YMCA Official Music Video

We live in interesting times.




What's this about?  Is there any reason to ask that question?

Somehow, free trade uber alles has become a "conservative" issue

It has not always been so.  Protectionism has been official policy before, and this was especially true during the Hoover years.  Hoover was a Republican president, in case you didn't know.

National Review are just a bunch of fan boys for free trade uber alles.  They want to define conservativism as globalism.  As for myself, I am not of that opinion.  True conservatism is more in keeping with strict attention to national interest.  Globalism does not do this.  Globalism will sacrifice national interest to the rest of the world.  Even if the rest of the world is hostile to American interests?

This is not to be construed as in defense of protectionism.  I am for free trade, but with limits.  Hence, I am not for free trade uber alles ( above all).  The limits are defined as being in the national interest.

Godfather Hospital Scene with Enzo The Baker

This scene shows Michael Corleone's coolness in dealing with a dangerous situation.  The contrast between him and Enzo, where Enzo cannot light his cigarette because of his hands being too shaky, is particularly revealing.

This isn't meant to be praise for the Michael Corleone character, but only to show a facet of psychopathic behavior.  ( at least my inexpert understanding of it)  Psychopaths tend to have low fear activation, by which I mean that it takes a lot to scare them.  They tend to gravitate towards danger because they will get bored otherwise.

The movie doesn't explain this, but only shows this contrast in characters; and its influence upon Michael, as he decides to join his father in crime.  Michael realizes he isn't just an average guy like Enzo.  He is made of different stuff.

Michael is still a decent guy here, as he gives Enzo a chance to leave.  But Enzo decides to stay even though Michael warns him of trouble.  Quite different in character than what he became later on in the movie.

My opinion is that psychopathy exists outside of morality.  By that I mean that he could retain decency of character and still have psychopathic tendencies.

Quick post, 5.12.16

I have an idea for a post, but it may take a little more time to put together than what I have.  It has something to do with Freudian analysis, and before your eyes glaze over, let me explain.

You may have recalled in recent posts that I compared myself to J.Alfred Prufrock, (or was it Dr. Jekyll?) a character in a T.S. Eliot piece.  The Prufrock character is the same character as Dr. Jekyl, as in Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde, which is supposedly a different story.

Anyway, something has just happened that reminded me of that once again.  I will wish to post about it, but time is short.  I must be off to work, as my financial needs  are pressing me to work more, and blog less.


Next

Quick post, 5.11.16

Primary news that shouldn't be news-  Trump  wins Nebraska and West Virginia.  He is about 100 delegates from clinching the nomination.  Earlier this week, Cruz said he may jump back into the race if he won Nebraska.  By the way, did he really say that, or is it being hyped?  On the other hand, if Cruz endorsed Trump, there wouldn't be any possibility of such speculation.

Hillary continues to march towards nomination.  Frankly, I just don't get it.  Evidently, people are just too wrapped up into their belief systems, which makes it impossible for them to see how she should not be in the White House.

Yet, people say that about Trump too.  However, in a choice between Hillary and Trump, one of them has to be wrong, and other right.  They cannot be both wrong, or both right.  But, you'll find people on all sides of this issue.

Hillary has had her chance at governance and has failed badly.  Trump has not had his chance.  To me, it is the same as in 2012- it is about accountability.  Either you hold those in power accountable, or you risk losing the Republic.  For how can the Republic be kept if there's no accountability?  If for no other reason, Trump should be elected in order to restore accountability to the government.

Who is Guccifer?

You have probably heard about this hacker.  I have, but it didn't click.  Maybe because of the strange name.  Who knows?  This Guccifer fellow is a hacker connected to the Hillary email scandal.  He is said to have hacked into her email account.  You know, the one she wasn't supposed to have because it is illegal to have one outside the State Dept?  Yeah, that one.

It so happens that Guccifer was hacked in turn by Russian intelligence.  Which means that Russia has Hillary's emails.

Wow.

I'm sure that Ted Cruz would certainly approve of this.

Update:

I am slogging through some information on this story.  The reason that it wasn't much interest to me is that it is already against the law.  It is open and shut as far as I'm concerned.  But this is the Clintons, and that means if there's some legal gimmick that will get her off, then they have got that angle covered.  Supposedly.

Now, in seemingly unrelated matter, I once read a book about the KGB.  The book was about spy stories, of course.  The methods told about were said to be so aggressive that the KGB was able to get past tight security.  This book was written in the sixties, based upon true information, and long before computers became so widespread like today. 

Computers are inherently unsecure, by the way.  That is because of rapid data replication.

To connect these unrelated stories, it is important to understand that a competent and aggressive intelligence network like the KGB can penetrate even tough defenses.  Thus an unsecure computer server is not to be tolerated, unless you have a death wish.

When I say death wish, I do not kid you.  This can get a lot of people killed.   This could be on a Biblical scale, ya'll.  You just don't have unsecure email servers, period.

The Russians were so paranoid that they wouldn't even allow carbon paper copying.  If you want to protect secrets, you have to be careful.  Perhaps this level isn't necessary, but some level is.  The law says so.  It remains to be seen whether the law will be enforced, and if our government has enough snap to understand the importance of protecting state secrets.  Incredible to think that they may not.

Evidently the Never Trumpers now believe Trump will win

Incredible.  It would be better for Hillary to win than for Trump to win.  Here's the proof that they really do believe this.

You see, now the argument is that Trump will win.  Until recently, the argument was that Trump would lose.

Anything would be better than winning for these people.

These people would say that Joseph Stalin or Mao Tse Tung would be better than Trump.  They have no credibility outside of their echo chambers.

Why Donald Trump Is Going to be Our Next President

This video probably fits in with what the Never Trumpers want you to believe.  Perhaps people really can be manipulated that easily, as the author of the video says. 

Just to clarify what should be obvious, I can only speak for myself.  I want that wall.  I want the trade agreements revisited.  I want Muslim infiltration to be looked at carefully, and preferably stopped. 

When the Never Trumpers point to something like this video as a way to dismiss Trump's success, they don't realize that to do so is insulting to the intelligence of people who support him.  Some folks, like me for instance, are going to harden their positions.  This is not a way to reach people.

So, why is Trump winning?  He's outperforming his competition.  They should smarten up, and learn how to beat him, or get used to the idea that he will be in the White House.

Never Trumpers will never die

They may not even fade away.

These people won't give it up.  I honestly don't get these people, and I'm tired of listening to them.

That word again---sin

What is sin, anyway?  Like anything else these days, a definition of sin can be googled, so here goes:

Wikipedia ( not known for its sins ) has this:

In a religious context, sin is the act of violating God's will ( which links to Divine Law ) which states:

In Thomas Aquinas's Treatise on Law, divine law comes only from revelation or scripture, hence biblical law, and is necessary for human salvation. According to Aquinas, divine law must not be confused with natural law. Divine law is mainly and mostly natural law, but it can also be positive law. 

Sins must be defined, then, as a violation of biblical law?  Here I am thinking that it was merely a moral error.  All of these complexities.  There could be hundreds of sins.  I'm thinking that voting for Hillary is definitely bad.  Can't it be a bit more simple and convenient?

Like the Ten Commandments, maybe.  I'm sure my sins aren't as bad as everyone else's.  But I'm not claiming snowflake status, yet.

I don't want to seem irreverent, or too much of that, as it is a serious topic.  Even snowflakes might agree.

Self driving cars

Personally, I don't like the proposition.  It is just one more way in which the individual no longer has any control over his environment, but the reverse.

If the machine fails, you are in deep trouble.  That's true even with people driven cars.  If you add one more layer of complexity, you increase the helplessness factor even further.

Should there be a return to the horse and buggy?  Sometimes I wonder about that.  With a horse, you can go anywhere.  With a car, you can only go where there are roads.  With driverless cars, you can only go where they will go, and when they will go.

Those who cite statistics are doing so from the standpoint of monetary gains.  But what about the downsides?  Besides, it might well be a spiritual element to the discussion.  Why all this madness  about money?  Should we not also be concerned about the morality of it?

A few thoughts on religious practice

After a little checking, I note that, in order to be a proper Catholic, one would have to confess one's sins.  In this day and age, getting to the point of acknowledging that sin exists- would in itself be a big jump.

As a matter of fact, I am of the mind that the really incorrigible will not mind admitting of certain behaviors regarded as sin by practicing Catholics.  For example, a homosexual isn't going to mind relating the practice at all, but not as a sin.  However, for one who is brought up as a Christian, he would be ashamed to do so.  Does anyone see a problem here?

If a homosexual Christian truly wants to clean up his act, he cannot do so it in the face of condemnation.  He will resist confession, I would think.

Therefore it is a really big deal to Catholics that a certain man confesses his homosexuality, and then talks about his salvation in videos.  But a homosexual can say he can feel better about himself if he just "came out".

It would seem that the Catholics have a disadvantage.

I know that this isn't the whole story, but that is the one that most will hear.  How else is someone to behave then?  I'm not excusing homosexuality, just saying that the Catholic way of cleaning it up could use some type of improvement.

Feeling kinda bothered right now

Today is Mother's Day, I think.  The reason I don't know is that I have never been much good in observing occasions.

Mom passed away seven years ago.  In some ways, it seems like yesterday.  In other ways, it seems like a lot has happened.

Those last few years, I hardly spoke to her.  I was angry with her about something, which now seems like not that big of a deal.

Compared to my Dad, she was a lot like Dr Jekyl to Mr. Hyde.  The two were quite different from each other from a temperament standpoint.  They didn't get along well while Dad was still alive.

Hardly much of a tribute, heh?  Well, it was a tough neighborhood, this family, and I was like Rodney Dangerfield in it.  I got no respect.  My way of dealing with it was to withdraw into silence.

It is not an excuse, nor much of an explanation.  But I think it is accurate.

Things are not going well right now.  Not at home, not out there in the world.  I don't know if anything can be done about it, either.  It will improve, or it won't.

Analysis of a potential Romney third party run

Not likely, it says here, but not zero.

In my opinion, the only reason for Mittens to run is to hand the presidency to Clinton.  Yep, that sounds like Mittens alright.

Another thought flashed in my mind.  What if Trump abused Mittens so badly that he actually breaks down and cries?  Sort of like in the Austin Powers movie where Dr. Evil bounces the globe off of Number Two's head while ridiculing him.

Any so-called conservative who runs third party to deny Trump victory v. Hillary isn't doing any of us a favor, you know.

But this could be a real threat.  Since these guys know so well how to lose, they may succeed in  bringing down the temple.  The only thing missing is Delilah.  Bruce Jenner doesn't count.