The Williams Standard, Galaxy Quest

Rather symmetrical | Power Line:

John Kerry spent Christmas in Cambodia in '68 ... when Nixon was President . Oh, but Nixon wasn't president in '68, Kerry was never in Cambodia, and Christmas isn't much of a holiday there anyway.

Hillary Clinton breathlessly reported she was under sniper fire in Bosnia ... only she wasn't.

Joe Biden's helicopter was "forced down in the super highway of terror" ... by a snowstorm. The John Kerry quote from that is pretty good ..."We were going to send Biden out to fight the Taliban with snowballs, but we didn't have to do it." he said. "Other than getting a little cold, it was fine."  ... let's face it. No sane person takes Biden seriously, BO insured the Republicans would never impeach him when he picked him as VP -- it is his best policy decision.

What Brian Williams has done mostly is make us ALL confront our "stories" -- some of us, for just a second to say "Nope, we are NOTHING like that"! Maybe more of us to say -- "well, if I really was a big war correspondent, what would my stories be THEN"?

I'm reminded of "Galaxy Quest", the space spoof of "Star Trek" where a set of smart but not very swashbuckling aliens builds the star ship from the show, kidnaps the actors, and expects them to fight a real enemy with it -- they are crestfallen when they figure out that the whole show is actually "made up".

Don't worry, it's a human STORY -- it gets better from there. As something well north of 100 million people in just the past century have learned from Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pol, abortion, banning DDT, etc, etc, it is more our PRETEND stories that have happy endings.

Our airwaves and internet pipes are bulging with stories -- most of them completely fabricated with little connection to any reality other than imagination.

But in order to live, govern ourselves, have families, reality IS important, so we very much need to have a "metaphysical dream/story/myth" that is MORE true than "this vale of tears". "God created the earth and us, he loves us, he sent his Son to save us, and we will live with him forever when we die". I personally believe that story -- but even if I didn't, I like it MUCH better than "There is no God, no truth, no meaning. We are alone in a harsh universe, and whatever happens is utterly without any shred of meaning".

Brian Williams no doubt has to go. His business is credibility, and he has shown that he is not credible.

I have way less problem with him -- or Kerry, Biden or Hillary for that matter on the "tall tales topic" than Rather.  They are fabricating a tale with some basis in reality and enhancing the importance of their role in it -- making themselves "heroes", something that we all do to some degree in our own minds. Even when we don't admit it even to ourselves.

Rather, on the other hand,  took his ideological position of power in news and used it to fabricate and purvey a story about someone else -- someone who did not share is ideology, and whom he likely felt a lot of malice for.

That is far worse in my book.

By Grabthar's Hammer, You shall be avenged!

'via Blog this'

One Generation Away, Words Have Meaning

One Generation Away:

I attended a showing of the linked movie at St James Coffee  on 18th Ave N in Rochester last night. First time I had been there, the coffee was good although it was somewhat disconcerting to be thrown on the floor and baptized a Catholic upon entry.

The title of the movie comes from this speech by Ronald Reagan which is well worth watching. There is no question the world would be a far different place today without his presidency, and I suspect that the generations of freedom would have fully passed rather than just being in what appears to be the last.

The movie covers a series of stories relative to the loss of religious freedom in America --  Christian wedding cake bakers, florists and photographers being sued,  harassed and forced from business over same sex "marriage". Hobby Lobby being attacked for not providing abortion pills, the Catholic Church being attacked over allowing gays to adopt children, the fight over a large cross on a war memorial in San Diego ...

The stories are told by interviews with real people on either side of the issue -- which in the case of the Hobby Lobby family and the wedding controversy people is probably the first time you have seen the real people harmed vs just their demonization in the media.

It is a powerful movie that people on both sides of these issues ought to see. The DO cover both sides -- not evenly, but FAR more evenly than our standard media.

The issue is "tolerance" vs "coercion" -- which often ends up in imprisonment and death. The movie takes the stand that "no issue can be equated with Jim Crow / equal rights in the South" -- because that is ultimately the issue that the forces of coercion point to and equate their present cause to as the reason that they MUST resort to coercion.

My basic view is that coercion relative to at least business matters is simply wrong. Here is a good quote on the subject by Milton Friedman from "Capitalism and Freedom"

I believe strongly that the color of a man's skin or the religion of his parents is, by itself, no reason to treat him differently; that a man should be judged by what he is and what he does and not by these external characteristics. I deplore what seem to me the prejudice and narrowness of outlook of those whose tastes differ from mine in this respect and I think the less of them for it. But in a society based on free discussion, the appropriate recourse is for me to seek to persuade them that their tastes are bad and that they should change their views and their behavior, not to use coercive power to enforce my tastes and my attitudes on others. 

Areas like the vignettes covered in the movie, the coercion of private businesses in the south relative to blacks, smoking laws, or the treatment of Jews in National Socialist Germany are all cases where governments resort to coercion and "show the lie" of the supposed "progressive" thought that man is infinitely perfectible through education -- or simple free economic or other choices.  Statist claims of belief in "freedom" is a lie plain and simple -- it is coercion by naked force they believe in!

As Statist forces advance, they simply cannot tolerate those that think and believe differently from their agenda! To do so would be to admit that there is a power higher than the state, and ultimately whatever you name leftist thinking -- socialism, communism, fascism, dictatorship, etc, it is ALWAYS about ever increasing and eventual total state control. Religion is one of the things (along with economic freedom, free speech, the right to bear arms, etc) that will always run afoul of the Statist.

Statist forces seek to stamp out ANY alternative to their power -- including their power to control what you are allowed to say or even think! Religious freedom is one of the "canaries in the coal mine" -- when you see religious freedom attacked in your nation, you know that the forces of totalitarian rule are on the rise!

See this movie. For any even "nominal Christian", that is over 30, there is no doubt that what we see today would have been UNIMAGINABLE even 10 years ago. What BO has done not so subtly is replace "Freedom of Religion" with "Freedom of Worship".

WORDS HAVE MEANING -- they are what we label ideas and concepts with. I worked at IBM for 30 years ... I saw the "Full Employment Policy" become "Full Employment Practice" become a "Full Employment HISTORY" -- as in totally gone, and layoffs being an annual event.

Religion is an integral part of your life (for Christians, it is to be the MOST important part)   -- it is a major definition of who you are. "Worship" is whatever you do in the four walls of the church a few hours a week, commonly on  Sunday. BO and TP (The Party-D) want to convert "religion" to "worship" -- you have a right to practice what you want inside the confines of your church or possibly your home. Outside those bounds, the state religion is Secular Humanism and you MUST practice that religion under penalty of law -- all that is missing is the Sieg Heil!

Our Freedom of Religion canary of freedom is looking very sick -- the (very limited) time for action is NOW!

'via Blog this'

We Would "Rather" Be Led

No Disputing It: Blogs Are Major Players - Los Angeles Times:

I missed the 10 year anniversary of Rathergate -- so did PowerLine, but they made up for it a bit today.

The story in a nutshell -- Sept of '04, Dan Rather came up with some "documents" that he asserted "proved" that W Bush had received "special treatment" in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG) and put on on hour long CBS 60 Minutes show to disparage W less than 2 months prior to an election. A number of "Bloggers" (a pretty new thing at the time) including PowerLine, discovered quite quickly that the supposed documents contained proportional fonts that existed in Microsoft Word in ''04, but not in typewriters in '72-'73. The story was discredited, W was re-elected and Dan Rather resigned -- truth won out for a change.

It took declassification of Soviet documents to finally prove that Alger Hiss was in fact a spy, which he was prosecuted as by the "House Un-American Activities Committee" (HUAC)  which included Richard Nixon and  Joe McCarthy -- both favorite villains of the left. One of the reasons for their "villainy" is that they supposedly smeared a non-communist, Alger Hiss -- oh, never mind. Most people are unaware that this once great controversy has been settled in favor of "the nuts on the right".

I'm farther into "The Last Lion" (Churchill biography) now and am amazed by the ability of the British Government to outright suppress information in the BBC. Churchill effectively ran a network of "spies" in the government that thought it important that SOMEONE who didn't share the officially sanctioned doctrine of "appeasement" was aware just what was happening in Nazi Germany, including the killing of Jews. Churchill was aware of this and wrote on it, but the information was largely suppressed -- Hitler could have been EASILY stopped at the point he invaded the Rhineland, but he was not. Even todays Socialists mostly agree that stopping those National Socialists in 1936 which would have removed Hitler from power would have been a really good thing -- but the truth was not getting out.

A few thoughts come to mind.

Human bias and media bias are constants -- in '36, the world-wide bias was totally in favor of "appeasement" and any other view was suppressed and rejected. Appeasement was GOING to work!

From '48 - '99, Communism was "another reasonable form of government", and the USSR was just as "good" ( successful, fair, reasonable, etc) as the USA -- guys like Nixon, McCarthy, Goldwater, Reagan, etc that thought otherwise were "dangerous" ... like Churchill was in the '30s.

Up to Rathergate, the US news media was "pretty much unbiased and could be trusted" -- Talk Radio had been around since the late '80s, and Fox had launched in the late '90s, but they were pretty much "fringe" as certainly was "The Blogsphere"  -- Rathergate was a breakthrough for a new ability to ferret out truth.

BUT ...  MOST of the population really does not want truth. They want a simple story line that makes them feel good about their present and future. Thus, nobody outside of really Hitler and his inner circle wanted war in the late '30s ... WWI had been a huge bloody disaster and people DESPERATELY wanted to hear that war could be avoided -- COMPLETELY, so no challenges to Hitler when he easily could have been stopped were to be undertaken.

Similarly, there was no reason that the USSR could not have been stopped in the '40s, '50s, '60s -- or whenever.  The strategy that Reagan followed was clearly delineated by Goldwater in the early '60s ... it could have been executed before that.

For at least this instant in time -- before it is more regulated and suppressed, the Internet gives us a great option to look at all sides and search for truth. However, the more options available also give us a greater chance of ONLY looking at sources that agree with what we want to believe.

TP will continue to try to direct the masses in the direction that they desire, and unfortunately, most want to be directed to where they "don't have to think / potentially worry"  -- pay no attention to debt / deficits / unfunded liabilities! ISIS is not Islamic, a State, or a legitimate threat -- think "JV"! IRS being used to target conservatives? Nah ... Nothing to trouble the Sheeples heads here!

'via Blog this'

Portlandia Logic

http://m.nationalreview.com/article/397504/lifestyle-so-good-its-mandatory-kevin-d-williamson

An article worthy of reading if you want to get a little more coverage of a current rather specific "progressive" hypocrisy, the difference in the treatment of "Vaping" (the electronic cigarettes) and Pot. Vaping "looks like smoking" -- Pot may have all the carcinogens and more, but it is "in", so it is cool.

Vaping needs to be illegal -- Pot is probably soon to be covered under Food Stamps. Modern "progressive" means that supposed good ideas must be mandatory / subsidized, "bad" ideas must be illegal or at least taxed.

Progressivism, especially in its well-heeled coastal expressions, is not a philosophy — it’s a lifestyle. Specifically, it is a brand of conspicuous consumption, which in a land of plenty such as ours as often as not takes the form of conspicuous non-consumption: no gluten, no bleached flour, no Budweiser, no Walmart, no SUVs, no Toby Keith, etc. The people who set the cultural tone in places such as Berkeley, Seattle, or Austin would no more be caught vaping than they would slurping down a Shamrock Shake at McDonald’s — and they conclude without thinking that, therefore, neither should anybody else. The wise man understands that there’s a reason that Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors; the lifestyle progressive in Park Slope shudders in horror at the refined sugar in all of them, and seeks to have them restricted.

 For the bulk of the general left wing populace, the "life style" designation is a good one -- they pretty much just want to be "in with the in crowd" and just haven't thought about it much. Their leadership however finds these people as a "means to an end" -- the move to actual totalitarian control must be held off for right time. In the meantime, it is important to have a large group of people that are CERTAIN that they are in fact "free" -- they just like the things they like and think the things they do because they are "sophisticated".

Oh, and I'm certainly NOT saying that this does not exist in "Red State America" -- ALL of us want to be in SOME group, even the supposed "rebels" are as much defined by what they rebel against as what they are for. Such things are always true -- but it is the DOMINATE PARTY that one needs to constantly keep an eye on!

Slick Willie and The Lolita Express

Bill Clinton identified in lawsuit against pedophile Jeffrey Epstein | Daily Mail Online:

This story is pretty well known around the world, and has surfaced in a few more right wing news outlets here in the US.

The facts seem to be:

• Jeffrey Epstein is a CONVICTED abuser of underage girls
• He is also a billionaire and big Democrat supporter / donor
• He and Slick Willie at least "have" been friends, Slick is documented as having used his aircraft, sometimes called "The Lolita Express" as well as being a guest on his island, where some of the underage sex was documented. 

It is pretty easy to see why this is NOT a big story in the Land of TP! 

I've read BO's book, "Dreams", it's content might as well be Top Secret in this country.  I personally believe that a lot of things could be true about the Clinton/Epstein story and it will never come out. Let's face it, it is pretty darned likely that Slick Willie raped Juanita Broaddrick, but nobody really cares. We live in a fishbowl where TP provides both the information and what to think about it for about 80% of the people. 

We are the point of the fall of the US -- you can compare it with the fall of Rome, or the fall of Great Britain, or no doubt the fall of a lot of other lesser countries, corporations and organizations. Things have been too good for too long and the vast majority of people now assume that either that will continue or "there is nothing they could do that would make any difference" -- so they are just here for the ride. Typically, the end of the ride doesn't go all that well.

When "greatness" falls, moral collapse seems to always be one of the attendant factors. It is most likely more of a symptom than a cause -- like jaundice and liver problems, but ignoring symptoms is rarely wise. 

'via Blog this'

Viral Anti-Vaccination Spin Cycle

Instapundit » Blog Archive » RICHARD EPSTEIN: Measles: Misinformation Gone Viral. “The resurgence of measles is largely attribu…:



I'm putting this out mainly to keep the links for future reference. One should never be surprised by left wing media spin, but when the spin cycle starts,  it is often amazing -- some examples of past completed ones:

• after the fall of the USSR, "Democrats expected this, Reagan really slowed the collapse with his warmongering -- hail Gorby!" 
• After the '95 Newt Congress took huge blame for slowing the growth in medicare, "Clinton balanced the budget" 
• After "the surge couldn't possibly work", BO declares the war in Iraq won and removes the troops ...
• After fighting fracking and all drilling on every front and calling for gas over $5, BO hails $2 gas as his doing ... 

This is a list that could go on for pages ... but here we have a slur in it's early stages of creation. Take an issue of the left -- the idea that vaccinations are dangerous and forced on people by evil corporations, like GMO crops. Something that is strongest in liberal conclaves in CA and NY and has been treated as a real issue by both Hillary and BO in the past.



In the real world, NOTHING, not even vaccinations are "risk free". There is an upside and a downside. On vaccinations, the upside is huge relative to the downside, but sort of like if your kid gets killed in a commercial airline accident (VERY low risk), you would still look at flying differently.



The real danger here is the attempt to take a whole bunch of issues -- "Climate Change", "creationism", "vaccination", "contraception", etc and weave them into a noxious stereotypical stew to be slathered on "Republicans" -- it is old stuff, the Dems used to do it to Blacks in the South, Hitler did it to Jews (well, he wasn't the only one, LOTS of people do it to Jews), Chinee do it to Tibetans ...



The only valid case of it is against Vikings Fans ... they actually DESERVE to be stereotyped and discriminated against!



'via Blog this'

Vaccinating Against Nazis, Danger Will Robinson!

 Chris Christie Call's for 'Balance' With Anti-Vaccination Movement - The Atlantic:

Herr Goebbels of the propaganda wing of TP (The Party-D) is hard at work trying to correlate "Climate Change" and "Anti-Vaccine" -- they are also painting Rand Paul with the same brush as Christie is painted in the title linked article.

First,  a tiny bit of  perspective  -- ALL of the people labeled "anti-vax" on the right in these articles -- Paul, Christy, Bachman, vaccinate their own kids. What they talked about is a SPECIFIC vaccine -- HPV, Hepatitis-B, etc and/or about the issue of parents having the FREEDOM to at least make SOME decisions on vaccines -- as in when, which ones, etc.  That is their "danger".

Naturally, if you are a Statist at MJ or Huffpo, ANY questioning of the state is VERY dangerous!

Strangely however the  anti-vaccine crowd is more correlated to the left than to the right! I highly recommend the linked MJ article, it is AMAZINGLY even handed for MJ! It even points out Lysenkosim, the greatest death toll from anti-science (USSR), even exceeding  the National SOCIALISTS in Germany.

Democrats, Communists, Socialists, etc are ALL "Statists" -- they believe the "experts" are right and want to force you to do whatever they say. (Ideas so good they have to be MANDATORY!) The main reason for these articles is simple demonization of the right, even though in this specific case, the actual anti-vax crowd is more left than right.

if the right doesn't agree with ALL of the pronouncements of the politically motivated "science" of the left, then they are DANGEROUS! Right now, the TP "Lost In Space" media is is just doing "Danger, Will Robinson"

Those with brains not completely addled by TP propaganda have some sense that this is so stupid that it is funny. Very true, except for the sad fact that as TP continues to gain more and more power, eventually these "divide and isolate as DANGEROUS!"  techniques become Gulags, big trenches, machine guns and lots of bodies -- which reduces the humor.

In a world of limited government, strong markets, evenly matched media sources and diversity in education --- basically US prior to 1960, all this would be of no danger whatsoever. When I was in school even in the '60s and '70s, the MANY mistakes of science were commonly pointed out -- thalidomide babies, BF Skinner and behaviorism, doctors recommending menthol cigarettes,  electroshock therapy -- even derided in movies like "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest".

The modern lefty meme of "infallible science" and the "danger" of all who question it had not yet been foisted on the easily led masses. We have indeed  been "progressed" to be a far more docile and easily led people ("sheeple").

The forces of the left operate by an amazingly similar script, in which control of "education" (indoctrination) and the media is a cornerstone. Prior to WWII the left in this country was PROUD to be called "Socialists" and often even Communists -- but as "National Socialism" got a bit of a bad name, even for Statists of the time, they changed their name to "Liberal", even though they were and are anything but.

Same with AGW "Anthropogenic Global Warming". When it failed to "warm" in correlation with their models, they changed the name to "Climate Change". It is a completely idiotic name, the climate is ALWAYS changing, but the main power that the left demands is the ability to control the meaning of words!

It may be time for me to read Orwell again!  He is a good vaccination against the kind of doublespeak propaganda used by TP that gave us the communists and the Nazis in the 20th century.

'via Blog this'

Saint Augustine, The City of God

The biggest reason that I took on the immense challenge of making it through this work is "perspective".  Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in 410, Augustine began this work 3 years later in 413 and did not complete it until 426.

Rome had BEEN "civilization" for a thousand years prior, and naturally in 410, St Augustine and his peers believed they were living in "modern times", all be it a time of great change and disruption at the ending of a thousand year reign which they had assumed would last forever.

The work is remarkably lengthy and wordy (867 rather small type pages in my copy) and decidedly NOT an "easy read". I must say though that the sheer volume and many asides and references to other scholars of the day give an insight into the intellectual life of the very very elite of that day that "feels" important in a way that is hard to express. Perhaps the difference between walking across the US vs flying over it in a jet?

 I will include this one rather lengthy quote as an example of the style and the fact of "every age believes they are modern" ... and highly superior to those that have gone before. Note the reference to "less educated ages", but interestingly the perspective of "only 600 years"! How much more arrogant we have become in our day -- we are nearing the 500th anniversary of the Reformation in 2017, yet it is hard to imagine someone asserting ONLY 500 years! 

It is most worthy of remark in Romulus, that other men who are said to have become gods lived in less educated ages, when there was a greater propensity to the fabulous, and when the uninstructed were easily persuaded to believe anything. But the age of Romulus was barely six hundred years ago, and already literature and science had dispelled the beliefs that attach to an uncultured age. And a little after he says of the same Romulus words to this effect: From this we may perceive that Homer had flourished long before Romulus, and that there was now so much learning in individuals, and so generally diffused an enlightenment, that scarcely any room was left for fable. For antiquity admitted fables, and sometimes even very clumsy ones; but this age [of Romulus] was sufficiently enlightened to reject whatever had not the air of truth. Thus one of the most learned men, and certainly the most eloquent, M. Tullius Cicero, says that it is surprising that the divinity of Romulus was believed in, because the times were already so enlightened that they would not accept a fabulous fiction. But who believed that Romulus was a god except Rome, which was itself small and in its infancy

The work starts with a lengthy defense of Christianity against the charge made by many in that day that failure to pray to the "gods" of Rome due to the conversion to Christianity was the cause of the city being sacked. It then discusses the "City of God" -- the Church, vs "The City of Man" -- earthly government ... lots on angels, demons, prophecy, sin, heaven, hell -- all in MUCH detail, with references to Plato and other Greek thought which start The Church on a path of melding Greek Philosophy (especially Plato) and reason into Christian theology. This "Hellenization" of Christianity is the major historical effect of this work.

At it's simplest, it is the story of the City of man -- selfish, mistaking means with ends, worshiping the temporal, attempting to glorify the profane physical human. The story of war, death, destruction and eventually eternal pain.

And of the City of God -- selfless and caring, realizing that the end is pre-ordained and guaranteed by the blood of Christ (the 2nd Adam) to be perfect. Glorifying only God. The story of Grace, Peace, Faith, Love slowly traveling in a path known only to God to perfect union, Love and bliss for all Eternity.

It is not a book that I would necessarily recommend for most  -- it is CERTAINLY not "efficient", and one would be well served by skimming and focusing on key chapters -- say "books" 14, 19 and 22.If you desire a worthy challenge however, and want to be rather humbled by perspective, I do believe that you will find yourself rewarded!

Drinking With Churchill

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Lion-Winston-Churchill-1932-1940/dp/0316545120/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=

I have at last embarked on a long anticipated reading of the three volumes of the Manchester Churchill Biography, starting with "Alone", 1932-1940.

I've read much about Churchill, but knew these would be special and I can already tell I am in for a real treat. A mere 100 pages into the book I am again reminded of the greatness of the man and the obstinacy of the man and the times he lived in -- his warranted, the position of everyone else, not.

EVERYONE knew that Hitler was "a man of peace". As Walter Lippman -- advisor to Woodrow Wilson, founding editor of the New Republic wrote in '33 after talking to Hitler:

"We have heard once more, through the fog and the din, the hysteria and the animal passions of a great revolution, the authentic voice of a genuinely civilized people."

BTW, Lippman coined the term "stereotype" and wrote a great deal -- he was NOT stupid! Just "always certain, frequently wrong", which is the essence of "the expert".

What modern "certainty" would we most like to imagine? "We are out of oil", "Climate Change is settled science", "The USSR will be around as long or longer than the US?" ... the list is endless. Even a short perusal of history lets us know that the hubris and certainly of much of the elite is a constant -- as is their hatred of an honest prophet like Churchill.

What I really found entertaining though -- as opposed to enlightening, was this.

…the leg­end that he is a heavy drinker is quite untrue. Churchill is a sen­si­ble if unortho­dox drinker. There is always some alco­hol in his blood­stream and it reaches its peak in the evening after he has had two or three scotches, sev­eral glasses of cham­pagne, at least two brandies, and highball.

The "always" started right after breakfast with a "light Scotch and water" and that was his companion all day and until he retired at 3 or 4 AM. His "work day" was from 11PM until he retired. So now we know what a "heavy drinker" ISN'T!

A quote from him that I had heard before, but is worth a repeat -- "I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me". Which is true of both he and the human race -- killing germs mainly, but certainly a lot of enjoyment to balance the heartache it can also cause.

From times before Biblical times, alcohol was the main weapon  against microorganisms in water -- beer, wine, spirits mixed with water, all were ever present. A low level of alcohol in the system was a constant factor of life for those able to avail themselves of it until sanitation and chemicals could provide generally safe water.

Churchill was a throwback to the 19th century, and this was just one more aspect of that. Our founding fathers were the same -- whiskey in water was a common favorite.

Winston also managed to go through 10 or so cigars on a typical day. Just the description of his typical day at Chartwell (his home) is absolutely fascinating -- what a unique and interesting man!

I may be "going to ground" for a few days here. Ah, the joys of retirement!

Ten Reasons for A Leftist Repentance

Articles: Weekend Must-Read: Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist:

There are a number of versions of this kind of personal growth, this one happens to be from a female perspective. Historically this was simply "If you are young and not a Democrat, you have no heart, if you are over 30 and still Democrat, you have no brain".

The young are all pretty certain they will never die, they can "be whatever they want", "save the world", etc.. Those with enough brain to at least record the experiences of life, have by age 30-40 encountered death, disease, limitations and almost always some degree of evil in the world.

When one is 20, emotion is fresh and wonderful, and there simply isn't much life to be "examined". Following the heart seems very "reasonable" (with heavy emotional baggage) -- "wouldn't it be great if" there was no more poverty, hate, war, racism, greed, judgement -- although lust and even sloth often get a pass. Lust tends to be rather popular at that age -- the continuation of the species pretty much depends on it.

By sometime a decade or so later, many more aspects of reality have often intruded -- one either becomes more realistic, or decides to double down and actually exploit the seamier side of life in hopes of gaining power. Perhaps "intelligent Democrats" give their heart to power.

The specific 10 reasons are worth perusal, #1 is the fact that the left turns out to be actually driven by hate -- one might hope that after the murder of 100 million people by left (statist) ideologies in the 20th century -- Communism / Nazism / Socialism, that might not be a surprise, but as "those with hearts" mature, it somehow always is.

She is a little wordy, but it is worth going off and reading her. Here reasons are:

#1. Hate -- The left is motivated by hatred, not love.

Those posting messages in this left-wing forum publicly announced that they did what they did every day, from voting to attending a rally to planning a life, because they wanted to destroy something, and because they hated someone, rather than because they wanted to build something, or because they loved someone. You went to an anti-war rally because you hated Bush, not because you loved peace. Thus, when Obama bombed, you didn't hold any anti-war rally, because you didn't hate Obama.

#2. Leftism doesn't work.

#3. Other approaches do. 

#4. Abandoning truth

#5. Straw Men

#6. I believe in God 

#7. Hatred for working class

#8. It's the thought that counts (intentions trump results)

#9. Selective Outrage 

 "I was an active leftist for decades. I never witnessed significant leftist outrage over clitoredectomy, child marriage, honor killing, sharia-inspired rape laws, stoning, or acid attacks. Nothing. Zip. Crickets. I'm not saying that that outrage does not exist. I'm saying I never saw it.

The left's selective outrage convinced me that much canonical, left-wing feminism is not so much support for women, as it is a protest against Western, heterosexual men. It's an "I hate" phenomenon, rather than an "I love" phenomenon."

#10. Huffiness

My list is simpler -- God is #1. I'm not sure that anyone that is an actual Bible believing Christian remains left leaning once they get past say "25". 

My #2 is related to that -- abandonment of truth. My view is that without God there is no truth, so reason one is sufficient. Reason 2 is a corollary. Since truth is abandoned, the left can never be trusted. It is guaranteed to be inconsistent and not care about it. When it governs you can't even trust it to TRY to be honest about it's statistics, results, intentions or anything else. 

You can't negotiate or make agreements with those who abandon truth, you can only defeat them. America was founded as a center right nation in which in today's terms the political parties were; Right, but more toward the center, and Right,but more toward the far right. 

Today our parties are Left, very far toward the totally totalitarian left, and left, but slightly less far toward totalitarianism.  

I pretty much agree with her that all the other stuff exists and is true, but the top two cover it. Until the parties move farther enough back to the right that they BOTH accept transcendent truth, we can't operate as reasonable humans, because reason demands truth. 


'via Blog this'

Democrats Are From Mars, Republicans Are From Venus

How Did Politics Get So Personal? - NYTimes.com:

Reading the linked article reminded me of the '90s relationships book "Men are from Mars, Women are From Venus" and the difficulties of shoving the complexities of humans into neat pigeonholes -- but I guess that just "proves" I'm a conservative because I have difficulty with such neat analytic ordering of people! As stated in the article:

Conversely, these researchers define holistic thinking – which they consider more typical of conservatives — as “seeing scenes as a whole and seeing people as a product of situations.” Talhelm described this style of thought as “more automatic, caught up in emotions, and in some ways less adherent to the rules of logic.”

As opposed to "liberals", who:

Analytic thinking, in this view, “emphasizes slicing up the world and analyzing objects individually, divorced from context — much like scientific analysis requires thinkers to separate complex phenomena into separate parts.” Talhelm elaborated in a phone conversation: The analytic thinking typical of liberals is “more conscious, more focused on the rules of logic.”

So "conservatives" are pretty much like the women of the '90s ... intuitive, holistic, emotional, etc, where "liberals" are more like '90s men ... analytic, compartmentalizers, objectivizers, etc.

At first blush, this seems more than a little surprising, but it gets more so, he goes on:

Talhelm wrote me in an email that “analytic thinkers tend to do better in engineering, and they hold more patents for inventions. But holistic/intuitive thinkers tend to do better in more social fields, such as early childhood education and marketing.” One study in the 1960s, he said, “found that analytic thinkers were more likely to have long hair (for men) and short skirts (women).

So have you noted the preponderance of conservatives in "early childhood education and marketing" yet?

Having spent over 3 decades in software engineering, holding over 20 patents, and being male, as well as associating with at least 10's of gentlemen of similar political and technical ilk, the apparent "fact" that conservatives are now supposed to be pretty much from Venus is somewhat difficult to fully process -- but I'm certain that is also just another aspect of my unwillingness to think deeply, and my requirement for "simple solutions" as explained in the following snippet.

a stronger preference for deep thought and a rejection of simple solutions. Liberals are more tolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and they have less of a need for order, structure and closure.

Gee, the author must be a conservative? Isn't putting people into two groups somewhat of a  "simple solution"? (rejected by liberals of course!) So let me try to help the author out here. What he MEANS is that "liberals" are smart and conservatives are stupid -- but he doesn't want to give in to what the article is ostensively about, "Why left and right are so damned divided, hostile and increasingly personal about it!".

I was very disappointed to see Jonathan Haidt's name associated with an article that was not available to read which was apparently a lot of the basis for this "analysis". I felt that Haidt did MUCH more to explain something of the potential for the emotional underpinnings of liberal / conservative in the "The Righteous Mind" -- to put the thesis of that book very simply.

--- If you inherently know that it is wrong for grown siblings to have consensual protected sex and will admit it, you are by nature "conservative". If you would answer on a survey that you "don't have an opinion on it", even though, if hooked up to a brain scanner while giving that answer, the parts of your brain that signal DISGUST and I'M LYING are overloading, you are a "liberal".

So why are we so "divided, hostile and increasingly personal"?

Well, because prior to say "Wilson", 80%+ of Americans were practising Christians and believers in the basic tenet of what made America exceptional -- Constitutionally Limited Government.

As what I call "TP" (The Party-D) has increased in power, America has become increasingly non-Christian and Statist -- meaning UNlimited government, Political Correctness, higher taxes, more regulation, a growing welfare state, entitlement vs responsibility, etc, etc

As we have covered in this blog many times,  modern "liberals" are NOT liberal. They are Statists, and while there are plenty of conservatives that are technical, scientific, analytical, etc., to be a "conservative" means that one also believes there is "something more" -- usually God, and in the US, usually Christianity,  but essentially it is the idea that the universe is "teleological" -- it has a goal/purpose.

We used to be a nation (and indeed a Western Civilization) that believed in a teleological universe with rules -- specifically in our case, the Bible and the US Constitution. Conservatives still do, Statist TP does not. TP believes that **IT** (TP) is the "measure of all things".

Unfortunately, compared to this level of divide, slavery was a minor issue. The vast majority of the North and the South believed in the Bible and Constitution but were divided by freedom of choice on the specific issue of slavery. The cause of the Civil War was much more akin to Abortion than to fundamental difference in worldview that now divides us.

*** Slaveholders saw slaves as less than fully human. Proponents of abortion see unborn babies as less than fully human. "States Rights" would allow some states to have slaves / allow abortion, while others to not do so. TP is totalitarian in its "moral" pronouncements, they can't allow some States / people / etc to choose to believe other than what TP decrees. ***

So we are indeed between a very big rock and a very hard place. Our founders wanted to allow quite vast differences between States, so they enumerated limited powers to the Federal Government and the reserved the rest to the People and the States. Starting in a big way with the Civil War, the nation has seen fit to step by step allow the Federal Government UNlimited power and therefore make the States increasingly just "administrative districts" rather than significantly sovereign entities.

As TP continues to increase in power, the natural tendency -- one which we have seen murder over 100 million people in the past century -- is to "define the other" (eg. "conservatives", "Republicans", "Non Party Members") as "defective" -- stupid, uninformed, deniers, reactionaries, etc. Increasingly we will see organizations like the IRS, NSA, FBI, etc target "conservative groups", and the "scientific community" will publish papers that indicate that conservatives are somehow "mentally deficient" -- emotional, illogical, unable to "think deeply", unable to deal with the "ambiguity / complexity / uncertainty" of "modern life", etc.

It's an old story. Define humans into classes and then use the power of the State to "re-educate", "concentrate", "cleanse" -- or just "terminate". 

'via Blog this'

American Economic Ills Explained from Aspen

Sturm: The real deflate-gate: the depressed state of our union | AspenTimes.com:



Aspen CO is commonly thought of as a upscale hideaway for the rich, famous and usually far left politically. The linked article is proof that they have some people with actual minds there as well! Go read the whole thing, not that long and WELL worth it! I'll throw in a couple teasers.



The bottom line is that much like someone being over-medicated, our economy is being killed by bloated government acting in concert with the biggest businesses and public entities that can lobby government to aid themselves and hobble competition.

"When profits accrue for those with the most to invest in politics — and the most to lose in the free market — wealth and opportunity shift from ordinary people to the government and its friends. That’s why Americans struggling to maintain living standards must contend with ever-increasing prices in government-controlled sectors — housing, health and education.

"

And this little history lesson ... 

Free to pursue their individual life objectives, American entrepreneurs — and immigrants fleeing societies where one’s start predetermined one’s end — transformed an agrarian backwater into human history’s greatest economic wonder. Between 1800 and 2007, economic well-being (real gross domestic product per capita) increased 32-fold in America compared with 14-fold in Great Britain and fivefold in India. 

It’s not a miracle; it’s the free market, where rivals meet in open competition, generating a continuous stream of innovation, choice and value. In return for pleasing customers and being good corporate citizens, entrepreneurs earn profits

'via Blog this'

Picard Is Not a Liberal, Morality and Power

The Survivors (Star Trek: The Next Generation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

I happened to watch "The Survivors", one of my more favorite Star Trek Next Generation (STNG) shows last night in which the Enterprise answers a distress call and shows up at Delta Rana IV to find what was once a colony of 13 million to be now devastated and devoid of life save for two elderly humans, Kevin and Rishon. They are living in an all too perfect plot of land with a home and while saddened by the loss of life, seem none the worse for wear.

There are a number of twists and turns in the story to fill the hour, but eventually Picard figures out that Kevin must be more than he appears to be. When confronted on the Enterprise, Kevin breaks down and admits that he is a "Douwd", an exceedingly powerful immortal being. He can take multiple forms (or none), and while in human form, fell in love with Rishon and spent his life with her. When the violent warrior race the "Husnock" attacked the colony he tried to fool them with his powers and keep Rishon out of the fight, but as she saw the destruction, she moved to fight the attackers and was killed.

When Kevin saw her broken body that even with his vast powers he was unable to restore to life, he was enraged and attacked the Husnock even though the Douwd are pacifists by nature.

Picard indicates that such a a response is understandable -- but Kevin, shaken with grief and guilt, lets him know that he does not understand -- he killed ALL the Husnock, everywhere in the galaxy, some 50 billion -- they no longer exist. He committed genocide on a universal scale. The embedded clip is 5min long, but is well worth it and I suspect you will "get it" even if not a Star Trek fan. 

I know Picard is not a liberal, since his response is; "You are free to go, we have no courts or morality with which to judge you". Were he a liberal, he would have applied whatever the current liberal "morality" of the day was -- OBVIOUSLY the most "advanced", as liberal thinking always is -- and either praised or sanctioned Kevin's action with the kind of smug certainty that only liberals can have! 

<<  I've got my tongue in cheek a bit ... even a "liberal" would likely feel a nasty fear in the pit of their stomach when faced with such power, and be anxious to get "away" (whatever that might mean in the case of such a being), as fast as possible! ... although I may be giving them too much credit, for that would require COMMON SENSE, and it often appears that liberals completely lack that! >>

So Picard is a conservative -- he understands that the beginning of wisdom is the recognition that you (and your species, your country, your philosophy, etc) are less than "God". In fact, we are SO FAR from "knowing God", that it is hard to even imagine what is "moral" to some intermediate power between us and GOD, like the imagined "Douwd" species.

There are a number of things I love about the concept of the show. The vision of the Douwd species as having a sense of right and wrong and being able to love and feel emotion deeply. Their having a vast amount of capability compared to humans, but still not being able to restore "life". Their near total power of death/killing, somewhat analogous to humans with the atomic bomb.

We can destroy so much , but our creative powers are severely limited in comparison. The same is so of culture and tradition  as well -- we can easily destroy millennia of culture with cheap technological tricks  and "progressive" ideas, but are completely powerless to replace it, since that would require an alternate past to provide a connection, and that is FAR beyond our capability. For the important things, we only have the power to destroy.

I enjoy the idea of a species vastly more powerful than us, but still being infinitely short of God. The sense that "morality" definitely exists, we can emotionally sense it, it has some sort of relationship to power/capability, but our ability to sense what it means "beyond our pay grade" is missing. We however can possibly (though I suspect with imperfection and risk) apprehend that for lesser creatures, there is much less to be said of the moral imperative.

As Picard says in the end of the show -- we have no answers to such questions. But isn't it an interesting fact that even though we KNOW we can't answer for such a being, we also KNOW (in our hearts) that there does exist some form of "right and wrong" beyond simple "might is right" or "the greatest good for the greatest number" (Bentham).

Or I guess Christians, and probably most conservatives know that. Based on experience, it appears that "liberals" do not, and rather believe that morality begins and ends where they say it does.

Narcissus Speaks in India

Our Self-Obsessed President | Power Line:



BO's speech on leaving India was yet again primarily about BO. What's new?  The top reason for him going was to get some sort of fake "climate agreement" like he inked with China a few months ago, but he failed to get that, so in his mind, there wasn't anything to talk about other than how great he is.



As I've written before, my HOPE is that BO is only a narcissist, but I suspect he may be a psychopath.



Our "sound of a left hand clapping" media is naturally unconcerned about having a president who claims he can't meet a world leader because it is "too close to an election", and then sends a team to try to defeat that same leader in the election that he supposedly "didn't want to influence"!



'via Blog this'

Maps, Models, Territory, Blizzards, Reality Denial

Blizzard 2015: What Went Wrong With the Forecasting? - WSJ:



We just had a nice solid example of the fact that "The map is not the territory", or in this case "The model is not reality".



Those of us that use maps or GPS units have had the experience of finding that the road has changed, the place we are looking for has moved, or the GPS unit is just having "a bad hair day". We are then forced to operate in the actual territory and abandon our faulty "aid".



Likewise, forecasters used models that they had a high degree of confidence in, but it turned off that the models were "off by a bit". Nothing very new here, it is STILL a lot better to know "there is going to be a pretty good storm in the area", even if it doesn't hit where predicted.



As we have seen, the super confident "settled" predictions of Global Warming have been "off" for at least 18 years -- but for power political reasons, the elites / MSM refuse to recognize that their models have not accurately predicted reality, so are therefore flawed. Nothing unusual there, ALL models / maps / plans / narratives / etc are flawed -- they MAY predict reality to "some margin of error".

Over longer periods of time, greater distances, more precise requirements, those errors become larger -- and the storm hits Boston rather than NYC, oil production goes up vs down, and temperatures may go down 2 degrees rather than up 2 degrees in 100 years. No biggie -- the climate will have "changed", it always does.



Such is the real world. We certainly don't throw out our models, maps, plans, etc, but what we DO need to do is realize that they are useful, but flawed. When the map says that we need to make a turn, but the turn is not there, we look around a bit, and if needed, ask directions.



Anyone that claims otherwise is the worst kind of "denier" of all -- a reality denier.



'via Blog this'