Obama rallies the nation after second beheading: ‘Shrink’ ISIS until it’s a ‘manageable problem’ « Hot Air:
A good article, contrasting some words from former times with the much more advanced, intelligent "Citizen of the World" currently occupying the WH.
"The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.” (FDR)
"We will bury the USSR in the Ash Heap of History" (Reagan)
“It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated,” (W)
And finally, "The One", the greatest orator in the history of the world, Nobel Peacemaker ... BO!!!
"We know that if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem,”
The majesty!
I suspect it feels lot like being made aware that you need county assistance because you are now broke, and someone will be out to help make dealing with your new catheter "manageable".
Welcome to home care America.
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, September 03, 2014
Liberals Discover They May Be Human
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-frimer/liberals-conservatives-conformity_b_5697849.html
We begin with a liberal hypothesis of why conservatives "are the way they are":
The conservative view is really that BOTH (and all) sides are made up of inferior humans, and understanding that -- especially in relation to God, is the beginning of wisdom, a pearl of far greater price than intelligence, knowledge, or any other human characteristic like beauty or charisma.
Perhaps we have the merest inking of the beginning of liberal wisdom (oxymoron?) here:
A short reading of Hayek "The Fatal Conceit" would clue her in that the smarter and better educated one is the greater their tendency to believe that "man is the measure of all things", "man is infinitely perfectible", "humans create human systems like capitalism, socialism, etc through reason", etc. In other words, the more likely they are to be "liberal" -- so the real world is the opposite of her stereotype. But, as in her original stereotype, that has never given an intelligent liberal a moments pause in being less certain of their next stereotype!
Humans are superb creators of all manner of stereotypes, narratives, models and myths to make "sense" of an infinite, complex and significantly unpredictable universe. "In general" (like all human rules, NOT 100%), the smarter you are, the greater your tendency to hubris and narcissism, with RELIGION, especially Christianity, being the great wild card transcendent model in history.
When super intelligent people have faith in an infinitely more intelligent God, especially if that God has died for them, it tends to engender some level of HUMILITY. Again, they are still human, so it is at best imperfect, but it adds another level that needs to be checked before "I'm SURE that I understand it all THIS time"!
She has mostly figured out that conservatives are likely not sub-human, but she has still not figured out that "Ideas Have Consequences" (another excellent book) ... the models we choose (or choose us), our "World View", has a profound effect on all we do, and when groups select an inferior World View, especially nation sized groups, the results are almost always disastrous.
Modern Western civilization was largely built because for a brief time (200 years), the majority of leaders were God believing to at least the Deist level, and generally Christians -- so they had a lot more understanding of the transcendent concept of wisdom, therefore taking a much more humble and reasonable view of what was possible and thus succeeding!
We begin with a liberal hypothesis of why conservatives "are the way they are":
The way I saw it, this slavish obedience to authority and tradition on the part of conservatives was the true source of the culture war between liberals and conservatives over foreign war, abortion, same-sex marriage, gun control, and racial inequality. They way I saw it, conservatives clung to old, near-sighted ways of thinking and fell in line with the dictates of the "man in charge." If only conservatives would think for themselves -- like liberals do -- the war would be over and we could get on with life, governance, and progress. Or so I thought.Liberals do a lot of studies trying to prove that conservatives are somehow "inferior" -- not able to understand the facts, not able to question authority, fearful, etc. The list is long. When you are CERTAIN that you are right and in fact superior, but know that you are an extremely nice and caring person, then there MUST be some explanation for why the people you hate are so bad!!
The conservative view is really that BOTH (and all) sides are made up of inferior humans, and understanding that -- especially in relation to God, is the beginning of wisdom, a pearl of far greater price than intelligence, knowledge, or any other human characteristic like beauty or charisma.
Perhaps we have the merest inking of the beginning of liberal wisdom (oxymoron?) here:
If the two sides equally support obedience to their own authorities, how had I come to believe that conservatives are the ones that favor obedience to authority? We wondered if the asymmetry lay not in attitudes toward obedience, but in the nature of authority. Perhaps authorities tend to be conservative, and people know it.We see that being wrong about the "conservatives can't think for themselves and are slaves to authority" stereotype didn't make the author any less confident in liberal stereotypes, and quickly ready to jump to the "authorities really tend to be conservative" view.
This is what we found in a subsequent study. Americans completed a survey in which they named authorities (e.g., police officer) then indicated whether they suspected the authority figure was liberal, moderate, or conservative. People perceived authorities to be conservative. Bosses tend to vote Republican -- or at least most people suspect they do. My suspicion is that the stereotype is accurate: authorities really tend to be conservative.
I wonder if this is because conservatives are especially good at or motivated to gain positions of authority. Or perhaps gaining authority over others changes our ideology, making the boss conservative.
A short reading of Hayek "The Fatal Conceit" would clue her in that the smarter and better educated one is the greater their tendency to believe that "man is the measure of all things", "man is infinitely perfectible", "humans create human systems like capitalism, socialism, etc through reason", etc. In other words, the more likely they are to be "liberal" -- so the real world is the opposite of her stereotype. But, as in her original stereotype, that has never given an intelligent liberal a moments pause in being less certain of their next stereotype!
Humans are superb creators of all manner of stereotypes, narratives, models and myths to make "sense" of an infinite, complex and significantly unpredictable universe. "In general" (like all human rules, NOT 100%), the smarter you are, the greater your tendency to hubris and narcissism, with RELIGION, especially Christianity, being the great wild card transcendent model in history.
When super intelligent people have faith in an infinitely more intelligent God, especially if that God has died for them, it tends to engender some level of HUMILITY. Again, they are still human, so it is at best imperfect, but it adds another level that needs to be checked before "I'm SURE that I understand it all THIS time"!
She has mostly figured out that conservatives are likely not sub-human, but she has still not figured out that "Ideas Have Consequences" (another excellent book) ... the models we choose (or choose us), our "World View", has a profound effect on all we do, and when groups select an inferior World View, especially nation sized groups, the results are almost always disastrous.
Modern Western civilization was largely built because for a brief time (200 years), the majority of leaders were God believing to at least the Deist level, and generally Christians -- so they had a lot more understanding of the transcendent concept of wisdom, therefore taking a much more humble and reasonable view of what was possible and thus succeeding!
Tuesday, September 02, 2014
Joe Biden: Take Back America!
Joe Biden: Take Back America–From Me! [Updated] | Power Line:
It's a shame that the left can't enjoy the humor of having a buffoon like Biden being VP. The sitting VP for nearly 6 years wants to "take back America"! egads!
The video is excellent as well -- the somber pronouncements that when used by the Tea Party, "take back America" was RACIST ... and then a litany of Democrats using it over and over.
Consistency is no concern of the left of course, and this is yet another case where they seek to maintain control of the meaning of the same words -- "Good for ME to use, but not for THEE" !
And, like all words, when they are used by Joe Biden, they have no meaning at all, but are merely random ejections from a incontinent mind -- unless he copied them from somebody, but even then, he as no more understanding of them than the teleprompter!
'via Blog this'
It's a shame that the left can't enjoy the humor of having a buffoon like Biden being VP. The sitting VP for nearly 6 years wants to "take back America"! egads!
The video is excellent as well -- the somber pronouncements that when used by the Tea Party, "take back America" was RACIST ... and then a litany of Democrats using it over and over.
Consistency is no concern of the left of course, and this is yet another case where they seek to maintain control of the meaning of the same words -- "Good for ME to use, but not for THEE" !
And, like all words, when they are used by Joe Biden, they have no meaning at all, but are merely random ejections from a incontinent mind -- unless he copied them from somebody, but even then, he as no more understanding of them than the teleprompter!
'via Blog this'
Monday, September 01, 2014
America, Love It or Pay to Leave
U.S. Hikes Fee To Renounce Citizenship By 422%:
Amazingly, in the early '80s I used to have to argue with a few people who claimed that "the USSR isn't any worse/better than here, it is just a matter of perspective". To which my easiest retort was "then why do they need a wall to keep people in and we need a wall to keep people out?". Naturally, nobody was ever convinced -- they typically actually or virtually did the equivalent of stomping off at that point.
At that point, I couldn't have even imagined that we would now be in the early stages of taking measures to keep citizens here!
The US no longer cares much for freedom, that which made it what it was when it went to the moon and consigned the USSR to the ash heap of history. Today, it is about taking money out of one set of pockets and using it to buy the votes of enough people to maintain the lifestyle of The Party and it's faithful.
We are unable to come up with any ideas to slow the tide of Undocumented Democrats streaming into the country to claim some of the declining spoils of a once great nation, but to those that seek a better life and see the writing on the wall for the the US, we are busily coming up with ways to prevent, or at least make their move to better opportunity more painful.
'via Blog this'
Amazingly, in the early '80s I used to have to argue with a few people who claimed that "the USSR isn't any worse/better than here, it is just a matter of perspective". To which my easiest retort was "then why do they need a wall to keep people in and we need a wall to keep people out?". Naturally, nobody was ever convinced -- they typically actually or virtually did the equivalent of stomping off at that point.
At that point, I couldn't have even imagined that we would now be in the early stages of taking measures to keep citizens here!
The US no longer cares much for freedom, that which made it what it was when it went to the moon and consigned the USSR to the ash heap of history. Today, it is about taking money out of one set of pockets and using it to buy the votes of enough people to maintain the lifestyle of The Party and it's faithful.
We are unable to come up with any ideas to slow the tide of Undocumented Democrats streaming into the country to claim some of the declining spoils of a once great nation, but to those that seek a better life and see the writing on the wall for the the US, we are busily coming up with ways to prevent, or at least make their move to better opportunity more painful.
'via Blog this'
No Strategy, No Problem
Political uproar over Obama's no Syria strategy comment - CNN.com:
BO's "no strategy on ISIS" comment was either just a gaffe, or yet another frightening exposure of the naivete of the current president / administration. I've read a few columns on the issue and the point that strikes me is how REALLY far modern American politics has gone down the road of "it is ALL about the perception that the MSM is going to spin".
If you heard about it at all on the MSM, you were treated to something like this column -- REPUBLICANS or "conservatives" are all bent out of shape, but to the "MSM narrative informed", this is just fine. We either don't need a strategy, can take our time, would be better off without a strategy, or some other construction that essentially says "no problem".
It is so amazing to contrast this with the amount of ink, angst and outrage spilled by the same media over "British intelligence has information", "Mission Accomplished" (never said by W), deficits approaching $500B, or even things like "misunderestimated" or in the dimmer past, Dan Quayle's misspelling of "potato".
We are long arrived at a point in American history where some sort of large event is going to be required to shake the mass of Americans from their addiction to the basically fact free highly selective fabrication of our current media, to an outraged demand for high test facts and a dialog of real options with costs and trade-offs (which all real options have).
I fear the sort of required events are of the order of economic collapse, war on the scale of at least Vietnam if not beyond, biological or other WMD attack on American soil killing at least tens of thousands or some other unforeseen large tragedy. It would be great if we could right ourselves with less drastic impetus, but it continues to look more certain that such is not the case.
'via Blog this'
BO's "no strategy on ISIS" comment was either just a gaffe, or yet another frightening exposure of the naivete of the current president / administration. I've read a few columns on the issue and the point that strikes me is how REALLY far modern American politics has gone down the road of "it is ALL about the perception that the MSM is going to spin".
If you heard about it at all on the MSM, you were treated to something like this column -- REPUBLICANS or "conservatives" are all bent out of shape, but to the "MSM narrative informed", this is just fine. We either don't need a strategy, can take our time, would be better off without a strategy, or some other construction that essentially says "no problem".
It is so amazing to contrast this with the amount of ink, angst and outrage spilled by the same media over "British intelligence has information", "Mission Accomplished" (never said by W), deficits approaching $500B, or even things like "misunderestimated" or in the dimmer past, Dan Quayle's misspelling of "potato".
We are long arrived at a point in American history where some sort of large event is going to be required to shake the mass of Americans from their addiction to the basically fact free highly selective fabrication of our current media, to an outraged demand for high test facts and a dialog of real options with costs and trade-offs (which all real options have).
I fear the sort of required events are of the order of economic collapse, war on the scale of at least Vietnam if not beyond, biological or other WMD attack on American soil killing at least tens of thousands or some other unforeseen large tragedy. It would be great if we could right ourselves with less drastic impetus, but it continues to look more certain that such is not the case.
'via Blog this'
The Future Must Not Belong to Slanderers of Allah
Blog: When the Teleprompter Hits the Fan:
This article is written by someone too impressed with his usage of rhetorical devices and obscure words (eg. tellurians for just "earthlings", or better yet "people"), but I found the following thought provoking:
The speech was to the UN General Assembly and it is the usual BO fare that makes one wonder who writes this crapola. The whole applicable quote is.
The key problem with this vision is defined in the Bible "Man does not live by bread alone". Human kind is wired to require more meaning in our tenure in this mortal coil than "I was fed and entertained", or to put it in the Roman manner "bread and circuses".
Note that while I'm not going to cover it here, "I'm advancing" -- the "Star Trek philosophy" also holds no meaningful answer. It begs the question of "toward where or what?", and "that a way" is not enough to draw the human soul.
The idea "Muslims and Christians are one" juxtaposes the transcendent / spiritual with the corporeal / profane. "Humans are one", in their humanity, but it is the secular humanist that strives to make real that which as not been so since man first formed groups. The humans that made it through the last 500K years or so are those that put SOMETHING at a higher position in their minds than their day to day existence -- idol worship, animal worship, conquest, etc, and eventually Yahweh, Christ, Muhammed, etc.
A Muslim can NEVER say "No man cometh unto the Father but by Me", nor can a Christian say "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet". They are both human, but in what gives their life meaning beyond food and entertainment, they are explicitly NOT "one" in religion, which they hold ABOVE their humanity!
It is quite possible that the question of the 21st century is "Is it possible for Muslims to allow Christians and Jews to exist peacefully without attacking them?" The 20th century -- and really the last 500 years, have shown that the Christian / Jewish answer to that question is definitively "yes with proof of history".
The other likely question that may be answered this century or later is "Can secular humanists allow Christians and Muslims to worship and live peacefully in their states and around the world without overt harassment?" Historically and currently -- USSR, Nazi Germany, China, increasingly in the US and Europe, the answer is "NO!!!".
Reagan was naturally right -- the future always goes to the brave, especially those brave enough to have enough children so their viewpoint is around to see it -- yet another area that the secular humanist view fails. If the purpose of your life is to "have a good time", children don't make that cut in any advanced society, so such views are self-limiting on the multi-generational scale.
'via Blog this'
This article is written by someone too impressed with his usage of rhetorical devices and obscure words (eg. tellurians for just "earthlings", or better yet "people"), but I found the following thought provoking:
Actions speak louder than words, but if political speeches are preserved in National Archives, it’s because they help us learn our history and shape our future. President Obama said, “The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” and President Reagan stated: “The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave….” Every public speaker will either acknowledge his audience’s right to freedom of opinion and expression or learn it the hard way.The first thing it did was to send me looking for the context that BO uttered those words in, easy to find on the internet.
The speech was to the UN General Assembly and it is the usual BO fare that makes one wonder who writes this crapola. The whole applicable quote is.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.My sense is that BO is intelligent, and fully understands the inanity of his remarks, but finds them to be effective in his "higher purpose" of an undefined secular future world utopia arrived at by indeterminate means. Heaven on earth with no religion too (John Lennon sort of)
The key problem with this vision is defined in the Bible "Man does not live by bread alone". Human kind is wired to require more meaning in our tenure in this mortal coil than "I was fed and entertained", or to put it in the Roman manner "bread and circuses".
Note that while I'm not going to cover it here, "I'm advancing" -- the "Star Trek philosophy" also holds no meaningful answer. It begs the question of "toward where or what?", and "that a way" is not enough to draw the human soul.
The idea "Muslims and Christians are one" juxtaposes the transcendent / spiritual with the corporeal / profane. "Humans are one", in their humanity, but it is the secular humanist that strives to make real that which as not been so since man first formed groups. The humans that made it through the last 500K years or so are those that put SOMETHING at a higher position in their minds than their day to day existence -- idol worship, animal worship, conquest, etc, and eventually Yahweh, Christ, Muhammed, etc.
A Muslim can NEVER say "No man cometh unto the Father but by Me", nor can a Christian say "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet". They are both human, but in what gives their life meaning beyond food and entertainment, they are explicitly NOT "one" in religion, which they hold ABOVE their humanity!
It is quite possible that the question of the 21st century is "Is it possible for Muslims to allow Christians and Jews to exist peacefully without attacking them?" The 20th century -- and really the last 500 years, have shown that the Christian / Jewish answer to that question is definitively "yes with proof of history".
The other likely question that may be answered this century or later is "Can secular humanists allow Christians and Muslims to worship and live peacefully in their states and around the world without overt harassment?" Historically and currently -- USSR, Nazi Germany, China, increasingly in the US and Europe, the answer is "NO!!!".
Reagan was naturally right -- the future always goes to the brave, especially those brave enough to have enough children so their viewpoint is around to see it -- yet another area that the secular humanist view fails. If the purpose of your life is to "have a good time", children don't make that cut in any advanced society, so such views are self-limiting on the multi-generational scale.
'via Blog this'
Walker, Unions, Act 10, Campaign Truth
Small Ball in Wisconsin | The Weekly Standard:
A good little article, on the long side, making a couple of points that ought to be understood by all.
First, Act 10 has worked, and worked so well that Burke is not talking about repealing it, and in fact not wanting to talk about it at all. Remember that The Party and it's union labor arm ran Walker and WI through an expensive recall campaign trying to get Act 10 repealed in 2012 -- now, two years later it has worked so well that they simply avoid the issue. Their media arm is strong enough and it appears that the typical low information voters memory is bad enough that they are getting away with it.
My bottom line here is that as a Conservative, I can be highly disappointed in WI voters, but the fact is that "it is what it is". We have allowed generations of children now to be more brainwashed than educated by largely leftist union hacks in K-12, and their more elite, but same ideology counterparts at the universities. In many ways, it is amazing that it isn't a worse situation than the actual bad one we see.
An emotional aside is that while I see Walker as a superb Governor, it seems that he lacks the kind of personal charisma and political genius needed to win the Presidency.
'via Blog this'
A good little article, on the long side, making a couple of points that ought to be understood by all.
First, Act 10 has worked, and worked so well that Burke is not talking about repealing it, and in fact not wanting to talk about it at all. Remember that The Party and it's union labor arm ran Walker and WI through an expensive recall campaign trying to get Act 10 repealed in 2012 -- now, two years later it has worked so well that they simply avoid the issue. Their media arm is strong enough and it appears that the typical low information voters memory is bad enough that they are getting away with it.
Burke didn’t explain what was so bad about the schools in Neenah, a city of 25,000 people about 40 miles south of Green Bay, but the district certainly isn’t having a hard time finding good teachers in the Walker era. “We probably get a couple hundred applications for every opening,” John Lehman, vice president of the Neenah school board and a Republican, told me. “After Act 10, we increased our starting salary from $34,000 to $40,500.”Second, even though the WI picture mirrors the national one, essentially a "jobless recovery" where unemployment drops because less people are working, the fact that TP and it's media arm don't talk about that issue nationally allows their state apparatus to make it seem like a "local problem", and again, the only audience that they really need to convince is the low information voter anyway.
Because of Act 10, Lehman said, the district reopened two elementary schools that had been closed after earlier budget cuts. Budget constraints were forcing the district to lay off 10 to 12 teachers each year. How many teachers have been laid off since Walker’s Act 10? “None,” said Lehman. The middle school has even begun offering Chinese language courses.
Neenah’s story is typical of districts across the state: Walker’s reform gave administrators the freedom to make modest changes to benefits and work requirements—most of which Burke says she supports—so they could balance their budgets without firing teachers, raising taxes, or hurting students. It’s little wonder Burke has dropped the issue of Act 10: The law is working.
Burke’s campaign has relentlessly attacked Walker for falling short of a 2010 pledge that Wisconsin would create 250,000 jobs during his first term. The unemployment rate has dropped to 5.8 percent, but only 100,000 new jobs have materialized. Walker countered by pointing out that when Burke was secretary of commerce under the previous Democratic governor, the state lost 133,000 jobs.When you own the media, a comparison of actual results -- plus 100K for Walker, minus 133K for previous Democrat, is not something that the press would like to talk about. When it comes to "breaking campaign promises", failing to reach the number of jobs expected would see less in control of the executive than "If you like your healthcare you can keep it", but then we wouldn't really expect TP's media arm to look at things in that kind of light would we?
My bottom line here is that as a Conservative, I can be highly disappointed in WI voters, but the fact is that "it is what it is". We have allowed generations of children now to be more brainwashed than educated by largely leftist union hacks in K-12, and their more elite, but same ideology counterparts at the universities. In many ways, it is amazing that it isn't a worse situation than the actual bad one we see.
An emotional aside is that while I see Walker as a superb Governor, it seems that he lacks the kind of personal charisma and political genius needed to win the Presidency.
'via Blog this'
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Where Our Oil Comes From
Where the U.S. gets its oil from | Randal S. Olson:
We now produce 60% of our own oil. Of the 40% we import, over half of it comes from the Western Hemisphere, the bulk from Canada.
Thanks to the magic of media bias, Americans believe that most of what we import comes from Saudi Arabia.
The media doesn't care very much about Americans complete lack of understanding of this CURRENT statistic, but they are VERY concerned that ONLY 63% "believe" that Global Warming is happening, and "only" 51% are significantly worried about it http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/Climate-Beliefs-November-2013
We have a media very concerned about getting a large majority to buy into a narrative that they see as important, while being completely fine with a large majority of Americans being being totally clueless on current facts.
I see this as a large problem for a people that we assume want to be self-governing. The majority political party, the media, and the American education system have a completely different view.
'via Blog this'
We now produce 60% of our own oil. Of the 40% we import, over half of it comes from the Western Hemisphere, the bulk from Canada.
Thanks to the magic of media bias, Americans believe that most of what we import comes from Saudi Arabia.
The media doesn't care very much about Americans complete lack of understanding of this CURRENT statistic, but they are VERY concerned that ONLY 63% "believe" that Global Warming is happening, and "only" 51% are significantly worried about it http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/Climate-Beliefs-November-2013
We have a media very concerned about getting a large majority to buy into a narrative that they see as important, while being completely fine with a large majority of Americans being being totally clueless on current facts.
I see this as a large problem for a people that we assume want to be self-governing. The majority political party, the media, and the American education system have a completely different view.
'via Blog this'
The Balanced Media Diet Challenge
Is Media Slanted?:
The book is excellent, I highly recommend it.
In looking at these lists, the following points come to mind:
The more you associate only with those of your world view and observe inputs (media sources / "facts") from those that share the majority of your model / world view, the harder it is to assimilate data points that fall outside of that view and may force the view to be modified.
We ALL share this problem. The leading problem of any time in history however is the degree to which "the standard model" ... the model that I talk about as held by "The Party" becomes so dominant it is able to being to suppress data and thought outside of it's model.
This happened close to 100% in Nazi Germany, the USSR, and Islamic States today (on the 0 side). You can look at these charts and realize we are between "60-70%" of it happening here in the US. At some point on that slippery slope -- "80%"??? the opposing models are forcibly assimilated (or imprisoned / killed).
My goal is to see America move back toward 50, and ideally to "40" or so -- a "center right nation". With a bias to individual rights and freedom, but a LONG way from "zero".
If we hit "40", I will be pushing to stop our rightward slide. A problem I would LOVE to have, but one we are a LONG way from having -- if we hit "30", I will try my best to be as adamant against the rise of conservative power as I am now against the rise of The Party!
Since I too am human, I can only imagine how hard it would be with my biases to take that position. My guess is that it would be exactly has hard as it is for those on the left to be willing to understand and appreciate the conservative point of view today!
The book is excellent, I highly recommend it.
In looking at these lists, the following points come to mind:
- In a "perfect media market", all points from 0-100 would be relatively equally represented, they are not.
- If a "perfect 50" existed, it would STILL not be "truth", only "the middle".
- Given what exists, you MUST seek multiple sources -- always a good idea, but required in the existing market.
- Even if you have a completely balanced media diet, know your OWN bias -- always the hardest, and understand how difficult it is to make "unbiased" choices -- difficult to impossible.
The more you associate only with those of your world view and observe inputs (media sources / "facts") from those that share the majority of your model / world view, the harder it is to assimilate data points that fall outside of that view and may force the view to be modified.
We ALL share this problem. The leading problem of any time in history however is the degree to which "the standard model" ... the model that I talk about as held by "The Party" becomes so dominant it is able to being to suppress data and thought outside of it's model.
This happened close to 100% in Nazi Germany, the USSR, and Islamic States today (on the 0 side). You can look at these charts and realize we are between "60-70%" of it happening here in the US. At some point on that slippery slope -- "80%"??? the opposing models are forcibly assimilated (or imprisoned / killed).
My goal is to see America move back toward 50, and ideally to "40" or so -- a "center right nation". With a bias to individual rights and freedom, but a LONG way from "zero".
If we hit "40", I will be pushing to stop our rightward slide. A problem I would LOVE to have, but one we are a LONG way from having -- if we hit "30", I will try my best to be as adamant against the rise of conservative power as I am now against the rise of The Party!
Since I too am human, I can only imagine how hard it would be with my biases to take that position. My guess is that it would be exactly has hard as it is for those on the left to be willing to understand and appreciate the conservative point of view today!
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Good News! Michael Brown and I are NOT Burly!
Michael Brown: Too Burly for the New York Times | Power Line:
OK, this is GREAT news, and I learned something today thanks to the NYTs! "Burly" is racially charged!
I really like the idea that folks of Brown's particular physical dimensions be described as "Svelte" as in "Svelte Moose".
I mean really folks, if a person can choose their sex, certainly they can choose what their physical dimensions ought be described as!
We need a law!
'via Blog this'
OK, this is GREAT news, and I learned something today thanks to the NYTs! "Burly" is racially charged!
I really like the idea that folks of Brown's particular physical dimensions be described as "Svelte" as in "Svelte Moose".
I mean really folks, if a person can choose their sex, certainly they can choose what their physical dimensions ought be described as!
We need a law!
'via Blog this'
Rule Over Ruins, Bill Whittle
I am begging you to watch Bill Whittle’s take on Michael Brown and Ferguson |:
I'll beg you too, it is worth it.
'via Blog this'
I'll beg you too, it is worth it.
'via Blog this'
Russian Tanks, Girl With Uzi
U.S. official says 1,000 Russian troops enter Ukraine - CNN.com:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-08-28/9-year-old-shoots-her-gun-instructor-with-an-uzi-four-blunt-points
Every time I think I have a bead on the insanity of the the anti-gun crowd, they surprise me again.
Russian tanks in Ukraine is running neck and neck with "girl with Uzi" for top spot on a lot of net "news" outlets.
So, yes, it was completely irresponsible for the instructor to allow the 9-year old to shoot the weapon without his hands ON or very hear on her arm to prevent what happened. OK, end of story.
Now lets look at reality. We REGULARLY let 9-year olds drive bikes on city streets, swim -- back when I was a kid, without lifeguards, run ATVs, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, farm equipment (I drove hay baler at 9), usually that is when you get your own BB gun, etc.
WITH AN INSTRUCTOR, many a 9-year old has taken the controls of an aircraft, boats of all sizes, and no doubt all manner of vehicle -- in at least rural areas when I was young, kids MUCH younger than 9 were driving cars, trucks, tractors, you name it on the laps of fathers -- but then that was a much different America, no doubt that never happens anymore.
Yes, many media people hate guns, and "automatic" is pretty much "bogie man" to many, but REALLY!
I looked up just bicycle deaths for kids and found this:
'via Blog this'
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-08-28/9-year-old-shoots-her-gun-instructor-with-an-uzi-four-blunt-points
Every time I think I have a bead on the insanity of the the anti-gun crowd, they surprise me again.
Russian tanks in Ukraine is running neck and neck with "girl with Uzi" for top spot on a lot of net "news" outlets.
So, yes, it was completely irresponsible for the instructor to allow the 9-year old to shoot the weapon without his hands ON or very hear on her arm to prevent what happened. OK, end of story.
Now lets look at reality. We REGULARLY let 9-year olds drive bikes on city streets, swim -- back when I was a kid, without lifeguards, run ATVs, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, farm equipment (I drove hay baler at 9), usually that is when you get your own BB gun, etc.
WITH AN INSTRUCTOR, many a 9-year old has taken the controls of an aircraft, boats of all sizes, and no doubt all manner of vehicle -- in at least rural areas when I was young, kids MUCH younger than 9 were driving cars, trucks, tractors, you name it on the laps of fathers -- but then that was a much different America, no doubt that never happens anymore.
Yes, many media people hate guns, and "automatic" is pretty much "bogie man" to many, but REALLY!
I looked up just bicycle deaths for kids and found this:
Between January 1999 and December 2010, there were 1,612 bicycle-related deaths among children younger than 16 years old, the researchers found.So a little over 100 per year. How many of those made national news? It was THE INSTRUCTOR that died, not the girl -- if it had been the girl, I'd understand the level of coverage a bit more, but as it is it is just yet another anti-gun media feeding frenzy.
'via Blog this'
Walker, Hypothesis or Law of the Jungle?
Scott Walker and Mary Burke are running a tight race: The Wisconsin governor’s theories for winning aren’t
working.:
Slate is crowing that what Scott Walker believed appears to be wrong:
A reminder, Walker managed to break a public worker stranglehold that forced employers to buy insurance from a union owned company, and forced the state to be the bay man for the union -- collecting the dues from the members checks before they got them. The result was that school districts across the state saved 10's of millions of dollars, and many union members -- some figures had it as high as 70%, stopped paying their now voluntary dues ... causing TP great pain.
Walter was somewhat rewarded -- he survived a hugely expensive recall election with national media and full union power arrayed against him. The first US to survive a recall, but that was two years ago, and THE PARTY has been BUSY!
As is their current policy, they have been filing lawsuits and using some of the donation lists so obtained to harass Walker supporters with tax audits or other legal / political system irritants. There is no way TP could let Walker survive -- his doctrine is DEATH to them, their "hypothesis" being "If you support TP you will rewarded, if you oppose it you will be punished".
But worse is the "conservative problem":
This is a very bad problem, and the exact reason why our Founders were so adamant to LIMIT GOVERNMENT and why Reagan famously said "Man is not free where government is not limited". Unless the government is limited by LAW ... the Constitution, human nature and the nature of evil guarantee the end of earthy human political freedom.
"Reward your friends, punish your enemies" is not just the lead law of TP, it is "the law of the jungle", it is what humans and all life on the planet naturally does. Christ came with "do unto others" and "love your neighbor as yourself", but those have ALWAYS been very UNnatural laws ... indeed often followed by Christians and occasionally by non-Christians when they felt doing such was in their best interest, but NEVER something that could be counted on for general human behavior.
So even if Walker wins by a whisker, the idea that "doing good can be recognized and will be rewarded by good people" has taken a big hit. It would be nice to believe it, but our Founders knew it to not be true. Human's tilt to the wrong side, and while in the SHORT TERM (like the recall), it is POSSIBLE for good to triumph, it is at best temporary.
Like gravity, age, entropy and TP, the game is stacked against the good in this sorry world.
'via Blog this'
working.:
Slate is crowing that what Scott Walker believed appears to be wrong:
But the biggest national test taking place in Wisconsin is a test of the Walker Hypothesis, which held that a politician who enacted conservative policies and didn’t shrink from the resulting controversy would be rewarded by a wide range of voters—This is obviously the kind of thing that THE PARTY can't allow to happen.
A reminder, Walker managed to break a public worker stranglehold that forced employers to buy insurance from a union owned company, and forced the state to be the bay man for the union -- collecting the dues from the members checks before they got them. The result was that school districts across the state saved 10's of millions of dollars, and many union members -- some figures had it as high as 70%, stopped paying their now voluntary dues ... causing TP great pain.
Walter was somewhat rewarded -- he survived a hugely expensive recall election with national media and full union power arrayed against him. The first US to survive a recall, but that was two years ago, and THE PARTY has been BUSY!
As is their current policy, they have been filing lawsuits and using some of the donation lists so obtained to harass Walker supporters with tax audits or other legal / political system irritants. There is no way TP could let Walker survive -- his doctrine is DEATH to them, their "hypothesis" being "If you support TP you will rewarded, if you oppose it you will be punished".
But worse is the "conservative problem":
But the latest poll shows Burke with 89 percent support among Democrats, roughly where that number has been for the last several months. Democrats are also more enthusiastic about the contest. Eighty-two percent say they will certainly vote, whereas only 77 percent of Republicans say the same.Mary Burke is running as a "non-ideological candidate" and made her fortune in Trek bicycles which as done extensive off-shoreing, supposedly a terrible thing to TP. Remember CONSISTENCY IS NOT AN ISSUE! Wealth and how you made it are NO PROBLEM if you swear allegiance to TP! Nor even is really any political experience or positions -- the purpose of this election is to make certain that nobody believes the Walker Hypothesis, and everyone is reminded of the LAW of TP ("reward your friends, punish your enemies") The MSM totally gets that, so the media is as always part of the TP campaign -- this time trying the "we are only supporting the underdog" tact in WI, while the national outlets like Salon hint at what is really at stake.
This is a very bad problem, and the exact reason why our Founders were so adamant to LIMIT GOVERNMENT and why Reagan famously said "Man is not free where government is not limited". Unless the government is limited by LAW ... the Constitution, human nature and the nature of evil guarantee the end of earthy human political freedom.
"Reward your friends, punish your enemies" is not just the lead law of TP, it is "the law of the jungle", it is what humans and all life on the planet naturally does. Christ came with "do unto others" and "love your neighbor as yourself", but those have ALWAYS been very UNnatural laws ... indeed often followed by Christians and occasionally by non-Christians when they felt doing such was in their best interest, but NEVER something that could be counted on for general human behavior.
So even if Walker wins by a whisker, the idea that "doing good can be recognized and will be rewarded by good people" has taken a big hit. It would be nice to believe it, but our Founders knew it to not be true. Human's tilt to the wrong side, and while in the SHORT TERM (like the recall), it is POSSIBLE for good to triumph, it is at best temporary.
Like gravity, age, entropy and TP, the game is stacked against the good in this sorry world.
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Lightning From High Places -- “Baraq Bamah.”
Did The Bible Actually Reveal The Name Of The Antichrist? // Mr. Conservative:
Oh, it's probably just a coincidence -- but then again, we have to remember that as much as 30% of Democrats believed that 9-11 was "an inside job" at the peak of the "Truther" popularity. AFAIK, Jesse Ventura still does. They had complicated theories about thermite being attached to the beams of the WTC during maintenance and everything!
It shows what happens when you can pick your texts, pick your languages, data, interpretations that only support your favorite theory. Global Warming is a good example -- ignore 100's of K of ice core data, ignore the fact that ice has been advancing and receding on this planet for on the order of 2.5 million years "as far as we know", which is actually pretty darned speculative. Oh, and you have to convert a complex global climate system affected by solar output, axis tilt, orbital mechanics, water vapor, vulcanism ... and who knows what else into a univariable system with CO2 being the only determinant of climate. Man is the cause ... lots of folks say they believe that today.
Naturally, we all operate in somewhat this way. We have no choice -- we are humans who are drawn to "narratives", stories that "make sense" given our world view. Try as we might, we are not rational, but rationalizing -- we work extremely hard to fit incoming information into our model, and MUCH harder to not change our model!
So the two basic current models still operating in the western world are the "Judeo-Christian-Historical" (JCH) and the "progressive/The Party" (TP) ... or "conservative / liberal" if you will.
JCH believes there is a plan, decreed by God, at best dimly understood by man, and that man is inherently lost/incomplete/"bad". TP believes that man is infinitely perfectible and that "history" is pretty much anything man decides it to be -- if TP gets enough power, it will ALL be "settled science / history / politics". JCH is further blessed (saddled?) with a drive to attempt consistency in thought -- a fools errand for humans, but for JCH thinkers a goal to to be sought after. TP has no such stricture -- "all's fair in getting to ultimate power".
So we disagree.
'via Blog this'
Oh, it's probably just a coincidence -- but then again, we have to remember that as much as 30% of Democrats believed that 9-11 was "an inside job" at the peak of the "Truther" popularity. AFAIK, Jesse Ventura still does. They had complicated theories about thermite being attached to the beams of the WTC during maintenance and everything!
It shows what happens when you can pick your texts, pick your languages, data, interpretations that only support your favorite theory. Global Warming is a good example -- ignore 100's of K of ice core data, ignore the fact that ice has been advancing and receding on this planet for on the order of 2.5 million years "as far as we know", which is actually pretty darned speculative. Oh, and you have to convert a complex global climate system affected by solar output, axis tilt, orbital mechanics, water vapor, vulcanism ... and who knows what else into a univariable system with CO2 being the only determinant of climate. Man is the cause ... lots of folks say they believe that today.
Naturally, we all operate in somewhat this way. We have no choice -- we are humans who are drawn to "narratives", stories that "make sense" given our world view. Try as we might, we are not rational, but rationalizing -- we work extremely hard to fit incoming information into our model, and MUCH harder to not change our model!
So the two basic current models still operating in the western world are the "Judeo-Christian-Historical" (JCH) and the "progressive/The Party" (TP) ... or "conservative / liberal" if you will.
JCH believes there is a plan, decreed by God, at best dimly understood by man, and that man is inherently lost/incomplete/"bad". TP believes that man is infinitely perfectible and that "history" is pretty much anything man decides it to be -- if TP gets enough power, it will ALL be "settled science / history / politics". JCH is further blessed (saddled?) with a drive to attempt consistency in thought -- a fools errand for humans, but for JCH thinkers a goal to to be sought after. TP has no such stricture -- "all's fair in getting to ultimate power".
So we disagree.
'via Blog this'
Warren Buffett, Do As I Say
Warren Buffett's Tax Whopper - WSJ:
Yet again, the Oracle of Omaha is in the news for the old "do as I say, not as I do" problem endemic to humanity in general, but pretty much the rule for those of The Party that make over say "$150K".
In this case, Buffett is going to profit handsomely from financing a merger between Burger King and Tim Horton's of Canada. The primary reason for moving the HQ to Canada is that the company wants to expand internationally and the US not only has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but it is the only major nation that ALSO double taxes income earned outside the US for US based corporations -- a very hefty penalty for a multinational corporation for being based in the US. One wonders how management with a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders can justify being US based given such a strong anti-business sanction.
In the past, Buffett has run up HUGE credentials with the easily led and the uniformed by saying "I pay a lower rate than my secretary" ... and even having BO, the prevaricator in chief, pick that up. This article points out the obvious fallicy in this claim -- if one wants to assume it is true at all, which is at least somewhat doubtful:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/
The big subterfuge in Buffetts claim is the rate he primarily pays is CAPTIAL GAINS ... a rate that less than 50% of Americans are used to dealing with since they have no financial assets which would qualify them. So the low information voter hears Warren or BO bray about "my secretary pays a lower rate than I do" and assumes some strange "benefit to billionaires" in the tax code making it to be "unfair", when in fact the rate is the same for all -- you just have to sell assets held for certain periods of time to use it.
Now I'm sure that to a man with $60 Billion in assets, $200K a year is a paltry sum -- virtual impoverishment. No doubt he feels some guilt at being involved with the scourge of "income inequality" on a level that there are only a few hundred men in America that can even come remotely close to imagining.
For the rest of us however -- and indeed BO, $200K+ is actually wealthy ... if you run it through http://www.whatsmypercent.com/, you find it is the top 6%, so 94% of the population makes less. This is PRIME territory for BO to fleece even harder than the current 34% rate.Already, if Warren's "poor" secretary made $450K, she would be saddled with a 39.6% rate! I'm sure Warren would feel especially bad about this!
The moral of all this is that Warren is a smart man -- sidling up to The Party is just a sign of knowing where your bread is buttered. His opposition to the Keystone Pipeline is brilliant -- makes him a friend to The Party while he profits handsomely through his rail interests moving the oil that the pipeline would move -- all be it more expensively and dangerously. You don't get to be worth $60B by being stupid.
The other moral OUGHT to be that our Founders were right when they put the equal protection clause into the Constitution -- all OUGHT to be treated equally under the law, and the "progressive" income tax ought to be ILLEGAL. Pick a rate, and make ALL AMERICANS pay it!!!
With what we currently do, it allows the vast majority of Americans to believe that they can get goodies and "someone else" will pay for it. Meanwhile, the super wealthy -- like Buffett make expert use of whatever system is put in place to maximize their benefit, and those that were formerly "the middle class" -- those that are striving to pull themselves up a class or two from their birth, are the ones that get the shaft.
And of course that isn't enough either -- so we go after the corporations, chasing them and their jobs from our shores. We disincent people from trying to improve their station with taxes, regulations, and the general idea that somehow improving your position is always at the expense of someone else -- we kill the idea of economic growth benefiting all.
So we continue to slide -- those with wealth siding with The Party because they know it is where the power is, and The Party being happy to have them and give them cover -- even if they have $60B, because they never were actually about "fairness" -- they are about POWER, and they know that the actual country that they are shepherding us to is like the old USSR or some Central American republic -- a very very few wealthy, directly connected with the government, and vast heaps of impoverished humanity, hopeless, seeking greater hand outs from the elite. A country where BO could preen and posture as Presidente for life!
Liberal Heaven.
'via Blog this'
Yet again, the Oracle of Omaha is in the news for the old "do as I say, not as I do" problem endemic to humanity in general, but pretty much the rule for those of The Party that make over say "$150K".
In this case, Buffett is going to profit handsomely from financing a merger between Burger King and Tim Horton's of Canada. The primary reason for moving the HQ to Canada is that the company wants to expand internationally and the US not only has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but it is the only major nation that ALSO double taxes income earned outside the US for US based corporations -- a very hefty penalty for a multinational corporation for being based in the US. One wonders how management with a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders can justify being US based given such a strong anti-business sanction.
In the past, Buffett has run up HUGE credentials with the easily led and the uniformed by saying "I pay a lower rate than my secretary" ... and even having BO, the prevaricator in chief, pick that up. This article points out the obvious fallicy in this claim -- if one wants to assume it is true at all, which is at least somewhat doubtful:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/
The big subterfuge in Buffetts claim is the rate he primarily pays is CAPTIAL GAINS ... a rate that less than 50% of Americans are used to dealing with since they have no financial assets which would qualify them. So the low information voter hears Warren or BO bray about "my secretary pays a lower rate than I do" and assumes some strange "benefit to billionaires" in the tax code making it to be "unfair", when in fact the rate is the same for all -- you just have to sell assets held for certain periods of time to use it.
Insofar as Buffett (like Mitt Romney) earns income primarily from capital gains, which are taxed at 15 percent (and according to Obama need to be raised for reasons of fairness), we need to determine how much income a taxpayer like Bosanek must earn in order to pay her tax rate. This is easy to do within ranges.Buffett has enough non-capital gains income to bring his claimed rate up to 17.4% and claims that his staff pays 34% ... so it is just a matter of looking at the tax tables to see what amount of income his secretary has to make to hit that figure ... as the linked article points out, something north of $200K.
Now I'm sure that to a man with $60 Billion in assets, $200K a year is a paltry sum -- virtual impoverishment. No doubt he feels some guilt at being involved with the scourge of "income inequality" on a level that there are only a few hundred men in America that can even come remotely close to imagining.
For the rest of us however -- and indeed BO, $200K+ is actually wealthy ... if you run it through http://www.whatsmypercent.com/, you find it is the top 6%, so 94% of the population makes less. This is PRIME territory for BO to fleece even harder than the current 34% rate.Already, if Warren's "poor" secretary made $450K, she would be saddled with a 39.6% rate! I'm sure Warren would feel especially bad about this!
The moral of all this is that Warren is a smart man -- sidling up to The Party is just a sign of knowing where your bread is buttered. His opposition to the Keystone Pipeline is brilliant -- makes him a friend to The Party while he profits handsomely through his rail interests moving the oil that the pipeline would move -- all be it more expensively and dangerously. You don't get to be worth $60B by being stupid.
The other moral OUGHT to be that our Founders were right when they put the equal protection clause into the Constitution -- all OUGHT to be treated equally under the law, and the "progressive" income tax ought to be ILLEGAL. Pick a rate, and make ALL AMERICANS pay it!!!
With what we currently do, it allows the vast majority of Americans to believe that they can get goodies and "someone else" will pay for it. Meanwhile, the super wealthy -- like Buffett make expert use of whatever system is put in place to maximize their benefit, and those that were formerly "the middle class" -- those that are striving to pull themselves up a class or two from their birth, are the ones that get the shaft.
And of course that isn't enough either -- so we go after the corporations, chasing them and their jobs from our shores. We disincent people from trying to improve their station with taxes, regulations, and the general idea that somehow improving your position is always at the expense of someone else -- we kill the idea of economic growth benefiting all.
So we continue to slide -- those with wealth siding with The Party because they know it is where the power is, and The Party being happy to have them and give them cover -- even if they have $60B, because they never were actually about "fairness" -- they are about POWER, and they know that the actual country that they are shepherding us to is like the old USSR or some Central American republic -- a very very few wealthy, directly connected with the government, and vast heaps of impoverished humanity, hopeless, seeking greater hand outs from the elite. A country where BO could preen and posture as Presidente for life!
Liberal Heaven.
'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)