Wednesday wisdom: Thucydides

"...it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not desire."--Thucydides (c. 460 BC – c. 400 BC), History of the Peloponnesian War

Cow farts

Continuing on the news item about California regulating cow farts (i.e. methane produced by farm animals) from this morning, I decided to see what kind of benefits could be obtained from "anaerobic digesters", which Wikipedia describes as:

Anaerobic digestion is a collection of processes by which microorganisms break down biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen. The process is used for industrial or domestic purposes to manage waste or to produce fuels.

In researching this, I came across a part of the Environmental Protection Agency's website which has commentary from anaerobic digester operators from across the country. Normally, I might question the objectivity of the EPA website, but they included some negative comments too.

Overall, it seems to create a sustainable operation which also increases the profits of farming by reducing energy costs. It also creates a healthier environment for the animals themselves by reducing methane and phosphorous. The downside is many farms cannot afford to make the initial financial investment, which means state money will be required, although it will make the farms more profitable in the long run. Note that is in the long run, because there is a steep learning curve initially, which is made worse by the fact anaerobic digestion takes several weeks to show results, so any learning mistakes could take weeks to be discovered.

Without government financial support, this won't happen on a widespread basis. On the other hand, because of the fact this tends to make farms more profitable, I think any government financial support to start one of these operations should come in the form of interest-free loans and not government handouts.

From the EPA website, following are some of the positive and negative details of anaerobic digesters.

1. Norman Doll, Chief Operating Officer for Clear Horizons in Waunakee, WI.
Negatives:

Farms using sand bedding – As sand accumulated over time, digester vessels lost up to half of their capacity.

Unplanned liquid recirculation – Liquid digestate, saturated with phosphorous, was unexpectedly coming back from the farm and negatively affecting the process
and skewing nutrient recovery numbers. The 30,000 gallons per day of digestate in the raw manure input stream led to phosphorous precipitating out in the forms of struvite and vivianite, causing problems in the pipes and vessels.

The business model under which these...were built is no longer workable in Wisconsin. When these were built we had the encouragement of government; access to grants; and a utility mandate for a 15% renewable portfolio (i.e., requirement to generate 15% of energy from renewable sources). That’s gone. Utilities will no longer provide favorable power purchase agreements (PPA). Going forward, developers will need to find a new model to make these systems financially viable. Even with our existing systems, when the current PPAs run out, we will need a new revenue source to keep them operating.

There are a lot of safety issues with these types of systems and with livestock operations in general. But the potential for explosion-related injury is small, especially for those outside the facility (because of how the digesters are designed, an explosion would actually go up, not outward). 

Positives:

The project helps manage waste from three dairy farms, as well as some food wastes, restaurant waste grease, and glycerin. The digester meets two of the project’s
primary goals: protecting water quality, and growing crops sustainably. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Dane County also recognized the
project’s potential to control and export phosphorous; they proposed paying for the digester through the sale of byproducts and energy produced by the system. So far,
the digester and advanced phosphorous removal system have allowed the capture and export of about 90 metric tons of phosphorous from the watershed.

2. Dennis Brubaker, Member/Partner of Ideal Family Farms, LLC, in Beavertown, PA.
Negatives:

Our system was designed to handle approximately 50% more feedstock than our farm produces because we anticipated receiving outside food waste products to
maximize capacity. However, we have not been able to make the right connections with food waste sources and are operating at partial system capacity. 

Positives:

Our swine farm consists of a 4,400 head nursery and 10,350 finishing spaces. Manure disposal and energy costs made up a large part of our on-farm operating expenses.When energy costs spiked in 2008, we knew we had to gain more control over our highest operating costs.We looked at wind, solar and digesters. The digester allowed us to generate 2.5 times our on-farm electric needs and offset 50% of our heating costs. It was the most beneficial option. 

We found a way to dispose of 7 million gallons of manure annually and achieve tremendous cost savings. We added revenue to the farm through energy savings
and sale of excess electricity, and are also able to use the waste heat to heat our nursery barn. Our neighbors are happy too; they reported a reduction in odors after
the digester was installed. 

3. Steve Reinford, Owner & Brett Reinford, Manager of Reinford Farms, Inc. in Mifflintown, PA.
Negatives:

Have someone willing to put in the time to make digester ownership successful. It took approximately 20 months from initial research to steady operation of our digester. 

Be prepared for challenges working with your utility— both understanding these requirements and the potentially high costs. 

Be prepared to fund a utility feasibility study, which can run from $10,000 – $12,000.   

Positives:

We have manure from 630 dairy cows. We are a no-till farm and needed to reduce odors when we apply manure. It was not until after we installed the digester that we
realized the other benefits, including revenue from selling back electricity, tipping fees and money savings from capturing the waste heat for on-farm use.

We use the waste heat to dry our corn, heat our house and shop, and heat all of the farm’s hot water. We also pasteurize the calf milk with it.

Additionally, the digestate is separated and we use the solids for bedding. The digester kills many pathogens in the solids, making it safer to use.

4. Alex Ringler, CEO of Renergy in Marengo, OH.
Negatives:

The biggest challenge is the biological process –maintaining the balance of organic materials so the pH is at the right level and the proper energy is produced.
There is a learning curve to maximize efficiency.

You need to really understand the process. It can take years. Our experience took two years from concept to steady operation.

Positives:

Our facilities incorporate all of the hog manure produced at co-located farms on a yearly basis. The digester supplies the farm with 100% renewable energy in the form of electricity, radiant heat and hot water as well as crop nutrition. The operations also create sustainable employment in the community.

The system provides us with combined heat and electricity, crop nutrition and reclaimed water. 

5. Billy Storms (Owner/Operator) & Don Britt (Operator) of Storms Farm in Blandeboro, NC.
Negatives:

It took about six months to get the feedstock and gas
production we wanted. The mix of feedstock is important.
It takes 21 days to see the impact of what you feed
the digester, so we had to learn to wait, which is not
something that usually happens on a farm. 

Positives:

We have a lot of waste to manage with 28,000 hogs and
200,000 chickens – and a lot of phosphorus building
up on the land...A digester coupled with nutrient
recovery will get the phosphorus out of the waste.

We will separate solids to bag and sell/spread on other
farms. Biogas is converted to electricity in an enginegen
set with a biological hydrogen sulfide scrubber. The
electricity that is generated is sold to the NC Electric
Membership Co-Op that sells to all of the co-ops in the
state...

We have more control of our waste and reduced disease
and cost. We use the digester to manage mortalities,
which saves money and reduces disease for our livestock
operation. Also, the hog houses don’t smell since waste is
moved quickly and there is no methane building up in the
hog house. This makes for a healthier environment for the
hogs.

Trumped up news: Today's news for November 30th

Fox News:

Carrier says it has deal with Trump to keep jobs in Indiana

Air conditioning company Carrier said Tuesday that it had reached an agreement with President-elect Donald Trump that would keep 1,000 jobs in Indianapolis.

Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence, Indiana's outgoing governor, planned to travel to the state Thursday to unveil the agreement alongside company officials.

Let me take a guess: Tax breaks? Whenever politicians get private businesses to agree to something, there is always a tax break in it. And the federal tax code just got another page added.

In other "Trumped up" news...

CNN:

Inside Trump and Romney's Jean Georges dinner

If it was New Year's Eve, they could have spent $888 per head on a tasting menu. But instead, President-elect Donald Trump met potential secretary of state nominee Mitt Romney Tuesday at Jean Georges, a three-Michelin star New York City restaurant inside his Trump International Hotel.

Somebody explain why that first line is important? This is what we mean by "liberal bias in the media". It wasn't New Year's Eve, and they didn't spend that much. Although I am certain that dinner cost a pretty penny:

Instead of being joined by their wives, which was the original expectation, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus was their only other guest. He was tapped by Trump to become his chief of staff when he enters the White House in January.

The three men ordered a young garlic soup with thyme and sautéed frog legs, and diver scallops with caramelized cauliflower and caper-raisin emulsion as appetizers, according to a readout to reporters. 

Whenever a meal includes the following, expect a big check for it: frog legs, any scallops that are not bay scallops, anything "caramelized", and an "emulsion".

However, I will admit the young garlic soup sounds delicious, and I am not a big fan of soups.

Food aside, why is this a news story? Remember that first line? This is all about making Trump look like an out-of-touch rich guy. Maybe he is, but if I were rich, I would love to eat like that. You won't hear me casting aspersions on Trump or Romney for that meal. 

Remember this folks: Envy is one of the seven deadly sins for a reason.

In yet more "Trumped up" news...

Washington Post:

‘And I voted for Trump! So there!’: 

Woman accuses black Michaels employees of discrimination

Jessie Grady walked into a Michaels store last week to buy a Santa hat for her young daughter.

She ended up witnessing — and filming — another customer’s “unprovoked attack” in which the woman unloaded on black Michaels employees, claiming she was being discriminated against and declaring that she voted for President-elect Donald Trump.

“And I voted for Trump! So there! What, you want to kick me out because of that?” the woman shouts in the video, which has gone viral. “And look who won! And look who won! And look who won!”

According to Grady, the Nov. 23 incident occurred at the arts and crafts store in Chicago after the woman told Grady to go ahead of her at the register. Once Grady was done checking out, she said she heard the woman grow irate. The woman’s “racist rant,” Grady said, included slurs.

“It just sounded like a disgruntled customer for a second,” Grady told The Washington Post. “And then she made a homophobic slur, she started cussing the manager, all sorts of things. It just kind of got out of control. So I waited, but it was like, when she started yelling African American women are discriminating against me, that’s when I pulled out my phone.”

It was not clear from the footage why the woman thought she was being discriminated against.

In other words, we have no clue what caused the incident. We just know it happened.

Watching the video, it is clear the woman in question is furious beyond reason, and starts spouting inanities at other people. So her reaction doesn't make her right or wrong, because what happened isn't seen. We have all been furious to the point where we say things which we regret later. That isn't proof of anything.

However, because this incident has such a strong racial aspect to it, and has hit a racial nerve, it deserves discussion. Just don't assume the woman is wrong because of the racial aspect of her rant. Would you discard her rant if she was a black woman complaining about discrimination from whites?

Finally, in weird news that can only come from California...

Fox 5 New York:

California regulates cow farts

California is taking its fight against global warming to the farm.

The nation's leading agricultural state is now targeting greenhouse gases produced by dairy cows and other livestock.

Sounds like the usual progressive stupidity taking over. However, there is an interesting aspect to it:

Regulators are looking for ways to reduce so-called enteric emissions — methane produced by bovine digestive systems. That could eventually require changes to what cattle eat.

But the biggest target is dairy manure, which accounts for about a quarter of the state's methane emissions.

State regulators want more farmers to reduce emissions with methane digesters, which capture methane from manure in large storage tanks and convert the gas into electricity.

The state has set aside $50 million to help dairies set up digesters, but farmers say that's not nearly enough to equip the state's roughly 1,500 dairies.

New Hope Dairy, which has 1,500 cows in Sacramento County, installed a $4 million methane digester in 2013, thanks to state grants and a partnership with California Biogas LLC, which operates the system to generate renewable power for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.

Co-owner Arlin Van Groningen, a third-generation farmer, says he couldn't afford one if he had to buy and run it himself.

There are positives and negatives to this kind of energy production, and I will post a more thorough analysis of it later. We will see about whether it is worth "making a stink".

How will history view President Obama?

I was having an email discussion with my friend Sam, as I frequently do, and the question came up: So how will history view the presidency of Barack Obama?

His view is this: Obama was obstructed from the beginning by the Republicans, who displayed hints of racism in their motives. Never mind that obstructionism is standard operating procedure for out-of-power political parties. But as I keep trying to remind him, the Republicans tried the same thing with Bill Clinton, and lost, because Clinton was far too savvy. Clinton assumed the middle ground, leaving Republicans looking silly.

On the other hand, Obama assumed an elitist position nobody except Wall Street wanted. His earliest achievements, approved with bipartisan support, were the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Both of these were written with Wall Street's input, and protected the "too big to fail" banks with both bailout money and regulations, allowing them to become even bigger before the end of Obama's presidency, even while offering the average American little. "Cash for Clunkers" was a benefit limited to those people who were buying new cars, and only when they traded in gas guzzlers. Unemployment benefits got extended to help Americans out of work. Later on, more people fell off the unemployment rolls, as they either retired (many baby boomers) or quit looking for jobs.

And then Obama made his biggest political mistake: The Affordable Care Act. Sadly, the health insurance industry signed off on their own destruction, thinking that requiring all Americans to have health insurance would enrich themselves. Unfortunately, eliminating their ability to refuse people with pre-existing conditions also leveled the cost between those who could afford it and didn't need it, with the worst health insurance risks of all. Since the inception of Obamacare, health insurance has seen increasing costs alongside increasing deductibles (one of the few positives from Obamacare, this has actually started returning health insurance to what insurance is supposed to do, which is pay for emergencies and not be just a third party payer).

However, the ACA was a mistake because it was passed on a purely partisan vote, thereby allowing both Obama and the Democratic Party to be held accountable for it. In effect, this gave the Republicans the blank check for obstructionism they needed. Bill Clinton recognized this pitfall when he pulled back from his own healthcare plan back in the 90's, and turned out to be one of the more effective presidents of recent times. Obama thought he was politically invincible, and he paid the price for his own arrogance: He lost the 2010 mid-term elections to the GOP, allowing the GOP to take the 2010 Census and redistrict most states in their own favor. The Democrats have paid for this in every election since then.

Even when the Republicans tried to shut down the government over Obamacare, they only took a minor hit in the 2014 mid-term election, still controlling both the House and Senate (which they took control in the 2012 election).

Speaking of the shutdown, how has the federal budget done? Apparently, the shutdown didn't stop the government from overspending. On September 30, 2009 (the end of the last fiscal year which President Bush initiated), the federal debt was at $11.9 trillion. As of September 30, 2016, the debt is at $19.5 trillion, an increase of 64%. Expect that number to go up, as the government hasn't stopped overspending. With the U.S. GDP at $17.95 trillion, that puts our debt-to-GDP ratio at 109%. We are getting close to Greek territory with those numbers.

Ironically, the one supposed great aspect of Obama, his black skin, has turned out to be his worst aspect, because it allowed all criticism of him to inevitably get called "racist" by somebody, thereby leaving the charge of racism as meaningless. This was evident in the 2016 presidential election, as multiple charges of racism were levied at Republican Donald Trump, and subsequently ignored by the American voters (whether Trump is racist or not remains to be seen, although the charges levied at him were questionable at best). Culturally, racism doesn't have the kick it used to have, as Leftists and the MSM have overused the accusation during Obama's presidency. Call it "the boy who cried wolf" effect, which has left us exposed to any real wolves out there.

As for foreign policy, Obama managed to lose respect for America, while maintaining most of Bush's initiatives. We are still at war in Afghanistan. Obama tried to pull us out of Iraq, only to have to return the troops there after the rise of ISIS. Libya and Syria have both been muddled missteps, with Vietnam-like American responses. Obama's treaty with Iran turned out to be an excuse to have a treaty with Iran, and not really doing anything. Obama's foreign policy was like a malaise, with no clear direction. On the bright side, Russian leader Vladimir Putin is stronger than ever! Oh wait, that isn't a bright side.

Obama does deserve credit for one thing: His olive branch to Cuba has been long overdue. America's Cuban boycott became ineffective long ago. This isn't to praise Cuba, just a statement of fact. The Cuban dictatorship isn't more or less strong than it ever was, as the Cuban economy has been a mess for decades. After you have at least a generation that has grown up in an economic mess, you are no longer influencing them with a boycott. On top of that, you can't influence anyone by ignoring them.

As Obama prepares to leave office, we see working Americans making roughly what they were making before as inflation has eroded any economic progress they made. There are more non-working Americans than there were in 2008. Health insurance is steadily becoming unaffordable. Wall Street is stronger than ever, even as fewer Americans work. Manufacturing in America continues to decline, even as more manufacturers continue to offshore their operations. Respect for American power continues to decline in the world, even as Russia becomes a stronger player. Even America's black community is up in arms over the overuse of lethal force by police departments against black men, even as our first black president leaves office with nothing for the black community to show for it, other than presidential tokenism.

Unless you are a Wall Street bank CEO, or an American with a terminal health condition, or a Cuban or Russian dictator, or an Iranian oligarch, there isn't much good that Obama has to show for his presidency. Historically, I would have to rank Obama between Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter. If there is a section in the history books for "ineffective presidents", Obama will be discussed at length there.

Political philosophy and post-election nonsense: Today's news for November 29th

Politico:

Texas elector who criticized Trump says he’s resigning

A Republican member of the Electoral College who had expressed reservations about supporting President-elect Donald Trump has opted instead to resign his position and turn it over to an alternate elector.

Art Sisneros, a Texas Republican elector who told POLITICO in August that he was strongly weighing a vote against Trump, confirmed Monday that he would quit the position. Sisneros had said as recently as last week that he still hadn't decided how to cast his electoral vote.

Sisneros detailed his decision to resign in a little-noticed blog post over the weekend.

The blog post from Sisneros is an excellent piece of political philosophy that deserves notice. He correctly points out how we have turned the original intent of the Electoral College as a republic into a warped representation of democracy, whereby the electors merely serve at the whim of the voters, and not chosen for their own best judgement. If you want to understand why we have shallow politicians, this blog post is a great place to start.

Think about it: When you vote, do you elect people to do what you want them to do, or do you elect the wisest person possible?

In other political news...

The New Yorker:

THE RECOUNT ROAD TO NOWHERE

In case you missed it:

Who started it this time? The behavior of Jill Stein, the Green Party Presidential candidate, who has filed in Wisconsin for a recount of votes cast in the Presidential election, and who plans to pursue recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania as well, has been frustrating; that of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party contender, who joined the effort, human but disappointing; and that of Donald Trump, the President-elect, outrageous and destructive. The recount business has not brought out the best in anybody, and in Trump it has brought out the worst: in a series of tweets Sunday night, he alleged that millions of votes were fraudulent, enough to cost him the popular vote. None of this is going to produce any change in the results of the 2016 election. The sole item it may deliver is the one thing the country had been spared with Trump’s victory: a corrosive, conspiracy-minded, and slanderous attack on the integrity of our voting system. This is a critical period in which the shape of Trump’s Administration will be formed, one that presents all sorts of tasks and challenges for his opponents. Democrats have better things to do.

Huh? How does an action initiated by the Green Party candidate and supported by the Democratic Party candidate turn into a diatribe against the Republican? Only in New York...

But back to the story...

A candidate needs two hundred and seventy Electoral College votes to win the Presidency. Trump has three hundred and six, and Clinton has two hundred and thirty-two. This includes sixteen for Trump from Michigan, where his victory, by ten thousand votes, was certified this afternoon. Wisconsin has ten electoral votes, and he is ahead by about thirty thousand; Pennsylvania has twenty, and the lead is seventy thousand. A recount would have to reverse the results in all three states to get Clinton to two hundred and seventy. And, as fivethirtyeight.com noted, this has never happened in cases where the margins are as large as those in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania; even Michigan would be at the edge of past experience. (It is worth noting that Jill Stein won enough votes in Michigan and Wisconsin to account for Clinton’s losses there.) Stein’s Wisconsin application lists a number of reasons for a recount, most of which are paraphrases of a single thought: the Russians might, just might, have fixed the election—after all, they hacked John Podesta’s e-mail. Added to that is the general observation that electronic voting systems are, in any state, theoretically hackable. That amounts to saying that no one should really trust any results. The only example of observable irregularities that Stein cites is an uptick in absentee voting, something that may have many causes. Attached to her submission is an affidavit from a computer expert, J. Alex Halderman, who has long warned against electronic voting systems. But, apart from explaining why a paper record is a good idea, he doesn’t really offer any evidence, apart from press reports that the Russians have hacked other things and a general sense that they are up to no good. (There have also been reports pointing to a weaker performance for Clinton in counties with paperless balloting; however, as both fivethirtyeight.com and the Upshot have pointed out, any difference disappears when one controls for demographics.) And Halderman includes this line: “One would expect a skilled attacker’s work to leave no visible signs, other than a surprising electoral outcome in which results in several close states differed from pre-election polling.”

This is classic conspiracy logic: the absence of evidence is evidence of just how insidious it is. The failure of an event to turn out as expected is presented as evidence of some hidden hand at work, some deliberate interference.

That hits the nail on the head: You need evidence for a good conspiracy theory, not wild speculation that connects unconnected dots.

Time for a TRUTH check: This election is a done deal. This isn't anywhere close to what happened in 2000. Trump is going to be president, like it or not.

Communism, the zombie ideology

How many times does communism have to die before everyone realizes it is just the next step to dictatorship after democracy?

Even when the Berlin Wall fell, Russia only remained a democracy for a few years before Putin rigged the political game in his own favor. Before you say, "That can't happen in America", just consider how the Democratic Party has rigged their own nomination process with superdelegates. Now the Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College so that the great bastions of socialism, California and New York, can decide our presidential elections. Given enough power, I am sure Democrats could figure a way to give Europeans a vote here.

But the best part is how communism disguises itself. Over the years, it has been called progressivism and socialism. And the best label of all: "social democracy"! Or is it democratic socialism? Regardless, combining the "tyranny of the majority" with big government programs has to work well, right? Tyranny is still tyranny. It doesn't matter if it is from a tin-plated dictator like Fidel Castro, or a plurality of voters. And when the tyranny decides to open the public treasury for itself, it inevitably runs into the Thatcher problem:

"They’ve got the usual Socialist disease – they’ve run out of other people’s money."--Margaret Thatcher

Where socialism or communism (or whatever the label is this week) eventually fails is in its own good intentions. The old saying applies here: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Socialism allows people to push off their own personal responsibility to perform good acts onto the government. Isn't it a good thing to want the government to heal the sick, and feed and clothe the needy? No, that is YOUR responsibility. And that doesn't mean you have to take care of everyone personally. But you can take care of friends and family. Just help them out when they need it.

Instead, we hand people off to a government bureaucrat who doesn't care. This is the inevitable result of socialism. If you want a world that looks like a DMV, then socialism is for you!

Seriously, we need to recognize this creeping communism that keeps coming back, and then kill it ideologically. There is a simple way to do it:

Quit looking to politicians to solve all of the world's problems. Sometimes, you just have to take the bull by the horns and do it yourself.

The human inclination is to try and find the easiest way possible, and that frequently involves delegating responsibility to someone else. In the case of our democracy, that someone else is usually the government. This is why communism/socialism keeps coming back like a zombie ideology. As soon as we think it's dead, it gets a new name and climbs out of its grave and into our government.  

Fidel Castro is dead: Today's news for November 28th

Former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro died over the weekend at the age of 90. 

Like many news stories, the most interesting aspect of Castro's death isn't his life (most of us know about Castro and have firm opinions on him), but rather how people have eulogized him. 

First, a basic eulogy...

Reuters:

Obama says history will judge Castro's impact on world

U.S. President Barack Obama in a statement on Saturday offered his condolences to Fidel Castro's family and added that history would judge Castro's impact on Cuba and around the world. 

"At this time of Fidel Castro's passing, we extend a hand of friendship to the Cuban people," Obama said. 

"History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him." Obama added that during his presidency he had worked to "put the past behind us," while working on a future that was built on those things that were in common.

Fairly tasteful and diplomatic. Nothing to see here folks.

But then we go north of the border...

CNN:

O Canada: Trudeau's Castro tribute raises eyebrows

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's tribute complimenting Fidel Castro as "remarkable" and a "larger than life leader who served his people" drew criticism and derision.

Commentators viewed Trudeau's statement as gushing and tone-deaf -- one that ignored the Cuban leader's human rights abuses and record of political oppression. It inspired parody tributes with the hashtag #TrudeauEulogies.

In his statement, Trudeau expressed "deep sorrow" after learning of "the death of Cuba's longest serving president."

"Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century. A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation."

"While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro's supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for 'el Comandante'."

Apparently, Trudeau wasn't the only Leftist in mourning...

Heatstreet:

Black Lives Matter Salutes Fidel Castro, 

is ‘Grateful’ He Harbored an FBI Most Wanted Terrorist

The Black Lives Matter movement has come out in support of Fidel Castro, following his death on Friday, saying they must “come to the defense of El Comandante” and thanking him for safeguarding Assata Shakur, who’s on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list.

The movement penned an article on Sunday titled “Lessons from Fidel: Black Lives Matter and the Transition of El Comandante” on the Medium platform where they eulogized the passing of the Cuban dictator. The article, which was not bylined, was Tweeted out by the closest thing there is to an official Black Lives Matter account and also posted on the movement’s semi-official Facebook page.

The article claims Castro’s death has caused “an overwhelming sense of loss, complicated by fear and anxiety.”

“Although no leader is without their flaws, we must push back against the rhetoric of the right and come to the defense of El Comandante,” it added.

The article continues by portraying Castro as a model freedom fighter, who Black Lives Matter should strive to follow and emulate. It said: “As Fidel ascends to the realm of the ancestors, we summon his guidance, strength, and power as we recommit ourselves to the struggle for universal freedom. Fidel Vive!”

The movement then thanked the Cuban dictator for hiding criminals and domestic terrorists from the U.S government, such as Michael Finney, Ralph Goodwin, and Charles Hill — who hijacked an airplane from Albuquerque while being sought for the 1972 murder of New Mexico State Trooper Robert Rosenbloom.

In summary, we have Obama taking advantage of the situation for diplomatic gain, Trudeau playing the "useful idiot", and Black Lives Matter showing they are actually rebels, not protesters.

This is important to notice because it separates BLM from the Civil Rights movement of Martin Luther King and into the realm of communist revolutionaries like Castro. "Universal freedom" is a communist dog whistle for "enslavement to the state". To groups like BLM, there are no criminals when they disapprove of the state, like the U.S. But all is forgiven when the state is Leftist, like Cuba.

On the other hand, some people are just idiots...

Miami Herald: 

Unrepentant hypocrite Colin Kaepernick defends Fidel Castro

Please click on the link above to read this editorial about writer Armando Salguero's confrontation with San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick over Fidel Castro, from last week (prior to Castro's death).

Fortunately, Kaepernick paid for his stupidity:

Miami Herald:

Kiko Alonso turns ‘bad blood’ for Colin Kaepernick into great performance

Armando Salguero's follow-up to the editorial above is a satisfying "Kaepernick got what was coming", where a second-generation Cuban playing linebacker in Miami had a great game against Kaepernick, as San Francisco was dealt their 10th consecutive loss.

Kaepernick reminds me of the old Billy Joel song Angry Young Man:

Give a moment or two to the angry young man
With his foot in his mouth and his heart in his hand
He's been stabbed in the back, he's been misunderstood
It's a comfort to know his intentions are good
And he sits in a room with a lock on the door
With his maps and his medals laid out on the floor
And he likes to be known as the angry young man 

...And there's always a place for the angry young man
With his fist in the air and his head in the sand
And he's never been able to learn from mistakes
So he can't understand why his heart always breaks
But his honor is pure and his courage as well
And he's fair and he's true and he's boring as hell
And he'll go to the grave as an angry old man

Weekly finale: "I want my MTV"

It may only be Tuesday, but I have to do my weekly musical finale post today. I will be out of town for the rest of the week, due to Thanksgiving. But I promise to be back next Monday!

For this week's finale, I decided to answer a musical question. Which came first, the line "I want my MTV" in the Dire Straits' song Money for Nothing, or the use of the line as a slogan in an ad for MTV?

First, the line in question, as well as the rest of the song:



The answer to the question? Actually, the use of the line as a slogan in an ad for MTV came first. According to the website Song Facts:

In the book I Want My MTV, various people who worked at the network explain that Dire Straits' manager asked the network what they could do to get on the network and break through in America. Their answer was: write a hit song and let one of the top directors make a video. Mark Knopfler took the directive to write an "MTVable song" quite literally, using the network's tagline in the lyrics. The song ended up sounding like an indictment of MTV, but Les Garland, who ran the network, made it clear that they loved the song and were flattered by it - hearing "I Want My MTV" on the radio was fantastic publicity even if there were some unfavorable implications in the lyrics.

One more irony: The Money for Nothing music video won the "Video of the Year" award at the third annual MTV Video Music Awards in 1986. Sometimes, people don't realize you are laughing AT them.

Hopefully, all of you will have a great Thanksgiving (and get paid for doing nothing!). I will see you back here next Monday. Well, I won't actually SEE you, but you know what I mean.

Stupid Leftist tricks: Today's news for November 22nd

The Left has become completely unmoored from reality. Today's news is filled with it.

The Atlantic:

'Hail Trump!': White Nationalists Salute the President Elect

“Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”

That’s how Richard B. Spencer saluted more than 200 attendees on Saturday, gathered at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C., for the annual conference of the National Policy Institute, which describes itself as “an independent organization dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of  people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.”

Spencer has popularized the term “alt-right” to describe the movement he leads. Spencer has said his dream is “a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans,” and has called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing.”

For most of the day, a parade of speakers discussed their ideology in relatively anodyne terms, putting a presentable face on their agenda. But after dinner, when most journalists had already departed, Spencer rose and delivered a speech to his followers dripping with anti-Semitism, and leaving no doubt as to what he actually seeks. He referred to the mainstream media as “Lügenpresse,” a term he said he was borrowing from “the original German”; the Nazis used the word to attack their critics in the press.

Why are journalists even covering this conference? This is not news, nor is it important to average Americans what a conference of neo-Nazis is doing.

This is a classic example of the MSM trying to push an agenda. In this case, it is the flawed theory that President-elect Trump is racist. For all of Trump's flaws, racism of the white supremacist variety is not one of them.

If you still believe Trump is racist, or if you just want something to give to your Leftist friends to talk them off the ledge, read Scott Alexander's blog post "You Are Still Crying Wolf". It proves how silly this racism charge is, not to mention how dangerous.

Speaking of silly leftists...

Los Angeles Times:

Secessionists formally launch quest for California's independence

Supporters of a plan for California to secede from the union took their first formal step Monday morning, submitting a proposed ballot measure to the state attorney general’s office in the hopes of a statewide vote as soon as 2018.

Marcus Ruiz Evans, the vice president and co-founder of Yes California, said his group had been planning to wait for a later election, but the presidential election of Donald Trump sped up the timeline.

Anyone who knows me knows that I fully support any state's effort to secede. So if California wants to, more power to them.

However, this is comparable to my wife wanting to divorce me because of my affair with Jessica Alba. Aside from the "only in my wildest dreams" aspect of it, it would be a silly thing for my wife to do. It wouldn't do anything for either of us, and probably cost both of us a lot of money.

It is the same deal for California and the U.S. If California left the U.S. over a Trump presidency, it would cost both California and the U.S. a lot of money, and still not change the fact Trump is president. But at least our next president would be much more conservative.

Speaking of reality checks for the Left...

The Deplorable Climate Science Blog:

NOAA Adjustments Correlate Exactly To Their Confirmation Bias

Thermometers show the US cooling since about 1920, but NOAA massively cools the past to create the appearance of a warming trend.

The best part of this story is the chart described as "a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering":

This is what passes for climate science nowadays. But like with Trump's alleged racism, when you did a little deeper, the evidence is lacking.

Fortunately, people see past the Left's lies:

Yahoo News:

In Milwaukee, hard-pressed black voters dumped Clinton

Milwaukee (AFP) - On North Avenue, young black men with nothing to do wander past boarded-up buildings and dilapidated shops. It is a sad, desolate landscape.

They and other African Americans in Milwaukee contributed to Hillary Clinton's crushing defeat in the presidential election: not only did they not vote for her, as had been expected, some even backed Donald Trump.

Wisconsin's largest city is also America's most racially segregated one, according to a study based on the 2010 census.

And Wisconsin served up one of the biggest surprises of an election day that shocked America and the world: no one thought the midwestern state would fall to the Republican billionaire.

Clinton was so sure of victory she did not even bother to campaign here after the Democratic primaries, instead sending her daughter Chelsea or her husband, former president Bill Clinton.

"She probably thought she had Wisconsin wrapped up," said Ronald Roberts, a 67 year old retiree, as he left a shop called Bill the Butcher. Its aging sign is missing the R.

"You can't take the voters for granted because they'll stay home," said Roberts, who used to work as an auto mechanic.

That is just what happened here, according to exit polls taken on November 8.

Americans get it. The Left has failed, and Americans see the evidence all around them, even if the Leftists in their glass towers miss it completely. But the worst part is how the Left not only denies their failure, but creates lies and false facts to cover up for it.

While I doubt Trump is the answer, at least he isn't a continuation of the current problem.

Finally, there is a positive note from that last article:

"I voted for Trump because I believe he can create jobs. Period," said Dennis Johnson, a 39-year-old truck driver.

"He said, 'Hey, what have you got to lose?' To me, it just made perfect sense," said Johnson.

He added: "Now, listen, this country will survive four years of Trump. We survived eight years of Obama and eight years of Bush."

Amen brother.
  

Excuses for Clinton's loss

Let's review the full list of reasons for Hillary Clinton's loss (note that it has to be her loss, since Donald Trump couldn't possibly have defeated her). In no particular order:

• FBI Director James Comey's on-and-off-and-on-again investigations of Hillary. She never actually did anything wrong. It was all his fault, even though sending classified information over an unsecured email is illegal, and ignorance of the law is never an excuse (assuming she was actually ignorant).
• Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee's email and then Clinton campaign manager John Podesta's email, in an attempt to swing the election for Trump, because Trump is secretly working for/with Putin. (And people thought the Obama birth certificate conspiracy was wacky!) Of course, nobody ever denied any of the content of those emails.
• Hillary didn't try to get the white middle class vote hard enough. This is actually one of the few excuses which makes sense. This actually falls under the classic truism about generals always tend to fight the last war. She thought she could win with the minority coalition which made Obama successful. However, she was no Obama. For all his failings prior to getting into the White House, Obama never had the many legal and ethical lapses which Clinton caused. 
• "Fake news" caused Hillary to lose. Apparently, many false stories got spread on Facebook and Twitter prior to the election, such as one about the Pope endorsing Trump. Like this doesn't happen every day? The truth is the MSM has lost all credibility, and many of the Wikileaks emails proved just how much they were colluding with Clinton's campaign. When people lose faith in the MSM, they will start looking towards any other news sources, some of which aren't credible. If anything, the MSM's own efforts FOR Hillary worked against them.

Time to add one more to the list: American contrarianism.

Brendan O'Neill suggests this in his Reason editorial, "America Called Bullshit on the Cult of Clinton". As he says:

If you want to see politics based on emotionalism over reason and a borderline-religious devotion to an iconic figure, forget the Trump Army; look instead to the Cult of Clinton.

...By the Cult of Hillary Clinton, I don't mean the nearly 62 million Americans who voted for her. I have not one doubt that they are as mixed and normal a bag of people as the Trumpites are. No, I mean the Hillary machine—the celebs and activists and hacks who were so devoted to getting her elected and who have spent the past week sobbing and moaning over her loss. These people exhibit cult-like behavior far more than any Trump cheerer I've come across.

O'Neill proceeds to describe many of these nauseating Hillary cultists, before getting to the meat of his theory:

...What it points to is a mainstream, Democratic left that is so bereft of ideas and so disconnected from everyday people that it ends up pursuing an utterly substance-free politics of emotion and feeling and doesn't even realize it's doing it. They are good, everyone else is bad; they are light itself, everyone else is darkness; and so no self-awareness can exist and no self-criticism can be entertained...The Cult of Hillary Clinton is the clearest manifestation yet of the 21st-century problem of life in the political echo chamber.

...the failure to make the gospel of Hillary into the actual book of America points to the one good thing about Trump's victory: a willingness among ordinary people to blaspheme against saints, to reject phony saviors, and to sniff at the new secular religion of hollow progressiveness. The liberal political and media establishment offered the little people a supposedly flawless, Francis-like figure of uncommon goodness, and the little people called bullshit on it. 

Amen.

This actually speaks to the greatest flaw in the Democratic Party, as well as the Left in general. While there are certainly Republicans who view their own party with an almost religious fervor, those Republicans aren't heavily represented in the mainstream media or in educational institutions, which combine to proselytize the secular progressive religion endlessly, creating this cult-like devotion among those whose minds can be swayed away from seeing that their emperor is not dressed. Fortunately, Americans in flyover country rejected this mass delusion.

UPDATE 11/22/2016: I added the "fake news" excuse.

The popular vote and Muslim registries: Today's news for November 21st

The Atlantic:

Clinton's Popular-Vote Lead Now Stands at 1.5 Million—and It's Growing

...The [voting] numbers that came out on Election Night were enough to secure [Donald] Trump the presidency, but they weren’t complete. State officials are still counting millions of provisional and absentee ballots, and within two weeks, [Hillary] Clinton will likely have another few million votes in the bank. 

Most were cast in the Clinton-leaning states of California, Washington, and New York—not swing states—so they won’t change the Electoral College. But there’s a sufficient amount to put her within striking distance of Obama’s 2012 turnout, and help put an end to the argument that she simply didn’t work hard enough. 

“We probably have about 7 million votes left to count,” said David Wasserman, an editor at Cook Political Report who is tracking turnout. “A majority of them are on the coasts, in New York, California, and Washington. She should be able to win those votes, probably 2-1.” By mid-December, when the Electoral College officially casts its ballots, Wasserman estimates that Clinton could be ahead by 2 percentage points in the popular vote. 

What’s with the delay? Several states, notably California and Washington, have liberal absentee and mail-in voting laws. California, for instance, allows residents to submit ballots up to three days late (although they must be postmarked on or before Election Day). These provisions have made alternative voting pretty popular, and the ballots a bit harder to count. California alone has more than 4 million votes pending; Washington is waiting on another 700,000.

This only matters to Democrats, who will say for decades to come, "Clinton really won", even though she lost. Being able to win huge numbers of votes in the welfare utopias of California and New York doesn't prove anything, other than the herd mentality of welfare states. Like the comedian Gallagher once said, "The bigger the crowd, the more people show up for it."

We live in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not the American Democracy, or the Democratic States of America. For the rest of us, we couldn't give a flip what California and New York overwhelmingly want.

In other Trump news...

NBC News:

Reince Priebus on Muslim Registry: 'Not Going to Rule Out Anything'

Incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press" that President-elect Donald Trump's team is not planning to create a Muslim registry, but would not rule anything out.

"Look I'm not going to rule out anything," Priebus said. "We're not going to have a registry based on a religion. But what I think what we're trying to do is say that there are some people, certainly not all people... there are some people that are radicalized. And there are some people that have to be prevented from coming into this country. And Donald Trump's position, President Trump's position is consistent with bills in the House and the Senate that say the following: If you want to come from a place or an area around the world that harbors and trains terrorists, we have to temporarily suspend that operation until a better vetting system is put in place."

Priebus further maintained that tougher screening was needed before the incoming administration could consider immigration.

"When a better vetting system is put in place then those radical folks, they'll not be allowed in, but then others will be allowed in, but only until that is done. That's what Gen. Michael Flynn believes and that's what President Trump believes."

This sounds perfectly reasonable, yet there are still some people screaming about this being the start of another Holocaust. Keep in mind, it doesn't appear to be about people inside America. Contrary to what progressive socialists think, there are people outside the country to whom we should not allow entrance. Even the most "open border"-minded people recognize this reality.

Weekly finale: The Bangles

Welcome to the last weekend before Thanksgiving, which means it is time for our weekly musical finale.

This week's finale features a trip back to the 1980's, and a little known song from The Bangles, Hero Takes a Fall:



Listening to this song today brings to mind Dilbert creator Scott Adams theory about everyone has their own personal movie, which is our life as we see it, with ourselves in the starring role as our own hero. The lyrics of Hero Takes a Fall speak to the application of this theory to the circumstance of romantic heartbreak:

The hero is exposed when
His crimes are brought to the light of day
Won't be feelin' sorry, sorry, sorry
On the judgement day.

It wasn't me who said
There'll be a price to pay
And I won't feel bad at all
When the hero takes a fall
When the hero takes a fall
(Hero takes a fall) oh no.

Your mother told you stories
You substitute with girls who tell you more
Suddenly you sight a fancy chance
Since love is at your door.

We're seeing through you now
I saw it all before
And I won't feel bad at all
When the hero takes a fall
When the hero takes a fall
(Hero takes a fall) oh no.

Admittedly, that wasn't the connection Susanna Hoffs and Vicki Peterson made when they wrote the song, but that is what I read into it.

That is all for me this week. If I don't take a fall this weekend, I will have more on Monday. Enjoy your weekend!

Time to leave the planet?

"Although the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty in the next 1,000 or 10,000 years. By that time we should have spread out into space, and to other stars, so a disaster on Earth would not mean the end of the human race."--theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking

This is like saying if you buy a thousand lottery tickets, you are nearly certain to win the big prize. However, he is right. If we stay here, we will eventually become chow for some cosmic Pac-man.

Risk management theory does tell us that putting all our eggs in the Earth's basket over a long period of time increases our long-term risk. Earth may seem safe now...until that big asteroid hits.

However, even though I am a firm believer in the long term need for humanity to leave the Earth, I also believe humans on Earth can take actions to protect themselves against some of the more likely long-term dangers in the universe.

For example, it is theoretically possible for humans to build a "shield" around Earth against random asteroids/meteors hitting the planet. Whether that shield is lasers, missiles, or just some kind of Star Trek-like shield remains to be seen. Granted, we probably won't build this tomorrow, but it needs to be on humanity's long-term agenda of things to-do.

There are theoretically ways to protect the Earth from nearly any cosmic anomaly, but it will take time and technology before we can get there.

On the bright side, with the technological singularity on the horizon, this may soon be a problem for our android overlords to fix.

College blues: Today's news for November 18th

America has a real problem with our colleges. Whether it is due to our flawed education system feeding the colleges with a bunch of wimpy kids, or if it is the colleges themselves encouraging infantile behavior, remains to be seen. 

Fox News:

Coddling campus crybabies: Students take up toddler therapy after Trump win

Around the nation, students are turning to the tools of toddlers as a bizarre form of therapy in the wake of Donald Trump's election last week. Colleges and universities are encouraging students to cry, cuddle with puppies and sip hot chocolate to soothe their fragile psyches, an approach some critics say would be funny if it weren't so alarming.

“This is an extreme reaction from millennials who are being forced to come to terms with the fact that we have a president that they don’t like –this is what losing feels like,” Kristin Tate, the 24-year-old author of "Government Gone Wild," told FoxNews.com. “We are grooming our students to be sensitive crybabies when we need to be showing students how to deal with world situations and how to be adults –there are no ‘safe spaces’ in the real world.”

Among the top-notch schools sending devastated students back to their early childhood: 

• Cornell University recently hosted a “cry-in,” complete with hot chocolate and tissues for disappointed Hillary Clinton supporters.
• University of Pennsylvania brought in a puppy and a kitten for therapeutic cuddling.
• Tufts University held arts and crafts sessions for students.
• University of Michigan Law School scheduled an event for this Friday called “Post-Election Self-Care With Food and Play” with “stress-busting self-care activities” including coloring, blowing bubbles, sculpting with Play-Doh and “positive card making.” 

University of Michigan spokesperson Kim Broekhuizen told FoxNews.com the law school was providing these programs based on requests from the students on campus. But on Thursday, following media scrutiny, the event was scrubbed from the school’s website and replaced with a more age-appropriate discussion of the “limitations of executive power.”

It is bad enough that our nation's college students already behave like spoiled brats with their frequent protests/tantrums over nothing. But now our colleges are encouraging this?

That is, when they aren't doing crap like this:

The College Fix:

White students not allowed to speak at UMich post-election walkout

The Michigan Review notes that a logistics sheet for Wednesday’s 1,000-student walkout at the University of Michigan – to protest the election and “increase in hate crimes and other forms of violence against marginalized folx” – prescribed specific roles for whites in attendance.

Those roles start and end with “police people” and “crowd control/marshals.”

The logistics sheet says that whites end up being quoted “overwhelmingly” when they speak alongside people of color, so anyone white who is approached for an interview should “pass it along to another person of color!”

They even have a video of the protest in question:



Note the overwhelming majority of the kids are white, so this isn't even a minority protest. It is a protest of the election results. So why the hating on whites?

Yes folks, that is what it is. We are no longer talking about equal rights any more, and slowly moving into institutionalizing racism against white people. And it is clear that at least some Democrats are complicit in this, since this protest was against what was perceived as "racist" election results, even though there is no proof yet of Trump's alleged racism.

Fortunately, this stupidity run amok is starting to draw a backlash:

The Des Moines Register:

Iowa lawmaker's 'suck it up, buttercup' bill targets protests

One Iowa lawmaker has a message for any state university that spends taxpayer dollars on grief counseling for students upset at the outcome of last week’s presidential election: “Suck it up, buttercup.”

“I’ve seen four or five schools in other states that are establishing ‘cry zones’ where they’re staffed by state grief counselors and kids can come cry out their sensitivity to the election results,” said Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton. “I find this whole hysteria to be incredibly annoying. People have the right to be hysterical … on their own time.”

Kaufmann plans to introduce a piece of legislation he’s calling the “suck it up, buttercup bill” when the Legislature resumes in January.

It would target state universities that use taxpayer dollars to fund election-related sit-ins and grief counseling above and beyond what is normally available to students. Those that do would be subject to a budget cut for double the amount they spend on such activities, Kaufmann said. It also would establish new criminal penalties for protesters who shut down highways, like those who briefly closed Interstate Highway 80 in Iowa City during a protest against President-elect Donald Trump last week.

The idea of cutting taxpayer dollars from universities is a good idea by itself. But even though the reason behind this is sound, attaching strings to funding is a slippery slope, which can create bureaucratic nightmares. In addition, aren't there already laws against protesting on highways? That creates a public safety hazard, especially for the protesters. Overall, this bill is an awful idea.

However, the name of the bill alone is worth the message it sends.

The future of AI

"This is how AI ROBOTS will take over the world - and why we need to stop [scientists] NOW" is how the headline reads at the Express, a British news website. And it does propose a reasonable theory on how artificial intelligence (AI) will surpass humankind.

But is this sensationalism accurate? Probably not.

Mind you, this isn't a denial that AI will surpass human intelligence. It should, and we should let it.

But we also shouldn't just sit idly by while it happens. At some point, we should adapt this intelligence for our own use. Somewhere between the Terminator and the Borg lies a positive human future.

Yesterday, I posted this quote:

"Our minds are finite, and yet even in these circumstances of finitude we are surrounded by possibilities that are infinite, and the purpose of human life is to grasp as much as we can out of the infinitude."--Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)

Therein lies our purpose, however out of reach it may seem. But if we can use technology to increase our grasp of the infinitude, doesn't that advance our purpose in life?

Admittedly, the Terminator possibility lies out there as a warning to us about letting our technology get too far ahead of us. And the Borg possibility reminds us not to let our own technology overwhelm our free will. But having super-intelligent AI while also being smart enough to control it, even as we remain in full control of ourselves, is a path to our ultimate goal.

God created man in His image. Now, man must create God in our image.

Or, as Peter O'Toole said in the 1985 movie Creator:

"...one of these days we'll look in to our microscope and find ourselves staring right into God's eyes, and the first one who blinks is going to lose his testicles."

Trump eats dinner, press shocked: Today's news for November 17th

Don't think that headline is a joke, because that is what passes for news these days:

CBS News:

Trump ditches press to eat dinner out with family

President-elect Donald Trump has broken with protocol by leaving his Trump Tower residence without taking along his press contingent.

The Trump transition team had informed reporters and photographers at Trump Tower that there would be no movement by the president-elect for the rest of the day and evening. Then, less than two hours later, a presidential-style motorcade left the building unannounced.

That sent the press corps scrambling to find out if Trump was indeed in the motorcade and where it was heading.

It turned out that Trump was having dinner at the 21 Club. Reporters and photographers caught up with him at the midtown Manhattan restaurant but were not allowed inside. 

A spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, confirmed that Trump was having dinner with his family and she asked that the press respect that.  

Dinner requires a press contingent? Do they need to look over his shoulder and ask, "You gonna finish that?" Maybe they can catch him with Russian dressing on his salad?

Claiming it is protocol does not make it right, or even necessary. This story, as reported by multiple news outlets, makes the MSM sound like a bunch of spoiled newshounds. There are some things that just don't need to be reported.

In "real" news...

Washington Post:

Trump plan calls for nationwide concealed carry and an end to gun bans

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump -- who said he has a concealed carry permit -- called for the expansion of gun rights Friday, including making those permits applicable nationwide. 

In a position paper published on his website Friday afternoon, Trump called for the elimination of gun and magazine bans, labeling them a "total failure." 

"Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own," Trump wrote.

Did I miss something? When did Trump become the heart of libertarianism? This is a position even closer to true libertarianism than Gary Johnson espoused.

Trump may be a jerk, but this presidency still has potential.

On the other side of the aisle...

Fox News:

Outgoing California Sen. Boxer introduces bill to scrap Electoral College

Retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., introduced long-shot legislation Tuesday to scrap the Electoral College, in the latest protest from Democrats following last week's election where Hillary Clinton appeared to win the popular vote despite losing to Donald Trump.

Trump, as with all presidential election victors, won the election because he garnered the most Electoral College votes.

But he likely will be the fifth president in American history to do so while losing the popular vote. The last president to win the presidency in such a manner was President George W. Bush, who beat Democrat Al Gore in 2000 despite Gore gaining more overall votes.

“This is the only office in the land where you can get more votes and still lose the presidency. The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately,” Boxer said in a statement.

Because, as any good Democrat will tell you, whenever you fail in life, make a law to make sure you won't fail again. Damn the consequences, make a law!

Here you go Democrats:

In other Democratic Party news...

CNN:

Democrats hope Trump meets his match in Schumer

If wishes were ponies, we'd all ride...

The battle for America's political soul could come down to a street brawl between two boys from Queens and Brooklyn. 

Donald Trump and Chuck Schumer are spoiling for a clash once the President-elect takes office next year and the new Democratic Senate minority leader gets his hands on his caucus after winning election on Wednesday.

I guess Schumer is Obiwan to the Democrats' Princess Leia: "Save us Chuck Schumer, you're our only hope!" 

There is just one problem with this:

Trump and Schumer -- both flamboyant, media savvy, outspoken, deal-making larger-than-life New York personalities have history. In fact, Schumer is one of the few political figures in Washington who Trump actually knows well, and the billionaire contributed to several of his new rival's election campaigns.

Schumer even rode to Trump's defense when he got embroiled in a primary spat earlier this year with Ted Cruz over "New York values." Schumer (Brooklyn) and Trump (Queens, then Manhattan), had common cause against the Texas senator.

There may not be as much difference as Democrats may hope. However, it is also possible that Trump might be more liberal than conservatives hope.

I will say this for Schumer: Unlike Schumer's predecessor Harry Reid, Schumer's IQ actually measures. With Reid, I was always worried he would forget to breathe. Maybe "worry" isn't the right word?

Wednesday wisdom: Alfred North Whitehead

"Our minds are finite, and yet even in these circumstances of finitude we are surrounded by possibilities that are infinite, and the purpose of human life is to grasp as much as we can out of the infinitude."--Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)

The Electoral College: Today's news for November 16th

"Waffling" doesn't begin to describe what Donald Trump does sometimes. It is even beyond a "flip-flop". What exactly is the phrase for frequent sea changes made on a dime? And considering Trump's fortune, that is a lot of dimes...

The Hill:

Trump calls Electoral College 'genius' after earlier criticism

President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday morning defended the Electoral College as "genius," days after criticizing it. 

"The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!" Trump tweeted Tuesday morning. 

He also refuted arguments that he should have lost the presidential race because Hillary Clinton defeated him in the popular vote, tweeting that "If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily."

Trump infamously called the Electoral College a "disaster for democracy" during the night of the 2012 election, when it appeared President Obama would lose the popular vote but still win the presidency. Obama ended up winning the popular vote as well when all votes were tallied. 

In recent days, a lot of people have been calling for the trashing of the Electoral College, due to Hillary Clinton losing it, but winning the popular vote. Both the Electoral College and direct popular vote have their flaws, but Trump nails the main virtue of the Electoral College in his statement above: If we only had a popular vote deciding presidential elections, no candidate would waste their time outside of the large population centers. Ohio and Florida would rarely see a presidential candidate.

On the other hand...

KGW:

Most of arrested Portland protesters are from Oregon

Most of the 112 protesters arrested in Portland last week didn’t vote in Oregon, according to state election records. Approximately 30 percent did cast a ballot in Oregon or in another state. 

At least seventy-nine demonstrators either didn’t turn in a ballot or weren’t registered to vote in the state. 

Following Tuesday's presidential election of Donald Trump, thousands of people took to the streets in downtown Portland for five straight nights. The activity included at least one night that the police declared to be a riot, with more than $1 million in property damage. The bulk of the arrests happened on Friday and Saturday evenings as protesters faced off against police. 

KGW compiled a list of the 112 people arrested by the Portland Police Bureau during recent protests. Those names and ages, provided by police, were then compared to state voter logs by Multnomah County Elections officials. 

Records show 39 of the protesters arrested were registered in the state but didn’t return a ballot for the November 8 election. Thirty-five of the demonstrators taken into custody weren’t registered to vote in Oregon.  

Kevin Grigsby was one of 71 arrested during the Saturday night protest.  He said he didn't do anything wrong, but told KGW he also did not vote. 

"I did not (vote) and the reason why is because we know that the electoral college is really what matters the most. And I think that we need to change that because your vote doesn’t matter if you don’t have enough electoral college points.," said Grigsby. 

Ignoring the hypocrisy of these protesters for a moment, Grigsby's comment ignores the huge flaw in the popular vote: If you think your vote doesn't matter for the electoral college, when your vote is only outweighed by the rest of the voters in your state, what do you think about your vote being outweighed by the 50 to 100 million other voters in the entire country?

Back to the hypocrisy of the protesters:

Another protester said those arrested are not representative of the thousands who took to the streets last week. 

“You just look at your sample and it’s the people who got arrested. And the people who got arrested, I just don’t think they’re representative of the majority of the people who are out protesting.”

That may be true. Although one has to wonder why this protester didn't (or wouldn't) give their name?

In other Trumped-up news...

Salon:

Donald Trump’s Republican Party is now just fine with deficits

Republicans, despite prattling on endlessly about the danger of budget deficits during the President Obama administration, are now ready to embrace unprecedented deficit spending under Donald Trump. 

“There is now a real risk that we will see an onslaught of deficit-financed goodies — tax cuts, infrastructure spending, more on defense — all in the name of stimulus, but which in reality will massively balloon the debt,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, in an interview with Politico.

Counter-question: Was Salon running editorials like this when Obama was running up the debt to bailout Wall Street, among his myriad of other big government ideas? And where was Salon when Republicans allegedly obstructed Obama, yet the government debt continued to grow to historic levels?

Isn't fascinating how the progressive MSM always manages to discover fiscal conservatism when a Republican is in office, but never for a Democrat.

Mind you, this doesn't excuse Trump. It only puts things in perspective for fiscal conservatives: When you vote for a Republican, you are wasting your vote just the same as if you voted for a Democrat.

Let us  move on to the rumor mill...

The Hill:

Trump team mulling Cruz for AG: report

President-elect Donald Trump's transition team is considering making Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) the next attorney general, according to a new report.

Cruz discussed a possible role in Trump's upcoming administration at a meeting in Trump Tower in New York City Tuesday, a person familiar with the matter told Bloomberg Politics.

CNN's Jim Acosta reported that a source told him Cruz was on a "long short list" of potential attorney general picks.

Cruz visited Trump to offer assistance during the president-elect's transition talks, a transition aide told NBC News earlier in the day, adding that the Texas senator is not being considered for a Cabinet post.

(hat tip to ReactionGIFs for the gif)

Not...going...to happen.

Seriously, Trump is well-known for carrying grudges. The possibility of a Cruz cabinet post ranks somewhere below a Hillary Clinton cabinet post. At least Trump likes Hillary.

Moving right along...

Rudy Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor, is purportedly another option for attorney general. 

Reports emerged Monday, however, that Trump's team considers the former GOP mayor of New York City the favorite for secretary of State instead.

To reiterate: Not....going...to happen. However, if Trump does make Rudy the secretary of state, that will be a head-scratcher, considering Rudy's knowledge of foreign affairs ranks somewhere between Gary Johnson and Homer Simpson.

Finally, yet another post-election analysis of Hillary's epic failure:

The American Mirror:

Clinton camp blames white female ‘internalized misogyny’ for loss

Move over James Comey.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has a new culprit for its loss to Donald Trump: Self-loathing, sexist women.

During an appearance on MSNBC on Monday, former Clinton campaign communications director Jess McIntosh claimed it was women with “internalized misogyny” who couldn’t bring themselves to vote to elect the first woman president.

Phrase of the day: "internalized misogyny". To paraphrase Winston Churchill, never in the field of human conflict have so many syllables been dedicated to the epic failure by people with such low IQ's.

How far down will the Clintonistas reach to find excuses for their failure? Now they are blaming one of their core constituencies. Time to roll out the bear for them...

Bernie's "racist" tweet

I come from the white working class, and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people where I came from.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) November 14, 2016

While I don't agree with Bernie Sanders much, he does have a valid point.

Even though minorities had a big impact on both of President Obama's elections, Hillary Clinton doesn't have the luxury of dark skin. As much as people complain about Donald Trump and his racist supporters, where was the minority support for Obama's hand-picked successor? I guess she wasn't dark enough for some people.

The even greater irony is she targeted her campaign at minorities, almost ignoring the white middle class.

On a side note, is everyone going to call Sanders a racist over that comment? If Trump said it, the "I told you he was racist" cries would be loud and clear. But no, I don't think Sanders was any more racist than Trump, who I don't consider a racist.

Steve Bannon and the SCOTUS: Today's news for November 15th

Washington Post:

Trump draws sharp rebuke, concerns over 

newly appointed chief White House strategist Stephen Bannon

President-elect Donald Trump's decision to appoint Stephen Bannon as his chief strategist in the White House has drawn a sharp rebuke from political strategists who see in Bannon a controversial figure too closely associated with the “alt-right” movement, which white nationalists have embraced.

In the first place, just because racists do something doesn't make it evil or wrong. One of the virtues of alt-right media is that it is frequently the only media source speaking "truth to power", which is sadly lacking in the MSM today. Journalism should challenge The Powers That Be, not hop into bed with them.

Admittedly, there is some edgy reporting done in the alt-right media. It isn't outright racism, but it does skirt the edges. However, there are times when they are the only source reporting a story, and they aren't false stories either. They are stories that need to be told, but the MSM won't touch them because they are backed by moneyed interests which oppose the ugly truths about themselves. Like the old cliche says, you don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Continuing:

Bannon, who was the executive chairman of Breitbart News before joining the Trump campaign in August, will serve as chief strategist and senior counselor for Trump; that will give Bannon authority over the strategic direction of the White House. Bannon will assume a similar role to that of Karl Rove during George W. Bush’s administration and recently by longtime strategist John Podesta under President Obama.

Rove and Podesta weren't controversial, were they? Any White House chief strategist needs to be someone who will tell the president exactly how things are. Sycophants need not apply.

More:

The announcement has produced intense hand-wringing in Washington and sharp denunciations from political observers and strategists critical of Breitbart News's close association with the alt-right, a fringe conservative movement saturated with racially insensitive rhetoric and elements of outright white nationalism.  

Elements of white nationalism? Sorry, I missed that part. While I don't visit Breitbart every day, I have yet to see anything "white nationalist" there. What I have seen is news reporting that thumbs its nose at power. THAT is what real journalism should do.

As for "racially insensitive rhetoric", truth is not a racially sensitive thing. If you want racial equality, all skin colors should be treated equally, and that includes both positive and negative treatment. I am sorry if that offends you, but truth is a blunt instrument, which occasionally hits us over the head, regardless of the skin color of your head.

True journalism should report the truth, and not bow to the forces of political correctness.

And still more:

Bannon’s personal history also has been mired in controversy. Shortly after he joined the Trump campaign, court documents revealed that his ex-wife, Mary Louise Piccard, had accused Bannon of domestic violence and anti-Semitic language in 2007. (The documents were obtained and first reported by the New York Daily News.) 

“The biggest problem he had with Archer is the number of Jews that attend,” Piccard said in a statement to the court. “He said that he doesn't like the way they raise their kids to be 'whiny brats' and that he didn't want the girls going to school with Jews.” Bannon has denied the accusations.

Because nobody has ever made a false accusation in a divorce proceeding. Seriously, it is hard to see that as damning evidence.

However:

Ben Shapiro, a former Breitbart editor who worked closely with Bannon, called him a “legitimately sinister figure” in an article he published on the Daily Wire after Bannon joined the Trump campaign. 

“Many former employees of Breitbart News are afraid of Steve Bannon. He is a vindictive, nasty figure, infamous for verbally abusing supposed friends and threatening enemies,” Shapiro wrote. 

So? I do that too. Verbally abusing friends doesn't mean anything. They abuse me back.

Threatening enemies? That is what is known as "normal human behavior".

That said, maybe Bannon is a truly awful boss. then again, maybe Shapiro has an axe to grind. We don't really know.

But we need to view Bannon's appointment with this in mind:

Bannon's appointment brings into focus many of the uncomfortable racial tensions surrounding Trump's campaign. Throughout the campaign, Trump's critics regularly accused him of using anti-immigrant language and racial grievances to motivate his supporters, charges that he denied and dismissed. He expressed surprise when asked about racial slurs that were being used against African Americans and other minority groups since his election during an interview with CBS's "60 minutes” that aired Sunday. 

“I am very surprised to hear that. I hate to hear that, I mean, I hate to hear that,” Trump said in the interview, which was taped Friday. "I would say don't do it, that's terrible, because I'm going to bring this country together. 

“I am so saddened to hear that. And I say stop it, if it helps. I will say this, and I will say right to the cameras: Stop it,” Trump added.

Keep in mind, if anyone had asked Hitler about abuse of Jews, he never would have said anything comparable to what Trump said. The racist allegations against Trump strike me as Leftist propaganda, and nothing more than that. If true racists like Trump, that is their choice.

As for Bannon, maybe he is a "vindictive" and "nasty" SOB like people describe him. But you need people like that around you, because they will be brutally honest with you.

In other Trump news...

CNN:

Trump: Same-sex marriage is 'settled,' but Roe v Wade can be changed

For the first time since winning the election, Donald Trump has weighed in on two of the most controversial social issues the Supreme Court has taken on ever: gay marriage, and abortion.

His answers could leave conservatives worried.

Trump indicated he's "fine" with the high court's opinion legalizing same-sex marriage and called it "settled," but committed to appointing justices who want to change the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling affirming abortion rights.

The inconsistency in the question -- what is settled law? -- is sure to concern judicial conservatives who fear he may not live up to his promise to fill the empty Supreme Court seat with someone in the mold of their hero, Justice Antonin Scalia.

Above all else, judicial conservatives hope that Trump's eventual nominees to the Court will apply the Constitution as they believe it is written and enforce the limits on government power. They see both the 2015 same-sex marriage ruling -- Obergefell v. Hodges -- and Roe v. Wade as total failures in that regard. The fact that Trump interprets the cases differently might be some cause of concern.

Ironically, Trump's views on this are almost libertarian (small "L" libertarian, not to be confused with the big "L" Libertarian Party).

In recent years, small "L" libertarians have been reviewing the question of abortion as a right, thanks in large part to the views espoused by both Ron and Rand Paul, who have opposed abortion on the grounds it violates the human rights of the fetus. As we have seen over the years, thanks to advances in medical technology, fetuses are becoming viable outside the womb (admittedly with extreme medical intervention) at earlier and earlier stages in development. Within the next century, it is entirely possible that a fetus could become viable instantly. If so, the fetus could easily be considered a full human, entitled to all the rights any human should have, including the right to live.

If that happens, killing a fetus based on a "right to privacy" would be as inane as allowing murder based on it. We can wait for the medical technology to make fetuses viable at any age, or we can anticipate the inevitable truth that fetal potential overrules the "right to privacy".

On the other hand, gay marriage is a tricky subject for conservatives, who tend to think of marriage in more religious terms. Conservatives need to recognize the difference between religious marriage and government marriage.

In most religions, marriage is clearly centered around procreation at its core. That isn't to say they ignore "love between man and woman", because that is also an important factor to a normally functioning family. However, the "go forth and multiply" order clearly takes precedence. On top of that, most religions frown upon gay relationships, when they don't call them a sin. Some religions have evolved to be more accepting of gay relationships, but that is between people and their religion.

On the other hand, government marriage is all about legal contracts. Because of all the legal implications of marriage, marriage is practically a legal contract of its own. Government marriage is NOT about procreation at all. While it may be descended from the concept of religious marriage, it is a legal concept now. As such, it cannot recognize any limitations on sex, sexual orientation, race, or anything else (although the taboo about close relatives marrying might remain for awhile, don't be surprised if that gets tossed out eventually). Ergo, gay marriage should be legal, which most libertarians also espouse.

Trump gets this one right too, with an almost libertarian view on the law. There is hope for this president yet.