Month: December 2012

This link is interesting: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/12/04/cia-report-benghazi-intel/1746003/

Now the claim is that they didn’t want compromise methods.  Think about this: the NSA–NOT the CIA (it seems to me likely that “CIA” probably often actually includes NSA operatives, and they do in my understanding have direct action capability)–was likely intercepting calls for a week or two in advance, indicating an attack in the planning stages.  Smart people know they listen to everything, but these are not smart people.

So the thing gets yet worse.  Not only did they have live feed, but I would bet money they had hard intel before the unwashed masses started showing up to begin with.

I will reiterate my two ideas.  The first is that Hillary Clinton thought her little Libyan brigade would save the day, and they either failed, or more likely betrayed her and the Ambassador outright, by not firing a shot, and by turning the Ambassador over to Al Queda.

Option two is that the murder of Stevens was planned, to prevent him from revealing a secret torture chamber, or something else, such as a program to ARM Al Queda operatives.

Option two may sound ridiculous–and maybe it is.  But is it more ridiculous than denying repeated calls for enhanced security in what was plainly a dangerous environment?

In our modern world TONS of data will have been left on this thing.  If it is missing, that in itself constitutes a crime.  I can’t believe that the entirety of our intelligence apparatus likes Obama.   Somebody out there will in the end hopefully cough up the details we need to put this together.

I was thinking about Philosophy Departments, and something occurred to me.  What the study of Philosophy provides is not understanding, but a social environment characterized by rituals, such as the discussion of Philosophy.

One of the most important understandings I came to in my study of religions, is that theory and practice can vary considerably, and in ways nobody explicitly points out.  You cannot learn much about, say, the religions of Native Americans (really, Early Americans would be more apt), without knowing how their myths were incorporated into rituals, and daily life.  Everybody wants to read the myths, but that isn’t where the action is, figuratively or literally.

Could one, as an example, deduce Catholic liturgy from the New Testament?  Of course not.  I doubt seriously all five of the so-called Pillars of Islam are found in the Koran.  Much of it is likely in the Hadith.

What I think one must grasp about academics is that, regardless of their inability to create and propagate useful ideas, their SOCIAL setting is one that is congenial to them, and one which is characterized by a common culture–leftist assumptions about the world–that binds them.

Everywhere, if you look, there are rituals.  I would submit that conference calls are a ritual, one that quite usually defeats the purpose of productivity.

I think I’ve posted on this before, but it’s been a couple years.

One of my many projects is paying someone to translate Marco Bischoff’s book “Biophotonen”.  I read it in German, so I have a decent understanding, but my German is not so good that I am not confident that I missed at least a third of the content.

However, what I am reasonably confident I did understand is that one of the strongest arguments for the biological utility of, the field nature of, the very weak light emissions that plainly come from living systems, is that when bombarded at certain frequencies, the entire organism reacts, and continues to emit light at that frequency for a certain period of time.  It more or less resonates, like one tuning fork to another.

The supposition is that that rough frequency is THE frequency for that organism.  If memory serves–and I read this in German about five years ago–different parts of the body have slightly different frequencies.

What cancer is is tissue that grows without any feedback, without any connection with the organism.  If we assume that a light signalling system is what regulates everything, then it has lost connection with that system.  It has gone dark.

One of the things we know about tumors is they feed on glucose.  What is interesting about glucose is that it is apparently opaque to light transmission, or at least hinders it.  That is my recollection from the book.  It seems clear that we were never meant, biologically, to consume large quantities of glucose.

Given the foregoing, what I would propose as a VERY interesting experiment would be putting lab rats on a 100% fat diet, then building an apparatus that could send out the very weak ultraviolet radiation that we seem to run on, in a run of frequencies.  Say we think the organism will likely react at 50 nanometers (I have no idea what the actual frequencies are; this is one of my research objectives), then we run a range from 40 to 60, then measure the exact frequency at which it reacts.

Put the mouse in a box, where that frequency, in low doses, is administered regularly for some period of time.  Maybe try it hourly, or daily, or in constant reinforcement as soon as the initial reaction dies down.

The pure fat diet should starve the tumor, and it is my hunch that the bombardment, in some dosage, over some time period, will facilitate bringing that tissue back into connection with the organism.  It is a well documented, if generally overlooked, fact, that cancers do spontaneously go into remission.  Nobody knows why.

Cancer, in other words, is not an inevitable process.  SOMETHING can fix it.

I absolutely, categorically refuse to donate money to current cancer research.  Virtually NOTHING that has been done in that last fifty years has made much of a difference, other than increased ability to detect things early, and remove the tumors by force.  The rest of it is an unscientific crap shoot.  It is not characterized by understanding, but mere description.

In negotiating, it is bad practice to ever give concessions without getting something in return.  I have said this roughly before, but in my view John Boehner, if he does go along with Obama, needs to get Obama on record as predicting the outcome of his policies, specifically that the Stimulus will help create jobs, that the tax increases on the wealthy will increase the amount of revenue collected from them, and that if we do what he says we will avoid another Recession.

It’s a reasonable request, and if made with skill and courage, one that will be hard to turn down.  We are playing a game.  We need to play to win.

I agree fully with this column: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-11-28.html#read_more

Barack Obama, in my opinion, WANTS us to go over the fiscal bump everyone is calling a cliff because it sounds more dramatic.  It’s in his interest. He’s already leaking that he is RELUCTANT to do it, but willing.  Bullshit.  He wants an economic downturn, PROVIDED he can blame it on Republicans.  He wants to keep the rags humming 24/7 about the nefarious doings of Republicans, and how hard he fought to do the right thing–heroically, stoically, in defense of basic decency–but just couldn’t get prosperity for anyone but the rich because of those awful, awful, old rich white men.

Folks, we are talking about peanuts, less than $86 billion, as I understand it, and that’s if people invest as they have in the past.  The likelihood is that actual receipts will be much less than that.

Yes, I get the whole principle thing, but we are fighting a war, and wars require strategy.  Obama is strategizing.  That’s all he does.  He could care less about how the American people are affected by his policies, but he OBSESSES about power and how to get more  of it, and keep what he has.  This requires long term plans, and disciplined execution.  They already have this one spun, if the Republicans are dumb enough not to give him what he wants. 

A $50 billion “Stimulus”?  Fuck it.  Give it to him. We borrowed twice that every month of last year.  We increased our debt $5 trillion last year.

Why in God’s name give him a propaganda coup when it is unnecessary?  To be clear, ALL conservatives who vote for tax increases need to explain their reasoning. There is no reason to be coy about it.  If Obama is right, and his ideas are good, then we will see an improving economy if he gets what he wants, right?

And if we don’t, does that not mean he was wrong?  We KNOW he is wrong, but many Americans don’t.  Let them find out the hard way.  Frankly, most of  America deserves a swift kick in the ass anyway.

I can’t verify it–my email records got deleted some time ago due to an idiot of an IT guy–but my gut feeling is that I wrote this:

The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of
entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to
limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the
necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to
have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far
more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.
Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast
confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can
survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of
fools such as those who made him their president.

That’s what I’ve been digging for this morning.  I may be wrong.  It happens regularly.  Hell: I thought Mitt  Romney was going to win, and win big.  But my best guess is this is me. I take some pride in the fact that I COULD have written it, and a tad less pride in the suspicion that I DID write it.

My sense, though, is that I need to move on to other projects.  As David Allen puts it in Getting Things Done “why have a thought twice?”  I was right, if I did say this, and so was someone else, if I didn’t.  Either way, something more than words is needed.  I have multiple ideas, and will post any successes.

For now, I am going to do my best to combat my mania to say roughly the same shit on different days.

I think it would be a good idea for professional journalists to revisit the past from time to time.  I have more than once mentioned Alberto Gonzalez.  I was recalling this morning, reading things I wrote 4 years ago, how amazing it was that the Republicans prevented tax increases in 2009, particularly considering that the Democrats controlled the House.

Remember famous predictions of failure in Iraq?

Remember that most Democrats voted for the war in Iraq?

Remember the urgency with which the “Stimulus” was passed? 

Remember the claims of accountability and transparency?

It is a function of propaganda to pretend that the past does not exist, that past statements don’t matter.  And in a world with a complicit media, Obama can get away with it.

But not everyone is complicit.  These people can raise their game.

For me, my GOD, what haven’t I said?  What cognitive pathway that matters have I not explored?  And in most cases, if I study carefully, somebody else said it better than me 50 years ago.  None of the issues are really in play INTELLECTUALLY.  The problems that continue to exist, continue because of emotions that will not be swayed by reason–until, at least, genuine misery is at the door.

Again, 2008:

Couple general thoughts. First, it seems to me that the notion of
“fallacy” contains within it the possibility of coherent thinking. It
is to be distinguished from heresy, which resembles it structurally, but
which lacks the innate confidence that improvement beyond the current
“reality” is possible.

Also, we don’t punish fallacy, per se. We seek to understand its
nature since the progressive elimination of error leads naturally to a
fuller or closer approximation of truth.

All approaches of this sort rely on some form of Rationalism. The
West does not have a monopoly on the use of formal logic, but I think we
are unique in our efforts to create universally coherent but still
liberal narratives.

A fallacy is when you try, and fall short. However, it is not the
proper term for efforts which are intrinsically designed to subvert
Reason. According to the fit between goal and method, they are in fact
internally highly rational, and to the extent they succeed, the term
fallacious cannot be used.

I will add that all erroneous thinking involves some misuse of the
If/Then operation. As I see it, there are three components, or points
of potential error.

First is the “If” condition. This necessarily involves either direct
perception, indirect perception, or a guess. ANY conclusion can only be
as good as the initial premise, which means that perception, pure
perception, is the root of logic.

Secondly, there is a train of thought from If to then, some of the
constituents of which are masked. For example, the logical proposition
that IF Intelligent Design cannot be incorporated within the scientific
method, THEN it is not only false, but should not be discussed.

However, this neglects many potential areas of interest. For
example, the–to my mind indisputable–fact that morphogenesis through
random change coupled with random benefit cannot account for the
existence of cells.

If we forbid the discussion of apparent falsifications of the
dominant paradigm, we prevent the emergence of a new paradigm which CAN
be incorporated within the scientific method.

Moreover, we are forbidding communities which wish to include support
for their beliefs in schools which the State compels their children to
attend, from expressing their opinions on the education of their own
children. They pay taxes for schools, regardless.

This is just one example, but shows the power of what might be termed moving perceptual horizons.

Quite often, you can shrink ideas to their basic components, and you
can equally grow them to where you begin to see the gaps, as in the
space that exists in all atoms.

Much sloppy thinking happens in this middle part.

Finally, with respect to the conclusion, you can use correct
premises, and follow a correct chain of logic, but mischaracterize the
nature of the conclusion either temporally or spatially. What I mean by
that is a conclusion might be valid in one place or time, but not valid
in another.

This is the reason that humility is an essential ingredient for
avoiding on-going error, even in the highly intelligent. Perhaps
ESPECIALLY in the highly intelligent.

Arrogance is a mistake in the future, as Edward de Bono said.

Something like what they do overseas might be useful here. They
administer a test roughly in the 5th grade, that determines what
educational track you follow. Democrat politics aside, not everyone can
be above average. Some people need to be plumbers, so why not teach
them early, so they can reach their maximum earning potential as rapidly
as possible?

The teachers can teach to a relatively uniform level of talent and
preparation, with the result that everyone learns more, and is better
prepared to meet the challenges of life.

We used to be serious, as recently as the early 1960’s. There is
nothing in our history that is opposed to being serious. We used to be.

It was the 1960’s that broke the back of our national identity.
Where there was promise for African Americans to be fully integrated
into our national life, we took the wrong direction. Where there was
promise to deliver a serious reverse to international Communism in the
early 1970’s, we let them grow.

It is not too late even now to bring back common sense, personal
dignity and gravitas, and serious engagement with the business of life.

But we have ignorant clowns all around us who mistake pastels for
black and white, and who insist on merging them into a dull gray, from
which nothing but enervating apathy, and rote conformitarianism can
grow.

It’s like the whole nation is on laughing gas. I can pardon the “man
on the street”, but I cannot pardon the intellectuals who have very
carefully led us to this state.

The end game is absolute power for the State, but even then general
misery ensues, for all but a few, and arguably even for those few.
Everyone loses, nobody wins.
You make clear demands that material be mastered in order to graduate
from high school. I took classes in German (literature), English, and
Spanish. We learned about the Pre-Socratics, and the history of
psychology (that may have been an elective).

Bottom line, though, is no slackers made it through. There were no
interruptions from learning, and the tone in general was serious and
mature.

In my own view, in pondering these things, we need to use notions both of positive and negative rights.

A negative right is the right to be free from arbitrary arrest. A
positive right is the right to walk down the street without being
assaulted.

Within classrooms, students who want to learn should be provided with
a classroom that is managed by an adult in such a way that order is
preserved. This is necessary for focus and learning.

And yet, the “rights” of hooligans are protected to such an extent
that the much more legitimate rights of honest students who are doing
their best, are trampled. Do you really think prominent Democrats send
their kids to the schools where this happens? Of course not. Most of
them go to private schools. Jesse Jackson Jr. sure as hell didn’t go to
public school in Chicago.

And here is a statistic you won’t see quoted often: according to the
National Assessment of Educational Progress test, black twelth graders
are, on average, four years behind white and Asian students.

And where 20% of white students score “below basic”–which amounts to
an F in the subject matter–more than 50% of black students scored
below basic in math, science, U.S. History, civics and geography. In
science, it was close to 80%.

At the risk of stating the obvious, we live in an information
economy. The statistics on money spent on inner city schools is
comparable to nations that are vastly outperforming us. A moment’s
contemplation will tell you that an environment where trouble makers
can’t be removed, and where gun detectors are needed, is not going to
produce very good results.

I have recently been accused of being a racist by several people, for
my adamant opposition to Obama. In point of fact, I view myself as
less racist that the average Democrat. I think the African Americans in
this nation are fully up to vastly improving their results on an array
of tests, virtually immediately, IF WE DEMAND IT OF THEM.

Democrats, on the other hand, think that things that happened 30-200
years ago have left such a stain that the only solution is continued
faith in Democrats, who will keep pouring good money after bad, in
pursuit of policies that are abject failures, but which keep getting
them votes.

Me, I think if we put smart people in place who are empowered to kick
ass, we have plenty of hope, with less money spent than we are spending
now.

That won’t happen, of course, but on some level, at some point, one
can hope that the Democrats will finally begin to feel at least a trace
of shame at the abuse they heap daily on the least advantaged of our
nation, in the form of sycophantic manipulativeness, and indifference to
human suffering.

These problems–all of them–can be solved. We just need balls and a plan.