Rush Limbaugh & National Review -- Conservative-Media Revolution | National Review Online:
We often forget just how short a time there has been any sort of a conservative "popular media" answer to the massive amount of left wing outlets. National Review was around as a magazine, but with a very small readership ... it peaked at just over 250K readers an issue in '94.
So Limbaugh came on the national airwaves 28 years ago in 1988, Fox News showed up in 1997, not quite 20 years ago.
Would there have been a 50 year period with no Republican control of the House of Representatives if the American people had been able to listen to conservative mass media over that time? How much did Rush Limbaugh have to do with the Republicans finally taking the House in '94?
I know that when Jimmy Carter convinced me that there HAD to be a different and better way to look at the world than he espoused, I had to SEARCH to find National Review. I've certainly "converted" more than a few people to at LEAST QUESTION what it is they hear drummed into their heads each day by the standard left wing mass media -- "The Mainstream Media" or MSM. Rush definitely allowed millions more to be aware that pretty much all issues have AT LEAST two sides -- if not many more.
Sadly, at nearly 30 years into a major revolution of choice in media, conservatism is LOSING -- badly, and along with it, the ability to maintain anything recognizable as "America" -- God, Family, hard work, delayed gratification, personal responsibility, thrift -- all those "old time" values.
It isn't hard at all to see how the conservative light could be easily extinguished -- a return to a government administered "fairness doctrine" where the FCC decides what is "speech", and what is "propaganda" and has to give the other side "equal time". Citizens United being overturned -- so the NYTs, NPR, Michael Moore, CNN, etc can say all they want, but conservative political speech is strictly controlled. "Net Neutrality" -- where blogs that are considered "biased political speech" (in the eyes of the government) are blocked, slowed, sanctioned, removed from search, etc. ... the list could go on.
The calls for "doing SOMETHING about the disruptive right wing media" by the left are fairly constant. The hatred of "Faux News" oozes from those who lean left -- and when those from the left hate something, it is not enough to turn the channel, it means that what they dislike should be destroyed!
A lot of prayers and a lot of hard work will continue to be needed to at a minimum slow the leftward slide as much as possible -- and to hope against all odds, the tide will yet be turned!
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, November 04, 2015
Jews Shall Be Silent in MN!
Israeli Speaker Shouted Down at the University of Minnesota | Power Line:
A professor of Jewish thought and philosophy from Hebrew University was shouted down at the UofM Law School yesterday PM. The WaPo reported on it, but according to PL, the Strib has failed to do so.
Christians, Jews, those that disagree with Climate Change being our largest problem, those that believe in some restraint of government, etc -- all are treated to the only left wing argument that really works. SHUT UP! Disagreement with leftist dogma is a "trigger" -- our tenderly wrapped university law students must be spared hearing opinions not in line with left wing diktat!
As always, if the left's view of winning arguments -- intimidation! -- fails, then sterner types are chosen. Have the IRS investigate them, pass some bogus "campaign finance law", call what your opposition has to say "hate speech" and make it illegal. Or, in the case of Israel, just arrange for their enemies to gain nuclear weapons.
Left is control -- right is chaos, but just to the right of center there was LIBERTY ... what America once had. As we skid, slide, slouch and tumble down the left ditch, the day where the argument is won by herding those who refuse to bow to the will of the left into chambers where the "ultimate truth" of the left is exposed in the belching smoke rising from the ovens.
Why do people not figure out what Fascists are about before it is too late? Ask the Star Trib.
'via Blog this'
A professor of Jewish thought and philosophy from Hebrew University was shouted down at the UofM Law School yesterday PM. The WaPo reported on it, but according to PL, the Strib has failed to do so.
Christians, Jews, those that disagree with Climate Change being our largest problem, those that believe in some restraint of government, etc -- all are treated to the only left wing argument that really works. SHUT UP! Disagreement with leftist dogma is a "trigger" -- our tenderly wrapped university law students must be spared hearing opinions not in line with left wing diktat!
As always, if the left's view of winning arguments -- intimidation! -- fails, then sterner types are chosen. Have the IRS investigate them, pass some bogus "campaign finance law", call what your opposition has to say "hate speech" and make it illegal. Or, in the case of Israel, just arrange for their enemies to gain nuclear weapons.
Left is control -- right is chaos, but just to the right of center there was LIBERTY ... what America once had. As we skid, slide, slouch and tumble down the left ditch, the day where the argument is won by herding those who refuse to bow to the will of the left into chambers where the "ultimate truth" of the left is exposed in the belching smoke rising from the ovens.
Why do people not figure out what Fascists are about before it is too late? Ask the Star Trib.
'via Blog this'
KY Governor Race "stolen"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/businessman-who-has-been-likened-to-trump-wins-kentucky-governors-race/2015/11/03/8693d97e-8274-11e5-9afb-0c971f713d0c_story.html
The WaPo apparently feels that the Governorship of Kay is Democrat property!
The WaPo apparently feels that the Governorship of Kay is Democrat property!
Republicans stole a key governor’s seat in a hotly contested race in Kentucky on Tuesday, installing an outsider businessman who has drawn comparisons to Donald Trump as the state’s next chief executive.
Tuesday, November 03, 2015
Dying White, Cultural AIDs
Death Rates Rising for Middle-Aged White Americans, Study Finds - The New York Times:
The Bible simply says "Man does not live by bread alone". Brain science says people need connections to others, a sense of competence/value, and meaning in their lives.
While the article claims that it is just "the uneducated", I certainly know of and personally understand the same pains and temptations from those with more education. Life used to have certain anchors -- religion, family, work and community being very large. In the US the left has attacked each of these systematically, along with destroying the culture that was once America -- this is unlike what has happened in Europe and Japan.
In Europe, the state has grown and religion has suffered, but since church and state were intertwined, most of the people are at least nominally part of "the church" -- for baptisms, Christmas, sometimes Easter, weddings and funerals. As a practicing Christian, I don't applaud that, however, it is "something" as opposed to "nothing".
Even more importantly, it is completely fine -- and EXPECTED to be a PROUD "Irishman, Brit, Frenchman, German, Swede, Italian ... etc, etc". The rising statism in Europe was not anti-culture, nor anti the dominant ethnicity of the nation state. One can even take pride in being a German, although the nation was largely responsible for two world wars and the genocide of six million Jews.
Not so white Americans -- we are guilty for slavery over 100 years ago, it is a stain that our leftward marching elite wants ever fresh so that even though they were the party of both slavery and Jim Crow, eternal white guilt must be recognized to keep their black voters voting over 90% for them -- ONLY "Black Lives Matter".
We could go on, but this is likely a case where a more complex analysis obfuscates rather than clarifies. Just as AIDs in the developed world was the result of a complete breakdown in sexual morality among a specific group -- gay males, what we see in middle aged whites is the ongoing destruction of the culture and values of Americans of European descent.
We know that black inner city culture was destroyed by welfare and urban development in the '60s -- their numbers for this same age group are still worse, but whites now largely infected by the same pathogens -- rampant out of wedlock births, welfare and unemployment, dependency, loss of community and religious values, are rapidly falling to the same fates. This was well covered and predicted in "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray ... an excerpt and few comments here.
So far, Hispanic, largely Mexican culture has resisted the statist pathogens -- they cling to the Catholic Church, family and since they are often undocumented, they are more likely to live in packed houses working hard for often less than minimum wage to keep their families intact and send money back to other family members. They don't earn a lot, but they earn what they earn, it is respected, and has value.
"Warning, living on welfare as an unwed mother may entail risks of depression, substance abuse and even death by suicide before age 60 for you and your sexual partners"!
Not very likely that the very people that produce and push the values and pathogens that lead to the problem are very likely to warn where it leads is it?
'via Blog this'
The Bible simply says "Man does not live by bread alone". Brain science says people need connections to others, a sense of competence/value, and meaning in their lives.
The mortality rate for whites 45 to 54 years old with no more than a high school education increased by 134 deaths per 100,000 people from 1999 to 2014.
“It is difficult to find modern settings with survival losses of this magnitude,”
“This is a vivid indication that something is awry in these American households.”
Dr. Deaton had but one parallel.
“Only H.I.V./AIDS in contemporary times has done anything like this,” he said.We know who these people are. Obama calls them "bitter clingers". Many of them are in the south, or in "flyover country". They are often "racist, homophobic, low information, etc". You don't have to listen to much media to know that these people are not someone that America currently cares about.
While the article claims that it is just "the uneducated", I certainly know of and personally understand the same pains and temptations from those with more education. Life used to have certain anchors -- religion, family, work and community being very large. In the US the left has attacked each of these systematically, along with destroying the culture that was once America -- this is unlike what has happened in Europe and Japan.
In Europe, the state has grown and religion has suffered, but since church and state were intertwined, most of the people are at least nominally part of "the church" -- for baptisms, Christmas, sometimes Easter, weddings and funerals. As a practicing Christian, I don't applaud that, however, it is "something" as opposed to "nothing".
Even more importantly, it is completely fine -- and EXPECTED to be a PROUD "Irishman, Brit, Frenchman, German, Swede, Italian ... etc, etc". The rising statism in Europe was not anti-culture, nor anti the dominant ethnicity of the nation state. One can even take pride in being a German, although the nation was largely responsible for two world wars and the genocide of six million Jews.
Not so white Americans -- we are guilty for slavery over 100 years ago, it is a stain that our leftward marching elite wants ever fresh so that even though they were the party of both slavery and Jim Crow, eternal white guilt must be recognized to keep their black voters voting over 90% for them -- ONLY "Black Lives Matter".
We could go on, but this is likely a case where a more complex analysis obfuscates rather than clarifies. Just as AIDs in the developed world was the result of a complete breakdown in sexual morality among a specific group -- gay males, what we see in middle aged whites is the ongoing destruction of the culture and values of Americans of European descent.
We know that black inner city culture was destroyed by welfare and urban development in the '60s -- their numbers for this same age group are still worse, but whites now largely infected by the same pathogens -- rampant out of wedlock births, welfare and unemployment, dependency, loss of community and religious values, are rapidly falling to the same fates. This was well covered and predicted in "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray ... an excerpt and few comments here.
So far, Hispanic, largely Mexican culture has resisted the statist pathogens -- they cling to the Catholic Church, family and since they are often undocumented, they are more likely to live in packed houses working hard for often less than minimum wage to keep their families intact and send money back to other family members. They don't earn a lot, but they earn what they earn, it is respected, and has value.
the rate for middle-aged Hispanics is far lower than for middle-aged whites at 262 per 100,000.Will the next generation of Hispanics be able to resist destruction by "The Party" (D)? The temptations for the young women are great -- get pregnant, get aid and raise children with a series of young men -- often with what appears to be a better economic deal, but one that goes very sour at middle age. As I covered here, the unmarried young woman with HS or less education and children has this choice ...
A). Stay at home and get from $20 - $35K a yearThe choice doesn't come with a warning like a pack of cigarettes:
(B). Go to work 40 hours every week often at two jobs, since BOcare has mandated benefits MUST be provided for a job regularly over 30hrs, with no vacations and take in MAYBE $30K.
"Warning, living on welfare as an unwed mother may entail risks of depression, substance abuse and even death by suicide before age 60 for you and your sexual partners"!
Not very likely that the very people that produce and push the values and pathogens that lead to the problem are very likely to warn where it leads is it?
'via Blog this'
Hawker Hunter Through Tower Bridge
When A Pilot Flew His Jet Fighter THROUGH The Tower Bridge To Protest A Fly Past Cancellation:
Hadn't heard about this stunt from April of 1968 ... sounds like a pilot that was both very lucky and good, with a cocky attitude that can cause things to go very bad, but in this case did not.
'via Blog this'
Hadn't heard about this stunt from April of 1968 ... sounds like a pilot that was both very lucky and good, with a cocky attitude that can cause things to go very bad, but in this case did not.
'via Blog this'
Can't Handle CNBC, Can't Handle Putin
Obama Goes Trolling: If Republicans Can't Handle CNBC, They Can't Oppose Putin - Breitbart:
BO is pretty sure if you can't handle CNBC you can't handle Putin.
So, we have solid evidence that if you don't even bother to show up on Fox, you CERTAINLY can't handle Putin -- which BO has proven complete. BO is making a conjecture that if you show up and respond solidly to media that is not supportive of your position, you will turn out to be just as ineffective as he has been.
Maybe ... but his predictions on a whole bunch of things -- the economy, fuel prices, "red lines", ISIS being the JV team, Russia being any threat, keeping your health insurance, etc, etc have been completely off base.
If there actually was a solid reasonable media, statements like this from a lame duck president with an insanely bad record would be hammered on everything from the actual news to late night television -- as such idiocy and non-presidential partisan sniping ought to be!
Reagan was the "Teflon President" with a rapidly expanding economy, US stature around the world rising, and the USSR running for cover, while the media complained they couldn't take him down like they wanted.
BO is "The Slime President" -- nothing sticks to him in the face of global and domestic disaster while he goes on disingenuously sliming his opposition while the complicit media gives him aid and comfort!
Slimey!
'via Blog this'
BO is pretty sure if you can't handle CNBC you can't handle Putin.
“They say, when I talk to Putin, he’s going to straighten out … and then it turns out they can’t handle a bunch of CNBC moderators,” Obama said.BO certainly ought to know -- while the Republicans went ON CNBC and pretty much won the argument in obviously hostile territory, the Dems slunk away from even showing up on Fox in 2007!
So, we have solid evidence that if you don't even bother to show up on Fox, you CERTAINLY can't handle Putin -- which BO has proven complete. BO is making a conjecture that if you show up and respond solidly to media that is not supportive of your position, you will turn out to be just as ineffective as he has been.
Maybe ... but his predictions on a whole bunch of things -- the economy, fuel prices, "red lines", ISIS being the JV team, Russia being any threat, keeping your health insurance, etc, etc have been completely off base.
If there actually was a solid reasonable media, statements like this from a lame duck president with an insanely bad record would be hammered on everything from the actual news to late night television -- as such idiocy and non-presidential partisan sniping ought to be!
Reagan was the "Teflon President" with a rapidly expanding economy, US stature around the world rising, and the USSR running for cover, while the media complained they couldn't take him down like they wanted.
BO is "The Slime President" -- nothing sticks to him in the face of global and domestic disaster while he goes on disingenuously sliming his opposition while the complicit media gives him aid and comfort!
Slimey!
'via Blog this'
Monday, November 02, 2015
NASA Says Antarctica Gaining Ice, Packers Lose
I very much question how any person with a hint of a scientific bent rather than a pure ideological, financial, or quasi-religious commitment to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) could look at this information and call AGW "settled". It would be very similar to a Packer fan getting up this AM after the drubbing by Denver and saying that a prediction that Green Bay will win Super Bowl 50 is settled!
The "fact" of rapid Antarctic ice loss has been a cornerstone of AGW orthodoxy. NASA is and has been a significant source of data presented as "proving" AGW. I find this quote to be especially telling:
"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," said Dr. Zwally.
"But this is also bad news,” he added. “If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."
So if you admit you haven't accurately measured the ice in Antarctica in the past, what makes it certain that you are accurately measuring it or global sea level NOW?
There MUST be another contributor? Just as measuring the total ice on a continent is way less certain than measuring the ice in your drink, precise measurement of global sea level is not the same as measuring out a shot of bourbon no matter how many times you claim to people that such measurements are "infallible". Infallibility is a stance of religion, not science.
There MUST be another contributor? Just as measuring the total ice on a continent is way less certain than measuring the ice in your drink, precise measurement of global sea level is not the same as measuring out a shot of bourbon no matter how many times you claim to people that such measurements are "infallible". Infallibility is a stance of religion, not science.
Of course, NASA could be wrong on this measurement and ice may being lost, or maybe it turns out that sea level is not in fact rising -- such is ALWAYS the case with actual science which is only called science because EVERY claim is "falsifiable", but never settled because of the problem of induction ... The Thanksgiving Turkey problem!
Religion says that we live in a meaningful universe with a sovereign and all knowing God having ultimate and correct reasons and purpose for all, since he created it and us, it is perfectly reasonable that at least parts of it should be validly knowable by human minds.
Science says that we have no clue on the knowability or repeatability of a completely random and capricious universe -- other than faith that it is knowable and repeatable. Which most scientists choose to believe for the same reasons that religious people believe in God ... "it makes sense to them", "it seems it HAS to be that way", "I feel it in my very core", etc. Scientists are humans too -- their brains need a "reasonable story" (for them) to operate with so they naturally postulate a clockwork universe "just happened" if they decide that God is "too simplistic / imaginary".
We can find "useful guesses that work over some domain of time and space" (hypothesis and theories), but like the turkey, we will never know what we don't know. There is no scientific reason to believe in "order", or even that what randomly selected or designed human minds happen to see as "order" is even meaningful -- unless we postulate some sense of "something" (meaning, order, rules, etc) beyond the physical artifacts that we perceive.
We will never "prove" the existence or non-existence of "god" via science -- but we need look no further than AGW to know that man must have religion!
BTW, my certainty in the Pack is a bit tattered this AM!
Friday, October 30, 2015
John Doe Vs Ultimate Super PAC
John Doe Goes to Washington - WSJ:
In the Republican debate this week the CNBC moderators thought Rubio's Senate voting record while running was a good issue ... Rubio absent 45%, Hilly 83%, BO 89%. We know why how often a Senator votes is important in the case of Rubio, but not an issue in the case of Hillary or BO. Because Democrats have the Ultimate Super PAC -- it is called the Mainstream Media!
What is more, nobody needs John Doe investigations to know if they coordinate with the the Democrats, we had the whole "Journolist" thing in 2010 where they obviously WERE doing coordination, making false charges, trying to find a better way of taking down conservatives, etc -- but nobody really cared.
The left finds it to be a good idea to be breaking down people's doors in the early AM hours, finding lists of donors and investigating them just because they donated to Scott Walker and doing the whole thing under cover of secrecy so strong that the targets are under felony threat to even let people know that they are being investigated.
"McCarthyism" was tame compared to what we have now -- at least the USSR actually WAS a foreign government with real spies in this country! Republicans are just a political party that is not completely in lock step with Democrats ... although sadly, they are not nearly as disagreeable with Democrats as they ought to be from my perspective!
'via Blog this'
In the Republican debate this week the CNBC moderators thought Rubio's Senate voting record while running was a good issue ... Rubio absent 45%, Hilly 83%, BO 89%. We know why how often a Senator votes is important in the case of Rubio, but not an issue in the case of Hillary or BO. Because Democrats have the Ultimate Super PAC -- it is called the Mainstream Media!
What is more, nobody needs John Doe investigations to know if they coordinate with the the Democrats, we had the whole "Journolist" thing in 2010 where they obviously WERE doing coordination, making false charges, trying to find a better way of taking down conservatives, etc -- but nobody really cared.
The left finds it to be a good idea to be breaking down people's doors in the early AM hours, finding lists of donors and investigating them just because they donated to Scott Walker and doing the whole thing under cover of secrecy so strong that the targets are under felony threat to even let people know that they are being investigated.
"McCarthyism" was tame compared to what we have now -- at least the USSR actually WAS a foreign government with real spies in this country! Republicans are just a political party that is not completely in lock step with Democrats ... although sadly, they are not nearly as disagreeable with Democrats as they ought to be from my perspective!
'via Blog this'
Thursday, October 29, 2015
GDP, + 1.5 or - 1.5?
Inventory Correction Masks Resilient Demand in U.S. GDP Report - Bloomberg Business:
Buried in the news is the 3Q first GDP picture ... a very tepid 1.5% growth as reported. In reading the story though, it sounds like the greatest 1.5% growth possible -- not to worry, the BO economy should not be maligned!
Completely missing is the fact that this is now the 2nd installment of the "New Math" of GDP .... supposedly giving it something like a +3% boost over what the "old tired GDP number" used for decades past reported. If that +3% is accurate, we shrank at 1.5% ...
Not to worry ... just listen to the TP media. Things are great!
'via Blog this'
Buried in the news is the 3Q first GDP picture ... a very tepid 1.5% growth as reported. In reading the story though, it sounds like the greatest 1.5% growth possible -- not to worry, the BO economy should not be maligned!
Completely missing is the fact that this is now the 2nd installment of the "New Math" of GDP .... supposedly giving it something like a +3% boost over what the "old tired GDP number" used for decades past reported. If that +3% is accurate, we shrank at 1.5% ...
Not to worry ... just listen to the TP media. Things are great!
'via Blog this'
Rubio, Rose, Lies
Rubio Explains Hillary’s Lie | Power Line:
Can Charlie Rose REALLY believe that Hillary didn't lie to the American People about Benghazi being a "spontaneous demonstration due to a film" vs a known terror attack? She admitted she knew it was a terrorist attack in the first moments, and emails to both Egypt and family members indicate that she knew that, yet we have multiple videos of her claiming the "spontaneous demonstration" for weeks, including promising the parents of one of those killed in the attack that the FILMMAKER would be punished! ... He was, he was put in prison!
I understand that Rose is a confirmed member of TP, but does he REALLY believe what he is saying on that video, or is he lying just like Hillary? In any case, the MSM nor Hillary supporters care -- they see the "fake film story" as smart politics given the proximity to the election, so their view is "hooray for our side, and we got away with it!".
Does a nation ever "get away" with allowing open corruption and media collusion in politics? TP is founded on it -- as has been every totalitarian state in the history of the planet. The fact that our dominant political class is fine with it shows that we no longer have what it takes to retain our freedom.
'via Blog this'
Can Charlie Rose REALLY believe that Hillary didn't lie to the American People about Benghazi being a "spontaneous demonstration due to a film" vs a known terror attack? She admitted she knew it was a terrorist attack in the first moments, and emails to both Egypt and family members indicate that she knew that, yet we have multiple videos of her claiming the "spontaneous demonstration" for weeks, including promising the parents of one of those killed in the attack that the FILMMAKER would be punished! ... He was, he was put in prison!
I understand that Rose is a confirmed member of TP, but does he REALLY believe what he is saying on that video, or is he lying just like Hillary? In any case, the MSM nor Hillary supporters care -- they see the "fake film story" as smart politics given the proximity to the election, so their view is "hooray for our side, and we got away with it!".
Does a nation ever "get away" with allowing open corruption and media collusion in politics? TP is founded on it -- as has been every totalitarian state in the history of the planet. The fact that our dominant political class is fine with it shows that we no longer have what it takes to retain our freedom.
'via Blog this'
The King Can Spend
No Grand Bargain, but Deal Is Still a Victory for Obama - The New York Times:
It's great to be a Democrat, a member of "The Party" (TP) with the New York Times, NBC, ABC, Public Media, most of the newspapers, etc on your side. You can claim credit for "improving deficit numbers", sign on to "bargains" where you take no credit for the part that provided some MINIMAL control to runaway government spending, and then just renege on it and STILL be a hero to those for whom there really is only one side to any "agreement" ... SPEND MORE!
**ANY** attempt to put even MINIMAL control on the completely insane runaway spending is WORSE THAN FUTILE!!! Those that do the hard work of even tiny token MEAGER controls on the spending juggernaut are "cruel, hard hearted, ideologues, reactionaries, etc, etc". When some meager reductions in the deficit result, those that fought ANY controls tooth and nail get the credit (see Slick Willie vs Newt, as well as BO vs the "sequester"), and THEN, when the caps are summarily removed (so much for "agreements"!), the spender is the hero yet again!
Any attempt at even meager controls on spending gets to be treated as a goat coming and going!
We continue toward the financial death that this irresponsible excuse for what was once a country so richly deserves!
'via Blog this'
It's great to be a Democrat, a member of "The Party" (TP) with the New York Times, NBC, ABC, Public Media, most of the newspapers, etc on your side. You can claim credit for "improving deficit numbers", sign on to "bargains" where you take no credit for the part that provided some MINIMAL control to runaway government spending, and then just renege on it and STILL be a hero to those for whom there really is only one side to any "agreement" ... SPEND MORE!
The budget agreement struck late Monday between the White House and Congress hands President Obama a clear victory, vindicating his hard line this year against spending limits that he argued were a drag on the economy and buying him freedom for the final 14 months of his term from the fiscal dysfunction that has plagued his presidency.Lovely.
From the moment he introduced his budget Feb. 2, Mr. Obama held firm on his demand that Congress break through the punishing across-the-board cuts known as sequestration in the Budget Control Act to provide equal increases to domestic and military spending. He promised to veto any spending bill that adhered to the statutory spending caps, made good on that threat this month by vetoing a popular defense policy bill,Remember all that hard work and pain that the stupid R's went through in 2011 to "agree" with a total and complete liar on these TINY sequestration caps? Well, that was a complete WASTE OF TIME! They are GONE ... along with the debt limit until 2017. King BO can spend spend SPEND!
**ANY** attempt to put even MINIMAL control on the completely insane runaway spending is WORSE THAN FUTILE!!! Those that do the hard work of even tiny token MEAGER controls on the spending juggernaut are "cruel, hard hearted, ideologues, reactionaries, etc, etc". When some meager reductions in the deficit result, those that fought ANY controls tooth and nail get the credit (see Slick Willie vs Newt, as well as BO vs the "sequester"), and THEN, when the caps are summarily removed (so much for "agreements"!), the spender is the hero yet again!
Any attempt at even meager controls on spending gets to be treated as a goat coming and going!
We continue toward the financial death that this irresponsible excuse for what was once a country so richly deserves!
'via Blog this'
Monday, October 26, 2015
Computing Cloud Cash Rain and Drought
The Cloud Is Raining Cash on Amazon, Google, and Microsoft - Bloomberg Business:
I've messed around with Amazon's EC2 a bit -- really easy to set up a virtual machine and get it running. I use the Google cloud for writing, blogging, pictures, storage, etc -- for personal use, the advertising model seems to produce a sweet spot of easy to use and cheap. I've been exposed to Microsoft's approach to making their productivity suite -- Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc into a cloud annuity for them at "so much a month" vs a package that you have to buy every few years. It seems an understandable model.
The bottom line is that it is raining cash on Amazon, Google and Microsoft, while IBM, HP and Oracle are seeing a drought ...
Oracle appears to have made a wrong turn with the acquisition of Sun pulling them toward the hardware / OS path, when it would have seemed that migrating customers from private servers to servers in the cloud would have been an obvious route for them. HP is HP ... dominant in printers, but never really in computing.
IBM, locked for decades in "computer archeology" with past super success of the 360/370/Z Series and the host of OS and data management products seems unable to leave the hardware / OS connection behind, and has followed the Kennedy Moon Shot space race strategy -- to try to "leap frog" to the next target beyond the Cloud with Watson -- or "The Cognitive Era" as they like to pitch it.
My problem remains. If Watson is so smart, why hasn't it suggested a winning business strategy for IBM by now? ... in the form of a question of course! I can see where "big data" has advantages -- and will continue to have advantages with all sorts of relational, statistical, programmatic, etc methods of racking, stacking, packing and arriving at "meaning" that allows better business practice. Is Watson likely to be a proprietary methodology all on it's own that companies will pay IBM a premium to have access to?
I suppose it is possible, but it is hard for me to yet visualize a world in which large companies hold a proprietary AI "entity" in house, carefully maintaining, grooming, connecting, improving it while selling its services to other companies as the zookeeper company's primary revenue source.
Our captive enslaved intelligence is smarter than yours! Step right up and pay the man to get Watson to look at YOUR data and give you the answers that you crave for a mere $xxxxx ???? !!!!
Is Watson a rainmaker?
'via Blog this'
I've messed around with Amazon's EC2 a bit -- really easy to set up a virtual machine and get it running. I use the Google cloud for writing, blogging, pictures, storage, etc -- for personal use, the advertising model seems to produce a sweet spot of easy to use and cheap. I've been exposed to Microsoft's approach to making their productivity suite -- Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc into a cloud annuity for them at "so much a month" vs a package that you have to buy every few years. It seems an understandable model.
The bottom line is that it is raining cash on Amazon, Google and Microsoft, while IBM, HP and Oracle are seeing a drought ...
The trio shares a reliance on technology that comes from powerful machines lashed together in bunkers the size of football fields. These data centers are capable of providing a broad range of services at a low cost—be it Microsoft's personal and business software, Amazon's e-commerce and computing power, or Google's Web search and advertising algorithms. Contrast that with technology firms, such as IBM, Hewlett-Packard, EMC, and Oracle, which are suffering from slowing growth or declines as cloud operators shun traditional hardware, software, and services.Microsoft (at least up to now with the "Surface") never was invested in producing hardware. They certainly reaped benefits off the OS lock in for ages, but they developed a strong application suite that is the desktop standard and a strong DB presence with SQL Server that is allowing them into the Cloud.
Oracle appears to have made a wrong turn with the acquisition of Sun pulling them toward the hardware / OS path, when it would have seemed that migrating customers from private servers to servers in the cloud would have been an obvious route for them. HP is HP ... dominant in printers, but never really in computing.
IBM, locked for decades in "computer archeology" with past super success of the 360/370/Z Series and the host of OS and data management products seems unable to leave the hardware / OS connection behind, and has followed the Kennedy Moon Shot space race strategy -- to try to "leap frog" to the next target beyond the Cloud with Watson -- or "The Cognitive Era" as they like to pitch it.
My problem remains. If Watson is so smart, why hasn't it suggested a winning business strategy for IBM by now? ... in the form of a question of course! I can see where "big data" has advantages -- and will continue to have advantages with all sorts of relational, statistical, programmatic, etc methods of racking, stacking, packing and arriving at "meaning" that allows better business practice. Is Watson likely to be a proprietary methodology all on it's own that companies will pay IBM a premium to have access to?
I suppose it is possible, but it is hard for me to yet visualize a world in which large companies hold a proprietary AI "entity" in house, carefully maintaining, grooming, connecting, improving it while selling its services to other companies as the zookeeper company's primary revenue source.
Our captive enslaved intelligence is smarter than yours! Step right up and pay the man to get Watson to look at YOUR data and give you the answers that you crave for a mere $xxxxx ???? !!!!
Is Watson a rainmaker?
'via Blog this'
Saturday, October 24, 2015
The Happiness Hypothesis, Jonathan Haidt
http://www.amazon.com/The-Happiness-Hypothesis-Finding-Ancient/dp/0465028020
I blogged on this once before, but since only a couple of people read it at that time I decided to update and post again. It is one of my favorite books relative to both ancient wisdom and what science is finding about the way our brains are organized.
The subtitle of the book is "Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom" and the author is Jonathan Haidt. I LOVED the recommendation from the father of the Positive Psychology Movement (Martin Seligman) who stated; "For the reader who seeks to understand happiness, my advice is: Begin with Haidt." ;-) (it actually isn't pronounced "hate", it is pronounced "height" ... but still funny)
I love the metaphor that he uses and the picture on the cover, a shadowy view of a rider on a swimming elephant. Haidt had gone for a trail ride in the mountains as a youth, and has the horse neared a particularly steep cliff, he panicked that he didn't have the horse under control and didn't know what to do. For a brief few seconds he debated jumping off as he realized what he thought was his peril. Of course, the old trail horse had done this trail thousands of times and had no interest in going off the cliff. She calmly negotiated the turn and life went on.
The analogy is to show the the relationship between our consciousness (rider), a fairly recent add to our wetware package (in the evolutionist view), and the vast majority of our mental apparatus honed by millions of years of successful selection. Our chances of controlling "the elephant" (subconscious) by force are zero. Our only hope is to learn how to lovingly train the elephant to operate more as a team with our consciousness. The theme of the book is how this has been relatively understood for millennia and there is much wisdom on how to do this which can now be validated and improved upon by modern science.
Shakespeare said: "There is nothing either good or bad but, but thinking makes it so". Buddha said: "Our life is a creation of the mind". Unfortunately, science shows us that we are biased to think the wrong things. We tend to focus on threats that aren't there and useless worry. Three techniques are proposed for dealing with this problem: Meditation, Cognitive Therapy, and "Prozac" (SSRIs Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitor drugs). All of these work to varying degrees and all can work together. The objective is for the conscious mind and the "elephant" to learn to work as a team rather than fighting -- all three methods help calm a nervous or morose "elephant" (subconscious).
There is a chapter on reciprocity, which is basically "the golden rule". It turns out it really does seem to be written on our souls, and there is no better way to get people to do something for you than to do something for them (or in the case of politics, promise to force OTHER people do something nice for them!). One of the big problems with human society is that of the "free rider" -- someone that doesn't follow reciprocity. Sanctions, gossip, and possibly a lot of our brain size is involved in operating as a cooperative group, but minimizing "free riders" -- at least it WAS that way up until Bernie Sanders! ;-)
I liked the explanation of "naive realism". "Each of us thinks we see the world as it really is. We further believe that the facts as we see them are there for all to see, therefore others should agree with us." We see everyone else as impacted by ideology and self interest -- but WE are unbiased! As I try to point out, this is INESCAPABLE -- the best we can do is be aware of it and do our best to understand the arguments our "opponents" use. If you are in the dominant ideology position, it is MUCH harder to see the "other side", since it tends to be simply discounted as it is less popular, and in modern times we have been drilled to believe that "the most votes is right! At least until they elect "the wrong guy", like Reagan -- then the masses are "manipulated", "poorly educated", etc. Our founders of course chose to form a REPUBLIC not a "democracy" because they agree -- the mass can be wrong!
Late in the book there is a chapter that discusses how we are "wired for religion". Since Haidt is an atheist, and a pure evolutionist, the reason we are that way must be "group selection". It turns out that religion and it's shared rules are an excellent way to make much larger groups of people operate more optimally. Even better when it is backed up by perceived supernatural sanction.
I chuckle a bit here -- sadly, that a brilliant pure evolutionist sees pretty clearly that large groups of people that believe in a supernatural God that has provided them with rules that they all must follow even when nobody's looking, and has eternal significance is BETTER, as in "more adaptive". So the universe "randomly" works out so that the most adaptive course of action happens to be belief in God -- so "smart people" should fight that naturally occurring adaptive concept! Perhaps they ought to give up sex as well? (it is also natural and adaptive)
Twist your head over to environmentalism and the LAST thing that ought to be done is "fighting nature"! If it is "natural", the assumption of the left (and science) is that "going against nature" is EVIL! The only consistency in situational ethics is that it is inconsistent.
While Haidt clearly doesn't say it, that means that that Christianity USED to have an "adaptive advantage", which we managed to kill in the west -- really a double advantage, since kids were a blessing and having large families was a good thing. Now Islam has that advantage -- and hmmm, it is on the rise! Doesn't seem that one would need to be a particularly brilliant evolutionist to explain that one!
In any case, the book is EXCELLENT! It is one of my top recommendations for understanding human nature.
I blogged on this once before, but since only a couple of people read it at that time I decided to update and post again. It is one of my favorite books relative to both ancient wisdom and what science is finding about the way our brains are organized.
The subtitle of the book is "Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom" and the author is Jonathan Haidt. I LOVED the recommendation from the father of the Positive Psychology Movement (Martin Seligman) who stated; "For the reader who seeks to understand happiness, my advice is: Begin with Haidt." ;-) (it actually isn't pronounced "hate", it is pronounced "height" ... but still funny)
I love the metaphor that he uses and the picture on the cover, a shadowy view of a rider on a swimming elephant. Haidt had gone for a trail ride in the mountains as a youth, and has the horse neared a particularly steep cliff, he panicked that he didn't have the horse under control and didn't know what to do. For a brief few seconds he debated jumping off as he realized what he thought was his peril. Of course, the old trail horse had done this trail thousands of times and had no interest in going off the cliff. She calmly negotiated the turn and life went on.
The analogy is to show the the relationship between our consciousness (rider), a fairly recent add to our wetware package (in the evolutionist view), and the vast majority of our mental apparatus honed by millions of years of successful selection. Our chances of controlling "the elephant" (subconscious) by force are zero. Our only hope is to learn how to lovingly train the elephant to operate more as a team with our consciousness. The theme of the book is how this has been relatively understood for millennia and there is much wisdom on how to do this which can now be validated and improved upon by modern science.
Shakespeare said: "There is nothing either good or bad but, but thinking makes it so". Buddha said: "Our life is a creation of the mind". Unfortunately, science shows us that we are biased to think the wrong things. We tend to focus on threats that aren't there and useless worry. Three techniques are proposed for dealing with this problem: Meditation, Cognitive Therapy, and "Prozac" (SSRIs Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitor drugs). All of these work to varying degrees and all can work together. The objective is for the conscious mind and the "elephant" to learn to work as a team rather than fighting -- all three methods help calm a nervous or morose "elephant" (subconscious).
There is a chapter on reciprocity, which is basically "the golden rule". It turns out it really does seem to be written on our souls, and there is no better way to get people to do something for you than to do something for them (or in the case of politics, promise to force OTHER people do something nice for them!). One of the big problems with human society is that of the "free rider" -- someone that doesn't follow reciprocity. Sanctions, gossip, and possibly a lot of our brain size is involved in operating as a cooperative group, but minimizing "free riders" -- at least it WAS that way up until Bernie Sanders! ;-)
I liked the explanation of "naive realism". "Each of us thinks we see the world as it really is. We further believe that the facts as we see them are there for all to see, therefore others should agree with us." We see everyone else as impacted by ideology and self interest -- but WE are unbiased! As I try to point out, this is INESCAPABLE -- the best we can do is be aware of it and do our best to understand the arguments our "opponents" use. If you are in the dominant ideology position, it is MUCH harder to see the "other side", since it tends to be simply discounted as it is less popular, and in modern times we have been drilled to believe that "the most votes is right! At least until they elect "the wrong guy", like Reagan -- then the masses are "manipulated", "poorly educated", etc. Our founders of course chose to form a REPUBLIC not a "democracy" because they agree -- the mass can be wrong!
Late in the book there is a chapter that discusses how we are "wired for religion". Since Haidt is an atheist, and a pure evolutionist, the reason we are that way must be "group selection". It turns out that religion and it's shared rules are an excellent way to make much larger groups of people operate more optimally. Even better when it is backed up by perceived supernatural sanction.
I chuckle a bit here -- sadly, that a brilliant pure evolutionist sees pretty clearly that large groups of people that believe in a supernatural God that has provided them with rules that they all must follow even when nobody's looking, and has eternal significance is BETTER, as in "more adaptive". So the universe "randomly" works out so that the most adaptive course of action happens to be belief in God -- so "smart people" should fight that naturally occurring adaptive concept! Perhaps they ought to give up sex as well? (it is also natural and adaptive)
Twist your head over to environmentalism and the LAST thing that ought to be done is "fighting nature"! If it is "natural", the assumption of the left (and science) is that "going against nature" is EVIL! The only consistency in situational ethics is that it is inconsistent.
While Haidt clearly doesn't say it, that means that that Christianity USED to have an "adaptive advantage", which we managed to kill in the west -- really a double advantage, since kids were a blessing and having large families was a good thing. Now Islam has that advantage -- and hmmm, it is on the rise! Doesn't seem that one would need to be a particularly brilliant evolutionist to explain that one!
In any case, the book is EXCELLENT! It is one of my top recommendations for understanding human nature.
Predictions, Strongest Hurricane Ever
CHART: Is Hurricane Patricia The Strongest Hurricane Ever? : The Two-Way : NPR:
We awoke yesterday AM to news that "the strongest hurricane ever" was bearing down on Mexico. Those of us with some skepticism always have the thought cross our mind ... "ever"? Just how long is that?
Turns out "ever" in this case is sometime in the 1970's.
We awoke today to discover that there was no loss of life at all, very little property damage, and Patricia is no longer even a hurricane, but has been downgraded to a lowly "Tropical Depression", not even worthy of being a "Tropical Storm".
'via Blog this'
We awoke yesterday AM to news that "the strongest hurricane ever" was bearing down on Mexico. Those of us with some skepticism always have the thought cross our mind ... "ever"? Just how long is that?
Turns out "ever" in this case is sometime in the 1970's.
"To make things easier, Klotzbach looked at just U.S. data, and he came to the conclusion that this is the strongest hurricane since the 1970s, when wind measurements are reliable."Patricia formed very rapidly, it was not predicted to be nearly that strong, so we only had to deal with a single day of maximum hype as to it's likely devastation -- "catastrophic" was a word prominently displayed. Some might question our ability to predict climate decades and even centuries in advance when within a 48 hour period our current weather prediction capability goes from "storm" to "worst ever" to "tropical depression".
We awoke today to discover that there was no loss of life at all, very little property damage, and Patricia is no longer even a hurricane, but has been downgraded to a lowly "Tropical Depression", not even worthy of being a "Tropical Storm".
Patricia, which at its peak was a massive Category 5 storm with 200-mph winds before making landfall, quickly tapered as it crossed mountainous terrain and withered into a tropical storm early Saturday. By mid-morning, it had been downgraded further to a tropical depression.As always with stories like this, there are two explanations -- incompetence and/or having an agenda. I'm sure this story has lots of both -- the rapid rise of the storm shows how little we really know about even weather, let alone climate. The hype shows how starved the media is to report "massive strong storms" that we were assured would be commonplace after Katrina. The ease with which these are foisted on a largely compliant population shows the extent to which the vast majority of people are simply pawns being told what to think by the dominant political party.
'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)