Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman are the only Republican candidates that can plausibly defeat Obama in 2012.
Personally I'm willing to overlook the incendiary newsletters of the past and a great deal else in return for the magical words "reduce our overseas commitments."
The U.S. should not be giving billions in free money to countries like Pakistan. That we do means our leaders are morons.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
The Lesson of Iran
Iran's a key exhibit in my position against foreign intervention, also know by the crasser term, meddling. Iran would not be the freakazoid it is today if we hadn't gone in there and posed as buddy-buddy to the detested Shah. I'm afraid that was the old (30+ years') premise upon which a good portion of the current regime's hostility is based. The regime that replaced the Shah began with the assumption that the U.S. was the enemy, even though most Americans had never even heard of Iran nor could locate it on a map prior to the 1979 hostage crisis.
Left to their own devices, it is unlikely Iranians would care much about America, other than wanting to buy our products and travel to our country as tourists. Iran had little or no contact with the United States until relatively recently, possibly around WW2. Unfortunately, the dead hand of the past has dominion over the leaders of Iran, who can't seem to envision the mutual benefits that cooperation on various matters of contention would bring. It is very peculiar for Iran to blame the U.S., which is such a good oil customer, for so many things, many of which seem to have little basis in reality. Of course, no country is perfect but the U.S. probably behaves about as decently as any other country around the world, with the possible exception of those oddly pacifist nations in Northern Europe.
Left to their own devices, it is unlikely Iranians would care much about America, other than wanting to buy our products and travel to our country as tourists. Iran had little or no contact with the United States until relatively recently, possibly around WW2. Unfortunately, the dead hand of the past has dominion over the leaders of Iran, who can't seem to envision the mutual benefits that cooperation on various matters of contention would bring. It is very peculiar for Iran to blame the U.S., which is such a good oil customer, for so many things, many of which seem to have little basis in reality. Of course, no country is perfect but the U.S. probably behaves about as decently as any other country around the world, with the possible exception of those oddly pacifist nations in Northern Europe.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
By the Skin of My Teeth
I lost some material in this opening, a hybrid Marshall Defense, but it proved to be an extravagant gambit resulting in early victory. My best move was b5, on move 14, sacrificing a pawn in exchange for a devastating attack. Once I know my opponent is a pawn-grabber, then I will gladly feed them pawns. The object of chess is not to gather pawns, but to gather a King.
[White "anon"]
[Black "igor"]
[Result "0-1"]
[TimeControl "120+12"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. c4 Bf5 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 Bb4 6. Qa4+ Nc6 7. Ne5 Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 O-O 9. Bxf6 Qxf6 10. Nd7 Qg6 11. Nxf8 Kxf8 12. Qa3+ Kg8 13. cxd5 exd5 14. O-O-O b5 15. Qc5 Rb8 16. a3 Na5 17. Qxd5 Bb1 18. Rd2 Nc4 19. Rb2 Nxb2 20. Kxb2 Qc2+ 21. Ka1 Qxc3+ 22. Kxb1 b4 23. e3 bxa3+ 24. Ka2 Qb2# 0-1
[White "anon"]
[Black "igor"]
[Result "0-1"]
[TimeControl "120+12"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. c4 Bf5 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 Bb4 6. Qa4+ Nc6 7. Ne5 Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 O-O 9. Bxf6 Qxf6 10. Nd7 Qg6 11. Nxf8 Kxf8 12. Qa3+ Kg8 13. cxd5 exd5 14. O-O-O b5 15. Qc5 Rb8 16. a3 Na5 17. Qxd5 Bb1 18. Rd2 Nc4 19. Rb2 Nxb2 20. Kxb2 Qc2+ 21. Ka1 Qxc3+ 22. Kxb1 b4 23. e3 bxa3+ 24. Ka2 Qb2# 0-1
Credit Card Companies
Credit card companies should be fined thousands of dollars every time they send an unsolicited credit card offer through the mail or via telephone or email. Their CEO's are unethical criminals, all of whom deserve to be shot. Their entire lives are dedicated to causing and then profiting from the financial harm and ruin of middle and lower-class Americans.
Monday, December 26, 2011
What Does OKIDATA Mean?
I discovered what OKIDATA means. The English translation is: "Service Call, Fatal Error."
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Doctors
Doctors, and in particular surgeons, are sometimes truly amazing people, to be able to open up a living human body and fix what's broken. If I had my life to do over again, I'd have applied myself to the study of medicine, no question about it. There can be no greater purpose than saving lives. Of course, it may seem like doctors are overpaid, but they should be paid at least as much as the typical CEO, because unlike CEO's, doctors actually perform useful work. The fortunes of the average corporation would improve greatly without the useless bloat at the top. Most CEO's do not know their hind end from their head.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Aid to North Korea
I can't believe the U.S. sends food aid to North Korea. That country should be paying us tribute. Not a dime of taxpayer money should go to NK or any other fascist country. I shouldn't have to be blogging about this--it's ridiculous that our government even considers doing such stupid things. I've read the government confiscates the food and sells it at full price to those who can already afford it in the marketplace.
And good riddance to that idiotic buffoon, Kim Jong-Il, a worthless bag of gas if there ever was one. I hope his ugly, spoiled, frowny-faced son follows him to the grave as soon as possible. If only there were a coup by truly patriotic North Koreans!
And good riddance to that idiotic buffoon, Kim Jong-Il, a worthless bag of gas if there ever was one. I hope his ugly, spoiled, frowny-faced son follows him to the grave as soon as possible. If only there were a coup by truly patriotic North Koreans!
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Ron Paul & the Newsletters
I'd be willing to buy that Ron Paul didn't write the incendiary passages in those newsletters of his, but ultimately, such foolishness reflects poorly upon the management skills of a leader. His name was, after all, on those newsletters. One would have hoped he would have done a competent job at overseeing their content. At the very least, he should have read and approved each and every article. That is what is implied by having one's name in the title--approval. So there are two possible conclusions for our dear Republican presidential candidate. Either he was negligent in a manner some might label gross, or he indeed wrote the articles himself or approved them after having read them. Either way, it's a bad lemon for the campaign.
Seems like most of the candidates were doomed from the get-go. Once they go double-digit in the polls, the powers-behind-the-throne unlock a skeleton from the closet and parade it in the media. The candidates don't really know how to handle a media firestorm, and maybe there is no way to handle it.
I still think Ron Paul is better than many of the other candidates, however. I really like his non-interventionist foreign policy. His views on the economy have relevance. Although many of his detractors claim that he has radical views, in reality it is they who have the radical views, while his are more consistent with the mainstream. Ron Paul is often the only one talking in the whole debates that makes a lick of sense. The others are history, language and thinking -challenged. They smile and shake their heads, as if they are hearing a fantasy, when Ron Paul says quite obvious things that are true. The others tend to march in lockstep with their party's social conservatives. It is clear that they have been told what they are to say, how they are supposed to feel, how they must think. On the other hand, Ron Paul has decided for himself how he will speak, how he will feel, what he will think. That is both original and refreshing. One is willing to forgive quite a bit of such a leader.
Conservative Jews are all in a lather against Ron Paul (see the WSJ for a completely rabid over-the-top attack on Ron Paul as "home-grown propagandist for our chief enemies" by Lyinbitchowitz), for one reason, because he might cut aid to Israel. Siphoning funds from our bank accounts on behalf of Tel Aviv has been a long-time favorite of some of the Jews in America, and they pretty much compel every Presidential candidate to swear fealty to the cause of Israel no matter what the cost to the U.S.
I support Ron Paul because of the enemies he makes. If the powers-that-be like the owners of the WSJ are against Ron Paul, then he might be good, because WSJ is a newspaper that prints lies with regularity and is in part responsible for the financial crisis and the financial meltdown. Why didn't the WSJ raise any alarm about the conditions prior to the financial meltdown? Why did the WSJ snooze through the first ten years of this century? I think the WSJ is a chief enemy of the United States, not Ron Paul. The WSJ represents everything that is wrong in this country and the people who create financial problems for the United States.
The one thing I dislike about Ron Paul is that he is big on freedom when it comes to big business, but he's not so keen when it comes to personal freedoms like abortion. If I were a woman, I'd want the right to abort.
Seems like most of the candidates were doomed from the get-go. Once they go double-digit in the polls, the powers-behind-the-throne unlock a skeleton from the closet and parade it in the media. The candidates don't really know how to handle a media firestorm, and maybe there is no way to handle it.
I still think Ron Paul is better than many of the other candidates, however. I really like his non-interventionist foreign policy. His views on the economy have relevance. Although many of his detractors claim that he has radical views, in reality it is they who have the radical views, while his are more consistent with the mainstream. Ron Paul is often the only one talking in the whole debates that makes a lick of sense. The others are history, language and thinking -challenged. They smile and shake their heads, as if they are hearing a fantasy, when Ron Paul says quite obvious things that are true. The others tend to march in lockstep with their party's social conservatives. It is clear that they have been told what they are to say, how they are supposed to feel, how they must think. On the other hand, Ron Paul has decided for himself how he will speak, how he will feel, what he will think. That is both original and refreshing. One is willing to forgive quite a bit of such a leader.
Conservative Jews are all in a lather against Ron Paul (see the WSJ for a completely rabid over-the-top attack on Ron Paul as "home-grown propagandist for our chief enemies" by Lyinbitchowitz), for one reason, because he might cut aid to Israel. Siphoning funds from our bank accounts on behalf of Tel Aviv has been a long-time favorite of some of the Jews in America, and they pretty much compel every Presidential candidate to swear fealty to the cause of Israel no matter what the cost to the U.S.
I support Ron Paul because of the enemies he makes. If the powers-that-be like the owners of the WSJ are against Ron Paul, then he might be good, because WSJ is a newspaper that prints lies with regularity and is in part responsible for the financial crisis and the financial meltdown. Why didn't the WSJ raise any alarm about the conditions prior to the financial meltdown? Why did the WSJ snooze through the first ten years of this century? I think the WSJ is a chief enemy of the United States, not Ron Paul. The WSJ represents everything that is wrong in this country and the people who create financial problems for the United States.
The one thing I dislike about Ron Paul is that he is big on freedom when it comes to big business, but he's not so keen when it comes to personal freedoms like abortion. If I were a woman, I'd want the right to abort.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Funny?
Is it bad to think this story is funny? I don't know.
Poster boy of transgender servicemen, Bradley Manning is not. I imagine a thousand mascaraed lashes rolling Heavenward.
Poster boy of transgender servicemen, Bradley Manning is not. I imagine a thousand mascaraed lashes rolling Heavenward.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Oil Changes
Finally, the world is waking up to the fact that cars don't need oil changes every 3,000 miles.
For decades, I read that cars need an oil change every 3,500 miles, and each time, I thought to myself, "What a great lie those oil companies are spinning--how profitable!" And think of all the Jiffy Lube's that benefited from the pile of horse crap.
How'd I know? I read the manual for my 1982 Honda Civic. It said change the oil every 7,500 miles. The manufacturer would not have put that information in the manual if he thought it would make his product less reliable. So I always changed my oil after a year or two or 7,500 miles, whichever came first. In cases where the engine is old and burns oil or where the oil turns pitch black, I change sooner.
Apparently, high oil prices are the reason for the increased publicity counteracting the marvelous profit-making lie that extracted $20-$50 every 3,000 miles from legions of gullible car owners.
For decades, I read that cars need an oil change every 3,500 miles, and each time, I thought to myself, "What a great lie those oil companies are spinning--how profitable!" And think of all the Jiffy Lube's that benefited from the pile of horse crap.
How'd I know? I read the manual for my 1982 Honda Civic. It said change the oil every 7,500 miles. The manufacturer would not have put that information in the manual if he thought it would make his product less reliable. So I always changed my oil after a year or two or 7,500 miles, whichever came first. In cases where the engine is old and burns oil or where the oil turns pitch black, I change sooner.
Apparently, high oil prices are the reason for the increased publicity counteracting the marvelous profit-making lie that extracted $20-$50 every 3,000 miles from legions of gullible car owners.
Curbing Animal Research
I applaud these efforts to curb animal research in laboratories. Especially in cases where the only thing at stake is mere profit, animals should not be considered for painful or harmful laboratory experiments. Where human lives are at stake, then animal research may be alright, if necessary in order to proceed with discovery. I think a judge should be the arbitrator, a judge armed with a law that expresses a general philosophy with guidelines rather than a thousand-page law of specific rules for every conceivable case (inevitably there will be cases that would fall outside any such law).
Gingrich
There is no reason to take anything Gingrich says seriously. His intelligence and all of his feelings have to do with power and nothing else. Wives come and go, friends come and go, allies come and go, but what remains is the overwhelming desire for easy money, influence and most of all, power. He's about as intelligent as I am without my ethics. I look at him and I see me without morals. I've seen him on the Daily Show. He's willing to lie repeatedly and mislead in order to further his ends. Truth means nothing to him. All he is concerned about is sounding plausible and misleading just enough people to stay in the game of politics, where he intends to make money and be a powerful croaking frog.
He definitely has the will to power, but what good is it? I don't know that he ever considered for an instant what he will leave behind. I suppose that when human beings are viewed as nothing more than convenient means to selfish ends, then for him the sole goal is ego gratification and nothing else. That makes Gingrich an exceptionally boring individual. I do not think he will be remembered in quite the manner that he would prefer. I look at his photo and I see a sugar cookie with two rancid raisins for eyes.
He definitely has the will to power, but what good is it? I don't know that he ever considered for an instant what he will leave behind. I suppose that when human beings are viewed as nothing more than convenient means to selfish ends, then for him the sole goal is ego gratification and nothing else. That makes Gingrich an exceptionally boring individual. I do not think he will be remembered in quite the manner that he would prefer. I look at his photo and I see a sugar cookie with two rancid raisins for eyes.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Romantic Love as Sold by the Music Industry
I think that in every case of romantic love in my life, where I fell in love with a person, it was, at least in part, inculcated, instigated and nurtured by many Rock-n-Roll, Country, or even Folk songs that I listened to over and over again until I had memorized the plot and meaning of the lyrics and the music.
Rock-n-Roll songs often deal with observations about romantic love. These dramatic works do not admit to shades of gray or the complexity and fluidity of human emotions and allegiances, but deal with simple, stupid and unrealistic absolutes. Music industry songs are the disembodied fantasies of calculating business people intent upon selling their products, which are highly desirable fantasies that replace a tepid reality in the user, who is motivated to replace his reality. The songs have little or no relation to the reality experienced by the billions, and therein lies their danger. Because they are nice to listen to and sweet honey to the receptive mind, they can influence people to make uncharacteristically stupid decisions and to be very gullible. In that way, Rock-n-Roll can serve the same function as a drug and even be more dangerous than a drug.
Rock-n-Roll songs often deal with observations about romantic love. These dramatic works do not admit to shades of gray or the complexity and fluidity of human emotions and allegiances, but deal with simple, stupid and unrealistic absolutes. Music industry songs are the disembodied fantasies of calculating business people intent upon selling their products, which are highly desirable fantasies that replace a tepid reality in the user, who is motivated to replace his reality. The songs have little or no relation to the reality experienced by the billions, and therein lies their danger. Because they are nice to listen to and sweet honey to the receptive mind, they can influence people to make uncharacteristically stupid decisions and to be very gullible. In that way, Rock-n-Roll can serve the same function as a drug and even be more dangerous than a drug.
Groups
The story of how Iran cracked our drone's security is appalling.
I don't consider myself an expert on security-related matters, but I certainly would never have approved such a system that is in place in our Sentinel drones. The vulnerability is obvious. In fact not very much intelligence is required at all to see the weakness in the system. I can only conclude that the top brass in our military may be swift on military tactics, but apparently is in the dark about other matters, for instance relating to computers and engineering. In other words, they are narrow geeks with limited vision. I suspect the military is being just as mismanaged as our financial corporations have proven to be. There seems to be a rot in the system, or maybe there always was.
Perhaps all nations and all ages suffer from pure negligence. It is easy for a man to sort his own affairs. It is when men get together and form a group that individual intelligence ceases to apply. The perfect dictatorship of an intelligent mind, esteemed by Plato, is replaced by the cacophony of voices, some informed, some not; some wise, some not. And who is to sort through all the voices? Sometimes the loudest voice prevails, but loudness is not akin to correctness.
Groups are too recent an innovation in our evolution and maybe that is why we have not perfected them yet. It is difficult to identify a single group of more than a hundred members that operates with efficiency and enlightenment.
I don't consider myself an expert on security-related matters, but I certainly would never have approved such a system that is in place in our Sentinel drones. The vulnerability is obvious. In fact not very much intelligence is required at all to see the weakness in the system. I can only conclude that the top brass in our military may be swift on military tactics, but apparently is in the dark about other matters, for instance relating to computers and engineering. In other words, they are narrow geeks with limited vision. I suspect the military is being just as mismanaged as our financial corporations have proven to be. There seems to be a rot in the system, or maybe there always was.
Perhaps all nations and all ages suffer from pure negligence. It is easy for a man to sort his own affairs. It is when men get together and form a group that individual intelligence ceases to apply. The perfect dictatorship of an intelligent mind, esteemed by Plato, is replaced by the cacophony of voices, some informed, some not; some wise, some not. And who is to sort through all the voices? Sometimes the loudest voice prevails, but loudness is not akin to correctness.
Groups are too recent an innovation in our evolution and maybe that is why we have not perfected them yet. It is difficult to identify a single group of more than a hundred members that operates with efficiency and enlightenment.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Listening
The older I get, the more I prize congenial relations with others. I'm less eager to look for slights and quicker to empathize with other people. I find that I've learned valuable ways of promoting good will and that I prize these skills much more than my other skills, certainly more than my technical skills. I have learned that by expecting, bringing notice to, and rewarding good behavior in others, one encourages its recurrence. It is good to be liked and respected, and a bad thing to be held in contempt, to be despised. Yet someone who has known respect and admiration for a long time grows in confidence so that the occasional exception, when encountered in strangers, is of no consequence at all.
One who is ethical is usually very concerned with the opinions of others, and well he should be, because other people serve as sounding boards for his own opinions. He might not trust in his own reasoning completely, because of the plausible expectation that there may be a mistake, great or trivial, in his reasoning or in the data in the formulae. Human beings get things wrong often enough that it is well to listen to the observations of others.
One who is ethical is usually very concerned with the opinions of others, and well he should be, because other people serve as sounding boards for his own opinions. He might not trust in his own reasoning completely, because of the plausible expectation that there may be a mistake, great or trivial, in his reasoning or in the data in the formulae. Human beings get things wrong often enough that it is well to listen to the observations of others.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Romney Vs. Gingrich? What Kind of Choice is That?
I don't give two hoots about Romney's $10,000 bet. If the Republicans are down to Romney versus Gingrich, I'm for Romney, because he at least has a lick of common sense and is willing to listen to other viewpoints. Gingrich is a faux intellectual, a puffed-up frog that thinks he knows it all. The other day he delivered a Christmas present to the Palestinians and their brethren, the Arabs, calling the Palestinians a made-up people with no basis in history. Gee, G'rinch, can't the same be said about the Israelis? I suppose G'rinch points to the Bible, countering that Israel existed for a brief moment in ancient history before being crushed by neighboring empires. That's a thin reed, G'rinch. Mighty thin. If G'rinch leads the country, he will be worse than Bush.
Maybe G'rinch is just a decoy employed by the powers-behind-the-throne (the owners) to make us happy to see Romney finally emerge as the candidate. I still think Jon Huntsman is the best candidate in the G.O.P., by far, but Republicans are far too stupid to pick him. Second-best candidate is Ron Paul, but Republicans are too stupid to pick him either.
Maybe G'rinch is just a decoy employed by the powers-behind-the-throne (the owners) to make us happy to see Romney finally emerge as the candidate. I still think Jon Huntsman is the best candidate in the G.O.P., by far, but Republicans are far too stupid to pick him. Second-best candidate is Ron Paul, but Republicans are too stupid to pick him either.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Technology
Our ancestors would be shocked by the technology that we take for granted. Moving pictures on a screen would seem like magic. There was nothing comparable to television hundreds of years ago. It is quite a leap to visualize our grand technological idea that data can be transmitted through the air via radio waves that are invisible to our sight and completely undetectable by our other senses, and this data can be reproduced using a natural force of electricity and producing artificial light in fine colors and resolution, not just for short bursts but continuously. They would be amazed and think it was magic. I wonder what gadgets of the future would inspire in me a similar wonder? A time machine, I think. That to me would be magic. Or a device, such as a cloak, that rendered a person invisible. I would not understand these things, but they would delight me. Maybe magic is and always was just science that was beyond our current level of understanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)