Letters to the Editor
Hey Sam,
Greetings to ya again from Arkansas!
I got the new March issue of Frontiersman that you sent me.  “Thank you”....
Sam, things here in the max is only getting worse!  They’ve not fed us any hamburger meat, eggs, or milk in a month and a 1/2, they’re starving us to death!  And the suicide rate here continues to go up....

Dear Sam,
... also, I noticed, when I read my letter to you in letters to the editor, where I commented that it surely was your powers of intelligence, being your father.... [March, page 2]  it wasn’t my intention to slight your mother with the inference that her intelligence was lacking.
So, correction.
... per your mom and dad’s equal contribution to your D.N.A., both their intelligence levels must be above the norm.
Also, I let a person who claims to have been a teacher read your article “A Cold Place” [March issue], he smugly informed me you were wrong and then went into a spew of main stream mumbo-jumbo of the big bang, etc.
He just “knew” everything.  I couldn’t even get him to admit that “gravity” is a theory.  He went on saying the “law” of gravity, etc. are incontrovertible proof, blah, blah, blah.
Please Sam, correct me if I’m wrong.  All a “law” is, is something “observed”, and although may have predictable results, is still nothing more than a theory because it can’t be proved via the scientific method.
Anyway, I understood your article, mostly, as usual, your frontiersman was interesting.
Be well.  Bye for now.
Sincerely,

A law is a circumstance or phenomenon that we observe, and that is self activating.  That is, we don’t have to cause it to happen.  It exists with or without or involvement.  A law also automatically enforces itself and provides some consequence when it’s violated.  I accept the idea that laws inherently exist, but observing one and giving it a name doesn’t necessarily mean that we understand it.  I’ll mention parenthetically that law and legislation are not the same thing.  See Milam's Dictionary of Distinctions, Differences, and Other Odds and Ends, in The Sovereign’s Library.
Regarding my article “A Cold Place”, I’ll concede one point.  I might be wrong about how cold it will get.  Beyond that, I’m not impressed by criticisms from people who claim to have academic educations.  After I graduated from Texas A&M University, with a BS in Nuclear Engineering, and went to work as a Nuclear Engineer at the General Electric Company, I noticed that what I’d learned at A&M didn’t have much to do with the work that I did at GE.  It shouldn’t have been unexpected.  When I was young, my father mentioned something about the meaning of BS.  Then he told me that MS means more of the same and PhD means piled higher and deeper.  In later years, I observed that getting a so-called higher education often means learning more and more about less and less while understanding less and less about more and more.  Today, scientists have reduced the understanding of cosmology to a kind of secular catechism.  They faithfully recite their catechism, and they don’t think beyond the boundaries of their academic brainwashing.  Like their theological counterparts, they can get hostile if you challenge their dogma.
The Big Bang Theory is the premier example of the stupid theories at which scientists can arrive after correctly observing something.  In this particular case, the scientists can see that there is a red shift, but they insist that it’s the result of a Doppler effect.  The red shift isn’t caused by a Doppler effect.  It’s  caused by photon decay.  See Cosmology and the Law of Parsimony, in Pharos.  Sadly for the scientists, without the Doppler explanation, they can’t justify the notion of an expanding universe.  Without that, they can’t justify the Big Bang Theory.  Thus, the entire accepted cosmology is wrong, because of a false assumption.  At least they still have their catechism.
It’s interesting that, in its essentials, the Big Bang Theory is identical to Creation Theory.  In both cases, in the beginning there was nothing, then there was an event, and then there was light.  The differences between them are mostly superficial, differences in style rather than substance.  Both theories were probably invented by, and are certainly promoted by, people with the same kind of mentality.  It seems that religion and science aren’t as different from one another as their proponents would like to believe  See Ravin’ Evermore, in Pharos.

Stray Thoughts
Sam Aurelius Milam III
• Forced integration might not make people like each other.  It’s more likely to promote hostility and it certainly makes the government stronger.
• The perception of security is an illusion.  There isn’t any security anywhere, ever.
• Any god who needs to be worshiped for the sake of his ego doesn’t deserve either the title or the worship.  

---

— editor

Many men smoke but Fu Manchu.