Rebane's Ruminations

Sandbox - 14jul25

[Apologies for the late delivery of new sand.  Happy Bastille Day.  gjr]

More Revelatory Bullshit from the Left

George Rebane

Propaganda Broadcasting System (you know, the unbiased one) in its 9jul25 News Hour had an interview with the new DNC chairman Ken Martin.  The entire interview is available here.

Among the usual nauseating Democrat lies, this time about the BBB, that this interview again laid on their viewers (no real new revelations there), the segment concluded with Martin being very carefully asked about NYC mayoral candidate, Zohran Mamdani.  The entire interview was designed, of course, to promote the radical progressive narrative, and Martin followed the script with a glowing praise of Mamdani’s “brilliant campaign”.

However, the only part of his brilliant campaign that PBS brought to light was why has that Muslim communist not disavowed the pro-terrorist phrase “globalize the intifada”.  Kent, of course, sidestepped the question with some prattle about the Democrats being “a big tent party”; never mind that the tent only stretches to the left to openly include their communist candidates.  More and more of them are now striking their false colors and declaring their radical anti-American positions on all issues – they believe that enough of their constituents have now been converted and/or sufficiently bamboozled that it’s safe to start opening up with their real agenda.

But the real interesting part of PBS’s continuing biased reporting is that interviewer Amna Nawaz never went near Mamdani’s avowed plans to collectivize rents, transport, distribution, and production per the Marxist playbook.  That is still a no-no according to the mavens who assess the mangling of the public mind.  So the main issue that is making national news about Mamdani’s communism evokes nothing but the sound of silence when they talk to their Democrat handlers.

Getting from here to there

George Rebane

OK boys and girls, it’s time to take a break from our socio-political harangues and debates, and delve into something more intellectual yet delightfully accessible.  The figure contains a 10-by-10 network of nodes each identified by their blue numbers from 1 to 100.  The related red numbers denote the cost of traversing that node.

The problem to be solved is to identify the minimum cost path between a given starting node and a destination node.  Here, let’s arbitrarily say we wanted to start on node 19 and end on node 92.  What is the path or sequence of nodes to be traversed that minimizes the total cost of the trip when all the costs of the visited nodes are added up?  And as you puzzle on the solution, see if you can come up with an algorithm that can solve all such problems.

The rule for traversing is that allowable steps for any given node are the eight or fewer  of its neighboring nodes.  For example, from node 25 you can step to nodes 14, 24, 34, 15, 35, 16, 26, 36; and from node 31 you can step to 21, 41, 22, 32, 42.

This is a simplified yet still powerful version of a problem that I had to solve long ago on a contract to develop an interactive combat system for combined arms field operations.  The specific problem was to compute and display a minimum time feasible path across a region of complex terrains for a given make-up and size of a combat unit to get from their current location(s) to a selected location.  Today a version of the resulting algorithm is used in you car’s and cell phone’s route calculating apps.  Have fun and let us know your solution and algo.

Scattershots – 6jul25

George Rebane

Yellow journalism is the practice and bailiwick of conservative media.  I am literally nauseated listening to so-called “fearless” journalists on outlets like Fox News.  According to my lights a professional and ethical journalist will not let an interviewee’s obviously erroneous statements, diversions/evasions, and lies stand, and simply proceed to the next question or topic.  The uninformed and mostly lightly read audience deserves to hear the journalist respond to such interviewee answers with, “From your response I see that you neglected to answer my question (repeated)”,  or “your answer contradicts the information widely supplied by (citation)”, or “perhaps you can cite some evidence for our audience to support your allegation”.  You get the idea – as a journalist with balls, don’t just skedaddle on to the next question when your last one went unanswered.

Leftwing journalists and outlets cannot be so accused.  It is not and never has been their intention to accurately inform their audiences.  In their reports and interviews they will purposefully incorporate erroneous statements, diversions/evasions, and lies – they have a collectivist ideology to promote.

Apropos to Zohran Mamdani’s candidacy for NYC mayor.  It is nothing but the next ratchet in the Left’s program to control the populations of the country’s big urban centers.  The means to do this is to restructure the financial and cognitive make-up of its inhabitants.  Their method is simple, transparent, and direct – “Forget the chatter about ‘abundance.’ The left hopes to solidify control of cities by driving the middle class out.”  WSJ columnist Allysia Finley outlines this process in her 5jul25 ‘The Progressive Paucity Agenda—From Mamdani in New York to California’.

A miss to Vladimir Lenin, leader of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, who promised, “Give me four years to teach the children and the communist seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”  Well now, in America we have given him three generations of children to teach socialism in our public schools and academia, but today barely half of our population has been converted into reliable supporters of what he has sown.  A sorry record indeed.  [This was submitted to The Union for their Hits & Misses column.]

Happy Independence Day - 2025 (updated)

George Rebane

This Fourth of July we have something extra and very special to celebrate - the Big Beautiful Bill that passed the House yesterday and will be signed into law today by President Trump.

[update]  President Trump has signed the BBB into the Big Beautiful Law.

Growth and ONLY growth

George Rebane

The Republican debate about the Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) goes on after it squeaked out of the Senate with the VP’s vote.  A quick look at the alternatives shows that the debate involves no reasonable alternative to the BBB.  Everyone except the economically ignorant leftwingers in the country knows that the only solution to our national debt problem (crisis?) is through the strong growth of our economy.  And that level of growth – annually 3-5% - is necessary to make ongoing deficits and debt growth manageable.  Higher levels of growth, albeit not likely, will make the debt problem irrelevant.

All, save of the Left, who have been paying attention know that we cannot tax or redistribute ourselves out of debt, and that reducing spending requires the politically impossible and massive reduction of legally entrenched entitlements.  Given these constraints, the Republican opponents of BBB’s passage must quietly be hoping for a Plan B from heaven because no one on this planet has a clue on how to gin up and get anything else through this congress.  If they blow it now and the BBB dies in the House, the Republicans have had it – they have dashed all hope and given birth to the biggest political disappointment in the country’s history.

Without passage of the BBB we will be heading for a financial and governance crisis under the resurgent Democrats who are eager to reduce America into a second rate socialist country and reexperience all the economic catastrophes of the Europeans.  A harbinger of this is Zohran Mamdavi, Democratic candidate for NYC mayor.  What continues to disappoint me is that the talking heads on Fox keep telling us that they simply don’t understand how so many NYC Gen Zers have voted for the communist in the primary.  The answer is beyond obvious, they are the third generation educated in Great Society union-controlled, socialist public schools ranging from kindergarten through academia.  To them socialism, not free market capitalism, is the preferred form of governance and organizing society.  It would be good if the conservative media had the wits and balls to regularly report this sad attribute of our voting public.

Bottom line message to all Republican congress critters - unless you know of a Plan B that has better than a snowball’s chance in hell of passage, vote for the goddam BBB!

What is ‘fair’? – one more time

George Rebane

The use of ‘fair’, as in ‘the rich need to pay their fair share’, is one the most nefarious misuse of language in the public square.  Oxford Languages defines the adjective as “impartial and just, without favoritism or discrimination”.  Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem (Nobel 1972, here) proves that in collective decision making among alternatives it is impossible to satisfy any commonly accepted set of fairness criteria (q.v.) for all participating parties.  From a systems perspective the reason for this is even simpler, the decision-making parties each have a distinct, different, and often incoherent measure of utility that they want the group’s decision to satisfy.  Given this reality, they usually don’t communicate their utilities to each other and therefore talk past each other in their deliberations.  The result is almost always regarded as ‘unfair’ by one or more of the participants.

Leftwing politicians who use ‘fair’ as one of their sales tools to convince their ignorant constituents have always been able to lure their well-meaning naifs into supporting socialist policies, e.g. in wealth redistribution.  Today we have a posterchild of this tactic in Zohran Mamdani, the Democrats’ communist candidate for NYC mayor who advertises himself as a socialist.  In his support several Democrat congress critters have gone on the air to tell us that we really don’t know what socialism means and that it’s not all that bad.

According to Rebane Doctrine any time you hear anyone, especially a politician, claiming to have come up with a policy or process that is fair for all concerned, you know that you are asked to believe bullshit.  Exercise for the student – what is a fair share of taxes that the rich should pay?  And before that – what is a fair definition of ‘the rich’?

Our Chinese Communist benefactors

George Rebane

[This post appears in the 9jul25 edition of The Union’s op-ed pages, retitled with the atrocious and confusing word salad ‘US political factions push socialism to achieve Chinese Communist Party levels of control?’ (Note the question mark.)  The newspaper also refused to include the accompanying figure which makes clear to the layman an otherwise obtuse discussion of population distribution bell curves.  In the 20 years I have been publishing in The Union as contributor and regular columnist, I’ve never had my title changed nor any included figure omitted.  To add insult to injury, I usually append my PhD in the signature block only under articles with some technical content – certain other authors always append and have their PhD appellations included.   For reasons unknown, for this article my PhD was stripped, another first.  gjr]

Led by states like California, New York, and Illinois, America’s cognitive decline now has a fifty-year history as documented by government reports on student test scores, adult numeracy, and population literacy in general (e.g. from the National Center for Educational Statistics).  Our public education system, already on the rocks, is now in an epochal turmoil with the advent of AI-based writing and thinking tools for students.  The impact of AI on systemic unemployment is also beginning to make itself felt as white-collar jobs ranging from manufacturing through middle management to computer programmers are being eliminated by the thousands.  Job growth in our hospitality industry sustains our current 4.2% unemployment rate – for now.  But even there the nation’s increasing minimum wages are impelling the adoption of AI to reduce the expensive labor headcount.

The great benefactor of our degradation is Communist China – our geo-strategic enemy and dedicated adversary in global commerce.  Their hundred-year plan – now at the half-way point - calls for them to replace the United States as the world’s military and economic hegemon.  In the process they are gaining on us in the important categories ranging from overall GDP, manufacturing, military build-up, and technology development, especially in AI.

Almost all of this can be explained by our two countries’ populations, their cultural make-up, and cognitive capabilities.  China is culturally cohesive; their population is over 85% ethnically Han.  America is a proudly unassimilated hodgepodge of cultures.  (Recall the German and other EU countries’ experience – “Multi-kulti does not work.”)  In the cognitive arena, Chinese are smarter than we are.  According to international agencies that measure such metrics, Americans’ average IQ is 98 compared to the Chinese average of 108.  Cognitive tests of all kinds (including standardized IQ) are designed so that the scores of a broad population of test takers scale to an average of 100 with a standard deviation of 15.  This results in the familiar bell curve-shaped population distributions.  Various population cohorts will, of course, vary from this standard as noted above for the US and China.

The nearby figure – based on data from government sources and academia, e.g. social scientists like Charles Murray (2021) - illustrates this variation graphically while illuminating a disturbing difference between our two countries.  There we see the two bell curves appropriately placed on the cognitive IQ scale.  The areas under the bell curves are proportional to the countries’ populations.  The average or mean IQ values for each population are shown as dotted lines at 98 and 108.

(Consider a specific stat that also highlights the meritocracy v equity based Chinese educational system which pumps out 3.57M STEM graduates annually compared to America’s 820K output.  “China produces roughly 6 times more STEM graduates annually than the U.S.”)

To get a comparative measure of the populations, consider a broad category of jobs that require workers of above average intellect, say, IQs above 120 as shown – these may include professions such as medicine, science, engineering, and institutional management.  As presented in the figure, China’s current population of over 1.4 billion includes almost 300M citizens with IQs above 120, while the similar US cohort numbers about 25M out of a population of almost 350M.  China has over 12 times as many such smart people as do we.

So why haven’t they eaten our lunch yet on the world stage?  The historically obvious reason is simple – the Chinese live under the repressive and stifling dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).  It is that form of central control by collectivist governance that is keeping the Chinese from dominating us in commerce, science, and technology, areas in which they already have and continue to demonstrate their hobbled prowess.

Meantime in the US there is a large political faction embracing socialism that has been doing its best to achieve similar collectivist control of our population, all in the name of social justice beginning with perverse definitions and applications of diversity, equity, and inclusion.  So it is clear that our current diminishing advantage over the cynically named People’s Republic of China is entirely due to our benefactors (friends?) in the CCP.  To argue otherwise would be an appeal to blatant racism that maligns the ethnic population of China and its Han culture.

Sandbox - 28jun25

[Where is the eternal debate going on politicians lying?  It seems that our leftwing readers gleefully highlight every Trump pronouncement that is in any, even minute, way flawed as an intended lie.  But they totally ignore the daily pronouncements of Democrats as members of the greatest perennial lying machine in the country. gjr]

B-2s over Iran (partially restored)

George Rebane

[This 23jun25 blog post was mysteriously deleted by Typepad which they cannot recover.  I fished out a partial draft version of the post from the Recycle Bin and am reposting it here.  It does not include the two updates and graphics of the original of which I don’t have copies.]

Don’t let an unknown perfect be the enemy of the known good.

At this writing (23jun25 1300) Iran has impotently attacked US bases in Qatar and Iraq in response to Midnight Hammer.  Team Trump is huddling in the White House with his national security mavens to determine what the appropriate follow-on attacks might now be carried out on Iran’s energy and transport infrastructure.  It is clear that the country’s raghead rulers are desperate and properly scared.  Apparently they are convinced that any further diplomatic efforts sans a military response will assuredly result in regime change with their individual heads on the block.  They can easily picture their lifeless bodies dangling from construction cranes in Tehran.  Their alternative is to buy time with some attacks on our regional assets that may cause a US response to sway worldwide sentiments in their favor – e.g. Putin’s call for unconditional cease fire.

Since the B-2s flew, what I’ve found interesting, but not unexpected, are the responses by those who think that Midnight Hammer was unlawful and/or a mistake to insert the US into the Israeli/Iran war.  And here I’m referring only to those who do believe that Iran should not be able to develop or possess nuclear weapons, and has now been in the process of such development for years.  Those who do not believe that Iran is well on its way to having a deliverable nuclear bomb are not worth wasting time with.

The remainder of Midnight Hammer critics gather under the beliefs that 1) diplomacy would work and should be given another chance, and/or 2) this was not the right time nor the best way to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities.  When I ask them on what evidence do they pin their hopes on diplomacy, they can cite none but only repeat the hope that this would work and Iran would verifiably destroy its nuclear development capacity and surrender its 60+% uranium stores.  All the deep thinkers in this group ignore both recent history, experience, and the commonly accepted definition of insanity.  They simply remain wrapped in their comforting blind faith.

The second group simply asserts their gut feel.  These consist of those who believe that Midnight Hammer was a faulty response and/or badly timed.  When pressed for the evidence that supports those assertions, they come up empty.  They cannot recommend a better way nor a better time for taking out Iran’s nuclear capability.  They can present no better set of alternatives simply because they can neither list them nor present any evidence why a possible Plan B would have been better to serve American and Israeli security interests.  They simply reiterate their strong gut feel and hold that up as their gold standard for reasoning about such geo-strategic matters.

A lot of the world debates under such frayed principles, always generating much heat and little light in the process.  I was trained in professions that required critics of Plan A to come ready to also present a Plan B along with its reasonable basis.

Typepad has gone insane

George Rebane

I'm sorry to report that Typepad literally blew up on me as I was posting a new commentary.  It wouldn't complete the post, and when I tried to delete it, Typepad also deleted the most recent post on B-2s over Iran.  Am attempting to get Typepad to restore the latter and get their act together.  Apologies.

Polling, polling, and more polling!

[This post will host the comment stream for readers who are forever interpreting and debating the most recent Trump polling results.  gjr]

Sandbox – 16jun25

[“Five-minute EV charging, while ambitious, is being actively developed by companies like BYD and CATL. BYD's "Super e-Platform" promises 400 km of range in 5 minutes. CATL, with its battery technology, aims for even greater range gains in the same timeframe. This is achieved through megawatt charging and advanced battery chemistry.”  This will completely change the EV landscape.  I wonder why it’s not getting more press.  gjr]

Hyperbiased Media

George Rebane

For years my conservative friends and I have shared a common experience when talking to a leftwinger about current events.  They all have massive blind spots in what they know of what’s going on.  The explanation is simple.  They only get their news from leftwing lamestream media which simply omits, minimizes, or hides happenings that do not conform to the Left’s worldview.

I was reminded of this again when waking up to National Propaganda Radio this morning (yes, like most conservatives, I’m interested in what my liberal neighbors see and hear).  In their weekend news coverage NPR extensively described, among other items, one 600-person anti-Trump demonstration in a remote little town in upper New York state.  This was illustrated as an example of broad grass roots participation in hundreds of such well-organized demonstrations across the country.

However, another very significant and historical large-scale event was totally ignored, and that was the once-in-a-lifetime, massive military parade down Constitution Avenue in Washington DC celebrating our Army’s 250^th birthday – not a word or even a whisper.  To our leftwing friends and neighbors it never happened.  This serves as an example of lamestream’s normal ‘unbiased coverage’ of the news and explains away the ignorance of RR’s leftwing readers as expressed in their contributed comments.  They get a wholly different picture of the country and world from the NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, … .

And as such, as I have often reminded readers, leftwingers not only have their own opinions, but also their own facts, history, science, logic, … which are markedly (sometimes totally) different from what those of us on the Right have learned and experience.  The country’s schism is complete simply for the lack of a productive common ground, and to that is added their totally different method of reasoning, even if some vestiges of common beliefs were to be found.

Then we come to the overall intellectual deficit from which today’s journalism suffers; and here I include the right-leaning outlets like Fox News and Fox Business.  While they do a very good job covering the waterfront of the world’s happenings, their correspondents (and/or news scribes) more often than not omit the critical follow-on questions (to interviewees) or inclusion of crucial points that are fundamental to their reports.  And with these omissions they surrender the field to the country’s socialist cadres and their interpretations which these outlets air lavishly.

Here's a timely example from reporting on today’s grossly misnamed ‘immigration’ issue  involving the ongoing deportation of illegal aliens.  The Left points out how our agriculture industry would be massively crippled if its current workforce of 40% illegals were to be deported.  In covering this no correspondent of the Right is smart enough to include in their report that, were it to be undertaken, it would take a considerable period of time to deport the thousands of illegals who make up the 40%.  Over this period there would be a natural process (of replacement workers and technology) accompanied by policy changes (e.g. reinitiation of the bracero program) that would minimally affect the industry, if at all.  But by not including this important reality leaves the Left’s misleading point of an instantaneous removal of thousands by ICE agents in the minds of our already lightly read audiences.  Other similar examples abound daily.

And when it comes to the aired interviews which produce either outlandish assertions or questions totally unanswered, the journalist has two revealing remedies.  First, ask the interviewee on what evidence they base their assertion which will quickly expose their (biased?) basis or shows that they don’t have any for their public stance.  Second, never ignore a by-passed question; the reporter must always tell his audience that the question went unanswered and/or provide an opportunity to fill the exposed void.

Finally, we should all know that outlets like the NPR should not be provided public funding to support spewing their grossly politically-biased views.  They should appeal to their like-minded audiences and sponsors for the means to exercise their First Amendment rights.