Donald Trump

[Wolf DeVoon]

4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It's OK to disagree without waging war.

I wish I had that grace.

[merjet]

17 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I am amazed.  Do the not-his buildings fall down?

 

9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Always happy to amaze a friend.

Gee, William, you need lots more faith. Don't you know the Trump Tower would suffer only a few chips and scratches if 3 Boeing 767's crashed into it head-on? 

[Peter]

Michael wrote: (I was in Brazil when the Rio buildings fell. They used beach sand in their concrete. Also, we can discount the WTC, which was terrorism and war, not incompetence.) end quote

Was it the salt? I had no idea beach sand was so corrosive, though people who live around the ocean try to keep their cars polished AND they go through car washes to try and get the salt off the bottom of their cars.

In what does Trump succeed? Obviously politics, so far. But also buildings. Real estate. Brands. Golf courses. TV shows.

Other countries’ success? Bananas? Coffee beans? Agriculture doesn’t seem to improve most countries wealth though I bet American farmers do quite well.

Some countries have mineral and oil wealth like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and some African countries and Iran but GDP does not appear to translate into freedom or per capita income, though you do hear a lot of stories about Saudi elites who all have a billion each. Yet, what is the trend in countries with mineral wealth? Is it towards freedom? What is the factor that transforms or stagnates a culture? It may very well be *philosophy* as explained by Ayn Rand. Check out the Australian and New Zealand per capita below.

Peter

Notes from Wikipedia. Iraqi per capita income for 2014 was $7100. It has a 25 percent unemployment rate within a labor force of 8.9 million people. Ease of doing business in Iraq is ranked 164^th in the world. But GDP rose 317 percent in the 2000’s. Field shares are as a % of the total. The Iraq state retains a 25% share in all fields for which Service Contracts have been awarded. 2. Production Increase Share is the millions bbls per day that will attract the Service Fee for the company. 3. Gross revenue at plateau is the total payment each company will receive upon reaching their declared target plateau production rate (in between 5 and 8 years depending on field), before deduction of any operating costs but in addition to recovery of all development costs as billions of US$ per annum. The total gross revenue for all companies, after recovery of capital costs, is at plateau production of an additional 9.4 mb/d, 4.34 bn US per annum at a $70 bbl oil price. The 2010 Iraq govt budget is $60 billion. $300 billion is approximately $10,000 per annum for each Iraqi citizen . . . . 

total household weekly income in Australia divided geographically by statistical local area, as of the 2011 census Australian total gross income per capita Median household income is commonly used to measure the relative prosperity of populations in different geographical locations. It divides households into two equal segments with the first half of households earning less than the median household income and the other half earning more. Since 2000 household incomes in Australia have been growing rapidly. New Zealand and Australia are gradually being economically integrated through a process known as “Closer Economic Relations (CER)”. Their citizens are free to travel, live and work in either country. Information about their relative median household incomes is of interest, especially for those considering migration. The latest release shows that the median gross household income in 2013-14 was $80,704, and the average of all households was $107,276.^[1]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

44 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

I wish I had that grace.

Wolf,

Thanks.

However, I generally fail miserably at the completion of an act of grace, which is to let the other guy have the last word.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote to author Wolf Vavroom: However, I generally fail miserably at the completion of an act of grace, which is to let the other guy have the last word. end quote

For a site to succeed there can be no last word. See the letter below from Ellen about moderators.

What makes for a better world, President Trump? Oil and natural resources? Free market economics? Technological advances? Robert Tracinski wrote about Star Trek, “The future envisioned in Star Trek is a better place because we are better people.” And that is the crux of the new political, Trump-ian (tea party?) paradigm. Are we now better people? Will draining the swamp and going in a different direction actually occur? Will Americans finally live up to the potential (predicted/ensured/hoped for) in the U.S. Constitution?

Peter  

Notes. Tracinski wrote about the Star Trek franchise: It is certainly true that there are whole parts of life Star Trek deliberately omits for dramatic reasons. For example, it's pretty clear that the Federation is not a dictatorship--but we never hear about elections, and the crew never debates politics. We get to see some of the internal political wrangling among the Federation's competitors, and the politics of the Klingon High Council intrude pretty frequently into "The Next Generation." But the Federation's own politics are opaque. Economics is also pretty much absent from the Star Trek universe. This is sometimes a bit embarrassing, as in the (fortunately infrequent) references to the idea that the Federation no longer uses money, which is definitely science fiction--with an emphasis on the "fiction"--from the standpoint of the science of economics. Both of those omissions are corrected a bit in the later spinoffs, especially in "Deep Space Nine," where Quark's bar is the thriving commercial hub of the space station, and Commander Sisko and his crew get swept up in Federation galactopolitics. But they're not a defining feature of the Star Trek universe. Which is probably just as well, because part of the point of tuning into Star Trek is to get away from politics. Yes, the franchise has always dabbled in political and social commentary--the Klingons vs. the Federation were an obvious analogy for the Cold War--but it generally did so allegorically. It distances us from the details of current controversies by projecting some deeper issue onto a weird alien species, which makes it feel more like the show is raising questions and less like it's taking sides.

And there's one more reason to omit these things. If the future inhabitants of the Federation don't have their noses always stuck in some future equivalent of the smartphone, you could see that as a failure to project the impact of technology, or maybe as hope that we will outgrow our current ways of using it. Which leads us to the final way Star Trek anticipated the future.

9. Human Progress. While Star Trek's futuristic technology draws a lot of attention, the biggest improvement isn't in our machines. It's in ourselves. No, I don't mean in our basic physical or mental capabilities--and maybe that's part of the reason Star Trek doesn't embrace genetic engineering and cyborgs. The franchise tends to be more interested in the progress of our minds and character. The future envisioned in Star Trek is a better place because we are better people. At root, Star Trek is a vision of the eventual triumph of humanistic values. This triumph is portrayed as hard-won, with humanity having suffered through a period of warfare and chaos, a kind of mini dark age. The beginning of this dark age keeps getting pushed back as we keep catching up to it in real life (though sometimes in this election cycle I've thought we might finally be getting there). But we have come through that and emerged into a very hopeful future. One of the things that was shocking and refreshing in the original series is how it showed all of mankind united and at peace, including a ship with black and white crew members and Americans and Russians working together. It was certainly a contrast to the real world circa 1968. This triumph of humanism is occasionally tied in with a certain degree of smug, conventional liberalism. But I can assure you that the show has plenty of fans on the right, too. After all, it would be the ultimate in smug liberalism to assume that only the left cares about a world without racism, poverty, war, and oppression.

Star Trek is a little vague about the details of how we achieve this humanistic progress, but there is one aspect it repeatedly dramatizes: the importance of reason, science, and technology. The activities of scientific exploration and technological problem-solving are made into the central plotlines of whole episodes, and these are regarded as a Star Trek crew's most important activities. This is the root of the technological optimism of the series. Not that our machines were automatically going to make the future better, but that we are going to have to be better people--and clearer thinkers--in order to get to the point where we could build that amazing future. When it comes to technology, we're moving along toward the future anticipated by Star Trek at a pace that keeps us right on schedule. I hope we will be reminded to put the same degree of effort into the progress of our souls. end quote

From Ellen Stuttle on Objectivist living, July 3, 2013. Kyle, Re #5: I'm pretty sure that Jimbo was the moderator or one of the moderators of an Objectivist list which operated long before Atlantis. MDOP, I think it was called, Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy. That was back when you had to print stuff out on barred computer graph paper. My husband subscribed for awhile, but then got tired of the mass of print-outs. Jimbo was not the originator or owner of Atlantis. That was Kirez Korgan, who previously had run a different list operating from the Cornell University server. Kirez was a student at Cornell. (He's subsequently changed his name, btw; I don't know to what.). Joshua Zader became Kirez' co-moderator. They took turns. In 1999, Kirez and Joshua set up a family of lists called the WTL family - We The Living. The two biggest of those lists were OWL - Objectivism at We (The) Living - and ATL - Atlantis. There were also a PSYCH list, an art list, a parenting list, and some others. OWL had the biggest subscribership. It was moderated, by rotating moderators, and there was a per/day posting limit for each poster.

ATL was unmoderated; it had an "anything goes" policy and no per-poster posting limit. For some years it was a free-wheeling place with enormous posting traffic, although never more than 250 subscribers at its peak membership. Arguments there could and non-infrequently did desert "civility." How Jimbo came into it with Atlantis is that the WTL family of lists was hosted through a server he provided via his business. In 2002, during a discussion which I think pertained to US policy on Iraq, Jimbo was active in a dispute in which he was disagreeing, strongly, with the intensely held opinions of some of the most-prolific posters. Jeff Riggenbach started a thread addressed to Jimbo's arguments and using the words "functional illiterate," a favorite epithet of JR's, in the thread title.

Kirez at that point was pretty much an absentee overseer. He was busy with other things and wasn't following list content. When problems needing executive action arose, people had to email Kirez to get his attention. (There had been one circumstance, I think the only one on the original ATL, when members called for a banning. The object of the request was a particular poster who exceeded the prevailing reluctance to ban with his posting, most every night, streams of drunken and obscenity-laced diatribes.)

When JR started the thread with the insult to Jimbo in the subject line, Jimbo promptly decreed, as an either/or deal - either accept or find a different server - a civility policy with himself as overseer.

One regular promptly started a Yahoo list called Atlantis_II which objectors could use as refuge and retreat. Some persons argued for awhile with Jimbo on the original list. He was adamant. So a large percentage of members, I estimate more than 3/4 of the members, left. (Edit: By "left" I mean stopped posting on Old Atlantis. Many members stayed subscribed in order to get the posts and keep tabs on what was happening. Sometimes posts from Old ATL were copied onto ATL_II and discussed there.)

I think that Jimbo did not understand the dynamics of the list, and didn't realize that he was wrecking those dynamics. For instance, I happened to be on-line when Jimbo made the announcement. I immediately sent Jimbo an off-list note saying that I for one would not continue posting if he put the policy into effect.

Jimbo was also on-line. He sent back a surprised note. Why would I object?, he didn't understand, I wasn't one of those whom he thought needed moderating. Dense, dense, dense, I thought - and said, not quite using that exact word, at first, to Jimbo himself.

Jimbo's policy destroyed the "alchemy" of the original ATL.

Some posters supported him, including two who were then astonished to find posts of theirs subjected to moderation. Those two were Ellen Moore and Jason Alexander. Ellen Moore stayed, and argued with Jimbo - I imagine causing him to want to tear out his hair (te-he). Jason left.

A few years later, I forget if it was in late 2004 or in 2005, bothering with ATL became more of a nuisance than Jimbo was willing to deal with. Plus the whole WTL family of lists was using server space which he wanted freed for other purposes. Thus he announced that in X months the whole operation would be shut down and the archives would be wiped out. The archives of all the lists were available to be downloaded by members during that lag time.

Atlantis_II had meanwhile become the place where the main action was, although with a missing "edge" of verve because of the missing antagonists who irritated most everyone else. Instead A_2 members had to fight amongst ourselves.

Membership and traffic gradually waned. Today only a handful of "old friends" still chat on A_2. (I still get the posts myself, but I read few of them and almost never blip in with a comment. If I recall right, late 2011 was the last time I said anything on A_2.)
Ellen

[william.scherk]

Trump buildings don't fall down.  Non-Trump buildings do. The common-denominator of falling-buildings is not-Trump. 

But is there a common denominator for non-Trump towers that do not fall down? In other words, is it a quality "Trump" that assures a building will not fall down, or could it be something else?  I suspect it is something else.

Towers	fall	stand
Trump	0	28
non-Trump	10	106

It was interesting to look over the Top Ten 'fall down buildings.'  Explosion, landslide, unset concrete, shoddy engineering, illegal construction, unethical practices, impact of fuel-laden airliners.  These seem to be the causes of the collapses or topplings or crumblings -- the proximate causes.  I suppose a great Cause could be the non-Trumpness of the ten buildings, but I  would need to see an argument.

In other words, using "Trump buildings stand without falling" as evidence of Trump's mastery of unrelated matters is fallacious. 

I am glad when you take advice on matters that you are not an authority on. I am less glad when your rhetoric veers off into You People ... 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

His buildings don't fall down.

I am amazed.  Do the not-his buildings fall down?

There are plenty more examples. They happen all the time.

The Trump Tower in Vancouver hasn't fallen down.  I am not sure that the non-Trump towers in Vancouver fall down with any regularity, let alone All The Time.

Here is the point:  The Trump Towers-that-did-not-fall-down belong to a larger set -- Towers-that-did-not-fall-down. So the 'unfallen' Trump buildings are not distinguished from the neighbouring buildings by any 'unfallen' index.  To put in visual context, here is a view of Trump Tower and The Plaza, marked.

At what point can we assume the non-marked buildings will fall down because of their non-Trumpness?

 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Quote

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

you keep playing on the team of Those Who Are About To Lose Even More...

Merlin, you have been tagged.

Nah...

That was just rhetoric, not a fight.

If an argument is unduly personalized, it loses strength and authority. When an argument is framed such that disagreement (with an Eye) is predicated on bad personal attributes, it can fail to persuade. Your arguments tend to assign Merlin as Hater, and assert that his epistemic authority is subordinate to yours.

By "tagging,"  I mean assigning Merlin to a group.  Losers who will lose even more. 

Ask yourself: when was the last time on this forum that you thanked someone for pointing out an error in your argument?  Or more pertinently, when was the last time you accepted a point or two in someone else's argument explicitly?  

It seems to me that you want to claim all epistemic high ground, but sometimes without working diligently to earn it from your peers.  

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by william.scherk
Causality causes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

34 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Ask yourself: when was the last time on this forum that you thanked someone for pointing out an error in your argument?  Or more pertinently, when was the last time you accepted a point or two in someone else's argument explicitly?  

It seems to me that you want to claim all epistemic high ground, but sometimes without working diligently to earn it from your peers.  

William,

This is what happens when a person's argument is so weak, it starts becoming lame. He pivots to keep face. In order to keep the high ground, he goes to ad hominem (in the literal meaning of replacing the argument with criticism of the person). As gravy, he sometimes wants to become the rule maker and enforcer.

People on the liberal-progressive side love to use public shaming for this tactic (added to a kind of snarky conceit). The conservative side leans toward more ridicule (added to a kind of defensive belligerence).

My problem in being a proper victim for your shaming attempt right now is I am pretty much shameless.

Also, I'm the traffic cop.

 

Substance-wise, you did say something interesting, though.

41 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

It was interesting to look over the Top Ten 'fall down buildings.'  Explosion, landslide, unset concrete, shoddy engineering, illegal construction, unethical practices, impact of fuel-laden airliners.  These seem to be the causes of the collapses or topplings or crumblings -- the proximate causes.

This can be easily transposed as a metaphor for disastrous government programs like Obamacare (but including endless war for profit, which is one of my pet peeves).

That was a good insight, but I suspect it was not intentional because you immediately spoiled it.

43 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I suppose a great Cause could be the non-Trumpness of the ten buildings, but I  would need to see an argument.

(sigh...) Back to the ad hominem argument: Trump--the man--is the cause (so you can mock), not the reality he deals with and the corrupt folks don't.

I guess we can't have everything.

But I did like the metaphor, so I will focus on that and leave the mock-fest merriment to you and those who like to laugh at Trump as they defend the high-and-mighty corrupt.

Thanks for the insight...

 

(btw - Donald Trump is going to be sworn in as president this Friday in case you didn't know...     ) 

Michael

[Peter]

william.scherk wrote: It was interesting to look over the Top Ten 'fall down buildings.'  Explosion, landslide, unset concrete, shoddy engineering, illegal construction, unethical practices, impact of fuel-laden airliners.  These seem to be the causes of the collapses or topplings or crumblings -- the proximate causes. end quote

Oh, the conundrums. Earthquakes fit into the mix. San Fran gets a 7.5 and NYC gets a 0.1. Foster City California was built on a part of the San Francisco Bay that was filled in . . . which was a bad idea if you have frequent earthquakes. I remember houses literally sinking a few feet into the muck. Instead of a six foot six inch front door, you now had a four foot clearance to get in, and mud afoot, Watson.    

In the same vein what towns or cities are more likely to become ghost towns? Running out of gold isn‘t always the reason. And small towns lose their younger people to the big city. Is that from a lack of opportunity, or a normal tendency to put distance between you and former authority figures?

If a big city like Chicago lost its young people there would not be gang warfare every night which is fueled by illegal drug distribution and a thug culture. In this case if all the younger males were shipped off to the Peace Corps, Chicago would be a better place to live. Is a loss of freedom ever a good thing? Curfews? Or pat-down frisks based on location, sex, and race? Certainly, if you are in a war zone, which Chicago and every other majority black neighborhood in just about . . . in  any city.

As Willy Nelson said, “Keep on the sunny side of the street . . .”

Michael wrote: (btw - Donald Trump is going to be sworn in as president this Friday in case you didn't know...     ) end quote

Will the Renaissance begin on January 20^th? Keep your fingers crossed.

Peter 

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Wolf,

Thanks.

However, I generally fail miserably at the completion of an act of grace, which is to let the other guy have the last word.

Michael

The Last Word(s).

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

Nah...

That was just rhetoric, not a fight.

It's OK to disagree without waging war.

Merlin's one of the good guys.

Wrong as hell and playing on the Losing Team right now, but one of the good guys.

 

Michael

I'm bad--bad to the bone.

--Brant

and I feel fine

[KorbenDallas]

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

I didn't even have to look more than 10 seconds on Google.

The 10 Worst High-Rise Building Collapses in History

(I was in Brazil when the Rio buildings fell. They used beach sand in their concrete. Also, we can discount the WTC, which was terrorism and war, not incompetence.)

There are plenty more examples. They happen all the time.

Always happy to amaze a friend.

   

Michael

The twin towers fell because during construction the City of New York outlawed using asbestos to insulate skyscraper steel and the Port Authority of  NY and NJ went along with it and used an inferior substitute. All the structural strength to speak of was on the outside walls and when that steel deformed the buildings came down.

When I saw the preliminary drawings of the buildings on the front page of the New York Daily News in the early or mid 1960s, I wondered what would happen if an airplane would accidentally fly into one like happened to The Empire State Building in WWII. I thought each should have a big swimming pool on top and duct work to carry the water down to where the fire was.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

If an argument is unduly personalized, it loses strength and authority.

you and those who like to laugh at Trump as they defend the high-and-mighty corrupt.

QED

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

It seems to me that you want to claim all epistemic high ground, but sometimes without working diligently to earn it from your peers.  

This is what happens when a person's argument is so weak, it starts becoming lame. He pivots to keep face. In order to keep the high ground, he goes to ad hominem (in the literal meaning of replacing the argument with criticism of the person). As gravy, he sometimes wants to become the rule maker and enforcer.

Thank you. It is good you make the distinction between an argument and a person. 

I think you will agree with the particular point -- "The 'argument' that 'HSBC's towers Y don't fall down, thus X' ... is weak." When these Standing Towers are used to support a further warrant ("HSBC's towers standing means the Chairman best comprehends issue Z") we can see that the argument founders.  

It is good that you understand the distinctions made in the simplistic chi square above.  Even the simplest two-by-two test lets us probe for correspondence.  There is no direct correspondence between  Y, X or Z.  There is an intervening variable.  Simply assigning ultra-competence in one area of practice does not prove ultra-competence in another.  It begs the question, it assumes a perfection not yet in evidence.

Here is how I would strip the argument of fallacy:  HSBC has built a firm foundation for international success, by metrics S, T, U and V.  Thus, I am personally confident that HSBC will make a success of new venture W, which corresponds well to their core competencies. 

Trump is a very good builder by metric X. I believe that some of the competence shown in X is well-suited to issues Y and Z.  I believe that Trump's rhetoric on "numbers" and not-working Americans serves three purposes:  it encourages critical analysis of statistics re labour-force participation; it 'raises the bar' on "acceptable" or "good enough" unemployment figures -- setting broad goals for a better-functioning economy; it puts focus on what can be lost in the stats:  "what is a 'good job'? How to measure the human reality of 'un-good' jobs and non-participation?  Why should America accept 'good enough'? What does 'good enough' mean for least-paid workers?"  Etc.

I could add in here recent non-partisan summaries and reports of economic dislocation, McJobs, 'poverty pockets,' productivity ... and maybe something from current large media:  ABC 20/20 investigation of work and homeownership issues, or somesuch.

To check my own ability to recognize weak arguments, I can redact the MSK quote above to be self-referential or self-critical:

This is what happens when my (William's) argument is so weak, it starts becoming lame. I pivot to keep face. In order to keep the high ground, I go to ad hominem (in the literal meaning of replacing the argument with criticism of the person). As gravy, I sometimes want to become the rule maker and enforcer.

Correspondence!

Quote

People on the liberal-progressive side love to use public shaming for this tactic (added to a kind of snarky conceit). The conservative side leans toward more ridicule (added to a kind of defensive belligerence).

Disagreement, rational disagreement -- we would suggest to each other that there are 'best practices' in navigating disputed territory.  Among those best practices are the Principle of Charity, and I would add de-personalizing arguments. Less "your membership in Hate Club" and more "your argument here dissected."  Don't worry your pretty little head, hater. You people never understand.  

Tag!

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Also, I'm the traffic cop.

Who polices the police?  

That is easy -- the Emperor, the Eye, the man in the epistemic tower.

.

Edited January 14, 2017 by william.scherk
You people never understand.

[BaalChatzaf]

six more days.  From that point on we shall see how Trump, one of the least political people to have been elected to the Office, will do in the Office. 

It will be a very interesting experiment.  Can a non-political individual  function in a political environment exercising a political office.  This will be a first in American history.  My guess is two chances out of five  he will make a go of it.   I was pessimistic about his winning (although I voted for him).  Perhaps I am being pessimistic about his chances of success.  It is conceivable that Trump will prove those who are least ambitious for the office  may well be best in the office.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

51 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

It is good that you understand the distinctions made...

William,

What would bad look like?

A condescending response to condescension? 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Less "your membership in Hate Club" and more "your argument here dissected."  Don't worry your pretty little head, hater. You people never understand.

William,

What you are saying is a mischaracterization. Here is how Merlin and I go at it (paraphrased, of course).

Merlin: Trump is ridiculous because he said XXXXXXXX when compared to YYYYYYYYYY said by folks who are not ridiculous, that is by government experts.

Me: I don't think you get what Trump is doing.

Merlin: But Trump said XXXXXXXX. So explain it. And explain how he is going to fix things.

Me: Trump is laying low right now because it's dangerous to say much with his opponents in power. But he is going to use his crack team of producers to dismantle and/or overhaul the bad systems and put in the good. What he says before he takes power is a diversionary tactic.

Merlin: Blah blah blah... See? You are not explaining anything.

What do you say to a person who responds like that? I just explained something. He said I didn't explain it. I think, maybe, he wants me to explain how Trump is going to use Obama's structure to fix Obama's mess. But Trump ain't going to do that. He's going to use a structure built with a different team because he doesn't trust the structure that exists, not even to give correct information. (Did you miss the constant refrain during the election that he thinks the government is run by morons and others who don't know what they're doing?) So he's saying any old thing right now to keep the sabotage danger low.

But I can't seem to get that idea across as the Trump mocking keeps up. So I make a reasonable inference that the accuser doesn't like Trump and is not interested in what Trump is going to do. He just wants to mock Trump.

I don't care what he says he's doing. That's exactly what he's doing. I see it. It's recorded in posts. I use my own eyes, not his opinions for my thinking (nor yours, for that matter).

So what on earth are you talking about?

You don't have to answer if you don't want to extend this. This is more for the reader than you.

But if you are not done with your shaming attact, which explodes like a trick cigar with me, go at it again.

And it won't work again.

And on and on...

(Why not use this as a "teachable moment" since "we can do better" to make our discussions "more inclusive" and "sustainable"?  )

 

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

"a trick cigar"

+100

[Brant Gaede]

Gee. Won't there be a lot more to talk about next week and next month? Y'all beating around the bush and might be the wrong bush.

--Brant

 

[Peter]

No spoilers but this is a movie review. Why here? Because it is a movie about rational and intelligent people. It is about *builders* and *producers.*   

What movie am I talking about? “A Little Chaos,” starring Kate Winslet and directed by Alan Rickman.

It was superb! It should be added to Robert Tracinski’s list of Randian movies not associated with Ayn Rand.  

Peter

[Peter]

I wish Dennis May would start posting again. He will get this. Year’s ago, Dennis May tested Atlantis for its Loyalty and toughness. Little did he know that intelligence agencies, and  the 1950’s CBS Network were listening in on us. Our program begins . . .

John Dailey: Welcome to “What’s My Line,” brought to you by Kellogg of Battle Creek, Michigan, the CIA, and the NSA. Panel, score one point for each yes, and minus one for each no answer.

Kitty Carlyle: Unknown Contestant, have you ever fired a handgun?

Unknown person:  Yes

Ann Francis: Do you own a handgun?

Unknown person:  Yes

Bennet Cerf: Do you know the difference between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic weapon?

Unknown person:  Yes

Dorothy Kilgallen:  Have you ever been around or known people who own machine guns?

Unknown person:  Yes. Well, ah, I slept next to one for about three straight months, but Uncle Sam owned the machine gun.

Ann Francis: Have you known people, like your Uncle Sam, who used high explosives as part of their jobs?

Unknown person (Sweat is appearing on the contestant’s forehead): Yes

Kitty Carlyle: Have you seen high explosives used?

Unknown person:  I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me.

Bennett Cerf: Have you seen common military weapons of mass destruction tested?

Unknown person:  Only on television and in training films. Say, weren’t you with the folks who published “The Fountainhead,” by Ayn Rand?

Bennett Cerf: Yes, I was privileged to publish that great book. I especially liked the character of Elsworth Tooey for his brilliance and menace. Kind of reminds me of Hannibal Lector. Wait a minute. Stop it, “Unknown Contestant!” Stop trying to sidetrack this investigation!

Dorothy Kilgallen: Have you yourself designed weapons of mass destruction?

 

Unknown person:  No. That X-Files episode was not about me! I did not do it! I will not do it again.
 

Ann Francis: Have you known people who design nuclear weapons or have tested them?

Unknown person: No! Oh damn! I do know one. Dennis. Dennis May. I couldn’t stop him, may God forgive me. It must be him you are after.

Kitty Carlyle: Shoot him with more current. Do you or did you not have relatives who worked on the Manhattan project or know people who dropped the A-bomb on Japan?

Unknown person: My father is dead. I have nothing else to say.

We now conclude this broadcast to bring you a Conalrad Attack signal. Duck and Cover in the event of a Nuclear Attack. Stay tuned to CBS for further messages.

Live long and prosper,
Unknown Contestant

Notes from Jimbo Wales. CONELRAD (Control of Electromagnetic Radiation) is a former method of emergency broadcasting to the public of the United States in the event of enemy attack during the Cold War. It was intended to allow continuous broadcast of civil defense information to the public using radio or TV stations, while rapidly switching the transmitter stations to make the broadcasts unsuitable for Soviet bombers that might attempt to home in on the signals (as was done during World War II, when German radio stations, based in or near cities, were used as beacons by pilots of bombers).

U.S. president Harry S. Truman established CONELRAD in 1951. After the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles reduced the likelihood of a bomber attack, CONELRAD was replaced by the Emergency Broadcast System on August 5, 1963, which was later replaced with the Emergency Alert System on January 1, 1997; all have been administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).^[1]

Unlike its successors, the EBS and EAS, CONELRAD was never intended to be used for severe weather warnings or local civil emergencies.

[merjet]

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Me: Trump is laying low right now because it's dangerous to say much with his opponents in power. But he is going to use his crack team of producers to dismantle and/or overhaul the bad systems and put in the good. What he says before he takes power is a diversionary tactic.

 With pompous, evasive hogwash like that from the site owner, it's easy to understand why several good people no longer post here. 

A far more honest reply by MSK would be that he doesn't know how Trump will try to overhaul Social Security or Medicare.  Indeed, I think MSK has no better idea of what Trump will attempt to do after he takes power than I do, but he loves to posture like he does.  

Hmm. Is that everything he has said up to now a diversionary tactic or only some of it? If only some, how does one decide what is and what isn't? I predict more worthless blah, blah, blah, folks. 
 

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, merjet said:

 With pompous, evasive hogwash like that from the site owner, it's easy to understand why several good people no longer post here. 

A far more honest reply by MSK would be that he doesn't know how Trump will try to overhaul Social Security or Medicare.  Indeed, I think MSK has no better idea of what Trump will attempt to do after he takes power than I do, but he loves to posture like he does.  

Hmm. Is that everything he has said up to now a diversionary tactic or only some of it? If only some, how does one decide what is and what isn't? I predict more worthless blah, blah, blah, folks. 
 

It takes two.

Nobody knows except maybe Trump and a few close to him. Thus you didn't get the answer you wanted. There are several possible things indicated on this thread. It's ACA out of the box. (I didn't even know he was going after those two huge entitlements. Good luck getting something radical out of Congress that changes much soon; those critters want to be re-elected.)

As for people leaving here? I dunno why anybody would want to deprive themselves of my penetrating insights on site. It's a wonder. 

--Brant

[merjet]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Thus you didn't get the answer you wanted. 

As for people leaving here? I dunno why anybody would want to deprive themselves of my penetrating insights on site. It's a wonder. 

Trump's own website regarding Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  Caution. It may be a dishonest diversionary tactic.

Brant, they can lurk to see your penetrating insights w/o posting. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, merjet said:

I predict more worthless blah, blah, blah, folks. 

Merlin,

That's OK.

Just about everything you've predicted about Trump has been wrong.

So enjoy yourself.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, merjet said:

A far more honest reply by MSK would be that he doesn't know how Trump will try to overhaul Social Security or Medicare.

Notice that Merlin does the ad hominem argument here, too.

Now I'm dishonest and that's his excuse for ignoring the tenor of my explanation.

But there's another point in this that I want to emphasize for the reader because it shows a mentality. I don't know what to call it yet, but the essence is prioritizing government programs over what those programs are supposed to do.

Take Social Security. The program was supposed to be a "compulsive loan" (a confiscation handed over) by all working individual citizens to the government in exchange for a retirement program they would benefit from later. The government made a promise that it would take each working citizen's money by force, but would give it back in installments years later. It was a lopsided contract since it had force on its side, but the government made a promise.

When all that extra money started pouring in, politicians did what they always do. In layman's terms, they put their filthy mitts on it and left behind some IOU's. They even systematized this and covered it up with bullshit excuses like people are living longer, yada yada yada. (Folks like the ones Merlin finds credible love to compile and crunch statistics on all this bullshit. And they love to get paid to do it, too.  )

The most perceptive thing I've heard about the future of Social Security came from my mother in law, who's a big Obama supporter, by the way. When I explained that Trump would wanted to keep the government's promise to those who paid into Social Security, but would start phasing the younger folks out by providing options other than confiscating their money. He would probably set up a way for them to opt out of the Social Security program altogether. She asked, "If they don't make the younger people keep paying in, how is the government going to pay the older people? Where is the money going to come from?"

And there we have it, folks.

The Ponzi.

That's exactly how a Ponzi scam works.

Stated in terms anyone can understand--terms that the number crunchers try to cover with their bullshit.

Trump is not happy with Ponzi scams, but he loves hard-working honest people. So his focus, what he's going to do, is find a way to keep the government's promise to the ones who paid in. As for the Ponzi scam itself and the experts who swear by it, justify it, and run it, he doesn't give a crap about keeping the Social Service system going as it is. He wants to make something work for the victims, not the corrupt administrators and others who feed on this scam.

Yet that's all that Merlin cares about. He want's to know how Trump will make the Ponzi keep working and not explode. He mocks Trump for not wanting to do that (he frames it as Trump can't because he's too stupid).

And Merlin calls me the dishonest one.

It's a question of priorities. Who do you want to salvage from harm, the thieves or the producers who were robbed? Trump chooses the producers as do I. That's why we elected him.

It looks like Merlin prefers the thieves.

Michael