Regulation and innovation co-exist, but innovation better thrives without a straightjacket

May 20, 2017

The only reason that “history has shown that regulation and innovation can co-exist” is because there is no choice for any innovators, but history has also shown that regulation always strangles innovation. It’s more difficult to see the innovation that did NOT happen because of regulation, but you have enough real-life examples that it should be obvious to anybody who considers it even lightly.

Science thrived after the Reformation let loose some freedom of thinking, and began to release push back on authoritarianism. Can one really say that regulation results in better results than the generation of Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, and the like? Considering the proliferation of regulations in the late 20th century, multiplying like rabbits into the 21st, can anybody make the case that innovation has multiplied in like manner?

Compare the phone monopoly of the 20th century, a national enforced regulation, with what happened when long distance and phone service were let loose. We got more innovation in a couple of decades than the 100 years previous.

Uber is continuing to innovate, as is Lyft, as is airbnb, and other like services, *-> except where governments and regulations, written with “help” from crony interests like taxi companies and hotel chains. Venture capital is going into new ideas for using the new communications infrastructure in like manner.

And make no mistake: any effort to regulate the Internet or the delivery of content with any mandate out of D. C. will only end up as regulation of the content of speech and press. It will start with some pleasant sounding euphemism like “net neutrality”. But let a Godzilla the size of the U. S. government get started with any idea with a label or justification that includes the word “fair” in it, will end up being used very unfairly.

Who decides, follow the money. “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” is followed by “I need your ahem, contribution, ahem to help you”.

Why Most Published Research is False

May 20, 2017

This is my reaction to a blog entry at titled “Fact Over Fiction”.

The author could get a better perspective if he would read. Why Most Published Research is False:

One implicit premise to the article is that reductions in funding for science is tantamount to censorship. It is not. Censorship is a ban by the biggest institution of coercion in a given territory: the government that claims jurisdiction over it.

Science research funded by involuntary confiscation of resources (aka “taxes”), and by inflationary government debt, is by definition “politicized science”, it is not pure. Sure, anybody can apply, but who pays? And who decides?

Politically directed funding is the biggest distortion today.

Now there is also empirical evidence about the very bad consequence of trusting government-funded decision makers:

Hunh. Fake news in medical studies. Who would have thought it? (It’s worse than I even thought)

Disinformation is endemic now in academia. Even set aside for a minute the issue of political motivations in funding, and the indisputable fact that funding decisions are political decisions by nature made by people who have their own perspectives and preferences. Big Pharma pays for studies used by FDA for approval or denial. The skepticism shown to corporate studies should also apply to the deciders of grants in governments.

Climate-gate, non-repeatable medical studies, falsification of data, source code hidden from peer review, peer reviewers who enforce conformity, these are problems that are built into current traditional institutions for science.

The wild wild Web is now proving to be a solution to misinformation. Let us call it “fake information”. The P versus not P solution offered recently in a Web post was refuted in about 24 hours. Best peer review ever.

The same principle applies to the wider Internet. Misinformation? Look at the long list of historical misinformation below in the traditional news media and press. Note that the most trusted newspapers and media networks propagated these false stories, mostly from government sources..

** Battleship Maine: Culpability still not resolved, a war was fought based on it.
** Gulf of Tonkin: Another war justified based on a later proven false story.
** WMDs in Iraq: Another war justified based on a false intelligence report.
** Wikileaks: NOT ONE of their leaks –begun during the Bush administration– has been refuted, yet the reports are quashed and their implications denied in traditionally trusted media. It is non-traditional Internet web sites and blogs that have pushed it out into the public conscience. — Yet the “intellectual class” is pushing back against it.
** FBI Funding myth, that Comey requested more money for the Russia investigation.

With so many false stories coming from places like NYT, Washington Post, CNN, allegations repeated as if they were credible with no evidence at all and stories with evidence ignored, why in the world would anybody think there is a problem with alternative news sources? We should celebrate, for example, that climate scientists have a forum to speak if they disagree with the politically approved dogmas?

Easy to see fake news sometimes

May 20, 2017

Comey’s firing blares out in living color that there is a gargantuan effort going on to fabricate so many false narratives to block the Trump administration that it will sink into the body politic mind.

Like Trump saying that firing Comey would take the heat off a Russian investigation?

That’s utter baloney! That’s so stupid! Why would he think the heat would go away? Even NYT knows, with all this dangerous hate fest going on, they know there is no way below or above that Trump or anybody else would think it would take off the heat.

So it’s an obvious fake story right out of the gate. These anonymous sources are probably the same sources that made a story out of that stupid Dossier-Gate. The British spy and DNC opposition research agent that the FBI hired for $50,000 couldn’t even keep his narrative consistent enough to believe them.

After regurgitating all the fake intelligence story (WMDs in Iraq) that got us bogged down again after Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin) into another quagmire in the Middle East, and regurgitating the false flag chemical attacks in Syria later exposed as being unleashed by “rebel” forces supported by the United States intelligence agencies, how much longer is everyone going to continue to believe them?


Jorge Ramos: You might not like Latinos taking over the country

May 19, 2017

Jorge Ramos lectured Tucker Carlson on immigration in one interview of the Univision anchor on Fox News, among other things saying it was moot anyway, because Latins are on the statistical trend lines of becoming the majority demographic in just a couple of decades.

Tucker Carlson was trying to stay on the topic of illegal immigration, while Jorge Ramos kept trying to make it about immigration as if Tucker was not talking about just illegals.

The topic of gangs did not come up except in Tucker’s examples of illegal immigrant Latins raping at 14-year old girl at a high school and a series of murders.

Even the hate-spitting so-called “Southern Poverty Law Center”, guilty of the most vile vitriol against decent Christians who just want to testify in public, defenders of burkas, even they have had to admit this Latino-black thing is a real thing:

The web page article on their site does not say much about black-on-Latin hits, except to mention a “rivalry” between the “Mexican Mafia” gang in prisons in California, and the “Black Guerrillas” gang.

If she runs again for president, will anybody be alive to vote for her?

May 19, 2017

If she runs again for president, will she leave anybody alive to vote for her?

Can somebody please run the actuarial tables on the chances of so many people dying around the Clintons, let alone the ones that spilled dirt on them before they got too famous to kill outright?

Say what you want, but how can so many people in Operation Mockingbird Media and Mockingbird Press say exactly the same things with only slight variations in synonyms and grammar?

And how can they NOT say anything at all, or so little, in unison, about events that have such a huge impact on everyone’s personal life? Or of huge significance?

Like the Audit the Fed bill just getting passed out of Committee in the House.
Ted Cruz missed the vote on the bill to audit the Fed and Trump made an issue of that in the campaign. We’ll see what happens with it as president.
Harry Reid had demanded an audit of the Fed his entire political career until 2011-2012, when he blocked a House bill from even being considered in the Senate.

Arizona’s legislature just having made gold and silver to be legal tender in the state, AND remove the capital gains tax on gold and silver. Ron Paul was able to advocate for this in testimony there.

The capital gains tax is a very sneaky trick by snakes and vipers to rob investors blind. The Fed lets inflation devalue the currency, prices and capital returns on investments go up while “purchasing power” in material terms per dollar declines, but the tax gets slapped on you in dollar terms as if you actually earned something.

So they rob you with the printing machine (“sprint” commands even) and then they rob you on the devaluation of the currency unit. Double trouble.

Here’s another example of the censorship part of Operation Mockingbird in the media they control. Remember the big Paris hit and the death metal band? Vocalist says the media distorts his comments and his views. He’s

Kissinger said once you’re not paranoid if they’re really out to get you.

The Left, financed by power-mad plutocrat billionaires around the world, driven by “hate minutes” against messengers of freedom and personal autonomy and symbols of them, by any means necessary, is really and truly out to get you if you are in their way. Or even protest their use of violence in paid thugs and in paid government operatives (judges, police, lawyers, legislators).

Net neutrality for equal access to Internet: Ban Drudge!

May 18, 2017

So now we see the truth about the Net Neutrality idea being pushed by authoritarians who want more government intrusion into free speech and free press:

They want to ban Drudge! So much for a “free and open Internet”!

Soft coup

May 18, 2017

Now there’s a fake investigation going on into the Russia connection:

There has not been even one little iota of evidence of such a phony charge. The ONLY reason for the “special prosecutor” is to give fuel to the search for any little thing they can hang on Trump, whether it’s about the purported purpose of the investigation or not.

Like many are saying, this is a soft coup.

Another strike on Assad forces: Atrocity

May 18, 2017

The U. S. strike on pro-Assad Syrian forces just announced, in Syrian territory, is absolutely a violation of international law.

And the excuses they give for it are laughable. A laugh riot. The real abusers of civilians in Syria have been perpetrated by the armies that the United States has been supporting there. That includes ISIS, with money flowing from Washington to the Saudis, who have been sending money and arms to ISIS in Syria. This is publicly known information, even though the Fake News Networks try to sit on this scandal.

Assad is the best friend of Christians in Syria and better than almost the entire Arab world.


Witch-hunt timeline

May 18, 2017

According to the way Judge Napolitano is parsing the legal issues surrounding the Trump-Comey conversation, it seems that if Comey had thought Trump was engaging in “obstruction of justice”, then he had the obligation under DOJ rules to advise somebody.

Which means if there is anything to this new, probably another fake news story, then Comey broke protocol, again.

Napolitano approaches this with detailed legal analysis, as he does.

But let’s review.

The only reason the FBI began investigating the Hillary email-gate issues was because the ACLJ brought a FOIA lawsuit because the State Department was stonewalling on releasing official DOS emails relating to Hillary. FOIA legislation obligates the release of those emails.

The judge finally ordered State to give them up. They could not find them, so that’s when it was discovered that Hillary Clinton had used an unsafe external server. At that point, since the criminal mishandling most secret of secrets had apparently happened, the FBI had no choice but to investigate this.

From there, Comey is the one who committed –at best, to be charitable– gross negligence in the investigation.

First, they let Hillary and her lawyers review the emails on the server to decide which ones to turn over from their server and then attempt a complete wipe of the server with “BleachBit”.

Second, when they got to the deposition stage, Comey had to sign off on granting immunity for the testimony of five Clinton aides and advisers, in exchange for absolutely nothing! Have you ever heard of this?! The FBI?!

Then they asked for the laptop of one of the aides, and Comey agreed to the request to only look at some of the possible evidence, and then destroy the laptop after they reviewed it for evidence. Comey agreed to destroy a laptop possibly containing evidence. But we’ll now never know if there was evidence on it, will we?

Then came the time they had to interview the big fish, Hillary Clinton. They agreed that one of the possible evil-doers, an aide they had already interviewed as a witness, to be present as counsel.

Then after Loretta Lynch blew it by agreeing to meet privately with Bill Clinton, the husband of the main character in the investigation, for a half-hour. After the blowback from that meeting, she said she would accept any recommendation to prosecute or not prosecute from the FBI.

THAT should have gotten blowback, because she actually should have recused herself formally and literally. And it is not an FBI decision to make.

So Comey the blew it again in his very public national press conference in which he laid out the long list of crimes that Hillary Clinton had committed, and then exonerated her based on intent, a basis which is not found in the relevant statute. A low-rank seaman was sent to prison on MUCH less factual basis, and in which case he obviously had no intent. A picture for his girlfriend.

So what is the connection to the pay-for-play investigation into whether Hillary Clinton sold Department of State policy for “donations” to the “Clinton Foundation”?

It is rather obvious that some of the evidence for that investigation would have probably been among those emails. In keeping her emails outside government computers, she knew they would not be stored automatically as is required for state department communications and files in storage on them.

THAT investigation is supposedly still on-going, more quietly than the email investigation of 2016. I say supposedly, because the absence of leaks is very loud, compared to the 2016-2017 leaks on everything else.

People are sick of this kangaroo court pursuit of Trump. Obviously there are some very powerful people in media, intelligence agencies, Congress, in the courts, who are ever more obviously openly rebelling against the constitutional rules for elections and transition of power.

Mainstream Media Corruption

May 17, 2017
Turns out now there is a private investigator looking into the Seth Rich murder. The PI’s services are paid by an anonymous donor and reports his results to the family, reportedly.

Seth’s family is denying it through a spokesman. The spokesman is ” none other than Democrat crisis PR consultant Brad Bauman” of the Pastorum Group. (Who’s paying for him).

Another anonymous FBI source says Seth Rich exchanged emails with Gavin MacFadyen, a reporter and film director and former Wikileaks director. The source says Seth Rich sent MacFadyen 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments collected from exchanges among other DNC staffers.

That is from the FBI forensic report, according to the source.

In a capital beset by gangs and murders and muggings, Seth was gunned down by two men caught on a grainy store video and fled without robbing anything, leaving cash and jewelry on his person, apparently taking nothing.

Message delivered for persons on the “wrong’ end of whistleblowing, exposing wickedness in high places.