Thursday, September 08, 2016

Salon: “What is Aleppo?”

It is almost hilarious as MSNBC has pilloried Gary Johnson and then Sophia Tesfaye at Salon has carried their shock that a candidate did not know the history of some trivial place on the map. {“What is Aleppo?”}
“This is incredible depressing,” MSNBC contributor Elise Jordan, a Johnson supporter, said after the presidential candidate left the MSNBC set. “I think it would be hypocritical of me to support Gary Johnson after I’ve been beating up on Donald Trump for his lack of basic knowledge,” she said, adding, “I don’t know where I’m left.”
Compared to not knowing what the Nuclear Triad was, I wonder why the F--- do voters care about the president being a Trivial Pursuit champion. Both main candidates seem to not even know about how servers work as Hillary thought she could wipe a server clean with a rag and Trump thinks Hillary used acid on the hard drives.

The MSNBC/NBC network had plenty of opportunities to ask trivial questions to the two main candidates. It might have been nice to ask each some trivial questions:
Who is Garry Kasparov and what is his connection to Putin and what is he most noted for accomplishing?
What is Keptocracy?
What is currency of El Salvador?
Who is the President of Honduras?
Who was ousted in the Honduran coup d'état in 2009?
 If Trump can not even explain his plan to oust and destroy ISIS, then why should a third party candidate know every trivial question? When the liberal bias of MSNBC shows their true colors, you have to wonder about their journalism standards?

At least someone on MSNBC brought up the completely idiotic idea of "taking the oil from Iraq" from the Drumpf.

Willie Geist now says that "the bar is at Aleppo. If you don't know where Aleppo is or what it is, you can not be president of the United States." Strange that in his journalistic standards, he has not risen that triviality question to either of the other two candidates. This clearly shows bias in the news media, but also we have to wonder if he truly wants a Jeopardy winner or an actual commander in chief. It's not like: Donald Trump Doesn’t Quite Know the Difference Between the ‘Kurds’ and the ‘Quds’
“Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with CNN. “I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists.”
... or maybe it is.

Update: Now MSNBC says that Gary Johnson's response was a "Major Mistake". They certainly need to get the pillory out and start using it again.

Ann Coulter Plugs Her Book, Gets Booed, Heckled by Pete Davidson at Rob Lowe Roast

Monday, May 02, 2016

Elizabeth Warren is Worst Person in the World {WPITW}

Coming from the left wing wackos at DailyKos you can expect that they think that Elizabeth Warren unloads on Ted Cruz, and it's a beautiful thing. You have to wonder what is beautiful to them when she publicizes emails through Tritter with 142 character endless rants.
Warren: Are you kidding me, @TedCruz? We’re supposed to pity you because trying to be the leader of the free world is hard?! 2 words: Boo hoo.
You IDIOT! You guys are not supposed to pity him as the email was meant for his supporters. The message was not meant for liberals that are "tolerant and understanding" of the sacrifices others make for the better good. The last time I heard "Boo hoo" used was in the third grade. Elizabeth is about the same level as my kindergartener child.

Interestingly enough, we are expected to empathize with plight at trying to be a Senator in
Warren: 'I was hurt, and I was angry'. Hell, she even wrote a whole book about how hard it was being "born a poor black Indian child".

If there was one takeaway from her 2012 Senate race for Warren, it was that the campaign trail turned out to be more brutal than she could ever have expected. Republicans questioned her integrity, her family members were dragged through the mud and her opponent mocked her appearance in a radio interview.

“What really threw me, though, were the constant attacks from the other side,” she writes about the 2012 Senate campaign. “I would almost persuade myself that I was starting to get the hang of full-throttle campaigning and then — bam! Out of left field, the state Republican Party, or the Brown campaign, or some blogger, would launch a rocket at me.”
Yes, Boo Hoo for the Senator from Massachusetts. I guess you should have stayed out of the kitchen! And no soup for you! I am sure she spent as much energy (Twits) when Heidi was personally attacked by the sexist Donald Trump. Oh, that's right, not a peep about sexism directed at members of Cruz's family.

It is one thing to be attacked on issues and policies, but another to receive prejudiced personal attacks: Al Franken says that Ted Cruz is what happens when Joe McCarthy &  Dracula have a baby. Again, we did not get a peep from Elizabeth that came from her own party and a member of the same exclusive club.

Warren: Know whose health is limited? Workers w/ no paid leave who can't stay home when sick or caring for kids. @TedCruz won't support it.
This nonsense tweet along with the tweets on health and sleep is in response Cruz's passage of:
Cruz: Health and sleep are limited: Fighting morning and night for the future of our country ensures long nights and early mornings resulting in little to no sleep.
Warren: Know whose sleep is limited? Working parents who stay up worrying about getting kids thru college w/o big debt. @TedCruz blocked .
Yes, the answer to all social ills to insist that businesses pay for it. It's FREE! No wonder she has that Berning sensations. But just like most great social experiments, there is never a need to explore the social costs and especially any cost-benefit analysis. All we need to do is take from and rise the costs of doing business by providing paid leave, and free college. Then all our social problems are solved... or at least until the next constituent thinks of something else to get for free.
Warren: Know who’s facing "constant attacks," @TedCruz? Hardworking American immigrants, Muslims, LGBT folks, women. Your constant attacks.
Beyond the hyperbolae that he does not actually attack those groups, she creates straw man arguments. I know of no one that is against "Hardworking American immigrants" as that would imply LEGAL status of immigrants, idiot. Cruz actually suggested and has not enacted any law that discriminates against Muslims, but increased police presence and intelligence in sectors of society that may breed radical terrorist ideologies.
The article: Target, Trump, and NBA are Wrong about Men in Women’s Restrooms… Here's Why…

Elizabeth Warren: New shit, same as the old shit why it is not necessarily Transgenders we need to worry about, but how does society address the added benefits that individuals can obtain by declaring themselves a minority. You only have to consider the case of Rachel Dolezal to think of this feel good society where anyone can claim their heritage be anything they want it to be, or even sex.
Warren: You chose to run for President, @TedCruz. You chose to make your “sacrifices.” Working people don't have a choice.
Just like you, Elizabeth, chose to run for Congress, and boo hoo to you too! This is a normal liberal meme that "working people" do not have choices. Any person in the USA has plenty of choices to make and can make plenty of life fulfilling choices.

 Warren: Hey @TedCruz: Maybe you should spend less time complaining about your "significant sacrifices" - & more time doing something about theirs.
In many ways he is, but you are just assuming that only your answers are correct. Just like you are constantly creating hardships for minorities and young people by insisting on raising the minimum wage. It only makes it harder for young people and minorities to get started and to move up the career ladder.

Warren blasts Cruz for "sacrifice"


Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Thin Skinned New Yorkans

Trump holds on to big lead in New York and I am not sure why. Like most Americans, I have followed Trump's career including watching his Apprenticeship show until we got bored with all the celebrity BS. What has Trump really done for New York? Hasn't he also made enough enemies in the state to make his popularity not shine so bright? There are plenty more questions that could consume all my free time, but in the mean time I wonder:

What are New York Values?
It may not seem self evident that a regional space or locality has a distinctive set of values, but it would be reasonable to assume that given the politics of an area that then this set of values becomes easily measured and quantified.

When I lived in Santa Barbara for 4 years and worked there nearly 8 years, it was a beautiful place to work and live. For the most part the politics was openly liberal and blatantly anti-business. They justified this stance by insisting it was only on "bad industries" or businesses, but the same liberal mentality can easily make even the most benign business suddenly get on the bad side of a liberal mob.

Santa Barbara prided itself in its quaint "Disneyland" environment with many small shops and restaurants along its main corridor. But when they heard from a citizen during their open discussion period in city hall about possible businesses dumping out their dishwater or cleaning water into the drain without any shred of evidence, there was an immediate response that a commission had to be set up and investigate all possible violations of this dastardly dead.

There are too many to list all the examples of New York values, but it easy enough to say that the liberal mentality that people can not properly decide for themselves permeates all levels of politics including people claiming to be conservative and insisting that fountain drinks be under a certain number of ounces.

One of the first examples I learned about was in college economic classes. Rent controls and regulations on housing sounds like a great idea, but ultimately lead to shortages and inferior products in the market. Rent and housing is the biggest expense of low income households and even the "working poor" experience high rent costs that raise their cost of "living". So to solve this problem liberal bastions like New York, California and yes, Santa Barbara think that raising minimum wage laws is the answer. The answer should not be rent control laws but to open the market so that the market can create affordable housing.

Are New Yorkans really  that upset with the phrase "New York values"?  
It is actually funny that MSNBC keeps repeating "New York Values" during the Hardball show. Hell, even Montel Williams is offended! Can't they just get over themselves as many like myself remember that it was one hell hole of a city with crime rampant during the 1970s. While MSNBC hates Trump, they willingly allow him unlimited free media and repeating his arguments ad nauseam with only a tiny sound bite in rebuttal {if that}.
It is almost like the media has amnesia since Trump actually started talking about values. Can you think of anyone that should not throw stones?
Why Attacking Trump for 'New York Values' Could Backfire for Cruz: An ad put out by the Cruz-supporting political action committee Keep the Promise III contains snippets from a 1999 "Meet the Press" interview Trump gave to then-host Tim Russert, in which he describes himself as “very pro-choice” and says that, as a result of living in Manhattan, his views are “a little bit different than if I lived in Iowa.”

How Trump Lost Iowa: My prediction of last week about how much this would hurt Trump was confirmed by Iowa caucus exit polls: Trump ranked horribly in his grasp of Iowa voters’ values.

 The Drumpf actually was willing to show his liberal leanings and pandering to Iowans by saying how great ethanol is for America.

Update: Now Chris Matthews has repeated on his show as well as the Rachel Maddow show that Cruz stated that New York was a modern day  Sodom and Gomorrah. I only see that people are comparing what people outside of New York think about New York City. It looks like he is a paid stooge for Trump.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Paul Krugman, Worst Economist in the World {WEITW} Businessmen edition

Paul Krugman seems to have no bounds to creating straw men arguments and today was no exception in his latest piece entitled: Businessmen and Economics.
A brief thought on something I’ll try to expand on later. Leaving aside all the questions about what Mitt Romney did or didn’t do at Bain — and about his self-aggrandizing double standard — there’s an even broader question: why does anyone believe that success in business qualified someone to make economic policy?

For the fact is that running a business is nothing at all like making macro policy. The key point about macroeconomics is the pervasiveness of feedback loops due to the fact that workers are also consumers. No business sells a large fraction of its output to its own workers; even very small countries sell around two-thirds of their output to themselves, because that much is non-tradable services.
So are we to assume that a "community organizer" is somehow better to understand these macroeconomic concepts? The question is that when considering all other occupations, does a successful businessman or woman understand economics better than a community organizer or union leader or a school teacher or ...

It is just that all other things considered, a successful business person knows what has and does hinder his ability to create value to his/her customers. It is not likely that a community organizer understands such issues. We may not like it but what is good for free enterprises are generally good for the society at large.

A successful business person probably understands the negative feedback loop of uncertainty of economic conditions unlike other professions and possibly even ivory tower economists...

Labels: ,

Monday, August 01, 2011

Paul Krugman, Worst Economist in the World {WEITW} August Winner already.

The Truth About Federal Spending
So we’re still left with a bit, around 1 point of GDP. That’s the stimulus, more or less. And there are two things you need to know about it. First, it’s temporary, and already fading out fast. Second, a large part of the stimulus “spending” was actually aid to state and local governments, intended not to expand spending but to avert a fall — that is, it was about maintaining government, not expanding it.

He will never understand conservatives, they might as well be blowing dog whistles around him. Didn't he post recently about listening more to help him understand other points of view? Oh yes... Listening to Others

He clearly sees no difference in a bloated central government and local governments that must be {more} responsive over time. Just as the city council in Santa Barbara has now gotten more conservative. I am not sure it will last but it certainly has changed with some feel-good liberal policies. That was especially evident in the restrictive housing ordinances-but strangely conservatives are pushing for that also. But the bigger issue seemed to be homeless shelters and marijuana dispensers.

Anyway, I suspect that most Tea Party members have no problem with services being provided by local governments and may even support some centrist or liberal points of view.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, February 09, 2011

Paul Krugman, Worst Economist in the World {WEITW}

Maybe, Krugman's blog is way too easy of a target and even as he says it is not meant to be taken too serious.
In my case it’s writing for the broader public. The great thing about the column is that it more or less forces me to keep learning new tricks, to keep scoping out areas I’d never thought much about before. Then it forces me to find a way to talk about those areas in plain English.
The Joy of Research

So instead of being a thoughtful researcher with deep knowledge on each subject, he instead just throws out hypothesis that support his political bias.
What you need to know is that the blog is an unpaid gig, something I do for fun and to add some backup to the columns. My support staff consists of two housecats. So I’m not going to do anything that involves hard work on appearance.
Graph Meta

I tend to think that he takes the same shortcuts on his actual words and ideas also. Today his off-hand remarks are directed at bias representation of conservatives in academia. Krugman starts off real well even in the title with it being: Ideas Are Not The Same As Race. Well race is simply not the only form of discrimination. At Social Scientist Sees Bias Within By JOHN TIERNEY, he talks about the forms of discrimination.
Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities.

I would have tried to include minorities in religion also on the list but the point is still made that it is not race alone or even innate identifiers that can not be easily changed like sex, race, height, etc. Krugman starts off his piece by stating the following two paragraphs.
Every once in a while you get stories like this one, about the underrepresentation of conservatives in academics, that treat ideological divides as being somehow equivalent to racial differences. This is a really, really bad analogy.

And it’s not just the fact that you can choose your ideology, but not your race. Ideologies have a real effect on overall life outlook, which has a direct impact on job choices. Military officers are much more conservative than the population at large; so? (And funny how you don’t see opinion pieces screaming “bias” and demanding an effort to redress the imbalance.)

Pretty much correct that ideologies creates biased results and thus it would be natural that there would be some self selection process going on in choosing careers. But as stated above, race is not the only analogy considered in the article. Race can also dictate and direct ideologies, which of course can be for the good or bad. If as Tierney states, that biased results indicate discrimination a priori then this portion of the article is important to consider.
“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

Instead of a priori reasoning regarding discrimination, Social Psychologists should look more broadly in the social factors that may cause a bias outcome instead of assuming discrimination as always the root of the problem. Of course, if there is a bias in one job category {military} then it would be natural that there would be an opposite bias in another. Instead of focusing on the biased outcomes consider the complete social contexts of the results. Back to Krugman:
It’s particularly troubling to apply some test of equal representation when you’re looking at academics who do research on the very subjects that define the political divide. Biologists, physicists, and chemists are all predominantly liberal; does this reflect discrimination, or the tendency of people who actually know science to reject a political tendency that denies climate change and is broadly hostile to the theory of evolution?

Anyway, Krugman's link to Is the Academy liberal? most definitely shows bias in political views in all categories. The closest in R and Ds was Business at parity but still more identify themselves as Liberal. One of the obvious reasons is that when workers are supported by the state then it is natural that you have a more fond demeanor towards government. They become part of the apparatus of the state and is influenced daily by those social arrangements. And lastly:
Now, I don’t mean to say that political bias in the academy is absent, although it’s not consistent: I can well imagine that it’s hard to be a conservative in some social sciences, but in economics, the obvious bias in things like acceptance of papers at major journals is towards, not against, a doctrinaire free-market view. But the point is that doing head counts is a terrible way to assess that bias.

All I can assume when he means "not consistent" is that Krugman sees what his bias is likely to allow him to see. He will work hard at being studiously ignorant to discrimination. Even in the economics departments according to the above link, the ratio is 3 to 1 Democrats to Republicans.

Hopefully, Krugman will use this same understanding when looking at other types of bias in our society, but don't hold your breath expecting it to happen soon. Ultimately this matters not because one job or another is biased, but that the creation of memes and ideologies is born, created and spread through the institutions of academia. Unlike the military, colleges and universities are expected to partake in discussing our society and the governing bodies {politics}. Those in the military are not suppose to have their political affiliations on their sleeves or to spread their ideologies around. Unlike Krugman, I see this is a problem if young people are to be exposed to a wide variety of views and opinions in our schools. So while I empathize with the following passage, I find no easy solution.
Dr. Haidt (pronounced height) told the audience that he had been corresponding with a couple of non-liberal graduate students in social psychology whose experiences reminded him of closeted gay students in the 1980s. He quoted — anonymously — from their e-mails describing how they hid their feelings when colleagues made political small talk and jokes predicated on the assumption that everyone was a liberal.

“I consider myself very middle-of-the-road politically: a social liberal but fiscal conservative. Nonetheless, I avoid the topic of politics around work,” one student wrote. “Given what I’ve read of the literature, I am certain any research I conducted in political psychology would provide contrary findings and, therefore, go unpublished. Although I think I could make a substantial contribution to the knowledge base, and would be excited to do so, I will not.”

Labels: ,

Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Rachel Maddow just got Punked!!! Worst Dweeb in the World

In the latest episode of idiocracy, she talked about "supporters of Sarah Palin at the web site of ChristWire. It clearly looked to me as just a complete joke. If they had spent more than two seconds they would have at least checked out Wiki at Christwire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Christwire is a satirical[1] website that publishes blog style articles that highlight perceived excesses[2] of Christian conservatives.[3]

Also others have noted the Onion like commentary at like a couple of place: University of Nonsensical Happenings: Christwire: Real or Satire?; The Guys Behind Christwire, Creating Parody From ‘Glenn Beck on Steroids’ -- Daily Intel. The latter having this choice piece:
This is, of course, satire: Completely over-the-top, but mimicking some extreme religious-right talking points so well that several mainstream news sites have been hoaxed. In a competitive and superheated news climate, a religious site calling for a boycott of Bill Murray, "murderer of lambs," was, for NBC Los Angeles, too good to not be true. The advice column "Is My Husband Gay?" (Does he "travel frequently to big cities or Asia"?) was, as the Atlantic Wire's John Hudson discovered, taken at face value by the Huffington Post.

Christwire owners Bryan Butvidas and Kirwin Watson, after fielding press queries and book offers for months, have finally decided to go public. In an interview with New York, Butvidas said the site's basic concept is to "see what Glenn Beck is talking about and then make it ten times worse."

"We're not trying to promote hate, we want to show how fake the world really is," he said. "We write to see how far we can get people to believe our nonsense. People believe anything they read on the Internet." Do readers get the joke? Just like with the media, not always. Butyidas, who usually pens columns under the name Tyson Bowers III, said some of the people who leave vituperative comments don't get the irony.

The opinion that sparked her dweebishness is called As Egypt Descends in Chaos, Should Sarah Palin Support a US-Led Invasion? | ChristWire. And this is the link to her video, one was removed, rachel maddow video Christwire - Yahoo! Video Search {}. The Dweeb uses an edited portions of this passage:
Governor Palin needs to speak out publicly and forcibly for an American-led invasion to protect our interests in North Africa. As the largest recipient of foreign aid next to Israel, the United States has a tremendous investment in keeping Egypt stable and relatively terrorist-free. There are many sympathizers on the ground who have not been able to express their allegiance to democracy and freedom for fear of repression by the rioters. The Governor could become the center of their rallying cries. Upon her direction, other Western nations are sure to join us.

You can't help but laugh at dweebs when they so self righteously show their stupidity...

PS: Excuse any grammar errors above. I also found while Googling that Christwire already had Maddow in their cross hairs. Obviously maybe a reason she used her Libtarded brain instead of the God given one. Political Hot or Not | ChristWire

PSS: Another wingnut decided to regurgitate her bile at Rachel Maddow "Did You Know You Secretly Dream Of The Annihilation Of Israel?"
Also out in that way, way beyond region, the website believes that "The escalating crisis in Egypt could become a defining moment for Sarah Palin...Governor Palin needs to speak out publicly and forcibly for an American-led invasion [emphasis mine]to protect our interests in North Africa. As the largest recipient of foreign aid next to Israel, the United States has a tremendous investment in keeping Egypt stable and relatively terrorist-free...Upon her direction, other Western nations are sure to join us."

Rachel points out that Palin is innocent, this time, as the invasion is not her idea but the suggestion of christwire.

Well Diane, I can see another Libtard that found something that confirms her world view and runs with it.

Oh, Grow Up Keith Olbermann! | ChristWire
I had to look it over twice to make sure that it wasn't a parody: If You’re a Fantastic Pro-Family Republican, Does One or Two Same-Sex Encounters Really Make You Gay?
Later in the post the blogger seems to reverse his statement but funny that he believed it for a second.

Update: A lot more saw that clip and had fun with it also including RedEye on FoxNews.
Rachel Maddow/MSNBC report fake story to slam Sarah Palin, Christians and conservatives : Fire Andrea Mitchell! They also note that it looks like MSNBC has not included that clip on their website, as I noticed last night also.

Christwire is having fun with it also...
What the Liberal Media Can Learn From Rachel Maddow’s Christwire Scandal | ChristWire
Several of my fellow journalists have suggested to me privately that, at the very least, Maddow owes Christwire an apology. Frankly, I’d rather not lower myself to her level. Most conservatives do not even consider her worthy of consideration. Her self-serving browbeating of a hardcore socialist agenda is an anathema to faith and righteousness. It is easy to dismiss this newswoman as a second-rate disingenuous fringe zealot who would trade her cable news podium to fill in Mary Hart’s heels on Entertainment Tonight in a heartbeat. Yet maybe this is the perfect opportunity to finally reassess one of this country’s most notorious persecutors of our sacred freedoms.

Egg-on-face alert: Rachel Maddow gets had; treats satire as actual news. The tweet seems to be gone also which was suppose to say:
The bad news about a free and open internet? Sometimes you get had by brilliant satirists. Christwire: 1 TRMS: 0
At Rachel Maddow the Latest Journo to Be Bamboozled by Christwire they do link to a live Tweet with that message.

This has the transcript of RedEye's Gregologue: MSNBC’s Maddow Reports Internet Spoof Story as Fact

Rachel Maddow Again Bashes Conservatives In Non-Apology For Embarrassing Mistake | Bucks Right, shows that she has a pattern of not only just admitting "technical errors" but using that as a springboard for her partisanship rants. It links to: Maddow Blames Beck and Other Conservatives for Her Getting Duped by Satirical Website | with video of her confession.

Update 2/2/2011: I certainly expect to see a fair number of attacking the messenger and nitpicking on their analysis. This site sure tries to support her contentions that she has a tough time between real satire and fake satire: Greenlee Gazette: Maddow Hoaxed, NewsBusters Reports, But Doesn't Understand It. The suggestion still stands that maybe if she does not know what is fact, that she should spend the extra 5 minutes confirming the information or just not air it.