Meaningless objects amount to meaningless gestures...

They are so proud of their flag....

they are holding it upside down...so they are willing to kill and die for a flag that they don't understand...

This is why Christopher Hitchens hated the #Clintons

 

Bill Clinton:"I think that there are lots of people who wanted there to be a race for different reasons. And they thought the only way they could make it a race was a full-scale frontal assault on her. And so this email thing became the biggest story in the world," Clinton said to CNN's Fareed Zakaria on "Fareed Zakaria GPS."

Bill Clinton on email scrutiny: 'I've never seen so much expended on so little'

Like semen on a blue dress?  This kind of superior arrogance from the Clintons, to take a real problem and spin it as victimization is exactly the kind of superior behaviour  that made Christopher Hitchens irate at the Clintons. The liberal left still apologizes for people that truly believed they don't have to answer to anyone else.

The Clintons have no serious liberal bona fides, so why do liberal people take them at their word they care for others. They clearly care more for themselves than doing the good they claim to.

In contrast, Hitchens would have gone to jail for what he believed strongly. Security breach by a secretary of state is not a trivial matter but in Clinton's viewpoint it's a non-issue.

A serious security breach is portrayed as a political agenda smear campaign. Do you get to avoid a speeding ticket because the policeman has it out for you? Do you get to not pay your taxes because you voted for the other guy and the taxman has it out for you? How can this be taken as a serious justification?

 Hillary Clinton is facing jail time for a serious breach of security. But no one seems to want to hold her accountable. Why would she get away with that?

So exactly HOW is Hillary Clinton different than #DonaldTrump???

Science is cool: NASA's Middle East picture

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/nileredsea_126b5740.png?itok=gFh6y7z_

This is a image from the International Space Station of the Nile, the Suez canal, and a large portion of the Middle East.

From the space station, the Middle East at night looks peaceful.

NASA's non-invasive fallacy

NASA has a philosophy of non-invasive behaviour during space exploration, perhaps colonization.

The existence of life on the moon or planets cannot . . . rationally be precluded. At the very least, present evidence is not inconsistent with its presence. . . . Negative data will not prove that extraterrestrial life does not exist; they will merely mean that it has not been found.

To contain any alien life forms, astronauts, spacecraft, and lunar materials coming back from the moon should be placed immediately in an isolation unit; the astronauts should be held in rigid quarantine for at least three weeks; and preliminary examination of the samples should be conducted behind absolute biological barriers, under rigid bacterial and chemical isolation.

The justification is to prevent harm to astronauts and space through decontamination at every level.   Makes sense from a personal protection perspective. But what about finding extra terrestrial (ET) life?

It is fallacious from a logic perspective. If external life doesn't exist, by this doctrine, and there is no way to find it but one can't stop the doctrine. One can't prove the existence of a non-existent thing, but this test says you have to keep testing forever; even if you know you can't find it! There is no limit on a potentially empty test. There is no acknowledgement that life might be found outside and above the level of microbes so why waste effort on virus / microbe level searching?

Without any hope of proving life exists this at this level this restrains freedom of action on many areas.

The problem with this mentality, born out of a university-level curiosity without impact ideal, is this: firing missiles into space and colliding them with space object is by itself an invasive act. Driving robots on lunar surfaces is contaminating a pristine natural object.  To spend inordinate sums to clean every surface of space probes only wastes resources. It doesn't prevent accidental trampling ET life at the microbe level.

If there is no life confirmed to live on Mars, we will have wasted much for nothing. It may take several life times to discover extraterrestrial life. All the while we are losing chances to change Mars to suitable conditions for humans. We could be terraforming it, we could be generating atmosphere using microbes launched at Mars.

Denying our ability to impact a planet like Mars is only slowing down progress not stopping the inevitable change. 

CNN's Haroon Moghul is just as bigoted as #DonaldTrump

Bigot is defined as:


bigot ‎(plural bigots)

1. (derogatory) One who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

   Don't call me a bigot. That's extremely rude!

2. One who is strongly partial to one's own group (e.g. religion, race, gender, political party, etc.) and is intolerant of those who differ.

In his opinion piece, mainly because it is as much conjecture about Donald Trump as Trump himself espouses, he demonstrates his own bigotry.


He writes:

It doesn't matter if Donald Trump said we should look into getting rid of Muslims, or terrorist training camps, because, to a worrying number of Americans, these appear to be the same.

They've learned this from people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who preaches that Muslims are either extremists or in denial, and Glenn Beck, who preaches that Muslims are either extremists or in denial, and so on.

Except that, if Mr. Haroon Moghul is staunchly of the opinion that Muslims are normal people and not in denial about Islam, then he too is 1) obstinately devoted to his opinion (i.e. in denial ) and 2) strongly partial to one's own group in assuming ALL Muslims are ordinary normal people. He provides no proof of his statements either, and he cannot evade suicide bombers, ISIS sympathizers, and terrorist attacks committed by Muslims inside the USA that amount to more than zero Muslims are not normal ordinary people.

He states about Trump:

Thank God for Freudian slips that clarify. See, Trump's questioner began by saying, "We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims." He did not say "jihadists," "terrorists," "extremists," or anything of the kind. He called our President a Muslim, which is not true; note, however, that he did not call Obama a Muslim and a terrorist, because it is safe to assume that in his mind, every Muslim is a terrorist.

If Donald Trump can't claim all Muslims are terrorists, then how do you get to deny extremists are Muslim? By calling a jihadist a jihadist literally means "One who participates in a jihad" and a jihad means  "A holy war undertaken by Muslims". Mr. Haroon Moghul is in pure denial.

Without recognizing there are problems in Islam, without accepting facts that are patently obvious to anyone, Mr. Haroon Moghul too is ignoring the same reality as Trump. So how is his opinion better?

He is too a bigot, against people that speak out against Islam, as much as Donald Trump is a bigot.

Having an opinion that is against Islam is acceptable under the law, so there never was a mistake made in pointing out Islam has problems.

Life under religion

Take this story about ISIS and defectors as a story writ large about life under religion.  You could substitute medieval Europe and Christianity as the back drop for the same brutality and oppression: it is not the people but the religious justification that allows evil in the name of righteousness.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34313337

The International Centre for the Study for Radicalisation (ICSR) at King's College, which published the report, estimates that hundreds of former militants have now defected or attempted to defect.
Dozens are thought to have made it out via Turkey while others have reportedly been caught and executed. The ICSR claims that the 58 cases in their study are "likely only a fraction of those disillusioned, ready to defect and/or willing to go public".

---

What the defectors said

• "I opened up my jacket and said, 'I have a suicide vest, but I don't want to blow myself up'" - Usaid Barho, Syrian teenager
• "Anything that contradicts their beliefs is forbidden. Anyone who follows what they reject is an apostate and must be killed" - anonymous defector
• "The restrictions on leaving made it feel a bit like a prison" - Abu Ibrahim, 'Westerner'

Read more case studies in full

---

The researchers identify several key narratives among the reasons for leaving IS. Most defectors said they were concerned with brutality against fellow Muslims and perceived "un-Islamic" behaviour among members, including corruption.
Some admitted they were disappointed with the quality of life under IS. "They were typically among the ones who had joined the group for material and 'selfish' reasons, and quickly realised that none of the luxury goods and cars that they had been promised would materialise," the report says.
Two fighters said they defected after learning they were to be suicide bombers. Speaking to the BBC last year, one defector, who asked not to be named, said the "brutality of IS terrifies everyone".
"Anything that contradicts their beliefs is forbidden. Anyone who follows what they reject is an apostate and must be killed," he said.

 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32831854

Best quote of the article:

 IS is the enemy of humanity

Zaid

 

And yet, religious groups seem to think they have some moral authority here in the west; when Ben Carson said he wouldn't support a Muslim president, Islamic groups demands presidential candidates meet their expectations, agree with us or drop out of the race. Remember that defector: "Anything that contradicts their beliefs is forbidden. Anyone who follows what they reject is an apostate and must be killed".

A simple political question: do you want a new PM?

PM Harper is now resorting to desperate racist tactics in a bid to keep his job.
He is now appealing to "old stock" Canadians- whatever that means.

The "old-stock Canadians" remark, instead of going unnoticed, immediately unleashed an onslaught of questions over what "old stock" meant, whether it had racist overtones and whether it was part of an overall Conservative campaign to engage in identity politics or stoke fears against other groups.

Stoking fear and racism is a common tactic of Republicans. The "silent majority" was a Nixon meme. I thought we were different here than Americans? Fear politics or politics of division is a society shattering way to hold onto power.  It distracts happy productive people with fear and uncertainty about their neighbors.  It is a tactic of dictators and oligarchs. It is undemocratic.

Harper is counting on a left split of votes to hold power; he is using fear, uncertainty, and doubt to keep a minority of votes.

The single biggest question Canadians need to ask themselves is this: on October 20, when the election is over, do you want to see Harper as prime minister again? If you don't, then you need to decide which opposition politician has the best chance of winning in your riding and vote strategically. You can't let him win through fear and racism.

#DonaldTrump supporter: Muslims want to kill us

Trump is getting more media scorn for not correcting a "mis-informed Trump supporter".

"We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims," an unidentified man who spoke at a question-and-answer town hall event in Rochester, New Hampshire asked the mogul. "You know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."

A seemingly bewildered Trump interrupted the man, chuckling, "We need this question. This is the first question."

"Anyway, we have training camps growing where they want to kill us," the man, wearing a "Trump" T-shirt, continued. "That's my question: When can we get rid of them?"

There were two issues raised; one crazy and the other sane; Obama is a Muslim and Muslims want to kill us.
Trump's response was not agreement, it was business-sociopathic code for  "Oh jeez a crazy person". But his first response was not this is an important question.  He did not want to engage and argue with this person. If you've heard as many business leaders as I have you know they're really saying fuck off and die even as they sound sincere more times than not. The first statement was bogus but Trump wanted to move along.

The unnamed Trump supporter was right on the other fact. There are Muslims training in camps (madrassas) indoctrinated to hate America and Americans.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92myDzAFgU4

The fact is the media is sidestepping the right issue to ridicule Trump  about the stupid question regarding Obama but not the very real part of the Muslims fomenting hate and death to America.

Of course the career politician Clinton thought this was a great time to support the false narrative of the media. This is pure cynical voter exploitation.

Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton

Donald Trump not denouncing false statements about POTUS & hateful rhetoric about Muslims is disturbing, & just plain wrong. Cut it out. -H

10h ago

So let's argue about decorum and etiquette whether or not Trump didn't admonish this American over his fears.  Instead of a very real problem that can't be glossed over.

Neil deGrasse Tyson's Solipsism.

Neil deGrasse Tyson tweeted:

If your Personal Beliefs deny what’s objectively true about the world, then they're more accurately called Personal Delusions

to which I off-handedly replied:

 @neiltyson Objectively true in your solipsism; to the rest of us just another belief outside our own minds...

Then I realized few would understand what I said. Let me give you a concrete example:

Neil looks at a science-driven gauge that reads "7.0" units.

I look at the same science-driven gauge and I read "7.0" units as well.

Fact A: Gauge represents an objective transformation of a set of physical laws working in the universe to a reading of a representative scalar value.

Fact B: Science-driven gauge represents reality to Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Fact C: Science-driven gauge represents reality to me.

No matter how accurate nor precise the science-driven gauge is, I can't use it to prove the existence of Neil deGrasse Tyson. Nor can he prove mine. Standing in front of each other though we may be looking at the same gauge, I could be part of his "inception-like" dream about reality around himself.

Science-driven gauge exists in two realities but we can't use those facts, demonstrate they are, the same. This is the heart of solipsism. People assume it must be so because we can understand so much of the universe. But we are still using the old wet ware. It can be fooled and that's been proven.

Since he can't prove my existence using anything but his senses (even if he were to use a sensor he is still reading the dial with his own vision), then my existence can only be a belief he holds about the world around himself.  He can't know I exist outside what his brain provides.

Let me spell it out clearer still: belief in Jesus, or Buddha, or Santa Claus is just as uncertain as belief in a person standing beside you.

There is no tool nor technique that can confirm we exist outside our minds to date. Because we still interface through our senses. This is an open question.

So when he points out that beliefs - and by those he means ideas/memes like religion that are based on superstition, tradition, ancient folk stories, etc. - are better defined as delusions, he does not realize perhaps that we might just be delusions in other people's minds.

The media's hypocrisy

By definition, hypocrisy means:

1. The claim or pretense of having beliefs, standards, qualities, behaviours, virtues, motivations, etc. which one does not actually have. [from early 13th c.]
2. The practice of engaging in the same behaviour or activity for which one criticises another; moral self-contradiction whereby the behavior of one or more people belies their own claimed or implied possession of certain beliefs, standards or virtues.
3. An instance of either or both of the above.

All the media claims to exhibit the highest standards conduct, yet when it comes to Trump and debates they, CNN in this case, are shilling the Republican Presidential debates with the same fight promoter buffonery as they criticize Trump for using.

This is CNN's Trump synopsis for the debate:

Trump

Given his defiance of the normal rules of political gravity, it's become difficult to predict the kind of error that would stunt Trump's momentum.

A stray remark that would offend women? He was quoted in his Rolling Stone cover story last week as saying, "Look at that face," when Fiorina appeared on television. He went head-to-head with Fox News host Megyn Kelly during and after the first debate hosted by Fox News.

Another turn of phrase that would offend Latinos? Trump has stood by comments that some Mexican immigrants are criminals and rapists, proposed ending universal birthright citizenship and advocated building a wall along the Mexican border. Despite all of that, his support has only grown, though he is viewed negatively by a majority of Hispanics.

Nothing about his policy. Nothing about his business record. Nothing about his plans, except the wall with Mexico. No serious issues. This is fight promotion pure and simple. Pure hype to promote the debate viewership for their own selfish reasons. This could be a school yard fight. Pure cynical self-interest. Even the intro music sounds like "Rocky" for the debate ads.

They are hypocritical of Trump yet do not meet the same high standards for journalism.

This is why people are willing to support Trump, flaws and all, despite what the media says about him. They don't trust what the media says about him.  In fact, it might be helping him.

Please include my reasonable question CNN!

CNN is allowing questions for the next Republican debate but they keep squashing my reasonable question:

   If a US citizen goes to the caliphate and pledges allegiance to ISIS should they lose their citizenship?

They have removed my question thrice.  Pass this along and see if you can submit it.  I don't care who gets the credit I think it's important to see if anti-immigration also means disenfranchisement for citizens.

NB( I used the wrong term disestablishment earlier)

#DonaldTrump: Business people aren't to be trusted

#DonaldTrump has been right on a few issues:

Immigrant families in the US are more on some form of social assistance. More than half of immigrants on welfare. 76% of immigrant-led households are on some form of welfare.

I hate to say it but Bill O'Reilly's analysis is close to reality. Trump is claiming politicians can't be trusted.

 Another Trump target is Ford. Donald Trump shows you what business men think of other businessmen:  Donald Trump plans to tax Ford 35% on every vehicle coming from a Mexican plant. He wants to punish American companies to force them to operate more inside the USA.

Donald Trump agrees with Adam Smith: Never trust a businessman explaining his business.

This truth is what people appreciate in Trump, warts and all, he isn't afraid of speaking what is unpopular. He isn't afraid to take on cronys / oligarchs to change how things are working. This is the Trump value.

It's not hard to see why people like him. He has remained consistent and he doesn't waver on his stance on issues.

He is, however, missing the biggest method to improve the economy.  The way to build long term high paying jobs is not to fight over old technology. It is to invest in Research & Development to invent new products for manufacturing. We need to keep looking up.

Nothing has inherent meaning

Political rally or target practice?

Or this:

How can any meaning attach to things? In one context it is understood commonly as one meaning to have a head on a sign, in the next context it means entirely something different.

So what does this mean anyway?

http://img.technospot.net/Shoot-osama-as-your-target-practice.jpg

People are ready to fight and die for the meaning of things that are perfectly absent of meaning.  Meaning is an ablative concept.

ISIS isn't the only problem, religion is.

Truth is a relative thing where people hide and find whatever meaning they wish.

Our Prime Minister is certain that ISIS is the reason for all the problems in Syria and Iraq.

Harper criticized the NDP for its refusal to fight what he said is the "root cause" of the suffering, namely the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
"It is deeply wrong and it is out of step with what Canadians believe," Harper said while campaigning in Whitehorse.
Mulcair said no military action could have prevented the deaths of refugees who drowned trying to flee the conflict.
"The NDP disagrees with the use of Canada's armed forces in that conflict," Mulcair said. "We've been clear on that since the beginning."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/canadian-forces-have-no-role-to-play-in-syria-iraq-mulcair-1.2548223

Harper's premise is: a certain gang of Islamic people is the reason - "the root cause" of what is going in in Syria and Iraq.

Here's my version: a certain gang of RELIGIOUS people is the reason - "the root cause" of what is going in in Syria and Iraq. 

Take away the religious justification and this guy:  

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

becomes this guy:

Pablo Emilio Escobar Gaviria  - Pablo Escobar. 

A drug-running narco terrorist. Compare and contrast what each did and why.

Take away religion, that odious varnish of dubious respectability that seems to attach to justify evil, and there is nothing left but a gang of people against society.

Maybe we should tackle the bigger problem first, and the smaller problem will take care of itself. Then we don't have actions like this:

He writes what triggered today’s carnage was his reaction to the racism of the Charleston church shooting: “Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15… What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them.” …He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act. Later in the manifesto, the writer quotes the Virginia Tech mass killer, Seung Hui Cho, calls him “his boy,” and expresses admiration for the Columbine High School killers… In an often rambling letter to the authorities, and family and friends, he writes of a long list of grievances. In one part of the document, Williams calls it a “Suicide Note for Friends and Family.” He says has suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work He says he has been attacked by black men and white females He talks about how he was attacked for being a gay, black man “Yes, it will sound like I am angry…I am. And I have every right to be. But when I leave this Earth, the only emotion I want to feel is peace….” “The church shooting was the tipping point…but my anger has been building steadily…I’ve been a human powder keg for a while…just waiting to go BOOM!!!!”

Why does he feel at peace with his actions? Perhaps because he is "going to a better place?". Where does this smug ignorance arrive from?

We want to bomb people and rescue refugees, but does anyone want to solve the real problem?

Greatness

There is nothing greater than a man unswayed by greatness.