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'
Tuesday, November 03, 2015
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'
Friday, October 23, 2015
Politics vs Football
Benghazi and Character - WSJ:
I'm a Packer Fan -- but I have been accused on occasion of not being "true enough" when it comes to some of the officiating calls made. Often I can see how some call could have gone for or against the Pack, but for "true fans", the Pack receiver was always "mugged" even though there was no call made, but when it goes the other way, the Packer defender "never touched him" ... everything is perceived through the eyes of being fan.
In Football, that is fine -- the fans are the fans and the game is the game. There are no "votes" on calls, how the fans happen to see it affects the game not one bit. But Politics was not SUPPOSED to be a game! It is supposed to be an example of how large groups of people can have REASONABLE input to the governance of what used to be a great nation.
From my perspective, Watergate was a turning point. Plenty of Politicians did things worse than Watergate prior to Nixon, but media had grown more powerful and biased, Nixon was hated by the left, and the Democrats were licking their wounds after being so completely in charge of government from '64 - '68 that the Republican Party was irrelevant. It was their time and Republicans thought "it was for the good of the country". It was only good for the rise of "The Party" and a more leftist media.
In the '80s, political attack became a way of life for the left -- Iran Contra and the electronic lynching of Clarence Thomas were the biggest examples. In '88, Rush Limbaugh went on the air nationally, and in '96, Fox News joined the right side of the fray, and the perspective of the right was covered for average Americans. Issues developed two sides -- which the leftward establishment and those that cheer for the left has never really come to grips with. To the American intelligentsia, there is left -- which is CORRECT, and right, which is evil, misinformed, dishonest, dangerous, and needs to be SILENCED!
As the linked article laments, even in the case of the completely obvious -- Hillary knew that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, not an uprising due to a film, yet she, Susan Rice, and even BO spouted a lie for a number of days because they saw it as politically prudent.
Prior to Watergate, one might believe that "reasonable God fearing Americans" of EITHER PARTY would not put up with such mendacity and would NEVER consider someone involved for president, and would likely even seek to have BO removed. Nixon's greatest sin was supposed to be "He lied to the American people".
I would like to believe that we were better once, but it is absolutely clear we no longer are. Is there a lot of "political motivation" in the Benghazi hearings? Absolutely -- as there was in Watergate, Iran Contra, the Clarence Thomas Hearings, Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, Valerie Plame, etc, etc.
THE ISSUE is if there are any political RULES, or if unlike Football, politics can be played with "The Party" being the rules committee, officiating staff and calling the games. As if the NFL was controlled from Green Bay (or some other franchise), and everyone else had to be happy with that.
The bottom line is that the vast majority of the media and well over half the country really don't care that Hillary ... and BO for that matter can lie right to their faces for political purposes. The Party is "their team", so they want everything called in favor of The Party. The Party gives them Free Stuff, assures them that things can keep going on with 10's of Trillions of debt and more in unfunded liabilities, a sputtering economy, and a third of the people not working with more not working every day, and "it will be fine".
So democracy has failed. We no longer care if leadership has even the most basic element of character, that of truthfulness. We are a nation of fans for a political point of view, and the only interest is in "winning" even if we can be completely assured that we can't trust a single thing that our "leadership" utters.
We definitely have got the government we so richly deserve!
'via Blog this'
I'm a Packer Fan -- but I have been accused on occasion of not being "true enough" when it comes to some of the officiating calls made. Often I can see how some call could have gone for or against the Pack, but for "true fans", the Pack receiver was always "mugged" even though there was no call made, but when it goes the other way, the Packer defender "never touched him" ... everything is perceived through the eyes of being fan.
In Football, that is fine -- the fans are the fans and the game is the game. There are no "votes" on calls, how the fans happen to see it affects the game not one bit. But Politics was not SUPPOSED to be a game! It is supposed to be an example of how large groups of people can have REASONABLE input to the governance of what used to be a great nation.
From my perspective, Watergate was a turning point. Plenty of Politicians did things worse than Watergate prior to Nixon, but media had grown more powerful and biased, Nixon was hated by the left, and the Democrats were licking their wounds after being so completely in charge of government from '64 - '68 that the Republican Party was irrelevant. It was their time and Republicans thought "it was for the good of the country". It was only good for the rise of "The Party" and a more leftist media.
In the '80s, political attack became a way of life for the left -- Iran Contra and the electronic lynching of Clarence Thomas were the biggest examples. In '88, Rush Limbaugh went on the air nationally, and in '96, Fox News joined the right side of the fray, and the perspective of the right was covered for average Americans. Issues developed two sides -- which the leftward establishment and those that cheer for the left has never really come to grips with. To the American intelligentsia, there is left -- which is CORRECT, and right, which is evil, misinformed, dishonest, dangerous, and needs to be SILENCED!
As the linked article laments, even in the case of the completely obvious -- Hillary knew that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, not an uprising due to a film, yet she, Susan Rice, and even BO spouted a lie for a number of days because they saw it as politically prudent.
Prior to Watergate, one might believe that "reasonable God fearing Americans" of EITHER PARTY would not put up with such mendacity and would NEVER consider someone involved for president, and would likely even seek to have BO removed. Nixon's greatest sin was supposed to be "He lied to the American people".
I would like to believe that we were better once, but it is absolutely clear we no longer are. Is there a lot of "political motivation" in the Benghazi hearings? Absolutely -- as there was in Watergate, Iran Contra, the Clarence Thomas Hearings, Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, Valerie Plame, etc, etc.
THE ISSUE is if there are any political RULES, or if unlike Football, politics can be played with "The Party" being the rules committee, officiating staff and calling the games. As if the NFL was controlled from Green Bay (or some other franchise), and everyone else had to be happy with that.
The bottom line is that the vast majority of the media and well over half the country really don't care that Hillary ... and BO for that matter can lie right to their faces for political purposes. The Party is "their team", so they want everything called in favor of The Party. The Party gives them Free Stuff, assures them that things can keep going on with 10's of Trillions of debt and more in unfunded liabilities, a sputtering economy, and a third of the people not working with more not working every day, and "it will be fine".
So democracy has failed. We no longer care if leadership has even the most basic element of character, that of truthfulness. We are a nation of fans for a political point of view, and the only interest is in "winning" even if we can be completely assured that we can't trust a single thing that our "leadership" utters.
We definitely have got the government we so richly deserve!
'via Blog this'
Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei Wants BO Prosecuted
Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei’s Letter Of Guidelines To President Rohani On JCPOA Sets Nine Conditions Nullifying Original Agreement Announced July 14, 2015 |
However, W wasn't handing over nukes to such people as BO has with the Iranians -- his buddies ... that want him in jail.
I have to admit that the Iranians seem much smarter on this topic than a lot of Americans -- but who really cares? Global Warming is a MUCH bigger threat than Islamist nutcases with nukes and ICBMS!
'via Blog this'
"It should be further noted that in his introduction to the new conditions, Khamenei attacks the U.S. and President Obama with great hostility, and calls for Obama to be prosecuted by international judiciary institutions. "The US press was always forthcoming with any idiot from anywhere around the globe that thought that "Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted for war crimes". Naturally, "The Party" and it's media arm thought that was a jolly good idea.
However, W wasn't handing over nukes to such people as BO has with the Iranians -- his buddies ... that want him in jail.
I have to admit that the Iranians seem much smarter on this topic than a lot of Americans -- but who really cares? Global Warming is a MUCH bigger threat than Islamist nutcases with nukes and ICBMS!
'via Blog this'
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Double Damned Ryan
Ryan’s words show why he’ll be a bad Speaker | Power Line:
The Speaker situation in the House is a classic case of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't".
I like Paul Ryan as a person, and I think he is generally brilliant -- possibly a bit too much so. I also think he has fallen for the MSM / Democrat play book and thinks that "government fixes things". It does, it "fixes things" so everyone on average has MUCH less than they would otherwise, and a LOT less freedom to boot!
The article is worth the time to read. THE PROBLEM is that no matter how much we conservatives would like to get "the best possible speaker", it is a VERY big problem for the Republican Party to be unable to govern the chief piece of government that it has in it's power! People don't elect people to fail to even be able to select their own leadership!
The situation is grim -- we have a far left incompetent president, a country that has slouched FAR to the left, an avowed Socialist doing well on the D ticket with the most scurrilous, dissembling, unappealing harpy imaginable tacking to get left of him!
Meanwhile, the Republican Party has a reality TV Star wealthy obnoxious gadfly leading in the polls, followed by a very likeable and upstanding BRAIN SURGEON (note, not an executive, not a politician ...).
The Republican establishment is pretty much "Socialist lite" -- give the government growing, maybe just a little slower than the D's ... and then of course we have the Tea Party, Freedom Caucus, etc whose hearts are in what I see as the right place, but whose political acumen is sadly lacking.
Given the situation, I'm starting to think not much makes a difference -- Trump or Hillary, most likely with either we are going to continue to search for the bottom! On the bright side, maybe it will all be over before 2016 and we won't have to watch the election!
Ah, starvation, I need lose some weight. Anyone have any good recipes for roast rat?
'via Blog this'
The Speaker situation in the House is a classic case of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't".
I like Paul Ryan as a person, and I think he is generally brilliant -- possibly a bit too much so. I also think he has fallen for the MSM / Democrat play book and thinks that "government fixes things". It does, it "fixes things" so everyone on average has MUCH less than they would otherwise, and a LOT less freedom to boot!
The article is worth the time to read. THE PROBLEM is that no matter how much we conservatives would like to get "the best possible speaker", it is a VERY big problem for the Republican Party to be unable to govern the chief piece of government that it has in it's power! People don't elect people to fail to even be able to select their own leadership!
The situation is grim -- we have a far left incompetent president, a country that has slouched FAR to the left, an avowed Socialist doing well on the D ticket with the most scurrilous, dissembling, unappealing harpy imaginable tacking to get left of him!
Meanwhile, the Republican Party has a reality TV Star wealthy obnoxious gadfly leading in the polls, followed by a very likeable and upstanding BRAIN SURGEON (note, not an executive, not a politician ...).
The Republican establishment is pretty much "Socialist lite" -- give the government growing, maybe just a little slower than the D's ... and then of course we have the Tea Party, Freedom Caucus, etc whose hearts are in what I see as the right place, but whose political acumen is sadly lacking.
Given the situation, I'm starting to think not much makes a difference -- Trump or Hillary, most likely with either we are going to continue to search for the bottom! On the bright side, maybe it will all be over before 2016 and we won't have to watch the election!
Ah, starvation, I need lose some weight. Anyone have any good recipes for roast rat?
'via Blog this'
12 Time Loser Kills Black Officer
'Hardened, Violent Criminal' Who Allegedly Killed NYPD Officer With Shot to Head Should Never Have Been on Street: Mayor | NBC New York:
You probably have heard that a NY Policeman was shot and killed. The officer was black, as was the perpetrator. The perpetrator had also been in jail 12 times -- no "3 strikes" there. Even lefty Mayor De Blasio said "He should have never been on the street".
Say what? We are hell bent for election to release 6K multiple time loser convicted felons in short order and passing bills to release 10's of thousands more!
All because the black vote isn't energized enough for 2016 and there are some polls showing Trump getting 25% of the black vote. Polls at this point are all over, but you can bet that the D's are concerned about even the POTENTIAL for a 25% number -- it would be death for their candidate.
Thus, we will release violent offenders and likely lose more officers -- for TP, votes matter, lives don't!
'via Blog this'
You probably have heard that a NY Policeman was shot and killed. The officer was black, as was the perpetrator. The perpetrator had also been in jail 12 times -- no "3 strikes" there. Even lefty Mayor De Blasio said "He should have never been on the street".
Say what? We are hell bent for election to release 6K multiple time loser convicted felons in short order and passing bills to release 10's of thousands more!
All because the black vote isn't energized enough for 2016 and there are some polls showing Trump getting 25% of the black vote. Polls at this point are all over, but you can bet that the D's are concerned about even the POTENTIAL for a 25% number -- it would be death for their candidate.
Thus, we will release violent offenders and likely lose more officers -- for TP, votes matter, lives don't!
'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)