Fox - Washington Free Beacon - Labor costs to skyrocket for American cars. Since 2008 most auto jobs in the United States saw no cost of living raise. Now, 7 years later they are getting raises of 5 to 9%. This seems to horrify certain conservatives. There are two things I wish to point out. Firstly, American car manufacturers have most of their parts made oversees, not in America. As previously reported, the cars with the highest percentage of American parts are Japanese auto manufacturers. Second, the executives at the companies that took bailouts and were responsible for the economic crash continued getting bonuses since 2008.
Las Vegas Review Journal - Nevada pursues Route 160 widening project. Now, you have probably never heard of this highway as it goes from Las Vegas to Pahrump, Nevada. It is two lanes in both directions and is practically empty most of the time. I have driven it many times and know it well. In fact, I was once snowed in on it's highest point. There is no need to widen it as it is lightly travelled now. Nevada is saying that they are going to widen it for safety and increased traffic. Huh? What increased traffic? What is going to be built north of Las Vegas near Nellis Air Force Base?
Business Insider - Switzerland is about to launch a huge experiment in 'the war on cash'. This is a very interesting article about how the central banks in Switzerland and Sweden are charging negative interest rates on money issued to other banks. Basically, this is charging people a fee for holding their money rather than paying interest. Well, in the countries mentioned about few use actual cash and most transactions are electronic so the people don't notice their money being taken away as much.
Fox - 'Needless experiment': Cities weigh gov't-backed broadband, critics see tax $$ at risk. Basically, some cities and states want to provide their residents with universal Wi-Fi. This is not surprising as it is municipal right of ways that allow the towers to be put up. Certain companies see an opportunity to make lots of money and therefore want to prohibit cities from building wi-fi for their residents. This is amusing as the internet was created by the government and not private industry.
Yahoo - AFP - IMF poised to put Chinese yuan in elite currency basket. I have been saying this was coming for a few years now. While most people will not understand what it means to be a reserve currency or a "hard" currency, it basically means that your currency is accepted in other countries. The dollar has been the world currency for decades; but, that could very well end and that will make it harder for us to pay our debts.
Monday, November 30, 2015
Sunday, November 29, 2015
Schools and Opportunities
In the United States everyone under 18 is required to go to school. That is pretty common in most of the civilized world; but, it was not always so. Up until the 1900s kids either worked on the farm or in factories and coal mines by the time they were about 12. Back in the middle ages and prior almost nobody knew how to read and write. In the 1800s it was even illegal to teach slaves how to read in much of the United States. As industry grew in the 1900s, the country needed more educated people. Prior to that the only poor and middle class people that learned to read were either in the church or the military.
It has been said that "knowledge is power" and restricting people from having access to the history of the world and an understanding of how we got where we are was restricted to the "elite", to "those in power and their children", the rest of us did not have a need to know in the eyes of the rulers of this world. Collectivism, working together, is the idea that we all deserve a chance to prove our value, a chance to prove that we can do at least as or more than others who have an advantage in the game already because of wealth, collectivism means a belief in merit over birth and connections.
I shall simplify. What method should be used to determine who succeeds? Should you succeed because your family can pay for you to succeed, because you are the most suitable and best to succeed or because of a lottery drawing? Those are all things we can build the rules around that determine who succeeds. Which do you choose? If you choose merit then you need to create a system that allows people to compete based on merit and merit alone. By destroying the public school system, do you really believe that people who cannot afford a decent school have the same chance as do those who can afford better teachers?
It has been said that "knowledge is power" and restricting people from having access to the history of the world and an understanding of how we got where we are was restricted to the "elite", to "those in power and their children", the rest of us did not have a need to know in the eyes of the rulers of this world. Collectivism, working together, is the idea that we all deserve a chance to prove our value, a chance to prove that we can do at least as or more than others who have an advantage in the game already because of wealth, collectivism means a belief in merit over birth and connections.
I shall simplify. What method should be used to determine who succeeds? Should you succeed because your family can pay for you to succeed, because you are the most suitable and best to succeed or because of a lottery drawing? Those are all things we can build the rules around that determine who succeeds. Which do you choose? If you choose merit then you need to create a system that allows people to compete based on merit and merit alone. By destroying the public school system, do you really believe that people who cannot afford a decent school have the same chance as do those who can afford better teachers?
Saturday, November 28, 2015
Cocaine Mummies and Polynesia
So here is a fun one for you. This museum was testing some Egyptian mummies and discovered that they had traces of tobacco and cocaine. The problem is that the Egyptians are not known to have gone to South America and even if they had, they then would have had to pass through the cape of South America and travelled up the western coast of South America to Peru. Still, that is one of the more popular theories. It is also not possible for the Peruvians to have travelled to Egypt and not have any reports of it. Neither the Egyptians nor the Peruvians were known as great seafarers. Both had boats but they were basically small fishing boats. This has left the "scientists" confused.
YouTube - Cocaine Mummies of Ancient Egypt
I find the idea that the shipping had to be done by the Egyptians hilarious. Back 3,000 years ago there was only one culture that we know was travelling sufficiently far and across the ocean and that is the Polynesians. Not only that; but, we know that they had been in South America as in the last couple of years DNA proved it. There is an old tribe in South America that was found to have Polynesian DNA and it also appears that they did not intermarry with the Indians much.
Now lets talk about the South Pacific. To start with, it is big, it is one-third of the earth. It is much, much bigger than the Atlantic Ocean and had been travelled much larger distances than the Atlantic was ever travelled until the 1500s when Europeans finally travelled both the Atlantic and the Pacific. The purpose of all long boat trips back then was necessity. Ask yourself, for a moment, why were the Polynesians the only people to bother to keep searching the ocean for other lands? Next question, why didn't the Polynesians take over New Zealand or Australia? Australia is much closer to where Polynesia begins than is Hawaii and a heck of a lot easier to get to with many more resources and miles of beach.
I will post a link to a map; but, the South Pacific was inhabited by a small number of groups. The three biggest groups are the Polynesians, Melanesians and Micronesians. We know these groups were all seafaring and had regular interaction. The Polynesians were the greatest sailors of the three. All three of these groups could reach the Philippines and New Guinea which is part of Melanesia. The Polynesians are thought to be descendants of the Austronesians who stretched from Taiwan to Madagascar about 3,000 BC. Let me simplify all of this, we know the Polynesians had travelled to both South America and Asia. This is accepted and also that it happened thousands of years ago.
When I was at University some of my Professors thought I should become one too and one of them suggested that I become an expert in Polynesian government. He thought it would be a good niche and guarantee me a spot as a Professor as there weren't any others specializing in it. Truth is, the governing of Polynesia was never something that interested me, I was more interested in their history as a whole. I was actually fascinated with Polynesia from a Sociological standpoint and the effect World War II had on destroying their way of life.
One of the most fascinating questions is why did the Polynesians bother travelling the Pacific in the first place. Hawaii is thousands of miles away from other islands and sits pretty much alone; but, for some reason the Polynesians travelled there and peopled it. Why? Australia was closer as was South America and Africa. Why travel so far on the chance that you might find another island? Why don't we see much DNA swapping between Africa and the Polynesians and a lot between the Polynesians and the Asians?
Now, we have found Chinese silk in clothes worn by Egyptians. That proves that Egypt and China had trade. If not directly, then by intermediaries. Anything that could go to China could therefore end up in Egypt. The Polynesians were shown to be partly from Taiwan. All of what I have discussed is established, I have given you the link. Read up anywhere about Polynesia, check the time frames. So what makes it so hard for the established historians to understand that the Polynesians were the most likely candidate for having transported the cocaine, tobacco to Asia and then travel from Asia to Egypt. Why do they want to believe that the Egyptians were the ones that had to travel to Peru and apparently do so on a semi-regular basis and not have developed ships more suited to the travel?
Both Darwinians and Anthropologists have the same bias. It is a social big bang theory, the idea that an event in one place fanned out and created the rest. Since the creation of patents we now know that multiple people can create the same thing at the same time or the same things at different times without knowing of the others invention, like the typewriter. South America and Egypt had pyramids, as did many other countries, without knowing about the others. No idea is unique and if it works, it will be found. The bigger question is how things travel.
I want to talk about trade secrets. For over a thousand years, the creation of silk was a trade secret held by China. The silkworms only lived there and were not allowed to be moved under penalty of death, yet, silk and Indian spices travelled the old world. If you wanted to trade back in the day, you had to have a good transportation system OR series of transportation systems. If the Polynesians were travelling from Asia to South America, as is now proven, then what would you expect them to transport to use as trade? Polynesia's number one commodity is Coconut meat. That would be hard to transport over long distances and still have value. Cocaine works pretty well and has immediately obvious effects proving it's value, same for tobacco.
For those of you who like a alien explanation for why the Egyptians and South American's made pyramids, consider the fact that the Polynesians were also masters of moving megaliths and shaping them as they did on Easter Island. Take all of this in and ask yourself why science has denied that the Polynesians traveled to Asia and South America for so long and it is only in the last 15 years that we know they were all wrong. What is so horrible about believing that the Polynesians had an effect on trade between the old world and the new world. It is much easier to get from Easter Island to South America then it is to get there from the old world and the Polynesians have already demonstrated that they did it.
You know what the Arabian nomads and the Polynesians had in common? They both traded in the most expensive things that didn't quickly spoil. Opium comes mainly from Afghanistan; but, was used in Egypt by the priests alone and in China. Egypt does not produce opium and never has as far as we can tell. They had to trade for it and limited it's use to their priests. What do you think they would have thought of cocaine? The mummies found to have cocaine in them were royalty. Is it that hard to believe that cocaine would have been limited to the use of royalty when it was so valued and hard to obtain?
Wikipedia - Polynesia
YouTube - Cocaine Mummies of Ancient Egypt
I find the idea that the shipping had to be done by the Egyptians hilarious. Back 3,000 years ago there was only one culture that we know was travelling sufficiently far and across the ocean and that is the Polynesians. Not only that; but, we know that they had been in South America as in the last couple of years DNA proved it. There is an old tribe in South America that was found to have Polynesian DNA and it also appears that they did not intermarry with the Indians much.
Now lets talk about the South Pacific. To start with, it is big, it is one-third of the earth. It is much, much bigger than the Atlantic Ocean and had been travelled much larger distances than the Atlantic was ever travelled until the 1500s when Europeans finally travelled both the Atlantic and the Pacific. The purpose of all long boat trips back then was necessity. Ask yourself, for a moment, why were the Polynesians the only people to bother to keep searching the ocean for other lands? Next question, why didn't the Polynesians take over New Zealand or Australia? Australia is much closer to where Polynesia begins than is Hawaii and a heck of a lot easier to get to with many more resources and miles of beach.
I will post a link to a map; but, the South Pacific was inhabited by a small number of groups. The three biggest groups are the Polynesians, Melanesians and Micronesians. We know these groups were all seafaring and had regular interaction. The Polynesians were the greatest sailors of the three. All three of these groups could reach the Philippines and New Guinea which is part of Melanesia. The Polynesians are thought to be descendants of the Austronesians who stretched from Taiwan to Madagascar about 3,000 BC. Let me simplify all of this, we know the Polynesians had travelled to both South America and Asia. This is accepted and also that it happened thousands of years ago.
When I was at University some of my Professors thought I should become one too and one of them suggested that I become an expert in Polynesian government. He thought it would be a good niche and guarantee me a spot as a Professor as there weren't any others specializing in it. Truth is, the governing of Polynesia was never something that interested me, I was more interested in their history as a whole. I was actually fascinated with Polynesia from a Sociological standpoint and the effect World War II had on destroying their way of life.
One of the most fascinating questions is why did the Polynesians bother travelling the Pacific in the first place. Hawaii is thousands of miles away from other islands and sits pretty much alone; but, for some reason the Polynesians travelled there and peopled it. Why? Australia was closer as was South America and Africa. Why travel so far on the chance that you might find another island? Why don't we see much DNA swapping between Africa and the Polynesians and a lot between the Polynesians and the Asians?
Now, we have found Chinese silk in clothes worn by Egyptians. That proves that Egypt and China had trade. If not directly, then by intermediaries. Anything that could go to China could therefore end up in Egypt. The Polynesians were shown to be partly from Taiwan. All of what I have discussed is established, I have given you the link. Read up anywhere about Polynesia, check the time frames. So what makes it so hard for the established historians to understand that the Polynesians were the most likely candidate for having transported the cocaine, tobacco to Asia and then travel from Asia to Egypt. Why do they want to believe that the Egyptians were the ones that had to travel to Peru and apparently do so on a semi-regular basis and not have developed ships more suited to the travel?
Both Darwinians and Anthropologists have the same bias. It is a social big bang theory, the idea that an event in one place fanned out and created the rest. Since the creation of patents we now know that multiple people can create the same thing at the same time or the same things at different times without knowing of the others invention, like the typewriter. South America and Egypt had pyramids, as did many other countries, without knowing about the others. No idea is unique and if it works, it will be found. The bigger question is how things travel.
I want to talk about trade secrets. For over a thousand years, the creation of silk was a trade secret held by China. The silkworms only lived there and were not allowed to be moved under penalty of death, yet, silk and Indian spices travelled the old world. If you wanted to trade back in the day, you had to have a good transportation system OR series of transportation systems. If the Polynesians were travelling from Asia to South America, as is now proven, then what would you expect them to transport to use as trade? Polynesia's number one commodity is Coconut meat. That would be hard to transport over long distances and still have value. Cocaine works pretty well and has immediately obvious effects proving it's value, same for tobacco.
For those of you who like a alien explanation for why the Egyptians and South American's made pyramids, consider the fact that the Polynesians were also masters of moving megaliths and shaping them as they did on Easter Island. Take all of this in and ask yourself why science has denied that the Polynesians traveled to Asia and South America for so long and it is only in the last 15 years that we know they were all wrong. What is so horrible about believing that the Polynesians had an effect on trade between the old world and the new world. It is much easier to get from Easter Island to South America then it is to get there from the old world and the Polynesians have already demonstrated that they did it.
You know what the Arabian nomads and the Polynesians had in common? They both traded in the most expensive things that didn't quickly spoil. Opium comes mainly from Afghanistan; but, was used in Egypt by the priests alone and in China. Egypt does not produce opium and never has as far as we can tell. They had to trade for it and limited it's use to their priests. What do you think they would have thought of cocaine? The mummies found to have cocaine in them were royalty. Is it that hard to believe that cocaine would have been limited to the use of royalty when it was so valued and hard to obtain?
Wikipedia - Polynesia
Friday, November 27, 2015
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Those Who Rule and What They Hate
The easiest way to control people and have them build their own cages is by convincing them that it is in their own best interest and having them choose the answer or solution themselves. The people who manage the world are those who have studied control. Political Science is the study or controlling societies. With the advent of democratic voting it became the study of influencing public opinion and policy. While many have heard of Machiavelli's "The Prince", it was not the first such proof of this school of learning, it was just the first time the public became aware of it. Prior to that, people didn't even consider the fact that a methodical approach was used to control society.
If we accept the fact that people study controlling others than we must ask what things would they find the most of a hindrance. Democracy is one thing that would get in the way of control. This is also the reason that many have always tried to limit voting to specific groups. In the United States both women and blacks were not allowed to vote for decades and decades. Many who voted on the constitution wanted to limit voting to male land owners. Why don't we let felons vote? I mean just because someone is a felon doesn't mean they are not effected by the laws that they must live under and remember, they already were released to society. Political parties are nothing more than a few picking their parties nominees. The reason nobody likes our choices for office is because they are chosen by a few within the party and the party is meant to tell you who to vote for. Party conventions are not really to choose the candidate, they are there to excite the members who only think their opinions matter.
The Church gets in the way of those who wish to rule the world or a nation. The church says there are rules that you must live by. It does not matter which religion you pick, they are all hated because they all tell people what they cannot do. Cannot means to refuse the government. Mohammed Ali refused to go to Vietnam based on religious conviction and he was found guilty of a crime for it. Many went to jail when they refused to kill during the Vietnam war.
True socialism, that is people working together for the common good, is detested by those who wish to control. You cannot control the majority of people if there is no carrot or stick. Even worse is the idea of the great unwashed masses looking out for their best interests by working together, they have to be reliant on getting rewarded only when they benefit their leaders. While independence is seen as annoying, interdependence is seen as revolt.
The thing that pisses off those who control us the most is when we don't follow, when we choose for ourselves and are in agreement and don't give them the answer they want. For the first time in a long time we have two candidates who are not controlled by the controllers of this world, Trump and Sanders, and you know what they will not be allowed to win. I would bet money in Vegas on that right this second. Neither will be President. The winner is probably going to be Clinton. If the Republican party sabotages Trump, I guarantee that a lot of Republicans will leave the party. Parties have died before, you don't see too many Tory's anymore. If Trump gets the nomination and loses to Clinton the Republican's will blame it on their members who voted for Trump in the primaries.
Now here is where life could get really interesting. What if Trump won the Republican nomination for President, accepted it and then ran as an Independent. If he did that, he would beat Clinton because Democrats would feel better about voting for an Independent than a Republican. Now that would be truly interesting. I do not expect Trump to run as a third party; but, if he won the parties nomination and then ran as an independent anyways, he would win. Heck, if he actually did it the way I have outlined, congress; both Democrats and Republicans, would have to vote for his policies out of fear of losing their seats in the next election.
If we accept the fact that people study controlling others than we must ask what things would they find the most of a hindrance. Democracy is one thing that would get in the way of control. This is also the reason that many have always tried to limit voting to specific groups. In the United States both women and blacks were not allowed to vote for decades and decades. Many who voted on the constitution wanted to limit voting to male land owners. Why don't we let felons vote? I mean just because someone is a felon doesn't mean they are not effected by the laws that they must live under and remember, they already were released to society. Political parties are nothing more than a few picking their parties nominees. The reason nobody likes our choices for office is because they are chosen by a few within the party and the party is meant to tell you who to vote for. Party conventions are not really to choose the candidate, they are there to excite the members who only think their opinions matter.
The Church gets in the way of those who wish to rule the world or a nation. The church says there are rules that you must live by. It does not matter which religion you pick, they are all hated because they all tell people what they cannot do. Cannot means to refuse the government. Mohammed Ali refused to go to Vietnam based on religious conviction and he was found guilty of a crime for it. Many went to jail when they refused to kill during the Vietnam war.
True socialism, that is people working together for the common good, is detested by those who wish to control. You cannot control the majority of people if there is no carrot or stick. Even worse is the idea of the great unwashed masses looking out for their best interests by working together, they have to be reliant on getting rewarded only when they benefit their leaders. While independence is seen as annoying, interdependence is seen as revolt.
The thing that pisses off those who control us the most is when we don't follow, when we choose for ourselves and are in agreement and don't give them the answer they want. For the first time in a long time we have two candidates who are not controlled by the controllers of this world, Trump and Sanders, and you know what they will not be allowed to win. I would bet money in Vegas on that right this second. Neither will be President. The winner is probably going to be Clinton. If the Republican party sabotages Trump, I guarantee that a lot of Republicans will leave the party. Parties have died before, you don't see too many Tory's anymore. If Trump gets the nomination and loses to Clinton the Republican's will blame it on their members who voted for Trump in the primaries.
Now here is where life could get really interesting. What if Trump won the Republican nomination for President, accepted it and then ran as an Independent. If he did that, he would beat Clinton because Democrats would feel better about voting for an Independent than a Republican. Now that would be truly interesting. I do not expect Trump to run as a third party; but, if he won the parties nomination and then ran as an independent anyways, he would win. Heck, if he actually did it the way I have outlined, congress; both Democrats and Republicans, would have to vote for his policies out of fear of losing their seats in the next election.
Friday, November 20, 2015
Syrian Refugees and Stupidity.
Huffington Post - Mayor Wonders If We Need WWII-Style Internment Camps After Paris Attacks. Ok so this mayor and the other politicians it discusses are complete and utter idiots and fascists. You do not get to say you defend the Constitution and then put people who have not been found guilty of anything in jail or an internment camp. What this country did to the Japanese was the most illegal thing this country has ever done. You might think slavery was the worst thing we have done or even the killing of the Indians; but, those things were actually legal. They may have been worse; but, they were legal and that is a separate issue.
Huffington Post - Jeb Bush: Let's Focus On Helping The Christian Syrian Refugees, Rather Than The Muslims. I guess if we really want to play it safe we will only allow gay atheists in the country as they have more to fear from ISIS than any other group.
Huffington Post - Ben Carson Compares Some Refugees To Rabid Dogs. Ever since the attacks in Paris a lot of Republicans have been spouting very anti-Muslim nonsense. The United States supported a civil war in Syria and now there are people trying to leave that country, what a surprise. Every Muslim is not a fanatic anymore than every Christian bombs abortion clinics. Extremists gravitate towards religious dogma because it justifies their actions in their minds. They just blame their actions on God.
Huffington Post - Jeb Bush: Let's Focus On Helping The Christian Syrian Refugees, Rather Than The Muslims. I guess if we really want to play it safe we will only allow gay atheists in the country as they have more to fear from ISIS than any other group.
Huffington Post - Ben Carson Compares Some Refugees To Rabid Dogs. Ever since the attacks in Paris a lot of Republicans have been spouting very anti-Muslim nonsense. The United States supported a civil war in Syria and now there are people trying to leave that country, what a surprise. Every Muslim is not a fanatic anymore than every Christian bombs abortion clinics. Extremists gravitate towards religious dogma because it justifies their actions in their minds. They just blame their actions on God.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Pastor Carol Daniels - 2015 - Letter to a Newspaper
YouTube - New details uncovered in murder of Anadarko pastor.
I noticed a big increase in blot hits which used the search term "Pastor Carol Daniels" in the last couple of days and then some of them also searched for a letter. A search on the net did not bring up any newspaper articles so I searched YouTube and found the above news report. Apparently about a year ago a letter was received at a local newspaper that suggested a number of disturbing reasons why Daniels may have been killed. As a result of this the OSBI is actively looking at the case again. As far as I can tell the letter has not been released to the public.
If the letter had said that it was from the killer it would be considered evidence; but, the reliability would still be in question; however, nothing in the report claims that the writer of the letter confessed to anything. My takeaway from all of this is that the OSBI is still looking into the case. I doubt the letter proved useful as they have had it for a year according to the report. Then again, we don't know what else they may have discovered and their is always hope. I am making this post just to make it easier for people who are following this case to stay current.
UPDATE:
Here is another link to the video; but, this one has a transcript. Apparently a woman who was in jail was questioned though we do not know what she said. What I found interesting was when the head of the OSBI said that, "the killer could be in Anadarko, the killer could be anywhere in Oklahoma". What he did not say is that the person could be anywhere in the United States and could in fact still be in Anadarko. That is interesting because it means that they in fact have someone or some specific people in mind. Remember Anadarko is a very small town with only about 6,500 residents.
I noticed a big increase in blot hits which used the search term "Pastor Carol Daniels" in the last couple of days and then some of them also searched for a letter. A search on the net did not bring up any newspaper articles so I searched YouTube and found the above news report. Apparently about a year ago a letter was received at a local newspaper that suggested a number of disturbing reasons why Daniels may have been killed. As a result of this the OSBI is actively looking at the case again. As far as I can tell the letter has not been released to the public.
If the letter had said that it was from the killer it would be considered evidence; but, the reliability would still be in question; however, nothing in the report claims that the writer of the letter confessed to anything. My takeaway from all of this is that the OSBI is still looking into the case. I doubt the letter proved useful as they have had it for a year according to the report. Then again, we don't know what else they may have discovered and their is always hope. I am making this post just to make it easier for people who are following this case to stay current.
UPDATE:
Here is another link to the video; but, this one has a transcript. Apparently a woman who was in jail was questioned though we do not know what she said. What I found interesting was when the head of the OSBI said that, "the killer could be in Anadarko, the killer could be anywhere in Oklahoma". What he did not say is that the person could be anywhere in the United States and could in fact still be in Anadarko. That is interesting because it means that they in fact have someone or some specific people in mind. Remember Anadarko is a very small town with only about 6,500 residents.
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
Dr. Demento and the Power of Laughter
For years I thought I first heard Dr Demento on the California State University Northridge radio station. From what I have read it was actually on a Pasadena radio station. That is also in the San Fernando Valley area. The station was KPPC and from what I read tonight it was considered "underground" at the time. He didn't stay there long and in 1971 he went to KMET another local station. After moving to KMET he played more comedy novelty songs and less just old and odd blues songs. In 1974 Dr Demento went national in syndication. He went into even bigger distribution by 1978; but, by then I had moved from the area. The truth of the matter is that I listened to Dr Demento before he had his big break and real national fame. I treasure the memory of his beginnings.
When I was a tween, Sundays were spent listening to comedy songs and funky old blues with Dr Demento telling us stories about the history of the music. I will get back to the Doctor; but, please enjoy these humorous links. We need more humorous songs and more silliness to put up with the harshness that seems to be modern life. Be well and enjoy.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s1e1 The Apartment Hunt.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s1e2 Job Interview.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s1e3 Internet Date.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s1e4 Dog Walker.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s1e5 One Night Stand.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s1e6 Planned Parenthood.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s2e1 Babysitting.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s2e2 Driver's Ed.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s2e3 Wednesday vs Catcallers.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s2e4 The Haircut.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s2e5 The Reality Star.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s2e6 The Flea Market,
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s2e7 True Love Season Finale.
YouTube - Ghouls Night In.
YouTube - Dead Puppies.
YouTube - NBC Playground - Wolfgirl.
When I was a tween, Sundays were spent listening to comedy songs and funky old blues with Dr Demento telling us stories about the history of the music. I will get back to the Doctor; but, please enjoy these humorous links. We need more humorous songs and more silliness to put up with the harshness that seems to be modern life. Be well and enjoy.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s1e1 The Apartment Hunt.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s1e2 Job Interview.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s1e3 Internet Date.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s1e4 Dog Walker.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s1e5 One Night Stand.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s1e6 Planned Parenthood.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s2e1 Babysitting.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s2e2 Driver's Ed.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s2e3 Wednesday vs Catcallers.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s2e4 The Haircut.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s2e5 The Reality Star.
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s2e6 The Flea Market,
YouTube - Adult Wednesday Addams s2e7 True Love Season Finale.
YouTube - Ghouls Night In.
YouTube - Dead Puppies.
YouTube - NBC Playground - Wolfgirl.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Number of Hits and Garbage
This blog has somewhere around 76,000 hits. It took two months for me to get 500 hits a month and at my highest readership I got around 2,200 hits a month. Right now I am getting about 1,400 a month. It sounds pitiful compared to commercial sites and sites dedicated to video games. LOL. Someone asked me once in a comment if I was doing this to make money. Oh my, if this was how I made my money I would have starved to death years ago. Even if I had adds on this site, what would I have made, a buck and a quarter? $76? LOL.
No matter what you are interested in, I am not a subject matter based person, the subjects change on a daily basis. It is not a personality based blog as I never identify myself. It is not a friendly blog as I am usually calling out the establishment for trying to lead us wherever they think we should be. My single most read post had about 2,500 different readers. That is not much in a world where Justin Bieber gets millions of hits in a day. Nope this is not a viral blog. It probably never will be and was never intended to be such. Having said what I have, imagine speaking before 2,500 people in one day. I have actually done that. I have literally spoken in front of a couple thousand people at one time. You don't have to speak to the world to be heard and if you start a blog and get 500 hits on one post, think of it like speaking before an audience of 500 people. If your average audience per month is 500 people, that is amazing. If you have a story to tell, create a blog and then fill it daily or regularly with whatever you believe you have to add to the life conversation. You don't need to go viral.
Do you understand that everything you do online is a message that is read and I don't mean literally. Every view to a porn site is logged, it matters little which site. If people spend 90% of their time online playing games or buying stuff then it is clear that they are not worried about what is going on in the world and don't worry about the truth or news or anything truly important. That is tracked. Our stats for using the internet are tracked to understand what we are interested in, not individually; but, as a group. Look up what is "trending" on the internet and you understand what it's users care about.
No matter what you are interested in, I am not a subject matter based person, the subjects change on a daily basis. It is not a personality based blog as I never identify myself. It is not a friendly blog as I am usually calling out the establishment for trying to lead us wherever they think we should be. My single most read post had about 2,500 different readers. That is not much in a world where Justin Bieber gets millions of hits in a day. Nope this is not a viral blog. It probably never will be and was never intended to be such. Having said what I have, imagine speaking before 2,500 people in one day. I have actually done that. I have literally spoken in front of a couple thousand people at one time. You don't have to speak to the world to be heard and if you start a blog and get 500 hits on one post, think of it like speaking before an audience of 500 people. If your average audience per month is 500 people, that is amazing. If you have a story to tell, create a blog and then fill it daily or regularly with whatever you believe you have to add to the life conversation. You don't need to go viral.
Do you understand that everything you do online is a message that is read and I don't mean literally. Every view to a porn site is logged, it matters little which site. If people spend 90% of their time online playing games or buying stuff then it is clear that they are not worried about what is going on in the world and don't worry about the truth or news or anything truly important. That is tracked. Our stats for using the internet are tracked to understand what we are interested in, not individually; but, as a group. Look up what is "trending" on the internet and you understand what it's users care about.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Bill Cosby's Daughter and Mike Tyson
I don't know what caused me to remember this; but, I am surprised that nobody else has brought it up in light of the accusations that Bill Cosby has raped multiple women after drugging them. Back in the early 1990s Mike Tyson was accused of violence against women and having raped some women. In fact, Tyson was convicted of rape in 1992, was sentenced to six years and served three years.
Well, back in 1991 or so Erinn Cosby went on the Phil Donahue show to discuss how she had been raped by Mike Tyson. Her claim was that Bill Cosby, her father, convinced her to not charge him with a crime and instead convinced Tyson to seek out counseling. In light of what has since been reveled about Bill Cosby it is interesting how he dealt with his daughters rape.
YouTube - Bill Cosby's daughter, Erinn, talks sexual assault by Mike Tyson; relationship with father.
Well, back in 1991 or so Erinn Cosby went on the Phil Donahue show to discuss how she had been raped by Mike Tyson. Her claim was that Bill Cosby, her father, convinced her to not charge him with a crime and instead convinced Tyson to seek out counseling. In light of what has since been reveled about Bill Cosby it is interesting how he dealt with his daughters rape.
YouTube - Bill Cosby's daughter, Erinn, talks sexual assault by Mike Tyson; relationship with father.
Saturday, November 14, 2015
Vatican Mysteries That Are Not
We all like a good conspiracy theory and not all are just theories. Truth is we were tricked into Vietnam after being told American ships were attacked in the Golf of Tonkin and that was a lie. We were also tricked into Iraq after being told they had mass weapons of destruction. Heck, for years people who thought the Bildergerg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Tri-Lateral Commission met in secret to discuss worldwide approaches to common problems was non-sense. Well, they do meet in secret, you don't know what is discussed and they are pretty open about it now. As for how serious these conspiracies can get, giving LSD to adults without their knowledge, testing spreading viruses through the New York subway system and giving children cereal that was radioactive, yeah, those things were all done by the CIA and have been documented by the United States government. If you doubt it, you might want to go to the congressional website and look up the church committee. But, just because some conspiracies are real does not mean that all of them are or even that all of the stories get the real story straight.
One popular conspiracy theory for the past decade or so was by Dan Brown and it is the idea that Jesus had a baby with Mary Magdalene and that the truth is being hidden by the Vatican in it's "Secret Library". In case you have read this nonsense as anything more than a decent book and a couple of mediocre movies, let me explain a few things.
Firstly, the library is not secret, it is restricted. This is very common for libraries holding original documents from antiquity. In fact many libraries are limited to people having Masters or Doctorate degrees. I know, I have visited one of them at a major university. Secondly, the requirements to look at or even touch these books can be quite limited as they do not wish the books to age anymore than can be avoided. Lighting, air, temperature, moisture and other things can all increase the decay of these books and that is why they are often protected in the same way as some of the greatest art treasures.
The Vatican has well over a million documents and books that are kept protected in their non-public library. The odds are that even they do not know what is in all of the books and papers. Lets not forget that the Dead Sea Scrolls are still being deciphered and we have had those for decades. The value of some of these documents is incalculable. Thieves would love to get in there; but, it is very well guarded.
Now Dan Brown and others have repeated an old gnostic (read heretical) theory that Jesus and Magdalene had a child and that it is being hidden because Jesus having a child would destroy his perception of divinity. At first blush this sounds vaguely reasonable until you consider the fact that God is Jesus' father with the virgin Mary and that is how Jesus came into being. We are all God's creation, why would a physical relationship matter when we were all physically created by him. You don't have to agree with the theology. The point is that anyone that knows the bible well would not be bothered at all if Jesus had kids. Other than the Catholic church most churches allow their pastors to marry. Another equally dumb theory is that the Vatican is hiding evidence of aliens. Again sounds vaguely plausible except that these are all ancient documents not modern day photographs. The bible itself talks about lights in the sky and the Vatican's answer is angels. What definitive document from the 1300s could exist that would prove aliens from another planet and be accepted as being correct. Modern people didn't even believe stories by sailors in the 1400s of giant squid until we filmed them in the last few years.
YouTube - What Is The Vatican Hiding In Its Archives?
The truth is that we don't get told the whole story about many things by the government. The U.S. and all countries hide a lot of things from the public especially the things they did that would be considered evil. It is equally true that industry does not tell us things like their plans for the future. Insider trading is very common on Wall Street and future technologies are regularly hidden by the government and private industry.
One popular conspiracy theory for the past decade or so was by Dan Brown and it is the idea that Jesus had a baby with Mary Magdalene and that the truth is being hidden by the Vatican in it's "Secret Library". In case you have read this nonsense as anything more than a decent book and a couple of mediocre movies, let me explain a few things.
Firstly, the library is not secret, it is restricted. This is very common for libraries holding original documents from antiquity. In fact many libraries are limited to people having Masters or Doctorate degrees. I know, I have visited one of them at a major university. Secondly, the requirements to look at or even touch these books can be quite limited as they do not wish the books to age anymore than can be avoided. Lighting, air, temperature, moisture and other things can all increase the decay of these books and that is why they are often protected in the same way as some of the greatest art treasures.
The Vatican has well over a million documents and books that are kept protected in their non-public library. The odds are that even they do not know what is in all of the books and papers. Lets not forget that the Dead Sea Scrolls are still being deciphered and we have had those for decades. The value of some of these documents is incalculable. Thieves would love to get in there; but, it is very well guarded.
Now Dan Brown and others have repeated an old gnostic (read heretical) theory that Jesus and Magdalene had a child and that it is being hidden because Jesus having a child would destroy his perception of divinity. At first blush this sounds vaguely reasonable until you consider the fact that God is Jesus' father with the virgin Mary and that is how Jesus came into being. We are all God's creation, why would a physical relationship matter when we were all physically created by him. You don't have to agree with the theology. The point is that anyone that knows the bible well would not be bothered at all if Jesus had kids. Other than the Catholic church most churches allow their pastors to marry. Another equally dumb theory is that the Vatican is hiding evidence of aliens. Again sounds vaguely plausible except that these are all ancient documents not modern day photographs. The bible itself talks about lights in the sky and the Vatican's answer is angels. What definitive document from the 1300s could exist that would prove aliens from another planet and be accepted as being correct. Modern people didn't even believe stories by sailors in the 1400s of giant squid until we filmed them in the last few years.
YouTube - What Is The Vatican Hiding In Its Archives?
The truth is that we don't get told the whole story about many things by the government. The U.S. and all countries hide a lot of things from the public especially the things they did that would be considered evil. It is equally true that industry does not tell us things like their plans for the future. Insider trading is very common on Wall Street and future technologies are regularly hidden by the government and private industry.
Some Annoying News Articles and Something Really Interesting About History.
Rolling Stone - 5 Bizarre Conservative Theories About the Mizzou and Yale Protests. If we are going to promote capitalism then we have to live with it. If we are going to promote democracy then we have to live with it. If I spend $500 on a meal at a restaurant, I expect a great meal. If I hock my life with loans for the next 30 years and spend as much as a house would cost me, guess what, I have a right to complain if I feel I am being treated unfairly by the college that is getting that money. It is one thing to disagree with their complaints of racism, it is another to say that they don't have the right to raise them.
Yahoo - AFP - GM to sell Chinese-made cars in the US: report. Lets just title this one, American companies pouring salt in the wounds of American workers. By the way, GM says that this isn't even a cost saving purpose. You mean they could have made it for the same here and chose to have it made in China without saving a dime? That is their claim.
Washington Post - Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win. Another article about how the "Republican Party" establishment wants to tell you who should be the party nominee. If Trump or Carson is the nominee you watch, the party will change the rules of getting nominated just like the Democrats with their "super delegates".
Rolling Stone - Matt Taibbi - The Case For Bernie Sanders. Like my recent post on how the Republican party wants Trump and Carson out, this is an article on how the Democratic party wants Bernie Sanders out. Neither party wants to know what you think.
Now for something fun on a very late Friday night - Saturday morning.
Gobekli Tepe.
Archeology has argued for years that man was pretty stupid for just about all of our history and then somehow miraculously became smart about 5,000 years ago. Prior to that it was believed that people barely worked together, were uncoordinated in any real way and were "hunter gatherers" What they did not believe is that farming communities were around longer than 5,000 years or so or even real cities. It is also believed that Sumeria was the seat of civilization and then Egypt. The Egyptian pyramids are believed to be about 5,000 years old (I should point out that there are questions about the Sphinx's age). Well, not long ago giant monoliths were found in Turkey that are 12,000 years old and they have art carved in them.
Now here is where it gets fun. It is believed that about the same time as GT was built, man learned to farm because it is believed that about 20 miles away the first wheat was farmed. I should point out that up until the 1800s most people never travelled further than 20 miles from their home. No cars, no trains and few owned riding horses. The only time large groups of people travelled far even 1,000 years ago was either for war or trade, not to grow wheat. If we accept that answer then we must conclude that 12,000 ago the people of GT invented both farming and the creation of giant monoliths that weighed tons and constructed buildings with them.
So here is my question. If man creating farming allowed him to build giant building because he was freed up from hunting and gathering all the time, why didn't anyone else build such structures for another 7,000 years. We know farming took off like mad. By the way, the people who built GT continued using it for a few thousand years so they didn't just die off. Oh, and when they did disappear they buried the whole place under dirt not to be found until the 1900s.The truth is that we don't know much about the years prior to Sumaria 5,000 years ago. In fact, we know practically nothing about those times as GT is proving.
These are some interesting things to look into. Here is what is not interesting. Ben Carson claims that the pyramids were used to store grain, supposedly by Joseph. That is idiotic. Firstly, no evidence of grain storage has EVER been found in the pyramids. Secondly, it would be the dumbest place in the world to store grain as it was completely enclosed, there was no way in until it was robbed and the robbers basically burrowed into it. I should also point out that the bible does not talk about the pyramids as far as we know. The truth is that the open areas inside the pyramids are incredibly small compared to the overall size and not even suitable for grain storage as it is a complete waste of structure. Beyond all that, why would people spend years building a pyramid to store grain when they could build storage buildings in months and big ones that were well protected. Egypt had a pretty good army.
Yahoo - AFP - GM to sell Chinese-made cars in the US: report. Lets just title this one, American companies pouring salt in the wounds of American workers. By the way, GM says that this isn't even a cost saving purpose. You mean they could have made it for the same here and chose to have it made in China without saving a dime? That is their claim.
Washington Post - Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win. Another article about how the "Republican Party" establishment wants to tell you who should be the party nominee. If Trump or Carson is the nominee you watch, the party will change the rules of getting nominated just like the Democrats with their "super delegates".
Rolling Stone - Matt Taibbi - The Case For Bernie Sanders. Like my recent post on how the Republican party wants Trump and Carson out, this is an article on how the Democratic party wants Bernie Sanders out. Neither party wants to know what you think.
Now for something fun on a very late Friday night - Saturday morning.
Gobekli Tepe.
Archeology has argued for years that man was pretty stupid for just about all of our history and then somehow miraculously became smart about 5,000 years ago. Prior to that it was believed that people barely worked together, were uncoordinated in any real way and were "hunter gatherers" What they did not believe is that farming communities were around longer than 5,000 years or so or even real cities. It is also believed that Sumeria was the seat of civilization and then Egypt. The Egyptian pyramids are believed to be about 5,000 years old (I should point out that there are questions about the Sphinx's age). Well, not long ago giant monoliths were found in Turkey that are 12,000 years old and they have art carved in them.
Now here is where it gets fun. It is believed that about the same time as GT was built, man learned to farm because it is believed that about 20 miles away the first wheat was farmed. I should point out that up until the 1800s most people never travelled further than 20 miles from their home. No cars, no trains and few owned riding horses. The only time large groups of people travelled far even 1,000 years ago was either for war or trade, not to grow wheat. If we accept that answer then we must conclude that 12,000 ago the people of GT invented both farming and the creation of giant monoliths that weighed tons and constructed buildings with them.
So here is my question. If man creating farming allowed him to build giant building because he was freed up from hunting and gathering all the time, why didn't anyone else build such structures for another 7,000 years. We know farming took off like mad. By the way, the people who built GT continued using it for a few thousand years so they didn't just die off. Oh, and when they did disappear they buried the whole place under dirt not to be found until the 1900s.The truth is that we don't know much about the years prior to Sumaria 5,000 years ago. In fact, we know practically nothing about those times as GT is proving.
These are some interesting things to look into. Here is what is not interesting. Ben Carson claims that the pyramids were used to store grain, supposedly by Joseph. That is idiotic. Firstly, no evidence of grain storage has EVER been found in the pyramids. Secondly, it would be the dumbest place in the world to store grain as it was completely enclosed, there was no way in until it was robbed and the robbers basically burrowed into it. I should also point out that the bible does not talk about the pyramids as far as we know. The truth is that the open areas inside the pyramids are incredibly small compared to the overall size and not even suitable for grain storage as it is a complete waste of structure. Beyond all that, why would people spend years building a pyramid to store grain when they could build storage buildings in months and big ones that were well protected. Egypt had a pretty good army.
The Democrats Are Not Having a True Primary, It Is Already Decided.
Yahoo - AP - Big nomination lead for Clinton: pocketing 'superdelegates'.
Talk about a rigged game. Party candidates for President are eventually chosen by only the party at their conventions. People used to joke about how presidential candidates were chosen in back door smoky rooms by the power brokers. This upset people so much that they required the parties delegates to vote for who they voted them to vote for. That is to say that when you vote in the primaries, you vote for a person; but, what you are really voting for is someone who theoretically supports the same candidate that you voted for. That delegate then goes to the primary and only if a majority candidate cannot be found do they have the chance to vote for someone else. That is representative democracy. That has ended with the creation of so called "super delegates" who can vote for whoever they want and are not bound by their states primaries.
Without a single primary vote the majority of "super delegates", party establishment insiders, have already said that they will vote for Hillary Clinton. What is the point of having the primaries? Both the Democratic party and the media are dismissing Bernie Sanders because he cannot win even if he wins the popular vote. This election is a party establishment election in both parties. Both parties are also at risk of losing ANY credibility with their own supporters. If either Sanders or Trump wins the popular vote in the primaries and is not given the party support, people will leave the part.
We need to eliminate the parties and get rid of primaries. That was how we did it back in the beginning of this country. With the parties not representing who people actually voted for, why have them at all or parties?
Talk about a rigged game. Party candidates for President are eventually chosen by only the party at their conventions. People used to joke about how presidential candidates were chosen in back door smoky rooms by the power brokers. This upset people so much that they required the parties delegates to vote for who they voted them to vote for. That is to say that when you vote in the primaries, you vote for a person; but, what you are really voting for is someone who theoretically supports the same candidate that you voted for. That delegate then goes to the primary and only if a majority candidate cannot be found do they have the chance to vote for someone else. That is representative democracy. That has ended with the creation of so called "super delegates" who can vote for whoever they want and are not bound by their states primaries.
Without a single primary vote the majority of "super delegates", party establishment insiders, have already said that they will vote for Hillary Clinton. What is the point of having the primaries? Both the Democratic party and the media are dismissing Bernie Sanders because he cannot win even if he wins the popular vote. This election is a party establishment election in both parties. Both parties are also at risk of losing ANY credibility with their own supporters. If either Sanders or Trump wins the popular vote in the primaries and is not given the party support, people will leave the part.
We need to eliminate the parties and get rid of primaries. That was how we did it back in the beginning of this country. With the parties not representing who people actually voted for, why have them at all or parties?
Friday, November 13, 2015
Illegal Immigration, Trump and the Republican Party.
If you wish you can call this post "The Insincerity of the Republican Party" rather than "The Passion of the Christ". For years the Republican party has complained about illegal aliens as the root of all evil. Trump did not invent that. In fact conservatives have historically been worried about foreigners. With a decrease in the number of jobs available in America it was to be expected that people would question both legal and illegal immigration. I would like to say that it is something to consider, if we don't have enough jobs for the people of this country, why should we allow people to immigrate here? I don't care if they pick fruit or write computer programs, we have enough people to do those jobs, just pay them enough.
So after Trump made one of his biggest issues illegal immigration the other Republicans were all okay with it and some actually began using similar terms like, "Anchor Baby". There is not one Republican presidential candidate that will not say they are against illegal immigration. So, why does the Republican establishment and Trumps opponents say that we shouldn't try and remove illegal aliens from the United States?
The Washington Post - Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win.
The above linked article is all about how the Republican party is freaked out that the Republican voters don't want paid for, party controlled politicians. Rather than listening to their members and supporters, the party believes they should be telling the voters which of their candidates they should vote for. That is the problem with parties, rather than representing the voters, they expect to control the vote and the voters options.
So after Trump made one of his biggest issues illegal immigration the other Republicans were all okay with it and some actually began using similar terms like, "Anchor Baby". There is not one Republican presidential candidate that will not say they are against illegal immigration. So, why does the Republican establishment and Trumps opponents say that we shouldn't try and remove illegal aliens from the United States?
The Washington Post - Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win.
The above linked article is all about how the Republican party is freaked out that the Republican voters don't want paid for, party controlled politicians. Rather than listening to their members and supporters, the party believes they should be telling the voters which of their candidates they should vote for. That is the problem with parties, rather than representing the voters, they expect to control the vote and the voters options.
Why Do Video Games Stink Today?
I used to like video gams. When Nintendo came out I bought each new console and my children loved them. They used to have a lot of games that the whole family could play. I was watching some videos on YouTube and was reminded of what it was like when Nintendo resurrected the video game industry. Then something changed and it got expensive to create video games, the graphics got better and the games were not for kids as much as they are now for people in their late teens and twenties.
Video games used to have more variety with funny games and adventure games. They don't even make adventure games anymore, now everything is a shooting game. Adventure games were basically puzzle solving games where you had to figure out a mystery. The last big adventure game was called, "Grim Fandango". It was fun, funny and any age could enjoy it.
One of the reasons kids could play video games was because they were simple to control and often were side scrolling where your path was predetermined and the issue was how you dealt with the challenges along the way. One of my favorite games was called, "Pilot Wings". It was a flying video game with really pleasant and calm music. It didn't matter if you won or not, it was just relaxing, not frantic like the shooters. Heck, I liked some of the shooters and really enjoyed Grand Theft Auto - Vice City. It was like travelling back to the 80s.
Here are some of the things destroying video games. Firstly, the cost to create them. The early games were easier to make because the animation was less complicated due to the restrictions of what the computers and consoles could reproduce. If you played Donkey Kong and look at any game today you can see how much the graphics have advanced; but, the original Donkey Kong is still a fun game. Games used to be made by small teams of a dozen or so people and finished in a couple of months. Today it is tens of millions if not more and can take years, literally some games took ten years to produce. It is big business and one game can make or break a company.
I have to say that I have been writing about politics and economics a lot lately and this post may seem like a puff piece; but, I think there are still some insights to be found. Did you know that Atari both popularized and destroyed the play at home video game business. Sometimes success is proceeded by suicide. Atari's success led to them selling garbage games, things they didn't care about and churned out in weeks. They concluded that as long as there was a brand to tie into, the game could suck. That proved wrong and led to the video game "E.T." (just like the movie). The games was rushed out, had nothing interesting about it and they ended up burying untold copies in New Mexico (pretty sure it was New Mexico; but, you can look it up online). After that fiasco video games just stopped being popular until Nintendo came out. Nintendo introduced us to Super Mario Brothers and arcade style Donkey Kong on your television. The complexity of the games and story became important. You didn't have to have a great story, more of a theme. The super Nintendo pushed the envelop even further with creative and interesting worlds and things to do. Games were still pretty inexpensive to design back then and chances could be taken by developers.
With every success comes new challenges. I was just wondering, why can't they make cheaper and easier games for kids and families? Why is the industry only interested in "serious" gamers? Well, the reason is simple. The video game industry is focused on online games that are massive multiplayer games and that requires you pay money. There is one place where there is still innovation and that is games that are played on your phones. Those games do not cost a lot to make and are still varied which is why I believe there is still a niche out there that is not being met and that is simpler video games that can be played at home. Look at the enormous success of some of the phone based games and it is clear that people don't just want shoot em ups.
Video games used to have more variety with funny games and adventure games. They don't even make adventure games anymore, now everything is a shooting game. Adventure games were basically puzzle solving games where you had to figure out a mystery. The last big adventure game was called, "Grim Fandango". It was fun, funny and any age could enjoy it.
One of the reasons kids could play video games was because they were simple to control and often were side scrolling where your path was predetermined and the issue was how you dealt with the challenges along the way. One of my favorite games was called, "Pilot Wings". It was a flying video game with really pleasant and calm music. It didn't matter if you won or not, it was just relaxing, not frantic like the shooters. Heck, I liked some of the shooters and really enjoyed Grand Theft Auto - Vice City. It was like travelling back to the 80s.
Here are some of the things destroying video games. Firstly, the cost to create them. The early games were easier to make because the animation was less complicated due to the restrictions of what the computers and consoles could reproduce. If you played Donkey Kong and look at any game today you can see how much the graphics have advanced; but, the original Donkey Kong is still a fun game. Games used to be made by small teams of a dozen or so people and finished in a couple of months. Today it is tens of millions if not more and can take years, literally some games took ten years to produce. It is big business and one game can make or break a company.
I have to say that I have been writing about politics and economics a lot lately and this post may seem like a puff piece; but, I think there are still some insights to be found. Did you know that Atari both popularized and destroyed the play at home video game business. Sometimes success is proceeded by suicide. Atari's success led to them selling garbage games, things they didn't care about and churned out in weeks. They concluded that as long as there was a brand to tie into, the game could suck. That proved wrong and led to the video game "E.T." (just like the movie). The games was rushed out, had nothing interesting about it and they ended up burying untold copies in New Mexico (pretty sure it was New Mexico; but, you can look it up online). After that fiasco video games just stopped being popular until Nintendo came out. Nintendo introduced us to Super Mario Brothers and arcade style Donkey Kong on your television. The complexity of the games and story became important. You didn't have to have a great story, more of a theme. The super Nintendo pushed the envelop even further with creative and interesting worlds and things to do. Games were still pretty inexpensive to design back then and chances could be taken by developers.
With every success comes new challenges. I was just wondering, why can't they make cheaper and easier games for kids and families? Why is the industry only interested in "serious" gamers? Well, the reason is simple. The video game industry is focused on online games that are massive multiplayer games and that requires you pay money. There is one place where there is still innovation and that is games that are played on your phones. Those games do not cost a lot to make and are still varied which is why I believe there is still a niche out there that is not being met and that is simpler video games that can be played at home. Look at the enormous success of some of the phone based games and it is clear that people don't just want shoot em ups.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Why Are The Political Parties Against Americans Getting American Jobs?
I was watching some videos and reading some news reports when I came across an interview of presidential candidate, Ohio governor Kasich. He had said that he believed that we should build a wall between the United States and Mexico; but, would not send illegal aliens back. That is one of the more moderate conservative views this election. I might even be in favor of such a program. It was what he said next that bothered me. He said that those illegals allowed to stay should be made legal but not be allowed to become citizens. Rather than immediately make an opinion, I ask my readers to stop and think about the consequences of this plan.
If we created this new class of citizen, what rights would they have? Could they be refused passports? If they left the country on a trip, would they be denied re-entry? Would they be allowed to own guns or vote? If not would they have at least the same rights as convicted felons? By the way, a lot of people who are here illegally did not arrive illegally. Not all people classified as illegal aliens entered this country. Some entered this country on legal visas and stayed after the visas expired. A wall would not have stopped them as they entered the country legally. I guess we could prevent people from even entering this country legally; but, that would be the end of tourism.
This is where Mr. Kasich gets stranger; but, more telling about what he does care about. He states that we should consider instituting a seasonal worker program. In other words, you cannot live here and be a citizen; but, you can come and take jobs away from American citizens. Why should we have ANY worker visas when there are not enough jobs for the citizens of this country? I think we should call for the end of ALL work visas. Think about it. If you want to work here become a citizen. Mr. Kasich lives in a farming state and he wants to bring in non-Americans to work the corn fields. I wonder if his concern about throwing illegal aliens has anything to do with the fact that his state has many illegal aliens working for farms.
Fox - Kasich: Unrealistic GOP tax plans improve Clinton's chances.
If we created this new class of citizen, what rights would they have? Could they be refused passports? If they left the country on a trip, would they be denied re-entry? Would they be allowed to own guns or vote? If not would they have at least the same rights as convicted felons? By the way, a lot of people who are here illegally did not arrive illegally. Not all people classified as illegal aliens entered this country. Some entered this country on legal visas and stayed after the visas expired. A wall would not have stopped them as they entered the country legally. I guess we could prevent people from even entering this country legally; but, that would be the end of tourism.
This is where Mr. Kasich gets stranger; but, more telling about what he does care about. He states that we should consider instituting a seasonal worker program. In other words, you cannot live here and be a citizen; but, you can come and take jobs away from American citizens. Why should we have ANY worker visas when there are not enough jobs for the citizens of this country? I think we should call for the end of ALL work visas. Think about it. If you want to work here become a citizen. Mr. Kasich lives in a farming state and he wants to bring in non-Americans to work the corn fields. I wonder if his concern about throwing illegal aliens has anything to do with the fact that his state has many illegal aliens working for farms.
Fox - Kasich: Unrealistic GOP tax plans improve Clinton's chances.
Jobs, Taxes and Infrastructure.
I recently received a comment from a reader asking which candidate I favored and which policy Kool Aid I would drink. While I do not support any of the candidates, I would like to see either Trump or Sanders win and would prefer Sanders. Obviously Trump and Sanders are vastly different so it is not their personalities or their policies that makes me prefer them. In fact, I don't think either could change the laws as neither would have their parties support. The fact is that it is easier to pay off and control a party then it is to control every politician. A Trump Sanders presidential showdown would tell the politicians that voting only the party line will not get them elected.
The biggest issues facing the United States are our long tern health are not gay marriage, abortion or even immigration. Lets look at the individual issues facing the country and talk about how the two parties view them as neither will solve them.
JOBS
Since the Reagan era we have seen an increasing push to ship jobs oversees for slave wages (some actual slave workers in China) and avoiding environmental and safety laws and any regulation. It should be noted that these same companies are failing to pay taxes and keep the money oversees. While shipping jobs oversees the nation has seen an attack on wages in this country. The leading factors in this are increasing automation, "subcontracting" and financial manipulation by the finance industry. Most of the presidential candidates were part of the problem that caused these things in the first place, Trump and Sanders were not. Trump is a "realist" and would tell you this is the game we are playing and we need to play it smarter. Sanders would say we need to change the rules.
Let us look at the Republican parties answer to these questions. The vast majority of the party wants to eliminate income tax, eliminate regulations and allow more educated immigrants to come over and take jobs away from citizens. The Democratic party has given up on trying to change these things and are just looking to slow down the changes. Neither is putting forward plans for changing the game in any significant way and that is what is needed. The next wave in job destruction in America is going to be self-driving trucks.
Huffington Post - Self-Driving Trucks Are Going to Hit Us Like a Human-Driven Truck.
Huffington Post - Self-Driving Trucks Will Actually Be Great For Truckers, For Now.
Please read the articles in the links. The biggest job in 29 states is trucking and that is going to go away with self-driving trucks. While this new technology will require someone to build the trucks, it will not be Americans. The estimate is that these self-driving trucks will become common in about 5 years, not forty. All of the people running for president know this and they have no solution. Well Marco Rubio thinks we should be cheaper than machines, he also wants to eliminate the minimum wage. I guess if we require self-driving trucks to have a human on board, the human will only get $5.00 an hour. That is not a solution. His other idea that we all become welders is equally ludicrous.
The idea that eliminating taxes on the rich will increase job creation in the United States is equally ludicrous.. If it is cheaper and easier to build in China then the companies will continue to and they are increasingly automating their businesses. If employees in China cannot compete with automation at $1.00 an hour, how can Americans? If the United States eliminated any wage guarantees and all regulation, it still wouldn't bring the jobs back because the companies already have the industrial capability in China. We need to change the laws that make it profitable to ship jobs oversees.
TAXES
There are two, equally dumb, approaches to taxes that the Republicans want to initiate. While some believe we should cut the taxes on the rich others are calling for a flat tax; but, both believe we should cut the total amount of taxes going to the government and thereby reduce government services. I should point out that at least Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders want to decrease military spending. The Democratic party calls for increasing the tax rate for the rich; but, doesn't seek to eliminate all the deductions which just means that some very profitable companies will continue to pay no taxes. Whether they don't pay 35% or 40% is irrelevant when the taxes are not being paid.
What if we only gave tax cuts to companies that either increase overall wages or created more jobs in the United States? If they don't do either of those things, then we increase their taxes. We also need to eliminate all of these free trade agreements that are only hurting American workers.
INFRASTRUCTURE
We all know that our roads, bridges and industrial capability needs to be rebuilt. We need to spend on these things so that we can make us able to compete with foreign countries. Rebuilding our infrastructure will also create jobs in America. The Republicans are not even willing to transportation funding and have consistently held up fixes to the Transportation fund. Sanders would push for more funding of infrastructure.
ANSWER
My answer to the question I was asked is that I will vote for whoever will support and promote the policies I have outlined above.
The biggest issues facing the United States are our long tern health are not gay marriage, abortion or even immigration. Lets look at the individual issues facing the country and talk about how the two parties view them as neither will solve them.
JOBS
Since the Reagan era we have seen an increasing push to ship jobs oversees for slave wages (some actual slave workers in China) and avoiding environmental and safety laws and any regulation. It should be noted that these same companies are failing to pay taxes and keep the money oversees. While shipping jobs oversees the nation has seen an attack on wages in this country. The leading factors in this are increasing automation, "subcontracting" and financial manipulation by the finance industry. Most of the presidential candidates were part of the problem that caused these things in the first place, Trump and Sanders were not. Trump is a "realist" and would tell you this is the game we are playing and we need to play it smarter. Sanders would say we need to change the rules.
Let us look at the Republican parties answer to these questions. The vast majority of the party wants to eliminate income tax, eliminate regulations and allow more educated immigrants to come over and take jobs away from citizens. The Democratic party has given up on trying to change these things and are just looking to slow down the changes. Neither is putting forward plans for changing the game in any significant way and that is what is needed. The next wave in job destruction in America is going to be self-driving trucks.
Huffington Post - Self-Driving Trucks Are Going to Hit Us Like a Human-Driven Truck.
Huffington Post - Self-Driving Trucks Will Actually Be Great For Truckers, For Now.
Please read the articles in the links. The biggest job in 29 states is trucking and that is going to go away with self-driving trucks. While this new technology will require someone to build the trucks, it will not be Americans. The estimate is that these self-driving trucks will become common in about 5 years, not forty. All of the people running for president know this and they have no solution. Well Marco Rubio thinks we should be cheaper than machines, he also wants to eliminate the minimum wage. I guess if we require self-driving trucks to have a human on board, the human will only get $5.00 an hour. That is not a solution. His other idea that we all become welders is equally ludicrous.
The idea that eliminating taxes on the rich will increase job creation in the United States is equally ludicrous.. If it is cheaper and easier to build in China then the companies will continue to and they are increasingly automating their businesses. If employees in China cannot compete with automation at $1.00 an hour, how can Americans? If the United States eliminated any wage guarantees and all regulation, it still wouldn't bring the jobs back because the companies already have the industrial capability in China. We need to change the laws that make it profitable to ship jobs oversees.
TAXES
There are two, equally dumb, approaches to taxes that the Republicans want to initiate. While some believe we should cut the taxes on the rich others are calling for a flat tax; but, both believe we should cut the total amount of taxes going to the government and thereby reduce government services. I should point out that at least Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders want to decrease military spending. The Democratic party calls for increasing the tax rate for the rich; but, doesn't seek to eliminate all the deductions which just means that some very profitable companies will continue to pay no taxes. Whether they don't pay 35% or 40% is irrelevant when the taxes are not being paid.
What if we only gave tax cuts to companies that either increase overall wages or created more jobs in the United States? If they don't do either of those things, then we increase their taxes. We also need to eliminate all of these free trade agreements that are only hurting American workers.
INFRASTRUCTURE
We all know that our roads, bridges and industrial capability needs to be rebuilt. We need to spend on these things so that we can make us able to compete with foreign countries. Rebuilding our infrastructure will also create jobs in America. The Republicans are not even willing to transportation funding and have consistently held up fixes to the Transportation fund. Sanders would push for more funding of infrastructure.
ANSWER
My answer to the question I was asked is that I will vote for whoever will support and promote the policies I have outlined above.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Reagan, Bush and Clinton - Iran Contra and Illegal Drigs in Arkansas.
Some of my younger readers may not remember when Reagan became president. Well, the Iranians had been holding people from our embassy hostage in Iran for months and just before Reagan was sworn in, they let them all go. It later turned out that we had been supplying the Iranians with parts for their military and weapons in exchange for letting the prisoners go. At least that was what the papers at the time claimed. What we found out later was even more disturbing.
YouTube - The Secret Government - The Constitution In Crisis -Bill Moyers (PBS 1987).
YouTube - THE CLINTON CONSPIRACY - MUST WATCH
YouTube - CIA Drug Ops Conspiracy : (Unaired Documentary)
YouTube - The Mena Connection: Bush, Clinton, and CIA Drug Smuggling (1995) Full Length
YouTube - 12-24-92 Nightline on Bush Iran Contra Pardons
YouTube - The Secret Government - The Constitution In Crisis -Bill Moyers (PBS 1987).
YouTube - THE CLINTON CONSPIRACY - MUST WATCH
YouTube - CIA Drug Ops Conspiracy : (Unaired Documentary)
YouTube - The Mena Connection: Bush, Clinton, and CIA Drug Smuggling (1995) Full Length
YouTube - 12-24-92 Nightline on Bush Iran Contra Pardons
Your Presidential Candidates and Their Official Websites
This is my good deed for the day, I am providing links to all the Presidential candidates so you can easily see what their position is on different issues.
The Democrats
Hillary Clinton - https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
Bernie Sanders - https://berniesanders.com/issues/
The Democrats
Hillary Clinton - https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
Bernie Sanders - https://berniesanders.com/issues/
Martin O'Malley - https://martinomalley.com/category/policy/
The Republicans
Donald Trump - https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
Ben Carson - https://www.bencarson.com/issues
Marco Rubio - https://marcorubio.com/issues/
Ted Cruz - https://www.tedcruz.org/records/
Carly Fiorina - https://www.carlyforpresident.com/answers/
Lindsey Graham - http://www.lindseygraham.com/campaign-issues/
Rand Paul - https://www.randpaul.com/issues
Rick Santorum - http://www.ricksantorum.com/issues
George Pataki - http://www.georgepataki.com/meet-george/
John Kasich - https://johnkasich.com/issues/
Bobby Jindal - https://www.bobbyjindal.com/issues/
Mike Huckabee - http://www.mikehuckabee.com/issues
Chris Christie - https://www.chrischristie.com/issues
Jeb Bush - https://jeb2016.com/?lang=en
Jim Gilmore - http://www.gilmoreforamerica.com/issues/
The Pilgirms, Thanksgiving and Propaganda
I think Thanksgiving is the best holiday in many ways. It is about family, food and sharing sports or entertainment. Those are all good things. The formal national holiday didn't begin until 1941; but, Washington did propose the first day of Thanksgiving, he just didn't say anything about having it every year or being a national holiday. See history sort of glosses over the truth of a lot of things. It should also be noted that the Indians were not invited by the Pilgrims, they sort of crashed the party and then brought more food. I don't think any of this matters, I am more concerned about how we are misled about history and how things that are not true are used to manipulate our philosophies. I still really like Thanksgiving.
Some things we believe about this country are just nonsense with a twisted version of history used to back it up. Lets start with this nation being founded on religious freedom. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The pilgrims did not come to the United States to create a nation or religious freedom, they came to avoid English control over them. They provided no such freedom to their own members.
The Pilgrims were also not the first American colony. The Pilgrims did not arrive until 1620 and Jamestown began in 1607. Beyond that, Santa Fe was founded in 1610 by the Spaniards who by the way are also European. And just to be clear, the Spaniards landed in San Diego, California in 1542. The Spaniards took over Mexico City in 1521 and that too is in North America. Here is an interesting fact, Santa Fe is the oldest capital city in the United States.
Now as far as believing in political freedom and capitalism, not so much. In fact the Pilgrims worked as in a commune and the Mayflower compact established that contract. Another thing that is untrue is that the right to possess weapons like guns was originally written in the constitution, it was not, it wasn't added until 1791 with the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. You should also know that the 18th Amendment to the Constitution outlawed alcoholic beverages and wasn't repealed till 1933 with the 23rd Amendment. Here is a question, IF you believe that you have a right to bear arms under the Constitution, do you also understand that it can be completely eliminated by a Constitutional Amendment? I want you to seriously think about that.
Lets talk about that for a minute. Lets be truthful about history. A lot of people will talk about how guns are a right and about the old west. You know what, many towns made it illegal to bring guns into them same as some counties still make it illegal to sell alcohol in them. I recently wrote about gun laws and stated for the record that I thought people should be allowed to own guns to protect themselves and hunt. Having said that, times are getting interesting and if the NRA pushes for people to be allowed to own any weapons they want, you risk having the majority of people in this country eliminate any right to own a gun without government permission. Think about this, many cities across this nation used to outlaw owning a switchblade and that is just a weapon too.
Nifty slogans and propaganda are all fun for ignoring the bigger issues. I had a class in college once (I think it was one of the ones where I was helping grade papers as it was primarily filled with non-political science majors). The Professor who was one of the few conservatives and a friend made the statement that liberals were inconsistent because they were against the death penalty and for abortion. At the time I was probably more conservative than liberal and I had voted for Reagan. I responded that conservatives were equally inconsistent as they were for the death penalty and against abortion, I said the only difference was whether you wanted to kill the guilty or the innocent. It is a cute comment and the Professor was stunned for a moment and then stated that the comments, by both of us, did not seriously address the issue. I agreed and we proceeded to have a more in depth discussion of the real issues. The truth is never totally encompassed in cute news bites and you shouldn't think in them.
The first words of the Constitution are known as the preamble and say, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Whereas the Declaration of Independence, the rights we fought for said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If you believe that your right to own a gun is found in these words then tell me why smoking Marijuana, snorting Cocaine, Gambling and Prostitution are not included under the pursuit of happiness or the blessings of liberty? I am neither vilifying or promoting and of these things, it is a simple question and if you base your beliefs on the Constitution then you should support what they imply, right? Okay, now what if the people outlawed all guns in private hands by making a Constitutional amendment, would you follow it and turn your guns in? Which is really more important, guns or the Constitution? Don't like that question then answer this one. If you wouldn't give up your gun if the Constitution was amended, then why do you support putting people in jail for drug sales and possession? You might tell me that Libertarians would allow these things; but, Libertarians do not believe in the totality of the Constitution. They believe that all laws should come from the states, or at least that is what they claim. Heck, following their philosophy, they would have supported the Confederates in the civil war and some today promote either a new civil war or leaving the United States. Read what these whack jobs really believe.
Here is the point, never push things to ludicrous ends or you lose. Also don't take slogans seriously, take well thought out positions on things or you are controlled by mindless propaganda. It is claimed that in 2014, 52% of Americans believed that people had a right to own guns. It should be noted that in 2014 42% of Americans were opposed to same sex marriage. Oddly enough, the vast majority of them believed they had the right to own a gun. If you don't believe the government should be able to stop you from owning a gun, why would you believe the government should control who you marry or have sex with?
Have a great Thanksgiving. I plan on enjoying turkey (which we don't really know if the Pilgrims ate), pumpkin pie (which the Pilgrims probably did not have as they did not have a lot of sugar) and watching a movie or two.
Some things we believe about this country are just nonsense with a twisted version of history used to back it up. Lets start with this nation being founded on religious freedom. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The pilgrims did not come to the United States to create a nation or religious freedom, they came to avoid English control over them. They provided no such freedom to their own members.
The Pilgrims were also not the first American colony. The Pilgrims did not arrive until 1620 and Jamestown began in 1607. Beyond that, Santa Fe was founded in 1610 by the Spaniards who by the way are also European. And just to be clear, the Spaniards landed in San Diego, California in 1542. The Spaniards took over Mexico City in 1521 and that too is in North America. Here is an interesting fact, Santa Fe is the oldest capital city in the United States.
Now as far as believing in political freedom and capitalism, not so much. In fact the Pilgrims worked as in a commune and the Mayflower compact established that contract. Another thing that is untrue is that the right to possess weapons like guns was originally written in the constitution, it was not, it wasn't added until 1791 with the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. You should also know that the 18th Amendment to the Constitution outlawed alcoholic beverages and wasn't repealed till 1933 with the 23rd Amendment. Here is a question, IF you believe that you have a right to bear arms under the Constitution, do you also understand that it can be completely eliminated by a Constitutional Amendment? I want you to seriously think about that.
Lets talk about that for a minute. Lets be truthful about history. A lot of people will talk about how guns are a right and about the old west. You know what, many towns made it illegal to bring guns into them same as some counties still make it illegal to sell alcohol in them. I recently wrote about gun laws and stated for the record that I thought people should be allowed to own guns to protect themselves and hunt. Having said that, times are getting interesting and if the NRA pushes for people to be allowed to own any weapons they want, you risk having the majority of people in this country eliminate any right to own a gun without government permission. Think about this, many cities across this nation used to outlaw owning a switchblade and that is just a weapon too.
Nifty slogans and propaganda are all fun for ignoring the bigger issues. I had a class in college once (I think it was one of the ones where I was helping grade papers as it was primarily filled with non-political science majors). The Professor who was one of the few conservatives and a friend made the statement that liberals were inconsistent because they were against the death penalty and for abortion. At the time I was probably more conservative than liberal and I had voted for Reagan. I responded that conservatives were equally inconsistent as they were for the death penalty and against abortion, I said the only difference was whether you wanted to kill the guilty or the innocent. It is a cute comment and the Professor was stunned for a moment and then stated that the comments, by both of us, did not seriously address the issue. I agreed and we proceeded to have a more in depth discussion of the real issues. The truth is never totally encompassed in cute news bites and you shouldn't think in them.
The first words of the Constitution are known as the preamble and say, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Whereas the Declaration of Independence, the rights we fought for said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If you believe that your right to own a gun is found in these words then tell me why smoking Marijuana, snorting Cocaine, Gambling and Prostitution are not included under the pursuit of happiness or the blessings of liberty? I am neither vilifying or promoting and of these things, it is a simple question and if you base your beliefs on the Constitution then you should support what they imply, right? Okay, now what if the people outlawed all guns in private hands by making a Constitutional amendment, would you follow it and turn your guns in? Which is really more important, guns or the Constitution? Don't like that question then answer this one. If you wouldn't give up your gun if the Constitution was amended, then why do you support putting people in jail for drug sales and possession? You might tell me that Libertarians would allow these things; but, Libertarians do not believe in the totality of the Constitution. They believe that all laws should come from the states, or at least that is what they claim. Heck, following their philosophy, they would have supported the Confederates in the civil war and some today promote either a new civil war or leaving the United States. Read what these whack jobs really believe.
Here is the point, never push things to ludicrous ends or you lose. Also don't take slogans seriously, take well thought out positions on things or you are controlled by mindless propaganda. It is claimed that in 2014, 52% of Americans believed that people had a right to own guns. It should be noted that in 2014 42% of Americans were opposed to same sex marriage. Oddly enough, the vast majority of them believed they had the right to own a gun. If you don't believe the government should be able to stop you from owning a gun, why would you believe the government should control who you marry or have sex with?
Have a great Thanksgiving. I plan on enjoying turkey (which we don't really know if the Pilgrims ate), pumpkin pie (which the Pilgrims probably did not have as they did not have a lot of sugar) and watching a movie or two.
Monday, November 9, 2015
The confusing difference between philosophy and science.
Do you know the difference between philosophy and science? Philosophy starts from know fact and science starts from guesses. You don't want to believe that but it is true. Can you truly be sure of the distance between stars or is it an estimate? Explain to me why mass has more gravity than all of our math and science believes it should. Explain to me the difference between observation and experience, it is why time is not relative, only observationally so.
Let us play a game. If I observe a sun explode today and know that it took the light a billion years to reach me (my observation) then the star exploded billion years ago. Time (observational) here and there proceeded at the same speed as always, it just appeared to be at different times based on where the observer was. Time does not actually speed up or slow down anymore than light does, it is just observed at a different time. Time, by common usage, is an observational experience. This discussion is the difference between philosophy and science. Philosophy grapples with what we can prove to ourselves and science is based on observations of things that we cannot prove. Science is based upon the belief that you cannot KNOW a thing. Philosophy is based upon the fact that I can know I am. When you start denying that you exist, you can make up any lie that you feel comfortable with.
Now to the absolute best science seminar I have ever seen. I like science, I just think it has a problem with consciousness and that is foolishness.
YouTube - Professor Brian Cox Lecture on the universe.
Let us play a game. If I observe a sun explode today and know that it took the light a billion years to reach me (my observation) then the star exploded billion years ago. Time (observational) here and there proceeded at the same speed as always, it just appeared to be at different times based on where the observer was. Time does not actually speed up or slow down anymore than light does, it is just observed at a different time. Time, by common usage, is an observational experience. This discussion is the difference between philosophy and science. Philosophy grapples with what we can prove to ourselves and science is based on observations of things that we cannot prove. Science is based upon the belief that you cannot KNOW a thing. Philosophy is based upon the fact that I can know I am. When you start denying that you exist, you can make up any lie that you feel comfortable with.
Now to the absolute best science seminar I have ever seen. I like science, I just think it has a problem with consciousness and that is foolishness.
YouTube - Professor Brian Cox Lecture on the universe.
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Lights and Lies
Earlier today I watched a report on how for this week planes going into LAX after midnight would have to enter from the east over communities rather than from the west over the ocean. The claim was that the military would be conducting tests over the ocean; but, the reason was not given. Fair enough, strange and unusual; but, okay. The military would not say what the purpose of the tests were. People living in the cities where the planes would be diverted seemed to accept it well enough.
Here is where it gets a little strange. Tonight a blue light was seen moving across the sky from Mexico to San Francisco and could even be seen from parts of Nevada. Here are some videos of it.
NBC Los Angeles - Bright Light in Sky: UFOs or Gov. Cover-Up; Twitter Users Speculate.
YouTube - Strange lights over los angeles UFO.
The military has claimed that the lights seen over the sky was a test of a trident missile that was launched from a submarine. Why? If the missile was submarine based, why not launch it from further out at sea, why do it in an area that forces planes to be rerouted from LAX, one of the busiest airports in the world. Here is the next question, why force the planes to reroute for a whole week? Will they continue launching missiles all week? Also, why reroute the planes after midnight when the test was done around 7:00 in the evening? Finally, why the secrecy? Why didn't the military say they would be launching missiles to test them? It's not as if they were going to go unnoticed especially after they notified LAX and residents that they would be rerouting air traffic. I guess we will have to see what is in the sky all of next week.
UPDATE:
This was NOT a UFO and I do not understand why the media reported it as such or claimed that people were freaked out, they were not. It was a missile and immediately reported as such. The real question has to do with why they rerouted air traffic for the whole week and why the military didn't just say they were going to be testing rockets in the area or better yet, why they tested it in the area in the first place.
Here is where it gets a little strange. Tonight a blue light was seen moving across the sky from Mexico to San Francisco and could even be seen from parts of Nevada. Here are some videos of it.
NBC Los Angeles - Bright Light in Sky: UFOs or Gov. Cover-Up; Twitter Users Speculate.
YouTube - Strange lights over los angeles UFO.
The military has claimed that the lights seen over the sky was a test of a trident missile that was launched from a submarine. Why? If the missile was submarine based, why not launch it from further out at sea, why do it in an area that forces planes to be rerouted from LAX, one of the busiest airports in the world. Here is the next question, why force the planes to reroute for a whole week? Will they continue launching missiles all week? Also, why reroute the planes after midnight when the test was done around 7:00 in the evening? Finally, why the secrecy? Why didn't the military say they would be launching missiles to test them? It's not as if they were going to go unnoticed especially after they notified LAX and residents that they would be rerouting air traffic. I guess we will have to see what is in the sky all of next week.
UPDATE:
This was NOT a UFO and I do not understand why the media reported it as such or claimed that people were freaked out, they were not. It was a missile and immediately reported as such. The real question has to do with why they rerouted air traffic for the whole week and why the military didn't just say they were going to be testing rockets in the area or better yet, why they tested it in the area in the first place.
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Funny Songs For You
YouTube - Cows With Guns
YouTube - Frank Gallop - The Ballad Of Irving (1966)
YouTube - The Frantics - Boot to the Head - 16. Ti Kwan Leep.
YouTube - Benny Bell - Shaving Cream (Exclusive).
YouTube - Kinko the Clown- Ogden Edsel - On the Dr. Demento show.
YouTube - Cheech and Chong: Earache my Eye.
YouTube - "ROCK ME JERRY LEWIS" - Mike Elliot and Bud LaTour.
YouTube - Joe Dolce - Shaddap You Face (1981).
YouTube - Larry Groce - Junk Food Junkie (1976)
YouTube - Rose and the Arrangement - The Cockroach That Ate Cincinnati.
YouTube - Pico & Sepulveda.
YouTube - Get A Load Of This.
YouTube - Friendly Neighborhood Narco Agent - Jeff Jaisun.
Enjoy the silliness.
YouTube - Frank Gallop - The Ballad Of Irving (1966)
YouTube - The Frantics - Boot to the Head - 16. Ti Kwan Leep.
YouTube - Benny Bell - Shaving Cream (Exclusive).
YouTube - Kinko the Clown- Ogden Edsel - On the Dr. Demento show.
YouTube - Cheech and Chong: Earache my Eye.
YouTube - "ROCK ME JERRY LEWIS" - Mike Elliot and Bud LaTour.
YouTube - Joe Dolce - Shaddap You Face (1981).
YouTube - Larry Groce - Junk Food Junkie (1976)
YouTube - Rose and the Arrangement - The Cockroach That Ate Cincinnati.
YouTube - Pico & Sepulveda.
YouTube - Get A Load Of This.
YouTube - Friendly Neighborhood Narco Agent - Jeff Jaisun.
Enjoy the silliness.
Are Kings Better Than Dictators?
I was watching a series of videos about the Spanish Civil War and found it interesting that the Spanish dictator that came out of that war was originally a monarchist. That got me thinking about how the western nations refer to bad people as dictators. A dictator is someone who took control of a country by force and doesn't let people decide on who is in charge. I then thought how hypocritical it is of politicians in Great Britain to speak about dictators in a negative while accepting a monarchy.
Why can't we vote for a king for four years and then vote again? Why can't the English vote on who their monarch should be? How can a king or queen call someone else a dictator? As bad as Hitler was, the people of Germany actually had a say in his getting the job. England doesn't even vote on who gets to be in the House of Lords.
I am sorry; but, the fact that someone's great, great, great, great, great grandfather killed all the competition does not entitle the queen to own anything. Monarchies are just institutionalized slavery and that is the same issue we have with dictators. How is the queen of England any different than Kim Jong Un of North Korea, both inherited leadership of their countries. Should anyone have the right to inherit a nation of people or even a city of people or even one person?
If you are a conservative then my question is simple. Do you believe in dictatorships and monarchies? If you do not then my next question is, how much should someone be allowed to inherit? See if you don't believe in monarchies or dictatorships then you do believe there are limits to what one can acquire through inheritance. You know in England the people get wildly excited when one of the royals is pregnant because they want to know who their next dictator might be. Perhaps you think my calling the queen a dictator gives her more power than she deserves. Well, look back a couple of years ago when the queen of England locked the Canadian parliament out of their parliament. Yep, and she did that without any vote in England or Canada giving her that authority, it already existed and she had her representative in Canada to do it. Our forefathers came here to get away from that, not recreate it.
Most of my readers are conservative and I know that. It is for that reason that I ask the questions that I do because I am conservative too; but, not foolish or dogmatic. I believe in what is best for this country, not what is best for me. This nation is supposed to be for the majority, not the few or the one. So what is in the best interest of the majority of us? Aristotle did not separate governments into what they did; but, instead into how they decided what they did. He saw three types of governments, ones controlled by one person, ones controlled by a few people and ones controlled by the majority and ones controlled by the majority he called democracies. Capitalism, Socialism and Communism are economic structures, not types of governments. Did you know that most Polynesian groups were communistic and had monarchies? One person ruled the country; but, everyone shared as needed.
My political science professors wanted me to teach about Polynesia, there weren't a lot of experts on the politics of Polynesia and there still aren't. Many Polynesian cultures were meritocracies, you earned your right to lead. At the same time, you were expected not to show off. The Polynesians did not accept outliers, they shunned them. They believed in harmony. The are probably the best example of what Plato thought the perfect government would be.
If you do not know who Plato or Aristotle are then I can only say that they are the basis for modern democracies and philosophical thought. In fact, all the great philosophers believed in either meritocracies or democracy. None believed in a world based on inherited authority or wealth. If you are a Christian then answer this question, does the bible say that the trust fund babies shall inherit the earth? Clearly I am being sarcastic as it does not say that.
I hope something I said made someone at least ask themselves something new. I think if I am going to write, I should at least get you to think. Be well.
Why can't we vote for a king for four years and then vote again? Why can't the English vote on who their monarch should be? How can a king or queen call someone else a dictator? As bad as Hitler was, the people of Germany actually had a say in his getting the job. England doesn't even vote on who gets to be in the House of Lords.
I am sorry; but, the fact that someone's great, great, great, great, great grandfather killed all the competition does not entitle the queen to own anything. Monarchies are just institutionalized slavery and that is the same issue we have with dictators. How is the queen of England any different than Kim Jong Un of North Korea, both inherited leadership of their countries. Should anyone have the right to inherit a nation of people or even a city of people or even one person?
If you are a conservative then my question is simple. Do you believe in dictatorships and monarchies? If you do not then my next question is, how much should someone be allowed to inherit? See if you don't believe in monarchies or dictatorships then you do believe there are limits to what one can acquire through inheritance. You know in England the people get wildly excited when one of the royals is pregnant because they want to know who their next dictator might be. Perhaps you think my calling the queen a dictator gives her more power than she deserves. Well, look back a couple of years ago when the queen of England locked the Canadian parliament out of their parliament. Yep, and she did that without any vote in England or Canada giving her that authority, it already existed and she had her representative in Canada to do it. Our forefathers came here to get away from that, not recreate it.
Most of my readers are conservative and I know that. It is for that reason that I ask the questions that I do because I am conservative too; but, not foolish or dogmatic. I believe in what is best for this country, not what is best for me. This nation is supposed to be for the majority, not the few or the one. So what is in the best interest of the majority of us? Aristotle did not separate governments into what they did; but, instead into how they decided what they did. He saw three types of governments, ones controlled by one person, ones controlled by a few people and ones controlled by the majority and ones controlled by the majority he called democracies. Capitalism, Socialism and Communism are economic structures, not types of governments. Did you know that most Polynesian groups were communistic and had monarchies? One person ruled the country; but, everyone shared as needed.
My political science professors wanted me to teach about Polynesia, there weren't a lot of experts on the politics of Polynesia and there still aren't. Many Polynesian cultures were meritocracies, you earned your right to lead. At the same time, you were expected not to show off. The Polynesians did not accept outliers, they shunned them. They believed in harmony. The are probably the best example of what Plato thought the perfect government would be.
If you do not know who Plato or Aristotle are then I can only say that they are the basis for modern democracies and philosophical thought. In fact, all the great philosophers believed in either meritocracies or democracy. None believed in a world based on inherited authority or wealth. If you are a Christian then answer this question, does the bible say that the trust fund babies shall inherit the earth? Clearly I am being sarcastic as it does not say that.
I hope something I said made someone at least ask themselves something new. I think if I am going to write, I should at least get you to think. Be well.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Lies and World War I
I don't think most people understand what World War I was about; but, it is a history that should not be repeated. Prior to World War I the nations of Europe were competing over which of them would have the most influence in Africa, Asia and the Pacific (and to a lesser extent in South America). Basically the European countries were busy stealing land in Africa and Asia and the thing that prevented a continual war in all the countries was the alliances they made amongst themselves. It came down to if one of your treaty partners was attacked then you automatically fought with them.
Well, the king of Austria was killed by an anarchist from Serbia and all hell broke loose. One of the biggest factors for the war was Europe's wish to split up the Ottoman Empire. Little discussed now, it was a major force in Europe and Arabia for hundreds of years. After World War I it would cease to exist as would Russia which became the Soviet Union. After the king was killed, Austria attacked Serbia. Many believed that Austria was trying to make inroads against the Ottoman empire and that the killing of the king provided a convenient excuse; but, because of all the treaties the war pulled in the rest of Europe. World War I was not a religious war, it was simply a war to split up the spoils of older empires.
As for America, we had no reason to join in the fight and most people did not want to go to "Europe's War". The war began in 1914 and America did not join in until April 1917. Now most people think the United States joined the war because of the sinking of the Lusitania; but, that is not quite correct. The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915 almost two years before we entered the war. In fact, Wilson was re-elected in 1916 because he kept us out of the war. Just before we declared war on Germany it was discovered that Germany was offering to pay for Mexico to attack the United States to take back the land we had stolen from them (California, Texas and Arizona). I should point out that there is no evidence at all that Mexico had any plans on doing what Germany wanted.
As far as the Lusitania goes, it was not an American ship, it was a British ship during wartime which was most likely carrying arms from the United States. You see, even though we claimed to be uninvolved, we were selling weapons to more than one European country. We made a lot of money from that war. We also enslaved our own people by conducting a draft and forcing people in to the military. Wait, it gets better, it was made illegal to say that the draft or the war was wrong. It was a war we didn't want to join by a president who was elected on the promise not to get us into war and yet it was illegal to argue against it.
Most Americans think Germany started the war, they didn't. Most Americans think we went to war over the sinking of the Lusitania, we didn't. The President of the United States promised it would be the last war, it wasn't.
Well, the king of Austria was killed by an anarchist from Serbia and all hell broke loose. One of the biggest factors for the war was Europe's wish to split up the Ottoman Empire. Little discussed now, it was a major force in Europe and Arabia for hundreds of years. After World War I it would cease to exist as would Russia which became the Soviet Union. After the king was killed, Austria attacked Serbia. Many believed that Austria was trying to make inroads against the Ottoman empire and that the killing of the king provided a convenient excuse; but, because of all the treaties the war pulled in the rest of Europe. World War I was not a religious war, it was simply a war to split up the spoils of older empires.
As for America, we had no reason to join in the fight and most people did not want to go to "Europe's War". The war began in 1914 and America did not join in until April 1917. Now most people think the United States joined the war because of the sinking of the Lusitania; but, that is not quite correct. The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915 almost two years before we entered the war. In fact, Wilson was re-elected in 1916 because he kept us out of the war. Just before we declared war on Germany it was discovered that Germany was offering to pay for Mexico to attack the United States to take back the land we had stolen from them (California, Texas and Arizona). I should point out that there is no evidence at all that Mexico had any plans on doing what Germany wanted.
As far as the Lusitania goes, it was not an American ship, it was a British ship during wartime which was most likely carrying arms from the United States. You see, even though we claimed to be uninvolved, we were selling weapons to more than one European country. We made a lot of money from that war. We also enslaved our own people by conducting a draft and forcing people in to the military. Wait, it gets better, it was made illegal to say that the draft or the war was wrong. It was a war we didn't want to join by a president who was elected on the promise not to get us into war and yet it was illegal to argue against it.
Most Americans think Germany started the war, they didn't. Most Americans think we went to war over the sinking of the Lusitania, we didn't. The President of the United States promised it would be the last war, it wasn't.
J.P. Morgan and their IPO
I don't trust JP Morgan. I don't trust them because they have plead guilty to rigging just about every financial market there is to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in fines. This recent story makes me think they are about to sell average investors and little guys some major snake oil.
Yahoo - Why J.P. Morgan IPO Access is a Huge Deal for Regular Investors.
When a company decides to "go public" or sell stock on one of the exchanges (like the Dow Jones) they make what is called an IPO or Initial Public Offering. When an IPO is set, the price of the stock is also set. This initial rate may or may not be met; but, usually the stock will increase for the first 90 days or so. For quite awhile now certain large or institutional investors were allowed to buy the stock for the set rate the day before the actual public could buy the stock.
A simple example of this might be In and Out Burger deciding that they want to sell stock in their company. The company decides that they want to raise $100,000,000 and they are going to sell 1,000,000 shares at $100 per share. The day before the shares can be purchased on the stock exchange, certain large investors are allowed to buy the stock at the $100 per share. The next day, when the stock is actually publicly traded it will go up or down depending on demand. It is very common to see the stock raise in value in those first 90 days; but, in the past the average person could not buy the stock prior to the IPO. JP Morgan says that for a $250 investment anyone can now buy prior to the IPO so long as JP Morgan has underwritten the IPO.
Why would JP Morgan, a company that is based on fraud and market manipulation, suddenly let the small investor get in on their game and a game that they reserve for their friends. I don't trust them and you should not either.
Yahoo - Why J.P. Morgan IPO Access is a Huge Deal for Regular Investors.
When a company decides to "go public" or sell stock on one of the exchanges (like the Dow Jones) they make what is called an IPO or Initial Public Offering. When an IPO is set, the price of the stock is also set. This initial rate may or may not be met; but, usually the stock will increase for the first 90 days or so. For quite awhile now certain large or institutional investors were allowed to buy the stock for the set rate the day before the actual public could buy the stock.
A simple example of this might be In and Out Burger deciding that they want to sell stock in their company. The company decides that they want to raise $100,000,000 and they are going to sell 1,000,000 shares at $100 per share. The day before the shares can be purchased on the stock exchange, certain large investors are allowed to buy the stock at the $100 per share. The next day, when the stock is actually publicly traded it will go up or down depending on demand. It is very common to see the stock raise in value in those first 90 days; but, in the past the average person could not buy the stock prior to the IPO. JP Morgan says that for a $250 investment anyone can now buy prior to the IPO so long as JP Morgan has underwritten the IPO.
Why would JP Morgan, a company that is based on fraud and market manipulation, suddenly let the small investor get in on their game and a game that they reserve for their friends. I don't trust them and you should not either.
Monday, November 2, 2015
The FBI and Dillinger - States Rights
The only constitutionally recognized police force for the United States is the U. S. Marshall's Service. Prior to the 1920s almost all crimes were state crimes and not federal crimes. The Treasury was one of the biggest federal law enforcement agencies because they went out of counterfeiters because that was a federal crime. The Secret Service, that protects the presidents, is actually part of the Treasury department. In fact, prior to the 1920s the US Marshalls were not active in most places. They were active in the west because they were the only police force that had any authority on Indian lands. The US Marshalls authority was limited to federal crimes and it wasn't even until after Kennedy's death that it became a federal crime to kill a president.
Now, let me tell you about John Dillinger. Mr. Dillinger was a bank robber and murderer during the 1920s. That era spawned a lot of violent criminals, Bonnie and Clyde, Baby Face Nelson, Ma Barker and her boys, Al Capone and so many others. The people at the time often viewed them as heroes because they saw the banks as bigger criminals during the great depression. If you don't know the people I mentioned, you need to look them up. Dillinger and the others I mentioned were guilty of bank robbery and murder; but, the reason the federal government got involved was because they had transported stolen vehicles across state lines. See, the federal government used to only have any authority over crimes that crossed state lines otherwise only state resources could be used.
I need you to really think about what I am saying. In 1920 a constitutional amendment was enacted that prohibited the sale of alcohol. They had to make it a federal law to be effective and the states loved it. The states also loved it when the federal government helped them find their worst criminals. It was state police officers that begged for the federal government to be allowed to help them catch criminals, they were not coerced or forced into it. I see a lot of ultra conservative media talk about how the fed has too much reach; but, they never address the fundamentals, like why can the federal government have authority over kidnappings that do not cross state lines?
Let's go back to Dillinger. The FBI called him number one on the list of the most wanted and that he was wanted dead or alive. Yet, the only federal crime they could arrest him for was driving a stolen car across state lines. How does that rate a dead or alive order? At around the same time the FBI got involved in the case of Bonnie and Clyde. Two more murderers; but, the FBI had the same charge against them as they did against Dillinger, stealing a car and crossing state lines. By the way, Capone went to federal prison for tax evasion, not for killing or even breaking the 18th amendment, they didn't even bust him for bootlegging.
What the real question I am addressing is the use of federal troops, the military, to deal with riots. Why should people who don't believe the federal government should have national programs like social security support the federal government being involved in shutting down internal state protests like Occupy Wall Street? Trespassing is not a federal crime, not even today. The federal government coordinated the shut down of occupy sit-ins with the states, that is a documented fact and neither Fox news or conservative politicians complained.
This is actually a mediocre post because I lost track of where I planned on going with it over the three days it took to finish it. Having said that, I would enjoy reading comments on any posts including this one. Retirement is boring.
Now, let me tell you about John Dillinger. Mr. Dillinger was a bank robber and murderer during the 1920s. That era spawned a lot of violent criminals, Bonnie and Clyde, Baby Face Nelson, Ma Barker and her boys, Al Capone and so many others. The people at the time often viewed them as heroes because they saw the banks as bigger criminals during the great depression. If you don't know the people I mentioned, you need to look them up. Dillinger and the others I mentioned were guilty of bank robbery and murder; but, the reason the federal government got involved was because they had transported stolen vehicles across state lines. See, the federal government used to only have any authority over crimes that crossed state lines otherwise only state resources could be used.
I need you to really think about what I am saying. In 1920 a constitutional amendment was enacted that prohibited the sale of alcohol. They had to make it a federal law to be effective and the states loved it. The states also loved it when the federal government helped them find their worst criminals. It was state police officers that begged for the federal government to be allowed to help them catch criminals, they were not coerced or forced into it. I see a lot of ultra conservative media talk about how the fed has too much reach; but, they never address the fundamentals, like why can the federal government have authority over kidnappings that do not cross state lines?
Let's go back to Dillinger. The FBI called him number one on the list of the most wanted and that he was wanted dead or alive. Yet, the only federal crime they could arrest him for was driving a stolen car across state lines. How does that rate a dead or alive order? At around the same time the FBI got involved in the case of Bonnie and Clyde. Two more murderers; but, the FBI had the same charge against them as they did against Dillinger, stealing a car and crossing state lines. By the way, Capone went to federal prison for tax evasion, not for killing or even breaking the 18th amendment, they didn't even bust him for bootlegging.
What the real question I am addressing is the use of federal troops, the military, to deal with riots. Why should people who don't believe the federal government should have national programs like social security support the federal government being involved in shutting down internal state protests like Occupy Wall Street? Trespassing is not a federal crime, not even today. The federal government coordinated the shut down of occupy sit-ins with the states, that is a documented fact and neither Fox news or conservative politicians complained.
This is actually a mediocre post because I lost track of where I planned on going with it over the three days it took to finish it. Having said that, I would enjoy reading comments on any posts including this one. Retirement is boring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)