It's an interesting science piece from the Brit Daily Mail.....which discussed DNA discoveries, and the likely history of mankind.
Scientists went and took DNA samples from 100,000 animals, and to include humans in the 'test'. Conclusion? Roughly 250,000 years ago...something of a major consequence occurred, with ONLY one set of parents left for the humans, and roughly 90-percent of the animal breeds (across the globe). That one set of parents....reignited life on Earth.
The scientists in this project? More or less shocked....every single theory that they had on evolution...now, more or less, tossed out the door.
Questions? Thousands of them.
The last big enormous event to wipe out most life on Earth.....was 65 million years ago (that killed off the dinosaurs finally, or at least they believed that). So was there another big wipe-out in the range of 250,000 years ago? No one has ever suggested that.
The Noah story? Well....the problem here is that you have various lands which weren't land-connected and animals would not have crossed over to re-populate regions.
So you end up alien-Joe and alien-Francis, who arrived and reset the balance of things on Earth.....that's my theory. Various animals were dumped off in certain areas, and the world was given some kind of chance number 2.
Sunday, 25 November 2018
Tuesday, 20 November 2018
If I Were Going to Make the White House Press Rules
I'd have a list of ten rules for press behavior:
1. Your question can't be longer than 20 words.
2. If your question can't be understood by the typical average American, I'd ask you to rephrase it. If it take three requests to rephrase it, and they all fail my 'typical' test....then we skip you and move on.
3. You have to stand....state your name and press organization, then render the question, and finally sit as I respond.
4. The phrases 'don't you think' or 'haven't you thought' won't be used.
5. Any ridicule of the President or personal criticism.....renders your press pass void for two weeks.
6. Tie and suit required.
7. I'd only do the conference on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
8. If you attempt to make a speech (going two full minutes of chatter) as part of some fake-question....my answer will be for you 'Dallas Cowboys' (every single time).
9. At the end of each week, I would hand out a 'Jean-Claude Van Damme' award for most dramatic journalist of the week (to signify overacting or bad-acting).
10. The first row and priority questions would go to newspaper journalists of small towns in rural areas of the US. They would get the first three questions.
1. Your question can't be longer than 20 words.
2. If your question can't be understood by the typical average American, I'd ask you to rephrase it. If it take three requests to rephrase it, and they all fail my 'typical' test....then we skip you and move on.
3. You have to stand....state your name and press organization, then render the question, and finally sit as I respond.
4. The phrases 'don't you think' or 'haven't you thought' won't be used.
5. Any ridicule of the President or personal criticism.....renders your press pass void for two weeks.
6. Tie and suit required.
7. I'd only do the conference on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
8. If you attempt to make a speech (going two full minutes of chatter) as part of some fake-question....my answer will be for you 'Dallas Cowboys' (every single time).
9. At the end of each week, I would hand out a 'Jean-Claude Van Damme' award for most dramatic journalist of the week (to signify overacting or bad-acting).
10. The first row and priority questions would go to newspaper journalists of small towns in rural areas of the US. They would get the first three questions.
Monday, 19 November 2018
Zucker in Freefall
This week, it looks more and more like Mark Zuckerberg will end getting fired from Facebook as the CEO. His capital investment? It's still there and he's still got a hefty amount of money. But the loss of status, and a zeroed-out CEO pay-situation? It would make things a bit more interesting.
The odds of catching on as CEO with another company? I think it's near zero percent.
The odds of getting another Facebook-like idea? Zero percent.
The odds of some political career? Zero percent.
His value at 70-odd billion dollars? At some point, Facebook is going to evolve and fall into some lesser value scale (maybe not 2019, but definitely in the next five years).
My gut feeling is that he goes through 2019 and sells half of the Facebook stock and buys some newer player in the APP market, and tries to make some comeback in 2020 or later. Who knows....he might even show up in Europe and try to pick up several developmental companies and try to evolve on his Facebook concept.
The odds of catching on as CEO with another company? I think it's near zero percent.
The odds of getting another Facebook-like idea? Zero percent.
The odds of some political career? Zero percent.
His value at 70-odd billion dollars? At some point, Facebook is going to evolve and fall into some lesser value scale (maybe not 2019, but definitely in the next five years).
My gut feeling is that he goes through 2019 and sells half of the Facebook stock and buys some newer player in the APP market, and tries to make some comeback in 2020 or later. Who knows....he might even show up in Europe and try to pick up several developmental companies and try to evolve on his Facebook concept.
My Suggestion For a New TV Series
There's so much 'crap' loaded on the networks these days....that you really go begging for shows to watch. Reinventing? Well....why not go to another different scenario?
One of the ten great characters of all time, was 'Cliff' from Cheers. Cliff was the postal guy who seemed to live out of the bar....knowing virtually everything in life but rarely telling you his life story.
So my idea is this....instead of using Cliff for Cheers at age 47.....retell Cliff's situation in life at age thirty.
Cliff was this guy who got the postal job at 18 but rarely showed up to work, yet never got missed. In his part-time, he attended (without paying, naturally) various college classes and lectures. At some point, he puts on a suit and sets up fake lectures at the university....pretending to be some PhD guy, and has the lecture hall filled to capacity. Eventually, the university figures all this out, being highly embarrassed at the accomplishments of the fake Cliff professor.....then decides to give Cliff a PhD under the table if he just quietly leaves.
Cliff returns to the real postal world and can't find happiness in a full-time work capacity.....so he drinks a good bit to make up for his situation in life.
One of the ten great characters of all time, was 'Cliff' from Cheers. Cliff was the postal guy who seemed to live out of the bar....knowing virtually everything in life but rarely telling you his life story.
So my idea is this....instead of using Cliff for Cheers at age 47.....retell Cliff's situation in life at age thirty.
Cliff was this guy who got the postal job at 18 but rarely showed up to work, yet never got missed. In his part-time, he attended (without paying, naturally) various college classes and lectures. At some point, he puts on a suit and sets up fake lectures at the university....pretending to be some PhD guy, and has the lecture hall filled to capacity. Eventually, the university figures all this out, being highly embarrassed at the accomplishments of the fake Cliff professor.....then decides to give Cliff a PhD under the table if he just quietly leaves.
Cliff returns to the real postal world and can't find happiness in a full-time work capacity.....so he drinks a good bit to make up for his situation in life.
Carl's Imaginary World
I sat and read through a piece which quoted DC journalist Carl Bernstein a good bit. The commentary? Carl says that the cable news networks ought to stop broadcasting White House press conferences and briefings in their entirety. Reason? Carl says they are merely "propagandist exercises."
I sat and pondered over Carl's commentary.
With the exception of ESP*N.....I can't think of any network that has carried the entire WH press conferences in their 45 to 60 minute version. The ABC/CBS/NBC folks will splice a 2-minute piece for their nightly newscast with three minutes of commentary or attached 'extra' political chat.
The CNN folks might have three or four clips that they run....but they rarely if ever will carry an entire press conference.
So what is Carl talking about? I think he's imagining that various networks carry the full WH press conference. Yes....a rather fake comment about an imaginary event that simply doesn't happen.
This is another reason why I think journalism is worthless today.
I sat and pondered over Carl's commentary.
With the exception of ESP*N.....I can't think of any network that has carried the entire WH press conferences in their 45 to 60 minute version. The ABC/CBS/NBC folks will splice a 2-minute piece for their nightly newscast with three minutes of commentary or attached 'extra' political chat.
The CNN folks might have three or four clips that they run....but they rarely if ever will carry an entire press conference.
So what is Carl talking about? I think he's imagining that various networks carry the full WH press conference. Yes....a rather fake comment about an imaginary event that simply doesn't happen.
This is another reason why I think journalism is worthless today.
Saturday, 17 November 2018
After the Santa Monica Fires
If you owned a 10-million dollar home, and it burnt to the ground with just about every single one of your 500 neighbor's houses.....then the insurance guy came around and basically played his game of 'delay' and your insurance didn't amount to more than four-million....would you rebuild?
This is one of those debate questions. Most normal folks would look at the possible repeat statistics and the marginal forest management that helped make this a mega-fire, and then gaze at their California tax situation.....then finally make this decision to pack up and leave.
I doubt if it will be discussed much in the news or public forums....but I would speculate that more than a hundred of these 'Hollywood' type folks will make a life decision to leave the Santa Monica region, and California itself.
Most will want a great landscape and some privacy....but this is stuff that you can find in Flagstaff, Arizona or some coastal town west of Portland, Oregon.
So the burnt sites end up being on the real estate market? Quietly, in roughly four weeks....I think a site or two each week will pop up, and some pop-rocker will swiftly move up....pay the $3-million for a burnt-out lot with four acres attached to it, and start construction.
This is one of those debate questions. Most normal folks would look at the possible repeat statistics and the marginal forest management that helped make this a mega-fire, and then gaze at their California tax situation.....then finally make this decision to pack up and leave.
I doubt if it will be discussed much in the news or public forums....but I would speculate that more than a hundred of these 'Hollywood' type folks will make a life decision to leave the Santa Monica region, and California itself.
Most will want a great landscape and some privacy....but this is stuff that you can find in Flagstaff, Arizona or some coastal town west of Portland, Oregon.
So the burnt sites end up being on the real estate market? Quietly, in roughly four weeks....I think a site or two each week will pop up, and some pop-rocker will swiftly move up....pay the $3-million for a burnt-out lot with four acres attached to it, and start construction.
My 2020 Election Scenario
This essay discusses the likely November 2020 Presidential election, and the scenario of President Trump running a second time.
Generally, after the election wraps up.....the fate of the election is then tied to electoral votes. The Electors would meet in their individual state capitals, on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December. The Constitution then states that they would cast their votes on separate ballots....for one occasion only....for president and vice president. If they fail to reach the 270 point, then the whole affair using the Electoral College is finished, and you move onto plan 'B'.
I would suggest that the ultimate strategy now developed by the Democratic Party....is to use the court system, the fragile voting system in a number of states, and simply stall by judge's decree the meeting on that Monday. If they can't deliver their vote.....the Electoral College doesn't matter and it won't bring us a President.
Plan 'B'?
There would be a joint session of the House/Senate on the 6th of January, with the new incoming House/Senate normally blessing off the electoral vote winner. In this case, there is no winner. So they would proceed with the game plan.
The House would then go into a meeting, with each state group, and take up the top three vote-getters of the election.
In the case of Alabama....the seven House members would meet (six GOP and one Democrat) and they'd hold a 'state-vote'.
The Senate would go into a meeting and vote with the top two vote-getters for Vice-President. Each individual would have one single vote.....it would not be a state by state thing.
The Senate would likely end their meeting in two hours, with a few speeches in the middle of this mess.
The House? Several states would be able to block any vote because it's split (same number of GOP and Democratic members). A key rule in this episode? Delegates from two-thirds of the states must be present to start the process. The winner? You need 26 states to vote for the winner.
I would suggest the strategy here is to reach 6 January 2021, and ensure that the 26-number cannot be reached.
Who stands as the sub-president in this case? The Senate picked-VP. He will take the oath to fill in the position. The intent of the Constitution is that some decision would be eventually reached (hopefully before 20 January). If the Senate fails? Well....the House Speaker takes the oath and serves as sub-president.
So, my humble belief is that this is the game-plan and we will reach 20 January without the House being able to conclude their job.
Disgruntled voters? It'll be a massive negative situation and likely shake the foundations of the republic. But it'll be the only way that the Democrats can prevent a second term (if Trump runs).
How the states stack up in 2019? Once seated, there would be a 26 state hold for Trump. So you have to wonder about the House election in November 2020, and if judges can step into the middle of results (like in Florida) and run out the Electoral College clock. If the judges could then stall the seating of twenty-odd GOP House members? Well....you'd get to 20 January and the VP becomes the temp-President.
Generally, after the election wraps up.....the fate of the election is then tied to electoral votes. The Electors would meet in their individual state capitals, on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December. The Constitution then states that they would cast their votes on separate ballots....for one occasion only....for president and vice president. If they fail to reach the 270 point, then the whole affair using the Electoral College is finished, and you move onto plan 'B'.
I would suggest that the ultimate strategy now developed by the Democratic Party....is to use the court system, the fragile voting system in a number of states, and simply stall by judge's decree the meeting on that Monday. If they can't deliver their vote.....the Electoral College doesn't matter and it won't bring us a President.
Plan 'B'?
There would be a joint session of the House/Senate on the 6th of January, with the new incoming House/Senate normally blessing off the electoral vote winner. In this case, there is no winner. So they would proceed with the game plan.
The House would then go into a meeting, with each state group, and take up the top three vote-getters of the election.
In the case of Alabama....the seven House members would meet (six GOP and one Democrat) and they'd hold a 'state-vote'.
The Senate would go into a meeting and vote with the top two vote-getters for Vice-President. Each individual would have one single vote.....it would not be a state by state thing.
The Senate would likely end their meeting in two hours, with a few speeches in the middle of this mess.
The House? Several states would be able to block any vote because it's split (same number of GOP and Democratic members). A key rule in this episode? Delegates from two-thirds of the states must be present to start the process. The winner? You need 26 states to vote for the winner.
I would suggest the strategy here is to reach 6 January 2021, and ensure that the 26-number cannot be reached.
Who stands as the sub-president in this case? The Senate picked-VP. He will take the oath to fill in the position. The intent of the Constitution is that some decision would be eventually reached (hopefully before 20 January). If the Senate fails? Well....the House Speaker takes the oath and serves as sub-president.
So, my humble belief is that this is the game-plan and we will reach 20 January without the House being able to conclude their job.
Disgruntled voters? It'll be a massive negative situation and likely shake the foundations of the republic. But it'll be the only way that the Democrats can prevent a second term (if Trump runs).
How the states stack up in 2019? Once seated, there would be a 26 state hold for Trump. So you have to wonder about the House election in November 2020, and if judges can step into the middle of results (like in Florida) and run out the Electoral College clock. If the judges could then stall the seating of twenty-odd GOP House members? Well....you'd get to 20 January and the VP becomes the temp-President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)