Tuesday, December 11, 2018

the same people

The thing you have to remember is that the members of the mainstream media are basically the same people as the members of the Democrat party establishment. In some cases, in fact, they're exactly the same people, e.g., George Stephanopoulos, who was Bill Clinton's press secretary and is now an anchor for ABC News. But in general, these people have gone to the same colleges; they live in the same neighborhoods of New York, Washington, LA, and San Francisco; they go to the same parties; they intermarry; and their kids go to the same private schools. Is it any wonder then that the mainstream media parrot the Democrat establishment party line? They're the same people!

Saturday, December 1, 2018

silicon valley ubi

I note that a number of these Silicon Valley titans are in favor of UBI-- a  universal basic income. It strikes me that these people have a very high level of a certain type of intelligence-- mathematical/logical ability-- but that they're not particularly politically sophisticated. These people are the intellectual One Percent, or even the One Tenth of One Percent, and they simply don't understand 'ordinary people.' My guess is that they basically consider the vast mass of humanity as low-grade ore who will eventually be replaced by robots or algorithms of some sort. So their idea is just to buy these folks off in the hope that after a while they'll see the handwriting on the wall and simply stop reproducing.

literature

For some time now, I've had the sneaking suspicion that literature-- fiction, poetry, drama-- is what people who are no good at math do with their brains.

Thursday, November 29, 2018

planetarianism vs. imperialism


In my beleaguered mind, there are two big-picture ways of looking at the world: the planetary point of view, as exemplified in my 'planetarian blog,' and one that looks back to the great European empires of the nineteenth century and even to great non-European empires of the past. This blog, 'Flyoverlandia,' favors this latter view. It's a more romantic, emotion-laden view of things than the Enlightenment-based planetarian view.

World War I was the great disaster for the European empires. True, they sputtered on and finally received their death blows in World War II. By the 1950s and '60s, Britain and France were divesting themselves of these overseas possessions wholesale, although not always peaceably.

I could see a return to these empires, and some others, in the coming decades. It would have to be done on a looser and more reciprocal basis, of course, but I could see major economic and even political links between the old imperial capitals and their former possessions emerging in the years ahead. This would include not only Britain and France, but Spain, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Portugal in Europe, plus the United States (North America, the Philippines), India, China, and Japan.

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

who cares?

I get very tired of news reports about what this or that celebrity 'thinks' about something. It reminds me of a statistic I came across years ago. People were polled as to  what celebrities they followed avidly. At the top of the list was Madonna, who was then at the apex of her stardom. Yet only 8% of those polled said they followed her career and pronouncements with great interest. Eight percent!

So when I hear some late-night talk show host quoted on this or that subject, I ask, 'Who cares.?' The fact is, even the most popular of these people only gets a couple million viewers a night-- this in a country of a third of a billion people! Why should anybody else care what these people 'think'-- and why is the media bothering to tell us?

Friday, October 19, 2018

npc

Twitter tried to ban these so-called 'NPC' memes, but they still seem to be all over the place:


why the disconnect?

I want to make sure the US remains a first-world country. Two aspects of this come to mind:

1. The primacy of science. We're the country that put a man on the Moon, after all. Any first-world country has to have a culture steeped in science and a population conversant with basic scientific method. Right?

2. We need an educated, skilled workforce. To get this, we need an immigration system based on merit, rather than family ties or just the ability to make it across the Rio Grande. Right?

So why is it that the two major parties don't support both of these things? The Democrats are all for science, acknowledging the reality of climate change, etc., but they seem to want to let anybody into the country who wants to come here and can make it across the border, legally or not. The Republicans, on the other hand-- or at least the Trump contingent among them-- want a meritocratic immigration system but remain willfully ignorant of climate change-- and probably evolution, for that matter.

I want both. Why isn't there a party for people like me?