Bad feeling about this...

 

Sorry about the movie references, guess I just can't help myself.

A couple things here guaranteed to make you worry...

The bank failure in Silicon Valley described as "scary". I'd say. I smell a bailout, and soon. In fact, the Fed has taken it over already. The problem is, they have to make good on some big time money deposits. This means that an infusion of money must take place, or a lot of people will have lost their asse(t)s. The government has already spent like a drunken sailor, where's all this money going to come from?

The second thing is that Iran and Saudi have resumed diplomatic relations. This is just another nail in the coffin of the US Dollar. I think people are going to learn soon what that means. It isn't going to be a beautiful thing.

Meanwhile, we have a very fat, very dumb, and very happy country. What happens to that when the previously digested food hits the air recirculation device? Hmmm????

Joe Biden at 50% approval. Well, I guess he'll find somebody to blame.

The opposition is extraodinarily shallow

Tuned into Bongino today, and it is somewhat amazing how insulting he is to the opposition. But not without reason. Here's why.

The deeper you dig into what he says, the more it all checks out. These people are DUMB. They are dumber than a bag of rocks. Not only that, anybody who knows anything about anything will quickly recognize their stupidity.  Recall that one of these people said that Guam would tip over if too much weight was put on one side of the island.

Here's the additional problem. You see, these folks at the top of the Democrat leadership are counting on people to not dig down any further than the headlines. So they see the headlines, and if they go no further than that, they will not see the stupidity and the deception. You have to dig deeper to see it.

An example making the rounds on Twitter ( and was referred to by Bongino), was the questioning in Congress. The Democrats were so dumb that they had a couple journalists laughing at them. It all in Twitter now. Anybody who bothers to check into it will find out for themselves. Yours truly didn't even know that, and so shame on me. As soon as I dug in, I could see it too.

I don't want to knock myself too much here. It isn't as if I am being fooled by these people. I am a bit worried that too many people ARE BEING FOOLED. The reason for this is that they don't dig down deeper. Something is keeping them from seeing what they need to see. It has all of hallmarks of stupidity, but they can't be THAT dumb.

The questioning is of Matt Taibi, and it is about Twitter. If you're keeping up at all, you'll know about this. You'll also know that Taibbi is not a conservative. I'd bet that his cohort in the questioning ( my bad, I don't know his name) is not conservative either. Neither is Bari Weiss ( I'm guessing she is not). So these folks are not "far right extremists". Well, the Democrats on the panel din't even know who these people WERE. They're in Congress. They are in leadership positions. Yet, they are UNINFORMED. Call that whatever you want, but it ain't smart.

Consequently, those who show approval of Brandon and his crew are probably reading no further than the headlines. If they are, they aren't going to be informed because they listen to people who either aren't informed, and/or they are lying.

I recollect a line from Animal House, where Dean Wormer says you shouldn't go through life fat and stupid. Well, you've got an entire country that seems to be stuck on stupid. Brandon is at nearly 50% in the Rasmussen Poll. Why? Because the people who approve of him don't know what's going on. In my opinion, it is as simple as that.

The sad and worrisome thing is that they'll never correct themselves. They'll even defend this. If you bring it up, they'll concentrate on you being mean to them. To put it succinctly, that is what cancel culture is all about. It's about enforced stupidity.

If you can't dig further than the headlines and actually think through a situation, what hope have you got for the future? If this cannot be turned around, it doesn't bode well for us going forward.

No need for name calling

The usual suspects are at it again. When Tucker Carlson said the claims of a violent insurrection were lies, this opened the door to name calling.

If on the other hand, he had merely said that the claims that Sicknick died as a result of non-J6 causes, he'd be on indisputable ground. After all, the New York Times retracted the claim that Sicknik died of head injuries sustained in the riot. It is quite clear that this didn't happen as it was originally reported, and the New York Times has retracted the claim anyway.

The trouble here is this may get turned into a name calling contest. There is no need for that. Just point out the facts that no officers died of any injury sustained during the riots. If the Democrats persist in saying otherwise, then demand that they show proof. In fact, the phrase deadly insurrection did get said again today. But no officers died of any injuries sustained on that day. If they have any such evidence, then let the Democrats show it.

No one disputes that there was a riot. That in itself deserves some further study of the tapes in order to determine how that happened.

The Democrats want to claim that this was an "deadly insurrection", but they have no evidence that it was.

There was an admission today that the members of the J6 panel didn't even look at the tapes. If that is true, then why do they insist that it was a "deadly insurrection" if they didn't even see the evidence?

The more noise and name calling, the easier it is for the Democrats can obfuscate with noise. No need. Just present the facts, and let people see for themselves.

About normal temperatures

Yesterday, I had a trip into town for a medical visit. While in the waiting room, there was a television newscast and the talk was about the warm weather lately. If you've watched any of these, they'll often compare current conditions against a "normal" day. But what is "normal"?

Normal in these contexts is just an average. Like all average calculations, you sum up the observed temperatures over time, and divide by the number of observations to get the average. The news people just call that a normal temperature. However, it is an oversimplified way of looking at what is "normal" and what isn't.

So, over the course of years, the temperature in this region has been noted, and a history of temperatures on this date has been compiled. Let's say there's a hundred observations going back to 1923. The temperatures would vary over a range of observations that one might expect for this time of the year. In this region, even in late winter, you can observe highs in the nineties. Sometimes, even in triple digits. Lows can also range down to below freezing. There is a natural variation in the observations.

The variations can be statistically calculated too. Square the differences from the average, so that you'll always get a positive number. Then take the square root of the sum. This will yield the average variation in the temperature. This number is called a standard deviation from the mean. The mean is another way of saying average.

If it is a Normal distribution, the mean will have the often discussed "bell curve" when plotted. In order to really zero in on what's normal or not, you look at the standard deviations from the mean. In a normal distribution, two thirds of all observations will fall within one standard deviation from the mean. If the mean high for this part of the world in this time of year is 75 degrees Farenheit, the standard deviation from that mean will tell you how far from the "normal" temperature it really is. Since this time of year has a lot of variation to it ( it can get hot, and it can also get cold), then the standard deviation would be large, would it not?

Also in a normal distribution, three standard deviations from the mean would encompassing virtually all observations. For this area, a standard deviation times three would yield all the observations during that time period observed. It stands to reason that temperature range could vary as much as 50 degrees, I would estimate. The standard deviation would be larger if that number is larger, and smaller if that number was smaller. Let's say you'd take the square root of 50 and get a little over seven degrees as a standard deviation. This would yield a range of between 54 to 96 degrees for virtually all observations, if the mean high is 75. If the low is similarly calculated from a mean of 55, then you would obtain a range from 34 to 76. Those numbers may be a bit off, but it is in the ballpark. A rough estimate. To get accurate numbers, you'd have to have all the numbers.

Ninety percent of all observations will fall within two standard deviations, so that range would be 61 to 89 degrees. A temperature above 89 would be considered most unusual. A temperature above 96 would be considered unheard of. This has happened before, but not very often. I've seen unusual things in this area in the last 6 1/2 years.

It would seem that to claim that ten degrees above "normal" is really not that much to comment about. This all may seem rather pedantic, but the use of words means something. These people are always pushing the idea that the world is getting hotter, but the data hasn't shown it. Even if it did, how does anyone really know what "normal" really means when temperatures haven't been measured for all that long?

TV weatherman wouldn't want to include discussion like this, because it is rather boring. It is easier to say it is above "normal", but the whole point of this is what is that??? I could go on with this bit of manipulation of public opinion, but maybe you get the idea. There is a lot of wiggle room there when one uses a word like "normal" too loosely.

A break in topic

 

The going has gotten a bit heavy lately, so this will be a change of pace. Or just a change, or whatever.

I've written about the NFL a few times before. Once upon a time, I followed it a lot closer than these days. This can make a good change. What the heck? Why not have a little fun with something instead of being so serious all the time? Reminds me of that scene in the Batman movie, where the Joker asks--- Why so serious???

Anyways, it's something different.

There's no claim to being expert here. It's all for funsies. As those following the NFL are aware of, there is the scouting combine taking place. So the talk these days is about the NFL draft in April. The team that I follow from time to time is the Houston Texans. They have the second pick in this year's draft.

Many of the mock drafts have the Texans taking a QB with their pick. So the question for me is this: Would taking a QB be the answer for this team? They've already gotten themselves a new coach. So what will Demeco Ryans do? He has already said something to the effect that he needs two more QB's. He wants to have three on the roster. So it appears that they will select at least one QB in this draft.

The QBs in this draft will provide opportunity for the Texans to upgrade the position, but will that make a much of a difference? Let's look at this team. As bad as the Texans seemed to be, there were some good points about this team last year. The Texans gave up less than 40 sacks, which isn't all that bad. It could be better, but 40 isn't all that bad. There are some statistics that really could use some improvement. In fact, the defense against the run can't get much worse than it was last year. The question I have is this: If they can get a run stopper instead of a QB, would that be a better use of their draft capital?

There appears to be many defensive tackles and edge rushers in this draft. Besides that, there also appears to be many receivers. Maybe a edge guy, and a defensive tackle with their two number ones. After that, they could take a receiver or two. The Texans have five picks in the first three rounds. They can add some playmakers with all those picks. Perhaps another pick can be added for the rights to Brandin Cooks, who wants to leave for greener pastures. Add in an offensive tackle in that mix, too. But the O-Line wasn't all that bad. There seems to be plenty of lineman in this draft. You take what's out there.

But if they don't take a QB, there are going to be unhappy fans. Free agency may yield a veteran. It almost seems a lock that at least one veteran will be acquired.

After reviewing the season, I think an upgrade that would make the most difference in the least amount of time, would be an upgrade in the run defense. There are plenty of defensive line players. Perhaps that is the direction they could go.

Some would argue otherwise, I am sure. But you can win without a top QB. Also, having a top QB isn't a guarantee of success. The Texans weren't that bad against the pass. A quality defense could be within reach. If the defense can shut down anybody, a great QB would not be necessary.

Even an average defense against the run would be a big improvement. If they don't take a QB with the second pick, I won't be mad. But I can't say that about the consensus out there in fandom.