Rebane's Ruminations

Kamalanomics = Bidenomics on steroids

[This piece was published in the op-ed section of the 4sep24 Union as one of their Other Voices columns (here).]

George Rebane

Since ‘smarts’ and ‘poor’ don’t always correlate well, the financially burdened will again suffer the most if and when Kamalanomics kicks in and amplifies the terrible mistakes of Bidenomics.  From the Democrats’ published record Kamalanomics is a socialist-ingrained misinterpretation of economics that views wealth creation as a zero sum game in which businesses, entrepreneurs, and the wealthy are characterized as “corporate monopolists” and “oligarchs” – in short, they only take money from the middle and lower income classes which must then be forcefully redistributed by government.

As President Obama assured the country’s successful entrepreneurs who do create wealth and provide jobs for the rest of us, “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”  For our progressives it is always the wise and munificent hand of government that actually does the business building and job creation.  Absent government intervention, to our leftwing all else is “trickle-down economics” where some wealth eventually and grudgingly dribbles down an uneven playing field to those less fortunate.  And, of course, the playing field must then be continuously leveled to “grow the middle class out” through still more laws, regulations, fees and higher taxes on the wealth creators to insure that the “greedy billionaires” and “well-heeled” pay their “fair share” in amounts known only to government bureaucrats.  The inevitable result is that everyone’s cost of living goes up and quality of life diminishes.  Check the government data on the impact of Bidenomics over the last 3.5 years.

The exact opposite happened under President Trump according to the Dept of Commerce and IRS.  His deregulation measures and tax cuts resulted in very low inflation and gave rise to 70% faster real wage growth that specifically benefitted our Hispanics and blacks as compared to Obama’s eight years of government-shackled historically slow growth.  However, during Democrat administrations the prime beneficiaries of job growth are new legions of government workers who in the large add sand into the gears of the nation’s commerce and GDP growth.  Biden’s claimed recent creation of 15 million jobs overwhelmingly consists of government hires and those of the inevitable recovery from rebounding COVID job shutdowns.

Now on the road to “happiness and joy” President Harris promises to control inflation under Kamalanomics through policies such as:

• National price controls on goods and services that inevitably result in shortages, distribution disruptions, and lower quality goods and services;
• Nationalized (single payer) healthcare – unsustainable wherever practiced while reducing access and services;
• A 66% increase in corporate taxes always paid for by customers through higher prices and by workers with lower wage gains;
• Capital gains tax will increase to income tax levels (39%+) that will inhibit and distort America’s investment landscape;
• Destruction of small businesses by taxing owners for unrealized capital gains – cash they don’t have and to get they must liquidate their businesses;
• Digitizing the dollar (falsely promoted as “crypto currency”) so that our money’s future as a store of value, medium of exchange, and unit of account will be strictly monitored and controlled by government diktat and the Federal Reserve. (Kiss gold ownership goodbye.)  For all intents and purposes private property will then be no more (recall that you own something ONLY to the extent that you can dispose of it as you wish).

Liberals don’t understand how human (e.g. investor) behavior is impacted through reducing reward while increasing and/or maintaining risk.  They believe that tax rates don’t impact risk taking.  Progressives demonstrate daily that they have no idea about the sources and levels of risk encountered in starting a business.  Moreover, liberals have no inkling that increasing taxes from their already current highs will actually decrease government revenues – Democrats believe that simply imposing higher tax rates on the private sector will automatically bring in more money.  And that lowering taxes (yes, even on the ’rich’) have never resulted in higher government revenues or increasing our quality of life.

In sum, we have already been told enough about the kind of democracy and freedom that Democrats controlling Congress and the Executive will deliver under Kamalanomics – just look at the countries with all-encompassing autocratic central governments.

STEM education and careers – not for everyone

George Rebane

Our socially destructive culture has long done a number on students with the extraordinary capacity to study and make it in STEM careers.  Part of the socialist agenda for the US is to impress in the population a belief that we are fundamentally all equal, with all of us capable of anything as long as the state suppresses the bad angels of discrimination with which we, especially the whites, are burdened.  And to accomplish this we need to make sure that Billy and Jill grow up in an environment of mirror-fogging equity instead of merit-based equal opportunity in which today DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) is the chosen form of politically acceptable social environment.

Unfortunately, the realworld is fashioned on quite a different landscape where our capacities have developed differentially.  Today diversity is recognized, but in a highly qualified manner and under precisely and politically prescribed circumstances.  Diversity that leads to differential capacities to perform, especially in the cognitive areas, is not only rejected but also proscribed in some places by laws that may lead to incarceration.  Again, science confirms that in almost all dimensions that describe us we are created unique and develop unequally, and in some dimensions these differences are systemic and cannot be overcome by bending the twig according to the dictates of DEI.  

Nationally recognized scholar and political scientist, Harvard/MIT educated Dr Charles Murray, has written an illuminating essay about the extraordinary and special requirements for success in STEM education and subsequent careers.  His ‘The Roots of STEM Excellence - Finding and developing one of our rarest and most precious human resources is a paramount goal.’ here in the 30aug24 WSJ will now be vilified by all the usual leftwing suspects bent on reducing America into a second-world country.  In this piece he continues reporting on research that established the human diversities we reported on in his previous work Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America (2021) which was equally attacked and rejected by the Left. (more here)  (I wrote a Union column on it at the time which could not be printed for reasons its then publisher took great pains to explain to me over one of our lunches.)

The basic thesis Murray presents is that success in STEM requires cognitive abilities that are relatively very uncommon.  The cognitive abilities demanded are present in only the top 0.01% or one in 10,000 people – it’s just the way the cognitive cookie crumbles.  The bottom line is that just being dedicated and working hard will not cut it as it does for almost all other professional pursuits.  It’s the equivalent of not being able to make it in the NBA if you’re short or in the NFL if you’re skinny and slow.  Not everyone has what it takes to make it in any desired career – the playing field is not level, and it was ever thus.  This is diametrically contra to what is told to our K-12 students in progressive public schools.

To nail the point and outline the problem, I will quote some paragraphs from the cited essay by Charles Murray.

The task is to identify those with STEM talent when they are young. The good news is that standardized tests expressly designed to measure cognitive ability are an efficient way to do so. They are accurate, inexpensive, resistant to coaching and demonstrably unbiased against minorities, women or the poor. Those conclusions about the best cognitive tests are among the most exhaustively examined and replicated findings in all social science.

The bad news is that admissions offices of elite universities ignore this evidence. They use “holistic” admissions algorithms that treat tested cognitive ability as just one of many desirable traits. That isn’t necessarily an educational disaster for the next generation of brilliant performers in the social sciences, humanities and nonacademic majors. They can develop their potential in an ordinary college or even without college. The STEM fields are different, for two reasons.

First, the raw cognitive demands are greater in STEM than other disciplines. People who are merely in the top few percentiles of overall cognitive ability don’t face insuperable obstacles in rising to the top of non-STEM fields given enough determination and hard work. Nothing in their college courses is impossible for them to learn if they try hard enough. That’s not true in STEM. Much of the advanced math required for performance at the top of STEM fields is literally impossible to learn for anyone without math ability deep into the top percentile. Determination and hard work can’t compensate.

The Kamala interview that wasn’t

George Rebane

Last night CNN’s prerecorded 18-minute interview with Kamala Harris, with attendant training wheels Walz, was a giant nothing-burger – a disappointment but not a surprise.  While Kamala was asked some decent questions, she predictably dodged all of them as did her partner in perfidy.  What galled me the most was how she was allowed to bullshit her way out of the question about her manifold and desperate flip-flops on policies she championed in 2019 and her new ones with which she now apes Trump.

Her response to this line of questioning by Dana Bash was that “My values have not changed.”  And I almost gagged when Bash allowed her to skate with that.  Bash’s next question should immediately have been, ‘That may be, but the whole country has witnessed you doing 180s on your previously championed policies, and it will be your policies and not some ephemeral values that will impact the American people.  On what new evidence did you base your policy pirouettes?’ – or something in that vein.  Kamala’s lame answer again confirmed the low opinion that Democrats have of their loyal, yet demonstrably and reliably ignorant, constituencies who regularly swallow such answers with nary a qualm.

This brings me to my general complaint about the dismal state of today’s journalism that primarily includes the conservative media like Fox News.  Starting with lead political anchor Bret Baier, none of them are either smart or quick enough to follow up Democrats’ stated allegations about Republicans, wrong-headed realities, etc with ‘Sir, you’ve just stated an unsubstantiated allegation to my question ‘On what did you base your claim that …?’.  Please tell us again on what evidence do you base this and similar allegations you have made.’  Always ask for evidence when offered allegations.

Such a follow-up question will inevitably expose bullshit, and may even lead to a more productive discussion.  Instead, our stalwarts of the Fourth Estate just calmly soldier on to their next question to receive a similarly dissembled response by the progressive pundit/politician being interviewed.  And in the end, the interview has again turned into a non-interview in which the devious interviewee’s non-responses were not even exposed.  We viewers (well, some of us) expect to receive such performances on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, … .  But having to regularly consume them on outlets that attempt to champion the Right is downright nauseating.

Place your Trump/Harris bets

George Rebane – 28aug24

Suppose parties A, favoring Trump, and B, favoring Harris want to bet on the election.  And to add spice to the affair, suppose A has made known his assessed probability P_A that Trump will win, but all that B has done so far is to assure everyone that Harris has the election in the bag.  However, B has yet to reveal his assessed probability P_B that Harris will win.  How can such a bet be negotiated so that B’s real belief in Harris’ victory becomes known.  Perhaps, we can let money do the talking, and see where that takes us.

Let’s say after some dickering, A and B agree in principle that the cash bet should result in the expected winnings of both parties be equal – what could be more fair than that?  As usual, both parties calculate their expected winnings by multiplying their cash payoffs by their belief (probability) of their candidate’s victory.  But no matter whether both use their probabilities or not, the dollar amounts of the bet are agreed on – A bets C_A that B will win with Kamala’s victory, and B bets C_B that A will win with Trump’s victory.  The relative sizes of the amounts reflect the odds of the bet.  So in principle the bet reflects the equality of expected payoffs for each party.

                                    For party A:                P_AC_B = (1 – P_A)C_A

                                    For party B:                P_BC_A = (1 – P_B)C_B

From these two relations we can immediately estimate each party’s belief probability.

To obtain the resulting odds of the bet we solve for the ratio, say, C_A/C_B from each party’s perspective.

Suppose now that A has already declared his belief at P_A = 0.2, indicating that Trump will probably not win.  Substituting this in the above equation calculates the minimum odds A will accept at C_A/C_B = 0.2/(1-0.2) = 1/4.  So A should be willing to accept any bet where C_A ≤ 4C_B. 

Since it is clear from B’s ample display of TDS in which he claims that Trump will surely lose, we can safely assume that P_B > P_A = 0.2.  So let’s say that the bet amounts were negotiated to be C_A = $100 and C_B  = $500.  This most certainly satisfies A’s required odds, and yields the pro forma estimate of P_B ≥ 500/(500+100) = 0.833.  From this we can conclude that B’s odds calculate to C_A/C_B = (1-0.833)/0.833 = 1/5, and that he will most likely not accept C_B > 5C_A.  The negotiated amounts satisfy all these conditions, so it appears that we have a satisfactory bet and in the process have ferreted out that B’s belief in Kamala’s victory is at most 5/6 since he will not give A better odds than 5:1.  Now go forth and wager prudently.

'Democrats’ Deception May Win the Presidential Election Again'

[This commentary by Gerard Baker, former editor and now editor-at-large of the WSJ, appears in the 27aug24 edition of the newspaper’s op-ed pages.  It succinctly nails a fundamental tenet of Rebane Doctrine numerously repeated in these pages over the years.  (“…, you can fool all the people all the time.”)  Since the publisher invites it to be shared on Facebook, I offer this respectfully purloined version below in its entirety; the original may be read here. gjr]

Gerard Baker

You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.

Mario Cuomo’s adage has been updated and adapted by his successors in the modern Democratic Party. The duality they present to voters either side of an election is a deception that has defined American politics and culture for the past 20 years.

As they campaign for office, they present a kind of idealized version of themselves to the electorate as mainstream Americans, seeking merely to bring a little unity and compassion to a fundamentally great country in need of reform. Once in office they act as if they have a mandate to remake a benighted country, to reorder an unjust system, to replace American exceptionalism with European social democracy, and to rewrite the nation’s values with the precepts of their cultural Marxism.

They campaign, to borrow the late governor’s taxonomy, in the poetry of Robert Frost. They govern in the prose of Herbert Marcuse.

Last week in Chicago we got the poetry, a Frostian pastoral of Democrats posing as regular Americans, honest toilers in a darkening landscape (of their own making, as they didn’t tell us). They propose only to enlighten with their benevolence.

I don’t mean poetry in the literal sense. With a few exceptions the quality of our political oratory is dire—and plumbed the usual depths last week. We have reached the point where even the actual poetry is prosaic, as the left’s unofficial poet laureate, Amanda Gorman, demonstrated with another of her recitations of platitudinous banalities and leaden progressive nostrums delivered in her trademark phony iambic meter.

The “poetry,” such as it was—Michelle Obama’s speech was the only moment of the week when the oratory came close to matching the ambition—was figurative, an attempt to paint colorful images of the promise of another Democratic presidency.

Its centerpiece was the semifictional self portrait of the presidential candidate herself. In her own biography-heavy, substance-light acceptance speech, Kamala Harris presented herself as that familiar image from popular story telling—“the happy warrior,” the all-American fighter for our nation’s finest objectives—the tough prosecutor who waged war on crime just as she will wage war on illegal immigration; the proud patriot, product of a classically diverse, American, immigrant family; the commander in chief, ready to face down America’s enemies abroad; the staunch friend of America’s allies—Israel, especially—unafraid to use the military’s “lethal” force in their support, as she explicitly reminded us.

This verbal illusion of American iconography was reinforced by the crowd’s chants of “USA! USA!” like ecstatic fans at the Olympics, and a waving sea of red white and blue “USA” placards.

But the poetry last week came also in the constantly retold personal narrative that was the real theme of the convention. The winsome second gentleman telling cute stories about gawky first dates and tasty brisket like something from the pages of a 1950s yearbook; saccharine testimonies to Ms. Harris’s innate goodness from childhood friends and professional acquaintances; above all, that Giant Middle American Cliché made flesh himself—Gov., sorry Coach, Tim Walz—practically pulling the high-school football playbook out of his back pocket and urging the nation to vote for him so he could go out there one more time and win just one for the Grifter.

Is anyone fooled?

The answer, I am afraid, is yes. Every time.

President Biden is only the most recent example. The lifelong centrist Democrat who campaigned as a regular Joe promising to do his best to heal a divided and damaged country in 2020, promptly became the vessel for a Bernie Sanders policy agenda, splurged trillions in expansive government spending and championed the left’s continuing cultural reformation of America. He prepares to leave office apparently convinced he belongs in the pantheon of great social reformers next to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.

Barack Obama reminded us in his speech how successful his own self-portrayal was in 2008 as the unifying figure who could bring cohesion and order to a nation battered from the chaos of war and financial crisis, but who again governed, thanks to rigid internal party discipline, to implement an agenda that produced seemingly irreversible shifts in the economic and social fabric.

Above all we were reminded how far Democrats managed to move the needle in government in their direction along the political spectrum by the appearance of those two aging icons from another epoch—Bill and Hillary Clinton. Mr. Clinton’s presidency, which ended a little more than two decades ago, now looks to most Democratic activists like an exercise in political reaction. If many of its ideas were preached on a university campus today, they would probably get the speaker canceled.

Republicans also pitch themselves in campaigns as unifying centrists but in office they have too often lacked the ambition or determination actually to govern as Republicans. It is to his credit—and a reason he is widely loathed—that Donald Trump bucked that trend.

Does anyone doubt that a Harris presidency would continue the Democratic pattern of divergent pre-election promise and postelection reality? Will a President Harris more closely resemble Candidate Harris from last week’s convention than Vice President Harris from the last four years or Candidate Harris from 2019? If you think she will, then it isn’t poetry you’ve been reading. It’s a fairy tale.

Scattershots – 25aug24 (updated 28aug24)

George Rebane

62 since ’62.  We’re happy to report that today my sweetie-pie and I celebrate having been married since 25 August 1962.  We were both then undergrads (seniors) at UCLA.  Now it’s two children, six grandchildren, and seven great-grandchildren later after a long and wonderful road with some inevitable miles unpaved.  Gott sei Dank.

Lies, more lies, and blatant lies.  Among other things, these campaigns will be remembered by all as having issue debates with little basis in reality.  The Repubs are still not weaned of their bombast and bravura when describing their own accomplishments, and the Dems are simply over the top.  Not a single one of their characterization of Trump’s and their own administrations comes anywhere near being factual when compared to the historical record published by the several federal agencies.  Voters who care are left to dig out their own takes on reality and the possible promised futures.  To this degree was it ever thus?  Not in my lifetime. (We await the debates.)

[28aug24 update]  Funny business in the polls.  Rasmussen reports (here) that the nation’s pollsters are exposing their leftward tilt by holding back recent polling data that shows Kamala’s convention bounce waning.  Their leftward lurch is such that “people are holding data or not releasing polls to leave Harris-favorable polling alive in the aggregate.  Why put a new poll out if you like the results you got last time?" 

Level 2 AGI is nigh

[Roland Fernandez has worked for Microsoft Research for over 25 years where he is a senior researcher on the company’s advanced AI projects.  I am indebted to him for keeping me up to date on Artificial General Intelligence developments that are now accelerating us on the road to the Singularity.  I asked him to summarize the latest advance toward AGI that was recently announced to the research community.  He also happens to be my son-in-law and kindly submitted the following. gjr]

Roland Fernandez

OpenAI, the company that has produced ChatGPT, GPT 3, and GPT-4 (here), has defined 5 levels to track their progress towards Artificial General Intelligence (AGI):

Level 1:  Chatbots, AI with conversational language

Level 2:  Reasoners, human-level problem solving

Level 3:  Agents, trusted systems that can initiate actions

Level 4:  Innovators, AI that can aid in invention

Level 5:  Organizations. AI that can do the work of an organization

These levels were presented in a July 9 2024 all-hands meeting (more here), where company leaders told employees that ChatGPT (based on GPT 4o) was currently at level 1, but they believed they were nearing level 2, with new model developments.

Level 2 can be defined as an AI that can reliably utilize planning and reasoning in solving multiple-step problems.  This could include skills such as performing autonomous research on the web, on behalf of the user, or working out the answers to tricky math or science questions.   The enabling technology behind this new capability is code-named Strawberry (previously leaked as “Q*”).  The company has previously stated that they consider such a reasoning skill to be critical to reaching AGI. (more here)

An X user called “@iruletheworldmo” has been flooding the AI community on X with rumors of a “Strawberry” model being released on Aug-15-2024, presumably from OpenAI.  The user has amassed 30,000 followers over the last 10 days, an unheard of achievement.

Trump’s November Chances – 11aug24 update

George Rebane

This is a lament.  From his statements and recent – post Tim Walz – behavior it looks to me that Donald Trump has really gone off the rails and is headed for a massive defeat in November.  As the record of these pages confirms and given the available choices, I have been a qualified Trump supporter ever since he became the Republican nominee in 2016.  During the entire time I have been chagrined at his tendency for bombast, bravura, and exaggeration, especially when on the campaign trail.

Today, when finally presented with an ideal pair of very vulnerable opponents, and eight years of experience under his belt in how his off-track shooting from the lip has been received, he still pays no mind to the harm he does to himself and the Republican party by continuing on the same path.  And he is doing it proudly as he has declared to his audiences that he has no intention of changing his gratuitous personal attacks on anyone that happens to cross his mind while on the podium.

So now the country’s conservatives, capitalists, and small government devotees have to suffer through daily doses of free leftwing talking points served up to the lamestream media by Trump.  Their news stories and commentaries almost write themselves from the copy spouted by our former president.  Instead of focusing on the rich trove of Democrats’ lies and policy screw-ups from the Obama and Biden/Harris administrations, Trump continues to be the petulant third grader on the playground focusing on lurid descriptions of his opponents’ real and imagined personal shortcomings.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of his campaign is that he has no strong adult advisors in his inner circle who can tell him daily when he needs zip his lip.  It’s hard for me to believe he doesn’t have a cadre or even a small clutch of such people in his inner circle.  But it is clear that he is flying blind without the aid of such critical navigators.  Were such people to exist, we would by now have seen them resigning one-by-one as Trump continued to ignore their counsel.

Given this ongoing travail, my own assessment of his probability of winning in November started with a paltry 0.45 and eked up to 0.48 (here) after the assassination attempt.  But taking into account what has happened since, my belief in his chances for regaining the White House has plummeted to 0.22, or a bit more than one in five.  This new assessment accurately represents the dour mood that the Trump campaign has me in.

Scattershots – 4aug24

George Rebane

Kamala Harris is a DEI VP and now is a DEI candidate.  That was made clear when Joe Biden told the nation that his VP pick would be a “black woman”.  The lamestream media has now added that to their repertoire of Trump attacks for reminding the country of her qualifications for making Biden’s cut.  Of course, she was also a DEI office holder for all her previous positions before being anointed VP.  But now that progressive attribute has suddenly become tabu even as formerly compliant corporations are dropping DEI among their criteria for employment. The hypocrisy of the leftwing media is both unfathomable and unending.

The Project 2025 policy book was composed by Heritage authors many of whom were Trump cabinet members and advisors.  It mostly contains policy recommendations that conservatives believe.  One of Trump’s recent bevy of mixed messages – another one of his lipshots - is that he rejects P2025 in toto.  That is plainly not true, but it is just more grist for the Democrats’ mill in mischaracterizing what Trump proposes and what the document contains.  For example, being purveyed on the lamestream is the report that ‘90% of Americans’ are opposed to it.  That is a specious argument instigated by the Left’s media mouthpieces.  Ninety percent of Americans don’t know what P2025 is and much less what it contains; they are again just mouthing what the lying liberal outlets are telling them.

Vance’s cat lady remark - In a 2021 interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson, then-Senate-candidate Vance complained that the U.S. was being run by Democrats, corporate oligarchs and "a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they've made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too." (more here)  On its face the statement is true, and it’s also true upon deeper examination.  The lamestream’s actual attribution to Vance is that he claimed women and couples who have children are ‘worth more’ (to society) than those who are childless.  Well of course.  All other things being equal when comparing such cohorts, it’s not rocket science to acknowledge that our species would come to an end were it not for children being conceived, brought to term, and raised to adulthood, if for nothing else than to provide humankind continuity.  But such arguments are too deep to be pondered in the public square, and again advantage Left.

Climate Change Liars Unrepentant

George Rebane

As part of its overall evil intents for the future of America, the Democratic Party is comprised of the copious material liars on our political landscape.  Almost every pronouncement by their minions is refuted by the government’s own statistics ranging from inflation, the economic impact of the recent tax cuts, to border security.  However, their lies about climate change, upon which to base adoption of their destructive public policies, are almost certainly the most harmfully impactive on our quality of life.

In today’s WSJ internationally recognized climate researcher Bjorn Lomborg, of the Copenhagen Consensus and Stanford’s Hoover Institution, writes ‘Polar Bears, Dead Coral and Other Climate Fictions’ in which he outlines some of the major lies that persist in the public mind through the daily efforts of Democrats, their lamestream media, and progressives in general.  Some examples –

• There is no extinction danger to polar bears. Since hunting them has stopped, their populations have surged.
• Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is not being killed by rising temperatures, but instead has recovered itself to new record levels since the hurricane that damaged it in 2009.
• Small Pacific islands are not being swamped by rising sea levels, but instead are increasing in area due to natural processes involving the dynamics of old coral.
• “Killer heat wave” deaths are being misrepresented by a factor of 25. Their death rate has actually declined worldwide due to the rising prosperity provided by technology.  Cold kills 25 times more Americans, and that due mainly to our country’s climate policy boosted high energy costs.

Activists do the world a massive disservice by refusing to acknowledge facts that challenge their intensely doom-ridden worldview. There is ample evidence that man-made emissions cause changes in climate, and climate economics generally finds that the costs of these effects outweigh the benefits. But the net result is nowhere near catastrophic. The costs of all the extreme policies campaigners push for are much worse. All told, politicians across the world are now spending more than $2 trillion annually—far more than the estimated cost from climate change that these policies prevent each year.

Telling half-truths while piously pretending to “follow the science” benefits activists with their fundraising, generates clicks for media outlets, and helps climate-concerned politicians rally their bases. But it leaves all of us poorly informed and worse off.

Square Root Algo (more added)

George Rebane

Regular RR readers know of my interest in numeracy and promoting the practice of mental math to derive usable approximations without the use of calculators.  I argue that such skills are required by educated lay people so that they can quickly understand and vet claims made by politicians and pundits that involve the torrents of numbers with which we our public policies are delivered.

One useful tool is the ability to calculate the square root of any number to within a percent or so.  For example, when you hear that a wildfire has burned a 45 square mile area, how big is that really?  Numerous other problems that require a quick estimate of square roots are encountered daily by people whose desire to understand only penetrates the surface of (or bounces off) reports they hear.  So here’s a square root algo (algorithm to the purists) that I developed some time ago and have taught my numeracy students and shared with colleagues.

Culture Drives Reality

George Rebane

It is the unfortunate case that individuals can not only have their own opinions, but also their own facts that substantiate those opinions. – Rebane Doctrine

A person’s reality is a manifestation of his culture.  More specifically, an individual’s ontology or worldview of reality is, at a minimum, strongly influenced or maximally determined by the culture in which he was raised or has since adopted, and now lives.

This thesis has been argued by philosophers, historians, and psychologists for the better part of the last 50 years, and today goes a long way to explain the behaviorally cohesive cultural cohorts worldwide.  In America we have reverted into a strongly politicized polyglot of cultures (tribes?) whose diverse adherents no longer practice a common culture in the public square.  Instead, we take great pride in demonstrating to one and all our particular complement of unique behaviors which declare our cultural bona fides and tribe memberships.  And woe be it to anyone to dismiss, discredit, or discriminate against such behaviors as expressions of a sacrosanct culture whose dimensions include any combination of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.

Everyone has unique rights when operating under the obvious mantle of their culture, since all cultures are held to be valuable and of equal worth.  Actually, upon closer examination, some cultures have been and remain definitely worth more to humanity than others, especially if they derive from western or European cultures.

To illustrate the veracity of the above thesis, we can appeal to several examples that range from recorded history to current events from the present day.  We start by recognizing that one reality of human consciousness itself rose from a cultural transformation that reaches back to about 1200 BC (or BCE, if you prefer).  The late Princeton psychologist Julian Jaynes gave a very convincing account of how consciousness, in the sense of the rise of the personal agency of I/me, arose in the middle east during the 400 years of the so-called Dorian Invasions (1200 – 800 BC).

In his The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (1990) Jaynes describes how ‘pre-Dorian’ people, who then lived nomadically or in small towns and villages, actually saw and interacted with their gods.  They recorded such occasions and incidents in their written records and graphic arts (e.g. murals and pottery).  From early youth their cultures taught them to see and hear such gods, and behave as the gods’ agents, essentially expressing little or no of what we today call consciousness or ‘free  will’ – in short, you did what the gods prescribed ‘in vivo’ or in your culture’s recorded scriptures/myths.  Personal decision making and its attendant stress were minimized or even absent from such people’s lives. (more here)

In the pre-enlightenment age even the most advanced western nations/kingdoms had populations that overwhelmingly believed in and interacted with witches and other agents of evil.  They actually ‘saw’ witches fly and cast hideous spells, and therefore felt quite justified in denouncing them for extreme punishments by the authorities.  These beliefs were cemented early on by the religious teachings of their culture.

In more recent times we have teams of cultural anthropologists (e.g. Margaret Mead) who have encountered and studied primitive tribes with cultures that embed drastically different realities in their members.  An example of such a discovery occurred in the Papua-New Guinea highlands during the pre-war years.  There a tribe was discovered whose members believed that the world ended in the middle of a river on whose bank was their village.  They literally saw nothing of the other bank less than a hundred feet away.  Anthropologists visibly encamped on the other side were received as aliens emerging from a fog in their inflated dinghy.

A similar culture-induced reality was enjoyed by tribes on a neighboring island during the Pacific campaign of WW2.  The island had an airstrip for receiving cargo laden C-47 military transport aircraft.  To the natives these giant aircraft were bringers of never-before-seen wondrous things to enrich and expand their lives.  Not familiar with manufacturing processes, they believed “that the manufactured goods of the non-native culture had been created by spiritual means.”  And no matter how many times it was explained and demonstrated to them, they never saw the airplanes as mechanical things operated by humans – to them they were simply alive as large flying creatures.  When the war moved on and the airstrip was abandoned, the natives were bereft – the wondrous creatures stopped coming.  Their response was simple, they formed what became known as a ‘Cargo Cult’ whose members continued to maintain the landing strip, and built decoys in the shape of airplanes to attract more of these giant flying critters full of presents. The clear and demonstrated reality of the foreigners did nothing to change their culture-rooted alternate reality. (more here)

Neo-Marxism and Climate Change – the one-two punch

'The Death of Direct Democracy Has Been Understated', WSJ headline

George Rebane

The full court press of collectivist neo-Marxism in its progressive, woke, and Democratic Party versions pairs with the programmed hysteria of ‘Climate Change’ (nee global warming) as the two most significant and compelling worldviews being promoted across the globe by developed nations.  Both have now reached the heights of religion and actively reject any and all reasonable arguments to refute or falsify them – therefore both are ideologically and firmly anti-science.  Their maintenance in the public mind is through a steady and ubiquitous distribution of lies across the educational, entertainment, and news media.

A correspondent sent me a short piece (here) by Chris Martz on the current heatwave harassing the eastern part of the country.  Led by the notorious climate science high priest and master of the 'Hockey Stick', UPenn’s Dr Michael Mann, and his big lie du jour is again that such weather/temperature episodes are “unprecedented”.  Martz cites the four actual historically high June heatwaves that occurred in 1936, 1944, 1953, and 1988.  Nothing has matched them since, and he presents temperature data from several cities on the current heatwave demonstrating their non-sensational statistics.

If we take a slightly deeper look at just the four cited record-setting heatwaves, and treat them as Poisson arrivals (a correct and common approach to use with all kinds of sequentially occurring randomly independent events), then we calculate an arrival rate of 4 per 52 years or 0.0769 arrivals/year.  An even lower arrival rate can be argued if we extend the period covered by these four events to the present day, giving us the arrival rate of 4 per 88 years or 0.0455 arrivals/year.  Neither is exactly the blistering pace supported by the ongoing climate hysteria.

In fact, we can now use the well-known Poisson process formula for computing the probability that k = 0,1,2,3,… record breaking heatwaves should have occurred in selected time periods after the 1988 heatwave, given that the world was indeed getting alarmingly hotter.  (BTW, for the record my position on climate change remains anchored to the interpretation from the Copenhagen Consensus Center as proselytized by its president Bjorn Lomborg.)

So, without further ado the Poisson formula for the probability P(k) of k events in the time period in which arrival rate λ is calculated is simply P(k) = exp(-λ)*λ^k/k!.  For the 0.0769 arrivals/year rate we can examine the following 36 year period (1988-2024) during which time we would have expected an average of 36*0.0769 = 2.77 record setting heatwaves to arrive.

The graph below displays the calculated probabilities that at least the indicated number of heatwaves should have occurred in the last 36 years given that the climate process indicated by the recorded heatwave arrivals continues.  Of course, the argument made by the climate change calamatists is that things have steadily gotten hotter so that the arrival rate of record setting heatwaves should really have been increasing.  This would have upped the probabilities indicated in the graph.

As it stands, we should have had at least one additional record setting heatwave with probability 0.937 during this period, and we have had none.  This does not support the ongoing global propaganda of a rapidly warming earth.  (30jun24 more here)

California does not teach kids to read

'All people are naturally political animals.  Politics is a dominant factor in how we run our daily affairs in both the public and private spheres.  The individual who sniffs that they are above or not concerned with politics is simply delusional or worse.   For humans politics is fundamental.'  Charles Krauthammer paraphrased.

George Rebane

In the 22jun24 WSJ we learn that California public schools are even worse than what we have discovered over the years since Great Society policies were launched in the late 1960s.  Former English teacher Daniel Buck, now at the Fordham Institute, writes ‘California Will Teach Kids Anything Except How to Read’, wherein he describes the latest neo-Marxist turn of the screw on children entrusted to the state for their education.  The bottom line of our grade school reading curricula is that “Gender ideology, social justice and Marxist ideas are all welcome in the classroom. Phonics isn’t.”

Most recently – “In 2021 the state ignited a brawl over its mandated ethnic-studies curriculum. Its content and instructional practices have roots in 1960s activism against American hegemony; the goal is to “liberate” students from the oppressive forces of capitalism, patriarchy and settler colonialism.

In 2023 California implemented a new mathematics framework, the first edition of which included “whiteness” and “social justice” as topics for instruction. The goal was to raise the “sociopolitical consciousness” of students—in math class. A revised framework was notably less political but required teachers to use a quantifiably ineffective approach to teaching called “discovery” learning, where students must be left to “discover” their way into long division or algebraic equations.”

As we have long pointed out in these pages, the evil Democratic Party needs legions of double dummies ‘graduating’ from progressive run academe to assure the re-election of socialist politicians whose ideology and the impact of their policies are not understood by their usual cohort of constituents.  This beat, not only goes on, but becomes stronger by the year.  An example staring us in the face daily is the output of polls showing enormous support for our Bumblebrain president.  One wonders who are these tens of millions of very light thinkers who walk around in a brain fog with no ability to give a reasonable basis for their political beliefs.

Inflation? Most people don’t have a clue.

George Rebane

Evidence rolls in daily that Americans in the large do not have a clue about what is inflation and how it affects their financial wellbeing and quality of life.  This wholesale ignorance is constantly being reinforced by our news media of all political colorations and the Democratic Party.  The egregious journalists mostly congregate on the Right since they have no hidden agenda to hide the meaning and impact of inflation today spawned by Bidenomics.

The confusion arises from the use of the single misleading ‘inflation’ to variously describe three distinct and separate attributes of inflation – inflation level, inflation rate of change, and the change in inflation’s rate of change.  (Mathematically these are known as simply the first three derivatives of inflation’s price curve – respectively the zeroth, first, and second derivatives.)  The figure below illustrates.

Today we hear all kinds of reports citing inflation numbers that totally confound the average American – ‘inflation was xx% under the previous administration’, ‘inflation is now higher/lower, ‘inflation is going up/down’, ‘inflation is slowing’, and so on.  What almost no one understands is that claims that 'inflation is going down' is a bald-faced lie designed to fool the light thinkers.  Whatever the current level of inflation - i.e. Biden's 9% increase in market prices (here) - it is already baked in.  You will continue paying them and they will NOT go down as long as demand increases and supply does not.  So Team Biden's propaganda that they are 'reducing inflation' (#1) is utter BS; even if they reduce the inflation rate (#2), the current level of inflation will remain and prices will still go up.

Nobelist Milton Freedman and his forebears long ago advised us that inflated price increases are always a monetary phenomenon in which the government ‘prints’ and releases more fiat money into an economy to chase the same amount of goods and services, hence prices increase and we call the whole thing inflation.  The overall impact of inflation has always been that prices only ratchet up (increase monotonically) over time, and consequently the dollar in your pocket inevitably buys less stuff tomorrow than it does today.  But that is only the beginning of the story of government misuses of inflation to abuse and steal from its citizens.  Historically, great empires have inevitably laid themselves open to collapse and/or invasion by diluting/cheapening its money to the point that people no longer want to use it as the medium of exchange, unit of account, and store of wealth.  Hence, the economy’s wealth generation grinds to a halt and tax revenues can no longer pay for implementing public policies including maintaining its sovereignty with secure borders and an able military.

The real story of inflation is much more opaque.  Inflation is really a multi-level tax levied by governments that can no longer openly increase tax rates, so instead the steal money from their own citizens.  Notice that over the years the general level of people’s wealth has not increased much, if at all.  To be sure, enormous wealth has been generated in our economy by the commercial/industrial sector due to the invisible hand of market capitalism and ever-present competition.  And along with that, the quality of life for the broad population has increased by the introduction and affordability of all kinds of new products and services generated by corporations and entrepreneurs to whom justifiably the overwhelming majority of the new wealth accrues, since they are the ones who successfully invest their own monies and undertake the risks such ventures demand.  In spite of that, a large share of the population still lives paycheck-to-paycheck and has precious little saved for discretionary spending, investments, or a rainy day.  Increasing their debt and succumbing to more government welfare is their only alternative.

Looking under the hood of our economy and taking note of how our government inserts itself to gather tribute from the unsuspecting masses, it becomes clear that it is Big Brother run by sleazebag politicians and their deep state bureaucracies that effectively and continuously scrape off any ‘excess wealth’ that may accrue to the unsuspecting on main street who are lulled by a constant stream of bread and circuses from our political betters and their elites.  The whole program of mollification begins with a public education system that guarantees our young will be carefully taught to believe in the largess of government and the evils of private enterprise.

Two years ago I presented RR readers with the chapter and verse of how all this perfidy is executed in the public square.  You can and should review ‘Inflation Tax – Silent Rape by Government’, it will put some scary meat on the bone of the above arguments.  Unfortunately the bottom line here remains immutably unchanged.  We witness no awareness of all this by our friends and neighbors – you have yet to see protesting throngs with pitchforks and torches demonstrating in front of government buildings across the land.  (Also check out this post's comment stream.)  No one is aware of what is being quietly vacuumed from their wallets by the various levels of government ranging from local to federal.  All is well, just reduce your carbon footprint and embrace DEI wherever it may next be introduced – behave yourself.

Bayes and Monty Hall

George Rebane

From some reader comments it seems that there continues to be some confusion about how the 3-door Monty Hall relates to Bayes theorem, and how that relationship is different from some more usual applications of Bayes.  We have covered Bayesian probability extensively in these pages over the years (for example here).

The fundamental takeaway in the use of Bayesian probability is that 1) all of our knowledge, compiled of countless propositions, is and can be formulated in terms of their probability of being true; and 2) knowledge (i.e. any given proposition) is most correctly updated with new information/data by combining its prior truth probability with the truth probability of the newly obtained info/data according to the Bayes formula (see above link).  The updated (posterior) probability of the proposition may be an increased or decreased value depending on the nature of what new stuff was learned.  All critters know how to do that instinctively with an evolved Bayes-like algo that has promoted their species’ survival.

A more usual application of Bayes can be illustrated with a wet driveway which you discover when you awaken and look out the window.  Did it rain or did your neighbor again soak your driveway with his wayward lawn sprinkler.  You know that rain was predicted to start overnight with a 20% chance, and you also recall that your neighbor sets his sprinkler to do a predawn watering two or three times a week.  You decide to set that probability at 2.5/7 = 0.36.  Should you still carry an umbrella today?

Now for Monty Hall.  I explain the solution to my students by upping the number of doors to a thousand behind one of which is a new care, each of the others hiding a smelly goat.  The contestant nominates a door to open.  It’s obvious that the probability of having a car behind it is 1/1000, and the probability that it’s behind one of the other unopened doors is 999/1000, almost certainty.  Now for the duration of the problem it is important to realize that no matter what happens before the prized door is opened, THESE TWO PROBABILITIES DON’T CHANGE.

Monty knows the door with the car, and he won’t open it until the contestant makes the final pick of the door he wants opened.  So in the first version of our game Monte opens 998 doors with nothing but goats behind them.  Only two doors remain closed – one initially nominated by the contestant, and the other belonging to the set NOT nominated by the contestant.  Knowing that the probabilities have not changed, the contestant knows that he will almost certainly (999/1000) win the car by switching to the door Monty has left closed for it’s the only other door that could possibly hide the car.  The remaining unopened door will always have the complimentary probability (N-1)/N no matter the value of N representing the original number of closed doors.

In the classic Monty Hall problem we had N = 3.  So, of course, it always paid the contestant to switch since his probability of winning doubled from 1/3 to 2/3.  In fact, no matter the value of N, it always pays for the contestant to switch after Monte has opened M doors where now M can range from one to N – 2.  This can be seen from our N = 1000 door problem even when Monte opens only one door.  Switching then will increase the contestant’s win probability from 0.00100000 to 0.00100200.  We see this by writing the formula for winning after switching to a door selected from the N – 1 – M remaining closed doors – i.e. the new evidence is opening M of N-1 prizeless doors.  In that case the win probability of switching is easily shown to be (1/(N-1-M))*(N-1)/N.  In our case of N = 1000 and M = 1 calculates to (1/998)*(999/1000) = 0.00100200.  And when we use Monte Hall’s N = 3, M = 1 we have (1/1)*(2/3) = 2/3, where switching doubles the probability of winning.

Scattershots – 26may24 (updated 29may24)

George Rebane

Gracian (#261) speaks to Bumblebrain – Do not persist in folly.  Some make a duty of failure and having started down the wrong road, think it a badge of character to continue; they accuse themselves of error before the bar of their inner selves but before the bar of the outer world they excuse themselves, to the end that if at the start of their unwisdom they were marked imprudent, in its prosecution they are marked fools; neither rash promise, nor wrong resolve lays obligation upon any man; and yet some will on this account continue in their sulkiness, and carry on in their contrariness, wishing to be known as constant in their idiocies.

Reasonable fear of Islam.  If Islamophobia is the “unreasonable fear” of Islam, then what is the term for a reasonable fear of Islam?  I am among those who identify with such a reasonable fear the evidence for which abounds as proclaimed by both Muslim intellectuals and the Muslim street.  As an example, consider the opening comment to the 7may24 Sandbox (here).

[29may24 update]  The New York judicial system is rotten to the core as demonstrated by the Trump hush money trial judge’s instructions to the jury.  He never told them what was the specific crime that Trump was supposed to have committed when his financial records showed the $130K payment to Cohen as a ‘legal expense’ (which it was).  Instead he invited each juror to come to their own conclusion on whatever crime suited each the best, and the court would still accept that as a ‘unanimous’ judgement.  So now the precedent is set that New York (and other?) juries can be exhorted to convict the defendant on whatever crime each juror would gin up – no agreement or cohesive thought needed.  That’s one way to  avoid hung juries and nail whoever the trial judge does not like.

Believable and Indistinguishable Digital Avatars

George Rebane

One of the collateral developments to the coming Singularity (here and here) is the advent of AI-generated ‘digital persons’ or avatars that are so realistic that they are indistinguishable from the real thing.  The technology today permits the avatar designer to select either photos or video sequences and audio recording of a real person and generate a video of his/her avatar in any given context/background and deliver an on-camera monologue from a textual input.

Here are two recent examples of this.  One is of a popular Ukrainian singer cast as the spokesperson for the country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (here).  The other is of the pop-star Taylor Swift delivering a highly improbable lecture on the generation of the Taylor series approximation of an arbitrary mathematical function. (here)

The obvious problem for the population at large now becomes one of authentication or vetting of such characters encountered online on sites professing to dispense news, commentaries, politicians’ pronouncements, etc.  The industry has yet to settle on common, let alone minimal, authentication protocols for the consumer.  An attempt at this is made in the Ukrainian video where the avatar immediately announces that she is a ‘digital person’ and cites the display of a QR code with a link to the website of the ministry that claims to have launched the avatar, and where the spoken text is posted.

These problems may be bypassed in the entertainment field where now we will see fresh episodes of ‘Seinfeld’ and ‘I Love Lucy’ along with new movies starring John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, and Marilyn Monroe.  It will be a brave new world of long-dormant property rights being litigated from here to eternity – truly a new age of full employment for tort lawyers.

Scattershots – 31mar24

George Rebane

‘The Rise of Third-World U.S.A: An Immigrant’s View’  The rapid and visible decline of America under the ministrations of the nation’s socialists (aka Democrats) has long been an alarming theme of these pages.  Now this tarnishing of our shining city on a hill is even apparent to immigrants, at least of the legal variety.  Even Bumblebrain has had to relabel our land as one of “possibility” from its historical land of opportunity.  One immigrant observes –

“This demotion of America doesn’t happen all at once. Like the frog slowly boiled in water, we mistake the new conditions as tolerable. Creeping socialist policies in economics that fuel inflation, increase government control and misallocation of capital; the weaponizing of the justice system against political opponents; the decline of law and order, from the border to our cities; the lowering of standards and enabling of bad behavior—it all looks too familiar to a third-world nation. It’s tragic because, after America, there is nowhere else to go.”

The rise of the burger flippers.  $20/hr is the new minimum wage mandated by Sacramento’s butt-stupidos.  The dictum goes into effect tomorrow in California’s fast food outlets, and promises to reduce employment while not decreasing poverty by one whit – oh yes, and you’ll be paying more for your Big Mac. (more here)

Scattershots – 24mar24

George Rebane

Some laments du jour that keep bubbling to the surface.

Progressives believe that there is no truth in or benefits from policy propositions that have not been tried and demonstrated to work.  That is the prime reason why there are few liberal entrepreneurs and why socialists are so risk averse.  Their best repartee for rejecting novel (to them) proposals is, ‘Show me where your proposal for undertaking XX is working.’  They also reject the failures of their own repeated policy mistakes by claiming errors in execution which will be corrected on the next attempt.

The leftists’ innate inability to reason is nowhere better highlighted than in promoting New York’s civil ‘fraud’ case against Trump, the outrageous cash judgement against him, and the intent to financially ruin/cripple him (and his presidential campaign) by granting him a ridiculously short time to raise almost half billion dollars in cash.  It is an act of punitive jurisprudence with no basis in law or fact, and no defrauded victims.  Yet it is justice embraced by all the progressive elites, and their thoughtless and lightly read Democrat constituencies.

No national conservative media really tells it like it is.  Led by Fox News, they are all reticent (afraid?) to point out the real reason why Democrats, led by Frankfurt school socialists, propose and implement anti-American legislation and regulations.  No one points out that their real objective is to eliminate American hegemony (the world’s white hat sheriff) and its opposition toward achieving an autocratic global government.  The apparent opposition of the conservatives only penetrates into arcane intellectual arguments of how unreasonable, unworkable, and/or silly are the machinations of leftwing governance.  In short, they characterize progressives as still good Americans who just have bad luck when they try to think.

‘The Intellectuals and Socialism’

George Rebane

F.A. Hayek was one of the world’s foremost economists and a giant among the original thinkers of the 20^th century.  In this post I want to interest readers in his ideas and works with a short discussion of one of his small and often overlooked monograms – The Intellectuals and Socialism - published in 1949, the year I arrived on these shores.

From the monogram currently published by the Mercatus Center of George Washington University we read,  “Friedrich A. Hayek, who won the Nobel Prize for Economic Science in 1974, is best known for the book the Road to Serfdom (1944), which has been widely translated.  Receiving doctorates in law and economics from the University of Vienna, Hayek served on the faculties of the universities of London, Chicago, Freiburg, and Salzburg.  (His major books may be seen here.)  Hayek has attracted a growing body of scholarship, and in February 2000 a writer in The New Yorker observed that ‘it is hardly an exaggeration to refer to the twentieth century as the Hayek century.’”

One of the main lessons from the monogram is the reader’s ability to distinguish between the purveyors of ideas variously, and often carelessly, labeled as ‘theorists’, ‘experts’, and ‘intellectuals’.  The first two are people who originate ideas and those who are actually able to implement ideas by applying their skills.  However, it is the countless intellectuals with whom we should concern ourselves.  They are overwhelmingly of the Left and populate our media, academe, institutions, and bureaucracies.  Hayek defines them as follows.

“The term "intellectuals," however, does not at once convey a true picture of the large class to which we refer, and the fact that we have no better name by which to describe what we have called the secondhand dealers in ideas is not the least of the reasons why their power is not understood. Even persons who use the word "intellectual" mainly as a term of abuse are still inclined to withhold it from many who undoubtedly perform that characteristic function. This is neither that of the original thinker nor that of the scholar or expert in a particular field of thought. The typical intellectual need be neither: he need not possess special knowledge of anything in particular, nor need he even be particularly intelligent, to perform his role as intermediary in the spreading of ideas. What qualifies him for his job is the wide range of subjects on which he can readily talk and write, and a position or habits through which he becomes acquainted with new ideas sooner than those to whom he addresses himself.” (emphasis mine)

The intellectuals are the distributors and champions of ideas formulated by the elites.  They are drawn to the Left and socialism primarily because of its simplistic utopian vision of the future.  This is opposed to the Right’s ideology having always emphasized individual liberty and its manifold benefits.  In short, the Left’s intellectuals distribute simple easy-to-understand, high-level ideas to the masses, while those of the Right attempt to communicate their more complex ideas of, say, liberty, individual effort, and market capitalism on a person-to-person basis.

We are a Republic, NOT a Democracy

George Rebane

The country’s socialists and globalists have found the corruption of language to best serve their purpose of blinding Americans to the critical aspects of our society and culture.  First and foremost is today’s established custom of considering precise semantics to be somewhere between irrelevant and unimportant, and most certainly politically incorrect.

As an example, many of us have come to accept open borders on the basis of promoting ‘immigration’, firm in the knowledge that today’s invasion of illegal aliens from countless countries violating our law is somehow similar to the process that populated our empty lands in days gone by, for are we not a country of immigrants?  No one from the highest levels of government to main street wants to acknowledge that immigration is a two-party process between willing participants – a pact between a discriminating government and the alien seeking residency in a new land.  Using the correct legal term ‘illegal alien’ to describe those wading across the river (formerly also known as wetbacks) has now become proscribed and not for proper use in a public forum.  Instead the naked term ‘immigrant’ is now the norm in lamestream media, and the right-of-center outlets barely use the appended ‘illegal immigrant’, all preferring more obfuscating labels like ‘migrant’ to describe the foreign lawbreakers crossing our borders.

Other similar examples can be offered to illustrate the desecration and demeaning of our language over the last several decades.

Perhaps the most egregious and dangerous of such examples is the new idea promoted by collectivists, especially of the woke variety, that our nation is a democracy that promotes (civil) equality.  Our Founders were keenly aware that democracies, promoted under the banner of indiscriminating equality quickly devolve into autocracies cum tyrannies.  This is the reason that they conceived and formed our nation to hold liberty sacrosanct within a constitutional republic, governed under a document that severely limits the powers of government.  As the thinking reader knows, universal equality and liberty are incompatible.  Our founding principles recognize and promote equality in the sense that we Americans are equal only under our laws and in the eyes of God.  Elsewhere, most certainly in our Constitution, equality is not mentioned and liberty is supreme.

Our socialists know this truth, and have twisted our public education, abetted by the media, to preach their unquestionable glories of equality cum equity in all things.  The damage to our republic that this perversion has caused was already evident almost sixty years ago.  Dan Smoot was one of the nation’s leading conservative commentators back then, and in 1966 he recorded this very clear and succinct 10-minute commentary about the real difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic (here), and the danger of our citizenry remaining confused about the two.  Today that confusion has been replaced by total ignorance.

US Drops to 25th Place in Index of Economic Freedom

George Rebane

The Heritage Foundation published its 2024 edition of its Index of Economic Freedom (here) for all the countries of the world.  Thanks to Bidenomics the US continues to drop in the prestigious ratings to its historically lowest place.  And the alert reader is already aware of California's rank in the various freedoms being in the toilet among the states as recently reported in Cato’s ‘Freedom in the 50 States’ (here).

What continues to shake the confidence of so many Americans in their ignorant and/or socialist neighbors is that they have no clue that the more a nation or state restricts economic freedoms, the lower is its citizens’ standard of living.  Our leftwingers just continue voting for Democrats who promise to curtail business activities, reduce personal freedoms, and ‘tax the rich’ while expecting bigger checks from the government.  The graphic below summarizes it all.

They are VERY different from us

George Rebane

I view with reinvigorated alarm today’s broadcast joys of socialists, wokesters, liberals, and leftwingers in general celebrating the $400M+ fine demanded of Trump for what is termed his  committing ‘civil fraud’.  They uniformly and unanimously agree with the ‘legal basis’ on which the New York attorney general prosecuted and the judge adjudicated the Trump trial.  All these people look forward to a totalitarian state in which capitalism is banned, the beneficial mechanisms of market pricing, and the ownership of private property are dispensed with.  That is exactly the harbinger that letting the verdict stand will foster across the land.  (And students of our Founders and Bastiat know that the fundamental rights upon which our personal security and manifold liberties are based will also disappear.)

The other cohort of people celebrating Trump’s fine are those too stupid to think through these ramifications.  All their little TDS sotted pea brains can muster up is that if it hurts Trump, it must be good.

Nevertheless, some on the Right still believe that we can find common ground to reunite as the America of yesteryear – this even though no such path has been identified.  RR invites these worthies to step forward and illuminate us with their vision of how we regain E Pluribus Unum.  (And here is info on a related and contributing problem in our land.)

Scattershots – 9feb24 (updated 17feb24)

George Rebane

KJP, Biden’s excuse for a press secretary, defended the president’s dementia – attested to in the recent special prosecutor Robert Hur report about his mishandling classified documents - by reading from a desperately compiled list of Republicans who have misspoken in the past.  That tack further illustrates how intellectually challenged are most members of Team Biden by confusing the constant stream of forgetfulness, mistakes, and malaprops that come out of our sitting president’s mouth with the one-offs that most mentally healthy people make now and then.  One can also counter this argument by pointing out that it isn’t ignorance about Joe’s condition at all, but intimate knowledge of the man’s incapability of handling spontaneous communications in the public forum.  Therefore, his exposure to such ‘opportunities’ must be minimized at all times during this election year.  Half the country’s consumers of lamestream media are also clueless about this aspect of the man they voted for.

Another vast area of ignorance cum imbecility is shared by leftwing Californians who have no idea about the sources of the state’s tax revenues.  Over the years RR has contained numerous reports of the outlandish fraction of such revenues paid by ‘the rich’.  (e.g. 1% of top earning taxpayers pay 42% of our taxes while the bottom 70% pay just 11%.)  And most recently a column by Thea Hood in the 12jan24 Union (here) detailed the percentages as reported by various state agencies.  She was immediately attacked by local socialists who would have none of it, claiming that such numbers are nothing but rightwing propaganda, proving again that not only can you have your own opinions, but also your own convenient facts.  And some call this the information age?

“Sam Altman Seeks Trillions of Dollars to Reshape Business of Chips and AI.  OpenAI chief pursues investors including the U.A.E. for a project possibly requiring up to $7 trillion.” (more here)  All of this is due to the massive processing and storage requirements needed for training large language models (LLMs), today’s epitomy of machine intelligence that has the potential to surpass humans in every conceivable task and will create markets for microchips and energy that cannot be supplied by today’s industry and infrastructure.  Altman is attempting to prepare for those days, and wants most of the new chip plants to be built in the US.  But I predict that our anti-American socialists will do all that they can to throw sand in those gears like they are already doing in Arizona to slow progress on the new big chip factory being built there.  For global collectivists America cannot remain the world's hegemon.

[11feb24 update] Review time.  A conspiracy is usually defined as “an unlawful, harmful, or evil plan formulated in secret by two or more persons.”  In actuality the conspiracy need not have a dark side, but could also be something benevolent that is planned in secret by two or more persons.  And labeling something as a ‘conspiracy theory’ does not necessarily mean that it is false.

Maintaining our open southern border has been planned and perpetrated as an anti-American conspiracy by the Left.  Inviting millions of illegal aliens to irretrievably spread themselves across our land is in fact unlawful, harmful, and evil to the extent that it foments the destruction of our culture and political structure, to replace it by a governance that promotes globalism through the destruction of the United States into a powerless second-world socialist country.  The lamestream media deny this conspiracy; and even Fox News is afraid to explain it to their audiences, leaving that to individual commentators who are then labeled ‘far right’ and ‘radical’.  This goes on as the Biden administration has no better explanation for their unconstitutional conspiracy other than repeatedly parroting the blatant lie that “the border is secure.”

[14feb24 update]  A couple of climate scumbags were arrested in the National Archives for throwing pink powder on the protected display of the US Constitution.  These people confirm daily the many ways they hate America.  Do not be fooled that the climate activists among us are loyal Americans.  The evidence against that notion abounds.  (more here)

[17feb24 update]  FCC bans AI-voiced robocalls in wake of ‘Biden’ calls to NH residents.  Well, it’s started.  Scammers have begun using the new AI-voicing technology to convince consumers, voters, et al of thins being true that really aren’t.  And the voice over their telephones sounds very convincing.  It will be interesting to see how the FCC and the states’ attorney generals are able to enforce such censorship.  When this technology is combined with already existing video synthesizing real people saying wrong things, then the media consumers are really flummoxed because the scam messages will be marbled in with the authentic video and audio segments, and no one will be able to tell the difference.  News outlets will have a new challenge in vetting such media and convincing their audiences of the authenticity of what they broadcast. (more here)