Peter

Members
  • Content Count

    6,476
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Peter

  1. I think the following has been covered but it would be nice to reconsider thinks (joke,) for 2020. Doris Day sang about the 2016 polls: Que Sera, Sera, What will be, will be, will be, The future's not ours, to see, Que Sera, Sera Of course we speculate what the future will be in the next second, hour, year, decade or millennium but only know the truth with perhaps . . . 50 percent accuracy and NO certainty? Does anyone on OL bet? Do you read and accept polling data? How wrong did they get it before the 2016 Presidential election? Until 2016 I used to rely on Larry Sabato at U.V.A. but he was dead wrong. Real Clear Politics is just an averaging of polls and what? They predicted an Old Hickory win? The worst predictors? From the web in 2016 and 2017. A survey from the Princeton Election Consortium has found that Hillary Clinton has a 99 per cent chance of winning the election over Donald Trump. The HuffPost presidential forecast model gives Democrat Hillary Clinton a 98.2 percent chance of winning the presidency. LA Times: Clinton 352, Trump 186. However, The contrary Californian USC/LA Times tracking poll, notable for interviewing the same 3,200 respondents over a period of several months, gave Trump a 3.2-percentage point lead the day before the election. Since it premiered in early July, the poll results were about six percentage points more favorable to the real estate mogul than the national average. "To be honest, I was surprised," University of Southern California economist Arie Kapteyn, who developed the poll, told the Los Angeles Times. "I thought Clinton would win. But that shouldn’t change the numbers." From another source or should I say sorcery site on the web, In the cornucopia of pro-Clinton polling that preceded the 2016 presidential election, two polls stood out as outliers: the USC/LA Times tracking poll and the Investor's Business Daily/TIPP tracking poll. "As far as I was concerned, I was anticipating a Trump win," said Raghavan Mayur, President of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which conducts the IBD/TIPP poll. The final poll, released on Election Day, showed Trump with a two-percentage point lead over Democrat Hillary Clinton. Peter
  2. Good discussion. Let me see if I can dumb it down enough for Forrest Gump. I predict Artificial Intelligence will reach a milestone when HE, SHE, IT can laugh believably. Kind of slur the capitalized letters. Michael Marotta wrote about Rand in 2011: She maintained later, as the ARI does now, that . . . Objectivism is a seamless robe; that Objectivism has no inner contradictions; and by "Objectivism" she meant . . . (the) . . . sum total of Ayn Rand's published works. end quote I see similarities between Michael’s seamless robe which I will call, “infallible Objectivism” and soft determinism. By “infallible Objectivism” I mean logical and syllogistic structures that are internally true but lack contextualism, and scientific verification, and unfortunately they possess an eventual inability to break or *reduce* the string of logic down to its perceptual and conceptual roots. Just don’t ask me to prove it. In the opposite direction you would need to start with A is A and build from there but of course by the time Rand formulated her more “official philosophy” she had experienced and tested HER thoughts throughout her life time. And at that point, she put it on paper. No one can go back and deconstruct their thought processes but if they say they can? They are fabricating unless they are knitting or doing math. Once again, prove it. Peter Notes. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, page 28: The process of forming and applying concepts contains the essential pattern of two fundamental methods of cognition: induction and deduction. The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process of induction. The process of subsuming new instances under a known concept is, in essence, a process of deduction. end quote Roger Bissell in his “Problems with Putnam's Externalism” originally written in 1996 for David Kelley's cyber seminar in Objectivist epistemology wrote: “. . . Rather than claiming that our minds are in the world rather than "in our heads," it seems more reasonable to me to say that our mind (as a capacity) is our "head's" (brain's) ability to cognitively grasp the world and (as an action) its act of cognitively grasping the world . . . Before we speculate about where the mind ~might~ be, it would help to clarify what category of existent the mind belongs to. Unless Putnam et al are advocating some form of substance dualism, the mind can't be an entity, other than the human organism or one of its parts (viz., the brain and nervous system). Granted, we (as organisms) -- who are the entities doing the knowing, after all -- are "in the world," but WE ARE ~WHERE~ WE ARE, not out somewhere else, where the thing is that we are knowing. And if mind is an attribute or an action, it has no location other than our organism that has the attribute or carries out the action. And if mind is a relation between our organism and the world, it must be located (if it can be said to have a location) where the causal/cognitive interaction between our organism and the world takes place. E.g., for perception, that would be in the sensory systems and the portions of the brain that integrate sensory data, which are certainly "in the head" (allowing that tactile perception is "in the body," also).” end quote From: PaleoObjectivist To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: RE: Rodin and Rand Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 18:06:13 EDT. Bill Dwyer wrote: >John Hospers says that when you were a guest in Rand's home discussing philosophy with her, you had to be very careful how you expressed your disagreement. You couldn't come right out and disagree. You had to couch your dissent in the form of a very respectful question. He said that if you offered an opinion that contradicted Rand's, she would sometimes become so upset that she would leave the room, until she cooled down. Then she'd come back and continue the discussion. In this regard, it's fascinating to read John Hospers' account of the discussions he had with Ayn Rand back in the early 1960s. This first appeared in ~Full Context~, and is now posted on the Internet at www.fullcontext.org/backissues/ Memories_of_Ayn_Rand.htm Here is an excerpt, relating to the issue of free will vs. determinism, which I think does a nice job both of revealing the style of their interaction and some subtleties of the issue itself: "I understand that you’re a determinist," she said to me once, apparently having been told this by a student who had read my essay on the subject in an anthology. "Well," I said, "like most words ending in -ism, that depends on what you mean. If you mean that everything you do is controlled by God or some inscrutable fate who "gets into your head" and determines what you do next, that, as far as I know, is not true. Determinism isn’t fatalism. If it means that our every action depends for its occurrence on certain causal factors, in the absence of which it wouldn’t have occurred, then that may well be true, but I doubt that we could ever know this because of the number and complexity of the causal factors: how can we know that if conditions were the same you’d do the same thing again, when in fact the conditions never are the same? (They’re at least different the second time, in that you remember the first time.) And if the event wasn’t the same the second time, we’d say that the conditions were different this time, whether we knew it or not, wouldn’t we?" I tried to introduce her to a whole epistemological tangle here, and referred her to my book Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. "As to freedom," I said, "of course we’re free in a perfectly ordinary sense; we’re not chained, we’re not coerced; we do X because we decide to do it. If I decide to leave the room, I can do so, and if I don’t decide to, I don’t; that’s my freedom, and what other freedom could one want? It’s up to me which alternative I choose; isn’t that enough? If I decided to do X and found myself doing Y instead, or if my decision resulted in nothing whatever, then I wouldn’t be free with regard to X; but I am! If you then say that my deciding to do X depends on certain causal conditions, well, I suppose it does — I don’t know that anything is exempt from the Law of Causality. And if it were uncaused if it just happened, with nothing bringing it about that wouldn’t be freedom at all, would it? To train children or educate our students is to bring about (cause) certain changes in them; if our educative actions caused nothing in them, why try to educate them?" We went on with this for a long time. There were many complications and subtleties (the issue has been discussed for many generations). Ayn suggested that human acts are caused but self-caused (cause sui). I objected to the idea of something causing itself (an earlier state causing a later state is O.K.)—again, with many complexities in the discussion. Always, I wasn’t so concerned with what conclusion we ended up with, as with the route by which we got there: no circularity of reasoning, no begging the question, no smuggling in a premise under another name, and so on. Best 2 all, Roger Bissell Not exactly, nearly, or an atom or a bit, does that describe determinism. What made me say that? Peter again. Ray Bradbury: “We are an impossibility in an impossible universe.” Arthur C. Clarke: “The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible.” Norman Vincent Peale: “Change your thoughts and you change your world.” Aristotle asks: "Do we deliberate about everything, and is everything a possible subject of deliberation, or is deliberation impossible about some things?" From: "George H. Smith" Reply To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: Aristotle on choice Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 17:21:29 -0600 Regarding my summary of "Aristotle on choice," Peter Taylor wrote: "George, I know we are delving into the realm of psychology and psychologizing but what would Aristotle say about the consequences of thinking of oneself as a determined being? I try to imagine myself in that bizarre position and I can only imagine acting in a nihilistic manner, coming to a crossroads, and going whichever way "seems" right for me. The alternative is paranoia and waiting for the decision to be made by antecedent causality." Aristotle doesn't discuss the free-will/determinism controversy explicitly (at least not in his extant texts). He seems to consider the power to choose freely to be an obvious characteristic of rational and purposeful human beings, one that is clearly revealed through introspection. And I think he would further maintain that a consistent empiricist should take introspective evidence as seriously as he takes extrospective evidence, especially since knowledge based on the latter *depends* on the reliability of the former. In short, if we cannot trust our internal experiences, then we have no foundation on which to base objective knowledge of anything, including the external world. . In his classic book, *Outlines of Greek Philosophy,* Eduard Zeller writes: "Aristotle presupposes quite arbitrarily the freedom of the will and attempts to prove it by the fact that virtue is voluntary and that we are universally held accountable for our actions" (Dover, 1980). Although I wouldn't put it this way -- for one thing, I think "arbitrarily" is an inaccurate characterization -- it is certainly correct to say that Aristotle's stresses the inextricable relationship between free choice and moral phenomena. It is scarcely coincidental that Aristotle discusses "choice" in his work on ethics, where he repeatedly emphasizes that moral judgments apply *only* to actions that lie within our power to do or to forbear. According to Aristotle, "where it is in our power to act, it is also in our power not to act, and vice versa." This power of choice originates in reason. Choice is the "efficient cause" of an action, but the cause of choice is "desire and reasoning with view to an end." This latter is deliberation, which is a function of practical (as opposed to theoretic, or speculative) reason. Depending on the context, Aristotle also describes this fusion of reason and desire as "desiderative reason" and "ratiocinative desire." Here is a summary from Mortimer J. Adler's magnum opus, *The Idea of Freedom* (vol. I, p 469): "Beyond desiderative and practical reason, as the power by which man deliberates and chooses, there is no efficient cause of the choices he makes. When Aristotle, referring to desiderative reason, says that 'such an *origin* of action is a man,' he is attributing to a human being the power of *initiating* his own actions by virtue of his practical reason as a first or active moving principle. Just as in the speculative order (i.e., the sphere of knowing) Aristotle posits the *agent*-intellect which acts without being acted upon, so in the practical order (i.e., the sphere of doing or making) he treats practical reason as an *active* power and a *first* cause -- a first cause, that is, with respect to man's own acts, not with respect to the cosmos." This is background information. I have yet directly to address Peter's question, viz: "what would Aristotle say about the consequences of thinking of oneself as a determined being?" I suspect he would maintain that determinism in any form flatly contradicts introspective evidence, and that it would make nonsense of our subjective experiences. There are a number of reasons for this, but the most obvious is our need for deliberation. We deliberate *only* because we believe that two or more alternatives are possible, and that it within our to choose among these alternatives. For Aristotle (as I noted above) choice presupposes "the power to act" or "not to act" in regard to particular means. . This raises the interesting question of how Aristotle would argue against determinism. I suspect his argument would resemble his argument (in the *Metaphysics*) against a person who claims to deny the Law of Non-Contradiction (e.g., a person who claims that the same proposition can be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect). Aristotle contends that not all knowledge is strictly demonstrable, because we will ultimately encounter premises and axioms that cannot themselves be proven. Nevertheless, there is a kind of argument – which he calls "dialectical" -- that can be used here. Unlike a demonstrative argument, which begins with "first principles," a dialectical argument begins with the *opinions* that men hold about a certain subject. The purpose of a dialectical argument is to back one's adversary into an untenable corner by showing that his opinion carries implications that even he would be unwilling to accept. As Zeller indicates, Aristotle would claim that a consistent determinist would be logically required to expunge all normative terms from his language and way of thinking, which is clearly impossible. It is also likely (though I am obviously speculating here) that Aristotle would argue against the determinist by pointing out that deliberation itself presupposes free choice. We do not deliberate about things which we believe to be impossible. Deliberation *begins* at the point where we believe that various means are possible* for us. Hence if we truly believed that only *one* action is possible, there would be nothing to deliberate *about.* We *stop* our investigation of means *precisely* at the point where we become convinced that something is *impossible.* Hence to deliberate between different means, X and Y, presupposes that we believe that we have the power to choose *either* X or Y. Therefore, just as Aristotle claims that a person who denies the Law of Non-Contradiction reduces himself to the intellectual status of a vegetable, so he would probably maintain that the person who implicitly repudiates the function of deliberative reason, which chooses between *possible* means in pursuit of a goal, reduces himself to the status of a lower animal or automaton, in effect, by failing to understand the proper role of reason as an efficient cause (a fundamental explanatory principle) of human action. Ghs From: PinkCrash7 To: atlantis Subject: ATL: RE: Aristotle on choice Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 20:15:56 EST Bill Dwyer wrote: "To say that one's choice is the ~result~ of one's deliberation is simply another way of saying that one's deliberation is the ~cause~ of one's choice." No, it's not. To make a free choice as a result of deliberation does not mean that the process of deliberation necessitated that that choice be made. That is where you are making the big leap, Superman. The reasons for making a particular decision are not internally experienced as causally sufficient conditions for that decision to be made. The individual still retains power and control; the choice is his alone -- not "caused" by the process that is under his own volitional control. Likewise, once a decision is made, that decision does not "cause" an intentional action; the individual still has freedom and control over what he does. Debbie
  3. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The 2020 Colorado Democratic primary will take place on Tuesday, March 3, 2020, as one of 14 contests scheduled on Super Tuesday in the Democratic Party presidential primaries for the 2020 presidential election, following the South Carolina primary the weekend before. The Colorado primary is a semi-closed primary, with the state awarding 80 delegates, of which 67 are pledged delegates allocated on the basis of the results of the primary . . . . The 2020 United States presidential election, scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, 2020. end quote The Presidential election is around 16 months away. When should you contribute? Feel free to do the right thing now, but I usually donate near the one year mark, before the election. Who should get your money? Philosophize it. A fan of Rand, libertarian, free marketer, Patriot, or hater of totalitarian government MUST support and vote for President Trump. And don’t let me hear any of that “I don’t like him so I am staying home.” Hey. It’s in the Constitution! joke. Donate. Vote.
  4. I did not notice. So if one or more is not what they seem, they are doing a good job of it, and that's the ticket, as exemplified in the movie "The Crying Game." And by adding an "ed" to transgender Brant, are you implying that they have been fixed or spayed? How dare you!
  5. Ellen wrote: That's the ticket - Harris for president, Warren for vice-president - which I think would give the Democrats their best shot in 2020. end quote You did not mention what they stood for in that statement, simply that they are who they are, which is female democrats. I looked up Harris and she espouses the usual liberal agenda but has not taken a stance on a lot of issues. She did not seem flaky. Yet, I figure Pocahontas is a proud, clueless socialist. I think Kamala can do better than Warren. I don’t think Warren can swing a swing state and the upper north east including New England should vote for the democrat without her on the ticket. If 55 percent or more of the female voters vote for them, it may not come down to a few swing states. The election will be called by 9pm. Peter
  6. That is predicated on the idea that ENOUGH women will vote for a woman president, which may be the case. Gulp! From 2017 after Trump’s victory. The most dramatic dip for Republican numbers was among white women: The percentage identifying with the Republican Party fell 5 points from 37 percent to just 32 percent over a year, according to an NBC News report, which further broke down Gallup’s data by demographics. Notes. Born and Raised. Kamala Devi Harris was born on October 20, 1964, in East Bay, San Francisco. She has a mixed ethnicity of Indian and African American. Her mother Dr. Shyamala Gopalan is from Chennai, India and her father Professor Donald Harris if from the United States. Her father is a light skinned person born and raised in Jamaica. Of course Elizabeth Warren is a debunked American Indian, 70 years old and full of yeast.
  7. From the net. A White House meeting on Tuesday between President Trump and Republican congressional leaders was abruptly cancelled. President Trump was considered a long shot until the night he won. A lot of long shots have run for President. Ross Perot. Sec. State Condoleezza Rice. Huckabee. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. Wendell Wilkie. Steve Forbes. TIA Daily • December 28, 2007 Huckster The "FairTax" Marks Huckabee as a Dangerous Fraud by Robert Tracinski. Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's surge in the polls is due in part to support provided to him by fanatical advocates of the so-called "FairTax." (See, for example, an analysis in today's Washington Post.) Many things disqualify Huckabee to be president. There is the fact that, in the very first Republican debate, he was one of only three candidates who raised their hands to say that they did not believe in evolution—an indication of his willingness to elevate religion over science. Then there is the fact that he thinks international affairs can be described by analogies to high-school popularity contests.
  8. Michael speculated: . . . So with a gaggle of terrified superdelegates and party bosses, they settle on Hillary Clinton in a brokered convention. end quote That scenario has a lot of merit. Damn. She must be “a wishin’ and a hopin’.” What else might she be up to? More on Rush’s old Machiavellian Operation Chaos. I remember speculating that when McCain ran against Obama he should pick Hillary as his Veep. McCain was already considering one democrat, Senator Joe Lieberman, anyway. So I said, so why not consider someone who, with odds of around 95%, could rob Obama of a victory? McCain has already alienated his conservative base beyond repair, but the conservative base MIGHT still vote for McCain because of the War On Terror and national security. McCain with Hillary as Veep could snare: Conservatives, Militarists, Women and feminists, disaffected democrats, mavericks and moderates. But would Old Hickory Clinton grab at the chance to be Number Two or wipe her hands of the whole affair? Joke.
  9. Ellen wrote: I think that Hillary Clinton might try again and could get the nomination, but that if so, the party leadership would have badly underestimated the amount of disgust among middle- and blue-collar-class Dems who feel disregarded and are already inclined to Walk Away. end quote The mention of Old Hickory Clinton brought back memories of when she was running in the primaries against Obama and Rush Limbaugh had a campaign of his own going that supported her. It was berry, berry funny radio. I privately wrote to Rush Limabaugh in 2003. Operation Maximum Chaos. Rush, I only heard the end of your broadcast Tuesday. It’s too soon to pull the plug on your temporary support of Senator Clinton. If she were a shoo-in, then I can understand your operatives supporting Barack, but the Dark Side is too powerful. Obama still leads in delegates and popular votes. Operation Chaos needs to shrink the malignancy. And Hillary needs to STEAL the nomination before or at the convention. The fools need to FEEL Hillary stole it for the maximum Chaos to be achieved. Operation Maximum Chaos. Rush, you are brilliant and always two weeks ahead of time.
  10. Is Trump a radical republican? Is President Trump Machiavellian? Is our President an Imperialist? Does he spontaneously achieve *order* in Politics? An article in Real Clear Politics noted that the 50 percent who will always vote for him really like his tweeting. Me too. Peter. From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: An aside with respect to capital punishment Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 01:35:54 -0500. a.d. smith wrote: "Machiavelli had a central role in articulating the central ethical teaching of republicanism, which was centered around his conception of "virtu." Machiavelli's definition of "virtue" as selfless service to state (either on the battlefield or in the council room) was shared by later classical republicanism thinkers. This definition of virtue has had a poisonous effect on Western culture--- almost as bad as the Christian definition of virtue." Like many Renaissance writers, Machiavelli used the term "virtue" loosely, but in general its meaning was distinguished from "fortune." Those things within our control depend on our virtues (powers, abilities, etc.), whereas those that are beyond our control are a matter of fortune, whether good or bad. Where Machiavelli writes "virtu" modern translators will typically use words like "willpower," "efficiency," etc., depending on the context. Only occasionally does Machiavelli use the term "virtue" in its traditional sense to mean moral goodness. And I am not aware of him ever using it to mean "selfless service to state" (though there may be some instances of this). On the contrary, Machiavelli often speaks of the "virtues" of the Prince, and here -- in radical contrast to the Republican tradition -- he had a purely instrumentalist conception. The virtues of a ruler consist of his willingness and ability to use whatever means -- however murderous or unjust by conventional standards -- that are necessary to achieve and maintain political power. This was about as far from the Republican conception of virtue as it is possible to get . . . .
  11. I agree that it would take a 7.0 quake on the Political Scale to get Hillary back in the saddle. From Fox News. Newt Gingrich predicted an all-female ticket for Democrats in 2020, telling Sean Hannity the party will nominate Senators Kamala Harris for president and Elizabeth Warren for vice president. Gingrich also criticized the "dishonest" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez "squad" and key member Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) in an interview with FNC's Hannity on Monday. He said it is a fair question to ask if they dislike America so much, why are they here?
  12. These three excerpts are not worth three threads but they are interesting. Remember (nine, nine, nine?) Yes, yes, yes! From Herman Cain: An upcoming book reveals that RINO Paul Ryan tried to sabotage President Trump’s campaign in 2016 back when he thought President Trump had no chance of winning. But now that RINOs have seen that President Trump can win the presidency, I have grave concerns that they will try even harder to sabotage him in 2020. Which is why I’m asking you to make a contribution to America Fighting Back PAC -- founded by true-blooded conservatives who’ve supported President Trump since DAY ONE. WTF? The stuff of novels or Wikipedia? The phrase "Koch Brothers" generally refers to the sons of Fred C. Koch. The most politically active sons are Charles Koch and David H. Koch who bought out their brothers Frederick and Bill in 1983.David H. Koch was the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate in 1980 . . . . A group associated with the Koch’s announced plans to raise $889 million leading up to the 2016 elections. After the Republican primary, they decided to not donate to Trump's campaign at all, instead focusing on the Congress and Senate races. Charles Koch criticized Trump's Muslim travel ban suggestions during the campaign and said "it's possible" that Hillary Clinton could be a better president, although strongly denied rumors that he would actually support Clinton. In June 2018, the Kochs backed a multimillion-dollar campaign organized by three pro-free trade political groups to oppose the Trump tariffs. I am still considering whether or not I will subscribe to this guy. From Robert Tracinski: The old "horseshoe" theory in which the political spectrum goes from the totalitarian far left of communism to the totalitarian far right of fascism, with the "moderate" occupying the ideal spot in the middle, actually offers us a fundamentally grim prospect. The moment the moderate starts to be moved by the basic logic of any of his ideas, one way or the other, he starts an irretrievable slide toward some form of tyranny. We're far better off thinking of the alternative Ronald Reagan described: up versus down--up to freedom, down to tyranny--and encourage men to follow one side of that conflict upward to its logical conclusion in a fully free society.
  13. It will be interesting to see Kamala mad, flustered, and her reaction to crowd jeering, gaffs,. misspeaks. and apologies. "I'll select potent potables, Alex." Does she drink or do any drugs now, or in the past? Does she have an expunged juvenile record? Let's see her high school yearbook. Will she do or say anything to get elected? It is time for the President to hire the A-Team. President Trump has weathered the worst they have thrown at him. And now he is . . . not a seasoned veteran because that can imply he is now just A Politician . . . but he has been through the mill as the saying goes. To my surprise, even his TV experience saying, "You're fired!" has aided his righteous cause. I would advise him to get more sleep and about those tweets, Donald? Can I call you Donald? Well the same to you buddy, and I won't let the door hit me in the ass! Peter
  14. Wow, Michael. Kamala? Aren’t you the bold one! It is 477 days or so until the next Presidential election on November 3, 2020. That’s about 15 to 16 more months. From Real Clear Politics. National Democratic Presidential Nomination Poll: Biden 27.3 Warren 16.3 Sanders 14.8 Harris 14.3 Buttigieg 6.0 O’Rourke 2.5 Yang 1.8. I still think Biden will fade and there are stories today that he is ready to bow out. Biden / Harris? Harris / Butigieg? Any other suggestions, predictions, or prophesies? President Trump has another year before The Democratic primary on July 13th to July 16th 2020. And that event will cause the President’s focus and The News to shift. The President will be busy slicing and dicing the democratic agenda and candidate after the Primary. And ABC, CBS, NBC News will be slanting the news about the campaigns of both parties in even more cunning ways. I think they have learned since 2016. In contrast Fox News will seem more pro Trump than usual, while also being more neutral than the other major networks. President Trump has one year to keep or raise economic growth to a 28,000 or higher DOW. Pursuing more Laissez Faire policies, works. He has one year to be a successful President who keeps us out of wars. But who can say if Presidential smarts and an overwhelmingly strong military power can insulate America from an irrational country like Iran? I have no doubt the war colleges and the pentagon are busy creating scenarios and successful resolutions that will displease the Mullahs and the American left. One worse case is dozens of Iranian scud missiles fired at Israel after a confrontation with America. And then America and Israel flatten the Iranian threat. Perhaps America will urge Israel to stand back and observe as happened with Iraq. But no one knows anything other than intentions. Peter
  15. Peter

    Rep. Ilhan Omar

    "They" promised that when women had their fair share of powerful positions things would be better. Instead little difference is seen after equitable gender equality. Some behavior is more frequently observed in different genders but "wrong" behavior can show up due to bad premises, thinking, and goals too.
  16. I am aware of no science or experiments. I know from observation, including Hollywood's and literature's final death scenes, self written obituaries and tombstones, and personally listening to the dying breaths of my loved ones, including my own Dad. Wishes. Regrets. Final wills. Most conscious but dying humans express those emotions. Even animals have fears at the time of death, expressed in whimpers and pleas, understandable to humans. A female German Shephard named Judy that I owned whimpered by an old outside air conditioner wanting to be brought inside, as she lay dying. I did, though her fur smelled long before her final breath. I miss my parents. I think everyone except those in pain want to remain alive, with the exception of the suicidal. Hollywood depicted "Rosebud" as one final word, and Napoleon said, "Mama."
  17. William wrote: Further 'friends' and associates of Epstein may be the subject of scandal, if not prosecution, for tolerating or participating in the most criminal of acts alleged against Epstein. end quote Fox is saying that, so far, Epstein is known to have paid a quarter million in bribes. He faces life in prison. The rapper R. Kelly has paid bribes to hide his sex crimes. There were non-consensual, sex crimes. Talk about a conspiracy of the moneyed getting away with sexual predation. If investigators follow the trail they will be able to find and prosecute the government officials who aided and abetted criminals. They are also criminals. And hopefully the IRS will get involved.
  18. Notice how the spin is that the Trump allowed the meddling in the last Presidential election? Fox had a new video of Joe Biden talking about Russian and other meddling in the last Presidential election. He said something like this didn't happen on the Obama / Biden watch. But Joe? It did. You were IN POWER in 2016 and Trump didn't get sworn in until January 2017 if I have my calendar dates right. So Jobama allowed the meddling and they should be held accountable.
  19. At the end of one's life even if it is "cut short" 99.9999 percent of humans *want* something more. What does *want* scientifically prove? Peter
  20. What are the unemotional facts? I just had to look it up. Life expectancies were lower "way back then" but this is to IN NO WAY exonerates an old fart today with teenagers or his human trafficking. I saw where the dude said to someone, he mostly just watched! To continue, dear readers. In “Romeo and Juliette” in the year 1597, Romeo was around 16 and Juliette around 13. That implies that both of them had reached puberty. And they should live to be 30 to 40 years of age. Peter From the net. How old is Romeo Montague? Most interpretations of Romeo and Juliet estimate him to be about 16 years old, and Juliet to be about 13. The heir of the House of Montague, Romeo meets and falls in love with Juliet, the young daughter of the House of Capulet . . . . From Very Well Health . . . . After comparing the proportion of those who died young with those who died at an older age, the team concluded that longevity only began to significantly increase—that is, past the age of 30 or so—about 30,000 years ago, which is quite late in the span of human evolution . . . . gerontologist and evolutionary biologist Caleb Finch describes the average life spans in ancient Greek and Roman times as short at approximately of 20 to 35 years, though he laments these numbers are based on “notoriously unrepresentative” graveyard epitaphs and samples. From the 1500s onward, till around the year 1800, life expectancy throughout Europe hovered between 30 and 40 years of age.
  21. Here is some of my past and future reading Wolf. I may be Barnes and Nobels best customer. I wish you success. Peter Len Deighton none out Stephan Hunter none Robert Harris none out Thomas Harris none out Brad Meltzer none Gregory Bedford Rewrite, Loops in the Timescape, out Nov 6 Robert Ludlum now by Eric Van Lustbader Neon Prey (Signed Book) (Lucas Davenport Series #29) by John Sandford April 23, 2019 “The Bourne Nemesis” by Robert Ludlum but now by Eric Van Lustbader Out Sept 1 The Forbidden Door by Dean Koontz out 9/11/2018 Jane Hawk Series #4 Felix Francis “Crisis” out on October 8, 2018. Holy Ghost by John Sanford out Oct. 9, 2018 John Grisham “The Reckoning” out Oct. 23 Dark Sacred Night harry Bosch by Michael Connelly out Oct. 30, 2018 Past Tense by Lee Child out 11/05/2018 Loops in the Time Scape by Gregory Benford out November 6 Long Road to Mercy by David Baldacci out 11/13/2018 Celtic Empire by Clive Cussler March 12, 2019 The Secret Partner by Steve Martini September 15, 2019 Not until August Old Bones by Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child Not until sept. Oak Leaf by John Sanford Out Nov 2019 Guilty Not Guilty felix Francis Game of Snipers (Bob Lee Swagger) by Stephen Hunter | Jul 30, 2019 The Second Sleep: by Robert Harris | Nov 19, 2019 Blue Moon: A Jack Reacher Novel by Lee Child | Oct 29, 2019
  22. He says his name is Scott but with that hippy dippy hair . . . ? I hope El Presidente watches out, if he is "interested." Yuk. That's the yuk laugh not the "yuk!: yuk.
  23. What is "cis-het" romance? Is it a transposed error for hot CSI romance between a man and a woman? And one other quibble, unless otherwise stated all romance is heterosexual.
  24. William must be a fan of Kammmalllla by finishing his post with her mini me video. Kamilla? Is it pronounced like Camilla? There she goes again, with her "I like what I am seeing" or is that her "I am looking forward to our date" look? If you don't listen to her recorded voice but just watch the video she looks like old movie actress Mae West saying "Why don't you come up and see me sometime, big boy?"
  25. I just wanted to note one or two other perspectives to this “younger but not underage” discussion. Did you know young men have sex with young ladies? That is meant humorously. I know several states once allowed 13 year old girls to get married but I don’t know if those laws have been overturned. Singer Jerry Lee Lewis may have married his 13 year old cousin when he was in his twenties and what about Romeo and Juliette? Several Arabic and African countries allowed grown men to add young ladies to their households or harems though scrutiny may have curtailed that activity. If anyone knows the facts I would gladly read them. I just remember one black African male said in an interview that his new 13 year old bride would NOT be expected to have sex with him . . . for now. Do men rule the world? The ability to earn money for support and physical strength are factors of the human condition that go back to our cave living days. I am not supporting any of the above, just commenting on it as I look for a *why*. And what about *cougars* seducing younger men? What is the appropriate age difference?