Although I’m no longer a qualified programmer, I could still write a program to support the left’s considered, thoughtful, in-depth assessment of any of Bush’s decisions, actions, or policies. It’s really not too difficult.
Instructions: Type any Bush activity and touch Enter.
The program code:
Step 1. Accept input from keyboard.
Step 2. Display “WRONG”.
Step 3. Go to Step 1.
That’s pretty much it. No pesky IF conditions, no evaluation of variables, no complex arguments, just the results as predefined in the specs written by a consortium of the DNC, Kos, Huffington, MSM, etc.. It’s obvious they’ve been using a similar program for years.
Imagine that, Bush is sheer perfection – he’s ALWAYS wrong! We should be able to harness this unique ability and steer the country in the right direction by doing exactly the opposite of what the prez proposes. What a concept. How could we go wrong?
BTW, I’ll donate any software license revenue from this program to charity, I’m glad I could help.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The Aphrodisiac of Power
The left is hell-bent on regaining power. That’s the reason they do everything possible to make the current administration appear feckless. They believe that the negative perception of current policies will translate to tipping the elections in their favor. It’s in their selfish interest to ignore anything positive, or worse to repaint the truth with a dirty brush.
The actions taken by the far left, including most democrat members of congress and the mass media, are not only irresponsible, they are unpatriotic. I know that they hate that word – it draws immediate hostile fire – but when conscious actions result in aiding an enemy, what else can those actions be called?
This is all about George Bush. They’re convinced that if they portray President Bush as an ignorant gunslinger without either a plan or a clue, they’ll regain power. And, unfortunately they may be right. Too many Americans simply accept what appears in the mass media as factual.
Democrats say “We’ve got a better plan”. Sure, they’ve got a plan for stopping the war, for universal health care, for reducing gas prices, improving the economy, balancing the budget, reducing the deficit, and on and on. They have a “plan” for solving any problem ranging from yeast infections to galactic exploration. Simply "having a plan" doesn't automatically mean that "the plan" will work.
Why should we believe them? After all, their plans to retake the White House in 2004 were unsuccessful. The promises made before retaking congress in 2006 have turned out to be "hot air". The democrats haven’t proven themselves capable of carrying out a predefined plan at all – why should anyone be expected to think that these new “plans” work any better. Better to gauge the dem's results than to accept their rhetoric.
Take John Kerry for example. He and his campaign team worked for several years to formulate one master “plan” with a single purpose, to win the presidency. During the campaign, they made adjustments to the original plan as weaknesses surfaced. The final result was that his plan didn’t do what it was designed to do. Why didn’t it work? His plan failed because Kerry failed to convince a large enough percentage of independents to vote for him and failed to get an appreciable crossover from republicans. He had a plan - it just didn't work.
If John Kerry (and the Democrats in general) can’t “negotiate” enough American voters into accepting Democrat leadership, how can they expect to convince radical Islam to do an about face, become respectful of Jews and Christians, and live peacefully in the world community?
The actions taken by the far left, including most democrat members of congress and the mass media, are not only irresponsible, they are unpatriotic. I know that they hate that word – it draws immediate hostile fire – but when conscious actions result in aiding an enemy, what else can those actions be called?
This is all about George Bush. They’re convinced that if they portray President Bush as an ignorant gunslinger without either a plan or a clue, they’ll regain power. And, unfortunately they may be right. Too many Americans simply accept what appears in the mass media as factual.
Democrats say “We’ve got a better plan”. Sure, they’ve got a plan for stopping the war, for universal health care, for reducing gas prices, improving the economy, balancing the budget, reducing the deficit, and on and on. They have a “plan” for solving any problem ranging from yeast infections to galactic exploration. Simply "having a plan" doesn't automatically mean that "the plan" will work.
Why should we believe them? After all, their plans to retake the White House in 2004 were unsuccessful. The promises made before retaking congress in 2006 have turned out to be "hot air". The democrats haven’t proven themselves capable of carrying out a predefined plan at all – why should anyone be expected to think that these new “plans” work any better. Better to gauge the dem's results than to accept their rhetoric.
Take John Kerry for example. He and his campaign team worked for several years to formulate one master “plan” with a single purpose, to win the presidency. During the campaign, they made adjustments to the original plan as weaknesses surfaced. The final result was that his plan didn’t do what it was designed to do. Why didn’t it work? His plan failed because Kerry failed to convince a large enough percentage of independents to vote for him and failed to get an appreciable crossover from republicans. He had a plan - it just didn't work.
If John Kerry (and the Democrats in general) can’t “negotiate” enough American voters into accepting Democrat leadership, how can they expect to convince radical Islam to do an about face, become respectful of Jews and Christians, and live peacefully in the world community?
An old-timer’s view of race
I’m officially a geezer and grew up during a time when the races were segregated. In the south, the N-word wasn’t used as a derogatory term as much as a descriptive term – it’s what blacks were called – including those that were held in affection. True, most often those genuinely liked by whites were nannies or cooks, but they wouldn’t have been intentionally disparaged.
Blacks were viewed as second-class citizens to be sure. History tells us of the indignities they were forced to endure, and the older among us have witnessed (and participated) in those indignities.
In hindsight, we now know that it was not right to treat blacks as anything less than equal. I say “in hindsight” because back then most whites were “educated” by society to view black persons as inherently inferior. For most whites, it wasn’t done with a particular malice – it was just the way it was. That was life in America in the forties and fifties.
Practically everything was segregated and that meant that there was little positive interaction between the races. There were few blacks in government, on police forces, in the movies or on the radio. But, there were also fewer single-parent families and a much lower crime rate. Unwed mothers were taboo and black children, even though in less than favorable surroundings, learned. The black community, while mistreated as a group, remained a positive force in the lives of black America.
Then, there came a period of gradual transition – probably late fifties to seventies – when the civil rights movement prompted white Americans to do some soul-searching. There were still bigots and racists to be sure, but they were in the minority. By the time that this 15-20 year period ended, most white Americans no longer viewed blacks as less than equal. I know that my four years in the service were entirely integrated and devoid of any racial problems. We ate, slept, and did everything together – as equals.
Since whites held all of the power and outnumbered blacks by something like 8 to 1, advances experienced by blacks were brought about by whites. Blacks simply didn’t have the numbers or the power to do so themselves.
During this time, young white people began to embrace “black” music, and black actors began to appear in movies and television.
Fast forward to the 21st century.
In 2000, blacks occupied over 9,000 elected positions in government, including the position of mayor in many of our largest cities. Blacks have been appointed to cabinet positions, Secretary of State (twice) and Supreme Court Justice. In 2008, we have a bona fide candidate for the Presidency with a real chance of winning.
Yet those whose business is racism like Jackson, Sharpton, and Wright continue to tell us that “the white man” is keeping them down. Black folks aren’t responsible for any of the ills suffered by the black community – it’s all whiteys fault. They do their best to ignore the progress that’s been evident over the past 30 years.
In today’s culture, the term “closure” is often used to identify the completion of a chapter in a person’s life in order to move forward. It’s my opinion that many blacks need closure to release painful links to the past. Slavery is gone – today’s white generation was not responsible for slavery – let it go.
The same is true for segregation. While many older Americans (like me) likely did contribute to racial mistreatment in their earlier years, the vast majority have revised their thinking to recognize that black folks are indeed our brothers and sisters. While segregation may not be completely eliminated, it has been minimized and is no longer the impediment to an individual’s progress that it once was – now, black folks need to let it go too.
Blacks were viewed as second-class citizens to be sure. History tells us of the indignities they were forced to endure, and the older among us have witnessed (and participated) in those indignities.
In hindsight, we now know that it was not right to treat blacks as anything less than equal. I say “in hindsight” because back then most whites were “educated” by society to view black persons as inherently inferior. For most whites, it wasn’t done with a particular malice – it was just the way it was. That was life in America in the forties and fifties.
Practically everything was segregated and that meant that there was little positive interaction between the races. There were few blacks in government, on police forces, in the movies or on the radio. But, there were also fewer single-parent families and a much lower crime rate. Unwed mothers were taboo and black children, even though in less than favorable surroundings, learned. The black community, while mistreated as a group, remained a positive force in the lives of black America.
Then, there came a period of gradual transition – probably late fifties to seventies – when the civil rights movement prompted white Americans to do some soul-searching. There were still bigots and racists to be sure, but they were in the minority. By the time that this 15-20 year period ended, most white Americans no longer viewed blacks as less than equal. I know that my four years in the service were entirely integrated and devoid of any racial problems. We ate, slept, and did everything together – as equals.
Since whites held all of the power and outnumbered blacks by something like 8 to 1, advances experienced by blacks were brought about by whites. Blacks simply didn’t have the numbers or the power to do so themselves.
During this time, young white people began to embrace “black” music, and black actors began to appear in movies and television.
Fast forward to the 21st century.
In 2000, blacks occupied over 9,000 elected positions in government, including the position of mayor in many of our largest cities. Blacks have been appointed to cabinet positions, Secretary of State (twice) and Supreme Court Justice. In 2008, we have a bona fide candidate for the Presidency with a real chance of winning.
Yet those whose business is racism like Jackson, Sharpton, and Wright continue to tell us that “the white man” is keeping them down. Black folks aren’t responsible for any of the ills suffered by the black community – it’s all whiteys fault. They do their best to ignore the progress that’s been evident over the past 30 years.
In today’s culture, the term “closure” is often used to identify the completion of a chapter in a person’s life in order to move forward. It’s my opinion that many blacks need closure to release painful links to the past. Slavery is gone – today’s white generation was not responsible for slavery – let it go.
The same is true for segregation. While many older Americans (like me) likely did contribute to racial mistreatment in their earlier years, the vast majority have revised their thinking to recognize that black folks are indeed our brothers and sisters. While segregation may not be completely eliminated, it has been minimized and is no longer the impediment to an individual’s progress that it once was – now, black folks need to let it go too.
Truth, the Ultimate Investment
Truth could be the ultimate answer to practically every problem facing everyone.
We learn, through life experiences, that we can’t simply take what people say as gospel truth – most people lie some, and some people lie a lot.
But, what if there was a way to identify, with 100% (or even 99.99%) accuracy, a statement to be true or false. Think about the ramifications of real truth on the way we live.
Truth could solve problems ranging from knowing whether the Prius will really get 50 MPG to deciding who should be the next President.
Did your spouse cheat on you? Was your employee really sick last Friday? Is the check really in the mail? Did you cheat on your taxes? [OK, maybe we need a tax-cheating loophole, but you get the point.]
A jury’s responsibility would shift from determining guilt to assessing a sentence – based on the truth of the case. Most attorneys would be reeducated until they could master “want fries with that?” Institutional racism could no longer exist, nor could the anti-white activities of Revs. Jackson, Sharpton, or Wright.
We could begin to trust our associates, our friends, our spouses, our churches, and our elected representatives. Our spy networks would no longer be necessary and if we could accurately differentiate between our real friends and those who mean us harm, we could better defend ourselves, both individually and as a country. No President could “lie us into a war” or play “hide the cigar” in the oval office.
It would no longer be possible for fraud to exist, identity theft would be gone, only guilty people would be sent to prison – and we’d never execute an innocent person. Never again could someone be cheated or swindled in any kind of transaction.
Private sector companies would be competing based on merit and service rather than marketing hype and half-truths. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if we could believe commercials?
Social Security and Medicare could be dealt with without partisan politics. Eliminating fraud in these programs would likely mean that the benefits could be increased and the programs could be put on fiscally firm ground.
The IRS would be reduced to perhaps a few thousand “truth evaluators” and pork-barrel patronage couldn’t be hidden away in a “Food for the Hungry Children” bill. This alone would save billions that could be spent in more beneficial ways. Let’s put the environmentalists and oil company reps in a small room and find out how much truth there is in each position – there’s probably some truth and some lie in each position.
We could accurately evaluate our elected representatives (this probably would mean that current incumbents would be forced to find “gainful” employment) like replacing the illegals working the crops. Many (including Congress) would fight tooth and nail to bury such a device. But if someone were seen as opposing the truth, isn’t that an indictment on its face? Most of our “public servants” would quietly retire and not seek reelection if a “truth assessment” became part of qualifying for public office.
Education would be vastly improved with no political shadings – just the facts. There would be no more revisionist history – what happened – happened. Quality educators could be identified and paid accordingly, others could find work as Wal-Mart greeters.
Imagine how free and happy we could be if we could drop the defensive shield we’re forced to maintain and be truly trusting of our fellow humans.
All we need is a way to parse statements through a truth filter.
Nobody said it would be easy but the development of a truth detector would truly be a world-changing event. With so many “wrongs” that could be “righted” by such a device, why aren’t we funding scientific research to the level of a space program? The ROI would be mind-boggling in the truest context of the term.
We learn, through life experiences, that we can’t simply take what people say as gospel truth – most people lie some, and some people lie a lot.
But, what if there was a way to identify, with 100% (or even 99.99%) accuracy, a statement to be true or false. Think about the ramifications of real truth on the way we live.
Truth could solve problems ranging from knowing whether the Prius will really get 50 MPG to deciding who should be the next President.
Did your spouse cheat on you? Was your employee really sick last Friday? Is the check really in the mail? Did you cheat on your taxes? [OK, maybe we need a tax-cheating loophole, but you get the point.]
A jury’s responsibility would shift from determining guilt to assessing a sentence – based on the truth of the case. Most attorneys would be reeducated until they could master “want fries with that?” Institutional racism could no longer exist, nor could the anti-white activities of Revs. Jackson, Sharpton, or Wright.
We could begin to trust our associates, our friends, our spouses, our churches, and our elected representatives. Our spy networks would no longer be necessary and if we could accurately differentiate between our real friends and those who mean us harm, we could better defend ourselves, both individually and as a country. No President could “lie us into a war” or play “hide the cigar” in the oval office.
It would no longer be possible for fraud to exist, identity theft would be gone, only guilty people would be sent to prison – and we’d never execute an innocent person. Never again could someone be cheated or swindled in any kind of transaction.
Private sector companies would be competing based on merit and service rather than marketing hype and half-truths. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if we could believe commercials?
Social Security and Medicare could be dealt with without partisan politics. Eliminating fraud in these programs would likely mean that the benefits could be increased and the programs could be put on fiscally firm ground.
The IRS would be reduced to perhaps a few thousand “truth evaluators” and pork-barrel patronage couldn’t be hidden away in a “Food for the Hungry Children” bill. This alone would save billions that could be spent in more beneficial ways. Let’s put the environmentalists and oil company reps in a small room and find out how much truth there is in each position – there’s probably some truth and some lie in each position.
We could accurately evaluate our elected representatives (this probably would mean that current incumbents would be forced to find “gainful” employment) like replacing the illegals working the crops. Many (including Congress) would fight tooth and nail to bury such a device. But if someone were seen as opposing the truth, isn’t that an indictment on its face? Most of our “public servants” would quietly retire and not seek reelection if a “truth assessment” became part of qualifying for public office.
Education would be vastly improved with no political shadings – just the facts. There would be no more revisionist history – what happened – happened. Quality educators could be identified and paid accordingly, others could find work as Wal-Mart greeters.
Imagine how free and happy we could be if we could drop the defensive shield we’re forced to maintain and be truly trusting of our fellow humans.
All we need is a way to parse statements through a truth filter.
Nobody said it would be easy but the development of a truth detector would truly be a world-changing event. With so many “wrongs” that could be “righted” by such a device, why aren’t we funding scientific research to the level of a space program? The ROI would be mind-boggling in the truest context of the term.
Barack’s Skin
Barack Obama is supposed to be half black and half white, yet blacks see him as a black man. Why don’t they see him as a white man? Isn’t he just as much white as black?
Put simply - because of his skin color. Why else would black America identify with him? Except for his skin pigmentation, he barely qualifies as black. His life experiences could hardly be more different from those of black America, for example:
“He is not descended from slaves, nor was his childhood marked by poverty, segregated schooling or social deprivation. His father was not African-American but entirely African and his mother, as we all know, was white. He did not grow up in the midst of the ugly hatreds and divisions of the American South, or even with the more subtle, disguised discrimination of the North” (from the Telegraph (UK) 3/24/2008).
Yet black America claims him as one of them.
Barack’s education includes a BA from Columbia and a law degree from Harvard. That hardly qualifies as typical black education.
And contrast his personal economic condition with that of black America. The Obama family’s adjusted gross income was $983,826 in 2006 (down from $1,655,106 in 2005) while the median family income for all black families that year was $31,969.
Obama hasn’t exactly “walked a mile” in the shoes of his black brothers and sisters. He hasn’t had the same life experiences. In fact, on paper, Obama’s statistics looks more like an “affluent, white yuppie liberal” than an average black person.
So, why are African Americans voting for him in droves?
They’re voting based on his skin color.
Isn’t that the definition of a racist?
Put simply - because of his skin color. Why else would black America identify with him? Except for his skin pigmentation, he barely qualifies as black. His life experiences could hardly be more different from those of black America, for example:
“He is not descended from slaves, nor was his childhood marked by poverty, segregated schooling or social deprivation. His father was not African-American but entirely African and his mother, as we all know, was white. He did not grow up in the midst of the ugly hatreds and divisions of the American South, or even with the more subtle, disguised discrimination of the North” (from the Telegraph (UK) 3/24/2008).
Yet black America claims him as one of them.
Barack’s education includes a BA from Columbia and a law degree from Harvard. That hardly qualifies as typical black education.
And contrast his personal economic condition with that of black America. The Obama family’s adjusted gross income was $983,826 in 2006 (down from $1,655,106 in 2005) while the median family income for all black families that year was $31,969.
Obama hasn’t exactly “walked a mile” in the shoes of his black brothers and sisters. He hasn’t had the same life experiences. In fact, on paper, Obama’s statistics looks more like an “affluent, white yuppie liberal” than an average black person.
So, why are African Americans voting for him in droves?
They’re voting based on his skin color.
Isn’t that the definition of a racist?
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Defending the Ancients
The issue of a hand-delivered message being disparaged by comparing it (negatively) to an e-mail is another backhanded slap at McCain’s age and geezers, in general. Does anyone think that important diplomatic treaties will be recorded solely in e-mails? Maybe McCain wanted a signature of agreement? And don’t confuse the issue with “electronic signatures”, they are in their infancy and not yet universally accepted.
Obama is younger than McCain so that’s reason enough to vote for him? There is no advantage gained by McCain’s life experience? Apparently not in most young minds.
The thing is, we geezers can understand why young people think that way – after all, we really were once young – and we thought we were a lot smarter than those older than us then. It has always been that way; it will always be that way.
Young folks think that they understand all aspects of an issue, but they can’t. It’s true that they understand the words, but they can’t truly empathize with others on an issue never having experienced that issue. For example, a twenty-one year-old single civilian knows the definitions of “marriage,” “raising a child,” or “fighting a war.” But anyone who has experienced any (or all) of those things understands that comparing the textbook definitions of those terms to real-life experiences is like comparing an Etch A Sketch to the Mona Lisa.
To help younger folks understand the concept: Consider the disk space necessary to store one’s knowledge of those three life events.
That twenty-one year-old’s complete data set on those three items (the words and definitions) might require 100KB of storage, while storing all of the images, sounds, descriptions of the joys and sorrows, and all of the other emotions that were part of the experience could take thousands of gigabytes (perhaps terabytes or petabytes – who knows?). The point is that the young would be wise to grant McCain some respect by just acknowledging that his life experiences can be valuable to decision-making.
Obama is younger than McCain so that’s reason enough to vote for him? There is no advantage gained by McCain’s life experience? Apparently not in most young minds.
The thing is, we geezers can understand why young people think that way – after all, we really were once young – and we thought we were a lot smarter than those older than us then. It has always been that way; it will always be that way.
Young folks think that they understand all aspects of an issue, but they can’t. It’s true that they understand the words, but they can’t truly empathize with others on an issue never having experienced that issue. For example, a twenty-one year-old single civilian knows the definitions of “marriage,” “raising a child,” or “fighting a war.” But anyone who has experienced any (or all) of those things understands that comparing the textbook definitions of those terms to real-life experiences is like comparing an Etch A Sketch to the Mona Lisa.
To help younger folks understand the concept: Consider the disk space necessary to store one’s knowledge of those three life events.
That twenty-one year-old’s complete data set on those three items (the words and definitions) might require 100KB of storage, while storing all of the images, sounds, descriptions of the joys and sorrows, and all of the other emotions that were part of the experience could take thousands of gigabytes (perhaps terabytes or petabytes – who knows?). The point is that the young would be wise to grant McCain some respect by just acknowledging that his life experiences can be valuable to decision-making.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)