Saturday, December 2, 2017

GOP tax bill passes

Yay, team!

Yeah, but whose team?  The corporatist's team, that's who.  Yes, and it is who runs the country now.  Of all the legislation that Trump couldn't get through Congress, it was this one that apparently will.

Let there be no mistake.  A reduction in taxes would be a good thing.  But the thing that should have happened is a repeal of the income tax altogether.  A tax on corporations could be kept on, just to show 'em who is boss.

But everyone knows who the real boss is now.  It is the corporations.  The Democrats are not against the corporations.  They love them.  This is all an Oscar winning performance to beat all Oscar winning performances of all time.  Corporate CEOs tend to be lefties, so what's in this for conservatives?  Typically, the left can act vitally concerned for the little guy, when in fact, they cannot lose.  Their buddies get taken care of no matter what happens.  The GOP can wear the black hats, and be sure to suffer at the polls on election day for being "for the rich".  The lefties can laugh all the way to the bank.

Meanwhile, the average Joe gets screwed again.

Friday, December 1, 2017

How does MAD theory work when everybody has nukes?

There are those who say America should learn to live with Norks having nukes.  But that would all but guarantee then that proliferation will get far, far worse.  If that treaty isn't going to be enforced, and there is a non-proliferation treaty that could be enforced, then where do you go next to deal with this threat?

What comes after MAD?

It was expected that Mutual Assured Destruction would deter any attack.  But that was in a world with few nuclear states.  If there is now to be any number of these nuclearized states, then what guarantees that a North Korea type failed state wouldn't attack if some third party agrees to rebuild their nation after it is attacked?  In this way, North Korea could attack and be attacked, and gain from it.  The damage to the USA would be far worse than North Korea.  Would you trade two American cities for two North Korean cities?  That exchange does not favor the USA.  It would incentivize the Russians or Chinese to offer assistance to North Korea if North Korea would nuke the USA cities and grievously damage it.  But what happens to the USA's interests?

It is not such a simple question as whether or not North Korea can keep its nukes.  The USA has already been attacked with asymmetrical tactics on 9-11-2001.  Such could happen again if there is a nation or nations willing to sacrifice millions of lives for the chance of destroying the credibility of the USA.  Iran has already made such a threat with respect to Israel.

So MAD cannot really work if an aggressor feels that has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by trying it.

Thursday, November 30, 2017

UK Prime Minister looks a lot like a GOPe clone

The whole point seems to be in ditching the Brexit vote, seems to me.

Why bother having an election in the first place?  Just like with Judge Roy Moore, you play to win.  It seems that so-called conservatives, whether here, or elsewhere, are more interested in losing.

That said, a vote for a favorable tax rate on corporations is definitely not conservative.  That is how John McCain can favor it.  Fakes are everywhere.  The fakery is killing western civilization, no question in my mind.

Don't play by the left's rules

All of the calls for resignations from the left towards the left's politicians should not impress anybody at all.

The left is just being the left, after all.

They will gladly sacrifice one of theirs for one of yours, provided that the one they get is of higher value than the one they sacrificed.

Roy Moore is extremely valuable.  Just because a bunch of leftist pervs may be forced to resign does not mean that Moore should go, too.

It's playing by the left's rules, I say.  No moral equivalence is here.  The left is always guilty because the left is not interested in playing by the rules.  They are more interested in forcing you to play by their rules, while they are free to violate them.

This is not to approve bad behavior.  No sirree bob.  But the left doesn't give a crap about good behavior, anyway.  They don't care about women, they just use them for political power.  Same goes for all the groups that they supposedly champion.  Don't fall for their bravo sierra.

If they want to eat their own, let them!  It doesn't make them moral.  They only do it because they have to in order to remain viable.

WaPo: How to persuade people that climate change is real

 Originally posted on 11.29.17, updated on


Just read something that shows a principle in action.  Hopefully, it may cause a lite to go on in someone's intellect.  What is the principle?  Let the quote provide the answer:

The terminology is not meant to engage argument, as political discussion should, but rather to end it, by putting its objects beyond the pale of discussion. --- Is Tolerance A Virtue, American Greatness
The left doesn't want discussion.  They want you to "shut up".

The original post follows:

This one got me to click on it because I want to see if this article can convince me that AGW is real.

Let us look at the "persuasion":

  1. The messenger matters.  Uh-huh.  So, I am to be convinced by WHO says it, as opposed to what is being said.  So, if an authority says that X is not X, and Y is not Y, and 2 plus 2 equals 5, then by golly, I am convinced.
  2. People respond to appeals based on their values.  Question:  What the hell does values have to do with whether or not climate change is real?  Are we talking values or climate change?
  3. Educating people about the science can make a difference.  Comment:  Except that is not what they are doing.  What is being advocated instead is an appeal to authority, as mentioned in number 1 above (an especially useful tactic to use on conservatives, it is claimed.)  Once again:  what the hell does tactics have to do with whether or not climate change is real?
  4. Emphasizing risk may spur people to action.  Yes, of course.  What is wanted is action.  But again, what does this have to do with it being real or not?  Nobody seems to be interested in the truth of the matter.  Is climate change real or not?????  No, we cannot discuss that.  Action is what is required!  Something must be done.  Boy, that really convinces me.
  5. Affirming the power of the people.  Once again, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

All of these suggestions lend nothing to the actual argument.  Instead, the attempt seems to be directed towards diversion from the topic rather than in actually discussing it.  The discussion then veers off into irrelevant topics.

What is the truth?  Truth doesn't matter.  But they sure want to win the argument all right.  This ought to be rephrased into how to win an argument by not having the argument.  Just talking about the weather may make more sense than this type of argument.

All the smart people are for this type of argument, it is claimed.  But if they really fall for this, how smart can they be?

There seems to be people who get it.  Read the comments.

If this persuades me of anything, it is that the people advocating for AGW are anti-science, not pro-science.  For if they were for science, they would be talking science, not everything else but science.

Roy Moore or bust

That's my opinion, and it will take a nuclear blast to change it.

The only way I can explain it is by using the General Grant example.  Lincoln wanted Grant even though he was a reported drunk.  The reason Lincoln gave was that Grant would fight ( and win ).  As for the winning part, there were generals in that war that would fight, but Grant knew how to win, too.

There were those at the time who thought that Grant should have been removed.  Imagine that.  All those generals Lincoln turned to were losing the war.  Here you find Grant, and these people think it was more important to have a guy with impeccable morals, as opposed to a guy who would fight and win.  What is the objective but to win?  Why bother fighting the war at all if you are not out to win?  Does it make sense to get rid of someone who can win?  Only if the point of it all is NOT to win, in my opinion.

And so it goes with Moore.  Moore can win, and he will fight the culture war.  Our country needs him like Lincoln needed Grant.  Even if the allegations are true, I say keep him anyway.  Only when he violates a law, gets indicted for it, and subsequently convicted, do you remove him from office.

Frankly, all the sexual harassment stuff is bravo sierra as far as I am concerned.  If women put themselves in harm's way, then this goes with the territory.  Don't go home to mommy boohooing about some guy getting fresh with you, little girl.  You play with the big dogs, you get big fleas.  Grow the f**k up.

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Nobody likes it when somebody pisses in their cornflakes

Did that title make you laugh?  Kinda obvious isn't it?  What I mean is, when somebody tells you that you're wrong, it tends to be like somebody pissing in your cornflakes.  Do you like somebody doing something like that?  Well, of course not.  But, on the other hand, who does anything like that literally?  What I am saying is that nobody likes it when you tell them that they are wrong.  Just trying to make it lighthearted as possible, so it won't go down like somebody really did piss on your cornflakes.

We live in a very complicated world.  Lots of people believe a lot of different things.  Not everybody can agree on what to believe.  It is hard to herd cats, and it isn't much easier to herd people.   That is assuming that you would even want to herd people.  I'm not so sure that getting people to behave like beasts that can herded, like cows, is such a good thing.

Personally, it is hard for me to understand what the objection is to Roy Moore amongst those who are religious.  Are you or are you not for the Ten Commandments?  Are you or are you not for traditional marriage?

I can understand if the objection is that Roy Moore is not a serious man.  But if the guy was willing to lose his job twice over these issues, it looks like he is at least more serious than average.  How then am I wrong to believe this?  If Moore was not serious, he would do a Pres. George H. W. Bush and do the equivalent of saying "never mind", like the SNL skits.  Bush 41, as he sometimes called, made a big deal out of not raising taxes, then betrayed that promise by raising taxes.  To me, that is not serious.  On the other hand, like Judge Moore, the willingness to risk being fired from a job because you hold to your position is exactly the kind of thing that looks serious to me.  How can he not be serious?  Roy Moore looks a lot different than the example of the Bushes.

I would need an explanation for that.  But saying that could be like pissing in somebody's cornflakes.  But you pissed first.  Know what I mean, Vern?

For those who think this is cryptic, you are right.  But try not to focus on that.  Focus on what I just said.

I know that I "piss on cornflakes" a lot on this blog.  Maybe that is why it isn't popular.  But even I can admit when I am wrong.

Show me where I am wrong.  Almost nobody even bothers to try.

Accusing the accusers

Hugh McInnish , American Thinker


A good job of debunking the claims.  Besides, this was an obvious transparent attempt to bring down Judge Roy Moore.  Glad to see someone on the job defending the man.

Washington DC is still a swamp, and most likely to remain a swamp no matter who wins.  But if Moore wins, at least there's someone there who will make at least an attempt to fight the bastards.

We need generals who will fight, like Gen. Grant in the Civil War.  What we have is a bunch of McClellans who will not fight, and when they do, it is a half assed effort.

Monday, November 27, 2017

Did Congress exempt itself from sexual harrassment laws it made for everybody else?

Denninger claims that they did.  But of course, the said law is not titled that way.  No, sir.  It is titled the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995.  ( I didn't read that last link.  Reading through laws is a pain in the backside, so I don't.)

So, let's get this straight.  The same organization that tolerates Al Franken and others, will attempt to exclude Judge Roy Moore from office ( if he wins ) on the basis of his alleged personal behavior.  Said allegations will not have to be proven in open court with witnesses under oath.  Nope.

This law was passed without dissent in either branch of Congress in the same year that the Contract with America was enacted.  One of those elements of that so-called contract was to hold Congress itself accountable to all laws it passed.  In other words, why was this new law necessary?  Psst!  In order to exempt Congress critters from the law to which they just said that they would hold themselves responsible.

All of this doesn't not sound like the country I thought we were living in.  And those congress critters are not living up to what they say.  Yet, they claim to want to maintain integrity by excluding Moore.  Like everything else, you cannot take these people at face value.  Not even those you thought you knew and trusted.

Sunday, November 26, 2017

Trump’s Historic Triangulation – Lunch Alert!

Trump’s Historic Triangulation – Lunch Alert!


Listening to this, the question arises as to the basic competency of Trump. Is he a genius, or not?

Certainly, Trump's critics will say no.  Yet, his critics did not prevail against him.  As with all things, we shall see.

It should be remembered that Reagan was underestimated as well.  An "amiable dunce", was Speaker Tip O'Neill's assessment.  It turned out to be quite wrong.