to show what happens to a 'god' using a mostly human body when it's hit by the full force of Thor's hammer. Lightning directly channeled through the hammer is likely to be more magical than any of Thor's other lightning and would probably hurt Supes that much more. If push comes to shove, Thor can also hit Superman with a God Blast and that itself would probably end the fight.
   Ultimately, even if Thor is making use of his magical belt (which doubles his strength and stamina) and affected by the Warrior's Madness, Superman is still probably the physical superior because he's Superman and how could he not be. But Thor has access to offensive divine and magical abilities and weapons that could hurt and kill Superman.

Sorry for the long read. I hope it was worth it. I'm going to try and post something worthwhile every Thursday or Friday. My topics are going to range from nerdy things like science fiction, fantasy, and comic books, to more serious things like philosophy, religion (rarely), and politics. If there's something you'd like me to talk about leave me your suggestion in the comments.

Thanks for reading!

I've Finally Gone and Done It.

Well folks, I've finally stopped talking about it and started my blog. The topics will generally be pretty nerdy, like that one random post I made on Facebook awhile back about relative technological levels between Star Wars and Star Trek, but I will occasionally say something about politics or religion or really whatever floats my boat. So if you want to hear (read?) my thoughts on something then feel free to mention it in the comments. I'll try to get something interesting and/or thought provoking out in a few days.

Thanks to everyone for all the support I've received.

~Spence