Day: October 1, 2017

hall-monty-obit-1-facebookJumbo.jpg

'LET'S MAKE A DEAL' Host Monty Hall Dead…


Mr. Hall recalled it somewhat differently in 2013: The game changer, he said, was a woman carrying a sign that said, “Roses are red, violets are blue, I came here to deal with you.”

Whatever it was that opened the floodgates, would-be deal makers were soon showing up wearing live-bird hats, Tom Sawyer costumes or boxes resembling refrigerators. Some simply waved signs pleading, “Pick Me.”

Photo

Mr. Hall with contestants on “Let’s Make a Deal” in 1969.

Credit
ABC Photo Archives, via Getty Images

It was all for the chance to barter their way to a big prize. A woman might sell Mr. Hall the contents of her handbag for $150, and then agree to trade that $150 for whatever was behind a curtain, or in a big box, in the hope that it was something valuable — say, a $759 refrigerator-freezer stocked with $25 worth of cottage cheese and a $479 sewing machine.

She could then compound her glee by being smart enough not to trade it all back for the old purse and whatever amount of cash Mr. Hall had slipped into it — maybe a hefty amount or maybe a measly $27. If she went for the deal that turned out to be a loser, she was, in the language of the show, zonked.

At the end of the show, the two biggest winners were given a shot at the Big Deal. They could trade their winnings for whatever was behind one of three doors: a new car, perhaps, or $15,000 in cash, or, if they were not so lucky, something worth less than what they had traded. All the while, the affable, smooth-talking Mr. Hall gave no hint of where the treasure might lie.

“Monty had to be a very likable con man; he had to convince people to give up a bird in the hand for what’s in the box,” David Schwartz, the author, with Fred Wostbrock and Steve Ryan, of “The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows,” said in an interview.

Mr. Hall had other responsibilities, too, Mr. Schwartz added: “He had to be a traffic cop, to get a decision out of the contestant without taking a long time. With his great ability to ad-lib, he knew how to keep the show moving.”

Mr. Hall kept “Let’s Make a Deal” moving for most of almost 5,000 broadcasts on NBC, on ABC and in syndication. The show ended its original daytime run in 1976 on ABC. A concurrent syndicated nighttime version lasted until the next year. It occasionally resurfaced over the next decades and, after being off the air for a while, was revived in October 2009 on CBS, with Wayne Brady as host. That version is still on the air.

“Let’s Make a Deal” became such a pop-culture phenomenon that it gave birth to a well-known brain-twister in probability, called “the Monty Hall Problem.” This thought experiment involves three doors, two goats and a coveted prize and leads to a counterintuitive solution.

The show itself could give rise to the unexpected. “You get some strange moments,” Mr. Hall said in 2009. He recalled the day that a contestant was zonked when he chose a curtain behind which he had hoped was a car.

Photo

Mr. Hall with the actor and comedian Wayne Brady in 2009, the year “Let’s Make a Deal” was revived with Mr. Brady as host.

Credit
Dan Steinberg/Associated Press

“It was an elephant,” Mr. Hall continued. “It freaked — ran backstage, down a ramp and out into the streets of L.A. That’s probably the wildest moment.”

Mr. Hall had his proud moments as well. In 1973 he received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. In 1988, Mr. Hall, who was born in Canada, was named to the Order of Canada by that country’s government in recognition of the millions he had raised for a host of charities. In 2013 he was presented with a lifetime achievement award at the Daytime Emmys.

Born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, on Aug. 25, 1921, Monte Halparin (he later changed the spelling of his first name and took the stage name Hall) was one of two sons of Maurice Halparin, a butcher, and the former Rose Rusen, a teacher.

He earned a bachelor’s degree in chemistry and zoology from the University of Manitoba. But, smitten by applause while appearing in college musicals, he moved to Toronto and began working as an actor and singer. In 1955 he moved again, this time to New York, where he became a regular on “Monitor,” a mix of comedy, music, sports and news on NBC Radio.

Five years later, Mr. Hall moved to Hollywood to host “Video Village,” a CBS TV show on which contestants played the role of “tokens” on a human-size game board. He teamed with the writer and producer Stefan Hatos to create “Let’s Make a Deal” in 1963.

Mr. Hall is survived by a show-business family: two daughters, Joanna Gleason, a Tony Award-winning actress, and Sharon Hall, a television executive; a son, Richard, a producer who won an Emmy for “The Amazing Race”; a brother, Robert Hall, a lawyer; and five grandchildren. His wife of almost 70 years, the former Marilyn Plottel, an Emmy Award-winning television producer, died in June.

Mr. Hall remained involved in “Let’s Make a Deal” to the end, as an owner of the show and an occasional guest. Interviewed in 2013, he gave Mr. Brady, his successor as host, his seal of approval.

“He’s making it his show,” he said. “He’s learning the star of the show is the contestant and to make them feel at home, make them feel like they came to your party.”

Continue reading the main story



Source link

Kaepernick, the Smithsonian, and the Lessons of History


The lessons of history are being reflected in the collections by the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, if only we will look. Two pieces of cloth commemorating protests by African-American athletes have achieved the sacred status of residence there.

At the time of Colin Kaepernick’s seminal protests that birthed the NFL’s kneeling crisis he was on record believing that the United States flag is nothing more than a piece of cloth.

“At the end of the day the flag is just a piece of cloth and I am not going to value a piece of cloth over people’s lives.  That’s just not something I can do, it’s not something I feel morally right doing and my character won’t allow me to do that.”  

Another former football player, Shannon Sharpe, has said much the same thing, declaring the American Flag — the Red, White, and Blue — to be merely a racist “piece of cloth” that “nobody fights for.”  

Mr. Sharpe went further by showing his disdain for America, the American Flag, and for Francis Scott Key’s Star-Spangled Banner.  The full quote from his television show is,


“Well, we know what the anthem was originally written for and who it was written by, okay?  The flag, okay?  We understand what the flag?  What does it represent?  When did this narrative come to be that the military and the police own the flag and only them?  I can go buy a flag and I can hang it up in my backyard.  We need to stop this, Skip.  We need to — the flag is a piece of cloth and nobody fights for a piece of cloth.”

Another piece of cloth, Colin Kaepernick’s jersey, recently became part of the Black Lives Matter collection at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture. He sullied his own mess kit with his racist activism — he is a Black Lives Matter icon worthy of inclusion into the Museum of African American History and Culture — and he was not picked up for the current season.

  “The Colin Kaepernick collection is in line with the museum’s larger collecting efforts to document the varied areas of society that have been impacted by the Black Lives Matter movement.” 

Among the museum’s featured sports items is a track warm-up suit that belonged to gold medalist Tommie Smith, who with teammate John Carlos famously executed the Black Power Salute during the American National Anthem at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City.  That event is regarded as one of the most overtly political statements in the history of the modern Olympic Games.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) was not very happy with Carlos and Smith, and deemed their domestic political statement unfit for the apolitical, international forum the Olympic Games.  The president of the IOC ordered Smith and Carlos suspended from the U.S. team.  When the U.S. Olympic Committee refused, IOC President Brundage threatened to ban the entire U.S. track team.  The U.S. Olympic Committee capitulated and for their racial protest Tommie Smith and John Carlos were expelled from the Games. 

In other words, Tommie Smith and John Carlos were booted out of the Olympics and they didn’t come back.  They went on, got jobs, and lived a good life as Olympic gold medal winners and world-class athletes. Their fate came from above, the work of autocratic Avery Brundage.

Colin Kaepernick also faced the loss of his athletic career, this time from a group, not an autocrat. But like Smith and Carlos, his gesture spread as an emblem of defiance. Unfortunately for them, the NFL owners did not learn the lesson on power taught by Brundage.

A rational person should come to the conclusion that across the NFL team owners were not very happy with the spectacle of a disruptive influence who should be focused on football, not his own personal anti-America agenda.  There is sufficient evidence that NFL team owners deemed Colin Kaepernick’s political statements and actions disqualified him from receiving another contract.  There is a reasonable expectation that had he received a contract it would be construed as a “green light” to deviate from what is expected of him contractually as a player and enable him to continue his agenda.  Giving him a new contract would be rewarding bad behavior. 

A number of high profile people — professional athletes, Hollywood stars, politicians — claim Colin Kaepernick should be in the NFL.  But for his expression of his First Amendment rights, he’s being blackballed.  By and large, this is not a smart group of people.  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.  As any good corporate lawyer can attest, the government cannot restrict free speech but a corporation can.

Not a single one of this august group of people would come to the microphone and announce that President Trump also has First Amendment rights.  IOC President Brundage had no qualms in booting Olympic gold medal winners Tommie Smith and John Carlos out of the Olympics for their egregious political behavior.  They were held accountable for their actions.

In 1968, for banning Carlos and Smith, the left railed at IOC President Brundage and threw every scurrilous and racist charge that they could muster at him.  Fifty years later, the left has a death grip on the NFL.  There is a complete lack of leadership by the NFL owners and the commissioner to hold players accountable for their on-field political actions.  If they continue to support players who kneel during the National Anthem as a form of protest against what they perceive as a racist American Flag, I submit they are either leftists or clueless.  Either way, they are killing the Golden Goose.

If you want to play politics, run for office or take up another occupation.  Quit bothering the nice people in the stands who pay to see you.  The NFL should get a clue.  But I’m afraid than’t and consequently, I’ve watched my last game.  The NBA owners, coaches, and commissioner (are even worse than the NFL’s and) need to pay attention, quit the social justice game and focus on basketball and your fans otherwise, you too will have a non-socialist fan base that rejects your political message and walks out on you.  We have other things we could be doing.

The lessons of history are being reflected in the collections by the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, if only we will look. Two pieces of cloth commemorating protests by African-American athletes have achieved the sacred status of residence there.

At the time of Colin Kaepernick’s seminal protests that birthed the NFL’s kneeling crisis he was on record believing that the United States flag is nothing more than a piece of cloth.

“At the end of the day the flag is just a piece of cloth and I am not going to value a piece of cloth over people’s lives.  That’s just not something I can do, it’s not something I feel morally right doing and my character won’t allow me to do that.”  

Another former football player, Shannon Sharpe, has said much the same thing, declaring the American Flag — the Red, White, and Blue — to be merely a racist “piece of cloth” that “nobody fights for.”  

Mr. Sharpe went further by showing his disdain for America, the American Flag, and for Francis Scott Key’s Star-Spangled Banner.  The full quote from his television show is,


“Well, we know what the anthem was originally written for and who it was written by, okay?  The flag, okay?  We understand what the flag?  What does it represent?  When did this narrative come to be that the military and the police own the flag and only them?  I can go buy a flag and I can hang it up in my backyard.  We need to stop this, Skip.  We need to — the flag is a piece of cloth and nobody fights for a piece of cloth.”

Another piece of cloth, Colin Kaepernick’s jersey, recently became part of the Black Lives Matter collection at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture. He sullied his own mess kit with his racist activism — he is a Black Lives Matter icon worthy of inclusion into the Museum of African American History and Culture — and he was not picked up for the current season.

  “The Colin Kaepernick collection is in line with the museum’s larger collecting efforts to document the varied areas of society that have been impacted by the Black Lives Matter movement.” 

Among the museum’s featured sports items is a track warm-up suit that belonged to gold medalist Tommie Smith, who with teammate John Carlos famously executed the Black Power Salute during the American National Anthem at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City.  That event is regarded as one of the most overtly political statements in the history of the modern Olympic Games.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) was not very happy with Carlos and Smith, and deemed their domestic political statement unfit for the apolitical, international forum the Olympic Games.  The president of the IOC ordered Smith and Carlos suspended from the U.S. team.  When the U.S. Olympic Committee refused, IOC President Brundage threatened to ban the entire U.S. track team.  The U.S. Olympic Committee capitulated and for their racial protest Tommie Smith and John Carlos were expelled from the Games. 

In other words, Tommie Smith and John Carlos were booted out of the Olympics and they didn’t come back.  They went on, got jobs, and lived a good life as Olympic gold medal winners and world-class athletes. Their fate came from above, the work of autocratic Avery Brundage.

Colin Kaepernick also faced the loss of his athletic career, this time from a group, not an autocrat. But like Smith and Carlos, his gesture spread as an emblem of defiance. Unfortunately for them, the NFL owners did not learn the lesson on power taught by Brundage.

A rational person should come to the conclusion that across the NFL team owners were not very happy with the spectacle of a disruptive influence who should be focused on football, not his own personal anti-America agenda.  There is sufficient evidence that NFL team owners deemed Colin Kaepernick’s political statements and actions disqualified him from receiving another contract.  There is a reasonable expectation that had he received a contract it would be construed as a “green light” to deviate from what is expected of him contractually as a player and enable him to continue his agenda.  Giving him a new contract would be rewarding bad behavior. 

A number of high profile people — professional athletes, Hollywood stars, politicians — claim Colin Kaepernick should be in the NFL.  But for his expression of his First Amendment rights, he’s being blackballed.  By and large, this is not a smart group of people.  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.  As any good corporate lawyer can attest, the government cannot restrict free speech but a corporation can.

Not a single one of this august group of people would come to the microphone and announce that President Trump also has First Amendment rights.  IOC President Brundage had no qualms in booting Olympic gold medal winners Tommie Smith and John Carlos out of the Olympics for their egregious political behavior.  They were held accountable for their actions.

In 1968, for banning Carlos and Smith, the left railed at IOC President Brundage and threw every scurrilous and racist charge that they could muster at him.  Fifty years later, the left has a death grip on the NFL.  There is a complete lack of leadership by the NFL owners and the commissioner to hold players accountable for their on-field political actions.  If they continue to support players who kneel during the National Anthem as a form of protest against what they perceive as a racist American Flag, I submit they are either leftists or clueless.  Either way, they are killing the Golden Goose.

If you want to play politics, run for office or take up another occupation.  Quit bothering the nice people in the stands who pay to see you.  The NFL should get a clue.  But I’m afraid than’t and consequently, I’ve watched my last game.  The NBA owners, coaches, and commissioner (are even worse than the NFL’s and) need to pay attention, quit the social justice game and focus on basketball and your fans otherwise, you too will have a non-socialist fan base that rejects your political message and walks out on you.  We have other things we could be doing.



Source link

Vietnam, the Flag, and Me



There are still a lot of old leftists who are proud of the anti-Vietnam War position they held in the nineteen-sixties and early seventies.



Source link

Living on a Paranoid Planet


Sigmund Freud’s first patient was called Anna O. (not her real name, to protect her anonymity). When Freud and his mentor Joseph Breuer first encountered young Anna, she was traumatically affected by the traditional family duty of caring for her dying father, who passed away before she asked for help. Her condition could be called obsessive hypochondria, and given her traumatic time nursing a dying father, I have to feel a lot of sympathy for her.

Anna believed she had a variety of illnesses, with symptoms that changed from day to day. There is no doubt that she was sincere, and in the medical thinking of the time, it seemed that she was suffering from deep autosuggestion, a kind of fast-changing self-hypnosis. Freud and Breuer therefore tried to hypnotize her with suggestions to contradict her fixed beliefs about one illness after another.

After decades of watching propaganda scare bombs in the mass media, aided by worried kindergarten teachers and parents who get freaked out by anxiety-provoking headlines, we have a whole population of planetary hypochondriacs. This kind of thing has been known throughout history as “mass hysteria.” Children and people living under tyrannical regimes are easily whipped into mass hysterias, which can also turn into murderous mobs. If the Jews poisoned the village well in Pinsk, Russia, a mass hypochondria might be turned against the Jews by mob leaders (AKA politicians and journalists). Or witches would be burned by a frantic mob after children spread rumors about getting the evil eye from an old, solitary woman, walking at night.

Now the weather (not the climate) is a big deal for tribal peoples, because too much rain too soon can kill the crops, and a roasting summer can dry out the grass and chase away the deer and the rabbits.

The anthropologist Donald Brown has produced a long list of “cultural universals,” beliefs that are found all over the world.

Attempts to control the weather by magic are human universals. So are beliefs about the end of the world. (Coming soon! Repent!) Climate hysteria gives you both at the same time: The End of the World! (courtesy Al Gore) and We are Guilty of Killing the Planet!

Today we hear that the “carbon budget” of our big world forests are actually positive, meaning they produce more carbon than they consume. Now, nobody knows what the forest carbon budget is supposed to be, because we have barely gotten the technology to make the latest estimates, and the fact is that once it’s in the atmosphere, CO2 and all the other carbon molecules are very hard to measure. The atmosphere is a large entity – very few elements of planet earth are larger — one constantly roiled by solar heating and lunar cooling, volcanoes erupting, ocean plankton beds growing, coal-fired power plants in China, and great oceanic belches of deep sea hydrocarbons bubbling up. On and on and on.

So today it is reported that we might be getting more Carbon than anticipated from rain forests. The good news is that NASA thinks this is good news. The bad news is that Scientific American has been telling us for 10 years that too much carbon can kill ya.

So here is an apparent fact –or is it a “fact”? — that we are supposed to believe, and NASA says it’s good for us, but Scientific American is scared of Armageddon. I’ll bet that the scaremongers get more eyeballs than NASA will on this one, because human beings pay attention to fearful things, especially if they’ve been told about it since the 1970s.

I know a liberal who still believes in Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb and Carl Sagan’s Nuclear Winter. Another nice person who secretly hopes that all

those bronze peoples with the big families will disappear already.

Liberal superstitions aren’t “scientific.” The alleged “science” part is mostly Bill Nye the Science Liar, and he has somebody else to write his scripts. Being the official Science Guy is a well-paid job, and money attracts people like that, like cow flies to the rear ends of the herd.

Unusual weather events would often stir up paranoia among our tribal ancestors, and scary rumors amplify easily, because some people like to spread scare stories. Like New York Times journalists, village gossips only care about the number of ears and eyeballs their stories attract.

All this is a kind of mass paranoia spread by brainwashing media. The mass media specialize in confusing the easily confusable. About a quarter of the general population can be hypnotized easily, and like all of us, the most gullible people also get banged upside the head every day by the propaganda machine. A lie told over and over again becomes the truth, according to Josef Goebbels. It takes a lot of mental effort to spot and shut out an endless stream of industrialized lies.

Anyway, poor Anna O didn’t benefit from her doctors trying to hypnotize her. What’s worse, she fell in love with the senior doctor, Joseph Breuer, and tried to throw herself in his arms one day. Then she developed a false pregnancy, and Joseph Breuer left town to go on vacation with his wife. But Freud stayed with the patient, and learned from her ability to talk out her own worries and despairs, a therapy he later called “the talking cure.” Freud attributed the first “talking therapy” to his first patient, Anna O.

Liberals are highly suggestible. They don’t need any evidence for their beliefs. Sheer, daily, mechanical repetition is good enough, especially if it’s peddled by cute and sonorous talking heads on TV. The rest of us want to see some evidence.

We can feel sympathy for the Anna O’s of this world, and try to help them, but a constant diet of superstitious lies runs about a third of the voters in this nation.

Propaganda is now taught in our film and drama departments to students too young and brainwashed to think critically. Even then, “college students” are so fearful, so paranoid and weak, that they can’t bear to hear anyone disagreeing with their brainwashing.  Our robotically marching Antifas in the colleges must have some secret seed of doubt about the nonsense they are being taught every day.

Sigmund Freud’s first patient was called Anna O. (not her real name, to protect her anonymity). When Freud and his mentor Joseph Breuer first encountered young Anna, she was traumatically affected by the traditional family duty of caring for her dying father, who passed away before she asked for help. Her condition could be called obsessive hypochondria, and given her traumatic time nursing a dying father, I have to feel a lot of sympathy for her.

Anna believed she had a variety of illnesses, with symptoms that changed from day to day. There is no doubt that she was sincere, and in the medical thinking of the time, it seemed that she was suffering from deep autosuggestion, a kind of fast-changing self-hypnosis. Freud and Breuer therefore tried to hypnotize her with suggestions to contradict her fixed beliefs about one illness after another.

After decades of watching propaganda scare bombs in the mass media, aided by worried kindergarten teachers and parents who get freaked out by anxiety-provoking headlines, we have a whole population of planetary hypochondriacs. This kind of thing has been known throughout history as “mass hysteria.” Children and people living under tyrannical regimes are easily whipped into mass hysterias, which can also turn into murderous mobs. If the Jews poisoned the village well in Pinsk, Russia, a mass hypochondria might be turned against the Jews by mob leaders (AKA politicians and journalists). Or witches would be burned by a frantic mob after children spread rumors about getting the evil eye from an old, solitary woman, walking at night.

Now the weather (not the climate) is a big deal for tribal peoples, because too much rain too soon can kill the crops, and a roasting summer can dry out the grass and chase away the deer and the rabbits.

The anthropologist Donald Brown has produced a long list of “cultural universals,” beliefs that are found all over the world.

Attempts to control the weather by magic are human universals. So are beliefs about the end of the world. (Coming soon! Repent!) Climate hysteria gives you both at the same time: The End of the World! (courtesy Al Gore) and We are Guilty of Killing the Planet!

Today we hear that the “carbon budget” of our big world forests are actually positive, meaning they produce more carbon than they consume. Now, nobody knows what the forest carbon budget is supposed to be, because we have barely gotten the technology to make the latest estimates, and the fact is that once it’s in the atmosphere, CO2 and all the other carbon molecules are very hard to measure. The atmosphere is a large entity – very few elements of planet earth are larger — one constantly roiled by solar heating and lunar cooling, volcanoes erupting, ocean plankton beds growing, coal-fired power plants in China, and great oceanic belches of deep sea hydrocarbons bubbling up. On and on and on.

So today it is reported that we might be getting more Carbon than anticipated from rain forests. The good news is that NASA thinks this is good news. The bad news is that Scientific American has been telling us for 10 years that too much carbon can kill ya.

So here is an apparent fact –or is it a “fact”? — that we are supposed to believe, and NASA says it’s good for us, but Scientific American is scared of Armageddon. I’ll bet that the scaremongers get more eyeballs than NASA will on this one, because human beings pay attention to fearful things, especially if they’ve been told about it since the 1970s.

I know a liberal who still believes in Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb and Carl Sagan’s Nuclear Winter. Another nice person who secretly hopes that all

those bronze peoples with the big families will disappear already.

Liberal superstitions aren’t “scientific.” The alleged “science” part is mostly Bill Nye the Science Liar, and he has somebody else to write his scripts. Being the official Science Guy is a well-paid job, and money attracts people like that, like cow flies to the rear ends of the herd.

Unusual weather events would often stir up paranoia among our tribal ancestors, and scary rumors amplify easily, because some people like to spread scare stories. Like New York Times journalists, village gossips only care about the number of ears and eyeballs their stories attract.

All this is a kind of mass paranoia spread by brainwashing media. The mass media specialize in confusing the easily confusable. About a quarter of the general population can be hypnotized easily, and like all of us, the most gullible people also get banged upside the head every day by the propaganda machine. A lie told over and over again becomes the truth, according to Josef Goebbels. It takes a lot of mental effort to spot and shut out an endless stream of industrialized lies.

Anyway, poor Anna O didn’t benefit from her doctors trying to hypnotize her. What’s worse, she fell in love with the senior doctor, Joseph Breuer, and tried to throw herself in his arms one day. Then she developed a false pregnancy, and Joseph Breuer left town to go on vacation with his wife. But Freud stayed with the patient, and learned from her ability to talk out her own worries and despairs, a therapy he later called “the talking cure.” Freud attributed the first “talking therapy” to his first patient, Anna O.

Liberals are highly suggestible. They don’t need any evidence for their beliefs. Sheer, daily, mechanical repetition is good enough, especially if it’s peddled by cute and sonorous talking heads on TV. The rest of us want to see some evidence.

We can feel sympathy for the Anna O’s of this world, and try to help them, but a constant diet of superstitious lies runs about a third of the voters in this nation.

Propaganda is now taught in our film and drama departments to students too young and brainwashed to think critically. Even then, “college students” are so fearful, so paranoid and weak, that they can’t bear to hear anyone disagreeing with their brainwashing.  Our robotically marching Antifas in the colleges must have some secret seed of doubt about the nonsense they are being taught every day.



Source link

Everything (That's Not Sexism) Is Racism


For some time now, Democrats have played the identity politics game, revving up grievances — real or imagined — of different ethnic groups with the only commonality a dismissive prejudice against middle-class white men. This divisive disunity strategy served them well for a while, but no longer. With nothing else to replace it, it’s between Scylla and Charybdis — risk losing the base and seek broader appeal or crash into obscurity. They continue to choose poorly.

I don’t know the name of the person who created this, but it shows rather well the arguments of the everything-is-racism in their deck of cards:

This week a librarian in Cambridge, Massachusetts, churlishly refused a gift by the first lady of books to her school in a letter which she proudly published online. In the letter she suggests the very gift ignored the needs of poor children and that the books by Dr. Seuss in particular were inappropriate because the author was racist.

David Burge‏ @iowahawkblog Sep 29

If you think Dr Suess is racist, you have no business being employed in education 

The great Howie Carr weigfhs in:

Here is a selection of Liz’s descriptions of the children’s books that the People’s Republic considers more appropriate:


“… a Chinese-African-Cuban girl … Lahore, Pakistan … he uses a wheelchair … Haitian American Saya’s mother is incarcerated because she has no papers … the segregated reality of Mexican Americans … refugee children who emigrate from Central America …. the experience of a child refugee.”

In sum, she wants children to focus on the dispossessed of the world. Other postings by her on Twitter (since removed by her) show a systematic effort to get young students in her care to be critical of their nation and its unifying elements.

In no time, the denizens of the Internet found pictures of her hosting a Dr. Seuss party, wearing the Cat in the Hat’s garb, and both Obamas reading to kids from Dr. Seuss. No one doubts if Michelle Obama had gifted the same books to her library, the response would have been grateful and warm. This is what is called “confirmation bias”. If you think Donald Trump is evil and racist, everything connected to him must be.

Mark Steyn makes mincemeat out of the librarian and her librarian social justice warrior sources: 

“We’re making ourselves a society too stupid to survive.”

No one to my knowledge has done such a graphic for the sexism card, but this week Michelle Obama chimed in on the subject: 

Former first lady Michelle Obama told an audience in Boston this week that she believed women who chose Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the presidential election “voted against their own voice.”


[snip]


“Quite frankly, we saw this in this election. As far as I’m concerned, any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice, in a way,” Obama said, as the crowd applauded.


She continued: “To me, it doesn’t say as much about Hillary — and everybody’s trying to wonder, ‘Well, what does it mean for Hillary?’ No, no, no. What does it mean for us as women that we look at those two candidates — as women — and many of us said, ‘That guy. He’s better for me. His voice is more true to me.’ Well, to me, that just says you don’t like your voice. You like the thing we’re told to like.”

When her husband trounced Hillary in the primaries for the 2008 campaign, were they voting “against their own voice”? Or are they forgiven if they “voted against their voice” for someone part black? It gets harder to keep up with the changing rules about voice and who can – uhm — voice it and how.

If it’s not sexism or racism it’s neo-Nazism or Islamophobia, depending on the intended audience.

Manipulating Jewish voters — in large part by playing on their confirmation bias that conservatives hate them, among other things, Democrats played up the Charlottesville riot and the President’s response as showing that he supported neo-Nazis, ignoring his correct analysis that both sides were in the wrong. When it turned out that the liberal icon Valerie Plame, who was instrumental in fomenting the  phony narrative that “Bush lied” to get us into war in Iraq outed herself as an anti-Semite, the press was largely silent. Certainly as compared to anything tagging any conservative as anti-Semitic with far less basis for doing so. Except for two or three op eds, including a notable one by Brett Stephens, I can find nothing  in the NYT as I check with Google.

And then there’s the matter of whose lives matter.

This week the NFL slit its own throat by allowing players who bought into the lie that blacks are being shot on purpose by racist police. It allowed them to disrespect the flag and tradition by taking a knee when the anthem was played pre-game to advance a meme that is notably fake.

As Don Surber observed, responding to Bob Costas 

More from Costas:


“Patriotism comes in many forms and what has happened is that it’s been conflated with a bumper sticker-style kind of flag-waving and with the military only, so that people cannot see that in his own way Colin Kaepernick, however imperfectly, is doing a patriotic thing. And so too are some of these other players.”


Wrong.


Patriotism does come with the flag. That is why we respect the flag and the song about it, the “Star-Spangled Banner.”


Symbols do matter. I know that because people want to tear down the Confederate flag and various statues (including the Lincoln Memorial) because of what they represent.


If you side with Kaepernick, you side with the reason he gave for his protest.


“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”


He told that to the NFL on August 27, 2016. The league posted it online at its official site.


Believe me, I defend this fool’s right to protest.


Americans may have their disagreements, but one thing we all agree on is not disrespecting the flag.

The president called them on it, the public responded. Viewership has gone down along with revenues in an already declining market. A week later, the teams relented and stood, but the damage to the brand and sport seems not to have ended.

Victor Davis Hanson explains that along with the League’s clearly non-diverse hiring practices which points out to us how lame the left’s “diversity is the most important thing” is, it seriously misreads its audience:  

Outside the NFL bubble today, most of America, to the extent it still watches, now sees Sunday afternoon pop demonstrations as increasingly a farce, played out among players who appear neither exploited nor as exemplary model sportsmen, but rather as overpaid and pampered. Given the NFL’s enormous overhead, even a 10–20 percent reduction in attendance and viewing could send financial tsunamis throughout the league. Nor do the protesting players come across as informed, brave social-justice warriors on the barricades of dissent, but as mostly unable to explain to their fans precisely why and how they are mistreated or why America is a flawed society that does not deserve momentary iconic respect each week. If players were concerned about violence and injustice, why not collect a voluntary 10 percent contribution from the league’s multimillionaire players and use it to fund programs that address systematic and lethal violence in inner-city communities such as Baltimore or Chicago? And if ethics and values are the players’ issues, why over the last decade has there been an increase in player off-field violence and arrests, often marked by well-publicized violence against women? The owners, again fairly or not, are not viewed any longer so much as maverick tycoons and eccentric entrepreneurs or philanthropic regional family dynasties of the past, but rather as billionaire corporate magnates who invest their riches in glitzy cultural trophies and expect the state to subsidize their excesses. They are going down the Google/Apple/Facebook grandee path of losing their cultural appeal and, with it, their brand.

Rasmussen says in contrast that the President’s approval rating has popped and is now up to 45%. 

For the press, sensation sells, so some are playing up the disaster in Puerto Rico — long a basket case of government dependency and profligate, corrupt politicians. Reporters like Geraldo Rivera suggest that the administration who did such a great job in Texas and Florida is fluffing the job in Puerto Rico, implying that we treat the residents there as less than the citizens elsewhere. (Racism again?) The facts do not bear them out.

Except for accounts from that media darling, Carmen Cruz, the mayor of San Juan, the relief effort is massive and as effective as it can be under all the circumstances, reporters like Geraldo and Shep Smith who did such a bang-up job deflecting blame on Katrina from the ineffectual New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, should ditch the old playbook and ask Ricardo Rossello, the island’s governor, who repeatedly praises the rescue efforts. 

A FEMA press release detailed some of the relief headed towards Puerto Rico:


  • Six commercial barges transported and delivered meals, water, generators, cots, and other commodities to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
  • An air bridge is established, flying three flights per day to St. Croix, each carrying approximately 33,000 meals.
  • The logistics support ship SS Wright arrived carrying more than 1.1 million meals, and nearly one million liters of freshwater.
  • Two shipping barges with 1.2 million liters of water, 31 generators, and more than 6,000 cots arrived in St. Thomas.
  • Two additional shipping barges loaded with food, water, and emergency relief supplies are en route to the Caribbean Sea from Florida.
  • Millions of additional meals are being flown to Puerto Rico from staging areas in Kentucky and Florida.
  • The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is transporting a shipment of 124,000 gallons of diesel fuel to Puerto Rico, with arrival in the coming days. [snip] The 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) and Expeditionary Strike Group 2, as well as the USS Wasp, USS Oak Hill, USS Iwo Jima and USS New York, have all participated in recovery operations so far. 

It may not be obvious to the media, but one of the difficulties in getting supplies to Puerto Rico is that it’s an island 1200+ nautical miles from Miami, the closest major U.S. port.


Clearing the ports takes time, and getting supplies for 3.4 million people by plane into devastated airports isn’t a real option.


Stars and Stripes reports that the Defense Department has already sent 2,600 personnel to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands to assist in recovery

So many of the reported crimes purportedly motivated by Islamophobia have proven to be faked (like the crimes of racism and sexism) that rationally we’ve grown to view all with a jaundiced eye. Still, it took chutzpah for Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (former DNC chair) to suggest that the still barely covered Awan brothers scandal was a product of Islamophobia. 

With such a cynical, divisive and mendacious strategy, is it any surprise that the DNC coffers are running low? Donors and supporters are abandoning the party in droves.

Next time someone yammers at you about what a horrible, racist, sexist, Islamophobic country this is, ask him if he believes in open borders and why he thinks so many people want to come here instead of staying in the countries of which they are citizens. It’s always fun to see the blank look and evasive response of those whose cognitive dissonance is being exposed.

For some time now, Democrats have played the identity politics game, revving up grievances — real or imagined — of different ethnic groups with the only commonality a dismissive prejudice against middle-class white men. This divisive disunity strategy served them well for a while, but no longer. With nothing else to replace it, it’s between Scylla and Charybdis — risk losing the base and seek broader appeal or crash into obscurity. They continue to choose poorly.

I don’t know the name of the person who created this, but it shows rather well the arguments of the everything-is-racism in their deck of cards:

This week a librarian in Cambridge, Massachusetts, churlishly refused a gift by the first lady of books to her school in a letter which she proudly published online. In the letter she suggests the very gift ignored the needs of poor children and that the books by Dr. Seuss in particular were inappropriate because the author was racist.

David Burge‏ @iowahawkblog Sep 29

If you think Dr Suess is racist, you have no business being employed in education 

The great Howie Carr weigfhs in:

Here is a selection of Liz’s descriptions of the children’s books that the People’s Republic considers more appropriate:


“… a Chinese-African-Cuban girl … Lahore, Pakistan … he uses a wheelchair … Haitian American Saya’s mother is incarcerated because she has no papers … the segregated reality of Mexican Americans … refugee children who emigrate from Central America …. the experience of a child refugee.”

In sum, she wants children to focus on the dispossessed of the world. Other postings by her on Twitter (since removed by her) show a systematic effort to get young students in her care to be critical of their nation and its unifying elements.

In no time, the denizens of the Internet found pictures of her hosting a Dr. Seuss party, wearing the Cat in the Hat’s garb, and both Obamas reading to kids from Dr. Seuss. No one doubts if Michelle Obama had gifted the same books to her library, the response would have been grateful and warm. This is what is called “confirmation bias”. If you think Donald Trump is evil and racist, everything connected to him must be.

Mark Steyn makes mincemeat out of the librarian and her librarian social justice warrior sources: 

“We’re making ourselves a society too stupid to survive.”

No one to my knowledge has done such a graphic for the sexism card, but this week Michelle Obama chimed in on the subject: 

Former first lady Michelle Obama told an audience in Boston this week that she believed women who chose Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the presidential election “voted against their own voice.”


[snip]


“Quite frankly, we saw this in this election. As far as I’m concerned, any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice, in a way,” Obama said, as the crowd applauded.


She continued: “To me, it doesn’t say as much about Hillary — and everybody’s trying to wonder, ‘Well, what does it mean for Hillary?’ No, no, no. What does it mean for us as women that we look at those two candidates — as women — and many of us said, ‘That guy. He’s better for me. His voice is more true to me.’ Well, to me, that just says you don’t like your voice. You like the thing we’re told to like.”

When her husband trounced Hillary in the primaries for the 2008 campaign, were they voting “against their own voice”? Or are they forgiven if they “voted against their voice” for someone part black? It gets harder to keep up with the changing rules about voice and who can – uhm — voice it and how.

If it’s not sexism or racism it’s neo-Nazism or Islamophobia, depending on the intended audience.

Manipulating Jewish voters — in large part by playing on their confirmation bias that conservatives hate them, among other things, Democrats played up the Charlottesville riot and the President’s response as showing that he supported neo-Nazis, ignoring his correct analysis that both sides were in the wrong. When it turned out that the liberal icon Valerie Plame, who was instrumental in fomenting the  phony narrative that “Bush lied” to get us into war in Iraq outed herself as an anti-Semite, the press was largely silent. Certainly as compared to anything tagging any conservative as anti-Semitic with far less basis for doing so. Except for two or three op eds, including a notable one by Brett Stephens, I can find nothing  in the NYT as I check with Google.

And then there’s the matter of whose lives matter.

This week the NFL slit its own throat by allowing players who bought into the lie that blacks are being shot on purpose by racist police. It allowed them to disrespect the flag and tradition by taking a knee when the anthem was played pre-game to advance a meme that is notably fake.

As Don Surber observed, responding to Bob Costas 

More from Costas:


“Patriotism comes in many forms and what has happened is that it’s been conflated with a bumper sticker-style kind of flag-waving and with the military only, so that people cannot see that in his own way Colin Kaepernick, however imperfectly, is doing a patriotic thing. And so too are some of these other players.”


Wrong.


Patriotism does come with the flag. That is why we respect the flag and the song about it, the “Star-Spangled Banner.”


Symbols do matter. I know that because people want to tear down the Confederate flag and various statues (including the Lincoln Memorial) because of what they represent.


If you side with Kaepernick, you side with the reason he gave for his protest.


“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”


He told that to the NFL on August 27, 2016. The league posted it online at its official site.


Believe me, I defend this fool’s right to protest.


Americans may have their disagreements, but one thing we all agree on is not disrespecting the flag.

The president called them on it, the public responded. Viewership has gone down along with revenues in an already declining market. A week later, the teams relented and stood, but the damage to the brand and sport seems not to have ended.

Victor Davis Hanson explains that along with the League’s clearly non-diverse hiring practices which points out to us how lame the left’s “diversity is the most important thing” is, it seriously misreads its audience:  

Outside the NFL bubble today, most of America, to the extent it still watches, now sees Sunday afternoon pop demonstrations as increasingly a farce, played out among players who appear neither exploited nor as exemplary model sportsmen, but rather as overpaid and pampered. Given the NFL’s enormous overhead, even a 10–20 percent reduction in attendance and viewing could send financial tsunamis throughout the league. Nor do the protesting players come across as informed, brave social-justice warriors on the barricades of dissent, but as mostly unable to explain to their fans precisely why and how they are mistreated or why America is a flawed society that does not deserve momentary iconic respect each week. If players were concerned about violence and injustice, why not collect a voluntary 10 percent contribution from the league’s multimillionaire players and use it to fund programs that address systematic and lethal violence in inner-city communities such as Baltimore or Chicago? And if ethics and values are the players’ issues, why over the last decade has there been an increase in player off-field violence and arrests, often marked by well-publicized violence against women? The owners, again fairly or not, are not viewed any longer so much as maverick tycoons and eccentric entrepreneurs or philanthropic regional family dynasties of the past, but rather as billionaire corporate magnates who invest their riches in glitzy cultural trophies and expect the state to subsidize their excesses. They are going down the Google/Apple/Facebook grandee path of losing their cultural appeal and, with it, their brand.

Rasmussen says in contrast that the President’s approval rating has popped and is now up to 45%. 

For the press, sensation sells, so some are playing up the disaster in Puerto Rico — long a basket case of government dependency and profligate, corrupt politicians. Reporters like Geraldo Rivera suggest that the administration who did such a great job in Texas and Florida is fluffing the job in Puerto Rico, implying that we treat the residents there as less than the citizens elsewhere. (Racism again?) The facts do not bear them out.

Except for accounts from that media darling, Carmen Cruz, the mayor of San Juan, the relief effort is massive and as effective as it can be under all the circumstances, reporters like Geraldo and Shep Smith who did such a bang-up job deflecting blame on Katrina from the ineffectual New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, should ditch the old playbook and ask Ricardo Rossello, the island’s governor, who repeatedly praises the rescue efforts. 

A FEMA press release detailed some of the relief headed towards Puerto Rico:


  • Six commercial barges transported and delivered meals, water, generators, cots, and other commodities to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
  • An air bridge is established, flying three flights per day to St. Croix, each carrying approximately 33,000 meals.
  • The logistics support ship SS Wright arrived carrying more than 1.1 million meals, and nearly one million liters of freshwater.
  • Two shipping barges with 1.2 million liters of water, 31 generators, and more than 6,000 cots arrived in St. Thomas.
  • Two additional shipping barges loaded with food, water, and emergency relief supplies are en route to the Caribbean Sea from Florida.
  • Millions of additional meals are being flown to Puerto Rico from staging areas in Kentucky and Florida.
  • The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is transporting a shipment of 124,000 gallons of diesel fuel to Puerto Rico, with arrival in the coming days. [snip] The 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) and Expeditionary Strike Group 2, as well as the USS Wasp, USS Oak Hill, USS Iwo Jima and USS New York, have all participated in recovery operations so far. 

It may not be obvious to the media, but one of the difficulties in getting supplies to Puerto Rico is that it’s an island 1200+ nautical miles from Miami, the closest major U.S. port.


Clearing the ports takes time, and getting supplies for 3.4 million people by plane into devastated airports isn’t a real option.


Stars and Stripes reports that the Defense Department has already sent 2,600 personnel to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands to assist in recovery

So many of the reported crimes purportedly motivated by Islamophobia have proven to be faked (like the crimes of racism and sexism) that rationally we’ve grown to view all with a jaundiced eye. Still, it took chutzpah for Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (former DNC chair) to suggest that the still barely covered Awan brothers scandal was a product of Islamophobia. 

With such a cynical, divisive and mendacious strategy, is it any surprise that the DNC coffers are running low? Donors and supporters are abandoning the party in droves.

Next time someone yammers at you about what a horrible, racist, sexist, Islamophobic country this is, ask him if he believes in open borders and why he thinks so many people want to come here instead of staying in the countries of which they are citizens. It’s always fun to see the blank look and evasive response of those whose cognitive dissonance is being exposed.



Source link

Democrats Are Addicted to Lies


Democrats never miss a chance to call for “national conversations” on gun control, racism, etc.  What we need is a national conversation on lies.  Without this one, all the other conversations are worse than useless.

The most self-destructive lies are the ones we tell ourselves to avoid the discomfort of admitting our imperfections.  Think “eating crow.”   Honest people use the discomfort of self-awareness as a spur to self-correction and self-improvement.  The Democrat mind evades the pain.  For example, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz denies error in employing an allegedly criminal IT expert, the liberal press spikes stories like the Kermit Gosnell trial that threaten the Democrat agenda, and liberal journalists cut off conservatives to evade uncomfortable discussions. 

This is how Democrats concoct lies to convince themselves that their faults lie anywhere but in themselves.  So when a Democrat speaks, don’t ask, “Is he lying?”  Ask, “Is he lying to himself, or only to me?” 

The varieties of lies are as common as crabgrass.  Here’s a list you keep on hand for use when talking to a Democrat: 

  • scapegoating,
  • intellectual deviousness,
  • pretentiousness,
  • phony altruism,
  • the crisis is upon us, and
  • I’m so great you must be desperate to hear me talk about me

Here are some examples of Democrats engaging in each type of lie (italicized). 

Scapegoating is the act of blaming someone or something innocent for our faults.  ”Yes, I beat my wife to death, but she made me do it.”  If you don’t remember anything else, remember this variety of lie with a klaxon warning.  Bernie Sanders scapegoats the 1%.  Obama blames everybody but himself, and never used the words “sorry” or “apologize” about himself during his misnamed “Apology Tour,” actually showing foreign nationals by his example how to scapegoat the U.S.  Hillary Clinton scapegoats Macedonian content farmers, James Comey, and misogyny for her election loss.  The rest of the Democratic Party enthusiastically joins her in the scapegoating of Republican “collusion” with Vladimir Putin without any evidence supporting the lie.  When Congressman Scalise was shot by a Bernie Sanders fanatic, Nancy Pelosi scapegoated Republicans, because “Somewhere in the ’90s, Republicans decided on a politics of personal destruction when they went after the Clintons.”  

This last example is a twofer, with the lie requiring both scapegoating and intellectual deviousness, where the rules of logic are broken to make the lie work.  As Robert Heinlein said, “Man is not a rational animal.  Man is a rationalizing animal.”  Watch for hypothesis stated as fact, particularly when it counters experience, reason, or evidence (“America has always been about immigration“ rather than “Liberty”); straw man arguments or false choices; and euphemisms which soften a harsher truth (“undocumented immigrants” vs. “illegal aliens” or “Pro-Choice” vs. “Pro-Abortion”).  Slippery Bill Clinton narrowed the definition of sex to exclude fellatio.

Consider “Islam is a religion of peace.”  Told for Democrat electoral benefit, this steaming shovelful is disproven by the mounting body count and 1400 years of historical fact.  Democrats argue that several million Muslims don’t commit terror — QED.  Using the same intellectually devious logic, Southern white culture a century ago was a model of racial equality, where only a small minority of Caucasians belonged to the Ku Klux Klan, and an even smaller number had ever participated in a lynching. 

The previous example also illustrates Democrat sanctimony or pretentiousness.  Appearing good is more important than being good.  As Dennis Prager explains, Democrats strut their faux virtue and courage by fighting imaginary villains instead of real ones; Islamaphobes instead of Islamism, Confederate statues and carbon emissions rather than Antifa’s war on free speech.  Smaller pretentions are ubiquitous; here Obama affects a phony “street-smart” accent, not acquired in Hawaii or Harvard, to impress his young black audience. 

Phony altruism is a kind of pretentiousness but has a different and far more destructive purpose, so it deserves its own category.  You’re too pathetic to decide for yourself how to live.  Combating imagined helplessness is the self-fulfilling prophecy used to bribe people into becoming supporters and sycophants.  Democrats have cultivated a state of dependence on government using Obamacare, food stamps to overcome pride, and Obamaphones for votes.  We should redesign quarter dollar coins, and replace “Liberty” as our national ideal with “Perpetual Custodial Care”.

The crisis is upon us.  Democrats love to lie that nothing is more important or urgent than their grievances, because when you get what you want in an emergency suddenly everything becomes an emergency.  That allows disregard and contempt for the conventional rules and restraints of behavior.  For example, you may try to suspend free speech to battle global warming or take a knee for the national anthem.  Obama displayed this type of lie when he violated his Constitutional limits with his Libyan incursion, selectively ignored healthcare enforcement and immigration laws, created the DACA program, and weaponized the IRS to harass conservatives.

I’m so great you must be desperate to hear me talk about me.  Obama is so ensnared in lies that the world only makes sense “under the dome” of Obamaworld.  Saint Barack claimed heroism in killing bin Laden, completed two autobiographies before accomplishing anything, and made two cringe-worthy self-referential tributes at the passing of Neil Armstrong and Daniel Inouye.

Here are two examples to practice classifying lies according to their types.  Refer to your checklist. 

I recently spoke with a Democrat who said that Trump was a “career criminal” and deserved to die.  This kind of lie is told in many ways:  Republicans are racists and Nazis; Trump is a Russian operative, etc.  This lie flows from pretentiousness, with the goal being to display imagined super-sensitivity to unacceptable behavior and thus express the most sanctimonious outrage.  Watch two Democrats try to “one-up” each other in their feigned disgust with Republicans, smiling the whole time.  

Here’s the second example.  Expect Democrats to respond, “Republicans are just as bad.”  This is hypothesis stated as fact, a form of intellectual deviousness.

And no, they aren’t.  I hypothesize two reasons, both attributable to honest self-examination and confrontation of imperfections.  First, conservatives include more observant Christians and Jews, who routinely stand in their liturgies before an omniscient God to acknowledge their shortcomings and request forgiveness.  Second, a liberal press exposes Republican corruption but conceals Democrat depravity from public view and accountability.  These together make lying more painful for Conservatives than self-awareness.

Screaming “LIAR!” at Democrats only deepens the pain of self-awareness and reinforces their withdrawal into self-deception.  Instead, we must break the thrall of Democrat leaders over the rank-and-file by patiently explaining their leaders’ lies.  Most importantly, we must set the example and invite them to join us in honest self-examination and the rejection of lies.   

Democrats never miss a chance to call for “national conversations” on gun control, racism, etc.  What we need is a national conversation on lies.  Without this one, all the other conversations are worse than useless.

The most self-destructive lies are the ones we tell ourselves to avoid the discomfort of admitting our imperfections.  Think “eating crow.”   Honest people use the discomfort of self-awareness as a spur to self-correction and self-improvement.  The Democrat mind evades the pain.  For example, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz denies error in employing an allegedly criminal IT expert, the liberal press spikes stories like the Kermit Gosnell trial that threaten the Democrat agenda, and liberal journalists cut off conservatives to evade uncomfortable discussions. 

This is how Democrats concoct lies to convince themselves that their faults lie anywhere but in themselves.  So when a Democrat speaks, don’t ask, “Is he lying?”  Ask, “Is he lying to himself, or only to me?” 

The varieties of lies are as common as crabgrass.  Here’s a list you keep on hand for use when talking to a Democrat: 

  • scapegoating,
  • intellectual deviousness,
  • pretentiousness,
  • phony altruism,
  • the crisis is upon us, and
  • I’m so great you must be desperate to hear me talk about me

Here are some examples of Democrats engaging in each type of lie (italicized). 

Scapegoating is the act of blaming someone or something innocent for our faults.  ”Yes, I beat my wife to death, but she made me do it.”  If you don’t remember anything else, remember this variety of lie with a klaxon warning.  Bernie Sanders scapegoats the 1%.  Obama blames everybody but himself, and never used the words “sorry” or “apologize” about himself during his misnamed “Apology Tour,” actually showing foreign nationals by his example how to scapegoat the U.S.  Hillary Clinton scapegoats Macedonian content farmers, James Comey, and misogyny for her election loss.  The rest of the Democratic Party enthusiastically joins her in the scapegoating of Republican “collusion” with Vladimir Putin without any evidence supporting the lie.  When Congressman Scalise was shot by a Bernie Sanders fanatic, Nancy Pelosi scapegoated Republicans, because “Somewhere in the ’90s, Republicans decided on a politics of personal destruction when they went after the Clintons.”  

This last example is a twofer, with the lie requiring both scapegoating and intellectual deviousness, where the rules of logic are broken to make the lie work.  As Robert Heinlein said, “Man is not a rational animal.  Man is a rationalizing animal.”  Watch for hypothesis stated as fact, particularly when it counters experience, reason, or evidence (“America has always been about immigration“ rather than “Liberty”); straw man arguments or false choices; and euphemisms which soften a harsher truth (“undocumented immigrants” vs. “illegal aliens” or “Pro-Choice” vs. “Pro-Abortion”).  Slippery Bill Clinton narrowed the definition of sex to exclude fellatio.

Consider “Islam is a religion of peace.”  Told for Democrat electoral benefit, this steaming shovelful is disproven by the mounting body count and 1400 years of historical fact.  Democrats argue that several million Muslims don’t commit terror — QED.  Using the same intellectually devious logic, Southern white culture a century ago was a model of racial equality, where only a small minority of Caucasians belonged to the Ku Klux Klan, and an even smaller number had ever participated in a lynching. 

The previous example also illustrates Democrat sanctimony or pretentiousness.  Appearing good is more important than being good.  As Dennis Prager explains, Democrats strut their faux virtue and courage by fighting imaginary villains instead of real ones; Islamaphobes instead of Islamism, Confederate statues and carbon emissions rather than Antifa’s war on free speech.  Smaller pretentions are ubiquitous; here Obama affects a phony “street-smart” accent, not acquired in Hawaii or Harvard, to impress his young black audience. 

Phony altruism is a kind of pretentiousness but has a different and far more destructive purpose, so it deserves its own category.  You’re too pathetic to decide for yourself how to live.  Combating imagined helplessness is the self-fulfilling prophecy used to bribe people into becoming supporters and sycophants.  Democrats have cultivated a state of dependence on government using Obamacare, food stamps to overcome pride, and Obamaphones for votes.  We should redesign quarter dollar coins, and replace “Liberty” as our national ideal with “Perpetual Custodial Care”.

The crisis is upon us.  Democrats love to lie that nothing is more important or urgent than their grievances, because when you get what you want in an emergency suddenly everything becomes an emergency.  That allows disregard and contempt for the conventional rules and restraints of behavior.  For example, you may try to suspend free speech to battle global warming or take a knee for the national anthem.  Obama displayed this type of lie when he violated his Constitutional limits with his Libyan incursion, selectively ignored healthcare enforcement and immigration laws, created the DACA program, and weaponized the IRS to harass conservatives.

I’m so great you must be desperate to hear me talk about me.  Obama is so ensnared in lies that the world only makes sense “under the dome” of Obamaworld.  Saint Barack claimed heroism in killing bin Laden, completed two autobiographies before accomplishing anything, and made two cringe-worthy self-referential tributes at the passing of Neil Armstrong and Daniel Inouye.

Here are two examples to practice classifying lies according to their types.  Refer to your checklist. 

I recently spoke with a Democrat who said that Trump was a “career criminal” and deserved to die.  This kind of lie is told in many ways:  Republicans are racists and Nazis; Trump is a Russian operative, etc.  This lie flows from pretentiousness, with the goal being to display imagined super-sensitivity to unacceptable behavior and thus express the most sanctimonious outrage.  Watch two Democrats try to “one-up” each other in their feigned disgust with Republicans, smiling the whole time.  

Here’s the second example.  Expect Democrats to respond, “Republicans are just as bad.”  This is hypothesis stated as fact, a form of intellectual deviousness.

And no, they aren’t.  I hypothesize two reasons, both attributable to honest self-examination and confrontation of imperfections.  First, conservatives include more observant Christians and Jews, who routinely stand in their liturgies before an omniscient God to acknowledge their shortcomings and request forgiveness.  Second, a liberal press exposes Republican corruption but conceals Democrat depravity from public view and accountability.  These together make lying more painful for Conservatives than self-awareness.

Screaming “LIAR!” at Democrats only deepens the pain of self-awareness and reinforces their withdrawal into self-deception.  Instead, we must break the thrall of Democrat leaders over the rank-and-file by patiently explaining their leaders’ lies.  Most importantly, we must set the example and invite them to join us in honest self-examination and the rejection of lies.   



Source link

The Mac Mini as Portent


The Mac Mini was arguably the world’s first mass popular small form factor computer.  It came out in 2005 and quickly captured a following among Apple fanboys (and girls).  It was an elegant desktop that reached its zenith in the 2012 model.  It was easily repairable and spawned a subculture of geeks upgrading RAM and storage themselves.  It was rather unusual for an Apple product.  And it weighed under three pounds.

Apple downgraded the 2014 Mac Mini model and let it lie dormant for the last three years.  It is not easily repairable.  The RAM was soldered in.  And the top-end processor (CPU) was downgraded to a dual-core i7-4578U, not a quad-core.  It is still being sold at this time with Haswell Processors.

Mac Mini aficionados have been howling for the return of a new Mac Mini, with excellent specifications, once again.  Up to now, they have been disappointed.

In the intervening years, computers have undergone a minor revolution.  Most notably, this year opened up with Ryzen processors from AMD.  Suddenly, reasonably priced multi-core processors became available to the consumer.  AMD was even offering six-core and eight-core CPUs at prices well under Intel’s.

However, Intel has just countered with eighth-generation Coffee Lake CPUs.  The first release was actually an upgrade of seventh-generation Kaby Lake chips, but it is here that the enfilade will start.  What it means for the Mac Mini – as well as for every other small computer – will prove not exceptional, but typical.

Intel has already released a quad-core i7-8650U which goes from 1.9 GHz, boosting to 4.2 GHz.  Technically, though labeled eighth-generation, it is more of an upgrade to the seventh-generation Kaby Lake.  Given Apple’s tendency to release tried and true technology, Apple may choose to go with this quasi-upgrade if it releases a new Mac Mini at all in late 2017 or 2018.

However, what is going on here is that, in response to AMD’s competition, Intel is raising the number of cores on its i-core line of CPUs.  It seems that no longer will dual-core CPUs be the entry.  Now, even with the lowly i3-core family, quad-core will be standard, albeit without turbo-boosting or hyper-threading.  As one goes to i5 and i7, hyperthreading, turbo boost, and more cores will be introduced.

The result will be that the newer-core i3 CPUs will now approximate the former i5 CPUs in performance.  The newer i5 CPUs will approximate the former i7 CPUs.  And the newer i7 CPUs will approximate the former i9 processors.  The core wars have started.

The bottom standard has been substantially raised, for all but the lesser CPUs.

Apple cannot help but release a new Mac Mini with the quad-core CPU that aficionados have wanted for years.  Only now, the quad-core, even if it has hyper-threading, will not be exceptional.

[T]hese new [eighth generation] chips double that to four cores and eight threads. They also bump up the maximum clock speed to as much as 4.2GHz, though the base clock speed is sharply down at 1.9GHz for the top end part (compared to the 7th generation’s 2.8GHz). But beyond those changes, there’s little to say about the new chips, because in a lot of ways, the new chips aren’t really new.

The base clock has been set lower, which is good for typical usage, though the high-end speeds have been upgraded.  But as noted in the chart – at the Ars Technica link above – even mid-level i5-core CPUs will have four cores and eight threads – a property formerly reserved for higher-end i7-core CPUs.

In the past year, between AMD and Intel, the power of standard CPUs has skyrocketed.  Low-end computers and laptops will now pack power that can compete with the higher-end machines of recent vintage.  HP has already released a laptop packing one of these i7-8550u quad-core options, as opposed to last years option with a dual core i7-7500u, for the roughly same price.

The increase in performance will be phenomenal.  What we are seeing now is the fruits of cutthroat competition.

[I]f you have your eye on a new consumer laptop with a Core i5 or Core i7 U-series CPU, you may want to delay your purchase for a few more weeks.

To the average consumer, this may not mean much.  But to gamers, it will mean a lot.  Video and photography content producers – all of which requires power – will have to take notice.

It’s not just for mobile CPUs, either.  The desktop CPUs promise to have enormous power increases.  Intel’s Flagship i7-x700 CPUs will go from a base 3.6 Ghz/4.2 GHz with 4 cores/8 threads to an i7-8700 at 3.2 Ghz/4.6 GHz with 6 core/12 threads, and only for a minimal increase above the present model.

Meanwhile, AMD is counter-punching with its Threadripper CPUs (16 cores/32 threads) at $999, which is almost half the price on Intel’s present comparable i9-7960X, at $1,690.

Compare AMD’s generous approach to Intel’s careful rationing: The $1,000 10-core Core i9-7900X, for example, has a decent 44 lanes of PCIe, but the $599 8-core Core i7-7820X has only 28. Even AMD’s cheapest Threadripper so far, the 8-core Threadripper 1900X, features a full 64 lanes of PCIe support.

This is what competition is supposed to look like.

What it will mean is that even recent computers will soon be made obsolete, even sooner than usual.  The recent core wars have ramped up the technology.  Programs that once confined themselves to one core will now be upgraded to use the available multiple cores.

This may not be too noticeable to the average consumer who merely surfs the web, but it will be noticeable to gamers, photographers, and video editors almost immediately.  YouTube may start to see more 4K videos uploaded.

As for the Mac Mini, if Apple ever decides to upgrade it, Apple have to will release a quad-core option.  Many fanboys will applaud the improvement, but how many will realize that the improvement will be minimal?  A quad-core Mac Mini in 2012 was far more powerful than the average desktop.  A quad-core Mac Mini in 2018, if they release it, will be just average.

What this may portend is a coming end to the bulky desktop computer.  Small computers may be the rule for all but true power users, and that power cut-off seems to be getting higher.  At four cores/eight threads, more of these new CPUs can handle the video editing once reserved to the professionals.  The monster builds may be dying out.

The Mac Mini will probably end up being rather typical.  It may be the standard of the future – not as  trendsetter, but as average.

Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who wishes he had availed himself more fully of the opportunity to learn Spanish in high school, lo those many decades ago.  He writes on the Arabs of South America at http://latinarabia.com.  He also just started a website about small computers at http://thetinydesktop.com.

The Mac Mini was arguably the world’s first mass popular small form factor computer.  It came out in 2005 and quickly captured a following among Apple fanboys (and girls).  It was an elegant desktop that reached its zenith in the 2012 model.  It was easily repairable and spawned a subculture of geeks upgrading RAM and storage themselves.  It was rather unusual for an Apple product.  And it weighed under three pounds.

Apple downgraded the 2014 Mac Mini model and let it lie dormant for the last three years.  It is not easily repairable.  The RAM was soldered in.  And the top-end processor (CPU) was downgraded to a dual-core i7-4578U, not a quad-core.  It is still being sold at this time with Haswell Processors.

Mac Mini aficionados have been howling for the return of a new Mac Mini, with excellent specifications, once again.  Up to now, they have been disappointed.

In the intervening years, computers have undergone a minor revolution.  Most notably, this year opened up with Ryzen processors from AMD.  Suddenly, reasonably priced multi-core processors became available to the consumer.  AMD was even offering six-core and eight-core CPUs at prices well under Intel’s.

However, Intel has just countered with eighth-generation Coffee Lake CPUs.  The first release was actually an upgrade of seventh-generation Kaby Lake chips, but it is here that the enfilade will start.  What it means for the Mac Mini – as well as for every other small computer – will prove not exceptional, but typical.

Intel has already released a quad-core i7-8650U which goes from 1.9 GHz, boosting to 4.2 GHz.  Technically, though labeled eighth-generation, it is more of an upgrade to the seventh-generation Kaby Lake.  Given Apple’s tendency to release tried and true technology, Apple may choose to go with this quasi-upgrade if it releases a new Mac Mini at all in late 2017 or 2018.

However, what is going on here is that, in response to AMD’s competition, Intel is raising the number of cores on its i-core line of CPUs.  It seems that no longer will dual-core CPUs be the entry.  Now, even with the lowly i3-core family, quad-core will be standard, albeit without turbo-boosting or hyper-threading.  As one goes to i5 and i7, hyperthreading, turbo boost, and more cores will be introduced.

The result will be that the newer-core i3 CPUs will now approximate the former i5 CPUs in performance.  The newer i5 CPUs will approximate the former i7 CPUs.  And the newer i7 CPUs will approximate the former i9 processors.  The core wars have started.

The bottom standard has been substantially raised, for all but the lesser CPUs.

Apple cannot help but release a new Mac Mini with the quad-core CPU that aficionados have wanted for years.  Only now, the quad-core, even if it has hyper-threading, will not be exceptional.

[T]hese new [eighth generation] chips double that to four cores and eight threads. They also bump up the maximum clock speed to as much as 4.2GHz, though the base clock speed is sharply down at 1.9GHz for the top end part (compared to the 7th generation’s 2.8GHz). But beyond those changes, there’s little to say about the new chips, because in a lot of ways, the new chips aren’t really new.

The base clock has been set lower, which is good for typical usage, though the high-end speeds have been upgraded.  But as noted in the chart – at the Ars Technica link above – even mid-level i5-core CPUs will have four cores and eight threads – a property formerly reserved for higher-end i7-core CPUs.

In the past year, between AMD and Intel, the power of standard CPUs has skyrocketed.  Low-end computers and laptops will now pack power that can compete with the higher-end machines of recent vintage.  HP has already released a laptop packing one of these i7-8550u quad-core options, as opposed to last years option with a dual core i7-7500u, for the roughly same price.

The increase in performance will be phenomenal.  What we are seeing now is the fruits of cutthroat competition.

[I]f you have your eye on a new consumer laptop with a Core i5 or Core i7 U-series CPU, you may want to delay your purchase for a few more weeks.

To the average consumer, this may not mean much.  But to gamers, it will mean a lot.  Video and photography content producers – all of which requires power – will have to take notice.

It’s not just for mobile CPUs, either.  The desktop CPUs promise to have enormous power increases.  Intel’s Flagship i7-x700 CPUs will go from a base 3.6 Ghz/4.2 GHz with 4 cores/8 threads to an i7-8700 at 3.2 Ghz/4.6 GHz with 6 core/12 threads, and only for a minimal increase above the present model.

Meanwhile, AMD is counter-punching with its Threadripper CPUs (16 cores/32 threads) at $999, which is almost half the price on Intel’s present comparable i9-7960X, at $1,690.

Compare AMD’s generous approach to Intel’s careful rationing: The $1,000 10-core Core i9-7900X, for example, has a decent 44 lanes of PCIe, but the $599 8-core Core i7-7820X has only 28. Even AMD’s cheapest Threadripper so far, the 8-core Threadripper 1900X, features a full 64 lanes of PCIe support.

This is what competition is supposed to look like.

What it will mean is that even recent computers will soon be made obsolete, even sooner than usual.  The recent core wars have ramped up the technology.  Programs that once confined themselves to one core will now be upgraded to use the available multiple cores.

This may not be too noticeable to the average consumer who merely surfs the web, but it will be noticeable to gamers, photographers, and video editors almost immediately.  YouTube may start to see more 4K videos uploaded.

As for the Mac Mini, if Apple ever decides to upgrade it, Apple have to will release a quad-core option.  Many fanboys will applaud the improvement, but how many will realize that the improvement will be minimal?  A quad-core Mac Mini in 2012 was far more powerful than the average desktop.  A quad-core Mac Mini in 2018, if they release it, will be just average.

What this may portend is a coming end to the bulky desktop computer.  Small computers may be the rule for all but true power users, and that power cut-off seems to be getting higher.  At four cores/eight threads, more of these new CPUs can handle the video editing once reserved to the professionals.  The monster builds may be dying out.

The Mac Mini will probably end up being rather typical.  It may be the standard of the future – not as  trendsetter, but as average.

Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who wishes he had availed himself more fully of the opportunity to learn Spanish in high school, lo those many decades ago.  He writes on the Arabs of South America at http://latinarabia.com.  He also just started a website about small computers at http://thetinydesktop.com.



Source link

Screen-Shot-2017-09-30-at-181750.png

Video…


Horrifying video footage shows the moments after a plane’s engine blew apart as it flew over the Atlantic .

In the images posted online by a passenger, a thick cable can be seen flapping in the air after the engine disintegrated and the pilot declared a mayday.

Passengers reacted with horror when the engine of the Air France jet from Paris to the USA failed, forcing the aircraft carrying 520 passengers into an emergency landing.

Travellers described how everything seemed normal until they heard a “loud thud and a lot of vibration”.

Ground crews were left to “pick up pieces of the plane from the runway”, one passenger added.

Part of the plane’s engine can be seen flapping in the wind in the terrifying video
Half of the engine was shredded by the blowout

A piece of cable appears to dangle from the engine

A side-by-side photo showing the damaged engine next to a functioning one

Flight records show the Airbus A380 aircraft, travelling under flight number AF66, was diverted to Canada’s Goose Bay airport on its journey from Paris to Los Angeles.

Air France confirmed there was “serious damage” to one of the plane’s four engines before before it landed safely.

One traveller said on Twitter the engine had “blown over the Atlantic Ocean”, leading to the emergency landing in Canada.

The flight declared a mid-air emergency and was diverted to Canada

Terrified passengers stare out of the plane window

WARNING TAKEN FROM TWITTER
CAPTION:
Air France #AF66 operated by an Airbus A380 diverted to Goose Bay after engine #4 blown up over Greenland! (pic: Brand Martin)
LINK: https://twitter.com/flight_report/status/914167032706453505
The flight, bound for Los Angeles, was diverted to Goose Bay airport in Canada

A large section of the engine ‘blew out’ over the ocean

Another, named Daniel McNeely, said: “I’m on board. One of our engines is slightly blown apart. Just glad to be on the ground.”

He later added, alongside a photo of the engine: “I think the engine has seen better days.”

Peter Cowan also shared an image of the engine and wrote: “This is the reason ground crews had to pick up pieces of the plane off the runway after landing.”

A map showing the course of the plane before its emergency landing

Th Air France Airbus A380 plane declared a mid-air emergency over the Atlantic (file photo)

Goose Bay airport is a small site not normally equipped to handle such large aircraft, according to passengers.

Air France said in a statement: “Air France confirms that the crew of flight AF66 decided to divert to Goose Bay airport following serious damage on one of its four engines.

“The plane landed safely at 3.42pm and the regularly trained pilots and cabin crew handled this serious incident perfectly.

“The passengers are currently being assisted by teams dispatched to the location.

“Air France is currently working to re-route the passengers to Los Angeles via one of its connecting platforms in North America.”



Source link