http://www.businessinsider.com/hannity-glenn-beck-trump-2016-10
The preview didn’t give details. Good. I’m not sure how many times my head can explode.
I find myself agreeing with Glenn—-whoops there goes my head again.
Okay, okay, Red Dwarf fans bear with me. This is like Kryten contemplating ketchup with lobster.
Conspiracy theories are by nature fanciful. Who would be interested in a boring one.
The depth and breadth of some are quite amazing. On a personal scale it probably has most to do with attaching meaning to what might be random events. A number of horror movies build on that theme. The victim wonders “Why me?” and the killer says it was fate or some such thing. The movie Curve, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3212904/?ref_=nv_sr_1 was like that.
Recently I was reading a blogpost by someone who had used Facebook to contact the bully from her middle school years. It had been a couple of decades and she wanted to understand why the bully had targeted her. I can’t find the specific post, but she was appalled that the bully claimed to not remember bullying her. That theme has also been used in movies. Two examples are http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1390535/ and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1544578/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 I like both of those movies. But, I’m kinda weird too. But it does drive home that one shouldn’t worry too much about what others are thinking. Certain songs touch on the topic of an exaggerated sense of self importance bordering on delusions of reference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6UAYGxiRwU
So what happens when the individual manages to convince others that it isn’t a delusion? That’s when the conspiracy blooms more fully. And how do you determine what is real? I never saw this movie, but I did read the book. Well I read part of it anyway, libraries have due dates. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067277/ Going off to dreamland isn’t always pleasant. You might be alert and they just give you another hypo. Or worse, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087175/?ref_=nv_sr_1
There is a point to this post.
It has nothing to do with the above.
I was watching The Young Turks and I was struck by a most fanciful conspiracy theory. Early in the campaigns a friend of mine was convinced that Trump was a plant. He was there to disrupt the GOP and allow the Dems to win. I didn’t agree. Trump seemed genuine in his vanity. I think he does want to be president. A different friend is a Rush fan and when I would ask him why doesn’t Rush run for office his answer was always that Rush didn’t want to take the pay cut. I don’t buy that. I don’t think salary is a major motivator for office, power might be though. In the case of the Donald, I think it would be an extension of his ego. That said, would he be a spoiler and give the election to the Dems? I don’t see it with Hillary running. She has too many people that REALLY don’t like her. Now here is where it gets fanciful. If she gets enough delegates to cinch the nomination and Bernie drops out there *IS* a peculiar possibility. She is not the nominee until the convention says she is. Bernie drops out, later she gets indicted, after that the party doesn’t nominate her because of the indictment but instead nominates Biden.
WOW!!!!
That’s a plot worthy of any one star movie. Thoughts?
Does equine hygiene suffer during marijuana consumption?
No
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/high%20horse
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soapbox
Now, on to politics. I admit my liberal bias. Can we afford to pay for college for those that can handle the academics? Can we afford to pay for high school? Can we afford to pay for any school? How much school is necessary. That is the question. Post secondary school shouldn’t cost orders of magnitude more than secondary school. I completed a BA in 1984. I paid off my debt by 1990. I couldn’t do that now. I don’t have a good answer as to why it costs so much more now. Perhaps grade inflation has caused tuition inflation. I think society benefits from a well educated populace. If that takes longer now, then it should be available. Compulsory education laws have been around for a long time BECAUSE society benefits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_education
Minimum wage laws, should there be a minimum wage and what should it be? That depends. It depends on what your goal is. It ties into a bunch of different questions. Are child labor laws bad? If you own a small business you might want you kid to help out at a young age and begin learning the family business. That is not always a bad thing. Hiring 10 year old kids to work in mines or in factory machines because they’re small is not considered a good idea by most. Ironically, the first wage laws were not minimum wages but maximum wages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_laws_in_the_United_States
A modern solution to maximum wages would be taxes. Or it would have been a solution before taxes became a dirty word. The minimum wage laws kind of went hand in hand with child labor laws and compulsory education. Workplace safety came in about that time too. Upton Sinclair wrote “The Jungle” in the hopes of promoting socialism. Instead it helped push along the creation of the FDA. With no regulations neither food nor drugs were particularly safe. http://www.gmptrainingsystems.com/files/u1/pdf/TR_and_Pure_Food.pdf
Jerome K. Jerome wrote around the turn of the century. At times he was hilarious. Other times he was dead somber, kind of depressing. Maybe I’ll be funny next time. A lot of the observations JKJ makes are not dated and fit well today too. People haven’t changed. I think James Thurber must have been influenced by him. The style is similar.
Wild
That’s a quote from Dustin Hoffman in “Little Big Man”. But I like it. I like it a lot and it should be a Native American quote.
First of all, there is nobody from 150 or more years ago alive. They’re all dead Dave. What does a life matter if you’re just going to end up dead in the end anyway?
VERY Very good question, I don’t have an answer. All I can really offer is the generalization that sooner or later we all die. So, what really matters?
That IS a fair question. I call myself a Liberal. That’s what I call myself. Other people don’t necessarily agree. Basically, I’m pro death. Death penalty, well they will never be able to do it again and eventually they would have died anyway. Abortion, die now or later. Right to die, maybe I should blow your brains out if you want to stop me from blowing mine out. The one thing we have in common EVEN MORE THAN TAXES is death. I had an uncle that spent 10 years in a bed. I’d rather have a bullet. He was a good Catholic though. He couldn’t do that.
Who will remember me. Who have I had some impact on. More importantly, who have I had a net positive influence on.
Who have I had a negative impact on? Are there any assholes that I have truly succeeded in annoying?
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. I am not wishing to die. I am wishing that the quote was a real native American quote.
Donald Trump accuses Megan Kelly of menstruating.
Blood WILL be shed. I love being a liberal.
Wild
I see a lot of stuff written about people who could work but won’t.
I read stuff about wanting to do drug testing for welfare recipients.
I see posts touting no benefits for illegals.
I hear moral outrage.
Who would defend the immoral?
Okay.
You know that costs money don’t you?
To those who could work but won’t, is your job being a burglar? Are you chemist making meth but you don’t make tons of it because you’re too lazy? I doubt that El Chappo is lazy. If he comes in illegally to the US and we incarcerate him, he will be receiving the benefits of prison lodging food and health care. AND WE WILL BE PAYING FOR IT. Not to mention that the tougher on crime we try to be will mean paying for additional prisons, guards, and their associated expenses. Ambitious criminals can only be contained by ambitious law enforcement.
Welfare shouldn’t allow people to use money for drugs and get food with stamps. Sounds reasonable, but drug testing costs money. You had better hope you take enough people off welfare to pay for the testing, otherwise you’re just providing free drug testing. But it isn’t free. It will be paid for also.
Would you say I’m defending the immoral by not wanting to pay for tough tactics? In the olden times when people weren’t coddling criminals they didn’t get buried with those expenses.
No, they didn’t. Those most common punishment was being run out of town and in earlier times, banishment. Those are very cheap inexpensive ways of dealing with troublemakers. Where would you want them sent. BTW, Australia got it’s start that way, but I don’t think they will take more now.
Living in a society is not cheap. Writing was invented to record taxes.
Tolerating immorality is cheaper than forcing compliance.
Just had to say that.
In “On Liberty” John Stuart Mill wrote that when differing ideas are discussed both sides should be defended by true believers.
The argument being that a person defending a position that they don’t agree with won’t defend that position well. Certainly sounds reasonable to me. Reasonableness has very little to do with today’s politics. But some have found a way to claim that they are following that advice while still ensuring that the correct view seems the most logical. You get an intelligent articulate genius to defend the side you agree with and an inarticulate raging moron to defend the incorrect view. People that start from different places reach different conclusions.
Philosophy, intellectualism, they tend to be viewed negatively. Being called an egghead isn’t necessarily an insult, but the “Average Joe” views eggheads as out of touch with the real world. No, Average Joe doesn’t realize that he too is an egghead in that everybody has a philosophy. Philosophy is how you look at the world. For example, if you find yourself on Gilligan’s Island do you: try to build a raft or light signal fires? Or do you try to make life on the island as comfortable as you can? THOSE ARE OPPOSING PHILOSOPHIES!
Colonize or seek rescue are different goals. Is one evil and they other good? Can you be friends across that chasm? Either or both of those strategies could fail. Failure is an option. But do you TRY to make the “Wrong” strategy fail? The polarization of politics is making the other side fail. Everybody wants to have a good life. What a good life is and how to attain it are debatable.
I am a liberal Democrat. RINO means Republican In Name Only. Establishment Republican means a Republican that is more in agreement established traditional Republican views as opposed to conservative views. I think. Which is exactly why JSM said you need true believers to defend a view. The Republican Party Platform prior to 1960 is pretty much opposite of the views of conservatives. I would consider the older views as “Real” Republicans and the newer views as RINO. The supporters of the newer positions should rename their party as the “Conservative” party or the “TEA” party and leave the establishment Republicans to claim the name. In my opinion establishment RINO is an oxymoron just like Jumbo Shrimp. Since I have no stake, it’s just an opinion.
Wild
Neurotics build castles in the sky.
Psychotics move in.
Counselors charge rent.
Psychiatrists cite building codes and condemn.
Dr House becomes your roommate.
It goes downhill from there.
I like Hugh Laurie. I like his character Dr House. I even like Cut-throat Bitch. And Wilson, I like Wilson. Actually I’m rather amiable. I like almost everyone. So what is the point? The point of what? What do you want from me? Isn’t that the story of life? What do you want from me? Affection and acceptance are all I have to offer. Is that enough? Am I being too ambiguous? There is gender ambiguity, is there reality ambiguity? James Burke made a telecourse called “The Day the Universe Changed.” If your version of reality changes, your entire universe changes.
Current political opinions would seem to suggest a multiverse with several entirely different realities.
That could be optimistic or pessimistic. Dr Pangloss would say it is the best of all possible worlds. What say you?
Wild
And so it begins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGWaP7Q5vCI
Raid
Kills Bugs
Dead
That is how one of my high school English teachers described haiku. I learned a lot from him.
There is Neanderthal DNA in modern humans. There must’ve been some interbreeding. Was it consensual? I have some doubts about how attractive the two groups would have found one another. Even in the absence of alcohol extreme horniness will make people less choosey. There is no accounting for taste either. But the interbreeding could certainly have been the result of a raid. It really bothers people when you raid their settlement. I’m confident they would want to kill what bugs them.
Neanderthals are all dead.
That song was never intended to be released. It was a studio piece to set recording levels. It’s about as basic as a song can get. But it was popular.
I don’t know if Neanderthals paid taxes. The oldest writings were basically tax records.
It’s too late to amend them.
Did they get their money’s worth?
No
As soon as money was invented so was the concept of scamming. You can hoard money. You can hoard non-perishable items. You can hoard perishables for a while. As soon as you do, someone will try to take them.
Somethings just don’t change. And therein lies philosophy, and concepts of government, ownership, theft, punishment, deterrence, justice, and retribution. And there is the battle between emotions, logic, and your objective. A lot of people really don’t like devoting much time to analyzing their feelings. The gut can be quite convincing even when it is wrong. If you own a store and you lose $100 a week to shoplifters it doesn’t make sense to spend $100 a day for security. The gut burns with anger at the situation. That’s understandable. Understanding doesn’t alter the rules of mathematics. A person can’t control everything that happens to them. They can try to control how they react to it. The only reason you need a key for your car is because someone might steal it if you didn’t. Someone pulls up to a convenience store and leaves the car running because they’re only going to be there a minute. Someone else steals their car. Do you blame them for leaving it running or do you blame the thief for taking it?
You catch the thief. What is your goal? Do you try to make them feel bad for what they did? Do you try to make them unable to do it again? Do you make them pay {monetarily} for the inconvenience and damage they did? Manipulating the emotions of the thief, making them regret their actions, is a task that depends more on them than on what you do. Forcing an emotional state is not easy. You can inflect pain and suffering commensurate to the damage they did, but that might only trigger feelings of being a victim on their part. They blame the one punishing them. They don’t blame themselves for their circumstance. It’s much more productive to set a goal based on your own actions, not on the emotional state of others.
How much do you care what they think? You do care. That is part of the social contract. It’s not necessary that they like you. It is necessary for them to follow the rules whether it’s because they don’t want to hurt others or because they are afraid of the punishment. Actions occur because of thoughts. You are concerned about their actions therefore you are concerned about their thoughts.
How easy is it to get mad at those that don’t seem to live by the rules. Do you want to punish the welfare cheats that use their benefits to get drugs? Do the healthy people parking in fire lanes or handicap spaces irritate you? Do you dislike the idea of prisoners getting free food and medical not too mention cable TV? On the other side of the spectrum, does it bother you how much CEOs make? Does it piss you off when you hear about off shore banking to avoid taxes? Do you feel like there’s a world wide group of multinational corporations that are basically a one world government?
How many human ills lead back to envy and greed{especially if that greed includes protecting ones possessions}? When you die, how much of it do you take with you? At what point do you admit your own mistakes? Would you consider spending $100 a day to prevent $100 a week in thefts a mistake? If you lose a buck in a vending machine are you justified in taking all the ketchup packets to make up for it? I would call that tit for tat. Actually I just like thinking about tits with tattoos. I might be in my 50’s but I can still be juvenile.
Wild
One of my many little pet peeves is when creationists use evolutionary language to describe economics or social structure. Darwin is wrong about natural selection, but that is how capitalism works. That is why certain societies flourish. Capitalism weeds out the inefficient. Capitalism is the equalizer in that if you have a better idea you can compete and win.
I call BS on that. History is far too chaotic. James Burke had a couple of series that showed a “Pinball” approach to history. They were “Connections” and “The Day The Universe Changed”. Random occurrences, luck plays a role. Yes, individual skills and work can be needed to utilize that luck, but luck plays a role. Look up the odds of surviving gastrulation if you doubt me. What constitutes a “Free” market? It doesn’t exist and has never existed except in the cases of niche markets for limited amounts of time. Economics, like the other social sciences is not as straight forward as mathematics, chemistry, or physics. In the latter two certain assumptions are made, but they’re made with an awareness of those assumptions. Physics will use massless strings and frictionless pulleys when teaching concepts. Chemistry uses homogenous solutions and uniform transitions in similar ways. They are useful when you acknowledge the limitations of your models. Any study involving people will involve specific individual reactions that really don’t model well. It gets more individualized when you have LEADERS. And that doesn’t have to be just political leaders. Would our space program look the same if Von Braun never came to the US? Would we have developed the bomb without Oppenheimer? Those people weren’t monolithic geniuses. They had help. They would acknowledge that help. They would probably have been influential in any society. Maybe. The social Darwinist might play up their individual capabilities regardless of the society they were in, proving the superiority of certain individuals. It’s an experiment we can’t do, although Hitler tried. I don’t think life is like a video game where you can restart and try a different strategy. And that is why the what if arguments get so volatile when talking about politics. It’s opinion not a repeatable experiment. Feelings aren’t necessarily logical or rational. Revenge is an ideal example. It’s never an eye for an eye. It’s an eye and a finger for an eye. How would you punish a mass/serial killer? You can only kill them once.
http://undertheradar.military.com/2014/12/5-chinese-military-uniform-fails/
Obviously not a G string, but stringy underwear none the less. Way back when the riots at Tiananmen Square were going on I heard that the military used their belts as flails. I have seen articles where people say that it’s not a good idea. The belt buckle doesn’t really do enough damage to deter an attack. I also heard that the belt buckles they were issued were quite heavy and capable of causing severe injuries. I seem to recall hearing that motorcycle chains worn as belts can be effective flails also.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/jan/16/russian-soldiers-replacing-foot-wraps-socks
I remember seeing an Army training film about Russian foot wraps when I was in basic training. I can’t believe they used them that long. They did look interesting.
OKAY,
NOW DO YOU APPRECIATE THE UNDERWEAR AND SOCKS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
As a Red Dwarf fan there is of course that reference. The unending circle of life, consuming and being consumed all at once, a Greek version of Yin/Yang or of the Phoenix, it’s all of those. First the bird eats the ants, after the bird dies the ants eat the bird.
Wild lost in the ozone again
There are lots of ways to look at life. One could consider life to be the intermission between conception and death. The after-life and the before-life merely being separated by the annoying bit in the middle. Eternity first, then the finite part, then eternity again, sounds like a plan. Lots of assumptions in that plan though. Does the spirit or soul exist prior to conception? Is there a before-life? That’s usually the question about the after-life, and it is usually answered by, I’ll find out after I die. Does that same answer work for the before-life? In the comic strip “Non Sequitor” the answer is yes. If a before-life exists, then we have already been there and done that. We just can’t remember it. I have no memory of being born either, but I do have confidence in the people that tell me they remember my being born. My mother was adamant about my having been born. I also suspect that I currently exist. Proof is subjective, just ask Rene Descartes. He thought he existed too.
When an action is completed it can be said to be executed. He executed a U-turn on the highway against traffic. That’s a proper sentence even if the action described is not proper. If you do not complete the action it is not executed. He attempted a U-turn but failed to execute it. I suppose that would be a stay of execution. It is an interesting concept. Stopping an execution is a stay. Well they are going to stay around then right. Yes but will they wear corsets? Those also have stays. Perhaps it would be ironic to ask to be executed in a corset. Then if you received a stay of execution you might continue to exist or you might choke on a whale bone. If you stay in existence, then life would merely be the stay of the act of dying. Stick around, it might get better.
Well what about the after-life then? When’s that? When can a person cease to be alive? We might need to get back to those assumptions. A body can be kept on life support for a long time. If you decide life begins at conception, ie, a single cell with a unique set of DNA, you could also say that it continues as long as that DNA sequence continues to replicate. Henrietta Lacks would still be considered alive. Some would say she died in the 50’s, but not according to her cells. Gary Gilmore might still be alive too. He was shot by a firing squad because he wanted to be an organ donor. That was a while ago, but who knows his blood might still be flowing. The quality of life experienced by one’s cells might not be up to some peoples’ standards, but who judges the quality of life? Consider the beginning again, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastrulation
Well that’s pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. You know, sea turtles just bury the eggs in the sand and leave. Hardly a good example of matronly care. If a human did that they would be charged with infanticide. And I don’t know of any people that actually had to rely solely on their own abilities without ever receiving any help. I will grant that gastrulation is a persons most impressive act as an individual. After that you need some help.
So, IS LIFE A MOVEMENT IN C FLAT?
No.
That is a Brit looking for a new residence.
Wild
E.T. Enter Tangentially 