418 posts in this topic

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And...

Today, Rush dug deeper and it's even funnier.

Poll: Majority of Democrat Voters Think Russians Hacked Voting

Here is the funny stuff:

In other words, the Clinton folks--with the collusion of the mainstream media--tried to float a wholly made up story to lie to Trump supporters, presumed their own people were sophisticated enough to know what was going on, and their own supporters fell for it.

Not only did they fall for it, their bloodlust is growing as are their numbers. And there is no way for the Clinton people or the media to make good on the BS they have been selling.

Crowds are not rational once they get riled up. And if they will not be able to get Trump's blood, they will get the blood of someone. In one way or another.

:) 

Michael

While all of that is very interesting something occurs to me. Voters, average voters, you know, the sheeple, will carry their biases forward. It is quite an ordeal to become a critical thinker. What Ive found is that when I unravel a thread that leads to questioning a long held belief, Im more likely to blame myself for either believing bull crap or not being responsible enough to look for supportive facts. Theres a bit of wishful thinking in the theory that uncritical thinkers upon learning the "truth" are going to turn on their handlers. These outcomes come from our own projections. 

Victims are likely to cling to their flawed thinking and find a convenient scapegoat rather than blame themselves or their group. Theres safety in group think. And the media seems to always come up with a way to confine a narrative which allows an uncritical thinker to blindly continue their ways.

Whatever mental disruption occurs over being made to feel one is led down the prim rose path, uncritical thinkers will not question their fundamental beliefs to their or the groups detriment. I mean ask yourself when was it and how did it occur to you that one day you were in need of changing your mental operations. It either came very young or was the result of an unsettling, threatening personal anxiety. People seem to compartmentalize their thinking about public spectacles especially those that they really have no control over other than voting, differently than they do their personal lives. Even when being confronted over having an irrational thought I think most people will dig in because validation of a truth comes from either knowing or from a trusted source without which it causes uncomfortable anxiety that most will avoid. Thats why psychological issues are so difficult to treat, it requires the help and determination of the person who's suffering. Try and tell a person theyre suffering under a delusion and expect blow back in some irrational form.

When you say, "in one way or another", any aha moment is unlikely to redown to a benefit that takes the form of changing a mindset.  Especially in lieu of the political chaos ensuing at the moment. I wouldnt expect anything rational such as the media calling for the heads of politicians or for that matter voters axing pols who otherwise have common interests.

It makes for a great revenge theme though. ;) 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2017 at 9:54 AM, turkeyfoot said:

Theres a bit of wishful thinking in the theory that uncritical thinkers upon learning the "truth" are going to turn on their handlers. These outcomes come from our own projections. 

Geoff,

This is correct.

I wrote poorly, insinuating that the crowd will turn on its own.

The images in my mind when I wrote that were the race riots that Obama encouraged (anyone notice that that stopped? :) ), the Democrat hired thugs at Trump rallies, the BS that went on during Occupy Wall Street, etc. All of these events had three things in common: (1) they were organized nationally to look like grassroots eruptions, but all used bussed-in paid ringers, and (2) they actually did have a lot of "low information" true believers show up (many of whom beat feet outta there when the ugly stuff went down), and real-life thugs showed up to loot and create mayhem. And these events got their media headlines.

If they try to pull that kind of thing on an official finding that their own relevant leaders agree with--that there was no collusion between President Trump and Russia, that there will be no impeachment, etc., these explosions will look silly on the mainstream news regardless of spin, but the true-believing sheeple will show up in droves in an ugly mood. And getting Democrats elected when they are looking like a bunch of true-believing dumbasses who can't count to 10 will be near impossible in the near term (2018).

I do like to fantasize about them violently turning on their leaders, though. It gives me a surprisingly delightful feeling of preemptive schadenfreude.

:)

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote: I do like to fantasize about them violently turning on their leaders, though. It gives me a surprisingly delightful feeling of preemptive schadenfreude. end quote

That would be nice, huh? Like those times in Nazi Germany and The Soviet Union purges? And don’t those paid and bused in protesters act just like the Nazi brown shirts? How illegal would it be to throw spike strips in front of buses full of brown shirts before they get to their destinations? Perhaps I won’t contemplate doing that. Egyptian Coptic Christians (ten percent of the population) were murdered in their buses today. Instead of spike strip, the Muslim terrorists used machine guns.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with Jimmy Dore about Trump or his visit to Saudi Arabia (or about his progressivism), but I certainly agree with him that The Washington Post should have disclosed that an author gushing about the visit in WaPo was a paid agent of the Saudi government.

Jimmy calls WaPo "fake news" and "a shit stain of a newspaper." He said "a shit stain of a newspaper" a lot of times in this video as he detailed some WaPo clunkers over the years.

I'll have to agree with him. After all, who am I to stand in the way of such youthful enthusiasm?

:)

One day people will realize the mainstream news is not news. It's propaganda.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't agree with Jimmy Dore about Trump or his visit to Saudi Arabia (or about his progressivism), but I certainly agree with him that The Washington Post should have disclosed that an author gushing about the visit in WaPo was a paid agent of the Saudi government.

Jimmy calls WaPo "fake news" and "a shit stain of a newspaper." He said "a shit stain of a newspaper" a lot of times in this video as he detailed some WaPo clunkers over the years.

I'll have to agree with him. After all, who am I to stand in the way of such youthful enthusiasm?

:)

One day people will realize the mainstream news is not news. It's propaganda.

Michael

the WaPo's special features on science, technology, movies and books  is pretty good.  I also use the NYT primarily for eats features.   I can do without their editorials.   Their hard news coverage is pretty consistent  with other  independent news sources  available on the Internet. It is pretty difficult to get hard news from a newspaper these days. A lot of the (so-called)  news has editorial and opinion  embedded or  is  slanted. 

One of the worst offenders these days is the Manchester Gurniand.  The features are pretty good  but it is hopeless getting untainted news from the Guardian.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who’s the cat that won’t cop out when there’s trouble all about? Trump, and we can dig it.

Ba’al wrote: One of the worst offenders these days is the Manchester Guardian.  The features are pretty good but it is hopeless getting untainted news from the Guardian.

I wonder if they will wise up two or three weeks after the murder of all those kids in Manchester? Will they wake up on that day and say, “Oh my god. I have been supporting traitors and monsters. We must change our ways and become news men and women again. What happened to us?”

I know Fox slants a bit too, towards the light, but I still thing they are the most honest photo centric flowers in the garden.

Peter

Shaft by Isaac Hayes.
Who's the black private dick
That's a sex machine to all the chicks?
(Shaft)

You're damn right
Who is the man
That would risk his neck for his brother, man?
(Shaft)

Can ya dig it?
Who's the cat that won't cop out
When there's danger all about
(Shaft)

Right on
You see this cat, Shaft is a bad mother
(Shut your mouth)

But I'm talking about Shaft
(Then we can dig it)
He's a complicated man
But no one understands him but his woman 
  . . . Melania, and 55 percent of Americans

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 6:31 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Even Sarah is joining the build-up.

:)

Michael

I love Zerohedge. :)

It's like an economic Drudge Report... and an ideal soapbox for Project Veritas.

 

Geg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017/05/30 at 8:16 PM, anthony said:

 

Molyneux meanders a bit, but his salient rhetorical query is "how much is enough?" When limits have been lifted for long enough between giver and taker, the taker gets further addicted to and expectant of taking as his right, losing most self-responsibility and self-discipline along the way, while the giver gains more and more control and power over him, in trade-off.

"Enough" will arrive catastrophically when a country runs out of other people's money, naturally. The welfare state and its people who've all lost any semblance of reality, believe wealth and wealth-creators are a never-ending supply, like trees that keep on bearing fruit, can't even forsee this end. Heinlein's "Makers, takers and fakers" has never been truer (the mainstream media playing its slavish role as fakers, towards the will to power).

Here I think the grave mistake made by Objectivist anti-Trumpers, such as within ARI, is that they didn't perceive or consider important enough, that his grass root supporters are broadly if less articulately, independent- minded people. Simply - because he and they aren't expressly "rationally-selfish" by morality, they could be discounted, dismissed or patronized on moral grounds. Wrongly so.

But I maintain, having read it somewhere: "The true enemy and opposite of altruism is not egoism, it is independence". (And if, as I've been told, Rand herself didn't say that, I think she might well have done. As confirmation, Galt - "It's your minds they want"). This 'deep altruism', mind surrender and mind control, has found its opposition from most existing independent individuals, globally, not only in the USA. They should have (qualified) moral support from O'ists.

(No better to illustrate the video than a picture of Anderson Cooper, whom - to me - is THE symbol of fakery and evasion). 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This qualifies as fake news and a conspiracy.

Peter

More Science Without Numbers, How Global Warming Is Melting Glaciers Without Even Warming Them by Robert Tracinski. Recently, I noted the basic pattern of science reporting on global warming, particularly as practiced by the New York Times: feeding you an overall conclusion, illustrated with pretty pictures designed to make you feel like you've been given information--but withholding from you the real numbers you would need to actually evaluate and understand the issues.

I can't overstate how important this is. There is no science without numbers. Science can't get by on qualitative descriptions. If you say the average global temperature in 2016 was "higher" than in 2015, that's not science. It could be a lot higher or a little higher. It could be a number that is enormous, or it could be a number that is literally insignificant. (And if they don't tell you the number, guess which of those it is likely to be.) So to impart information of actual scientific value, a reporter needs to give you a specific number and a margin of error. But the New York Times thinks you're too dumb to understand that.

Now they're at it again. Remember what I said about pretty pictures? They've got a big new article, not by one of their science reporters, but by their graphics editor. The article is about the shrinking of the glaciers at Glacier National Park. This is kind of a big deal if you're a park ranger, because that's the draw to bring people to the park. It's right there in the name. On the other hand, glaciers have been in decline in North America for--well, for a very long time. During the last Ice Age, they covered most of the continent and came as far south as Virginia. But they've been in decline since the big natural global warming of 10,000 years ago, so they've been reduced to hiding out in a few mountains in Montana.

We can already suspect this is a long-term, natural decline. But nothing can be attributed to mere natural causes any more. It all has to be because of global warming. And that's what the New York Times report claims.

Yet if the glaciers at Glacier National Park are declining because of warming temperatures, there's one thing we would expect to know: how much have temperatures increased in Glacier National Park? How much warmer has it gotten, in order to melt all of those glaciers so fast? That number, you will not be surprised to know, is not given in the New York Times article. At all. And you will probably be even less surprised to find out what the numbers actually show: that temperatures in Glacier National Park haven't warmed. Here's the data from alpine weather stations in the park for roughly the past 20 years. It goes up and down a bit, but it's a flat trendline. Here's a longer data set from nearby weather stations, which shows the same thing.

Isn't it amazing that global warming has managed to melt the glaciers without actually warming up the local weather? Keep this in mind when you go back and read the New York Times article. Suddenly you see how the article acknowledges that the glaciers in the park "have been shrinking rapidly since the late 1800s, when North America emerged from the 'Little Ice Age,' a period of regionally colder, snowier weather that lasted for roughly 400 years." Cue that record-scratching sound. The little what? The Little Ice Age was a period of colder temperatures in Europe and North America from about the year 1300 to 1850. Because accurate, systematic global thermometer measurements don't go back that far, we know about the Little Ice Age from contemporary accounts, which describe significantly colder conditions, and from estimates based on other measurements (like tree ring growth) that can be used as proxies for temperature. At any rate, the last 150 years or so have been a slight natural warming from the temperatures of the Little Ice Age.

Since it takes hundreds or even thousands of years for a glacier to accumulate, building up the snowfall from many winters, it stands to reason that it can also take hundreds of years for a glacier to disappear after temperature and precipitation levels change. All of the evidence we've been given here is that this is exactly what is happening. Against that, all we have are a few assertions that the glaciers have been receding much more quickly--really, we assure you--than they otherwise would have. But we have no numbers, no projections, and no cause and effect. All we get is a link to a single paper in Science, which--if you bother to go through the registration process--you discover is not about the glaciers in Glacier National Park at all. It is based on computer models "not of individual glaciers but of all the world's glaciers outside of Antarctica combined." So the New York Times may want to make Glacier National Park into a symbol of the impact of global warming--but they haven't given us a single scientific reason to think that this is actually true. In short, it's the basic method of "science reporting" on global warming in the mainstream media. They've handed down to us the conclusions that we are supposed to hold, without giving any evidence to back it up. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Peter said:

This qualifies as fake news and a conspiracy.

Peter

More Science Without Numbers, How Global Warming Is Melting Glaciers Without Even Warming Them by Robert Tracinski. Recently, I noted the basic pattern of science reporting on global warming, particularly as practiced by the New York Times: feeding you an overall conclusion, illustrated with pretty pictures designed to make you feel like you've been given information--but withholding from you the real numbers you would need to actually evaluate and understand the issues.

I can't overstate how important this is. There is no science without numbers. Science can't get by on qualitative descriptions. If you say the average global temperature in 2016 was "higher" than in 2015, that's not science. It could be a lot higher or a little higher. It could be a number that is enormous, or it could be a number that is literally insignificant. (And if they don't tell you the number, guess which of those it is likely to be.) So to impart information of actual scientific value, a reporter needs to give you a specific number and a margin of error. But the New York Times thinks you're too dumb to understand that.

Now they're at it again. Remember what I said about pretty pictures? They've got a big new article, not by one of their science reporters, but by their graphics editor. The article is about the shrinking of the glaciers at Glacier National Park. This is kind of a big deal if you're a park ranger, because that's the draw to bring people to the park. It's right there in the name. On the other hand, glaciers have been in decline in North America for--well, for a very long time. During the last Ice Age, they covered most of the continent and came as far south as Virginia. But they've been in decline since the big natural global warming of 10,000 years ago, so they've been reduced to hiding out in a few mountains in Montana.

We can already suspect this is a long-term, natural decline. But nothing can be attributed to mere natural causes any more. It all has to be because of global warming. And that's what the New York Times report claims.

Yet if the glaciers at Glacier National Park are declining because of warming temperatures, there's one thing we would expect to know: how much have temperatures increased in Glacier National Park? How much warmer has it gotten, in order to melt all of those glaciers so fast? That number, you will not be surprised to know, is not given in the New York Times article. At all. And you will probably be even less surprised to find out what the numbers actually show: that temperatures in Glacier National Park haven't warmed. Here's the data from alpine weather stations in the park for roughly the past 20 years. It goes up and down a bit, but it's a flat trendline. Here's a longer data set from nearby weather stations, which shows the same thing.

Isn't it amazing that global warming has managed to melt the glaciers without actually warming up the local weather? Keep this in mind when you go back and read the New York Times article. Suddenly you see how the article acknowledges that the glaciers in the park "have been shrinking rapidly since the late 1800s, when North America emerged from the 'Little Ice Age,' a period of regionally colder, snowier weather that lasted for roughly 400 years." Cue that record-scratching sound. The little what? The Little Ice Age was a period of colder temperatures in Europe and North America from about the year 1300 to 1850. Because accurate, systematic global thermometer measurements don't go back that far, we know about the Little Ice Age from contemporary accounts, which describe significantly colder conditions, and from estimates based on other measurements (like tree ring growth) that can be used as proxies for temperature. At any rate, the last 150 years or so have been a slight natural warming from the temperatures of the Little Ice Age.

Since it takes hundreds or even thousands of years for a glacier to accumulate, building up the snowfall from many winters, it stands to reason that it can also take hundreds of years for a glacier to disappear after temperature and precipitation levels change. All of the evidence we've been given here is that this is exactly what is happening. Against that, all we have are a few assertions that the glaciers have been receding much more quickly--really, we assure you--than they otherwise would have. But we have no numbers, no projections, and no cause and effect. All we get is a link to a single paper in Science, which--if you bother to go through the registration process--you discover is not about the glaciers in Glacier National Park at all. It is based on computer models "not of individual glaciers but of all the world's glaciers outside of Antarctica combined." So the New York Times may want to make Glacier National Park into a symbol of the impact of global warming--but they haven't given us a single scientific reason to think that this is actually true. In short, it's the basic method of "science reporting" on global warming in the mainstream media. They've handed down to us the conclusions that we are supposed to hold, without giving any evidence to back it up. 

Be a bit cautious about the phrase "global warming".  Obviously the surface of the Earth got warmer  which caused the retreat of the glaciers starting about 12,000 years ago.  That  warming has nothing to do with human activity.  There were too few humans, and the technology of humans was so limited that the warming was do to natural  non-human  causes.  That is how ice ages end.  Then there is warming that is related to human activity.  When humans spread over the world and entered the agricultural mode of living  they altered the albedo (reflectivity) of the Earth.  Putting land under cultivation generally darkens it some which causes the land to absorb more heat from the sun.  So even when humans were not adding large amounts of CO2 to atmosphere they were darkening large land areas which cause more of the sun's infra-red energy to be absorbed rather than reflected.  Hence some warming occurred.

The human activity that has had the most effect on temperature levels is the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.  This is CO2  put in the atmosphere by burning various and sundry hydro-carbons ---  coal, oil and methane (CH4).

 There are other causes of warming --  Oceanic heat transfers, the so-called oceanic decadals which include El Nino.  There are also transfers of heat in the oceans by the halothermal currents (among which is the well known Gulf Stream).  This transfer heat from the tropical waters  to the more northerly portions of the oceans (or southerly in the southern hemisphere).  This is heat transfer which cools off the tropical portion of the oceans a bit  and heats up the oceans in the temperate zone and polar zones. The heat it the sun's energy, but it is moved by convection in the oceans.  Variation in cloud coverage can raise or low temperature.  The clouds are the Earth's Venetian Blinds.  You know from your own experience if you open up the blinds of a south facing window during the middle of the day,  the sunlight entering the room will warm up the room.  This is vary handy during winter when you want to keep your rooms warm but not spend extra money running your furnace or electrical heater.  Sunshine is free.  Likewise during the summer,  it  is good to have awning outside to block the sunlight directly entering the room, and adjusting the blinds can help keep the room from warming up too much.  This means running your air conditioner less.  So back to clouds.  When there are lots of high altitude clouds forming they block sunlight and the atmospheric temperature rises less or even falls when the oceans sop up heat.  Clouds are a key element for the temperature levels on earth. If the earth were covered completely with clouds that reflected the sunlight the earth below the clouds would freeze.  This is the scenario of the so-called nuclear winter.   Even without the extremes of a nuclear winter or a winter brought on by volcanic debris in the atmosphere blocking the sun,  increased cloud coverage could lessen the rate or warming or even cause cooling. Then there are variations in the earth's orbit and axial tilt can can increase or decrease temperature.   And of course the Sun itself.  It's energy output varies over time.  Sometimes it is "brighter" (more energetic) and some times "dimmer"  (less energetic).   Small variations in the sun's irradiance can produce significant variations of temperature at the surface.  

Then there are the various feedbacks.  There earth as a thermodynamic system is very complex.  The level of "greenhouse gasses"  vary. CO2 is sopped up by growing plants. Changes in weather and climate which promote growth of plants (particularly forests) will decrease the CO2 levels all other things being equal.  Increase desertification and  the loss of trees  decreases the rate at which CO2 is sopped up.  Then there is the interaction of weather on land and sea that either produces more clouds or fewer clouds.  Recall that clouds  are very significant regulators of temperature.  

Here is the bottom line on all this.  One cannot say  that human activity is the sole determinant of temperature or even the most significant determinant of temperature.  Obviously human CO2 production has some influence on temperature,  but how much compared to other drivers of climate and weather?

Now we get to the hard part.  The earth is an ultra-complicated non-equilibrium thermodynamic system.  How do we make prediction on what it will do in the short term and the long term?   We cannot exert much control over the land, sea and sky.  It is too much and too big.  So we are forced to use simulation or as it is called modelling.   How good are the models?  Not very. We are limited in our computer power so we have to use models with large resolution intervals. In short our models are rather rough.  A combination of limited computer power and  limited ability to gather real live data means we have to use fairly crude models.  That is the best we can do, given our technical limitations.  Also the underlying  processes require  mathematical descriptions that are computationally intractable.   The main equations are the Navier Stokes equations of fluid flow and turbulence.  We have only limited means of approximating solutions at this time.  The is currently a one million dollar prize  for anyone who can come up with stable faithful numerical approximations that work at arbitrary resolutions.  A generation approximation scheme for these equations currently is not in hand.

If the mavens at the New York Times or the Manchester Guardian  give definitive positive predictions with high confidence level they are playing a trick on their readers. 

But we cannot just assume that our effects on the atmosphere have no long term consequences.  Even as we converse it is known that changes in the weather and climate are affecting growing seasons and in some parts of the world man made changes are promoting the formation of deserts (mostly in China).  This is not good news.  Living plants are the main regulators of CO2 levels.  The Chinese are doing gross things to their plant life and the Boys from Brazil are busy destroying the Amazon Rain Forest which was at one time the most significant CO2 sopper upper  on land.  So we cannot take the position that there is no reason to be concerned about our effects on the weather and climate. 

What is probably true is that the extreme alarmists are incorrect.  Their alarming predictions of a 2 deg C  rise in average temperature by the end of the century are probably overestimates.   But if we do nothing eventually the temperature will be driven up by 2 deg C  which can have significant weather and climate effects.   So  we have to be concerned with anthropogenic effects  but we must not  be driven by panic to do stupid and rash things.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoting Robert Tracinski:
“There is no science without numbers. Science can’t get by on qualitative descriptions.”

What an ignoramus.  The first things that comes to mind are Newton’s and Maxwell’s theory of color vision, then Hering’s, then Land’s.

Sadi Carnot’s little book Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire (1824), about what came to be known as thermodynamics, mentioned only nominal temperatures.  He only needed comparative temperatures, that one body was hotter than another.

Harvey’s theory of the circulation of the blood.  (By the way, I think this can be only part of the story.  The back pressure due to the capillaries is too large.)

There are many examples of important, fundamental scientific discoveries without numbers.

Mark
ARIwatch

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, anthony said:

Molyneux meanders a bit, but his salient rhetorical query is "how much is enough?"

Tony,

Molyneux was very insightful up to this point. Then he tried to sneak in that crap about the r/K genetic reproduction theory applying to entire races and cultures. He basically says the Muslims will out-fuck the West and overrun it with babies because genetically they are inferior and can't help themselves.

Bah...

Anything to try to feel innately superior. That's what leftists do trying to assign IQ differences to being liberal or conservative (guess who, to them, have higher IQ's? :) ).

Granted, there is a push among Muslims to do precisely what I said, but it is being preached in mosques, encouraged openly in Muslim publications, etc. 

What's wrong with the West building a superior culture by the individual choices of the people in the West because, as Rand hammered over and over, they reap the rewards of volitionally prioritizing reason in their approach to production (science) and relationships (capitalism)?

Molyneux does a lot of good spreading great ideas, but he often makes sure there's a worm in the apple he gives you (to use a metaphor he likes to use a lot). When folks like him get on a certain roll, they want to deny rational volition is a fundamental cause of progress and attribute it to nature. And guess who Mother Nature loves best in their view? :) 

I'll eat his apple because it's a really good apple, but I prefer to cut it open so I don't eat the worm and I can cut away the part that has worm shit on it so I don't eat that, either.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you peer at the city below the buildings, concrete, and roads shimmer in the summer heat. The human caused “heat island effect” is very real, and even if humanity’s numbers shrank dramatically and people moved out of the cities the effect would persist. Yet, look at those Mayan temples in the jungle. I bet it did not take a century for them to be covered in greenery which negates their heat island effect. The pyramids persist in the desert but how long would a skyscraper stand untended?

Peter      

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Peter said:

As you peer at the city below the buildings, concrete, and roads shimmer in the summer heat. The human caused “heat island effect” is very real, and even if humanity’s numbers shrank dramatically and people moved out of the cities the effect would persist. Yet, look at those Mayan temples in the jungle. I bet it did not take a century for them to be covered in greenery which negates their heat island effect. The pyramids persist in the desert but how long would a skyscraper stand untended?

Peter      

There was a series on t.v. called "Life after Humans" One of the things they showed is how  the skyscrapers would eventually be degraded structurally by rain and wind.  They estimated that  the steel skeletons would degrade in 100-400 years and collapse because the assumption was there are no more humans to maintain and repair them 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Very Fake News CNN is getting impossible.

CNN deletes, retracts story linking Trump and Russia

Ho hum. It's only been a year of this crap...

The Bernie people are already talking about setting up a third party over this Russia thing. After the loss of the Pajama Boy in Georgia, I have read several folks calling for this, including Jimmy Dore (see about 14:20 below).

Jimmy's also turning hard on Obama:

According to Jimmy, Obama is a phony? A piece of (...)? No character? 

That's a big crack in the Bernie side of the Democratic base. 

It's going to be difficult to patch over this one for a loooooooong time to come.

We can count on the fake news to say the contrary, though.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN fired 3 reporters over fake news.

Three CNN Employees Resign Over Retracted Story on Russia Ties

:)

Does anyone want a principle here? 

Here's what I see. Our minds get used to things. In psychology, this is called habituation. This, habituation, is the greatest danger when you lie and one of the best reasons for never fake reality to yourself (or others, but especially to yourself). You get habituated with getting away with the lie. Soon you see no problem with reprisals from those who know the truth or want proof. Up to here, you won. You got away with it. The problem is your lower brain likes winning (who doesn't?), but your identification of the situation is now filtered through habituation of outcomes. So you expand the lies to the point where they are not viable even to your most ardent supporters.

Then you get busted.

As to CNN, wait, there's more!

Project Veritas Undercover Investigation: CNN Producer Admits Network Hyping ‘Mostly Bullsh*t’ Trump-Russia Scandal for ‘Ratings’

I wonder if Zucker is going to survive this. I would not want to be him at a shareholders meeting right now...

But here in O-Land, I have little doubt that many still feel--deep in their souls--that CNN is respectable whereas Infowars (as one example) is fruitcake-land. Even after a scandal this size, even after a string of now-undeniable facts uncovered by the new media, I bet there are many who still feel this way.

This is another example of habituation. It has nothing to do with using reason in the present. This is using reason sometime in the past and turning one's brain off after the impression has become habituated. It's a subtle way where mental laziness turns into self-deception with an emotional underpinning.

And this is the greatest reason on earth to do like Rand says when you see things out of whack, "Check your premises."

Nobody likes to check the deep ones. Checking for real makes your brain hurt and causes peer pressure against you.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now