We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
It's getting closer to the time to begin Christmas shopping. Whether you like Bezos or not, Amazon Prime is your friend. A daughter says Macy's is her friend now, too (the big store in Manhattan).
I am not convinced that the SAT is a measure of merit. It's really just an IQ test. Achievements tests are better merit measures but lots of schools do not have AP courses. Grades are not very reliable measures these days. If I ran a school, I'd use an IQ test, a Curiosity test, a Talent test, and an Energy test. No straight-A drones please.
I do not like seeing pilots so high on the list. Being a pilot for a corporation or charter service means every Christmas and every other holiday you sit alone in a crappy motel room while your rich customers ski or party while you don't get to see your family. The client calls you at 10 pm and says we are going across the country at 6 am tomorrow, get it ready. Well forget your sons birthday, fat cat wants a Maine lobster. So maybe that's why.
Exactly why a friend of mine turned down a crew slot on Air Force One.
My understanding is that the biggest contributors to the commercial pilot category are traffic reporters, usually newly fledged commercial pilots trying to build up their hours, and medical helicopter pilots, who have rightly established a "cowboy" reputation for being willing to bust minimums to get their admittedly important jobs done.
#1.1
another guy named Dan
on
2018-12-20 10:12
(Reply)
The "Russian Conspiracy" thing is hilariously out of control.
If you know even just a little about ad fraud, you'd realize the Russians were trolling for clicks to generate revenue. The assumption is "they targeted vulnerable people with pro-Trump ads to change minds".
Wrong. They targeted likely people who click frequently and sent them ads that generate heightened reactions to get them to click on them so they could create a clickstream and generate revenue.
You can spend $1000 on ads and generate over $200,000 in ad revenue easily if you do it intelligently. It's perfectly legal, too. That's what's so scary. The human clickstream they created provided just enough coverage of actual human activity to have measurement services label the sites as 'legitimate', but most of the traffic on the sites were actually being created by automated programs acting like humans (to generate more revenue).
Facebook and Google's role in the election were 0, from the standpoint of altering opinions. These ads were utterly meaningless.
But it creates great headlines, and the management at most Silicon Valley firms are so dyed-in-the-wool stupid liberal Progressives that they are happy to follow along with the lie because they get press and political prestige.
What amuses me is the assumption that people supported Hillary on the ground of a rational assessment of the news and virtuous adoption of correct social principles, but the only explanation for Trump support is callous manipulation of "vulnerable" people by bots.
Remember that they were/are deeply embedded with Obama and other candidates so it's also possible they observed how the manipulation worked, and are projecting the same effects to the other side.
What amuses me is the assumption that "The Russians" are a single monolithic entity, solely taking their marching orders from a single individual. Even a fairly shallow analysis of the evidence seems to indicate that among the oligarchs and government there are various factions, some who wanted a Clinton presidency, and others who wanted a Trump presidency, largely because they felt that a victory by their favored candidate would further their own interests within Russia and throughout the world.
A study of Russian history shows that the leaders from the Czars through the Soviet era kept power by balancing these competing factions against each other and away from themselves. The secret police (KGB, NKVD, et al.) can't get too powerful when the military controls all the heavy weapons to prevent a coup. The military can't get too powerful when they know there are secret police agents and informers at every level of command. Gazprom gets played off against the Energy ministry, Sukhoi got played off against MiG, it's still all the same game.
the other assumption is that even if you accept there are factions within the Russian government. the Putin faction is the most dangerous. I really think that if this were the case, he wouldn't be able to stay in power, since he couldn't prevent a coup by implying that the next guy was liable to be worse.
#2.3
another guy named Dan
on
2018-12-20 10:44
(Reply)
I like Carlson's suggestion that, if someone spoke to you this way on the bus, you'd probably nervously switch seats.
Russia hacked the DNC and the chair of the Clinton campaign, then released the emails to maximize the political damage. They engaged an army of trolls to help Trump, hurt Clinton, suppress the black vote, sow chaos, and undermine confidence in American institutions. They preyed on the greedy and the stupid within the Trump campaign, including Trump, for whom they dangled millions of dollars in profits for Trump Tower Moscow.
Russia has reverse engineered open democracy, and having found its weaknesses, is engaged in cyberwarfare against liberal societies around the world.
another guy named Dan: What amuses me is the assumption that "The Russians" are a single monolithic entity, solely taking their marching orders from a single individual.
There are always factions, but Russia is tightly controlled by an oligarchy of kleptocrats, and is more than capable of sustained and coordinated action against their adversaries.
What amuses me is the assumption that people supported Hillary on the ground of a rational assessment of the news and virtuous adoption of correct social principles, but the only explanation for Trump support is callous manipulation of "vulnerable" people by bots.
#2.1 Texan99 on 2018-12-20 09:44 (Reply)
How was this damage done to the American people...by showing them the truth about Clinton and the democrat lie machine??
What in the emails are you claiming was false? If it was false information, are you suggesting they were lying to each other..or nah?
d: How was this damage done to the American people
The hack was a felony, so that makes it a crime against the United States, and is part of a wider cyberwarfare campaign by Russia against open democracies.
It turns out that Democrats are Americans too, and they have a right to engage the political process without foreign interference, including the right to private communications among their leadership. Millions of dollars of voter research was stolen, creating an unfair playing field for the election, and allowing the Russians to better target their cyberwarfare campaign.
It's hard to imagine why you would defend Russian interference in the U.S. election.
Rusty: And still no collusion.
Most of the evidence is still being gathered through the grand jury process, so we'll have to wait to find out. But why do you think so many people connected to Trump, including Trump, are lying about their contacts with Russia?
zachrielNPC:But why do you think so many people connected to Trump, including Trump, are lying about their contacts with Russia?
Same reason Hillary lied about her illegal server. Same reason Comey lied about leaking. Same reason Andrew McCabe lied. Same reason Strzok lied. Etc. Etc. Etc. It's the fuckin Swamp!
This is how we know you are simply an NPC programmed to repeat left wing talking points with all the emotion of a small toaster. This is how we know your umbrage is fake and robotic.
OBAMA: There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even — you could even rig America’s elections, in part because they’re so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. There’s no evidence that has has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time.
Rusty: Same reason Hillary lied about her illegal server. Same reason Comey lied about leaking. Same reason Andrew McCabe lied. Same reason Strzok lied.
Same reason? They lied to protect Trump from charges of Russian collusion?
We now know that Trump was engaging in business negotiations with Russia during the campaign, while claiming he had nothing to do with Russia. Putin knew something American voters did not.
The Russian collusion meme is a Democrat con job. It was originally conceived to prevent Trump from being effective in office and to ultimately lead to his removal from office. It has expanded it's scope and now is effectively covering up Obama's/FBI/DOJ/administration's wrong doing in his 8 years. And incidentally being used to intimidate and cower conservatives who dare join in a conservative administration. It is perhaps the biggest threat to our country since WW II. The left (socialist, communist, fascists) intend to take over the country. This is just a part of their effort. Massive unstoppable immigration is another part of their plan. We are undergoing a soft coup and a slow motion invasion that will end with a far left government that will then rescind your constitutional rights.
Z: Russia hacked the DNC and the chair of the Clinton campaign...
The only source for the claim that the DNC server that I am aware of (corrections appreciated) was a company hired by the Demonrats, CrowdStrike. Nobody in the DOJ was allowed to inspect their server. I consider that very interesting given the close cooperation between the DOJ and the Hillary Campaign contractor, Fusion GPS who spread the Steele Dossier at the Campaign's behest. CrowdStrike was also hired by the Republican Congressional Committee for cyber security and ended up being hacked too. Besides a monetary incentive to sing from the same hymnal as their employers, they don't appear to be that good at their job. I see no reason to believe them without independent verification.
Z: They [the Russians] engaged an army of trolls to help Trump, hurt Clinton.
Nobody has reasonably described how that makes any sense. Just a year earlier, the Russians and Hillary were great friends (or at least appreciative that she didn't attempt to block the sale of Uranium One.) You mean that they soured on her that quickly? In addition, Hillary's energy policy goals were much more in line with Putin's.
On the other hand, Hillary benefited from Russian intelligence agents who provided intel for the Steele Dossier. If Trump really was Putin's candidate why would he allow that?
mudbug: The only source for the claim that the DNC server that I am aware of (corrections appreciated) was a company hired by the Demonrats, CrowdStrike.
That is incorrect. Multiple government and private agencies have examined the evidence. And the attack was consistent with other cyberattacks made by Russia against other targets, including the chair of the Clinton campaign, and against European nations.
mudbug: Nobody in the DOJ was allowed to inspect their server.
The server was in use at the time. All that was needed was a mirror of the data, especially the server logs, which were provided.
mudbug: Just a year earlier, the Russians and Hillary were great friends
That is incorrect. In 2014, Russia made incursions into Crimea and the Ukraine. Clinton supported a strong response, including sanctioning Russian oligarchs. There is no doubt that Putin wanted to—at the very least—damage Clinton.
mudbug: On the other hand, Hillary benefited from Russian intelligence agents who provided intel for the Steele Dossier.
Steele's sources were reliable in the past, helping to uncover bribery in the bidding for the 2018 World Cups, hardly to the benefit of Russia. His sources for the dossier were reportedly provided to Mueller's investigation.
Zzzz:Multiple government and private agencies have examined the evidence.
"Evidence" provided by Crowdstrike.
Mudbug was correct. There has been no independent examination/verification of the DNC server by anyone other than Crowdstrike.
But you kiddiez knew that so you're lying again..
Texan99: What amuses me is the assumption that people supported Hillary on the ground of a rational assessment of the news and virtuous adoption of correct social principles, but the only explanation for Trump support is callous manipulation of "vulnerable" people by bots.
While many people have strongly held political beliefs, most people have only limited connection to politics. Decisions are often made about who they "like". While projecting a strong and friendly image is important to leadership, it also leads to situations where someone who has charisma, but lacks knowledge, can win an election. For a legislative representative, this isn't necessarily an awful thing—ordinary people can often help leaven the process—but with a presidential system, this can create instability in government when the president is not adept at governing. It's even worse when the president has undisclosed business interests in countries hostile to the U.S.
As for Russian interference, the vote difference was very small in the states on which the election turned. That the Democratic Convention was thrown into chaos by the Russian hack and release of emails could easily explain the small difference in votes. In any case, it is unconscionable to allow Russia to continue to interfere in U.S. politics, or that of other open democracies.
That the Democratic Convention was thrown into chaos by the Russian hack and release of emails could easily explain the small difference in votes.
Funny how people get genuinely upset when you claim to be in favor of open fair election processes, then rig them.
Yet this is probably the first correct thing you've ever said regarding the election. A greater percentage of self-identified Republicans did vote for Trump than self-identified Democrats did for Hillary. Quite likely it did make the difference.
Christopher B: A greater percentage of self-identified Republicans did vote for Trump than self-identified Democrats did for Hillary.
A number of factors reduced Democratic turnout for Clinton, including the chaos surrounding the hack, and the Russia media campaign to depress the black vote. Even then, Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin.
The only election rigging with proof behind it was Hillary and her camp followers cheating Bernie and the Bernie supporters. And a little cash smoothed it out when it became known to the Bernie crowd. The DNC and democratic/progressive/socialist/communist party are the only known fixers in the whole charade. Russia, Russia, Russia was the planned narrative, the insurance policy, of the losers.
indyjonesouthere: The only election rigging with proof behind it was Hillary and her camp followers cheating Bernie and the Bernie supporters.
There is no evidence that the DNC broke the law, or that Sanders would have won if the DNC had pursued a different policy. Clinton won the most primary votes, and had the support of the super-delegates.
“One should never assume by the way a person…acts, that they [want] to have sex with you.” Now that's funny. I'm almost sure that no guy has ever been in any doubt whether I wanted to have sex with him. The only thing you usually have to worry about is that there are people so focused on their own needs that they don't care whether you're signaling willingness or not. It's not that it's so hard to figure out what someone wants, words or no words, if you're even minimally conscious.
Treating this as a communication issue is ridiculous. It all works pretty well if people take into account the information they get, and genuinely care what's going on with the other person. If they can't pull that off, they'd be better off in a purely commercial transaction, no strings attached and a concrete price negotiated in advance. One side of this negotiation had better have money, and the other might think about a gun.
They like talking. They get laid more if everyone is forced to talk. Even better, their competition who doesn't find talking is appropriate in absolutely every endeavor get laid less, which serves the bastards right.
#3.1
Assistant Village Idiot
(Link)
on
2018-12-20 12:00
(Reply)
"They" being the woman? Yes, almost always. And men like things that don't come as naturally to women. Women who take that into account get better results from the men in their lives, too. I don't just mean being generous about sex, though that's certainly part of it. How we could have turned the need for people to pay attention to each others' different needs to become so snarled up, I just can't imagine. Original sin, I guess, with a dollop of stupidity. Even setting aside the desire for a spiritually more satisfying life, pure thuggish power politics don't even maximize everyone's material or physical comfort. Cooperation and trustworthiness do.
The one thing women do not know about other women as well as men know is this: Some women enjoy sex, are insatiable, and actually enjoy things men like "that don't come as naturally to women." IMHO this is where some of the confusion and missteps come from.
Equal Pay Day: anyone who is against "fake news" has to be against this fiction of women being paid less for the same work than men.
Perry nails it in his essay: women choose security, men choose earning power and take risks.
This book goes in great depth about how men give up security and comfort to provide their wives and families with higher income. Married women with children take more time off to be available to their families, thus derailing their career paths.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/1542751292/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1545317475&sr=8-1&keywords=why+men+earn+more+by+warren+farrell
The whole economy works by acknowledging that different people have different things to offer, and can find ways too trade in mutually beneficial ways. Instead of enjoying how well this creates prosperity for us, a lot of people obsess on the disparity between what they offer and what other people offer. I risk life and limb more often! Well, I can bear children! Well, I can lift heavier weights! Well, I cook better! Such a lot of nonsense.
I have been on the fem/nazi's hit list for many years now. Ever since I refused to let my DH work for them. So much for equal job rights, etc. However, this last bit stinks way worse than usual. We were on vacation for several weeks and the morning after we returned home (Saturday Morning), we got 3 or 4 phone messages from "The Census Bureau". We then left this gal our email address on her voice mail. What do you know -- what a coincidence--she is a Federal Employee who takes her work so seriously she calls at 0900 on a Saturday morning. Sure enough we have been "randomly chosen" to respond to this year's "Census". Given that I have been targeted by my local city council for several years now (twice chosen for jury duty and twice required to fill out a doctor's letter; one having my well, and only my well tested by the city; once having some gal prowl though my front porch; once having a woman climb out of the trees and announce over my fence "oh, so this is where you live. You can't hid from us", I am assuming that Saturday's child is also a member of the local fem nazis. My question to you is this: is there a good way to confront this issue of stalking? Can a good attorney challenge this action? If so how much? BTW: Here is the link to the form:
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/questionnaires/2018/quest18.pdf?#
Radicals, left or right, are high in dogma, more resistant to evidence
Bird Dog: Lefties more so than conservatives
The opposite of lefties is righties, as not all righties are conservatives. In any case, the study doesn't seem to address your claim, but suggests that being resistant to evidence is more a characteristic of being on the political extremes, such radicalism leading to stubborn certainty.
On the other hand, we can say that, at this point in history, resistance to evidence has more political currency on the political right than on the political left. Instances finding wide expression on the U.S. political right include the belief that Obama was not born in the U.S., that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, that Muslims are implementing sharia law in the U.S., and that Hillary Clinton was involved in a child sex ring run out of a pizzeria. Studies have shown that people on the political right are much more likely to believe and propagate fake news. See Lazer et al., Combating Fake News: An Agenda for Research and Action, 2017.
What's left unsaid here is that, according to a poll two weeks ago, 66% of Democrats (43 million people) fell for the biggest fake news conspiracy hoax in the history of the world, that the Russians stole the 2016 election at the ballot box. Now that's gullibility on a scale that's frightening.
But the thing is, that hoax wasn't just spread by some troll on social media, those 43 million people saw the words "Russia Collusion" every single time they turned on their TV news, opened their phones or turned on their computers and looked at the screen, for two years straight.
Are you kidding me? Please reference "the studies". There is no "fake news", or ideology more corrupt and inaccurate than the story of Hillary's wonderfulness--yet, millions of people still cling to that idea in spite of the many events indicate otherwise.
As noted, please see Lazer 2017, including references.
faculty wife: There is no "fake news", or ideology more corrupt and inaccurate than the story of Hillary's wonderfulness--yet, millions of people still cling to that idea in spite of the many events indicate otherwise.
"Wonderfulness" clearly belongs in the category of personal opinion, not empirical fact.
"Wonderfulness" clearly belongs in the category of personal opinion, not empirical fact.
The phenomenon known as personal opinion being unknown to pedantic robotic types who through their endless robotic utterances are most likely to incur the personal opinions of real human people persons that these robotic types are everything from annoying to outright falsehood-peddling Gasbots.
Oh, and that these Gasbots also peddle their personal opinion that their endless not empirical facts on certain natural phenomenon somehow rise to empirical fact at the very same time - or as some have called it, "autistic babbling" and "tap dancing".
Anyway, on the subject of opinion versus empirical fact, real human people persons are known to associate overwhelming evidence with a pattern of behavior that reliably rises to a rational, supportable understanding of a thing, while certain robotic operations are known to hand-wave their way to complete, fanciful constructions of a highly predictably-slanted type unsupported by the real evidence.
You could in fact find these robotic constructions "fanciful denials" of reality. If you were a rational real human people person, that is.
Or as it also turns out, you could attribute these robotic utterances, as many have, to financial motive.
The corrupt Colorado Government is trying to destroy this poor man because he views his talents as a God-given gift. Using a bunch of appointed bureaucrats to persecute a Christian Man.
The administrative states main job is to thug on the population that does not bend to their will. Zach is put off by the reference to them as democratic/progressive/socialist/communists but the permanent admin state is made up primarily of these people that we never get to vote on at elections. The admin state must be fire able and not protected by special law for government employees.
#8.1.1
indyjonesouthere
on
2018-12-20 16:14
(Reply)
indyjonesouthere: Zach is put off by the reference to them as democratic/progressive/socialist/communists but the permanent admin state is made up primarily of these people that we never get to vote on at elections.
That doesn't make them communists. It makes them civil servants. Americans do, however, get to vote for those who pass the laws that civil servants are called upon to administer and enforce. Why, you can even vote for representatives that will get rid of the administration state entirely. Keep in mind, however, that the administrative state is as old as the U.S. Constitution. There's a reason for its existence.
indyjonesouthere: The admin state must be fire able and not protected by special law for government employees.
Fireable for cause should be and is allowed. However, the previous system of political patronage for government jobs led to gross abuses.
Heh. There you go again making reality an element of human consideration, Zzzatemypuppy.
I find the clattering resident Gasbot makes far more sense when you mentally accompany its endless stream of robotic bias with a series of bongs and chimes, and deliver it with that distant, flat, emotionless female narration found in dystopian B movies.
Then it all kinda plays to its own stereotype. "We note that we note that we note that reality conforms itself well to our postmodern fictional narrative" CHIME. Please return to your cubicle for more such "data" input of an empirically factual nature, human people person CHIME. Narrative is not narrative CHIME. Relieve yourself from the burden of responsible thought, real human people person. That will be all. BONG
"Americans do, however, get to vote for those who pass the laws that civil servants are called upon to administer and enforce."
Then let them do it in the broad daylight and not in secret or through weasel worded laws. WHO passed a law that allowed two gays to search out a Christian baker to be set up knowing she opposed gay marriage AND then put a bureaucrat in charge of the decision that fined the baker $130,000??? WHO in their right mind can possibly agree with this? Would you allow a bigot to go to a black baker and demand a cake with the "n" word on it?? Would you force a jewish baker to bake a cake with a swastika on it?? WHY would any elected legislator pass such a law and why would any bureaucrat make it a $130,000 fine??? Hate of Christianity is the only answer.
OneGuy: WHO passed a law that allowed two gays to search out a Christian baker to be set up knowing she opposed gay marriage AND then put a bureaucrat in charge of the decision that fined the baker $130,000???
The elected representatives of the Colorado government.
OneGuy: Would you allow a bigot to go to a black baker and demand a cake with the "n" word on it??
The request was for a cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside. That's hardly the same thing.
OneGuy: Would you allow a bigot to go to a black baker and demand a cake with the "n" word on it?? Would you force a jewish baker to bake a cake with a swastika on it??
That wouldn't be required under the Colorado anti-discrimination law.
The current system amounts to political patronage and leads to gross abuses of people and policies. The admin state is out of control at the federal government...it needs to be put down and put the nanny state, micromanaging employees on the street where they can be fired for cause in practice rather than theory. They are not civil servants...they are uncivil thugs in many cases and nothing happens to them.
Article, "Antifa leader relied on anonymity to push radical violent and communist agenda" over at the Free North Carolina blog. Dude works with democratic congresscritters on his day job...maybe that should be democratic, progressive, socialist, communist congresscritters. The democratic/p/s/c party has been knee deep in communists since FDR and Harry Hopkins.
