Saturday, February 23, 2019

Victimhood’s Mortal Enemy - by Robert Ringer

Comment:

This is excellent.

Quote:
... I asked her how she lost her leg, and she explained that it happened in a freak accident in California about five years ago...
Victim?  You certainly wouldn’t know it to hear her talk.  Today she displays a remarkably enthusiastic, high-energy attitude and clearly has a zest for life.  As she put it, “Hey, sh__ happens in life.  When I wake up every morning, the first thing I think of is how lucky I am to be alive.”

You could indeed wipe out these guys if you could get a little light bulb to go off in their heads.  People need to be reminded that they are not to seek out an opportunity to have people feel sorry for you, and to cater to your weaknesses.  It is quite the opposite of that.  To seek out opportunities to excel DESPITE your weaknesses.

All the left wingers know how to do is to turn people into weenies.



AOC and the Green New Deal ( updated)

Let's not attempt to kill with kindness, but to correct with firmness. The so-called Green Movement is not about saving the Earth, but to destroy Western Civilization. The same is true for all left wing movements.

Yet, there are things that could be considered in a serious vein. I have attempted to do that with this blog. I have written on numerous occasions about how carbon neutral energy resources may be feasible. Also, I have written about fuel cell cars.

But let's not kid ourselves. The hard left will never adopt anything that may actually work.

They will always find reasons why a given technology will not be "green" enough for them.

Therefore, if you accept all their premises, they will get ever more extreme with their stupidities. They have to be opposed, but at the same time, you have to seriously attempt to work with them on some of their ideas. If any of those ideas can be made to work, then they can be seriously considered for adoption as policy.

What is the benchmarks for success so that they may be adopted? Number one, they must be economically feasible. It will do little good to price yourselves out of markets because of what you adopt as a "green" policy is so economically inefficient that you become uncompetitive. You can be assured that if your pet project is inefficient, someone will take over your market, and then you are out of business.

The second benchmark is that it won't infringe upon the freedom of our system. People have to freely choose a product or service, or we will lose our freedom. Most ideas along the lines that the lefties choose are coercive in nature. That means that nobody would freely choose to do it if they could. Therefore, if these ideas are stupid and unworkable, they should be opposed vigorously.

Consequently, the Green New Deal should only receive funding, if it is to receive any funding at all, for only those TEST projects that are the most promising. If the tests are successful, then perhaps they can be ramped up.

One idea that I had was to eliminate the income tax and replace it with a carbon tax. It would make some sense to support a carbon tax only if the individual income tax goes. Income taxes upon corporations would remain.

Taxes on imports could be laid if other countries do not play along.

Would that raise enough money? Probably not to satisfy the insatiable appetite of government.

However, for many years, the US government relied upon import taxes for much of its revenue.

The government these days has become too large to work with this, but somehow it must be downsized so that the least amount of taxes possible will be imposed.

That would be good answer to the Green New Deal. A flat "no" would probably not be sufficient.


Update:

Some might object to the use of the word "stupid" in the above paragraphs.  Would you prefer insane?

What else could you call bombing coal burning plants in China?  On the other hand, if you really believed that coal was so bad, then you could take such an idea seriously.

The only thing serious about that idea is how nutty it is.  The word "stupid" somehow fails to reach the mark.



Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Good news, eh?

This is what passes for conservatism in America.  Of all the things that Trump has done so far, this is the one thing that I object to.

The problem with "decriminalizing" homosexuality is that it gives the Mohammedans a propaganda advantage.  Islam can claim, with a straight face, that they are upholding morality.  On the other hand, the decadent and dying West ( which is the truth ) is overthrowing it all over the world.

Very bad news.

It is not good politically here, either.  How can Christians support this?  Moreover, the Dems can be opposed to it for the wrong reasons.  They may no longer be seen ( according to these so-called conservatives ) as no longer being somehow "racist" and "bigoted", but in reality are accepting all the left's premises, while still taking the heat for being what they aren't in the first place.

This is an idiotic position for Stephen Green to take, unless he is a homo himself.


Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Smelling a rat

There are those who are claiming that Trump's supporters are demoralized.

It may be true that Trump may have given up too much ground, but I am a bit suspicious of the sources.  Some were not on the Trump train from the beginning.  I am thinking of the Ace of Spades blog.  I recall that there were almost never Trumpers themselves.

Sorry, if there are those in these media outfits who are ready to jump ship, it may be well to remember that they really weren't on board to begin with.

Let's be real here.  There really aren't that many Trump people in positions of power.  Trump is basically surrounded by enemies.  For him to survive, he is going to have to be a lot more flexible than what we are probably comfortable with.

On the other hand, it may have been satisfying to watch the GOP Establishment squirm while Trump held their feet to the fire.  I would have liked that, but it is easy for me to say, since it isn't my skin that is on the line.

How many of the "patriots" were willing to organize?  They all like to talk Civil War II, but there aren't very many willing to back that up from what I can see.


Monday, February 18, 2019

"Hell has open borders"

Heh.



The end of the shutdown drama

The shutdown drama appears to be over, and so what to make of it all?  Up to this point, I had no comment upon it.  I suppose that enough time has taken place so that a preliminary judgment can be made.

First of all, the deal passed the Senate by a veto proof margin.  What about the House?  Well, commentary should be held up on that one until I have that information.  However, it is fair to assume that the margin in the House could have been smaller, but how much?  After all, a Senator is up for reelection every six years, whereas the House is up every two years.  Therefore, it is hard to believe that the Establishment would have been able to pull off an override.

Therefore, my suspicion is that the President might have held out a bit longer for a better
deal.  He did take what he could get, and called it a day.  If this comes back and bites
him, it may cost him the reelection next year.

Secondly, the end of the shutdown saw his polls rise to highs that I haven't seen before.

With such an approval rating, it is going to be hard to beat him as long as he can keep that up.

Thirdly, the POTUS put all his eggs in the judicial basket.  You cannot count upon the courts right now.  There is not enough of a margin for error, so this could backfire on Trump.  My guess is that Trump could avoid scenarios that might cause this possibility.  The ability of the Establishment to provoke Trump has proven to be fruitless.  He is much too wily for that.

In the end, Trump can get a lot of the wall built by election day.  He cannot get everything.

If he gets almost nothing, he will fail to be reelected.  If he doesn't get everything, there
may be some grumbling, but he will probably gain more than lose.

As for my own preference, I would have rather have him put these creeps' feet to the fire
for as long as possible.  Unfortunately, the political support isn't there for such a
confrontation.  At some point, the shutdown had to end.  Could he have won it?  I think
probably not.  There are a lot more creeps than patriots.  That is the reality check that
must be made here.

Sunday, February 17, 2019

AOC a liar???

Actually, it doesn't surprise me.

It looks to me like people are seeing things as they are, as opposed to seeing things as they wish they were.  AOC has received so much hype, you'd think that she could walk on the water.

Lefties like to lie.  If they were honest people, they would not be lefties.

Honesty is a bourgeois value.  We know what the commies think of bourgeois attitudes.   Or, as it was once stated, we thought we knew until the postmodernists said that there was no such thing as truth, or There Really Is A Sanity Clause.


A good summary of the FBI coup attempt against Trump

Comment:

Of course, that is what I have been saying since Day One of the Mueller investigation.  ( Properly stated, it isn't an investigation, it is a "fishing expedition").  Indeed, this entire thing is a perfect example of a fishing expedition.  There are literally "fishing" for something for which they can accuse Trump, so as to claim a LEGAL grounds for removing him from office.  This is exactly the opposite of the way a criminal investigation is to take place.  The crime has to precede the investigation, not the other way around.





When intellect fails



Let's start with the proposition that this refers to myself, and what I believe.  Long ago,
when I was in high school, I wrote a paper about aestethics, if memory serves.  ( Funny
thing about memory is that it isn't always reliable.  Therefore, I think it was about
aesthetics. )  Since I didn't trust emotions, and still don't, I wrote my paper along those
lines.  This provoked a response from the teacher who made it clear that she didn't agree, but my grade wasn't to be affected, because it was supported by consistent argument.

So, what is the point?  Mainly, that I don't trust emotions, and that hasn't changed.

But also this-- that I believed that one could arrive at valid conclusions based upon an
intellectual exercise.  But now, I am not so sure.  Not that I have arrived at the opposite
conclusion, and would agree with my teacher of that long ago time.  Only that the intellect can fail.

Perhaps the cause of the failure is a poor intellect.  But even the greatest intellect will
be capable of error.  Intellect can go just so far.

Reminds me of a PBS program that discussed physics.  It went like this: no matter how hard you try, you cannot teach physics to a dog.  The reason is the wide chasm of intellectual capacity between dogs and humans.  If you accept that, then the possibility of fair greater intellect exists in the potential universe.  Ours then, may not be the ultimate intellect in the universe.  Unless we are alone in the universe.

It may even be possible to create an intellect greater than our own, which in turn, will
surpass us, and replace us.  This forms the conceptual framework of the "singularity", if I
may be so bold.

I can think of one possibility, and that is with artificial intelligence combined with
quantum computing.  Quantum computers, if perfected, could at some time, when combined with other advances, make today's computers seem like tinker toys.

Should we be concerned about this?  Some folks are.  But humans are probably headed toward some sort of apocalypse anyhow.  Whether it be from this, or from some other thing.  The point being that anything human, or derived from humans, is subject to error.