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.

Paul Ryan equals John Anderson?

Paul Ryan equals John Anderson?

The link is about a comparison between the GOP candidate in 1980, who ran against Reagan and lost the nomination to Reagan. He then rejected his party's nominee, and ran as an independent against Reagan, and lost again. Paul Ryan has declared that he won't attend the GOP convention in 2024 if Trump wins the nomination. Thus, the comparison. Ryan is the new John Anderson. it would seem. Trump is the new outsider that the GOP Establishment hates.

Which brings me to the disclosure made before on this blog. I didn't vote for Reagan. Instead, I voted for Anderson. It was a protest vote towards Reagan's then proposed massive tax cut. Not that I was against tax cuts, but against tax cuts without the commensurate spending cuts that would keep the budget disciplined. Supposedly, the budget would balance automatically through the process of increased economic growth. Never mind supply side theory, the result was massive deficit spending that has plagued the economy almost every year since. My fears of hyperinflation didn't come true, but the foundation for conditions that would lead to that end were being laid. Hyperinflation may well be in our future now thanks to the defenestration of budgetary responsibility. Former VP Dick Cheney said the lesson of the 80's was that deficits didn't matter. If that's what he learned, then everybody learned the wrong lesson.

The deficit spending is no longer a concern to the public. It isn't even an issue any more. Nobody seems to care about it now. But 70's style inflation is back. Perhaps the concern about excessive spending can once more rise to the level of public debate. But it hasn't thus far.

Perhaps seeing is believing. If the inflation bug continues to plague the economy, maybe now people will believe.

By the way, Anderson positioned himself against Reagan. Former President Gerald Ford said Reagan was too conservative to be elected. Those were examples of opposition to Reagan coming from old Guard GOP. His running mate, George H W. Bush called his boss's economic proposals "voodoo economics". Papa Bush didn't like Reaganism, and tried to govern a "kindler gentler" policy, as if his former boss's policies were somehow too cruel to countenance. It didn't seem to bother him as VP.

But the article didn't not make economic connections. The article linked above made the Washington Establishment connection between Ryan and Anderson. The Establishment didn't like Reagan, who was the outsider in that election. But the outsider won big in 1980 and 1984. George H W Bush rode his coat tails to the Presidency, and it has been downhill for America since. Without Papa Bush in the White House, "Dubya" couldn't have rode the same coat tails to the Presidency in 2000. There is a lesson here. Establishment Republicans don't do very well. They can't win on their own, and have to depend upon some superior force to get them into office. Otherwise, they would always lose.

Now it is DeSantis trying to ride on the populist fervor that Trump brought to the party. But the Establishment GOP isn't about to do anything to earn anybody's loyalty. You have to give it before you can expect it. It seems that their only claim to power is how much they can betray those who they manage to deceive. Trump helped DeSantis, and this is how DeSantis repays him.

George HW Bush deceived the Reagan coalition by breaking his pledge against new taxes. His son rode the tax cuts to the White House, but broke many of his other pledges. Amongst these broken promises were school vouchers, and to veto McCain Feingold election "reform". Betrayal suits the GOP Establishment. That's why they need help to get across the finish line. They cannot be trusted. They play up to enemies as if those enemies will join them. But they don't.

Rejecting Paul Ryan is easy these days. Experience has a way of clarifying things. I've seen their act too many times already. Perhaps the youngsters can learn from history.

Out wolf the wolf, out fox the fox

Out wolf the wolf, out fox the fox

Here's a link that says what I've been saying. Actually it doesn't say what's in the link's text about "out wolf the wolf", but that's my take on it. It is just another way of saying it.

The Direction of Country Poll is at 35 percent and Biden's Rassmussen numbers are at 48 percent. People are clinging to what doesn't work, and giving their approval to what they don't like because they fear something new. So the left says the opposition is fascist, and nobody wants a new Hitler. Hitler was a wolf, yet these people who claim to be conservative never learn their lessons. The let the left label them as fascist because they really aren't interested in winning this fight against the wolf. The political left is the wolf, just as much as Hitler was.

Somebody reading the "out wolf the wolf" will get scared because they think it means war. But it doesn't. Nor is there anybody in the opposition who are remotely fascist. But the fear works. The left used it during COVID. If they can scare you into submission, they've won. Yes, they are winning because those who claim to be conservative aren't really. The let themselves be defined as dangerous, and then the opposition just walks right into the trap. "We the People" are the opposition that the wolf wants to overcome. Too bad the "thought leaders" are serving "we the people" on the platter for the wolfish element.

Out wolfing the wolf means to defeat the wolf. It doesn't mean becoming the wolf. A "sheep dog" can protect the sheep without being a wolf. The thing that makes a wolf a wolf, is that the wolf cares nothing for the sheep. Our so-called public servants are nothing but wolves. They pretend to care about such things as rule of law and democracy, but they don't. Out wolfing the wolf means to defeat the wolves in their attempts to subjugate and rule over WE The People with an iron fist. Out wolfing the wolf means keeping our freedom. It doesn't mean allowing yourself to be herded into a big pack of frightened sheep.

Again and again I see the so-called conservatives missing the mark. One of the latest things is the "national divorce". That isn't out wolfing the wolf. It's falling right into the wolf's fangs. Now the wolves can scare all the sheep into their clutches. People fear the unknown, and telling them to break up the country will only drive the sheep into the clutches of the wolf. It is almost as those who are saying such things actually WANT THIS OUTCOME. Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.

Yes, think about that one. Those who use the right versus left argument aren't conservatives. That is just playing into the wolf's clutches too. It is the Marxist paradigm that the Marxists want everybody to subscribe to. Why play on their turf? This isn't out wolfing the wolf by playing the wolf's games.

Sun Tsu said you have to know your enemy. If you play the wolf's game, you don't know the wolf or yourself. You have no chance. We the people are the opposition that the wolf has to overcome.

Unless you get free of the wolf's games you will lose the game. The National Divorce just plays into the hands of the wolves. It's dumb, or its just another wolf scaring the sheep. Either way its bad. Either way, it's a losing strategy. You have to wonder why "thought leaders" are using this strategy. Are they really that dumb?