The Crusades interest me to a degree and over the past year, I've spent a fair amount of time reading over the period, and the people involved. The one key person that has fascinated me is.....Peter Bartholomew.
In the first wave of the Crusade period....Pete is this half-soldier, half-mystique, half-nutcase guy.
There's simply not a lot about Pete. Most know that he was a servant to William (Lord of Cunhiat), and at some point in 1097, having deployed to the Middle East and faced some action....he's there in Antioch and has these delusions. Some folks think he had PTSD. Some folks think he was crazy well before he left France.
Anyway, at some point....he has this vision of Saint Andrew. With this vision, and some sword that he found.....he goes off to tell folks that the sword needs to go Raymond (the head of the Crusaders).
All of his instructions to Raymond, and the act of the sword....has convinced everyone that he's getting personal instructions via God. You have to remember.....this is the 1097 period.
History says that Pete is basically going blind as 1098 comes around....slowly.
Most all of the Crusader crowd is now hyped up. Even if Pete was a nutcase....they basically needed a morale booster, and that was the key to success.
As time passes in 1098, he comes around to announce that Jesus has also appeared to him in some vision, and as part of the fight ahead in Jerusalem.....everyone on the Crusaders side....needs to walk barefoot all the way there. That didn't go over well, and virtually everyone felt faked out by Pete at that point.
So toward the early part of 1099....Pete has stood up and suggested that everyone needs to a test by 'fire'. This meant to walk through some path with fire on both sides. Most of the folks aren't buying into this idea....but Pete goes full-turbo through the path of fire.
Sadly, Pete gets burned pretty bad, and he dies on 20 April 1099.
Friday, 31 August 2018
Thursday, 30 August 2018
The Ignorant Journalist
Generally, forty years ago.....what the AP, Time, Newsweek, New York Times, US News and World Report, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, and ABC said.....mattered.
Folks sat around, and talked about this article or that news piece, in a factual way. They sat on front porches and discussed what the US News and World Report said this week, and it MATTERED. Watergate was Watergate, because the Washington Post made it topic number one for almost an entire year.
Then you watch this transformation occur in the 1990s and over the past two decades. Drudge, NPR, social media, 'evil' Russians, CNN, Fox News, and forty-odd dozen micro-news organizations (like the micro-brewery business in a way) stepped onto the stage. Being a journalist changed....you didn't need to really be factual.....you needed to just convince people of something....whether true, false, or something 'else'.
It reached some point in the past year where the news groups started to drag back onto the stage, the collosal 'kings' of journalism of the 1970s, who most people today don't recognize or even care about (sorry for that slam).
Journalist connecting with people? No. Most haven't talked to regular people in a decade. They've heard that these people exist, but the idea of talking to them and finding common grounds? No.
So this odd thing occurred. We just dissolved the relationship. It's like having IP service and dumping our carrier. Or having a cable package, and dumping them for bad reliability. Or having some kid mow our grass and be fed up with his attitude.
Upon watching this CNN exchange with Allison Camerota and John Sununu....it was obvious that Sununu was not going to give respect to Camerota.....kinda like saying just because she thought she had a talking dog or a magic unicorn.....didn't mean it was so. She repeated that demanded respect, and it was an obvious moment that he didn't believe in giving them any respect.
For well over two years, the news media has blasted onto Trump and he's treated them like juvenile delinquents....pushing them around and labeling them 'losers'. The public thinks of it as some circus entertainment situation. Trump is the guy in the center-stage, and the news media acts as clowns.
I don't think this will be corrected anytime soon, and might go on for a full decade.
Folks sat around, and talked about this article or that news piece, in a factual way. They sat on front porches and discussed what the US News and World Report said this week, and it MATTERED. Watergate was Watergate, because the Washington Post made it topic number one for almost an entire year.
Then you watch this transformation occur in the 1990s and over the past two decades. Drudge, NPR, social media, 'evil' Russians, CNN, Fox News, and forty-odd dozen micro-news organizations (like the micro-brewery business in a way) stepped onto the stage. Being a journalist changed....you didn't need to really be factual.....you needed to just convince people of something....whether true, false, or something 'else'.
It reached some point in the past year where the news groups started to drag back onto the stage, the collosal 'kings' of journalism of the 1970s, who most people today don't recognize or even care about (sorry for that slam).
Journalist connecting with people? No. Most haven't talked to regular people in a decade. They've heard that these people exist, but the idea of talking to them and finding common grounds? No.
So this odd thing occurred. We just dissolved the relationship. It's like having IP service and dumping our carrier. Or having a cable package, and dumping them for bad reliability. Or having some kid mow our grass and be fed up with his attitude.
Upon watching this CNN exchange with Allison Camerota and John Sununu....it was obvious that Sununu was not going to give respect to Camerota.....kinda like saying just because she thought she had a talking dog or a magic unicorn.....didn't mean it was so. She repeated that demanded respect, and it was an obvious moment that he didn't believe in giving them any respect.
For well over two years, the news media has blasted onto Trump and he's treated them like juvenile delinquents....pushing them around and labeling them 'losers'. The public thinks of it as some circus entertainment situation. Trump is the guy in the center-stage, and the news media acts as clowns.
I don't think this will be corrected anytime soon, and might go on for a full decade.
The 'Confederacy'
Florida Democratic Governor nominee Andrew Gillum spoke up and said that for Florida needs a Medicare for all system, saying: “we would have to do it as a confederation of states. We could not do it by ourselves solely here in the state of Florida.”
I sat there and read the comment five times....a black Democratic candidate saying....yes, we need a confederacy of states. Course, he meant something different, but here's the thing....100,000 idiot Floridian redneck guys will read this comment and think....yeah, he means a Jefferson Davis 'Confederacy'.
Well....this is how stupid we've become and how we use words in the wrong way.
Over the next month or two.....thousands of Florida guys will gather at bars and backyard grillings.....chatting over the enthusiasm for the confederacy, and we finally have a guy to offer bringing it back.
Social media? I suspect the Russians are hard at work....trying to figure some social media message to chat up about the confederacy and how Gillum is the guy who will deliver the new confederacy. Some crazy Russian will suggest that it requires a black guy to bring back the confederacy and the idiots will all buy into this fake confederacy idea, with the black guy in charge.
I sat there and read the comment five times....a black Democratic candidate saying....yes, we need a confederacy of states. Course, he meant something different, but here's the thing....100,000 idiot Floridian redneck guys will read this comment and think....yeah, he means a Jefferson Davis 'Confederacy'.
Well....this is how stupid we've become and how we use words in the wrong way.
Over the next month or two.....thousands of Florida guys will gather at bars and backyard grillings.....chatting over the enthusiasm for the confederacy, and we finally have a guy to offer bringing it back.
Social media? I suspect the Russians are hard at work....trying to figure some social media message to chat up about the confederacy and how Gillum is the guy who will deliver the new confederacy. Some crazy Russian will suggest that it requires a black guy to bring back the confederacy and the idiots will all buy into this fake confederacy idea, with the black guy in charge.
CNN Story
In the last hour, I sat and looked over some clip of CNN's Camerota talking to John Sununu....over John McCain.
She spent about four minutes doing the honor-McCain chatter, then she shifts over to the anti-Trump chatter.
Sununu? He basically says no....he's not there to chat over anti-Trump stuff.
Camerota pushed back, and Sununu kinda smiled, and pushed her back a full step or two.
Here's the general spiral of CNN....it's like a network of 9-year-old kids who were put in charge of something and there's no adult leadership in the room. They fumble around....impress you with graphics....then bring on some characters who were apparently noted journalists of the 1970s/1980s....who most people don't really recognize today, and seem to think they can sell you something without any factual information.
She spent about four minutes doing the honor-McCain chatter, then she shifts over to the anti-Trump chatter.
Sununu? He basically says no....he's not there to chat over anti-Trump stuff.
Camerota pushed back, and Sununu kinda smiled, and pushed her back a full step or two.
Here's the general spiral of CNN....it's like a network of 9-year-old kids who were put in charge of something and there's no adult leadership in the room. They fumble around....impress you with graphics....then bring on some characters who were apparently noted journalists of the 1970s/1980s....who most people don't really recognize today, and seem to think they can sell you something without any factual information.
Court Story
I sat this morning and gazed over news, and this one small item lay there....a C-SP*N/PBS survey. They went out and asked around a thousand 'likely voters' (hint: not regular people but people who say they usually vote)....about how familiar they were with the Supreme Court.
Roughly fifty percent could not name a SINGLE member of the current court.
I would suggest that if you'd based the poll off just regular people at some flea-market....it would have even gone down to maybe 20-percent naming one single guy/gal off the Supreme Court.
But the real question here....is it important to know the members of the court? Basically....NO. It doesn't change your life or improve your disposition. It doesn't comfort you at 11 PM at night when your husband is still out drinking, or having to talk to some idiot teacher in the school because of a poor grading system with your kids. Frankly, it doesn't matter for the bulk of us.
For journalists, or the PBS crowd? Well....they'd like for people to get all pepped up and care.
Can folks name all the NFL teams? I would imagine among likely male-voters...more than sixty percent can name two-thirds of the teams.
Can folks name their two senators? I would take a guess that barely a third of all likely voters can name both senators from their state.
Does any of this matter.....that's really the big question.
Roughly fifty percent could not name a SINGLE member of the current court.
I would suggest that if you'd based the poll off just regular people at some flea-market....it would have even gone down to maybe 20-percent naming one single guy/gal off the Supreme Court.
But the real question here....is it important to know the members of the court? Basically....NO. It doesn't change your life or improve your disposition. It doesn't comfort you at 11 PM at night when your husband is still out drinking, or having to talk to some idiot teacher in the school because of a poor grading system with your kids. Frankly, it doesn't matter for the bulk of us.
For journalists, or the PBS crowd? Well....they'd like for people to get all pepped up and care.
Can folks name all the NFL teams? I would imagine among likely male-voters...more than sixty percent can name two-thirds of the teams.
Can folks name their two senators? I would take a guess that barely a third of all likely voters can name both senators from their state.
Does any of this matter.....that's really the big question.
Wednesday, 29 August 2018
Business Management Style by Mennonites
My brother and I had a short chat on business changes, and I offered the opinion that one might want to adapt to the Mennonite business culture. The thing is.....no one has ever written a book on the topic. I sat and pondered over the subject, coming to ten basic Mennonite business topics:
1. Everything you do....has to be done in a frugal way. You would not go and put a $500,000 statue up in the entrance of the building. Nor would you offer leased cars to any of the executives. Nor would you let people stay in four-star hotels while on business trips. Nor would you pay some loser-employee more than what they are actually worth.
2. Never overstate your intentions. Mennonites don't hype things much....either it works or it doesn't. If you developed a product that does exactly what it was supposed to do....you simply stand there with your arms crossed against your chest, grinning from ear to ear, and state your success in a very limited way.
3. No booze or drugs. Clean lifestyle is expected, period. If you need to celebrate something....coffee and cheesecake are acceptable.
4. Trashy talk and how to handle it. Basically, you take the employee into a private toilet area, and wash their mouth out with soap. If they can't handle it....take them to HR and let them go.
5. A true Mennonite comes into work prepared to stuff twelve hours of work into a normal eight-hour day.
6. In a true Mennonite business culture....every joke that is told in the work-place....is clean enough to tell Grandma.
7. In a Mennonite work-place, you don't waste money on AC or extra heat. You keep the windows open. And none of those modern screens for the windows either.
8. If you cheated the customer.....you should expect to be shunned.
9. You tend to rise at 4 AM, drink an abundance of coffee, face the rising sun with almost tears in your eyes that you can only work till the sun goes down, and feel enthusiasm burning in your gut.
10. You feel a sense of wickedness and sorrow, when having to touch anything built with technology beyond 1890. The guilt bothers you daily, and you just hope that folks wise up eventually and resettle to the 1890 way of life and business.
1. Everything you do....has to be done in a frugal way. You would not go and put a $500,000 statue up in the entrance of the building. Nor would you offer leased cars to any of the executives. Nor would you let people stay in four-star hotels while on business trips. Nor would you pay some loser-employee more than what they are actually worth.
2. Never overstate your intentions. Mennonites don't hype things much....either it works or it doesn't. If you developed a product that does exactly what it was supposed to do....you simply stand there with your arms crossed against your chest, grinning from ear to ear, and state your success in a very limited way.
3. No booze or drugs. Clean lifestyle is expected, period. If you need to celebrate something....coffee and cheesecake are acceptable.
4. Trashy talk and how to handle it. Basically, you take the employee into a private toilet area, and wash their mouth out with soap. If they can't handle it....take them to HR and let them go.
5. A true Mennonite comes into work prepared to stuff twelve hours of work into a normal eight-hour day.
6. In a true Mennonite business culture....every joke that is told in the work-place....is clean enough to tell Grandma.
7. In a Mennonite work-place, you don't waste money on AC or extra heat. You keep the windows open. And none of those modern screens for the windows either.
8. If you cheated the customer.....you should expect to be shunned.
9. You tend to rise at 4 AM, drink an abundance of coffee, face the rising sun with almost tears in your eyes that you can only work till the sun goes down, and feel enthusiasm burning in your gut.
10. You feel a sense of wickedness and sorrow, when having to touch anything built with technology beyond 1890. The guilt bothers you daily, and you just hope that folks wise up eventually and resettle to the 1890 way of life and business.
Tuesday, 28 August 2018
Amount of Time to Hype McCain?
The news media has until noon on Thursday to hype Senator McCain. At that point, the funeral is done, and only the matter of the Governor picking the short-term successor remains.
Does anyone care about the hype? No.
I would take a guess that forty-percent of all Democrats saw nothing much to appreciate about Senator McCain. And I suspect at least fifty percent of all Republicans feel the same way. The fake hype won't really do much to change public opinion of the guy. Most folks are locked in for respecting or disrespecting the guy.
Does anyone care about the hype? No.
I would take a guess that forty-percent of all Democrats saw nothing much to appreciate about Senator McCain. And I suspect at least fifty percent of all Republicans feel the same way. The fake hype won't really do much to change public opinion of the guy. Most folks are locked in for respecting or disrespecting the guy.
Consulting the Right People
As a kid going up, we had a pair of brothers in the local area who were noted for 'creativity', jeopardy, and peril. Basically, they wandered around and asked....if you did 'A' and 'B', what would really transpire?
A good example was an open field, a truck with no rear window left in it (don't ask why), and then asking could you set the truck off in first gear, climb via the window (both of them), get to the rear of the truck to touch the bumper, and return to the interior of the truck, all in the space of half a mile (before the truck plunged into a 10-foot revine)?
In the 1970s, you could do stuff and somehow survive. Today? I think you'd push the envelope even further, and their risk assessment would go way off the charts.
Generally, after the summer pause, you'd return to school and get a run-down of what they'd accomplished in the summer vacation period. School in some way, limited their activities, and probably kept them from far more dangerous stuff. I would imagine that they could accomplish at least a hundred acts in that 40-odd day period that were worth discussing.
Most other kids wanted to hear of the exploits of the two, but would generally condemn the behavior as risky. Course, the two had scientifically proven various ways of handling wasps or bees, or how to handle the encounter with a disturbed bull on a rampage. In today's world, I think they'd have three or four recipes developed for explosives.
Here's the thing though....in today's world, if you were going to step out into some crazy scenario with a high rating for danger, you'd likely prefer to go call up someone like this, and consult with them. There's a high probability that there's some history existing and you might learn one important lesson out of epic moment from 1974 where danger was thrown to the wind.
A good example was an open field, a truck with no rear window left in it (don't ask why), and then asking could you set the truck off in first gear, climb via the window (both of them), get to the rear of the truck to touch the bumper, and return to the interior of the truck, all in the space of half a mile (before the truck plunged into a 10-foot revine)?
In the 1970s, you could do stuff and somehow survive. Today? I think you'd push the envelope even further, and their risk assessment would go way off the charts.
Generally, after the summer pause, you'd return to school and get a run-down of what they'd accomplished in the summer vacation period. School in some way, limited their activities, and probably kept them from far more dangerous stuff. I would imagine that they could accomplish at least a hundred acts in that 40-odd day period that were worth discussing.
Most other kids wanted to hear of the exploits of the two, but would generally condemn the behavior as risky. Course, the two had scientifically proven various ways of handling wasps or bees, or how to handle the encounter with a disturbed bull on a rampage. In today's world, I think they'd have three or four recipes developed for explosives.
Here's the thing though....in today's world, if you were going to step out into some crazy scenario with a high rating for danger, you'd likely prefer to go call up someone like this, and consult with them. There's a high probability that there's some history existing and you might learn one important lesson out of epic moment from 1974 where danger was thrown to the wind.
Monday, 27 August 2018
Sunday, 26 August 2018
The Various Versions of McCain
Senator McCain passed away over the weekend. Most folks (Republican and Democrat) have an opinion over the guy.....some extremely positive....some extremely negative. I tend to look over the guy, and would suggest that there are at least eight versions of McCain:
1. There is the marginal Navy pilot version. This is the guy who probably should have been let go from flight activity but he was the admiral's son.
2. There is the POW version. Over this episode, spending five years as a prisoner, he deserves some credit.
3. There is the husband-McCain version who came back from the prisoner situation....having various affairs over the next five years and he ends up divorcing wife number one.
4. There is the Senator version where he marries Cindy, and leaves the military, to get into politics.
5. There is the Keating-Five version where McCain took roughly $120k in campaign contributions, and attempted to halt the government take-over of a savings-and-loan. It was never enough to get jail-time but it demonstrated a fairly poor choice of judgement.
6. There is the two-time presidential candidate version of McCain, who just plain failed to connect to Republicans in general.
7. There is the McCain version who got cozy for unknown reasons with ISIS thugs in 2013, and had at least one meeting to work out details in the Syria civil war.
8. And then there is the McCain version that opposed anything that Donald Trump attempted as President.
The problem is that you can find a couple of reasons to respect the guy, but poor judgement decisions continually caused you to disrespect the guy.
1. There is the marginal Navy pilot version. This is the guy who probably should have been let go from flight activity but he was the admiral's son.
2. There is the POW version. Over this episode, spending five years as a prisoner, he deserves some credit.
3. There is the husband-McCain version who came back from the prisoner situation....having various affairs over the next five years and he ends up divorcing wife number one.
4. There is the Senator version where he marries Cindy, and leaves the military, to get into politics.
5. There is the Keating-Five version where McCain took roughly $120k in campaign contributions, and attempted to halt the government take-over of a savings-and-loan. It was never enough to get jail-time but it demonstrated a fairly poor choice of judgement.
6. There is the two-time presidential candidate version of McCain, who just plain failed to connect to Republicans in general.
7. There is the McCain version who got cozy for unknown reasons with ISIS thugs in 2013, and had at least one meeting to work out details in the Syria civil war.
8. And then there is the McCain version that opposed anything that Donald Trump attempted as President.
The problem is that you can find a couple of reasons to respect the guy, but poor judgement decisions continually caused you to disrespect the guy.
South Africa and the Land 'Chatter'
Over the past week, President Trump talked about South Africa and this seizure of land deal. A lot of journalists are stumbling over the topic and generally....people are missing the big picture. So I'll offer this insight.
First, South Africa is about the size of California, Oregon, Washington State, Nevada, and Arizona. Population? Just about 56-million. It might surprise folks.....but the bulk of the population lives on the eastern end of the nation.....go figure around two-thirds of the nation there. The western half is sparse, and less populated. You can also say that most of the population on the western end lives around five or six major urban areas.
Second, there's a lot of chatter about farm-land and seizure. The government has written up a new law where farms or land can be seized, without compensation (it's been on the books for a total of four years now). The one and only case to be up at this point....involves a non-farm (it was a game preserve of a private individual). The guy put up a fence, and appears to have done some improvement to the property over the past twenty years. The local tribe did the paperwork, and the court approved their acquisition. That's the ONLY case that has occurred so far.
Third, more acquisitions likely? No one says for sure. There is this one odd factor. When you look at the map and so much open territory.....the fact is that only around 10-to-15 percent of the land is farm productive. The massive bulk of land is NOT productive....nor will ever be. When you go and chat over real productive land (worth something)....most suggest that it won't be more than three to four percent of the total land of South Africa.
Fourth, back in 2014....there was a plan established by the government to take 30-percent of productive land and hand it to 'disadvantaged' blacks. It's not exactly clear who the advantaged 'disadvantaged' blacks are, or the disadvantaged 'disadvantaged' blacks (the ones who won't get property when the big deal finally occurs). Some folks believe that insiders will manipulate the system, and friends of the big party members will walk away with big chunks of property. Earlier this year, the government wrote additional rules to the concept (making it easier to acquire the property), and to firmly say that no compensation will occur.
Fifth, adding to this whole redistribution idea.....the water supply on the western side of South Africa is in question. This is the side which produces a great deal wine which is sold around the world, and brings a neat income into South Africa. There are some predictions that long-term (suggesting fifty years)....the water supply will only get worse and worse. So taking this property might not be in anyone's interest.
Sixth, no one from either side wants a repeat of the mess in Zimbabwe. There, they broke up the large farm production centers and just about every single farm in the country became marginalized. A good example would be version one.....one white farmer running 500 acres of land, and producing a fair amount of crop. Version two....after the break-up....was two-hundred-and-fifty farmers managing two acres each. They basically produced enough for their gardens, but could not produce enough to sell.....so the one variable farm could not return anything of value.
The image in twenty years in South Africa? Unknown. They might limit themselves to the 30-percent deal going from the white farmers to the black farmers. They might go and push the number of acquisitions to 75-percent of the farm land. The drought might challenge the system and make this a non-issue.
The Trump chatter about farmers killed? There's a BBC report in 2017 that was produced and they went back to look at data over a 22-year period. There were 361,000 murdered folks in that period (a fairly healthy 'chunk'). Around 1,500 of these folks murdered....were killed on farms, and out of that....only 15-percent of them were blacks (meaning the bulk were white).
In general, crime has gone up and down (urban and rural) and there are roving gangs around South Africa which look for easy 'prey (rural farms without any nearby police protection are precisely that). If you go dig around the trend analysis business.....a lot of this crime peaked in 2001, and it's gone down drastically in the past five years.
Even if the land is turned over to black farmers, that doesn't really mean that the gang or crime issue goes away. I would suggest that the trend will likely just continue on, with more black farmers killed simply because they took over the role of wealthy farmer (probably a non-existent term, but people would think that).
There's nothing to say here....the land will be redistributed, and I would generally expect less production numbers to be seen over the next decade. The murders will continue....although they won't compare to the 2001-period. Fairness? Maybe if there was some compensation going on, it might be less of a topic, but the national government simply doesn't have the money. And in the long term, I would expect the folks who get the farms over the next ten years.....to find themselves in twenty years....forced to hand it to the next group. This will repeat over, and over. Don't expect otherwise.
So if you were looking for a fairly safe and dependable place to farm....South Africa is probably not the place for you.
First, South Africa is about the size of California, Oregon, Washington State, Nevada, and Arizona. Population? Just about 56-million. It might surprise folks.....but the bulk of the population lives on the eastern end of the nation.....go figure around two-thirds of the nation there. The western half is sparse, and less populated. You can also say that most of the population on the western end lives around five or six major urban areas.
Second, there's a lot of chatter about farm-land and seizure. The government has written up a new law where farms or land can be seized, without compensation (it's been on the books for a total of four years now). The one and only case to be up at this point....involves a non-farm (it was a game preserve of a private individual). The guy put up a fence, and appears to have done some improvement to the property over the past twenty years. The local tribe did the paperwork, and the court approved their acquisition. That's the ONLY case that has occurred so far.
Third, more acquisitions likely? No one says for sure. There is this one odd factor. When you look at the map and so much open territory.....the fact is that only around 10-to-15 percent of the land is farm productive. The massive bulk of land is NOT productive....nor will ever be. When you go and chat over real productive land (worth something)....most suggest that it won't be more than three to four percent of the total land of South Africa.
Fourth, back in 2014....there was a plan established by the government to take 30-percent of productive land and hand it to 'disadvantaged' blacks. It's not exactly clear who the advantaged 'disadvantaged' blacks are, or the disadvantaged 'disadvantaged' blacks (the ones who won't get property when the big deal finally occurs). Some folks believe that insiders will manipulate the system, and friends of the big party members will walk away with big chunks of property. Earlier this year, the government wrote additional rules to the concept (making it easier to acquire the property), and to firmly say that no compensation will occur.
Fifth, adding to this whole redistribution idea.....the water supply on the western side of South Africa is in question. This is the side which produces a great deal wine which is sold around the world, and brings a neat income into South Africa. There are some predictions that long-term (suggesting fifty years)....the water supply will only get worse and worse. So taking this property might not be in anyone's interest.
Sixth, no one from either side wants a repeat of the mess in Zimbabwe. There, they broke up the large farm production centers and just about every single farm in the country became marginalized. A good example would be version one.....one white farmer running 500 acres of land, and producing a fair amount of crop. Version two....after the break-up....was two-hundred-and-fifty farmers managing two acres each. They basically produced enough for their gardens, but could not produce enough to sell.....so the one variable farm could not return anything of value.
The image in twenty years in South Africa? Unknown. They might limit themselves to the 30-percent deal going from the white farmers to the black farmers. They might go and push the number of acquisitions to 75-percent of the farm land. The drought might challenge the system and make this a non-issue.
The Trump chatter about farmers killed? There's a BBC report in 2017 that was produced and they went back to look at data over a 22-year period. There were 361,000 murdered folks in that period (a fairly healthy 'chunk'). Around 1,500 of these folks murdered....were killed on farms, and out of that....only 15-percent of them were blacks (meaning the bulk were white).
In general, crime has gone up and down (urban and rural) and there are roving gangs around South Africa which look for easy 'prey (rural farms without any nearby police protection are precisely that). If you go dig around the trend analysis business.....a lot of this crime peaked in 2001, and it's gone down drastically in the past five years.
Even if the land is turned over to black farmers, that doesn't really mean that the gang or crime issue goes away. I would suggest that the trend will likely just continue on, with more black farmers killed simply because they took over the role of wealthy farmer (probably a non-existent term, but people would think that).
There's nothing to say here....the land will be redistributed, and I would generally expect less production numbers to be seen over the next decade. The murders will continue....although they won't compare to the 2001-period. Fairness? Maybe if there was some compensation going on, it might be less of a topic, but the national government simply doesn't have the money. And in the long term, I would expect the folks who get the farms over the next ten years.....to find themselves in twenty years....forced to hand it to the next group. This will repeat over, and over. Don't expect otherwise.
So if you were looking for a fairly safe and dependable place to farm....South Africa is probably not the place for you.
Saturday, 25 August 2018
How Fishing and Impeachment Relate
I worked with a guy two decades ago who went back to the US on a vacation with his wife, to visit her relatives for a full two weeks. Upon returning to base, we got into a light discussion, and he described the woeful experience of fishing with his father-in-law. I should note that he'd never fished in his life.
This all-day fishing expedition had been discussed for three or four days in advance....hyped up to the maximum. They would arise at near 4:00....have a full-up breakfast, and be on the road by 5 AM. The boat would launch near 6 AM.
My associate went through the pre-plan, the loading of gear, and the various items which had to be fully prepared and placed upon the boat. This was one of those mid-range river fishing boats, with the bells and whistles.
Mid-summer, the heat reached near 95-degrees by noon. It was hot, humid and miserable.
The chatter on the boat went on and on....about past fishing trips....fishing with such-and-such lures....the best bait....personal habits of trout versus catfish, and long discussions about such-and-such friend who'd fallen into misfortune with his wife or girlfriend.
Around mid-afternoon, they returned to the dock....loaded the truck back up, and proceed home. Their entire take for the day were three measly fish.
It was referred to as a trip with high expectations, and in the end....it really wasn't worth discussing. I asked if he'd ever return for a second fishing trip, and the answer was an absolute 'no'.
In a way, this chatter and hyped-up sense about impeachment runs the same route. When you reach some stage where you think it might go into second-gear, I think reality will set in when people realize that there just won't be enough Senators to carry this 'limp fish expedition' to the dock.
Some folks will stand there and ask....how did they ever go and get so convinced of something of a marginal or non-existent quality.....then gaze back over to the journalists and realize that they were a bit fraudulent.
The ability of the news media to carry this any further in a negative way? No. At that point, the chatter basically ends, and everyone has a good laugh over the bias nature of things.
This all-day fishing expedition had been discussed for three or four days in advance....hyped up to the maximum. They would arise at near 4:00....have a full-up breakfast, and be on the road by 5 AM. The boat would launch near 6 AM.
My associate went through the pre-plan, the loading of gear, and the various items which had to be fully prepared and placed upon the boat. This was one of those mid-range river fishing boats, with the bells and whistles.
Mid-summer, the heat reached near 95-degrees by noon. It was hot, humid and miserable.
The chatter on the boat went on and on....about past fishing trips....fishing with such-and-such lures....the best bait....personal habits of trout versus catfish, and long discussions about such-and-such friend who'd fallen into misfortune with his wife or girlfriend.
Around mid-afternoon, they returned to the dock....loaded the truck back up, and proceed home. Their entire take for the day were three measly fish.
It was referred to as a trip with high expectations, and in the end....it really wasn't worth discussing. I asked if he'd ever return for a second fishing trip, and the answer was an absolute 'no'.
In a way, this chatter and hyped-up sense about impeachment runs the same route. When you reach some stage where you think it might go into second-gear, I think reality will set in when people realize that there just won't be enough Senators to carry this 'limp fish expedition' to the dock.
Some folks will stand there and ask....how did they ever go and get so convinced of something of a marginal or non-existent quality.....then gaze back over to the journalists and realize that they were a bit fraudulent.
The ability of the news media to carry this any further in a negative way? No. At that point, the chatter basically ends, and everyone has a good laugh over the bias nature of things.
Nine Weeks Until The Election
My ten observations:
1. There is NO blue wave coming. At best, I would suggest that three GOP House seats and one Senate seat are taken by the Democrats. But I would go and suggest at least one Democratic House seat to be taken, and maybe five Democratic Senate seats to be taken by the Republicans.
2. McCain will pass from this Earth within the next four weeks. The AZ governor, I suspect, will select himself to be the replacement. I know some folks are thinking McCain's wife will be picked, but I just don't see that happening.
3. I think the two big shocks will be: Missouri's McCaskill and Michigan's Stabenow. Both will be edged out. No one would have predicted that two years ago.
4. CNN and MSNBC will be sitting there on 7 November, and trying to explain how the GOP won the seats (potentially in the Senate, there might be ten Democratic seats won).
5. A Democratic meeting will be held in the month after the election, and the realization that they've expended a tremendous amount of 'talk' and gotten nowhere.
6. Black votes will matter in this election, and a shift of 25-percent of the votes will go to the GOP. In some states, it won't matter. In states like Missouri and Michigan....it'll matter.
7. If the Republicans are in the 60-range of Senate seats in January, you can anticipate a long list of things to be laid out for goals in 2019.
8. Where are the Russians? Where is the meddling?
9. The 2020 effect? It's a race in the Senate with most of the races being Republican-held seats. The odds are heavily in favor of them holding those seats, and even competing heavily in seven-plus races where the Democrats hold the Senate seats. Doug Jones in Alabama, is likely to face a real candidate, and he can't show much on accomplishments to retain the seat.
10. The Democrats need a total rebuild, and I doubt if they have the bold leadership to accomplish that.
1. There is NO blue wave coming. At best, I would suggest that three GOP House seats and one Senate seat are taken by the Democrats. But I would go and suggest at least one Democratic House seat to be taken, and maybe five Democratic Senate seats to be taken by the Republicans.
2. McCain will pass from this Earth within the next four weeks. The AZ governor, I suspect, will select himself to be the replacement. I know some folks are thinking McCain's wife will be picked, but I just don't see that happening.
3. I think the two big shocks will be: Missouri's McCaskill and Michigan's Stabenow. Both will be edged out. No one would have predicted that two years ago.
4. CNN and MSNBC will be sitting there on 7 November, and trying to explain how the GOP won the seats (potentially in the Senate, there might be ten Democratic seats won).
5. A Democratic meeting will be held in the month after the election, and the realization that they've expended a tremendous amount of 'talk' and gotten nowhere.
6. Black votes will matter in this election, and a shift of 25-percent of the votes will go to the GOP. In some states, it won't matter. In states like Missouri and Michigan....it'll matter.
7. If the Republicans are in the 60-range of Senate seats in January, you can anticipate a long list of things to be laid out for goals in 2019.
8. Where are the Russians? Where is the meddling?
9. The 2020 effect? It's a race in the Senate with most of the races being Republican-held seats. The odds are heavily in favor of them holding those seats, and even competing heavily in seven-plus races where the Democrats hold the Senate seats. Doug Jones in Alabama, is likely to face a real candidate, and he can't show much on accomplishments to retain the seat.
10. The Democrats need a total rebuild, and I doubt if they have the bold leadership to accomplish that.
Friday, 24 August 2018
Selling Socialism
I had a political professor once (remember, I only attended night school where you got some of the unusual professors)....who got onto the topic of socialism and suggested there were three layers. There was absolute socialism (which never flourishes or exists in reality). Then you had hybrid-socialism (which was mostly capitalism, with enough taxation to gift out socialism things to people). And then you had fake hybrid-socialism where you taxed enough to gift out socialism things, but you corrupted the system enough that only special people got the gifts.
It was one of those evenings where you left class and spent an hour pondering over what was said.
I see a lot of salesmanship going on with socialism today, and folks trying hype up the 'gift-giving' business to the extent that everyone could be happy. It's like some newly blended ice cream that folks never ask about the ingredients, or the nutritional value.
Throughout the 1800s....on several occasions in America....plain and absolute socialism was attempted. In one case, tons of money was poured into the foundation to jump-start the system, and the belief was that once things got going....the money business could be halted and the system would sustain itself. Well....in each and every case (even the episode with tons of money).....each came to a clear end. Some took well over a decade, but none could sustain themselves.
The general failure? Generally, it was a human condition that we'd call 'expectations'. When people walk into a deal like this.....they have this idea in their head. It's like when you walk into a Hooters-joint. You expect booby-gals, fatty food, great taste to the food, and a particular cost level. If the food failed, or the beer was awful, or the bill added up to three times what you expected.....then Hooters would not work.
So the general method to making hybrid-socialism work? You have to allow capitalism to function for the most part, with a few controls to suggest that you are in charge or maintaining the 'system'. You tax virtually everything, and as the money flows back into the pot.....you have some 'Larry-guy' standing there with a list of things that make people happy. Naturally, you can't have free-beer, free-muffins, or free-vacations. But you can have money poured into poverty-projects, bridges, tram-lines that have zero return value, and fund spacious airports in the middle of nowhere.
The fake-hybrid-socialism system? The chief place today where you see it is Venezuela. The problem in this case is that you micromanaged the capitalistic system so much....that you can't even rely upon the local grocery to have toilet paper, ketchup, or watermelons. So when people come to you, and kinda expect your fake system to deploy to full capability, your response is that it's on full-turbo power, and it won't get much better.
As for the college kids who hyped-up and enthusiastic about socialism? They seem to be stuck on some fantasy-world that professor so-and-so describes but no one has actually been there or seen that. It's like that Star Trek series where people talk about Kilo-9 or the dark-planet (a fictional place), but they talking like it's potentially there.
In their mind, socialism is kind of an image of Disneyland, and it's all wonderful, free, and abundant in nature.
It was one of those evenings where you left class and spent an hour pondering over what was said.
I see a lot of salesmanship going on with socialism today, and folks trying hype up the 'gift-giving' business to the extent that everyone could be happy. It's like some newly blended ice cream that folks never ask about the ingredients, or the nutritional value.
Throughout the 1800s....on several occasions in America....plain and absolute socialism was attempted. In one case, tons of money was poured into the foundation to jump-start the system, and the belief was that once things got going....the money business could be halted and the system would sustain itself. Well....in each and every case (even the episode with tons of money).....each came to a clear end. Some took well over a decade, but none could sustain themselves.
The general failure? Generally, it was a human condition that we'd call 'expectations'. When people walk into a deal like this.....they have this idea in their head. It's like when you walk into a Hooters-joint. You expect booby-gals, fatty food, great taste to the food, and a particular cost level. If the food failed, or the beer was awful, or the bill added up to three times what you expected.....then Hooters would not work.
So the general method to making hybrid-socialism work? You have to allow capitalism to function for the most part, with a few controls to suggest that you are in charge or maintaining the 'system'. You tax virtually everything, and as the money flows back into the pot.....you have some 'Larry-guy' standing there with a list of things that make people happy. Naturally, you can't have free-beer, free-muffins, or free-vacations. But you can have money poured into poverty-projects, bridges, tram-lines that have zero return value, and fund spacious airports in the middle of nowhere.
The fake-hybrid-socialism system? The chief place today where you see it is Venezuela. The problem in this case is that you micromanaged the capitalistic system so much....that you can't even rely upon the local grocery to have toilet paper, ketchup, or watermelons. So when people come to you, and kinda expect your fake system to deploy to full capability, your response is that it's on full-turbo power, and it won't get much better.
As for the college kids who hyped-up and enthusiastic about socialism? They seem to be stuck on some fantasy-world that professor so-and-so describes but no one has actually been there or seen that. It's like that Star Trek series where people talk about Kilo-9 or the dark-planet (a fictional place), but they talking like it's potentially there.
In their mind, socialism is kind of an image of Disneyland, and it's all wonderful, free, and abundant in nature.
The 'Poop' Job
There's a piece off 'Hotair' that I read today....discussing San Francisco and the 'crap' on the streets. Someone did the research and found that the city funds a fairly large group of street cleaners with a special mission to do the 'poop' clean-up business of the homeless crowd.
The pay-level? That's what interested me.
They actually pay near $72,000 a year, for each person on the patrol. Then you get medical benefits, retirement, etc. All total? The city says near $185,000 per person.
It's an amazing amount of money. Course, you have to wear the bio-hazard gear.....tote around various hoses all day (it's probably sweaty work), and you have the potential to get into some stinky business. But here's the thing....you can probably retire by age fifty and collect at least $40,000 a year. Off that, in Tennessee.....you could live a pretty decent retirement.....having cleaned up 'crap' your entire life.
The pay-level? That's what interested me.
They actually pay near $72,000 a year, for each person on the patrol. Then you get medical benefits, retirement, etc. All total? The city says near $185,000 per person.
It's an amazing amount of money. Course, you have to wear the bio-hazard gear.....tote around various hoses all day (it's probably sweaty work), and you have the potential to get into some stinky business. But here's the thing....you can probably retire by age fifty and collect at least $40,000 a year. Off that, in Tennessee.....you could live a pretty decent retirement.....having cleaned up 'crap' your entire life.
Thursday, 23 August 2018
KKK, Then and Now
I'm often amused how journalists get wrapped up on the KKK-topic and they want you to put this topic in your top hundred things to worry about. So this is one of those historical essays I write....to establish some true basis of understanding.
First, the original KKK-concept occurred in the Pulaski, Tenn area, and probably was more tied to a local group of guys (six total), who wanted to make up a Greek 'club' like organization after the Civil War. In some ways, it was like lodge-group....with secrecy tied to it, and some likey hardcore drinking. The first group could be regarded as a weird collection of folks who had a dislike of the Democratic-style politics going on, and influences perceived in 'change'. Their chief problem in that original couple of years, was no central authority and no ability to kick out the rift-raft. Most tend to agree...evolution 1.0 of the KKK ended by 1870.
For the next forty years....KKK-like groups come and go, but none use the name. In some ways, they resemble more the Brown Shirts of Germany or the Black Shirts of Italy, in that period.
So you come to 1915, and version 2 of the KKK, which centered itself around Stone Mountain, Georgia. This group went back to the Greek-like club thrills, the secrecy, and this time....had a central authority.
This second group last for almost thirty years and probably reached near 6-million members toward the end. But their enthusiasm and problems, led onto KKK evolution number three.
For the third era, I tend to argue that this core group went through a massive recruitment spiral, and probably peaked out by the early 1970s. There might have been 10k to 20k members in that era.
So you come to today. You can review various estimations and people put the real number of 'paying members' (with membership) at 3,000 to 8,000 nationally. Proof? There simply isn't a reliable way to suggest the numbers.
Some might still be attracted to the anti-black theme or anti-Jew message. Some might simply see it as some mysterious Greek-like club (especially those who didn't do the college club membership deal).
If you went and tried to get full-up members to show up for some march? I doubt if you'd get more than a quarter of folks to go that far. They like the secrecy, but beyond that.....they don't want the extra thrills.
I think if you went into various communities today, and offered up a modern-day version of the 'Sons of Malta' (another secrecy group but not really into the KKK-type themes), then you'd have a fair number of folks interested and pursuing something like that. People just have a fascination with secret stuff (like the Freemasons).
Fake KKK thugs around? Last week, I was reading a piece of news and the news item seemed to have some suggestion of a fake KKK group. I would take a guess that maybe several fraudulent and fake groups exist....purely for political gathering purposes.
A threat to the nation? The 1915 group might have been a threat. But the original crew and the current existing crew are just not much of a threat.
First, the original KKK-concept occurred in the Pulaski, Tenn area, and probably was more tied to a local group of guys (six total), who wanted to make up a Greek 'club' like organization after the Civil War. In some ways, it was like lodge-group....with secrecy tied to it, and some likey hardcore drinking. The first group could be regarded as a weird collection of folks who had a dislike of the Democratic-style politics going on, and influences perceived in 'change'. Their chief problem in that original couple of years, was no central authority and no ability to kick out the rift-raft. Most tend to agree...evolution 1.0 of the KKK ended by 1870.
For the next forty years....KKK-like groups come and go, but none use the name. In some ways, they resemble more the Brown Shirts of Germany or the Black Shirts of Italy, in that period.
So you come to 1915, and version 2 of the KKK, which centered itself around Stone Mountain, Georgia. This group went back to the Greek-like club thrills, the secrecy, and this time....had a central authority.
This second group last for almost thirty years and probably reached near 6-million members toward the end. But their enthusiasm and problems, led onto KKK evolution number three.
For the third era, I tend to argue that this core group went through a massive recruitment spiral, and probably peaked out by the early 1970s. There might have been 10k to 20k members in that era.
So you come to today. You can review various estimations and people put the real number of 'paying members' (with membership) at 3,000 to 8,000 nationally. Proof? There simply isn't a reliable way to suggest the numbers.
Some might still be attracted to the anti-black theme or anti-Jew message. Some might simply see it as some mysterious Greek-like club (especially those who didn't do the college club membership deal).
If you went and tried to get full-up members to show up for some march? I doubt if you'd get more than a quarter of folks to go that far. They like the secrecy, but beyond that.....they don't want the extra thrills.
I think if you went into various communities today, and offered up a modern-day version of the 'Sons of Malta' (another secrecy group but not really into the KKK-type themes), then you'd have a fair number of folks interested and pursuing something like that. People just have a fascination with secret stuff (like the Freemasons).
Fake KKK thugs around? Last week, I was reading a piece of news and the news item seemed to have some suggestion of a fake KKK group. I would take a guess that maybe several fraudulent and fake groups exist....purely for political gathering purposes.
A threat to the nation? The 1915 group might have been a threat. But the original crew and the current existing crew are just not much of a threat.
Watergate?
I sat there today and watched through about 60 minutes of news coverage over the past three days.....where the term 'Watergate was mentioned at least twenty times. Watergate-this, and Watergate-that.
I admit I am nearing 60 years old and have some memory of the period, the activity, the characters, and downfall of Nixon.
But here's the thing. I suspect that two-thirds of the nation has virtually NO MEMORY of Watergate, and this hype? It'd doing absolutely nothing.
Some folks are probably sitting there and thinking Watergate was some dam structure which collapsed in 1913 in Arkansas, or it was a Detroit car model that was made for one brief year, or that it was a blonde gal from Tulsa who went by the name 'Henny' Watergate and she did some wild topless dancing in the 1970s.
The use of these 1970s journalists? Being dragged out and propped up for some twelve-minute lecture about something that no one really remembers? Well....that's the problem. They might as well be Detroit Lion coaches, Seattle city council members, or famous Mexican comedians.
By the middle of next week...some intellectual guy will meet up with the CNN, NPR, and CBS crowd.....discussing the discovery that the term 'Watergate' really is a mystery to two-thirds of the nation and maybe there needs to be another angle to destroying Trump (maybe connecting him to a UFO theorist group or a Swedish opera singer with Russian family connections).
Here's the funny thing.....more people can name women 'loved' on by Bill Clinton.....than Republican guys who 'fell' during the Watergate era. That ought to worry the Democrats greatly.
I admit I am nearing 60 years old and have some memory of the period, the activity, the characters, and downfall of Nixon.
But here's the thing. I suspect that two-thirds of the nation has virtually NO MEMORY of Watergate, and this hype? It'd doing absolutely nothing.
Some folks are probably sitting there and thinking Watergate was some dam structure which collapsed in 1913 in Arkansas, or it was a Detroit car model that was made for one brief year, or that it was a blonde gal from Tulsa who went by the name 'Henny' Watergate and she did some wild topless dancing in the 1970s.
The use of these 1970s journalists? Being dragged out and propped up for some twelve-minute lecture about something that no one really remembers? Well....that's the problem. They might as well be Detroit Lion coaches, Seattle city council members, or famous Mexican comedians.
By the middle of next week...some intellectual guy will meet up with the CNN, NPR, and CBS crowd.....discussing the discovery that the term 'Watergate' really is a mystery to two-thirds of the nation and maybe there needs to be another angle to destroying Trump (maybe connecting him to a UFO theorist group or a Swedish opera singer with Russian family connections).
Here's the funny thing.....more people can name women 'loved' on by Bill Clinton.....than Republican guys who 'fell' during the Watergate era. That ought to worry the Democrats greatly.
NFL
I should note, I just don't care much for the NFL, and have been that way for a couple of years. The kneeling business simply wrapped up the last bit of enthusiasm I had.
I noticed today that teams are a bit worried over fan numbers and filling seats as the season starts up, and they've gone to a new tactic.....heavily discounting beer and food prices. Course, this cuts into profits but the desperation is starting to show.
If the attendance or viewing numbers don't return to a norm? Most journalists were trying to tell a story in the late fall of 2017 that this was a temp thing, and it would return to normal. Why they choose that wording? Unknown.
The brand? It's in a freefall type situation and no one that you can readily identify for blame. If you were a owner of a billion-dollar club, and your profits were 20-percent off the norm....you'd be upset. You'd like to fire someone. But in this case.....you can't.
The camera guys? They likely have orders to avoid any camera display of empty seats. So every image will be selected carefully and the majority of camera footage will be of the field itself. The fact that 10,000 seats might be empty? It won't be discussed.
Bars that used to make big money off Monday night football? They would likely be looking for an alternate angle now.
At the bottom of this whole thing are college kids looking at the pay-dynamics and realizing that somewhere in the next year or two....there's going to be some shift in pay, and it won't be positive.
I noticed today that teams are a bit worried over fan numbers and filling seats as the season starts up, and they've gone to a new tactic.....heavily discounting beer and food prices. Course, this cuts into profits but the desperation is starting to show.
If the attendance or viewing numbers don't return to a norm? Most journalists were trying to tell a story in the late fall of 2017 that this was a temp thing, and it would return to normal. Why they choose that wording? Unknown.
The brand? It's in a freefall type situation and no one that you can readily identify for blame. If you were a owner of a billion-dollar club, and your profits were 20-percent off the norm....you'd be upset. You'd like to fire someone. But in this case.....you can't.
The camera guys? They likely have orders to avoid any camera display of empty seats. So every image will be selected carefully and the majority of camera footage will be of the field itself. The fact that 10,000 seats might be empty? It won't be discussed.
Bars that used to make big money off Monday night football? They would likely be looking for an alternate angle now.
At the bottom of this whole thing are college kids looking at the pay-dynamics and realizing that somewhere in the next year or two....there's going to be some shift in pay, and it won't be positive.
Tuesday, 21 August 2018
David Hogg and the 22nd District
There's been a piece or two over the past two days about David Hogg (the Parkland High School kid who gets hyped up over gun-control), and he's now said that when he turns 25 years old, he'll run for Representative (one has to assume he means the 22nd district).
I sat and pondered this logic.
First, the district was designed for two decades to be a fairly safe GOP district. That came to an end around before 2012's election (Allen West was pushed out of the district). At that point, the Democrats held a fair lead in normal elections. You can figure from the past three elections, there's a safe barrier of 10 to 15 points here for a Democrat to win. So this ought to be kinda easy for Hogg to win....right?
Second.....well, 2020 is a Census year, and 2026 (the year after he'd turn 25 years old) would be the first election for Hogg to run. You can pretty much bank on the fact that Florida (currently at 27 Representatives) is going to have a larger population and likely gain 2 more seats, which means....YES, a redistrict drawing. They will have in 2022....two additional districts. The odds of Parkland being modified into a plus-five point district for the GOP? I would kinda suspect that it might go that direction.
Third, here's this one odd factor about the 22nd District....the Latinos control 22-percent of the population. Blacks? 16-percent.
It might be time for the GOP to go out and recruit some young Latino upstart (say age 25 to 35), and start talking over funding the guy and symbolizing the 22nd District as a 50-50 district for Latino votes for the GOP.
Fourth, Hogg running on a purely anti-gun message? It won't work. One theme political campaigns typically fail.
I don't really want to discourage from running, but five years into the future, and figuring this redistricting likely to happen.....the odds are against him and his political dreams right now.
I sat and pondered this logic.
First, the district was designed for two decades to be a fairly safe GOP district. That came to an end around before 2012's election (Allen West was pushed out of the district). At that point, the Democrats held a fair lead in normal elections. You can figure from the past three elections, there's a safe barrier of 10 to 15 points here for a Democrat to win. So this ought to be kinda easy for Hogg to win....right?
Second.....well, 2020 is a Census year, and 2026 (the year after he'd turn 25 years old) would be the first election for Hogg to run. You can pretty much bank on the fact that Florida (currently at 27 Representatives) is going to have a larger population and likely gain 2 more seats, which means....YES, a redistrict drawing. They will have in 2022....two additional districts. The odds of Parkland being modified into a plus-five point district for the GOP? I would kinda suspect that it might go that direction.
Third, here's this one odd factor about the 22nd District....the Latinos control 22-percent of the population. Blacks? 16-percent.
It might be time for the GOP to go out and recruit some young Latino upstart (say age 25 to 35), and start talking over funding the guy and symbolizing the 22nd District as a 50-50 district for Latino votes for the GOP.
Fourth, Hogg running on a purely anti-gun message? It won't work. One theme political campaigns typically fail.
I don't really want to discourage from running, but five years into the future, and figuring this redistricting likely to happen.....the odds are against him and his political dreams right now.
Sunday, 19 August 2018
My Second Special Prosecutor Theory
About a month ago, I read through a number of pieces which discussed the idea of a 2nd special prosecutor (a second Mueller-type individual). I've sat and reviewed the discussions and formed this observation:
1. I think President Trump will by-pass 'old-man' Sessions in the spring of 2019, and appoint the second special prosecutor. Why then? Basically, that guy appointed will be 'fishing' during the campaign build-up to the 2020 election, and he'll be able to bring in twenty various characters.
2. Pay-back? By early 2019, I think as virtually all of the 'FBI-cards', the 'dossier-cards', and the 'FISA-abuse-cards' are laid out, you won't help but notice a conspiracy, and as much as the news media might yell about pay-back, it won't work.
3. Brennan in trouble? Based on the lie-to-Congress problem....he probably needs to go spend some money on real attornies and prepare for troubles.
4. McCain? If he's still around and kicking....he will likely face this special prosecutor and have to explain what he paid, and how he got into the dossier business. I think he'll be highly embarrassed and probably try to claim some Senate immunity from this special prosecutor.
5. Pain for the DNC? Public sentiment won't be very positive and it'll make the whole campaign for the Democratic primary period in 2020.....suffer.
6. Sessions? He'll have no authority over the 2nd special prosecutor and will turn into a more or less worthless attorney general (even more so than he is today). January of 2021 will arrive and he'll be the first to be let go. By 2025, no one will remember the guy, and it'll be mostly laughed over for this period that he served as AG.
7. Damage for Hillary Clinton? At some point, the prosecutor will turn and face the donations to the Clinton Foundation. I don't think the Foundation leadership will be able to survive this without one or two of them going off to some prison episode.
All of this will lead to a Senate confrontation in 2020 and 2021. With the public not buying into the news media message, I think the GOP control of the senate will continue on through 2020 and 2022's election period. You might actually see 60 to 65 GOP senators there in the 2nd Trump administration.
Damage-wise? Hundreds of books will be written over this period and the lack of appropriate behavior from dozens of Obama-period characters.
1. I think President Trump will by-pass 'old-man' Sessions in the spring of 2019, and appoint the second special prosecutor. Why then? Basically, that guy appointed will be 'fishing' during the campaign build-up to the 2020 election, and he'll be able to bring in twenty various characters.
2. Pay-back? By early 2019, I think as virtually all of the 'FBI-cards', the 'dossier-cards', and the 'FISA-abuse-cards' are laid out, you won't help but notice a conspiracy, and as much as the news media might yell about pay-back, it won't work.
3. Brennan in trouble? Based on the lie-to-Congress problem....he probably needs to go spend some money on real attornies and prepare for troubles.
4. McCain? If he's still around and kicking....he will likely face this special prosecutor and have to explain what he paid, and how he got into the dossier business. I think he'll be highly embarrassed and probably try to claim some Senate immunity from this special prosecutor.
5. Pain for the DNC? Public sentiment won't be very positive and it'll make the whole campaign for the Democratic primary period in 2020.....suffer.
6. Sessions? He'll have no authority over the 2nd special prosecutor and will turn into a more or less worthless attorney general (even more so than he is today). January of 2021 will arrive and he'll be the first to be let go. By 2025, no one will remember the guy, and it'll be mostly laughed over for this period that he served as AG.
7. Damage for Hillary Clinton? At some point, the prosecutor will turn and face the donations to the Clinton Foundation. I don't think the Foundation leadership will be able to survive this without one or two of them going off to some prison episode.
All of this will lead to a Senate confrontation in 2020 and 2021. With the public not buying into the news media message, I think the GOP control of the senate will continue on through 2020 and 2022's election period. You might actually see 60 to 65 GOP senators there in the 2nd Trump administration.
Damage-wise? Hundreds of books will be written over this period and the lack of appropriate behavior from dozens of Obama-period characters.
Saturday, 18 August 2018
Newspapers, the Anti-Trump Editorials, and the "Vanished' Readers
This past week, it was hyped by the news media that 350-odd newspapers went to a defensive stance on editorials, and 'blasted' President Trump as much as possible for the 'enemies of the people' commentary.
About six years ago, the PEW research folks went out and did a survey....finding that only 29-percent of American adults occasionally read the newspaper (meaning either daily or the weekend edition). That's it. It means that only one out of three is reading the newspapers, and that number may have grown worse over the past six years.
So as these folks mounted their massive 'you gotta love us' stance....it was mostly read by a very small group of people.
First, out of the hundred who have subscriptions....you can figure that roughly half of them read it only for the local news, high school sports, obituaries, state politics, and ad's. From the remaining fifty-percent.....those who are pro-Trump aren't likely to read it (trust me) probably number near half. So you basically had around 25-percent of the readers who might have gone to the editorial page to read through it. The odds that they agree with the summary? Well....that's another problem, because some of those folks will just say it's biased writing.
So what really happened to the "vanished" readers of newspapers?
First, newspapers got into slanted politics and agenda grouping. That was already becoming a problem in the 1970s.
Second, newspapers often got into censorship of embarrassing political stories because it reflected upon their 'favorite children'.
Third, newspapers started cover less and less of city/regional corruption.
Fourth, the editorial page is presently marginalized (I'm suggesting that fewer than 5-percent of subscribers will read it on a daily basis).
Fifth, people don't have 30 minutes to go and read through their local paper. My dad, throughout his entire life, read the paper daily.....but you sum up his review as being strictly the front page, the local news page, crime stuff, and obituaries......a basic 12-minute read. I think most people are that way today.
So I'd go and suggest that the newspapers go back to review how papers were written in the 1890s, and be prepared for shockers. The news was written in an entertaining fashion. Everyone wrote in the style that you'd expect from Hemingway or Steinbeck. Guys would sit on the front porch and quote things, as if it were an opera. Today's news? It's just not much on entertainment value, and the slant/bias just makes you laugh over the behavior demonstrated.
About six years ago, the PEW research folks went out and did a survey....finding that only 29-percent of American adults occasionally read the newspaper (meaning either daily or the weekend edition). That's it. It means that only one out of three is reading the newspapers, and that number may have grown worse over the past six years.
So as these folks mounted their massive 'you gotta love us' stance....it was mostly read by a very small group of people.
First, out of the hundred who have subscriptions....you can figure that roughly half of them read it only for the local news, high school sports, obituaries, state politics, and ad's. From the remaining fifty-percent.....those who are pro-Trump aren't likely to read it (trust me) probably number near half. So you basically had around 25-percent of the readers who might have gone to the editorial page to read through it. The odds that they agree with the summary? Well....that's another problem, because some of those folks will just say it's biased writing.
So what really happened to the "vanished" readers of newspapers?
First, newspapers got into slanted politics and agenda grouping. That was already becoming a problem in the 1970s.
Second, newspapers often got into censorship of embarrassing political stories because it reflected upon their 'favorite children'.
Third, newspapers started cover less and less of city/regional corruption.
Fourth, the editorial page is presently marginalized (I'm suggesting that fewer than 5-percent of subscribers will read it on a daily basis).
Fifth, people don't have 30 minutes to go and read through their local paper. My dad, throughout his entire life, read the paper daily.....but you sum up his review as being strictly the front page, the local news page, crime stuff, and obituaries......a basic 12-minute read. I think most people are that way today.
So I'd go and suggest that the newspapers go back to review how papers were written in the 1890s, and be prepared for shockers. The news was written in an entertaining fashion. Everyone wrote in the style that you'd expect from Hemingway or Steinbeck. Guys would sit on the front porch and quote things, as if it were an opera. Today's news? It's just not much on entertainment value, and the slant/bias just makes you laugh over the behavior demonstrated.
Article 88 the Guy
For 99-percent of us vets who finish up service.....we are done and you can't hold us to some UCMJ (military terms for court activity by a military fixture) situation. For generals and admirals? They oddly are held to UCMJ standards after they retire, and can be brought in for court business.
Over the last day or two, I've sat and read (while on a short trip) various words by Admiral Raven.....backing up his former associate Brennan, and attempting to cast a long shadow toward the President.
Oddly, there exists Article 88 of the UCMJ, which basically says any “contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State”....can be used to drag you into a military court and likely end your retirement situation with a reduction in grade (pension threat).....maybe one step.....maybe two steps.
Some advice for the retired general 'geeks'.....it's best to just retire and go play golf, and not get into heated political chatting. Your pension is absolutely dependent upon that.
Over the last day or two, I've sat and read (while on a short trip) various words by Admiral Raven.....backing up his former associate Brennan, and attempting to cast a long shadow toward the President.
Oddly, there exists Article 88 of the UCMJ, which basically says any “contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State”....can be used to drag you into a military court and likely end your retirement situation with a reduction in grade (pension threat).....maybe one step.....maybe two steps.
Some advice for the retired general 'geeks'.....it's best to just retire and go play golf, and not get into heated political chatting. Your pension is absolutely dependent upon that.
Wednesday, 15 August 2018
Omarosa
I worked for a company once that hired some *wonder* for a web position. About four hours into their employment, you knew this was a screwed up individual, a slacker, absolute zero in team skills and seemed to be nuts. Around the fourth day, they brought the person in with HR and dumped them. I see Omarosa in the same light.
I went to look up the VP Gore period when Omarosa was first hired, almost 20 years ago. They had all these recommendations. She went four jobs in six months and was then ^dumped^.
Yesterday, I watched a 15 minute clip from The Apprentice Show with her. She seemed to be some drama queen, with no management skills or patience.
So, my prediction.
1. A search warrant episode by next week, on the tape business. She will go nuts at the door and have to be restrained.
2. Quickly to be brought into a grand jury, with fed charges. More drama there when she refuses to cooperate.
3. First lawyer is fired, and she has trouble in finding someone to represent her.
4. She will refuse to declare all tapes, to the point where the judge puts into mention, maybe up to two weeks.
5. She will be ordered for a mental eval.
6. The WH team then files a case against her for disclosure issues. Figure this to be a 150,000 dollar episode minimum.
7. On the tapes, she will be convicted and get four months in prison.
8. Jobs after this? None. Some idiot will use her three months as a radio host, and find that fewer than 50,000 listen to her.
9. She will eventually be noted as bi-polar.
Trump? Ten years into the future, he will be crazy enough her again.
I went to look up the VP Gore period when Omarosa was first hired, almost 20 years ago. They had all these recommendations. She went four jobs in six months and was then ^dumped^.
Yesterday, I watched a 15 minute clip from The Apprentice Show with her. She seemed to be some drama queen, with no management skills or patience.
So, my prediction.
1. A search warrant episode by next week, on the tape business. She will go nuts at the door and have to be restrained.
2. Quickly to be brought into a grand jury, with fed charges. More drama there when she refuses to cooperate.
3. First lawyer is fired, and she has trouble in finding someone to represent her.
4. She will refuse to declare all tapes, to the point where the judge puts into mention, maybe up to two weeks.
5. She will be ordered for a mental eval.
6. The WH team then files a case against her for disclosure issues. Figure this to be a 150,000 dollar episode minimum.
7. On the tapes, she will be convicted and get four months in prison.
8. Jobs after this? None. Some idiot will use her three months as a radio host, and find that fewer than 50,000 listen to her.
9. She will eventually be noted as bi-polar.
Trump? Ten years into the future, he will be crazy enough her again.
Sunday, 12 August 2018
'Office' Reboot?
Rumors drift around and you notice them on various sites about these folks continually talking up a reboot of the TV show....the 'Office'.
On my list of the top ten shows ever.....I put the Office into that group. Course, I will admit....there were problems with the show. First and foremost.....too many characters. You sat there for what amounts to a 22-minute show, and potentially had fifteen people drift in and out....with two or three of them getting only two lines each for an entire show. The other issue was that they opened the door to dozens of story-ideas, and just left them there lingering (like Toby being a killer).
So, my idea for a reboot?
I would start fresh and flip this totally over. Make it a muffin company rather than a paper company.
Set the stage for Iowa or Wisconsin instead.
Limit the primary characters to eight, and have twenty others who rotate in for four to six episodes per season.
The odds of this reboot occurring? Here's the essential problem....there just isn't much creativity in TV today, unless you go over to Netflix. So, it's a pretty sure bet that by 2022....some TV executive will lock onto this idea and proceed forward.
On my list of the top ten shows ever.....I put the Office into that group. Course, I will admit....there were problems with the show. First and foremost.....too many characters. You sat there for what amounts to a 22-minute show, and potentially had fifteen people drift in and out....with two or three of them getting only two lines each for an entire show. The other issue was that they opened the door to dozens of story-ideas, and just left them there lingering (like Toby being a killer).
So, my idea for a reboot?
I would start fresh and flip this totally over. Make it a muffin company rather than a paper company.
Set the stage for Iowa or Wisconsin instead.
Limit the primary characters to eight, and have twenty others who rotate in for four to six episodes per season.
The odds of this reboot occurring? Here's the essential problem....there just isn't much creativity in TV today, unless you go over to Netflix. So, it's a pretty sure bet that by 2022....some TV executive will lock onto this idea and proceed forward.
Saturday, 11 August 2018
How to Earn the Status of 'Enemy of the People'
Status, from what I've observed in life.....is generally 'earned', and not 'given'. In this case of the news media, being identified as 'enemy of the people'....I think they've spent several decades 'earning' this respect.
First, I think that the idea lodged in the heads of the big-time journalists (the one who made it to the Washington Post, CNN, NY Times, MSNBC, etc) is that they were smarter and more intellectual than their viewers/readers. Maybe through the 1960s, that was true. By the 1990s, I think thirty-percent of the nation was just as smart or capable as the journalists themselves. Today, we might be near fifty-percent being as capable as the journalists.
Second, the minute you say unnamed sources (anonymous).....I shut down or hit 'mute'. Sorry, but that gimmick doesn't work anymore.
Third, news around the clock? In the 1990s, it was hyped up and people into the 'trap'. In the past twenty years.....there's some public frustration with the amount of news which is deemed significant, but after eight minutes, you've lost interest and flipped to an episode of Gilligan's Island.
Fourth, expert #9 says. Basically, the trust level on experts that are drawn out for TV commentary has reached a level where you might as well drag out a Chattanooga barber or some homeless guy from Tampa. The minute you bring on such-and-such expert from this foundation, I go and review who funds the foundation. If they won't tell you the backer of the foundation....I discount anything that the expert says.
Fifth, statistics really don't matter. It's pretty easy to go and construct a poll with 3,000 people.....to say X, or Y. So the value of polls? Well....it's actually a number less than zero.
Sixth, the same 'quote' game. It's an odd thing....at least once a month I'll go to a dozen news media points and find that they've written up articles or chatting on something.....then they all use the same general quote that seems to be out of thin air. Course, you could only go and have that single quote....if you were conspiring in some way with some source to lead the news in one certain dirction and angle. If you only watch or read one source.....you'd never notice this. In my case, I read or view at least fifty sites a day. Episodes like this can't be accidental.
Seventh and final....the minute you construct a story that is supposed to anchor you to some idea or process, and LEAD the person to some agenda/conclusion.....you've failed as journalists. This is done almost daily now.
Maybe there are some journalists still around and can perform the work required. The rest? I think the word provocateur might fit better. The last time I looked up the description of provocateur.....it fitted well with 'enemy'.
First, I think that the idea lodged in the heads of the big-time journalists (the one who made it to the Washington Post, CNN, NY Times, MSNBC, etc) is that they were smarter and more intellectual than their viewers/readers. Maybe through the 1960s, that was true. By the 1990s, I think thirty-percent of the nation was just as smart or capable as the journalists themselves. Today, we might be near fifty-percent being as capable as the journalists.
Second, the minute you say unnamed sources (anonymous).....I shut down or hit 'mute'. Sorry, but that gimmick doesn't work anymore.
Third, news around the clock? In the 1990s, it was hyped up and people into the 'trap'. In the past twenty years.....there's some public frustration with the amount of news which is deemed significant, but after eight minutes, you've lost interest and flipped to an episode of Gilligan's Island.
Fourth, expert #9 says. Basically, the trust level on experts that are drawn out for TV commentary has reached a level where you might as well drag out a Chattanooga barber or some homeless guy from Tampa. The minute you bring on such-and-such expert from this foundation, I go and review who funds the foundation. If they won't tell you the backer of the foundation....I discount anything that the expert says.
Fifth, statistics really don't matter. It's pretty easy to go and construct a poll with 3,000 people.....to say X, or Y. So the value of polls? Well....it's actually a number less than zero.
Sixth, the same 'quote' game. It's an odd thing....at least once a month I'll go to a dozen news media points and find that they've written up articles or chatting on something.....then they all use the same general quote that seems to be out of thin air. Course, you could only go and have that single quote....if you were conspiring in some way with some source to lead the news in one certain dirction and angle. If you only watch or read one source.....you'd never notice this. In my case, I read or view at least fifty sites a day. Episodes like this can't be accidental.
Seventh and final....the minute you construct a story that is supposed to anchor you to some idea or process, and LEAD the person to some agenda/conclusion.....you've failed as journalists. This is done almost daily now.
Maybe there are some journalists still around and can perform the work required. The rest? I think the word provocateur might fit better. The last time I looked up the description of provocateur.....it fitted well with 'enemy'.
USA Today Piece
There's this editorial off USA Today, which basically says.....'dump the Presidency because Trump has proven that the office is a threat to the nation'.
It goes on for about sixty lines and just suggests that as you abolish the President's office.....you just go with the legislative arm to manage the government. In terms of a convincing argument, it's a watered-down piece of a editorial that you'd expect out of a 2nd-year college student, who probably should have gone to some community college and gotten into carpentry.
So you go and examine the 'need'. I suspect if you went back to the early 1800s....the majority of Americans marginally could name the President, but few (if any) could name the VP. Until you reach 1860, there's a limited impact of the President upon Americans and their 'lifestyle'.
Since the late 1920s? Once the Wall Street crash occurred, and you go through the depression....the President's office is deemed essential to the lives of every single American. FDR forged this 'brand' upon the nation. Since that point, the belief is that you need some 'Jesus Christ-like' character to anchor the office and present some image, with miracles and legacy 'gifts'.
If you went and abolished the office? You would basically go the German-brand of government where the legislature is elected and the party in charge would vote for a Chancellor or Prime Minister, and they would do virtually everything required to manage the government. Oh, there is a President within the German system....but he's there mostly to do ceremonies and speeches. The importance of the Party? Yes, the Party becomes the essential 'thrill' of the government and everything is dependent in these elections to get the Party up to the top circle.
Would this resolve this guy's 'problem'? Within ten years, he'd come back and suggest that the Prime Minister is screwed up and we need to fire that gal or guy.
My suggestion here is for people to get a life....a hobby....limit yourself for a month to just local news....read a book....do some landscaping....paint your fence posts....go fishing. This conclusion that you can only be happy with the 'right' kind of President? It's a fraud.
It goes on for about sixty lines and just suggests that as you abolish the President's office.....you just go with the legislative arm to manage the government. In terms of a convincing argument, it's a watered-down piece of a editorial that you'd expect out of a 2nd-year college student, who probably should have gone to some community college and gotten into carpentry.
So you go and examine the 'need'. I suspect if you went back to the early 1800s....the majority of Americans marginally could name the President, but few (if any) could name the VP. Until you reach 1860, there's a limited impact of the President upon Americans and their 'lifestyle'.
Since the late 1920s? Once the Wall Street crash occurred, and you go through the depression....the President's office is deemed essential to the lives of every single American. FDR forged this 'brand' upon the nation. Since that point, the belief is that you need some 'Jesus Christ-like' character to anchor the office and present some image, with miracles and legacy 'gifts'.
If you went and abolished the office? You would basically go the German-brand of government where the legislature is elected and the party in charge would vote for a Chancellor or Prime Minister, and they would do virtually everything required to manage the government. Oh, there is a President within the German system....but he's there mostly to do ceremonies and speeches. The importance of the Party? Yes, the Party becomes the essential 'thrill' of the government and everything is dependent in these elections to get the Party up to the top circle.
Would this resolve this guy's 'problem'? Within ten years, he'd come back and suggest that the Prime Minister is screwed up and we need to fire that gal or guy.
My suggestion here is for people to get a life....a hobby....limit yourself for a month to just local news....read a book....do some landscaping....paint your fence posts....go fishing. This conclusion that you can only be happy with the 'right' kind of President? It's a fraud.
Monday, 6 August 2018
The General People That I Don't Pay Attention To
1. Anyone connected to the NFL (players, coaches, ex-players, or NFL executives). Note: I will give NFL owners sixty seconds of time to say something.
2. John McCain. To be honest, I haven't paid attention to McCain since November of 2008.
3. Anyone representing the Catholic Church. Note, if you are just a practicing private Catholic and just want to discuss professional wrestling, general topics, or roller-derby....I'll sit for several hours with you. It's the robe-guys that I have a problem with.
4. Journalists over the age of sixty, with the exception of Pat Buchanan.
5. Former Presidents.
6. NPR moderators.
7. Anyone wearing a Che Guevara or Mao t-shirt.
8. UFO, Bigfoot, or cattle mutilation enthusiasts.
9. Anyone who obsesses more than twenty minutes on the 2016 election, and they can be either Republican or Democrat.
10. Vegetarians who want to chat about their anti-meat philosophy.
11. NASCAR enthusiasts.
12. Bible enthusiasts who want to chat endlessly about the Book of Revelations.
13. Fake Vietnam War vets.
14. People who are generally living twenty years in the past, and reminisce at least three hours per day.
15. Fake intellectuals.
16. People hyped up on bringing down capitalism and installing socialism....who generally get inspirational about Finland and Iceland, but admit they've never been to either land.
17. People who talk excessively about stopping the Fascists, but seem to be one themselves.
18. People who seem to have spent ten years in college but don't seem to have any talent other than working for a university.
2. John McCain. To be honest, I haven't paid attention to McCain since November of 2008.
3. Anyone representing the Catholic Church. Note, if you are just a practicing private Catholic and just want to discuss professional wrestling, general topics, or roller-derby....I'll sit for several hours with you. It's the robe-guys that I have a problem with.
4. Journalists over the age of sixty, with the exception of Pat Buchanan.
5. Former Presidents.
6. NPR moderators.
7. Anyone wearing a Che Guevara or Mao t-shirt.
8. UFO, Bigfoot, or cattle mutilation enthusiasts.
9. Anyone who obsesses more than twenty minutes on the 2016 election, and they can be either Republican or Democrat.
10. Vegetarians who want to chat about their anti-meat philosophy.
11. NASCAR enthusiasts.
12. Bible enthusiasts who want to chat endlessly about the Book of Revelations.
13. Fake Vietnam War vets.
14. People who are generally living twenty years in the past, and reminisce at least three hours per day.
15. Fake intellectuals.
16. People hyped up on bringing down capitalism and installing socialism....who generally get inspirational about Finland and Iceland, but admit they've never been to either land.
17. People who talk excessively about stopping the Fascists, but seem to be one themselves.
18. People who seem to have spent ten years in college but don't seem to have any talent other than working for a university.
Saturday, 4 August 2018
Dan
I sat and read a piece today that brought up Dan Rather's name. I sat and pondered upon this.
To be honest....if you are over the age of fifty.....you probably know Dan. If you are between 40 and 50.....you've seen Dan somewhat and at least know that he was once a journalist for one of the networks (but you can cite which one).
So then you come to the crowd who are between 16 and 40 years old. You can quiz ten-thousand of them, and likely only ten folks know of Dan.
It amazes me in some ways that journalists want to continue to bring Dan up...citing his quotes or hyping his wisdom. Some of the younger folks think that Dan is some ex-Senator, or a former Commissioner of the NFL. A handful might suspect that Dan was the US ambassador to Singapore for a couple of years.
Is it really necessary to cite Dan's opinion? I've come to the point where Dan's analysis is about as important as some local barber or a Texas rancher. Not that I want to hurt Dan's feelings but his day has come and gone.
To be honest....if you are over the age of fifty.....you probably know Dan. If you are between 40 and 50.....you've seen Dan somewhat and at least know that he was once a journalist for one of the networks (but you can cite which one).
So then you come to the crowd who are between 16 and 40 years old. You can quiz ten-thousand of them, and likely only ten folks know of Dan.
It amazes me in some ways that journalists want to continue to bring Dan up...citing his quotes or hyping his wisdom. Some of the younger folks think that Dan is some ex-Senator, or a former Commissioner of the NFL. A handful might suspect that Dan was the US ambassador to Singapore for a couple of years.
Is it really necessary to cite Dan's opinion? I've come to the point where Dan's analysis is about as important as some local barber or a Texas rancher. Not that I want to hurt Dan's feelings but his day has come and gone.
My Brief Note on the Handmaid's Tale
I sat this week and watched one single episode of the Handmaid's Tale (series). My observations:
1. If you went and took '1984', 'Planet of the Apes', 'Logans Run', and 'Clash of the Eagles', and just blended them all into one....then hyped it with lusty stuff, women bickering, and society on the verge of.....well, more or less, nothing, then you'd have the basic story.
2. The story seems to revolve around some big chaos where Washington DC got killed off, and people were suddenly whipped into some fake religious frenzy.
3. Oddly, women are told not read or get smart....that guys can handle all that smart stuff.
4. Women seem to be there mostly for domestic purposes, but about half of them have figured out some way to get other women to do the domestic work.
5. The production guys seem to hype on some science fiction theme but on my scale of science fiction....it's about a '2' on a scale of 1 to 10.
6. Jezebels seem popular. The problem I see is that 90-percent of the public can't give you a simple 10-word explanation for what a Jezebel is. My description is a loser-woman who has married up with up and coming lawyer guy who will become governor and president one day, and she has no other real talents in life other than being the wife of the guy.
7. A whole lot of losers in the background who don't seem to be nothing more than 'snowflakes' and waiting on some Rambo-like character to arrive and solve things.
8. Just on personal interpretation, it's kinda like an afternoon soap opera, except there's a lot of religious talk.
9. By the end of the 45-odd minutes, I tried to imagine a reason to watch another episode, and finally just said 'no'.....it seemed to be developed on some intellectual level and wanted to convince me of a moral story in progress, with a bit of science fiction.
10. People seem to desire to escape off to Canada, for whatever reason. I never did get the understanding of this....why Canada was better except they didn't have all this religious stuff (maybe). I had this image of snow, guys drinking beer, bacon, and ice hockey as they discussed the reasons to make way to Canada.
Not to insult anyone, but it'd be a lot easier to accept if you had two or three Zombies appear each day on the show, or if this were some cowboy western epic theme with the same characters.
1. If you went and took '1984', 'Planet of the Apes', 'Logans Run', and 'Clash of the Eagles', and just blended them all into one....then hyped it with lusty stuff, women bickering, and society on the verge of.....well, more or less, nothing, then you'd have the basic story.
2. The story seems to revolve around some big chaos where Washington DC got killed off, and people were suddenly whipped into some fake religious frenzy.
3. Oddly, women are told not read or get smart....that guys can handle all that smart stuff.
4. Women seem to be there mostly for domestic purposes, but about half of them have figured out some way to get other women to do the domestic work.
5. The production guys seem to hype on some science fiction theme but on my scale of science fiction....it's about a '2' on a scale of 1 to 10.
6. Jezebels seem popular. The problem I see is that 90-percent of the public can't give you a simple 10-word explanation for what a Jezebel is. My description is a loser-woman who has married up with up and coming lawyer guy who will become governor and president one day, and she has no other real talents in life other than being the wife of the guy.
7. A whole lot of losers in the background who don't seem to be nothing more than 'snowflakes' and waiting on some Rambo-like character to arrive and solve things.
8. Just on personal interpretation, it's kinda like an afternoon soap opera, except there's a lot of religious talk.
9. By the end of the 45-odd minutes, I tried to imagine a reason to watch another episode, and finally just said 'no'.....it seemed to be developed on some intellectual level and wanted to convince me of a moral story in progress, with a bit of science fiction.
10. People seem to desire to escape off to Canada, for whatever reason. I never did get the understanding of this....why Canada was better except they didn't have all this religious stuff (maybe). I had this image of snow, guys drinking beer, bacon, and ice hockey as they discussed the reasons to make way to Canada.
Not to insult anyone, but it'd be a lot easier to accept if you had two or three Zombies appear each day on the show, or if this were some cowboy western epic theme with the same characters.
What Is Putin's Secret Plan?
After a fair amount of pondering, I've come to five points:
1. He wants to build a wall on the US border.
2. He wants Americans working, as much as possible, and apparently paying state/federal taxes.
3. He wants to destroy CNN.
4. He wants to introduce a national ID required for voting, and apparently eliminate double-voters and dead-voters from the poll listings.
5. He wants 'unbridled optimism' to exist again in the US.
1. He wants to build a wall on the US border.
2. He wants Americans working, as much as possible, and apparently paying state/federal taxes.
3. He wants to destroy CNN.
4. He wants to introduce a national ID required for voting, and apparently eliminate double-voters and dead-voters from the poll listings.
5. He wants 'unbridled optimism' to exist again in the US.
Friday, 3 August 2018
"Enemies of the People"
It's like a title for some movie with Tom Cruise and Samuel L. Jackson.
How did the news media reach this stage?
Well....they've been hard at work for over forty years or more. I suspect in the 1990s....some people began to look at the construction of stories, the value put into the story, the slant, and the 'experts' involved.....then started asking questions.
The platforms? ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, WaPo, NY Times, Time, Newsweek, MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN. Behind them are another two-hundred-odd platforms (like Drudge).
Around 2008 to 2012....social media crept into the room, and the public eventually began to realize the fake nature of news there (way before the news people 'branded' it).
At some point, the intellectual folks began to work the magic into movies, TV shows, and even songs. Eventually....the public began to figure that gimmick out as well.
So here's the board today....no one is really reading Time and Newsweek (enough to say their profit margin is pretty much zeroed out). CNN is actually beaten on a nightly basis by the Food Network. The NY Times has a credibility issue which seems to pop up every two or three months. Anonymous sources cited on ABC, CBS, and NBC don't really grab our attention anymore. The fake Republican angle often used on MSNBC is more or less amusing and taken as a comedy effort.
Perhaps "enemies" is the wrong word to use. Maybe 'stooges' would be a better term.
This CNN reporter....Jim Acosta? Actually, I've reached a point where I enjoy seeing him come on the air and challenge the White House Press Spokesman. It's like a 100 pound guy trying to intimidate Mike Tyson, and Mike tries to just push him back in a nice fashion, and then later with no patience left....Mike takes one swipe at the kid, and he falls. I enjoy watching that now.....over and over.
Please CNN....don't reassign Jim Acosta. We need Jim there to remind us of the dopes in society.
All of this leads back to bias noted in the news. Society is very capable of recognizing bias, and laughing over the juvenile attempt. I think in some ways.....they want this scenario to continue because it's just pure entertainment now. Yes, kinda like fake wrestling....where it's all done for a laugh.
How did the news media reach this stage?
Well....they've been hard at work for over forty years or more. I suspect in the 1990s....some people began to look at the construction of stories, the value put into the story, the slant, and the 'experts' involved.....then started asking questions.
The platforms? ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, WaPo, NY Times, Time, Newsweek, MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN. Behind them are another two-hundred-odd platforms (like Drudge).
Around 2008 to 2012....social media crept into the room, and the public eventually began to realize the fake nature of news there (way before the news people 'branded' it).
At some point, the intellectual folks began to work the magic into movies, TV shows, and even songs. Eventually....the public began to figure that gimmick out as well.
So here's the board today....no one is really reading Time and Newsweek (enough to say their profit margin is pretty much zeroed out). CNN is actually beaten on a nightly basis by the Food Network. The NY Times has a credibility issue which seems to pop up every two or three months. Anonymous sources cited on ABC, CBS, and NBC don't really grab our attention anymore. The fake Republican angle often used on MSNBC is more or less amusing and taken as a comedy effort.
Perhaps "enemies" is the wrong word to use. Maybe 'stooges' would be a better term.
This CNN reporter....Jim Acosta? Actually, I've reached a point where I enjoy seeing him come on the air and challenge the White House Press Spokesman. It's like a 100 pound guy trying to intimidate Mike Tyson, and Mike tries to just push him back in a nice fashion, and then later with no patience left....Mike takes one swipe at the kid, and he falls. I enjoy watching that now.....over and over.
Please CNN....don't reassign Jim Acosta. We need Jim there to remind us of the dopes in society.
All of this leads back to bias noted in the news. Society is very capable of recognizing bias, and laughing over the juvenile attempt. I think in some ways.....they want this scenario to continue because it's just pure entertainment now. Yes, kinda like fake wrestling....where it's all done for a laugh.
Thursday, 2 August 2018
ALF?
I sat and read an entertainment piece today, which indicated that ALF is in the discussion stage of being brought back. For October new shows? Very doubtful. I'm guessing they are talking October 2019 at the earliest.
I sat and pondered upon this. ALF in modern times? ALF with an Amazon account? ALF with credit cards? ALF making Trump-like comments over Twitter? ALF with a Facebook account? ALF registered to vote? ALF watching 200 hours per month of Friends? ALF with an account to Radio Shack? ALF doing vegan one week, and then realizing what it really means? ALF drinking a 50-50 mix of Tab and Dr Pepper? ALF writing science fiction books and selling them under the fake name of Gordon Shumway? ALF looking for a safe space?
I suspect the writers have at least 3,000 ideas for the first season alone.
I sat and pondered upon this. ALF in modern times? ALF with an Amazon account? ALF with credit cards? ALF making Trump-like comments over Twitter? ALF with a Facebook account? ALF registered to vote? ALF watching 200 hours per month of Friends? ALF with an account to Radio Shack? ALF doing vegan one week, and then realizing what it really means? ALF drinking a 50-50 mix of Tab and Dr Pepper? ALF writing science fiction books and selling them under the fake name of Gordon Shumway? ALF looking for a safe space?
I suspect the writers have at least 3,000 ideas for the first season alone.
Trump-Unbridled-Optimism-Syndrome (Parody)
(Parody) Clyde got up one morning and his wife decided to speak to him....about a problem.
This conversation led to one central theme....Clyde's wife felt that he seemed overly happy with life, more so than normal. It just wasn't right. She told Clyde that she'd noticed almost tears coming down his cheeks when he arose and opened curtains and gazed at the morning sun rising. Since the spring of 2017, she noted this 'passion' over life.
Clyde admitted that he did feel a bit more optimistic than normal. NO...says the wife, this is more than that. She suggested physiological treatment.
So Clyde went off and asked his associates about a recommendation. The druggie at the office could name a good doctor but that wasn't the problem. The gal with personality issues could name a good doctor but that wasn't the problem. The Vietnam vet chief could name a good doctor but that wasn't the problem. The HR guy flipping into a trans-lady could name a good doctor but that wasn't the problem. Eventually, the security guard at the front door had a private chat with Clyde.
'Duke' was a Army vet....black guy....often obsessed with NCAA football....often bragged of playing poker one night with one of bin Laden's henchmen in some faraway jail-house....and was a happy-go-lucky security guard for the company. Oh, and he was a noted former Democrat, turned Republican.
'Duke' said there's only one doctor for this, and gave Clyde the number.
Clyde made the appointment and the next day....showed up at some office that seemed to be designed to look like 1969. The doctor asks about a dozen questions, and then states in a matter-of-a-fact way....Clyde, you got TUOS. Clyde was of course thinking it was a sexual disorder but the doctor corrected him quickly. No, it's Trump Unbridled Optimism Syndrome.
The doctor reassured him that things were fine and that he had a special group which met on Wednesday nights to discuss matters. He wanted Clyde to show up....but then said it'd be best not speak at the beginning part.
So Clyde shows up on the next Wednesday meeting and is there with six other folks and the doctor. They start around and talking about 'their problem'. It seems that it started on 9 November 2016. Anxiety, panic attacks, stress, heartburn, and so on.
About twenty minutes into this, Clyde realizes that he's in a group of Hillary Lost It Syndrome (HLIS) folks. He starts to eyeball the doorway and to leave.
The doctor gives a wink and turns to Clyde...asking him about his great fall on 9 November, and how he emerged.
Clyde starts to realize that he's not there to help himself....he's there to bring people to the 'unbridled optimism' position. He starts to talk about his woeful family, unemployable son, the niece with no skill or future, and the worry over his job holding out.
Tears flow as Clyde tells the sad prospective of his family in 2016. They just didn't have any optimism. By summer of 2017, something clicked. The son was hired up by some company, and made enough to have his own apartment. The niece got hired by some gun-shop and discovered that she had some knack on selling rifles. With the tax changes, Clyde had enough money to take his wife to Aruba for a week of hot lusty passion.
Clyde arose from his chair and began to wave his arms around and get all animated. He'd helped some lady from his church rewrite her resume and get her hired up for a job (her first job, at age fifty). He'd given up watching NFL football and was helping a neighbor repaint their house. He hated cats, but had gone to the county center and adopted two cats.
The atmosphere in the room was electrified. Unbridled optimism was brewing thick and strong. The doctor gave a wink. The session ended an hour later, and just about all of the folks there came over and offered a handshake. They all felt better....they felt like a great burden had been lifted off their chest.
Clyde went home and his wife asked about the psychological session with the group. Clyde stood there and thought about it for a minute, and then responded: "What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate". The wife responded....that's a direct quote from President Trump. "Yes" responded Clyde. A twist of fate here and there....brought on unbridled optimism.
This conversation led to one central theme....Clyde's wife felt that he seemed overly happy with life, more so than normal. It just wasn't right. She told Clyde that she'd noticed almost tears coming down his cheeks when he arose and opened curtains and gazed at the morning sun rising. Since the spring of 2017, she noted this 'passion' over life.
Clyde admitted that he did feel a bit more optimistic than normal. NO...says the wife, this is more than that. She suggested physiological treatment.
So Clyde went off and asked his associates about a recommendation. The druggie at the office could name a good doctor but that wasn't the problem. The gal with personality issues could name a good doctor but that wasn't the problem. The Vietnam vet chief could name a good doctor but that wasn't the problem. The HR guy flipping into a trans-lady could name a good doctor but that wasn't the problem. Eventually, the security guard at the front door had a private chat with Clyde.
'Duke' was a Army vet....black guy....often obsessed with NCAA football....often bragged of playing poker one night with one of bin Laden's henchmen in some faraway jail-house....and was a happy-go-lucky security guard for the company. Oh, and he was a noted former Democrat, turned Republican.
'Duke' said there's only one doctor for this, and gave Clyde the number.
Clyde made the appointment and the next day....showed up at some office that seemed to be designed to look like 1969. The doctor asks about a dozen questions, and then states in a matter-of-a-fact way....Clyde, you got TUOS. Clyde was of course thinking it was a sexual disorder but the doctor corrected him quickly. No, it's Trump Unbridled Optimism Syndrome.
The doctor reassured him that things were fine and that he had a special group which met on Wednesday nights to discuss matters. He wanted Clyde to show up....but then said it'd be best not speak at the beginning part.
So Clyde shows up on the next Wednesday meeting and is there with six other folks and the doctor. They start around and talking about 'their problem'. It seems that it started on 9 November 2016. Anxiety, panic attacks, stress, heartburn, and so on.
About twenty minutes into this, Clyde realizes that he's in a group of Hillary Lost It Syndrome (HLIS) folks. He starts to eyeball the doorway and to leave.
The doctor gives a wink and turns to Clyde...asking him about his great fall on 9 November, and how he emerged.
Clyde starts to realize that he's not there to help himself....he's there to bring people to the 'unbridled optimism' position. He starts to talk about his woeful family, unemployable son, the niece with no skill or future, and the worry over his job holding out.
Tears flow as Clyde tells the sad prospective of his family in 2016. They just didn't have any optimism. By summer of 2017, something clicked. The son was hired up by some company, and made enough to have his own apartment. The niece got hired by some gun-shop and discovered that she had some knack on selling rifles. With the tax changes, Clyde had enough money to take his wife to Aruba for a week of hot lusty passion.
Clyde arose from his chair and began to wave his arms around and get all animated. He'd helped some lady from his church rewrite her resume and get her hired up for a job (her first job, at age fifty). He'd given up watching NFL football and was helping a neighbor repaint their house. He hated cats, but had gone to the county center and adopted two cats.
The atmosphere in the room was electrified. Unbridled optimism was brewing thick and strong. The doctor gave a wink. The session ended an hour later, and just about all of the folks there came over and offered a handshake. They all felt better....they felt like a great burden had been lifted off their chest.
Clyde went home and his wife asked about the psychological session with the group. Clyde stood there and thought about it for a minute, and then responded: "What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate". The wife responded....that's a direct quote from President Trump. "Yes" responded Clyde. A twist of fate here and there....brought on unbridled optimism.
Humble Opinion
Ten news events, and just my observations:
1. On this missing Iowa college student, Mollie Tibbetts. Cops say she finished her run....went back to the house, and did homework. Between that point and the next morning.....she disappeared. No blood in the house.....no scuffle damage....nothing. Whoever came to the house, was someone she knew. Or....she never really came back to the house, and the homework business is all faked up.
2. Senator Feinstein woke up a couple of years ago in the middle of a FBI face-to-face meeting....to learn one of her hired folks was probably working as a amateur-spy for China. My question is....how many other Senators have been greeted by the FBI and told the same type of story?
3. This Medicare for all deal? Oddly enough, back in the early 1970s, in the midst of the Watergate episode.....President Nixon was proposing the same idea.
4. If Mueller never reaches the impeachment stage? Could he stretch this into 2024 and beyond?
5. Tommy Robinson was released by the Brit judge. What the judge indicated....this judicial episode from two months ago....was handled in a behavioral way that you'd expect out of a 12-year-old kid. Right now.....trust in the Brit legal system is at an all-time low.
6. After a fair amount of reading over these 3D manufactured guns....I would suggest that if you were looking for a one-shot only weapon....this would be it. After you fired that one single round from the weapon, I'd toss it into the dumpster and not trust the weapon to function correctly for the second shot.
7. With all this talk of illegals being registered to vote....eventually some idiots will dream up a round-trip vacation from France or Italy or Germany....to San Francisco, to include a one-stop session where they register to vote (while there as tourists). Pictures will be taken and the tourists will be thrilled to be part of the American voting experience.
8. It's becoming obvious that more people know Marvel hero characters, than American politicians.
9. A fair number of 20-year old American kids have awaken in the past two years, and asking who this Hitler guy is.
10. I kinda noticed this morning.....the North Korean main newspaper....Rodong Sinmun....spoke up and told North Koreans.....not to be faked-out by other cultures or ways of life, insisting instead that the Kim lifestyle was giving them the “best in the world.” The regular North Korean guy has to be sitting there....discussing matters with the wife, and thinking.....man, if it's that great here....imagine how bad it is in Tampa, or Louisiana.....they must have it really bad.
1. On this missing Iowa college student, Mollie Tibbetts. Cops say she finished her run....went back to the house, and did homework. Between that point and the next morning.....she disappeared. No blood in the house.....no scuffle damage....nothing. Whoever came to the house, was someone she knew. Or....she never really came back to the house, and the homework business is all faked up.
2. Senator Feinstein woke up a couple of years ago in the middle of a FBI face-to-face meeting....to learn one of her hired folks was probably working as a amateur-spy for China. My question is....how many other Senators have been greeted by the FBI and told the same type of story?
3. This Medicare for all deal? Oddly enough, back in the early 1970s, in the midst of the Watergate episode.....President Nixon was proposing the same idea.
4. If Mueller never reaches the impeachment stage? Could he stretch this into 2024 and beyond?
5. Tommy Robinson was released by the Brit judge. What the judge indicated....this judicial episode from two months ago....was handled in a behavioral way that you'd expect out of a 12-year-old kid. Right now.....trust in the Brit legal system is at an all-time low.
6. After a fair amount of reading over these 3D manufactured guns....I would suggest that if you were looking for a one-shot only weapon....this would be it. After you fired that one single round from the weapon, I'd toss it into the dumpster and not trust the weapon to function correctly for the second shot.
7. With all this talk of illegals being registered to vote....eventually some idiots will dream up a round-trip vacation from France or Italy or Germany....to San Francisco, to include a one-stop session where they register to vote (while there as tourists). Pictures will be taken and the tourists will be thrilled to be part of the American voting experience.
8. It's becoming obvious that more people know Marvel hero characters, than American politicians.
9. A fair number of 20-year old American kids have awaken in the past two years, and asking who this Hitler guy is.
10. I kinda noticed this morning.....the North Korean main newspaper....Rodong Sinmun....spoke up and told North Koreans.....not to be faked-out by other cultures or ways of life, insisting instead that the Kim lifestyle was giving them the “best in the world.” The regular North Korean guy has to be sitting there....discussing matters with the wife, and thinking.....man, if it's that great here....imagine how bad it is in Tampa, or Louisiana.....they must have it really bad.
Wednesday, 1 August 2018
Observing Ocasio-Cortez
Over the past month, I've probably watched at least fifteen different interviews with the new political figure out of New York City....Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
So I've come to this observation. When you get ready to finish college (for a four-year degree), they need to require some type of oral exam or Q and A session. You need to be able to state some logical arguments, and sustain a basic conclusion. In the case of Ocasio-Cortez and her degree from Boston University and her degree (supposedly relating to economics), I would suggest that she's pretty much lost and unable to conduct a logical argument or sustain a basic conclusion. In simple terms, I'm not sure what she did four years, but that $49,000 per year....was pretty much dumped down the drain with little gained in terms of intellect.
I'll even go as far to suggest that everytime she speaks and does one of her arguments....it hurts the reputation of the University.
I doubt if any university wants to implement some kind of qualification exam for their Bachelor's Degree.....mostly because half the students would fail, but it would suggest to me that all we are doing is pumping idiot 'man-kids' into the public, with no true skills gained from four years of college.
So I've come to this observation. When you get ready to finish college (for a four-year degree), they need to require some type of oral exam or Q and A session. You need to be able to state some logical arguments, and sustain a basic conclusion. In the case of Ocasio-Cortez and her degree from Boston University and her degree (supposedly relating to economics), I would suggest that she's pretty much lost and unable to conduct a logical argument or sustain a basic conclusion. In simple terms, I'm not sure what she did four years, but that $49,000 per year....was pretty much dumped down the drain with little gained in terms of intellect.
I'll even go as far to suggest that everytime she speaks and does one of her arguments....it hurts the reputation of the University.
I doubt if any university wants to implement some kind of qualification exam for their Bachelor's Degree.....mostly because half the students would fail, but it would suggest to me that all we are doing is pumping idiot 'man-kids' into the public, with no true skills gained from four years of college.
The Next California Exit
There are several problems with this. First, they put it up as a ballot measure. If voted upon and reaching a passing rate....neither the State Constitution nor the federal government.....have any method to really make this work.
Second, if a regular guy owned property in this region? Well....you'd have to compensate the guy, and I would imagine this would get up into the hundreds of billions. Who would pay it?
Third, who exactly is the aNAn? I could see a dozen tribes trying to get 'respect' and having control over this region, with this going into twenty years of legal challenges.
Fourth, Why limit this to the eastern side of California? Why not the entire state? Or why not the western end?
Fifth, there are dozens of federal parks, reservations, and military sites in this region. I just don't see the federal government giving them up.
On paper, it's interesting....beyond that, it's a joke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)