Search This Blog

Sunday, December 4, 2016

What does the Left want?

Looking at recent history and the disastrous decisions of our current president I was troubled by an unanswered question. What does the left actually want? Obviously they desire the downfall of the United States. That goes without saying. Equally, they desire the triumph of those who oppose success. Every success story must end in misery. Every good deed must be punished. Every vicious troglodyte, hating life itself, must be helped along his way.

Family? Families are a source of strength. People learn language, morals, character, and structure sitting at the dinner table. Get rid of them. Religion? Religion is a source of strength. People learn honesty, integrity, love, and meaning sitting in their pews. Get rid of them. School? Schools teach strength. They teach coping, language, honesty, and meaning. Change them. Let students learn hopelessness, dishonesty, and weakness. If a woman has a baby in her womb, convince her to have it murdered. If a man has a penis, convince him to have it severed. Turn public bathrooms into public theaters where androgynous misanthropes enact their various melodramas. Never let a single person just be content. Poke and prod at us endlessly. Whirl us about from one moment to the next until all we know is confusion and discontent.

If you are a member of the left it makes you happy when things change. "Change is good" is the left's credo. When the rich become poor and the poor become rich, that is good. When gold becomes dross and dross becomes gold, it is good. If the helpless become independent, and those who have always coped become incapable of coping, that is good. Mindless change is good. Change for the sake of changing is good.

The left are crazy people with an obsessive-compulsive disorder that leaves them dissatisfied with every possible status quo. Everything must change, constantly. Everything must move or be moved, constantly.

The culmination of left-wing control would be constant unnecessary change at every possible moment. For instance, if Joe decided to sit down at his table to eat breakfast, a complete stranger would abruptly decide that his table was in the wrong place for breakfast. No! The stranger would abruptly change his mind and decide that the table itself needed to be changed! Would he think it too tall? No too short! The complete stranger would need help making up his mind. This would call for a group-think committee. Several months later, after The Committee To Change Joe's Breakfast Table finished its deliberations, the table would end up sitting on four cinder-blocks while Joe ended up eating the remainder of his breakfast standing up. And may God help the poor soul who decided to take a bath!

Friday, December 2, 2016

It has always been that way

I remember back about twenty years ago, I didn't have a car and so I needed rides to and from work. My grandfather was kind enough to taxi me around. He always turned off the expressway, took a back street and then got back on the expressway a few miles down the road. One day I asked him why he did that. He told me it was because that was how you got there. "But why not stay on the expressway?" "Because you can't get there from here. It's always been this way. The expressway doesn't go anywhere. They haven't finished it yet. Maybe one day they finally will." (They'd finished the expressway a decade earlier.) I stopped questioning the route after that. If somebody has a way of doing things that you think isn't right, you have to first know a better way, and second a way that the person will understand and agree to.

We sometimes question the efficacy of a given procedure. We ask others, family, friends, God, anybody, why. Why? Why does it have to be done like this? Often if they have an answer it's simply that it is done this way because it has always been done this way. Allow me, please, to paint you a portrait of this concept in action. Consider this simple thought experiment:

The monkey cage and the firehose

Imagine that once upon a time there was a zoo. In this zoo was a cage filled with twenty or so chimpanzees. Also in the zoo was a zoo keeper who hated those happy chimps. Who knows why? Maybe he was hit too many times in the face with hunks of chimp poo. Maybe he was bitten. It doesn't matter. Leave it be. Simply believe that he hated those chimps with a single-minded passion that would brook no entreaty with logical concepts such as reason. In addition to this burgeoning obsession, he was also bent ... bent as in twisted emotionally ... perhaps even completely tipped over—as one might say—into stark-raving lunacy. And so, after much thought, hundreds of crumpled pages of doodles—not to mention a never-ending stream of high-pitched teary-eyed giggles—he eventually conceived of his diabolical plan to revenge himself upon these furry demons. He would succeed in torturing these chimps he so hated, from that day and onward into ...forever!

The zoo-keeper brought a hacksaw, rope, a large bunch of bananas to the chimpanzee enclosure. He carefully and with much fussing about cut a hole through the roof of the enclosure so that from the outside, he could lower the bananas down on a rope. The chimps jumped as high as they could, but they weren't even close to reaching those delicious looking bananas. They hooted and hollered for a while, signaling their displeasure at the so close but not close enough temptation. This made the zookeeper smile. Now then, you might think that this, what the zookeeper had done was a small and mean thing to do, but you see, in actuality he had only just begun!

The next day having tortured the hungry chimps with the sight and aroma of fresh bananas for a full day and a night, he attached the zoo's fire hose to a hydrant near the chimpanzee enclosure. Next he took in an A-frame ladder, one tall enough so that a chimpanzee climbing to the top could just reach the bananas. Then he left the enclosure, picked up the nozzle end of the hose and waited.

As sure as night follows day, eventually an enterprising young chimp became interested in the ladder. He grabbed a hold of it and began climbing. Soon enough he reached the top, looked up, and reached out with a hairy hand to grab a fistful of bananas.

"DENIED!" screamed the zoo-keeper as he let that chimp have it with a powerful blast from the fire-hose. "DENIED!" he screamed as he spent ten more minutes torturing every chimp in the enclosure. He rolled them ass over elbow, giggling his teary-eyed high-pitched giggle, as the chimps screamed and hooted and ran pell-mell about, climbing over each other, whimpering, crying a sad chimp cry. Yes the image painted here leaves little doubt that the zoo-keeper truly hated these chimps.

This went on for days. Eventually the chimps stopped climbing the ladder. They'd had enough. The bananas were as far out of reach as the moon in the sky. More out of reach it must be said, because after all you could grab fruitlessly at the moon and not end up being rolled ass over elbow by a maniac with a fire-hose.

So we pause here and consider the situation: cage, chimps, bananas, ladder, hose, and maniac. They were trained these chimps. You seriously DO NOT climb the ladder. Now we get to the truly diabolical part.

The zoo-keeper traded out a chimp. One trained chimp gone. One untrained chimp brought in. What do you suppose happened next? Yes! The new chimp went for the ladder! DENIED! He-He-He-He-He! Angry chimps beat the crap out of the new chimp. The new chimp figured out the deal in record time. Next the zoo-keeper did another trade. DENIED!!! Another chimp brought in. This time as soon as the new chimp set foot on the ladder, the whole troop beat him down without mercy. Trained without a drop of water. If chimps could talk I bet they would be screaming "DENIED!" Another trade. And another. And another. a couple of years later and there wasn't a single chimp left in the cage that had ever been soaked by the crazy zoo-keeper and his fire-hose. But still week after week, as brown bananas were pulled out and fresh bananas lowered down, not one chimp dared climb that ladder. None of them knew why they all still beat the living crap out of any upstart chimp who dared to climb too high. It had always just been that way.

The zoo-keeper allowed the chimps themselves—that he so hated—to exact vicious retribution in perpetuity for whatever crime it was which the original chimp had committed upon the person of the zoo-keeper.

I wrote this because I was trying to illustrate the stupidity inherent in our foreign relations with China and other countries. The news is full of how stupid Donald Trump is for daring to speak to the President of Taiwan. We don't want to make the Chinese angry! They might tariff our goods at rates of fifty to one-hundred percent or even higher! They might rattle sabers, build more nukes, threaten our friends, make deals with our enemies, hack our computers... oh wait!
President-elect Donald Trump spoke by phone Friday with Tsai Ying-wen, the president of Taiwan. The call was the first in more than 30 years between an American president-elect and a leader of the semi-autonomous island.

According to a readout of the call from the Trump transition team, Tsai congratulated Trump on his victory, and the two discussed “the close economic, political, and security ties exists between Taiwan and the United States.”

But the Trump team’s description of the call belies the fact that the conversation has the potential to upset three decades of relations between the United States and its most important global trading partner.

China, the United States and most of the international community consider Taiwan to be a Chinese territory. But Taiwan, with its own elected government, constitution and military, considers itself an independent nation.

In recognition of China’s claim to sovereignty over Taiwan, the U.S. cut diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979. Trump’s call will likely enrage Beijing, and stands to damage U.S. relations with Chine before Trump even takes office.

“The Chinese leadership will see this as a highly provocative action, of historic proportions,” Evan Medeiros, a former Asia director at the White House national security council, told the Financial Times, which first reported the call Friday afternoon.
Do the people complaining about the "provocative action" even know why we were so obsequious for so long? Has servile suck-uppery ever gotten anyone anything in the long run? Isn't it finally time to take those bananas?

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

The Consensus Who Cried Wolf

Once upon a time there wasn't any oxygen. It was all CO2 and other oxides. So what about this "runaway greenhouse effect?" Why aren't we in the same boat as Venus? Simple. Somehow plants evolved which could convert that prehistorically massive volume of CO2 into Oxygen. [At this point somebody invariably spouts off with the factoid that plants don't directly convert CO2 into oxygen. That it's more complicated, involving H2O, and sunlight, creating carbohydrates, etc.] If you wade into the morass of chemical transmutations that occur, what you eventually discover is that plants take the carbon out of CO2 as a part of of their food creation and respiration. Like I said, plants convert CO2 into oxygen.

Global Warming, Climate Change, Armageddon, these are just a few end of the world scenarios that could conceivably come to pass in the near or distant future. A consensus of environmental scientists—i.e. most environmental scientists—claim they believe that rising CO2 levels threaten life on earth with catastrophic possibilities, from massive flooding to increasingly violent weather patterns to extinction level events around the globe. It could be true. Nevertheless, in spite of increasingly strident claims to the contrary, the science is not in fact settled, at all. The clarion call from the ecological hoi palloi may simply be nothing more than the bored little shepherd tricking the gullible villagers with yet another wolf cry.
Donald Trump will be about the only head of state who does not believe in climate science or the responsibility of his government to act,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, which signed up more members in the week after Trump won the election than during the rest of 2016 combined. “This makes the Bush-Cheney administration look like it came from an environmental training camp.”

But Trump may be picking a tougher fight than he knows. The last time the White House made the kind of retreat Trump envisions – when President Bush walked away from the Kyoto protocol in 2001 – the policy landscape of climate change was drastically different.

Much of the action on climate change in this country no longer plays out in federal agencies but at local commissions enforcing laws in 29 states that push public utilities to go green. Their mandates are to encourage investment in cleaner plants and technology development.

Major U.S. trading partners that signed on to the nearly 200-nation accord reached in Paris last year are already signaling that they will retaliate if the United States backs out, possibly by slapping environmental trade tariffs onto some American products.

To put it simply, because plants grow more swiftly in the presence of more CO2, the total surface area of photosynthetic effect increases at a nearly geometric rate as more CO2 becomes available, thereby rapidly metabolizing the excess CO2. Life on Earth is not in fragile balance. We don't walk a tightrope. It's more like a Golden Gate Bridge. Sunlight—heat—is used as an energy source to create food and Oxygen. We know for a fact that long before there was enough Oxygen on Earth for animals to exist, plants of various kinds were busy doing exactly that. As life on Earth began, consider how much CO2 was floating around. Then plants started doing their thing. The amount of CO2 before life began was vastly more than 0.04%, the level that scientists are busy shitting themselves over today.
Global greening is the name given to a gradual, but large, increase in green vegetation on the planet over the past three decades. The climate change lobby is keen to ensure that if you hear about it at all, you hear that it is a minor thing, dwarfed by the dangers of global warming. Actually, it could be the other way round: greening is a bigger effect than warming.

It is a story in which I have been both vilified and vindicated. Four years ago, I came across an online video of a lecture given by Ranga Myneni of Boston University in which he presented an ingenious analysis of data from satellites. This proved that much of the vegetated area of the planet was getting greener, and only a little bit was getting browner. In fact, overall in 30 years, the green vegetation on planet Earth had increased by a rather extraordinary 14 per cent. He said this was occurring in all vegetation types — from tropical rainforests to arctic tundra.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Predictive methods may accurately predict yet still be incorrect

You're probably aware of the troubling behavior exhibited by insensitive police officers of profiling potential law-breakers by taking into account such unrelated factors, as race, sex, age, and demeanor. After all, what's really more important, treating everyone equally no matter their ethnicity sex and age, or preventing crime? (That was an obvious rhetorical question which you should have answered by shouting "treating everyone equally," of course.)

All the science, the statistics, examining trends, behaviors, attitudes, patriotism, educational backgrounds, marital status, economic achievement, etc., is irrelevant, when they make us lose sight of the bigger picture. That "bigger" picture is everyone of all races, walking hand-in-hand into a brighter future. Would you rather be proud of your open-minded inclusiveness, or safe? (Another obvious rhetorical question ... who needs safety when you can have sanctimony?)

Forget for a moment that in certain areas of town you are much more likely to be beaten, raped, murdered, mugged, or maybe just randomly shot in a drive-by. Pay no attention to the overwhelming likelihood that the criminals who harm you will probably be males age thirteen to twenty-five. The natural inclination to view the overwhelmingly predominant racial make-up of more dangerous neighborhoods, the criminality exhibited by the various age groups, the criminality displayed by the respective genders, etc., is called profiling, and while it may be accurately predictive, it's still wrong!

Perusing the various new-feeds, the following headline jumped out. "TROUBLING STUDY SAYS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CAN PREDICT WHO WILL BE CRIMINALS BASED ON FACIAL FEATURES." The article goes on to thoroughly debunk the "study." How—you might well ask—did the journalist writing for—Sam Biddle—debunk the quoted "TROUBLING STUDY"? Well, let's find out, shall we?
THE FIELDS OF artificial intelligence and machine learning are moving so quickly that any notion of ethics is lagging decades behind, or left to works of science fiction. This might explain a new study out of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, which says computers can tell whether you will be a criminal based on nothing more than your facial features.

The bankrupt attempt to infer moral qualities from physiology was a popular pursuit for millennia, particularly among those who wanted to justify the supremacy of one racial group over another. But phrenology, which involved studying the cranium to determine someone’s character and intelligence, was debunked around the time of the Industrial Revolution, and few outside of the pseudo-scientific fringe would still claim that the shape of your mouth or size of your eyelids might predict whether you’ll become a rapist or thief.

Not so in the modern age of Artificial Intelligence, apparently: In a paper titled “Automated Inference on Criminality using Face Images,” two Shanghai Jiao Tong University researchers say they fed “facial images of 1,856 real persons” into computers and found “some discriminating structural features for predicting criminality, such as lip curvature, eye inner corner distance, and the so-called nose-mouth angle.” They conclude that “all four classifiers perform consistently well and produce evidence for the validity of automated face-induced inference on criminality, despite the historical controversy surrounding the topic.”

The study contains virtually no discussion of why there is a “historical controversy” over this kind of analysis — namely, that it was debunked hundreds of years ago. Rather, the Authors trot out another discredited argument to support their main claims:, that computers can’t be racist, because they’re computers: Absent, too, is any discussion of the incredible potential for abuse of this software by law enforcement.

Kate Crawford, an AI researcher with Microsoft Research New York, MIT, and NYU, told The Intercept, “I‘d call this paper literal phrenology, it’s just using modern tools of supervised machine learning instead of calipers. It’s dangerous pseudoscience.”

Crawford cautioned that “as we move further into an era of police body cameras and predictive policing, it’s important to critically assess the problematic and unethical uses of machine learning to make spurious correlations,” adding that it’s clear the authors “know it’s ethically and scientifically problematic, but their ‘curiosity’ was more important.”
Well, there you have it. This study was debunked because a quasi-related field—"phrenology"—was debunked more than a century ago. Case closed. Nothing to see here. Did they succeed? you might ask. Did the authors of the study accurately predict whether the subjects in the study exhibited criminality? You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether the science works, what matters is how we feel about the fairness of that science.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

It's time for war! It's time for a draft!

I'll start by saying that it'll never happen. Instead our country will continue to die the death of a thousand stupid decisions made for every good one. Our rulers will continue throwing good money after bad, and telling us who we aren't.

The truth is, that whether the President of the USA is Trump or Hillary, at this point, doesn't matter. Does it really matter at this point which way somebody decides to rearrange the deck chairs? Does it make a difference whether it is this turd or that one which disappears down the bowl first?

President Trump could turn things around, but he wont. He wont or he wont be able to. In order to save America, Trump would have to move both houses of Congress to make a decision that would almost certainly cause all of them to lose their seats in the next election. He would also have to convince a shrill and selfish population that their own desires, wishes, and personal situations would necessarily have to be supplanted by the vastly more important needs of our descendants. To every American, Trump's response to those who are hungry today because they have no food, would have to be this: I'm not going to let you selfishly trade your children's freedom tomorrow, for a full belly today.

Gluttonous couch-potatoes wouldn't hear Trump's actual words, they'd only hear the diabolical echo of a mad queen from the past: Qu'ils mangent de la brioche ... "Let them eat cake."

I'll lay it our for you in plain terms which you wont like, wont agree with, and certainly wouldn't accept if it actually happened—which it wont.

We have to raise taxes. Taxes on everyone. On the rich, the middle-class, and the poor. For the rich this would happen by eliminating a host of write-offs and raising capital gains taxes. For the poor it means a national sales tax. For the middleclass ... it means a higher social-security contribution.

We have to cut expenses. We can't afford forty-seven million people living on food stamps. (EBT cards) We can't afford to spend half-a-trillion dollars a year for the war on poverty. We can't afford to let able bodied Americans retire at 65. We can't afford to be the world's police ... unless the world is going to pay us for being their police. We can't afford millions and millions of non-working college graduates, non-working high-school graduates, and non-working high-school drop-outs to live in their parents' houses and contribute nothing at all.

Let me stop there, because it doesn't matter. Even if some genius could figure out some way to gainfully employ 92 million people who could work but choose not to, and another 15 million who are unemployed but looking for work, how would we get all these losers off their couches? How would we ever be able to pry those x-box controllers out of their selfish useless hands? How could we ever manage to make dyed-in-the-wool-worthless human beings suddenly become worth something?

It's hard to imagine, but there's 107 million able-bodied adults in America simply existing without a job. Of course a certain percentage of these are housewives, but that percentage is historically small, only 14 percent. That still leaves America with ninety million useless adult consumers of limited resources. These millions pay not a dime in taxes, yet still consume a basket of resources from a host of public and private sources.

Imagine it ... ninety million useless adults who have the freedom to do nothing at all. Ah, but these non-producers actually do certain things, don't they? These loud parasites feasting on the blood of our nation aren't sitting quietly in some corner. No! They complain; they apply for handouts; they protest; they camp out on Wall Street; they spread sexually transmitted diseases; they fornicate; they get abortions; they fornicate some more; they wear rainbow themed attire; they get high on drugs; they beg their parents for money; they beg random passers by on the street for money ... and oh they're so busy doing nothing at all that it would make your head spin to contemplate it! The list of useless things the useless do only for themselves is long and varied, but in the end, only selfish.

We've had lots of silly wars. Lyndon Baines Johnson began a "War on Poverty." If we could get back all the money spent on that sisyphean boondoggle, who knows, America would probably own the rest of the world by now. Whether it's a war on drugs, a war on terror, a war on crime, a war on this or a war on that. From time immemorial, we've gotten rid of our excess useless population by sending them to war against other useless populations. Then we discovered nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. We can't afford any more real wars. So what do we do with all these useless people?

I'm calling for a draft! A draft to fight a war. This will be the war to end all wars. It's a war against uselessness. It begins at the community level. Seasoned census workers combined with an army of failed pollsters, will hit the streets, knocking on doors. "Who lives here? Who has a job? How old are the ones who don't? What skills do they have? What jobs have they had?" Crosscheck the data from the Selective Service System. All this information is put into super-computers, and crunched. A new army is born. Call it whatever, something catchy and focus-group approved. Have them paint, clean, sweep, pull weeds, mow, carry this and that here and there. Make them security guards, dog-catchers, fireman helpers, train them, bid them out.

In fact a model already exists which at first blush seems ideal. If it was simply expanded on a massive scale ... who knows what they could accomplish! Americorps.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

MSM Full Court Press!

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city country is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
  1. Trump Groping Women
  2. Trump Clueless
  3. Trump is dangerous
  4. Trump is unfit for Presidency
  5. Republicans Flee from Trump-tanic
  6. Trump Campaign Imploding
In a one sentence concept, it is apparent upon reading the news, that Donald Trump is not supposed to be the President.

In another one sentence concept, it is apparent that no conservative will ever again be President.

When the media that inundates our every moment, spends every single one of those moments telling us who not to vote for, I don't see any path forward for a person who wants to make America Great competitive again.

America has a malignant cancer. It has metastasized into every working organ of our body politic. The name of this cancer is: "Main Stream Media." It will kill America, and that quite soon. I give America—as it was conceived, a constitutional republic—about five more years give or take a year. After that our creditors will come knocking. In the short term I foresee bread lines, mass starvation, mass rioting, looting, mass killings, and finally a mass economic emigration of every private manufacturer, deliverer, and provider of goods and services to anywhere else but the the USA.

When the dust has settled and our once upon a time free republic has been parceled out to the circling vultures, there will come a day when students will study the USA the way our own students have studied the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. They will write papers galore. People will get PhD's. I wonder if any of them will realize that it was the cast off wing of a failed socialist nation no longer listed on any map, that killed us. We won the cold battle, but we have lost the war.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Questions for mom

The Mote in God's Eye is a great book. You should read it. Not only that, but the plot illustrates something interesting that few people think about. To make a long story short, aliens send a spaceship to Earth. The science is legit. They use a laser and a giant solar sail to send a spaceship lightyears away from their own world. The journey takes hundreds of years. Generations live and die on this ship.


Generations live and die on this ship! Can you imagine such a thing? You learn to talk and finally ask mama, "So you had sex with dad, got pregnant, and gave birth to me? Knowing I'd live and finally die in this giant tin can. You decided before I was born that your child would exist only as a breeder for some future generation that might one day exist on another planet. I'm here to do some shitty job, impregnate some other selfish creature that exists only to stuff steadily declining resources into her greedy maw so that in her own time she can crap forth another hungry resource devourer? And all this on the faint hope that someday some distant progeny might colonize another shitty world? Did you ever stop and ask yourself whether you had that right?

The funny thing is don't have to be on a spaceship going to another solar system to ask the same questions to your mother.

Saturday, September 10, 2016

And now for something completely different...Seawheat

The future of the human race—if there will be a future—is out in space. Assuming we can capture and harvest comets containing the requisite elements, i.e. carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen—CHON—we can create food away from the Eden-like paradise we call Earth. Earthlings require air, food and water. Plants provide two out of three. Comets provide the last. If you want real space exploration, it all starts with lassoing a CHON comet. I'll leave the mechanics of that to NASA, but many people believe it can be done. Once we have a CHON asteroid or comet in Earth orbit, the space race will at long last, truly be underway.

Danger number one is the Sun. It regularly bombards the solar system with thick blankets of radiation. What this means, is that without protection, humans in space will die faster than a gerbil in a microwave. Interestingly enough, something as simple and as common as H2O can protect humans from this regularly emitted cloud of Sun wrath.

Once you have your habitat ready—I envision a spinning hamster-wheel-like vessel filled with water, harvested from your tame Earth orbiting comet—you need a food source. It must be energy rich. It must grow in water. It must convert CO2 into oxygen. If I'm a geneticist, I'm thinking kelp and wheat. Seawheat. Feed the Earth. End world hunger. Feed the astronauts up in Waterworld. Win win win win win!

Sunday, September 4, 2016

Get rid of health insurance!

I’m watching the GOP debate in NH. So far, the candidates’ ideas to fix health care have included:

  1. Repeal Obamacare 
  2. Allow purchase of health insurance over state lines
  3. De-couple health insurance from employment (How? Are employers going to be forced to continue paying for health insurance when someone loses their job? That will just make it ten times harder to get a new job…)
  4. Empower and expand Health Savings Account
Here’s the problem with all of the above ideas: cost. Health care itself is too expensive, which means insurance has to be expensive, too. So with the exception of allowing purchase of health insurance over state lines, most of the schemes above are the equivalent of playing musical chairs on the titanic. Health care is expensive because health care isn’t sold in a free market. You don’t purchase health care from private entities. No, you purchase health care from the health conglomerate – and they like to shut out new competition. The health conglomerate includes the FDA, the AMA, the US Patent Office, medical schools, state medical boards, and state-licensed medical professionals – all of whom have a vested interest to stop new medicines from reaching the marketplace, and to stop new small businesses from selling health care to consumers.
"Health care is too expensive." Yes. When steaks are too expensive you eat chicken, or pork, or fish, or peanut butter and jelly. You don't buy steaks. You know how much a steak used to cost. You evaluate the cost of everything else. You decide how much you really want a steak and, finally, you decide if it's worth it to you. It's not a perfect analogy. Not eating a steak or eating one is never going to be a life or death situation. Nevertheless, the underlying economic decisions are the same. How much is it worth and what does it cost?

I'll tell you something that's true and you tell me if I'm lying or telling the truth. It's true that you can call an ambulance right this second, make them come to your house, carry you to a hospital and at some point receive treatment either from that hospital or from a different hospital which they will also carry you to, and all of this without insurance, and all of this without one thin dime to your name. Is the preceding statement true or false?

Nephew Sam is right. Read the whole thing. But there's more. The insurance system itself is a huge mistake. It's our free-market answer to risk and therefore just like in a casino, there will be losers, winners, and the house. The house makes all the rules and therefore the house always wins. The lesson is simple don't play. I might not make any friends with the statement I'm about to make. You'll immediately suspect me of being a liberal, but if you keep reading, I bet you'll eventually be convinced that my ideas are the fairest and best way to care for the sick without unduly burdening the healthy. If you start with the average cost for health insurance across the nation, and then factor in inflation I.E. the COLA, and finally set into law the amount of money every person across the country pays for health care based on this moving average, you'll begin to allow every citizen to pay his fair share. In using the phrase "fair share" I'm stating categorically that fair means the rich will never pay more than double that average amount and the poor always pay at least half that amount.

I'm talking single payer health care! At this point I can almost hear the hissing of a pack of vampires confronted with a Crucifix! Yes. I said it. Single payer. However, not one like all the other socialist countries surrounding us, but more like the free-market capitalists that we are supposed to be.

Insurance companies make a profit. They have investors. They have agents. They have overhead, wages, distribution, taxes, rent, utilities, on and on and on. We don't need any of it. Doctors, nurses, hospitals don't need middlemen anymore than you do. If health professionals receive 100% of your payment, and not the grudging share the insurance company finally pays out, they'll be happier. They'll agree to charge less, knowing that the $1000.00 procedure won't be chewed down and argued over and procedured away and eventually paperworked down to a fraction of that agreed upon amount.

Suppose that you want to buy a car? You could walk in and pay the sticker price. Lots of people do that by the way. There's no sense in trying to talk sense into this kind of person. They feel uncomfortable bargaining. They'd rather pay whatever the sticker says and drive home in their new car. Meanwhile there are the other kind of people who won't even buy a yard-sale paperback for fifty cents unless they can talk the homeowner down to forty-five cents. We all understand that wheeling and dealing (or not) is freedom. Therefore, allow each individual to decide what health care treatment they want. Allow them each to make whatever agreement for treatment they want, some making good deals and some bad. Finally, incentivize buyers and sellers who cost the government the least, and also punish buyers and sellers who cost the most.

"Doctor Jones, sir, Your particular podiatry clinic charges nearly twice the national average. This statistic is based on total cost paid to your clinic divided by the total number of patients we've paid for. Sorry, Doctor but we're doubling your taxes. Have a nice day."

"Your family members have been to the pediatrician on average four times more often than the national average, and by the way, this statistic is based on both your number of children and their various ages. Sorry, but your health care charge has just been moved up one bracket."

"You've been paying the national average for five years, but you've never done more than get a once a year physical. We're lowering your medical rate to the lowest bracket. Congratulations and stay healthy!"

Friday, September 2, 2016

A good driver...

A good driver is many things, what he is not, is the person behind the wheel doing anything except driving, i.e. Talking on the phone, eating, lighting a cigarette, drinking alcohol, fiddling with the radio, etc.

What qualities in driving excellence would you instill in your own child as you teach him or her to drive a car? I have a few commonsense observations which most of you probably know, but many of you obviously do not. I know this because I drive with you every day and some of you are not aware, not focused, not paying attention.

Let's talk mirrors. If you glance at your left-side mirror, can you see the side of your car? If you CAN then you're doing it wrong. The car in your left blind-spot isn't three inches from your rear quarter panel, he's several feet to the left of that. On your right side, can you see the right quarter panel of your car? If you can then you're doing it wrong! The car in your right-side blind spot isn't three inches from your fender. He's probably about four feet away from it. Adjust your mirrors accordingly. If you're doing it correctly, you won't have blind spots. As a car moves beside you from behind you, you'll see him in your mirrors the entire time, until he's beside you and you can turn your head and see him. The side mirrors are maladjusted on most every car. A logical person thinking logically about where cars are going to be would quickly understand that if you're mirrors show the side of your car, you're doing it wrong.

A good driver isn't lost. A good driver knows the route and alternate routes in the event that the main route is blocked or jammed. A good driver scans right, left, mirrors, instruments, constantly. A good driver knows the speed limit and just slightly exceeds it in clement weather, goes slightly under in inclement weather. A good driver has clean windows and working windshield wipers. He doesn't have ice, snow, fog, or mud occluding his view. Remember this, a deaf driver can be a good driver, but a blind driver can never be anything but a terrible driver. Look ahead as far as you can see. A good driver doesn't drive contentedly along within a pack of semis or behind an SUV with darkly tented windows. A good driver likes to see the road far ahead, not the rear-end of some big truck. If he's going slower than traffic he moves to the right lanes, if faster, to the left lanes. He never blocks the passing lane. (A good driver knows the leftmost lane on the highway is the passing lane.)

A good driver is well-rested. He's alert, relaxed, and doesn't have to use the bathroom. In the best of conditions a good driver has no distractions whatsoever and demands that passengers sit quietly keeping their mouths shut. If that is not possible, a good driver slows down, finds a safe place to pull over, and when safely stopped, cautions everyone that conversations and rambunctiousness cause wrecks. Tell them to shut up and sit there. You don't need their advice, their directions, their comments, their criticisms. You don't need to know about their plans, their hopes, their desires, or their dreams.

Concerning patience: A good driver masters impatience. Relaxing music helps when traffic is bad. A good driver doesn't listen to loud boisterous music like rap or heavy-metal when the streets are jammed with cars.

A good driver knows what's around him. He's aware of the cars around him and knows when somebody is about to drive thoughtlessly and carelessly. YES! A good driver has a sixth-sense about idiot drivers and can spot them a mile away.

A good driver doesn't drive in thick fog. He pulls to the side and waits. Every mass pile up in history has a thick cloud of fog surrounding it. When a deer or other animal runs out in front the car, a good driver reacts calmly, and smoothly, avoiding if safely possible, and if not possible, controlling the vehicle as it strikes the animal. If it's a pedestrian, a good driver takes a greater risk to avoid striking the person, but not at the risk of his own life or his passengers.

A good driver pulls over safely whenever something besides driving must be done, i.e. checking maps, adjusting seats, mirrors, instruments, phones, radios, or underpants.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Social media and kryptonite

The term hamartia derives from the Greek ἁμαρτία, from ἁμαρτάνειν hamartánein, which means "to miss the mark" or "to err". It is most often associated with Greek tragedy, although it is also used in Christian theology. Hamartia as it pertains to dramatic literature was first used by Aristotle in his Poetics. In tragedy, hamartia is commonly understood to refer to the protagonist’s error or flaw that leads to a chain of plot actions culminating in a reversal from their good fortune to bad. What qualifies as the error or flaw can include an error resulting from ignorance, an error of judgement, a flaw in character, or sin. The spectrum of meanings has invited debate among critics and scholars, and different interpretations among dramatists.
People are always getting in trouble because they brag about their latest triumph on facebook. People read what they've bragged about and then call the police. Or the wife. Or the boss. There are a sizable number of people on Earth who delight in the suffering of others. I don't know the percentage, but at a guess I'd say it's at least 20 percent. One out of five people that you know, would enjoy watching you being tortured to death. Now you might just think that this guess of mine is just the cynic in me making up numbers and accusing the world of being Hitler, but I would argue that your reflexive denial of Human evil is meaningless. Just because humanity has only experienced a few Hitlers throughout history is only because 99.999% of you don't have Hitler's talent for gaining followers.

I don't have a facebook account. I don't have a Twitter account. No myspace, instagram, Tumblr, Reddit, etc.

Hubris! Pride! Downfall. Failure, Woe. WTF is the matter with everybody? Social networking is nothing more than personalized braggadocio. I already listen to way too many commercials. Did you really think that I wanted to listen to yours? Do your job, drink your beer, and STFU!

Everybody has an opinion, and mostly those opinions are uninformed. Example: "I think Obama is doing a great job. Unemployment is down, and the Stock Market has never been higher. What more do you want?" That opinion is uninformed. The perpetrator of the above uninformed opinion reads the New York Times. (The Paper of Record) Let the record books show that if your sole means of discovering the state of the world is that particular stack of misinformation, then everything you know is wrong.

Why do you waste the time that you do on social media? You read what your "friends" or "followers" say. You reply with your own uninformed opinion. Do you realize that nobody cares? Why do you do it? What's the point? Half the crap you read on facebook can be characterized as chain letters. "Send this letter to ten people or your first born son will die." I don't know if this is a chain letter or Passover! If your self-esteem is informed by the number of friends or followers you can claim on some social media platform, then—my friend—you are standing on thin ice indeed.

People aren't coins. They're not stamps. They're not baseball cards. Why do you persist in attempting to collect them? Collecting "friends" must be the most asinine hobby in the history of the world.

You call me a hypocrite? You say that this blog is proof that I'm doing the same thing as you do on Instagram?

Why do I write these essays of mine every so often? I don't actually assume that anybody reads them. I guess that probably somebody does, but it doesn't matter. If nobody ever reads my website again, I'll still be here telling somebody—not my friend, not my follower, not my "audience," not some piece in my collection—what I think. Why? Why do I write? Why do I spend a few minutes every now and then thinking about the world and putting it down in words? It's not for you. It's because sitting here at my keyboard, letting my fingers do what they do, is how understanding begins. It's slow. It's uncertain. However, as the years pass, my understanding of reality ensues. A piece of honesty that your facebook friends will never tell you: I do it for me, I don't even know you.

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Race Realism by John Derbyshire

I don't have much to say. John Derbyshire says it all. I will say this though...WOW! The gloves seem to be coming off. Have the rose tented glasses been pushed up on top of the head? Has the politically correct moonbattery been losing its shine? Is reality finally at long last creeping in? How many times do you have to burn your fingers on the stove before you finally admit that when its hot, its hot?
This week we saw some more fruits of Midwestern Nice. By a pleasant concinnity, the scene was Wisconsin’s 4th Congressional District, right up against Wisconsin’s 1st, where Paul Ryan, the Dark Lord of Midwestern Nice, crushed his enemies in last week’s primary.

Those two Congressional Districts are considerably different. District 1, Paul Ryan’s, is 91 percent white, less than five percent black. District 4 is only 55 percent white, more than 33 percent black. By contrast with Paul Ryan, whose darkness is entirely spiritual, District 4 actually has a black representative, six-termer Gwen Moore—the first black congresscritter from Wisconsin ever when she was first elected in 2004.

District 4 includes the city of Milwaukee, which is forty percent black. Last weekend an armed black criminal resisting arrest was shot by a (black) cop. A black riot ensued, with cars and businesses burned and, of course, much looting. >Mrs. Clinton and her Social Justice Warriors want to bring in further masses of poor Third Worlders to enhance our nation’s diversity. A thoughtful observer might question the wisdom of this in light of our failure to make any progress coping with the diversity we already have.

Look: Next year is the fiftieth anniversary of the 1967 black riots in Detroit, Newark, and, yes, Milwaukee.

Fifty years—two entire human generations—and still they riot. Fifty years of fretting and fussing, of nagging and shaming, of affirmative action and contracting set-asides; fifty years of jobs programs, food programs, billion-dollar overhauls of school systems. Fifty years of pushing role models, black doctors and detectives in movies and TV, black athletes as culture heroes, black actors playing God. Fifty years of Martin Luther King Days, Black History Months, and Kwanzaas. Fifty years of black mayors, black police chiefs, black Attorneys General, a black President…And still they riot.

Wouldn’t prudence suggest that we hold off on importing more diversity until we’ve made some progress in getting blacks to stop rioting?

I guess Prudence doesn’t live here any more.

What has the riot got to do with Midwestern Nice? One manifestation of Midwestern Nice has been the Midwest’s pioneering of the welfare state. In the later 20th century Wisconsin had some of the most generous welfare provisions in the country. This was, however, just the point at which low-level factory employment drifted off to Asia; and what didn’t drift off was colonized by immigrants from Mexico and Central America, who were easier to manage than blacks and worked for lower wages. Blacks who’d come up in the Great Migration of mid-century, now with no work they could do, fell back on those generous welfare programs. Milwaukee now has this sullen mass of unemployable, disaffected blacks, just waiting for an opportunity to riot.


My own favorite headline came from one of the TV stations: [Headline] “St. Jude Sweet Corn Festival Shut Down Due to Reckless Children.”

Forget Milwaukee: Cedar Rapids Had Better Black Mob Violence and Denial, August 18, 2016

Since video clips of these events now show up on YouTube within a couple of hours, making it perfectly plain who’s doing the rioting, you have to wonder why the reporters cling so doggedly to their Narrative about raceless “teens,” “youths,” and, in the case of that TV station, “children.”

But that’s Midwestern Niceness for you. Rampaging Blacks Shut Down Nice White Festival would be a more honest headline. But it wouldn’t be nice.

When these riots happen, you get a lot of thumb-sucking pieces about why they happen, what causes them. Well, what does cause them?

You’re asking me? Well, I’m a race realist, so I’ll give you an answer in that vein. Then, in scrupulous fairness, I’ll give you some of the other hypotheses on offer, and compare and contrast them with mine.

My answer: Different races—different local varieties of Homo sap., that have followed different paths through evolutionary space for many, many generations, end up with different distributions on most heritable traits. That includes traits of intelligence, behavior, and personality.

So in a multiracial society that rewards certain traits and penalizes others, different races will precipitate out, average-average, at different social levels. American blacks, for example, with low average IQ, low average impulse control, and high average inclinations to antisocial behavior, will tend to pool at the bottom of society, in slums and prisons and criminal gangs.

The blacks thus pooled, being too dimwitted to understand anything about biology or statistics, will attribute their sorry plight to the malice of hostile agents. They’ll develop a lot of anger against those agents, the anger occasionally breaking out in riots.
There's lots more. Read it all. John Derbyshire is a racist. Or to put it more honestly, he's a human being who says what all of you are too afraid to.

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

America you have two choices. Give up or Die.

The cynic is telling you to give up. America is dead. Our rotting corpse has been used to further the plot. We, as a country, are literally living "Weekend at Bernie's." The cancer that killed us was diagnosed in November, 1955, the start of the Vietnam war. We died shortly afterwards. The corpse of our country has been moved around by various actors for seventy years, but today its limbs are falling off and the stink of it has finally become so noisome that everybody else—people who didn't know America was already dead—have begun to look at us, really look. "What is their problem? Why have they done so little. Why, with all that power, money, influence, and military might, have they done nothing?" ISIS is taking over a continent and rotting Bernie (Obama) simply looks on, with an idiotic grin plastered on his face.

Enter Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. AKA Week-end at Bernie's 2. This plot is so contrived and infantile that as we eat our popcorn and sip our sodas we watch as those around us—people who foolishly paid for a ticket—become so disgusted that they finally walk out, get in their cars and drive away. Sometimes, like with Chariots of Fire and Fantasia, the plot is so thin that even Oliver Twist wouldn't ask for another bowl.

Sunday, August 14, 2016

The case against immunization religiously and scientifically

You either believe in a creator or you do not. I think agnostics believe in a creator of some kind, because at some level they understand the impossibility of life capable of reproduction just spontaneously appearing as though by magic. Therefore allow me to dispense with all the various labels and stipulate that people are either believers who believe something besides random chance created life or they are Atheists who think we hit the 1 chance in 10390 lottery jackpot.

The argument against immunization about to be presented holds for both believers and Atheists. By the way, I capitalize the word "Atheist" for the same reason I capitalize the word Christian, because the names of specific religions should always be capitalized as a rule of grammar. Both Atheism and Christianity are religions. Both have believers who believe without proof. Both desire everyone else on Earth to share their own faith. Both have churches, but the Atheists deceptively call their churches, court rooms and class rooms.

My argument should trouble you whether you're a believer or a nonbeliever. If you think about it one way, taking a magic pill that protects you from harm forever seems like simple common sense. Less people dead, right? But if you think about it another way, taking that pill is a big mistake. Let's ask a teacher whether it would be a good idea to hand out diplomas like doctors hand out vaccines. Why is studying necessary? Why not just hand the kid his diploma and usher him out into the world? Why does a teacher flunk a child who cheats? The child hasn't done the work. He doesn't know the material. He's missing a critical set of knowledge that would have otherwise allowed him or her to move forward in his learning career. The teacher flunks the child not because he resents the cheating, he flunks the child for the child's own good. The student must actually learn the knowledge before he or she can move forward. Further study is only possible based on previously learned knowledge. Think about that. The teacher flunks the kid for his own good. The kid's better off not passing.

Now let's apply that same logic to vaccines. What is a vaccine?
A vaccine is a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.
If you're a believer, you understand that life is God's test. It's not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to test us harshly. God loves us, and wants us to be strong. He gave us an immune system for a reason. The human race has been cheating for several generations now. All of us are copying off somebody else's work on God's test. Our bodies haven't done the work. We haven't struggled to get through a disease. Our immune system is for lack of a better word, ignorant. Our parents likewise have ignorant immune systems, and so it was for their parents before them. Ask yourself, why does it matter whether we cheated immunologically? I'll give you the teachers answer: because we're not ready to go forward to harder lessons having not learned these. For generations, those who should have gotten sick and possibly died, didn't. Instead they passed on their genes and their ignorance to their children. None of us are ready for the next test. It may come out of China. It may come out of Africa. Who knows where the next big virus is coming from, but mark my words, as sure as you're born, so are viruses.

The same logic holds true if you're an Atheist. If generations of humanity failed to pass through the crucible of natural selection because we all were allowed to create antibodies from dead viruses, and because we never struggled to come to grips with a live virus, then we can expect that when a new deadly virus inevitably comes along—one that we don't have a vaccine for—then it's very likely that the vast majority of us won't be fit enough—both inferior genetically and in lack of immune system practice—to survive it. We're going to be as bad off as the Native Americans when they were first exposed to smallpox.

Thursday, August 4, 2016

Sanctimonious Khantroversy

At the 4:33 mark, Khizr Khan tells us that "We cannot solve our problems by building walls." Well isn't that special? I guess prisons are going to be a lot cheaper to build, now that we've discovered—through the wisdom of KeeKee—that prison walls won't solve the problem of keeping inmates from simply walking away from them. This is great news! Houses likewise are going to be so much cheaper, now that we've learned that we don't need walls to solve the problem of holding the heat/cool in and the roof up.
Trump's Reaction

Clinton's aides watching inside their workspace in the Well Fargo Center and at campaign headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, recognized what a powerful moment Khan's speech was. No one, aides said, expected Trump to respond the way he did.

"Who wrote that? Did Hillary's scriptwriters write it?" Trump said in an interview with ABC the following Sunday. "I think I've made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard." He added: "If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably -- maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."

The interview drew instant rebuke from Democrats and Republicans, including GOP leaders who said it was unacceptable for the party's nominee to go after a Gold Star family. But rather than pull back, Trump doubled down.

"Mr. Khan, who does not know me, viciously attacked me from the stage of the DNC and is now all over T.V. doing the same - Nice!" he tweeted. But the Khans also refused to back down.

After Trump questioned why she didn't speak, Ghazala Khan published an opinion piece in The Washington Post, explaining her silence on stage that night: "Without saying a thing, all the world, all America, felt my pain. I am a Gold Star mother. Whoever saw me felt me in their heart."

Speaking at a church in Cleveland on Sunday, Clinton said Khan "paid the ultimate sacrifice in his family."

Trump, she said, had "nothing but insults, degrading comments about Muslims" and "a total misunderstanding of what made our country great -- religious freedom."

Later that day, Clinton told reporters that the controversy questions where the "bounds" or the "bottom" is in Trump's campaign.

"I think this is a time," Clinton said, for Republicans "to pick country over party."
I too thought it strange that she never spoke. My first reaction was she's not speaking because Muslims never allow their women any freedoms at all. They don't have the freedom to come and go, the freedom to speak their thoughts to strangers, and in many Muslim countries even the freedom to show their face. So, Trump's questioning of the oddly silent mother is entirely understandable. Later, the Khans continued the Trump attacks by sanctimoniously proclaiming once again their Gold Star Family status, and also claiming that her silence was the silence of pain, not the silence of a Muslim woman customarily expected to be silent.

I too thought that Khan's speech was overly DNC script-like. The uniter vs. the divider theme read just like it came straight out of some DNC hack's binder full of bullshit cliches. Was Kee Kee coached? I think he was. Did you notice all that pointing? Did they glue the other three fingers to his palm before the speech? Pointing like that is how you accuse. He was pointing at Trump as though he was the victim and Trump had wronged him. Did they coach him on that too? I think they did.

A complete stranger who doesn't even know Trump is attacking him from a stage and later on T.V. Nice! If somebody attacked me, I'd hit back the same way. The right of self-defense is a God given right. I don't care, and neither should you, about some tragic history the attacker may or may not have. If you come at me, prepare to be met. In typical Democrat-media collusion the tale is told in a way that demands! we be outraged that Trump would dare! attack a "Gold Star Mother!" Isn't it ironic that this manufactured Khantroversy is exactly the same situation as a different "Gold Star Mother" who was called a liar by Hillary, and this fact was met entirely by nothing more than crickets chirping. Where was the faux outrage then? Where was the storm of articles from the national press then?

The most laughable part of this whole faux Khantroversy, is this idea that Trump did anything unexpected. The CNN narrator tells us that the Clinton aides never expected Trump to respond the way he did! How asinine! Everybody knows Trump hits back, always. Everybody knows that this is nothing but the Democrat-media complex running another play from their dogeared identity politics playbook, expressing faux outrage and crocodile tears as well as over the top jumping the shark sanctimony. It's pathetic and it's even more pathetic that so many ignorant cretins will be tricked by it.

They pulled a Lucy. And Charlie Brown went for it. And nobody at all was surprised. You might think that going for it makes you an idiot. Just remember, Lucy's the evil one in this little morality tale. The more the Khans play the victim card, the more the evil witch cankles cackles.

Click on the CNN link above and read the whole thing. It reads like a fairy tale where everybody lives happily ever after. There's a long-winded section entitled "The night of the speech." It's written like the introduction to a play where the narrator first explains what virtuous and wonderful people the Khans are, so that when the evil Trump Troll attacks we will all hate hate hate him! The CNN narrator's glee is self-evident as each word unfolds towards the final denouement where we are finally presented with the carefully crafted finale and CNN's moral of the story. ["I think this is a time," Clinton said, for Republicans "to pick country over party."] I.E. If you really love your country Republicans, you'll have to hold your nose and vote for Hillary.

Cold Fury has a truly great write-up about the establishment Republicans vis-à-vis this Khantroversy.

Sunday, July 31, 2016

If you're like me

If you're like me, at this point you're numb. You already understand that nobody tells the truth anymore. Lies are the language we speak. Hillary Clinton will destroy the world, and maybe that's what you want. "Hillary for Armageddon!" There's your bumper sticker. Trump isn't much better. One thing we can be sure of, everything "they" say is a lie. Trump won't build a wall. Hillary won't steal from the rich and give to the poor. Status Quo. The USA will continue to print money and borrow money until the inevitable day comes when a guy who understands simple math reveals that the USA is so bankrupt that the very word "bankrupt" is revealed as the understatement of the millennium.

Imagine true desolation. No job. No house. Family of you, wife, and a couple of kids, trudging along behind you, as the rain falls, as the cold winter threatens, as hunger gnaws at your empty bellies. You're tired. You're hungry. You're cold. You're hopeless. This is the end. Maybe you just lay down and die. "The End." I guess that, in the end, that's what "they" wanted all along.

In every story, the mountain of trouble and hopelessness is piled upon our hapless protagonist until finally the audience is simply waiting. The hero waits. The world waits. The end is here. Unless something miraculous happens .... Where is our deus ex machina? Where is our magical genie, where is the extraterrestrial magical race of super-geniuses who can fix everything? Where is our superhero? Where is God, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, somebody, anybody, who can fix this mountain of looming tragedy?

We forged a sword. We hung it over our own heads attached with a slender thread. Why? A cry for help from an uncaring universe? The end of the story on TV is bullshit. Here's what really happens: The gazelle is dinner for the lion.

The End.

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Gasoline on the fire!

We're one hot breath, one sneer, one more cop shooting an unarmed black man, from all-out race war. Abner Doonour President—has fomented this incipient bloodbath for reasons that I can only guess at. To retain power by declaring martial law seems the most logical reason, but honestly he could just be the brachiating buffoon that he seems to be—just another of Dr. Evil's hand puppets, to coin a brand new cliche.

I don't know who shot him. Neither do you. But I can guess it wasn't a white cop, because if it had been, that information would have been broadcast to the four corners of the Earth by now. None of this is accidental, by the way. Plotted, planned, and executed. If you want the end of the world, I don't think you could find a more effective President than Barrack Hussein Obama.

Be afraid.

Be very afraid.

Monday, July 11, 2016

A few questions to peg you into your niche

Maybe you like the "Law and Order candidate." Maybe you like the "What Difference?" candidate. Answer these questions honestly and I'll tell you who you're going to vote for.

I know...You are different, right? No! That's bullshit! You're no different.

Okay a few questions will peg you into your party. Do you have a job? No? If not how long has it been since you have had a job? Longer than a year? You're a Democrat! You're voting for Hillary! You say that you do have a job? Is your job working for the county, state, or federal government? If yes, are you a member of a public sector union? If you work for twenty years in your government job do you get a government pension for life? (Yes yes yes yes?) You're a Democrat! You're voting for Hillary!

Are you gay? Are you transsexual? Have you had a penis grafted on or cut off? Are you a lesbian? Are you a woman who hates men? Are you a man who's ashamed of his own penis? (Yes yes yes yes?) You're voting for Hillary! Do you hate rich people because you were born poor and watched with green-eyed jealousy as those you looked down upon got everything that should have been yours? Yes? You're voting for Hillary! Are you an illegal immigrant reading this with some kind of shitty translation software? Usted está votando por Hillary!

The Identity politics of the left is nothing if not predictable, transparent, and breathtakingly dishonest. They walk up, kick you in your cajones and then tell you it's your own fault for being there. For being who you are. For existing with that skin color, that sex, that race, that religion, that political outlook, that economic outlook. Do you believe others deserve to suffer? Do you believe you deserve to suffer? Yes? You're voting for Hillary! Are you suicidal? Do you wish America had never existed? Do you think we should all live in caves and eat whatever the strongest decides we deserve? Yes? You're voting for Hillary! Are you a serial killer? If you're caught in one of your numerous crimes should you be given a 2nd chance and then a 3rd? (Yes, yes, yes?) You're voting for Hillary!

Do you struggle in school? Does your tuition cost north of $10,000 a year? Are you borrowing a fortune to pay for a degree that no one would call a STEM degree? (Yes yes yes?) You're voting for Hillary! Do you hate the world? Hate yourself? Hate your parents, your teachers, your boss? Do you wake up hating life, smoke a cigarette and find a human punching bag to take it out on? I bet you're going to vote for Hillary!

There are people who spend their lives blocking others. They don't accomplish anything of great import otherwise. No songs, no art, no literature, no inventions, no discoveries, at the end of their days the only thing you can say for sure is that they stopped others. They blocked the makers from making. They blocked the artists from painting their Mona Lisa, they stopped Mozart from composing. Are you a blocker? Do you file lawsuits? Do you protect your unused and otherwise entirely forgotten patent with the zeal of a pit-bull protecting his old buried bone? You're voting for Hillary!

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Bootstrapping into space with helium

Imagine you're a mountain climber whose ledge has just crumbled. As you look above you, there's no way up. Below there is no way down. Because of the rocky overhang above you, there's no way to lower a rope, and also no way a rescue helicopter can get close. You have pitons, but no rope left in your backpack. I envision this silly thought experiment as an example of bootstrapping a rope all the way from the ground, to high above where you are, where you need the rope to be.

Allow me to start with an apology. My analogy sucks. Sorry. My analogies have often been criticized. The funny thing about it is that even while people are criticizing my analogy, they're also getting my point. Understanding has been conveyed. A concept has been grasped. Communication has been achieved. So...entertain my silly thought experiment, I entreat.

There you are, stuck on a mountain. How will you get down? What if people on the ground floated a helium balloon up to you? It's a big helium balloon capable of carrying a thousand feet of strong thread. The balloon floats up and you are able to capture it. You carefully wind the thread around a makeshift spindle. As you pull the thread up, you notice it gets thicker. It gets stronger. More twinings are interwoven in this thread. After a while the thread is more like string. After a while the string is more like rope. You hammer in your piton, tie the rope securely on and then simply climb down. Imagine it. A simple helium balloon was the answer all along!
Helium is the second most abundant element in the universe. Sadly, most of it is in stars. On Earth, it’s formed from the radioactive decay of elements like uranium or thorium over millions of years. If not trapped, such as in rocks or underground caves, it is so light that it floats up through the atmosphere and slowly leaks into space. Also, unlike hydrogen, an even lighter gas, helium is inert: It almost never reacts with other chemicals. So it can’t get trapped in larger molecules—as hydrogen is trapped in water, for instance—that prevent its escape.
Imagine a helium balloon carrying a load towards space. The load that the lighter balloon is carrying, is a heavier helium filled balloon with extra strong fabric. Its extra bulky thick fabric could never float off the ground by itself, but because a much lighter helium balloon is towing it with a half-mile long tether it's able to float higher and higher. Once this bulky second balloon reaches a certain atmospheric density, it begins to expand and float upwards all on its own. The first balloon is jettisoned at a certain distance and it continues upward eventually reaching an atmospheric density where the bag pops releasing its stored helium. It plummets towards the Earth, but it's cargo—much denser, much stronger, is able to rise much much further into space. This second balloon carries a third balloon, one even tougher, even stronger, even heavier... and so on, until, finally, a tough strong helium filled balloon achieves escape velocity.
What makes a space balloon conceivable is that space is not a true vacuum. Even intergalactic space is filled with matter, albeit tenuous; by its standards, Earth’s extended atmosphere is a thick soup. As long as the balloon’s interior density is lower than the ambient density, it should rise—no matter how low the ambient pressure is. Drag force will limit the balloon's ascent velocity, but shouldn’t stop it altogether and can be minimized by choosing a prolate rather than spherical shape.

As the balloon rises, it will expand in inverse proportion to the ambient pressure and, neglecting temperature, density. At launch, the interior and exterior pressure is equal, and the interior density is lower; during the ascent, the pressure remains equalized, so the interior density will always be less than the ambient. Neglecting temperature is probably not a bad approximation: the absolute temperature will vary at most a couple of orders of magnitude, whereas the pressure and density fall off much more drastically, and in any event we can include a politician to regulate the temperature difference between interior and exterior.

The material tension would rise in proportion to radius. It has units of force, and the maximum possible force in nature, the Planck force, is 1044 newtons, so the balloon could get bigger than the known universe before it absolutely has to pop. The balloon walls would become extremely thin and porous, but because of the scaling of area and volume, they should always remain able to confine the gas.

Bottom line: if you release a helium balloon on the ground, it should rise forever! It will float up until Earth's atmosphere dovetails with the interplanetary medium, then float up and out of the solar system, then reach interstellar space and float out of the plane of the galaxy like the bubbles blown by supernova, and ultimately settle in one of the voids of large-scale cosmic structure.

Unless I’m missing something, it is a myth that balloons are inherently unable to work in space. The limit is set not by physics, but by trifling engineering problems such as material strength and permeability. Another caveat is that the laws of gas dynamics assume a continuum, an approximation that already fails in Earth’s upper atmosphere.

Now, someone, tell me what I’m missing.

Monday, July 4, 2016

I stop at McDonald's

I ask for the one dollar order of McGriddle Cakes. They ask—for the thousandth time..."You just want the bread?" They're so confused. Just bread? You want bread for breakfast?

"Yes," I say just the bread. When I get to work I put the bacon, cheese, and egg I prepared at home for about 77 cents (Bacon 50 cents, cheese 12 cents, egg 15 cents) I also ask McDonald's for a syrup because, why not? Anyway for $1.77 here's my breakfast sandwich:

Divided we fall

The presidential election will be identity politics. Hillary plans to run Cory Booker as her VP. She needs the black vote and this is the simplest way to get it. Of course practically every black person in the country already votes Democrat with only the tiniest of exceptions, but they only vote Democrat when they actually vote. With Cory Booker as VP now they'll get up off their sofas and actually go to the polls. So, for President of the United States we have women, blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQetc, poor, and of course all the East/West coast wealthy liberals. Against these various identities will be whites, men, heterosexuals, patriots, and people who work for a living. We haven't got a chance!

The Democrats control the media, the schools, the bureaucracy, and the courts. Whatever liberal USA suicide pill doesn't get passed in the legislature is later battled in the court of public opinion—shaped and massaged by the liberal media—and then ultimately decided in the Democrats' favor by our new unconstitutional oligarchy The Supreme Court of the United States of America. [SCUSA] Gay marriage? Men in the girl's bathroom? Eminent domain? Affirmative Action [aka racism]? No matter what legislator you voted for, it doesn't matter, because the rules aren't decided by a democracy. They're decided by 8 or 9 unelected presidents for life.

Here we are. Living in a country I no longer recognize. I mean that statement in two different ways. I no longer see any resemblance to what I remember, and I do not acknowledge its authority over me. If you work for Uncle Sam, you are working for the enemy. Today is the 4th of July. It's our nation's birthday. Hurrah? No! Don't celebrate, instead weep.

I went to Kroger today as I do every single day. I parked in my usual spot, as I do every single day. Today, on our nation's birthday, something was different. As I walked towards the entrance, a store manager came out and told me I'd have to move my car. He explained that my usual spot was reserved for special people. It was reserved for people who'd made a previous reservation. They'd called ahead and reserved my parking spot. I was nonplussed. "What?" "We've got a lot of people who are going to be arriving to pick up their orders," he said. So I moved my car. I went inside to purchase the two sixpacks of Ramen Noodles that I had the money for. When I came back out two minutes later, all fifteen ClickList spots were still vacant. I knocked on the "Associates Only" door, loudly. The manager came back out. I pointed at all the empty spots. I said: "all still empty!" He said: "Click List only." "Why did you put them all in the front?," I demanded. "The customers don't even have to get out of their cars! you could have put Click List spots at the back of the parking lot. Are your employees handicapped too?" At which point he walked away.

It's called "ClickList." For the nominal fee of $5.00 dollars, you can use the Kroger online portal to order a variety of products and have them delivered right to your car's trunk. Hurrah? No! Don't celebrate, instead weep. Obese, elderly, infirm, and of course simply lazy can now order a day ahead. Which is fine by the way. If you wan't to prove to the world how much of a lazy piece of shit you really are, click on your "ClickList."

If you're a fat lazy cow, you can have your doctor give you a blue sign that lets you park in the handicapped parking spots. Nobody has a problem with allowing people who are paralyzed, or who lack two sound legs, to park closer to the store. But we've all watched as lazy fat cows park in the handicapped spots, get out of their cars and SUVS, and then walk to the closest motorized handicart. You know you hate it! God knows I do. I want to kick them over and watch their dismay as at long last they finally comprehend their own pathetic self-induced helplessness. I hate them. I truly do. You fat pig you! "Put down that fork, stand up and walk!" (John 5:8) Anyway, now the cows have even more parking spots and even less incentive to get off their asses. Hurrah? No! Instead, weep for America, the land of the indolent, the home of the helpless.

By the way, Click List parking spots have been officially designated as places to leave your empty shopping cart. Trust me.

Saturday, July 2, 2016

Fighter pilots, sorry, here's your AI replacement

There's not a chess master in the world who can beat the latest AI. Recently, what was considered the Holy Grail of AI—an "artificially intelligent" computer beating Go grandmaster Lee Sedol—has been achieved. In fact if you think about the advantages of superhuman speed and infallible memory, there's literally no single task that a properly programmed computer or robot won't be better at. Rock Paper Scissors?

Computers can drive cars now, did you think they wouldn't fly planes? Remember the part about superhuman speed? Watch the rock paper scissors video again if you didn't see all of it. Computers react at a speed impossible for a human to even recognize while they're watching it. The Rock Paper Scissors robot isn't guessing what the human is going to do. It's reacting after the human has already done it, and so fast that at human speed it seems simultaneous. What does that mean for a fighter pilot against a computer? You zig robot zags, you zag robot zigs. For you the human fighter pilot, the robot reacts as though it already knows which way you're going to go. It doesn't. It simply reacts faster than you can even see.
Dubbed ALPHA, this [AI system] recently beat retired United States Air Force Colonel Gene Lee in multiple flight simulator trials, as the researchers explain in a paper recently published in the Journal of Defense Management.

The idea isn’t to replace human fighter pilots. According to Nicholas Ernest, a University of Cincinnati alum and the founder of Psibernetix, the company that developed ALPHA, this AI may ultimately act as a kind of digital assistant that provides real-time advice to pilots. Or it may fly unmanned aircraft that act as wingmen for planes piloted by humans. ALPHA doesn’t replace everything a human does, Ernest explains, but it can help juggle the enormous amount of data flowing from all various sensors on modern fighter planes.

“This isn’t for up-close dogfighting, or using your eyes to look out the cockpit,” he says. “It’s a lot of looking at what your sensors are telling you and interpreting that to tell you if you have a tactical advantage at this particular time and what your response should be.”

That’s where computers have a massive advantage. Just as companies like Google and Facebook scoop up massive amounts of data to determine our interests and decide what ads to show us next, ALPHA can slurp up the firehose of data streaming in from a plane’s sensors and makes quick decisions about how to respond. That said, ALPHA shouldn’t be confused with the AI systems that tech giants like Google, Facebook and Microsoft use. Those companies rely an approach called neural networking, which draws inspiration from the workings of the human brain. But ALPHA is based on a very different idea called fuzzy logic, which is more concerned with mathematical modeling. As Earnest puts it, fuzzy logic is concerned with emulating what people think, rather than on emulating the brain.
If you take one sentence from the above quoted article, remember this one: "The idea isn’t to replace human fighter pilots." No, that's not the idea! In fact the idea of washing machines isn't to replace human drudges manually stirring clothes boiling in a giant steaming kettle. Because why wouldn't we want flag-draped coffins and three-volley salutes? In fact ignore completely all the people telling you what the idea isn't. When somebody starts by telling you they "don't mean it like it sounds," guess what? Everybody worries about an AI computer that thinks and sets its own agenda. That may happen one day, but long before that day ever happens, your own job—whatever it is—will be replaced by AI. Sorry, that's the biz sweetheart.

So what will we do after "employment" is obsolete? We could all be stock market investors, betting on different competing AI run companies. The only problem with that idea is that AI stock market investors will always react faster than we do.

Friday, July 1, 2016

Defining A Democrat

Democrats believe:

They believe that any woman who wants to, should be able to have an abortion at any point in her pregnancy—up to and including labor. They are anti-gun and believe the best way to eventually outlaw gun ownership is incrementalism—sensible laws which take guns out of the hands of terrorists, gangs, criminals, and eventually you. They want higher taxes for the rich and higher transfer payments for the needy until eventually everyone is equally poor. They believe that the practice of homosexuality, transgenderism, and promiscuity should not only be protected but actively encouraged. They believe we should dismantle our nuclear missiles and cut the military budget to the bone—then chop its arms and legs off. They believe we should have open borders and allow everyone who happens to immigrate here on election day the right to vote several times that day.

Democrats want:

They want the government to control every facet of our lives from cradle to grave. They want this because they each believe that they will be the one in control. They dislike the traditional nuclear family—husband, wife, children, because that particular social unit is the hardest to impose government control over. Thus, public schools which detach children from that unit for extended periods of time, and brainwash them into believing in the asinine delusion that if only the Democrats were in control of government, everything else necessary in life would be provided for free and everyone would be happy, forever and ever. The fact that in reality there is no such thing as a free lunch, the Democrats deceitfully refute, by providing—what the kids are told is free—taxpayer funded lunch.

Democrats dream:

They dream of being the one sitting on a fancy chair while all the peasants stand behind velvet ropes waiting hopefully for the high-poobah to find favor and dreading his disfavor. They dream of a return to some variant of a monarchical regime, where those more equal than others control the means of production and the distribution of products and, as a fortuitous byproduct of that control, get to live like kings while the rest of the peasants (us) are permitted to kiss their royal asses.

Democrats act:

Like spoiled children. Like raging maniacs. Like mindless zombies. like scared little girls. Like this:

Tuesday, June 28, 2016


To those of you who are aware that Donald Trump has just cost Republicans the election, don't expect an apology. If The Donald knows one thing, he knows that saying you're sorry is just asking for MORE2. The Red Cross poster wasn't racist. Racist people saw the poster and—because racists are always looking for racism—immediately focused on the two white people labeled as cool. They completely ignored the white people labeled uncool because ... the critics of this poster are RACISTS!

Now the Red Cross has apologized and let it be known that they're taking down this poster wherever it was plastered. This—(apologizing)—was obviously the worst thing they could have done. They have admitted guilt. They have shown weakness. They—the Red Cross—are now vulnerable to the many millions of umbrageous black racists who carry a life-long chip on their shoulders and constantly look for weakness and white-guilt in every non-black face they interact with. The Red Cross made a poster. It could have been thought out a little bit better. The Red Cross has apologized. IDIOTS!
The Red Cross has since ceased production of the poster, removed it from their website and mobile Swim App, and requested that any facilities that have the poster displayed take it down.

“As one of the nation’s oldest and largest humanitarian organizations, we are committed to diversity and inclusion in all that we do, every day,” Red Cross said in their apology.

Still, Ebony Rosemond, founder of Black Kids Swim, an online resource for black swimmers, feels that the organization’s official statement is insufficient.

Rosemond told The Washington Post that African Americans have long faced discrimination at pools and beaches, adding that there are not many regulation-sized pools for swimming or diving in black neighborhoods. She also said that images like the one published by Red Cross could discourage young black people from swimming in public pools, KUSA reported.

“In connection with the lack of images showing African Americans excelling in swimming, the poster doesn’t make you feel welcome — it suggests to a black child that you’re not welcome here,” Rosemond told the Washington Post.

“We want to restate that that apology is insufficient,” Rosemond added. “And their system for creating and evaluating material needs to be looked at, and they need to be extremely diligent to make sure that every poster is taken down.”
Now those who are guilty must be identified. It wasn't the entire Red Cross. Answers must be given: Who were the artists? Who approved this RAAAAAACIST poster for publication? Who funded this RAAAAAAACIST poster? Who put it up on their pool fence or locker room wall? Who can be blamed? WHO CAN WE BLAME! WHO CAN WE BEAT LIKE A WHITE-BOY PIÑATA?

UPDATE 06/28/2016 4:15PM CST
It’s an issue that’s flown pretty quietly under the media radar, but the 19 “rules of engagement” originally drawn up by Black Lives Matter organizers in Ferguson and largely agreed to by the mayor of St. Louis have gradually transformed into a more comprehensive list of demands known as Campaign Zero and been shopped around Washington, D.C. to politicians like Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

One of the platforms of Campaign Zero is to require that current and prospective police officers undergo mandatory implicit racial bias testing, the results of which would be factored into hiring, deployment, and performance evaluations.

The U.S. Justice Department announced on Monday that more than 33,000 federal agents and prosecutors will receive training aimed at preventing unconscious bias from influencing their law enforcement decisions. …

In a memo to Justice Department employees, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates said the program targets “implicit biases” – subtle, unconscious stereotypes or characterizations nearly everyone makes about certain groups of people. …

The training will be mandatory for all Justice Department agents and prosecutors and will be rolled out over the next year, Yates said.

Arrest data compiled by some police departments have shown that black and Hispanic men are more likely to be stopped by police than others, suggesting officers may be exerting implicit bias in deciding whom to question or apprehend.
h/t Moonbattery