Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Classic passive-aggressive abuser tactics: Clinton takes role of the victim to attack Trump the same way

“I really deplore the tone of his campaign, the inflammatory rhetoric that he is using to divide people, and his going after groups of people with hateful, incendiary rhetoric,” the Democratic front-runner for president said in an interview with The Des Moines Register

Hillary Clinton, who lied about Trump being ISIS's best recruiting weapon, has now demonstrated she's just as nasty only in passive-aggressive form. She is using classic abuser tactics to seem like a helpless victim so you won't notice she's slinging as much mud as Trump.  These are deceptive oppressive tactics of a narcissistic superiority complex. She is just as divisive as Trump, only you are made to believe she's a helpless victim.

This is like the office nag that complains about the size of the cake piece you took, so no one notices she's got two end pieces...

Monday, December 21, 2015

Obama: Attack the media, don't point out the problem.

The media is a narcissistic self-possessed mirror watcher. It can't help but gaze at its' own work and see it in the best light. When Obama points out the hysteria caused by the media, he shouldn't make it a talking point - he should attack them for making things worse.

When Obama points out like a rational person:

"If you've been watching television for the last month, all you have been seeing, all you have been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you," he said in the NPR interview. "So I understand why people are concerned about it."
"Look, the media is pursuing ratings," he added later. "This is a legitimate news story. I think that, you know, it's up to the media to make a determination about how they want to cover things."

The modern president is not familiar with wartime propaganda. The leaders of old understood that while media should be free it's power for ill in a time of war was a serious problem if not checked. Obama needs to ridicule that same free press that is self-consumed with non-critical analysis and fear mongering that drives their profits at the expense of the people that they supposedly represent.

The fact is that 1100 people killed by ISIS is a tiny blip on the map lost in the noise of car crashes.   The USA could kill 10,000 people a day forever. So in reality ISIS is a tiny shit stain on humanity that is overblown to elephantine status by stupid people over-estimating their lack of thought on the subject.

Time for Obama to summon his inner-Trump and blast them for their incompetence. At least then he would be in quorum with the American people.

Friday, December 18, 2015

The Great Sleaze Off

Hillary Clinton vs. Ted Cruz

I can't imagine a more repugnant sleaze-off than those two.  Trump may be insrutable, but he's not phoney in the same league as these two.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

You want good economic advice? Listen to Marc Faber

There are few economists that stay inside the right variance on economic assessment and prediction like Marc Faber. Or Dr. Doom:

Marc Faber: This is ‘precisely the wrong time’ for Fed to hike

Part of the reason the economy does badly is that people listen to the wrong analysis, that leads to the wrong advice, and then they make bad investments, or make bad decisions like when to raise interest rates.  Some people like Marc Faber and even apocalyptic doomsayer Max Keiser are really the only sane people in the room.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

The maddening thing about Trump: he does get results...

While he can be described in many ways that are negative or neutralizing in nature, one must say that he is effective.

His Muslim ban policy is pure nonsense but his angry unintelligible overreaction galvanized anger from without and support from within but it has forced the hands of people like Saudi princes that are now dancing to his tune.  If they don't do more to quelch radical Islam, they will lose their US visit privileges. They will also face the wrath of their own people for their loss of visits. They will be seen as helpless and weak in their own peoples' eyes.

Did Hillary Clinton's access get the Saudi king to move? Did Obama get cooperation from Saudis for a coalition against ISIS?

The simple fact is: while he may be a blundering fool, his rambling motion pushes the establishment out of their comfort zone and into progress...

Even Putin would welcome greater relations with Trump than Obama.
While Putin's ringing endorsement of Trump as "bright and talented" might be European wry humor, or more maskirovka i.e. lying ,  it is at least an acknowledgement that they have to plan for Trump. Again, Trump is making people react to him whether or not he understands it.

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

The Full Trumpian

I hereby declare the definition of a new term: Trumpian.

A Trumpian argument: an argument inspired by Grade 6 knowledge and thought processes, exploiting emotional demagoguery blaming the wrong victims, saturated with intellectual nonsense, and accentuated with domineering against any reasonable objection.

To be used in a sentence like,

"When Bill was rebuffed for his silly viewpoint on Muslims, he went full Trumpian in response."

A synonym for Trumpian might be a vitriolic incoherence. 

This new term is not to be misconstrued with Kennedian, Reaganism, nor Churchillian discourse. I don't need to underline the context here.

Who's the moron: Trump or a Saudi prince attacking Trump? Answer: Voters

Saudi prince insults Donald Trump. So a Saudi prince, not exactly a favourable figure in US politics for all the back dealing and inside politics of the Bush family, attacks Trump:

"You are a disgrace not only to the GOP [Republican Party] but to all America,"
"Withdraw from the US presidential race as you will never win."

Does he not realize that he is playing right into Donald Trump's plans? Is THIS a setup? Of course Donald Trump is going to hit back and look like a BIGGER hero to the people he is manipulating. Was this a ploy FOR Trump or FOR Clinton?

Prince Alwaleed cannot be that stupid.  I am sure he went to good schools, studied more than his napkin,  and  I have to think Prince Alwaleed tweeted to look like a defender of Islam, which appeals to his base, and yet also manipulated Americans TOWARDS Donald Trump.

So should you take his words at face value, or should you connect the dots to his major donation towards Clinton Foundation? 

I wrote this post stream of consciousness style, complete with typos,  and then considered I should be clear for those unfamiliar: a vote for Trump in the Republican primary is a vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election in the prince's estimation.  So by transitive properties, a vote for Trump is a vote for Prince Alwaleed. He is acting the foil. So if you don't want the prince to win, don't vote for either Clinton or Trump.

Monday, December 14, 2015

Freedom for all: Islamists should be allowed to leave for da'esh, only they agree to give up their passports and citizenship.

It's hypocritical for a free society to restrict people from joining a caliphate. Like allowing people to join christian missions or the peace corps, we do not make people stay away from all foreign participation - we certainly don't restrict people from going abroad for business.

So we should live up to the ideals of a free society and allow people to leave for the caliphate with one condition. If they choose to leave for Syria, their passports are invalid once they get there. They will give up their citizenship to follow their ideals but they will be free.  If they agree it's a one way trip, and understand they will be tracked as a foreign terror suspect.

If you have the freedom to kill yourself in a climbing accident or in a sky-diving accident, then why can't you die for your ideals?

Sunday, December 13, 2015

Bad phrases lead to bad ideas

If we want to change the future, the single biggest way we influence that is by use of words and phrases for the memes that they represent. Ideas are what people store in their minds and use to construct their belief about reality.  I didn't understand this until I read philosophy. We can confront a different future by exploiting ideas. We can reconstruct what other people think, by removing faulty ideas from the superstructure of beliefs.

If we want people to stop glorifying an imaginary friend, we need to stop using misleading phrases.
My daughter and I were trying to find a restaurant and couldn't see it nearby in a city we don't know. She punched in the name in a phone and used GPS to find it in a row of businesses you couldn't see from the highway. She called it a god send. That's the kind of stuff we all say without thinking.

That snapped me back to reality. I said, "you know, when you say that it takes away the credit from all the hard working scientists and engineers that worked for decades to make cellphones and the GPS satellite system."

This is nothing more than a comforting idea to religious people and it really has no place in our society.

It steals credit for the sacrifice that those people made; and by saying it we are perpetuating wrong ideas that are actually church doctrine and not reality.  We need the next generation to understand our parents made those things, not divine intervention, and not church doctrine. The god of the gaps argument is an indoctrination idea that we can't afford any longer.

Let's not undermine what humans did by praising the wrong things and allowing the wrong ideas.

Instead, let's teach our kids about the GPS satellites, how they were launched into space and how they orbit until they burn up and reenter. Nothing mysterious in that.

Friday, December 11, 2015

Ted Cruz is trying to be Trump Lite: only his phoneyness is what angry voters hate.

Cruz is trying to seem appealing to the same angry voters that support Donald Trump.  The only problem is Ted Cruz is a fake sneaky person in no way resembling Trump in any way.  Cruz is trying to be Trump Lite: the more reasonable outrageous candidate.  So far it's working. But  Cruz may draft in the shadow but when the light is shone on him those voters will not follow.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Obama's opportunity lost...

Obama tried to solve a marginal problem that Americans really want to solve, ISIS / daesh, with a real serious problem Americans should solve first but seem color-blind to: domestic gun violence.

It was a good attempt to spur American people to stop killing each other with weapons of war by linking it to a patriotic cause. Unfortunately, it really just shifts the blame and responsibility for terror violence from Obama's failing ISIS strategy to a domestic onus to sacrifice personal liberty.

By doubling down on his "stay the course" policy towards ISIS, Obama lost an opportunity to cement a real solution to that crisis.  Normal people will think the opposite to what Obama claimed; if radical Muslims are roaming the streets and might attack parties then why take guns away from citizens?  That seems counter intuitive.

Comparing Trump's ban Muslims to Obama's ban assault rifles solutions, neither plan will fix the problem and both of them are in denial of the reality.

Instead, Obama should have proposed that Americans DONATE their assault rifles to the CAUSE of fighting ISIS. To arm friends in the region to defeat a common enemy. To get rid of ISIS faster, arm allies faster and the best way is fight them over there. Get the guns OUT of America. That would stop the terror funding and lone wolf attacks.

THAT would solve both problems at once.

Trump's plan is almost genius

If Trump would change his "ban Muslims until Congress figures it out" plan just slightly it would both appeal to inner fear and seem reasonable.

If he would change it to:

"I will ban Muslims from entering the US until ISIS is defeated"

then it would seem more like a measured response to the actual situation. It would still be blatant fear mongering, but at least it would look like a reaction to the problem and not just straight discrimination.

Thursday, December 3, 2015

In denial about impact...

Obama has a real behavioral habit which is one reason why he's seen as a poor president by some corners of America that would otherwise react rationally to reasonable behaviour. It's not just that people hate him because he's a democrat or a black man. It's because he stakes a claim on opinion that is proven false which makes him seem stupid or in denial about the impact of those statements being wrong. It strips credibility from what he's trying to do.

Obama has a real disconnection from the reality and impact of speaking an opinion that is proved wrong very soon after uttering it.  When he claims that off shore drilling is safe when it's as dangerous as any offshore operations, it makes he seem out of touch.  Barack Obama reverses campaign promise and approves offshore drilling

This was one of the first times I noticed this habit. This is a bad habit and any tactician would tell you how devastating it is for confidence if you utter wishful thinking that falls over immediately. Thinking 3 moves ahead, you know it's unwise to start that way. So why do it again and again?

When he calls a serious terrorist organization amateur when he could be vaguer that makes him seem ill-informed or out of touch.  Spinning Obama’s reference to Islamic State as a ‘JV’ team

When he claims Americans are safe when a fraction of them will clearly die in terror violence that will get through the safest security system, then he is lying to the masses when they can see differently. Obama: U.S. safe against ISIS attack.

It doesn't matter he was proven wrong in hours, it might have been hours weeks or months it will eventually happen.

When he refuses to blame Islam in any way for the violence they commit and get away with he tarnishes the rights of non-Muslim Americans that don't want to live in fear of deceitful neighbors.  Obama Explains Why He Doesn't Use The Term 'Radical Islam' For Islamic State, Al Qaeda

He is wishing the statements to be true when there is little support for that opinion. That is what opponents seize on to discredit; some of the most facile and foolish work of an otherwise capable president.

He is tone-deaf to the outcome when he is proven wrong, that it shakes trust and confidence at a time when people need assurance the president is not in denial. That denial of impact is far worse than any pipe bomb or assault rifle.

Saturday, November 28, 2015

Let's call attacking abortion clinics what it is: Christian extremism

Let's call the people that justify violence against abortion  rights of secular society what it really is: radical Christian extremism.


It's all evil.

Sunday, November 22, 2015

god of the gaps: earthquakes in Afghanistan

5.9 magnitude earthquake hits Afghan-Pakistan-Tajikistan border

If I was a religious person, and I lived in an earthquake-ridden place like Afghanistan, then I would

tend to believe that god had forsaken us with all the famine and war and earthquakes.  Can a god be so merciful and kind and forgiving yet torture his people so badly?  Imagine if the people of Afghanistan had ignored god and sustained their strength for natural disasters rather than blowing all their resources and young people on religious wars that lead to religious peace. As a prelude to disaster by natural causes. Religion poisons everything...

Friday, November 20, 2015

Legal protection for hackers fighting ISIS

As citizens in a free yet lawful society, we should make it clear to governments that hackers operating against ISIS, Al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist group are doing a societal good that protects us all. Hacking is still illegal.  Hacking should not be prosecuted for those fighting anti-society forces. It is done for the greater good. That should outweigh other concerns. It should be recognized as such and guarantees should be made on their behalf.

Modern Society is incompatible with Islam

Islam is a language of doom-saying prophecy that is incompatible with modern values and goals. It's not that the majority of Muslims are violent and death-seeking, it's that having the religion around makes it available to people that succumb to the temptation to exploit it for evil.  The longer it is legal to practise, the more people will die needlessly for other people's delusions.

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Evidence in reality: refugee terrorists versus armed local supects?

Aiming at the real problem; it's nice for politicians to beat up on refugees from terror violence. It's politics at it's best.  At the same time, they don't look at the actual evidence before they speak because these potential threats are not voters.  There are 2000 terror suspects in the US that are legally allowed to purchase guns.

So why focus on the refugees fleeing terror over the actual terror suspects that are armed?

Monday, November 16, 2015

If France really wants to hurt ISIS: kick out extremists and empty your jails unto Raqqa

If France really wants to get old-school biblical on ISIS then they need to go back a few centuries. If France really wants to hurt ISIS; expel citizens that are Islamic sympathizers. Then empty out your jails and send them to Raqqa. Give your convicts a reprieve and letters of marque to hit the enemy. Give them letters of marque and reprisal to go into Raqqa and since 70% of the 65,000 prisoners are Muslim either they fight for you or become a burden on ISIS to feed, clothe, and house. If they fight for you then they can come home under the letters of marque and reprisal. If they don't fight for you they won't come back at all.  Use the Foreign Legion to steer them in and let them loose.  That should do more than bombing ever would.

Sunday, November 15, 2015

An atheist replacement for religion

If there is to be a long term replacement for Christianity, or any religion, in today's society then there must be a substitute that equals the same components that people find in organized religion.  A religion offers more tangible contributions than just dogma (from christianity etc.) that shouldn't be trivialized nor minimized in terms of the overall impact of any religion.

Any replacement for religion must satisfy all the same human needs; it must have three main components:

  1. It must have an organization with rules and corporate knowledge.
  2. It must have a way to appeal to people's spiritual needs.  
  3. It must give a sense of fellowship and community for membership.

With or without a belief centre, it must give the same benefits that humans crave and need.  Without which, all efforts are doomed to push people back to religion.

One cannot defeat an ideology with bullets

As much as everyone wants to clamour unto war, it must be pointed out one cannot defeat an ideology with weapons. At the end of a victorious campaign, we would still be against an ideology that spreads in our midst to rise and start all over again. Cutting off the head is pointless, the chimera spreads.  Defeating the ideology means vanquishing the ideas they stand for.

Friday, November 13, 2015

Even Buddhists can persecute and be intolerant.

Religion poisons everything, even Buddhism which can be interpreted for ill as well as any orthodoxy, any dogma, as even Bill O'Reilly has pointed out about nihilism and atheism, although nihilism can be argued to be a belief system as much as a formal religion. Buddhist monks in Myanmar have spawned ultra-nationalistic supporters of anti-Islam sentiment, even participating in protests and calls for violence against Muslims.  It saddens me to see Buddhists getting so upset about tempo-material things. 

On the other hand, it can be argued that only the most severe conditions would make normally-peaceful, esoteric Buddhists drop the separation and advocate against another group. One can't argue that Islam is not without danger and harm for non-Muslims. Perhaps this should be a wake-up call for those that are sympathetic or too liberal to see the truth.

Monday, November 9, 2015

Hillary Clinton's Futurama analogy

I can't help it but whenever I think of Hillary Clinton, I think of Mom from Mom's Old-fashioned robot company...

It seems to me to foreshadow president Clinton's reign...

Saturday, November 7, 2015

Ben Carson: A moral oxymoron

If you are going to run around claiming some moral authority based on your religious views, like Ben Carson, then the worst group of people to lie to about yourself is veterans and serving members of the army / armed forces.

It's a group that won't tolerate your moral ambiguity when it comes to yourself and your accomplishments. They will eventually abandon a civilian that claims some special priviledge when it comes to military service when you never dug a trench, never humped a rucksack, and never served... your attributional need to belong to the military is no substitute for serving.

Monday, November 2, 2015

Hello Russian hacker

For the person trying to hack my accounts from Lebedyn Russia (if that's how you spell it). I promise you there's nothing valuable on these social accounts I know IPSEC.

Sunday, November 1, 2015

The Galactic Imperative

If you don't accept Stephen Hawking's imperative that mankind needs to explore and colonize the stars - because right now we are one planetary catastrophe from extinction - then consider a more mundane yet equally likely reason.

Another reason why we need to explore and colonize is resources. When we run out of things on this planet, gold, copper, and so on, then we would be left picking through garbage to find enough resources to make the things our society uses. It would be expensive but some people claim it's possible to reclaim much so this seems like a less dire scenario.

But there is another more dire twist to this scenario; it is entirely possible that at some point all the resources are used and reclaimed so there is literally no resources left. With population explosion, more people use resources in parallel.

With people living longer and people consuming more products, at some point there won't be any more for those that exist together. Then we have become resource-locked - we can't build anything new unless we demolish what is there first. That would be a massive economic failure. So much resources would go into refabrication the energy cost would waste what we have and jeopardize the future.

So we need to expend resources while we still have flexibility to reach out into the stars, literally so people can all have iPhones and planes.

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.