Friday, October 30, 2015

#CNBCMediaBias: Why would you ask a question of a presidential candidate you would be embarrassed to ask a president?

If the media claims to follow the same high standards they criticize candidates for, then why would they ask questions that would sully professional journalism?  These are the same people that explain they are different from bloggers and online media because they are "professional". #CNBC debate tactics was nothing more than an inquisition without a trial.  They sound like pedophile priests distancing themselves from pedophiles.

Here is a simple media test: if the question would embarrass a journalist when asked to the president of the United States, then why would you ask it to a candidate? Someday that person might be. So why skew an information exchange debate with your own spin? How can the public rely on the media if they sink to cheap ratings tactics like bloggers do?

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Dear Walmart: what is your Halloween persecution policy?

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Attn: Customer Service
702 S.W. 8th Street
Bentonville, AR 72716

Dear Walmart;

Tonight I went into my local store wearing a "political candidate" mask.  I bought it at a Halloween store and I'll let you figure out who it's similar to. 

I would like to ask you what your mask policy is. I looked in and there is no stated one.

I was walking around getting blank stares and maybe one in five smiles.  Most people were uninterested.  Then, one of your employees told me to take the mask off.  I asked why? She replied that I shouldn't wear a mask in here.  I asked who she was, the social police? She told me yes, I am an employee and I am telling you to take that off. She said I should wait until Halloween to wear my mask. She said the mask was upsetting people. 

Now, I thought about making a scene, I looked around and thought for the sake of harmony but also freedom.  I did comply but I was not happy about it for reasons I will now explain.  

For one, I have a problem with an employee stating I can't wear a mask yet you sell them in your stores. Exactly how are customers supposed to try them on? 


I suspect your employee was reacting out of personal experience. 

Second, since there is no stated policy I object to an infringement of my personal liberty.  How dare your employees feel they can make personal arbirtrary fashion decisions when we've all seen The People of Walmart:

There were a few masks in the images pool I've seen...

And what about hoodies?

Can an employee decide when a hoodie is unsettling people? Nonsense!

But what made me absolutely irate about the nonsensical treatment was then I 

walked by a young lady exercising freedom of religion by wearing one of these.

So when your employee makes a complaint that a mask of a politician is upsetting, because it is not Halloween, but they seem to be OK with a misogynistic, sadistic, infidel-beheading, mass genocide-mongering religion Islam; that is associated with this:

 Then it is objectionable in the highest that someone can be OK with religious symbols that are directly upsetting in the highest form.

It is offensive that a Halloween mask for fun and silly nonsense can be so upsetting yet taken seriously, while a symbol of oppression and human indignity is acceptable.

Monday, October 26, 2015

#DonaldTrump: Insulting your way into the White House

If #DonaldTrump wins the presidency, then this will be the first time in history that someone used rhetoric - as opposed to policy and personality differences - as the main plank of his political platform. 

The problem with Donald Trump's execution is you can't insult people - candidates or population - and then count on their support. If you are an abrasive person (and I can tell you from personal experience about being less than normal behaviorally) then you have an absolute ceiling on the people that accept you in the first place.   The more you insult, the less you count on. There is a long time between now and November 2016.

This demonstrates Donald Trump doesn't think three moves ahead, or if he does his plan is so genius it's inscrutable. But I suspect the former.

The only way to win with this course is to bring down every other candidate to your level that you're the least offensive candidate.  Carson is super-low energy, Bush's brother failed us on 9/11. The rest are losers.

How any one can insult people continuously and then expect them to work with you at the end of it is another matter.

Friday, October 23, 2015

Science is cool: avoiding deaths from storms

Science gives people satellite images of storms inbound from far-away ocean reaches long before they hit land fall. It warns people to take shelter or move from the disaster zone.  It makes predictions on the path with some accuracy better than no warning at all.

Then medicine, communications,  and earth moving equipment move in to take care of the post-storm damage.

These are all taken for granted, but they all impact lives every day.

The Real #ClintonDoctrine: steal credit for success, distance and delegate failure

The media are so stupid when it comes to analysis that they really shouldn't claim there is any. They take things at face value, perhaps that they are struck gobless from the incessant camera glare, and that leads to them missing the bigger picture.  Or they don't want to ruin their favorites, and they skew the story or ignore the facts. But the professional journalist really really suck at thinking through evidence right in front of them.

I watched some if not all of the #Clinton testimony, and this is what I gleaned.
Here is the real #ClintonDoctrine: spend more time worrying about the credit for success, making sure the French don't take all the credit while things are positive.  And then if things go pearshaped, make sure to avoid all accountability and responsibility for the same action you were taking credit for a moment ago.

When it came to Benghazi, when it was a success she spent her time thinking how to shape the media response to the success.  When Benghazi became a failure,  Clinton left the details to security experts. She was quick to distance herself from all security matters and leave it to experts.  When it came to Tunisia, she was quick to elaborate how she PERSONALLY phoned the president of Tunisia to send troops and rout protesters at the US embassy.  Yet when she was asked to explain how she could remember with such vivid detail the Tunisia event and yet have no recollection nor contact with Stevens in Benghazi, her answers deflected the question. Libya was her project but she had no hands on?  Tunisia was just an embassy but her role was critical?
In either case, what is clear is that Obama was the president for it all. He was the individual responsible for all action because they all work for him. So why was Hillary spending so much time on the least important part of diplomacy?

It was clear that Libya was a Clinton project that turned a dictatorship into a failed state. If her smart power model was so successful why does she want to avoid the failings now?

Do Americans want a president that will spend more time worrying about praise and recognition for all acts than just doing the job?  Is being president about personal glory?

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Welcome new voters; here is what you missed in the past 20 years

Welcome new voters, I understand  you are part of the reason the Liberals won this election.

If you are new to this country and you thought that Stephen Harper was a mean old White guy, that's understandable.  

It's easier for politicians to promise than deliver. No matter where you are from that's just a fact of life like death and taxes. 

While you were convinced that Liberals were going to deliver "real change" - preempting Obama's playbook with some fancy new buzzwords, that expectation and reality rarely meet.  How's that hopey-changey thing going for Obama? He's been able to deliver a fraction of what he promised; still Guantanamo remains...

In case you are just joining us, Stephen Harper replaced a Liberal to become the PM. And the Liberals he replaced were:

PM Paul Martin who promised to "fix healthcare for a generation".
Instead he off-loaded the debts onto the provinces and proclaimed a federal balanced budget.  Stephen Harper promised a 6% year over year increase to health transfers and delivered it.   The best quote about Liberals from the article above is (from 2005) :

If there's an interest group or constituency the Liberals haven't tried to appease in the last 10 days, it's only because they haven't thought of them yet.
Maybe that's the problem. The Liberals seem to think there isn't a political problem in the world that can't be solved by throwing money at it. Our money.
Sounds strangely like divisive politics doesn't it?

And don't forget the sponsorship scandal, where Liberals carried out manila envelopes full of taxpayer money for loyal servants of the party. We never got to the depths of how much was paid for "work" that wasn't verified. 

And before him was PM Jean Chretien.  He famously promised to scrap the GST as an election promise. How's that GST-scrappy thing working out for you?  He also promised to stop a helicopter contract worth C$5.8 billion for 50 helicopters.  In the end, the federal government paid around $500 million to get out of that contract.  And Chretien forced a no-compete Challenger contract that cost taxpayers for Liberal fundraisers.

That is how we got to Stephen Harper in the first place. 

So I guess my point is this; it's all great to get enthused about a real change in Ottawa and it's really nice to dream of a better tomorrow when you see great ideals like this:

But the recent history demonstrates Liberals exploit emotional responses to get the votes they need. They are very good at emotional content-less politics with meaningless platitudes like "tomorrow can always be better". Of course it can but that's one of three options and that outcome is uncertain.  And they will promise things they don't realize they can't deliver; and that's a very big problem because they end up as lies told to manipulate you in the first place.  But they don't care because it gets them elected. Delivering on what they promise is less realistic, it's easy to talk smack it's harder to make that change a reality.

And it's great to support positive change. But you may soon wake up to the reality that they are just as lock-step with corporations as the Conservatives were. And then you end up feeling something like this:

Let's hope the "new Liberals" live up to what they promised....

Saturday, October 17, 2015

Idris Elba too street to play Bond; this was not an insult.

Idris Elba too street to play Bond; this was not an insult.

The idea behind the comment that Idris Elba was not suited to play Bond was not something hysterical as most kneejerk reactors chose to take it.  It has nothing to do with Idris and had everything to do with Bond.  It was not code for racism.

Idris Elba is a great actor.  I thought he was the most convincing commander in Pacific Rim.  He's no slouch at transformation for a role and after his interview  with Wendy Mesley I want to see him as Mandela. This comment had nothing to with Elba's ability.

James Bond is a snob and a boor.  He's an upper class twit, oozing self- confidence and bravado all the while missing death by fractions.  He is not a likeable person and he's hard to play.  He has to convince people of his value while all the while questioning himself. Wine, women, and constantly proving himself for his own needs; he is a death wish enabler.

All the author was saying, and obviously as a James Bond author he'd know more than unfamiliar people would, that it's a stretch for an approachable actor to convince the audience.

That said, I'd like to see them give Idris the part. Perhaps it won't be as difficult for him.

#DonaldTrump is right: Bush didn't heed warnings about 9/11

Donald Trump reminds us George Bush missed the attack on 9/11. 

Here's what George Bush's CIA briefing was titled,

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US



#JebBush is trying to rewrite history. A so-called hawk #GeorgeBush missed all the military intelligence's value.   Here's Jeb's tweet:

19h19 hours ago
How pathetic for to criticize the president for 9/11. We were attacked & my brother kept us safe.

Exactly how did he prevent the 9/11 attack?

Friday, October 16, 2015

Christopher Hitchens was an enigma.

An educated man that verbally sparred with anyone.

A self-proclaimed socialist that acted like a independent capitalist.

A demagogue not interested in his own status.

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Religion poisons everything: 6 N.Y. church members arrested after teen dies in assault

 Religion poisons everything: people beat teen to death for not confessing sins... so sins are so evil it is worth killing a sinner over:

 The assaults occurred after a Sunday night service at the church, which is located about 250 miles north of New York City. The congregation held what Inserra called a "counseling session" for the two brothers.
Teen dies in N.Y. church assault

Teen dies in N.Y. church assault 02:29
But the session became violent, the police chief said.
"Both brothers were continually subjected to physical punishment over the course of several hours in the hopes that each would confess to prior sins and ask for forgiveness," he said.

Liberal Fantasy Fiction : meaningless platitudes.

 Canadians know that better is always possible, and Liberals will work hard, each and every day, to give all Canadians a real and fair chance at success. 

Exactly how is "better always possible"? Your economy is at 100%, how does it get better?  But it sounds really good, on an emotional level.

And even if it's possible, does that mean it's likely? Do you mention how to make it more likely?  Working hard doesn't mean working in the right direction.

It's all meaningless platitudes to make you think positively. But how does one think critically about the proposal? There's nothing meaningful here to judge.


Sunday, October 11, 2015

Modern society cannot coexist with radical Islam.

Modern society  cannot coexist with radical Islam. There is no such thing as moderate Islam. There are Islamists and those that will soon be persecuted by  Islamists.
The fact that DAESH killed Muslims in this attack is because they are not true Muslims: only in-denial half believers.

Every time society tries to be reasonable, the other side is not bound to do or think the same. For Islam,  there is no accommodation, only stalemate on the way to final victory. Those that are moderate Islamists are in denial.

Society should stop kidding itself there's a peaceful solution.

If this isn't the case then why the rush to suicide bombers? This is one attack that ISIS will never take credit for because it will galvanize Turkey against them.

And if this attack is from ISIS then why does the media ignore this reality yet give honest and smart Ben Carson more problems for pointing these facts out? HE'S BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG BUT THAT'S NOT A CONTROVERSY.

He's not the first one to use stupid ideas to market to the American people.

Friday, October 9, 2015

Pravda is censored in case anyone doubted it.

I tried to post this on Pravda and it disappeared in seconds...

You talk a lot but miss the point many times, if you want to know what's really the situation I can assure you the USA doesn't really care for or against Jesus or religion. They claim to until it is bad for business.  What has really gone on is the Dollar Hegemony.
They trade oil for dollars backed up by the gun.  They started down a track and Ron Paul has been warning about the end of this way as a trainwreck for many years. What you can't see is that they don't know how to stop the train, and the corporate sociopaths in NY don't want to if it affects profits.  You want the actual truth from an American on the inside? Read

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Adam Johnson's misappointed "self-victimization"

Adam Johnson wrote a barely-coherent but required length smearing of Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins;  he posits the argument that these liberals are not understood and appreciated by left-wingers because of some flaw they hold in their opinions. He titled it:

Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins just don’t get it: The real reason(s) progressives can’t stand them

 The pair still can't understand why their self-victimization shtick plays so poorly on the left. We have some idea

                          Bill Maher                     Richard Dawkins                    

Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins are left wing / liberal people that speak out on many issues and you can guess that they come down where you would expect; but they operate on the assumption that people are thinking, acting, individuals that are part of the community and should operate like other free and responsible people. This leads to a rift between what should be equally-liberal people that Adam Johnson calls "progressives" - who tend to allow people to compensate for history.

Adam Johnson wrote:

 Bill Maher and his good friend, Richard Dawkins, sat down on his show Real Time Friday night for the fifth time in almost eight seasons. Their discussion, per usual, was an agreeable, tedious mix of self-victimization and indignation about why so many on the left – specifically the Twitter left – think their obsession with “radical Islam” makes them bigots.
 Secondly, this position is dripping with libertarian false equivalency. The “I criticize all religions equally” is the close cousin to “I criticize all races equally” — a principle that sounds cute in theory but wilfully ignores the burden of history and imperialism.

This is where Adam runs off the track.  The whole notion of "the burden of history and imperialism" as the reason why some groups of people need to be given allowance for their actions that justifies un-liberal treatment.  There may be reasons why some people are repressed and unfairly treated, but they are still individuals with rights and responsibilities as good people doing good.

This allowance for exceptional treatment is in itself unfair. This is not free and fair; it is biased fairness.  WE can't keep treating people as if they are still slaves or victims. They MUST be accountable for their actions.

And this "the burden of history and imperialism" excuse is exactly the way apologists ignore accountability and distract reaction when groups should take responsibility and change.

Let me give you two examples that Bill Maher would treat equally. They also demonstrate the same slanted liberalism;

On the Sandy Hook shooting tragedy, the NRA responded:
Wayne La Pierre, President of the NRA:
LAPIERRE: Like most Americans, we were shocked by what happened. Like all Americans, we’ve been discussing all of the various options that are available to protect our children, and at this point we would like to share our thinking with you.
The truth is, that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters. People that are so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons, that no sane person can every possibly comprehend them. They walk among us every single day, and does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn’t planning his attack on a school, he’s already identified at this very moment?  
Rather than face -- rather than face their own moral failings the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws, and fill the national media with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action, and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.

  Key Tactics:
  • We condemn the attack, we are not associated with the attack.   
  • Crazy people are not the same as gun owners.
  • Gun owners victimized by collective reference to gun-using killers.
  • The media is to blame for not properly representing the issues.
Here is how Bill Maher takes on the NRA, which get applauded:

On the Charlie Hebdo massacre: Reza Aslan an Islamic apologist.

Reza Aslan blames Charlie Hebdo massacre on France’s “inability to tolerate multiculturalism”

ASLAN: Well, first of all, let's be clear that every single organization, major organization, Muslim organization throughout the world and in the United States, every prominent individual, be it political or religious leaders, everyone has condemned, not just this attack, but every attack that occurs in the name of Islam. Anyone who keeps saying that we need to hear the moderate voice of Islam, why aren't Muslims denouncing these violent attacks, doesn't own Google. But that said, I do think that we do need to do a better job of providing a counter-narrative. What really I think puts an obstacle in the way is opinions like Ayaan [Hirsi Ali]'s and so many others in the political and the media mainstream who continue to say that 1.7 billion people are responsible for the actions of these extremists. That doesn't help the fight against radicalism. The answer to Islamic violence is Islamic peace. The answer to Islamic bigotry is Islamic pluralism, and so that's why I put the onus on the Muslim community, but I also recognize that that work is being done, that the voice of condemnation is deafening and if you don't hear it you're not listening.

Key Tactics:
  • We condemn the attack, we are not associated with the attack.   
  • Extremist Muslims are not the same as Muslims.
  • Muslims victimized by collective reference to gun-using Muslims.
  • The media is to blame for not properly representing the issues. 

Here is how Bill Maher takes on radical Islam and Charlie Hebdo:

It is not #BillMaher and #RichardDawkins that are in denial about self-victimization; it is the left wing deniers that people use the same tactics they shun from the NRA to avoid responsibility for changing the conditions within which members are able to act. Groups are responsible for normative behaviour in the group.  If suicide bomber Hindus started killing masses, you can be sure Bill Maher would not shy away from objecting.

The whole notion of "self-victimization" is the problem that avoids looking at the real problem that the gun culture and the Muslim culture embrace ideas and practices that are dangerous to outsiders and society has a reason and a right to be concerned about both. Equally.

Self-victimization is a tactic to gain enlightened self-interest: stopping people from changing a group by exposing the problems.

Progressives need to look in the mirror and ask themselves; do they believe people are free to act for good? Do they need to be held accountable for their actions?  If you can't demand this of Muslims, then don't demand it of the NRA.

Sunday, October 4, 2015

Where is that senator with a snow ball?

Explain to us all, Senator Inhofe, about the non-existent climate change based on one data point. If it takes one data point to prove you are right then....

how about this data point? 

Saturday, October 3, 2015

The hypocritical meaning for the word terrorist

When you are fighting for your freedom you are a guerilla, a freedom fighter, a militiaman, a patriot, a minuteman, or whatever. Every nation has known people fighting for a just cause. By just, I refer to the greater good.

If during your insurrection, you bomb innocent civilians then that act, not against an oppressive government, is straight terrorism. You are labeled a killer or a murderer because that act takes you outside the protection of action against a government. It's straight evil, accidental or not, to kill innocents at any time for any reason.  Some can then call you a terrorist with justification.

Timothy McVeigh may have had some rationale, but his bombing was terrorism.

But now consider a proxy war.  Allies outside of your country deem you a freedom fighter and supply you with arms and ammunition. You are fighting a struggle for freedom with sympathetic justification.

Of course other nations align with opposite factions.

Your allies call your opponents "terrorists".  Your opponents' allies call your faction "terrorists". Neither claim may be true. But that doesn't matter.

Labelling you a terrorist now justifies attacking your bases. It's not dependent in the proxy war context on whether or not you commit murder outside justification. It's a convenient label to justify involvement.

In fact, outside nations that attack rival factions in a local conflict are the terrorists. They are murdering women and children and blaming it on local opponents. It gets swept away in the justification that the terrorists are local.

This is the hypocrisy of the meaning of terrorist. It's relative morality cynically applied.

Friday, October 2, 2015

Russia is doing what the West should have done in Syria

Russia may be the villain in Europe; but in Syria they are the only hope to save Christians from beheading and subjugation.

The west is preoccupied with toppling al Assad before helping the people in Syria. He doesn't want another power vacuum like Libya.

Putin may be playing three objectives at once: to back a favorable Arab nation,  to defeat Islamic terrorists at home while away, and currying favor with European nations.

But he also understands that half hearted military action jeopardizes the innocents hanging onto 18% of the country.

He let USA act; it's ineffective and Obama has shown his hand as not interested in ground warfare so Putin stepped in before the regime is finished and there's nothing left to save.

Putin knows there's Islamic discontent and a willingness by Russians to stomp radicals and do their part against Islam.

Let's just hope they don't grow tired of the struggle.

Religion poisons everything: you're going to see God in just about one second

Religion poisons everything.

The gunman, while reloading his handgun, ordered the students to stand up and asked if they were Christians, Boylan told her family.
"And they would stand up and he said, 'Good, because you're a Christian, you're going to see God in just about one second,'" Boylan's father, Stacy, told CNN, relaying her account.

Where did this gunman get his moral righteousness to open fire on innocents?  Christianity.

I wrote this in a comment; I'll put it here for clarity.

Whether or not he followed religion is not the point here but it could be, let me code it.

Shooter pseudocode

Fact 1: Some people are Christians
Fact 2: Guns kill people
Belief A: Christians can go to heaven when they die.
Belief B: Christians enter heaven if they are innocent or sins are forgiven.
Belief C: Innocent victims have their sins forgiven.

ERGO: Killing Christians makes them VICTIMS and sends them to heaven.

Where did he get those ideas from? FORTRAN?