July 30, 2011

McGraw-Hill runs America


Business Week Relationship Tree: Harold McGraw III
Business Week Relationship Tree: Jeffery Immelt
Business Week Corporate Profiles: McGraw Hill Publishing
Business Week Corporate Profiles: General Electric

It's not the Illuminati, the CFR, nor the Zionists who are running America. It's a tangled web of personal relationships in orbit around Harold McGraw III, the third generation family head of McGraw-Hill Publishing company. This web of relationships connects MSNBC, GE, Moody's, Standard & Poor's, GM, a dozen mutual funds (including both Soros and Buffet), and surprise-surprise, Rupert Murdoch. This group of about five hundred men are organized in clusters of lifelong friendships of about twenty or thirty each. They regularly meet for golf, drinks, dinner parties, their children's school functions, and family vacations. The centerpiece is Harold McGraw III. I don't know why this is, I only know that it is as real as the computer I am typing on and the monitor you are reading this on.

There you are. It has taken me almost five years of research, but I have finally tracked down the puppetmaster. I am not surprised at all to learn there is no single puppetmaster behind the charade we call "American politics". As I have always contended, it is a bigoted, close-minded culture of elitism shared by men from a dozen countries who have known each other their entire lives. Men with too much power, too much influence, and more than enough money to marshal the resources necessary to buy off any election in any country they care to take the time to manipulate.

The puppetmaster is neither the Koch brothers nor George Soros, not individually anyway. It's the sixty-one year old president of a publishing company who only makes $1.4 million a year for his annual salary. Some of his friends make a lot more, none of them make less, all of them keep him on speed dial and pick up the phone every time he calls, even if they're in a meeting with one another. Oh, and he also has deep ties to China, Russia, India, and Saudi Arabia.

The key feature of this group is that most of them are the heads of failing, old-school industrial enterprises that are having a hard time competing in the modern world. They have been detached from you and I for so long that they no longer understand nor appreciate our way of life. Their heads are filled with theories and strategies that they learned from Marxist teachers in places like Harvard, Columbia, Oxford, and Cambridge, which is exactly why their companies are struggling to survive. They believe that these theories and strategies will bring about a wondrous utopia where no children die of disease, no crime infests our cities, no husbands beat their wives, and planes never fall from the sky.

This group fears the Islamic world (except for Jordan and Saudi Arabia) because they see it as a cesspool of impoverished baby factories slowly but surely forcing them into extinction. They cannot believe that cheap energy derived from coal and petroleum is necessary to both heat the homes of your grandparents and mine and fuel the cars we use commuting to jobs where they pay us peanuts to perform miracles. Nor do they understand that we need cheap food to feed our children. They don't understand that you and I can't pick up a telephone and generate a couple million dollars to pay our bills any time we fall behind. After all, they do it every day.

Now don't misunderstand me. I have no desire to take their wealth and distribute it to the world's poor. Their wealth is theirs to do with as they like. In some cases they earned it, in other cases they inherited it, either way it is their wealth. That money and those resources do not belong to the government, the workers, the single-parent families living in crime-ridden slums, or any other imaginary "oppressed" class. I'm sorry, folks, but the rich people are in fact entitled to their wealth. No, it's not fair, but nothing in the real world is fair and the only way to create a perfectly fair world is through violence which leads inevitably to the most unfair world of all: total anarchy.

I don't want them to give up everything they have and become peasants. I just want them to stop trying to dictate how I eat, what I wear, what I read, and how I spend the peanuts they so graciously toss my way in exchange for odd jobs here and there, for the books I write, and so on. Let them keep their money. I just want them to stop trying to use the government to tell me how to live.

In the end, the world is a very funny place and the only thing that makes life worth living is having the freedom to live according to my own choices, my own dreams, and my own desires. Provided, of course, I'm not interfering with the freedom of my neighbors and they are not interfering with mine.



July 29, 2011

A distant whisper from Carbine Studios




Gamespy: NC Soft and Carbine Studios to Unveil New Game

Patience is one of the most important virtues a person can possess. In today's world of instant global communication and twenty-four hour news, patience is considered old-fashioned and perhaps even irrelevant. So I guess that makes me old-fashioned. I waited for three years for Auto Assault to be released, only to watch it fail less than two years after its release. I have been waiting for too many years to count to see some tiny hint of what Carbine Studios was working on. It all began when I caught sight of this picture the day it went online:


Now for some people it might not look like much. That's okay. Keep in mind though my lifelong fascination with science fiction, history, mythology, and archeaology. I see that picture and all kinds of wild ideas start zipping around inside my mind. I've been playing online games for a very long time now, something close to eleven years, and in my experience nothing has come close to the diversity of ideas being expressed in that one simple piece of concept art.

I've been patiently waiting to learn more ever since the day that piece went online. It was so long ago, I'm not even sure when it was! So when I read the article above, the first thing I did was send an e-mail to info@carbinestudios.com asking for them to consider me for participation in their closed beta. They haven't even announced a closed beta yet, so I suppose I'm not quite as patient as I like to think, but still, it's been a lot of years since that picture went online. Perhaps they can forgive a small bit of impatience at this point in the game.







July 13, 2011

Impeach the traitor




President Barack Obama organized and put into motion Project Gunrunner. Attorney General Eric Holder, one of his very first appointments and most loyal staff members, intentionally gave false statistics to the American media. This is the same Attorney General who at the bidding of the president also helped limit the power of the First Amendment by putting forth new internal systems limiting the freedom of non-partisan groups to get their message out during presidential elections.

The current administration has funded research designed to prove Republican voters are programmed by weather, has spent the past three years working on a package of legislation designed to curtail freedom of speech on the internet, and spent one of the most tumultuous weeks in world history talking about basketball. Obviously this president and his appointees are not the least bit worried about running the country. Instead, they are milking it dry and demanding the freedom to keep doing so despite the objections of the American people!

Enough is enough! Today I wrote to Senator Sherrod Brown and Congressman Jim Renacci requesting they do whatever is necessary to begin impeachment proceedings against President Barack Obama and his staff on the grounds of high treason against the American people and their elected representatives.







July 07, 2011

2012 Fundraising War Begins to Heat Up




American presidential elections are an expensive business. Television advertising, extensive travel, and salaries for huge staffs to fill offices in every major "battleground" state all add up very quickly. As a result, the funds necessary just to keep the campaign going until election day can quickly become astronomical. To win a presidential election in the United States you need two kinds of friends: rich people who can pay for some of this without violating campaign contribution laws and influential people who are highly skilled at gathering money from tens of millions of average Americans.

One of the key figures in the 2008 election was Lynn Forester de Rothschild. As evidenced by a surprising article in the Boston Globe a few days ago, 2012 will be no different. Apparently, Mitt Romney's team was supposed to hold a fundraiser at the Rothschild house in London, reaching out to a wealthy expatriate American class made up of industrialists, bankers, and global financiers. They backed out, because this time around Lady de Rothschild is supporting Jon Huntsman, Jr. This is doubly odd when we consider that Lady de Rothschild is a lifelong supporter of the Democratic Party. In 2008, she supported Hillary Clinton and is widely credited as being the main reason Hillary very nearly defeated Barack Obama. Switching her allegiance to John McCain apparently did not help very much. Perhaps after investing so much time and effort into Hillary's campaign she didn't have much heart left.

Another name to watch is Louis B. Susman, who is currently serving as Ambassador to the U.K. At a recent celebration dedicated to the memory of Ronald Reagan, Ambassador Susman declined to make an appearance and Lady de Rothschild was quite incensed over his failure to appear. In a very real sense, the Clinton-Obama race of 2008 was a direct confrontation between Susman and the Lady de Rothschild; a confrontation which the Lady lost. Susman's absence at the banquet dedicated to Reagan's memory was a very pointed reminder from him to her about 2008 and perhaps even a warning about 2012.

The real irony of all this is that when Alex Jones puts out a video like this one:



he's not entirely off the mark. There is indeed a wealthy "superclass" with a vested interest in how American presidential elections turn out. Some of those people do stand to profit greatly from a complete global economic collapse, a world war, and the establishment of a single, unified world government. And, yes, some of them would very much like to set themselves up as the undisputed kings, queens, and nobles of a world dictatorship. Their insanity lies in the assumption that their individual benevolence (they aren't bad people, after all, just rich and arrogant) can be translated easily into a free, benevolent rule over the lesser human beings of planet Earth (that means you and I).

So when Lady de Rothschild participates in a banquet in London to celebrate a former American president and the American ambassador declines to attend, that, my friends, is a major slap in the face to whoever the Lady is supporting for the 2012 presidential election. In a very real sense, Ambassador Susman has thrown down his gauntlet and Lady de Rothschild has picked it up and agreed to meet him on the field of battle. Like any good nobles, they won't risk their own health and welfare in this contest. Instead, they will fight through their chosen proxies, President Barack Obama (for Ambassador Susman) and former Ambassador Jon Huntsman (for Lady de Rothschild).

There are maybe a dozen other names to watch over the coming weeks. Sooner or later, George Soros, Laksmi Mittal, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, David Rockefeller, Jr., and several dozen other wealthy, influential people will pick their candidate and toss their hat into the ring. It is very important to pay attention to who these people throw their weight behind. Some of them, like Louis B. Susman and David Rockefeller, Jr., are powerful contenders with a reputation for backing the winners. Others, like George Soros and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, will definitely have direct access to whoever wins and will not hesitate to pick up their phone and dial the president elect directly if they disagree with some detail of policy or if they don't feel he (or she) is involved enough in some foreign squabble.

Notice what happened in Libya? Even though we have zero vested interest in Libya, the United Nations (backed in large part by British Petroleum) told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that they expected American ships, planes, fuel, and intel to support their "no-fly zone". Hillary got Secretary of Defense Gates on the phone and made it happen, then she called Pres. Obama and informed him he was going to make a speech taking credit for it. Did you notice it took two full weeks for Pres. Barack Obama to come out with even a simple press statement? That's how far out of the loop he was! By the time anyone bothered to involve him U.S. Navy ships were already streaming into the Mediterranean and taking up their stations off the shore of Tripoli.

So Alex Jones is right about one thing: if these folks decide that the Middle East has become too hot and needs to be put down like a rabid dog, then they will get it done regardless of who happens to be sitting in the Whitehouse at the time. This is exactly why we need to break the back of the federal government and break it now. Only by reversing the centralization of power in Washington D.C. can we the people of the United States stop people like European bankers and nobles from having life and death control over the lives of our family members serving in the United States military. Our only hope at restoring the will of the people to preeminence over foreign elitists is by watching what they do in the background and then moving en masse to oppose them.

Like it or not. You and I must watch these arrogant narcissists like hawks, and I don't mean following their titillations in supermarket tabloids. We need to be aware of which presidential candidates they are supporting, which congressional race they are contributing to, and what they hope to gain through their contributions. For the moment, this is still our country and they have no greater legal authority to tell our representatives how to vote and which policies to pursue than you or I do. But if you and I are not constantly reminding our elected representatives who they work for while also demanding they institute laws limiting their power over us, then things could very easily swing the other way. Already the DOJ, the DOL, the EPA, the FDA, the IRS, the NEA, and hundreds of other agencies have the power to enact the will of the elites and force the rest of us into indirect servitude. If we do not reverse the trend of past century, and reverse it quickly, then that indirect servitude will slip into complete peasantry and it will probably do so within the next few years.

Why do you think immigration has been such a hot button issue for the past decade? These rich elites are seeking virtual slaves who will wash their cars, mow their lawns, supervise their children, and clean their houses for pennies per day, or better yet, for room and board alone. Since you and I refuse to do so, they are seeking to import impoverished Mexicans and South Americans who are used to living in huts with mud floors and drinking from polluted rivers because the elites know beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people will sacrifice anything for the privilege of living in a ten by ten room over their garage and sending their children to American schools. And yes, if I were living in a mountain village in Ecuador picking coffee beans by hand for less than a dollar a day, I'd feel the same way, too. (So instead of rewarding criminals who crossed the border in the floorboards of a rented van by granting them amnesty, maybe we should make it easier for that Ecuadoran plantation worker to come here legally? I certainly think so!)

There is no conspiracy. I want to be crystal clear on that point. It is not some shadowy Illuminati Order that we need to worry about, nor some coffee club like the Bilderberg Group or the Council on Foreign Relations. Our enemy is the assumption that birth, education, wealth, or social status grants a given individual the wisdom to command the daily lives of everyone else. Even so, we aren't fighting a social class, an economic class, or even a political ideology. We are fighting against a set of shared assumptions, a culture of superiority which sees anyone who disagrees with it as something less than human.

While it is true that some of these people are in fact in the top economic one percent of our world, they are not the real danger. The real danger is anyone who prefers to let some expert tell them how to think and who to vote for, because they are the ones who will accidentally bring to power the next Hitler.







July 04, 2011

Republican Voters and Childhood Fourth of July Celebrations




This "research paper" represents a criminal misappropriation of research funds. Why was it ever allowed to be published?

The paper itself is here: Shaping the Nation: Estimating the Impact of Fourth of July Using a Natural Experiment

I hope to high heaven this "research" was not paid for with tax dollars! This is quite possibly the most flawed sociological research paper I have ever read in my life! I have, literally, seen more convincing research from high school students.

Madestram and Yanagizawa-Drott propose using a correlation of voting patterns and weather archives to determine which voters wound up both politically active and Republican because they experienced sunny Fourth of July celebrations as children. An interesting idea that overlooks one very important feature of life in modern America: we are one of the most mobile civilizations humanity has ever developed! Almost no one lives in the same town, neighborhood, or county their entire lives. There is no reliable way to determine which individuals (or even how many indivdiuals) who consistently vote for Republican candidates throughout their adult life also spent their childhoods in an area where Fourth of July celebrations were both routinely held and seldom interrupted by weather.

Here are some of the more obvious and egregious flaws:

Page 1: "Republicans attend Fourth of July to a greater extent and also view the holiday as more important compared to Democrats." (And no further mention of how this might affect their conclusion!)

Page 8: In what follows, absence of rain thus serves as a proxy for participation in holiday celebrations on Fourth of July. (Right, that's like saying, "I can't see the sun so it must be raining!")

Page 9: To measure rainfall during childhood and later in life, we match the 1920-2008 county-level rainfall data with individuals born 1920 and later surveyed in the ANES. (And they're guessing that this represents the same group of people? Really?)

Page 9: A limitation is that we lack information of the county of birth or county of residence in childhood. (Gee? Ya think?)

Page 9: Since the measurement error is likely to be classical, attenuation bias will lead us to underestimate the long-term effects of Fourth of July celebrations. (In other words, "Not only are we going to draw a baseless conclusion, we're going assume reality is even worse!")

Page 10: This is insufficient, however, as the likelihood of Fourth of July rain has decreased over time (results not shown). Hence, even conditional on county, climate change has lead to earlier cohorts experiencing more rainy Fourth of Julys on average than later cohort. (In short, "as long as we're making things up, we're going to assume "global warming" is a factor, too!")

So, after a series of false assumptions about the validity of their data, and a clear recognition that they have no intention of being objective, what do they conclude?

Page 14: Overall, the results imply that the festivities cause an increase in the likelihood of voting for the Republicans, consistent with the notion that Fourth of July celebrations during childhood affect not only political preferences but also voting behavior later in life. From a baseline of 25 percent in the sample voting for the Republicans (including non voters), the point estimate from column 1 implies that one rain-free Fourth of July increases the Republican candidate’s vote share by approximately 4.0 percent. Based on the mean of the (presidential) voting age population in the period 1940-1988, 124 million voters, this is equivalent of 1,240,000 votes.

So they conclude that Republican voters don't vote on the basis of reason, rationale, or policy preference. Oh, no! They conclude that individuals vote Republican because their childhood experience of a Fourth of July parade on a sunny day programs them to vote Republican!

This "research" is nothing more than hyperbole and propaganda. Not only do they try to claim (without substantiation) that the Progressive Movement is responsible for our Fourth of July celebrations to begin with (page 7), they then claim that anyone who opposes the Progressive Agenda by voting Republican does not do so because the Progressive Agenda is fundamentally flawed, rather, they only do so because they enjoyed at least one sunny Fourth of July celebration when they were young.

They also go to great pains throughout their research to point out that not experiencing a sunny Fourth of July is somehow magically not related to later voting Democrat or Independent.

Page 14: To understand whether Fourth of July shifts the political preferences to the right, rather than increasing political polarization, columns 5 and 6 estimate the likelihood of identifying as an Independent and Democrat, respectively. The point estimate in column 5 is negative (-0.0098) and significant at the five percent level. Importantly, the results in column 6 show a negative coefficient (-0.0033 and insignificant) which is inconsistent with Fourth of July celebrations increasing political polarization. Overall, the results in columns 1-3 and 5-6 show that Fourth of July causes individuals to identify more with the Republicans, consistent with Fourth of July celebrations shifting preferences toward the political right.

Obviously, this research has only one intended conclusion: Republican voters don't think, they are programmed by their childhoods to vote Republican. The unstated conclusion being, individuals who vote Independent or Democrat do think, and thus, the only rational vote is a non-Republican vote! This is not only patently false, it is deeply offensive. If tax funds were used in the conduct or preparation of this research the funding authority needs to demand their return. There is no sane reason for Republican taxpayers to pay for research whose only purpose is to denigrate and marginalize their vote!

How can anyone support a cause that is so patently based on insult, innuendo, and falsification of objective research? How did the Harvard peer review team allow such deeply flawed research paper to be published? Does this research reflect the attitudes of Madestam and Yanagizawa-Drott alone, or does it reflect the attitude of both the current federal administration and the current Harvard administration? How deep does this prediliction for deception and falsehood go? How could a university with the history and reputation of Harvard allow their name to be attached to such obvious propaganda?

This is a clear case of corruption and misappropriation of research funds. Whoever paid for this research needs to be pursuing legal action against these two researchers. There is no excuse for such obvious contempt for scientific principle and ethical practice. This paper represents an outright theft of research funds that should have gone to legitimate researchers in pursuit of legitimate science.







July 03, 2011

A Prelude to Immortality




PR Newswire: Restoring Memory, Repairing Damaged Brains
Smart Planet: The Matrix Reality: Scientists Successfully Implant Artificial Memory
Additional background: Neurophysiology Lab at University of Pittsburgh
IOP Science .pdf file (membership required): A Cortical Neural Prosthesis for Restoring and Enhancing Memory

A key quote from the opening summary:
These integrated experimental-modeling studies show for the first time that, with sufficient information about the neural coding of memories, a neural prosthesis capable of real-time diagnosis and manipulation of the encoding process can restore and even enhance cognitive, mnemonic processes.

Dr. Berger's experiment involved replacing a portion of a rat's brain with a very limited microcircuit. The microcircuit functioned as a normal path in the rat's brain, acquiring a simple long term memory. When the circuit was moved to another rat, that rat gained the same very simple memory.

Already there's a lot of hype and buzz going around. All of it is very premature, including my own! While it is always true that once out of the box a scientific paradigm cannot be hidden again, it will take decades before this research can be successfully used to replace lost memory in Alzheimers patients and stroke victims. Even then, some facility would have to be developed to preserve the memory in the first place.

There is, however, an aspect of this research that no one else is mentioning and that completely fascinates me: immortality!

The first rat learned a skill. The memory of that skill was recorded on the chip rather than in the rat's biological brain. So if that chip were complex enough to record the rat's personality from birth to death, and then it were implanted in the brain of a clone derived from that rat, the rat's life would effectively be transferred into the new body. After all, to a great extent our personality is nothing more than a product of our memories and learned behaviors. Who we are is who we have become as a result of the successes and failures of our life. If it were possible to transplant a dying person's life into a younger version of their body, their personhood would transfer with it, effectively doubling their normal lifespan.

The danger would be that someone rich and powerful enough could arrange to have their circuitry transferred into a younger body of just about anyone. Rich drug lords could take over the bodies of their younger lieutenants, for example. Instead of transgender surgery, it would be possible to simply transfer the entire personality from one body into a pre-selected body of the opposite sex. The potential here for victimization becomes more extreme the further along this technology advances. New laws, new systems of ethics will have to be developed to define when such a transfer is reasonable and when it is criminal.

Unfortunately, the science of cloning is lagging behind. Even if these chips can become complex enough and reliable enough for complete personality transfers, we will not yet have the ability to clone a fresh young body from the cells of an elderly person. In other words, as long as cloning technology lags behind chip technology, then when the day arrives that a complete personality transfer is possible those individuals in positions of power and influence who already assume their life is more valuable than the life of another person will be more inclined to pull victims off the street in order to continue their own selfish existence.

Other questions arise as well. For example, (again, assuming the chips become complex and reliable enough to immortalize a complete personality), at what age is it desirable to insert the chip? After all, the person must learn and age naturally in order to write the memories to the first chip. That is how the technology currently worked in rats. The human brain is far more complex than a rat's brain. As we age, it passes through several patterns of growth and development. Just notice the difference in size between an infant's head and an adult head. The vast majority of that size difference is the expanding braincase. Everything else, facial features, sinus capacity, etc., derives from the expanding braincase, not the reverse. So there will be physiological minimum age before a personality-recording chip can be installed in the first place. What happens if a child dies before the chip can be installed? Would such a loss doubly traumatize parents who are themselves already in their second or third body? Will we develop the emotional capacity to deal with such a trauma?

But for now, it's just a matter of one rat learning to activate a lever to receive a drink of water and then transferring that memory into another rat. It's a very simple starting point. The aim of the Department of Defense is to develop a chip that will let them transfer the skills associated with flying fighter jets into the brains of new cadets without all that bothersome and very expensive training. The dreams of the folks at Smart Planet is learning martial arts without all that bothersome training and discipline.

My dream is a science of immortality. Not that it will ever benefit me, but just because Robert Heinlein is my favorite writer and he does such an admirable job of presenting the case for a science of longevity. Plenty of people would like to live forever in this ramshackle, unstable work of earthquakes, tsunamis, broken hearts, and broken minds. For those who don't find comfort in religion, a science of immortality would be a great boon. I suspect, however, that they would quickly learn the downside: the longer you live the more you have to lose and the more you have to lose the less attractive life becomes.