The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Obama Calls for Truthiness Curation
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

https://youtu.be/7RfLq6z3P3M?t=59m15s

From Yahoo News on the President’s speech at Carnegie-Mellon:

Obama decries ‘wild west’ media landscape

Pittsburgh (AFP) – President Barack Obama on Thursday decried America’s “wild, wild west” media environment for allowing conspiracy theorists a broad platform and destroying a common basis for debate.

Recalling past days when three television channels delivered fact-based news that most people trusted, Obama said democracy require citizens to be able to sift through lies and distortions.

“We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to,” Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.

“There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world,” Obama added. …

“The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.”

The answer is not censorship. Obviously.

The answer must be curating for truthiness.

That’s completely different from censorship.

This reminds me of my Taki’s Magazine column from a couple of weeks ago “From Orwell to Gladwell and Back.” It’s not unknown for my critiques of trends to show up later transmogrified into demands for more of the trend.

 
Hide 138 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I’ve noticed that links work well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. It sounds like he doesn’t understand what the word “truthiness” means.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ic1000
    > It sounds like [Pres. Obama] doesn’t understand what the word “truthiness” means.

    Or perhaps he does. I have even greater faith in Ms. Clinton's passion for protecting deplorables and bitter clingers from themselves. Coming soon to a nation near you.
    , @candid_observer
    Which means that not only Obama, but the entire team who wrote and vetted this speech don't know about the sarcastic meaning of the term -- all of which is more bizarre because it was invented by a Big Friendly, Colbert, for precisely that sarcastic purpose.
    , @jon

    It sounds like he doesn’t understand what the word “truthiness” means.
     
    Exactly:
    "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. @kihowi
    It sounds like he doesn't understand what the word "truthiness" means.

    > It sounds like [Pres. Obama] doesn’t understand what the word “truthiness” means.

    Or perhaps he does. I have even greater faith in Ms. Clinton’s passion for protecting deplorables and bitter clingers from themselves. Coming soon to a nation near you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Matt Stevens
    Yeah, I think he knows exactly what truthiness means. He wants to make the whole world a safe space where nobody has to be exposed to any assertions or facts that challenge the liberal world view. It's all about the feels.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. >The answer must be curating for truthiness.<

    or competing narratives:

    Don't take his word for it. Don't take my word for it. See the current versions for yourself.

    Infogalactic: Mike Cernovich
    Wikipedia: Mike Cernovich

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/compare-and-contrast.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    Wikipedia editors have deleted the Wikipedia info page on Infogalactic.

    Sorry, this page was recently deleted (within the last 24 hours). The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

    00:30, 17 October 2016 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Infogalactic (A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

    00:17, 15 October 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Infogalactic (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
     

    lol.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. One wonders if President Obama is up-to-date on the replication crisis in social psychology.

    Facts are a funny thing. The facts I’ve been hearing about from evolutionary psychology and biology are, to put it mildly, at odds with the facts coming out of sociology.

    (Of course, given that sociology departments are already more or less the ministry of truth, I think I know which facts will be forbidden…)

    On the other hand, you kind of have to pity the poor liberals. They inherited this giant, highly successful power structure from their liberal forebearers, and somehow it escaped their notice that the source of that power was HEGEMONY, not that they’d actually won any arguments. And so they thought that free speech was one of their values, and that the internet would be a great tool for spreading their wisdom… which has amounted to a kind of unilateral disarmament on their part.

    Obama is right to highlight the role of the three trusted, very corporate, very cozy with government television networks. That was indeed the source of a lot of American unity and cohesion… by filling the exact same role that Pravada did, or that the KCNA does.

    Read More
    • Agree: Harold
    • Replies: @guest
    I too pity them. How were they to know? They were told that their side monopolized goodness and light, and that they didn't need to bother learning anything else. Their self-constructed mind prison kept them ignorant of the fact that Truth isn't progressive.
    , @Lurker

    you kind of have to pity the poor liberals. They inherited this giant, highly successful power structure from their liberal forebearers, and somehow it escaped their notice that the source of that power was HEGEMONY, not that they’d actually won any arguments.
     
    That's good, not seen it put that way before.
    , @No_0ne
    "The facts I’ve been hearing about from evolutionary psychology and biology are, to put it mildly, at odds with the facts [sic] coming out of sociology."

    Let's not forget cultural anthropology. That was probably the earliest takeover of any of the social sciences-- Boas' cult was essentially in place by the 1920s.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. It is weird comparing that bastion of truth, Wikipedia, with Infogalactic. For example, look at the Mike Cernovich pages:

    Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Cernovich

    Infogalactic: https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Mike_Cernovich

    Note that Wikipedia manages to leave out lots of detail but, given their ideological bent, also leaves out the criticism.

    Was Infogalactic cramming all that criticism in there to make Wikipedia and the critics look bad?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Is a self-published e-book author prominent enough to have a Wikipedia page? This isn't about censorship. There has to be some standards for Wiki pages on individuals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Our leaders and their elite masters talking about taking away our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights? That is revolting. They will never secede in doing that.

    Comes a Trumpening

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. He could launch such a site with his college transcripts and other paperwork.

    Then we could argue reasonably how someone from the margins of the Empire was able to seize the throne and lecture us for 8yrs about our true identity

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. @kihowi
    It sounds like he doesn't understand what the word "truthiness" means.

    Which means that not only Obama, but the entire team who wrote and vetted this speech don’t know about the sarcastic meaning of the term — all of which is more bizarre because it was invented by a Big Friendly, Colbert, for precisely that sarcastic purpose.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @kihowi
    It sounds like he doesn't understand what the word "truthiness" means.

    It sounds like he doesn’t understand what the word “truthiness” means.

    Exactly:
    “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. I’m sure that these, uh, “truthiness” tools will be every bit as reliable and unbiased as our network news and newpapers and newsmagazines and fact-checkers and Yahoo news aggregators, and Twitter and Facebook moderators.

    What could go wrong?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. That above Obama babble reminds me of his chooming days.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. >The answer must be curating for truthiness.<

    yea proggslam :

    1.)Takiyya
    2.)Tawriya
    3.)Kitman
    4.)Muruna

    Knowing Four Arabic Words May Save Our Civilization from Islamic Takeover

    http://www.islam-watch.org/home/139-louis-palme/1095-knowing-four-arabic-words-may-save-our-civilization-from-islamic-takeover.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. I agree with president Obama. Hate speech and falsehoods must be stopped at all costs

    The only people who disagree are white men. That tells you something right there

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Tiny Duck says, "I agree with president Obama. Hate speech and falsehoods must be stopped at all costs The only people who disagree are white men. That tells you something right there"


    Yeah, that tells us that white men are tolerant of free speech even if it is "hate speech and falsehoods" because they are confident that with openness, truth will ultimately prevail.
    , @Mr. Blank
    That's the Tiny Duck we all know and love! I was beginning to think he'd lost his touch. Nice to see he's got his groove back!

    I hereby nominate Tiny Duck as the official mascot of the iSteve comments section!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. I wonder if he’s channeling Cass “Bowling Leagues Lead to Fascism” Sunstein, who argues that “cognitive infiltration of extermist groups” by government will be needed to stop conspiracy theories.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. @ic1000
    > It sounds like [Pres. Obama] doesn’t understand what the word “truthiness” means.

    Or perhaps he does. I have even greater faith in Ms. Clinton's passion for protecting deplorables and bitter clingers from themselves. Coming soon to a nation near you.

    Yeah, I think he knows exactly what truthiness means. He wants to make the whole world a safe space where nobody has to be exposed to any assertions or facts that challenge the liberal world view. It’s all about the feels.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    Exactly.

    “The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.”
     

    In other words, a place he is still able to push his views onto you, but your views are muzzled.

    What President Obama is talking about is actually being done already—Wikipedia and its edit wars are the perfect example of what can go wrong when you try and curate in a misguided attempt to impose standards of "truthiness[sic]."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Links to the video at http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/35500/did-obama-call-for-online-truthiness-tests-to-curate-news-on-the-internet
    Interesting long pause before he said “truth…truthiness” (see the second video). It looked like he actually considered his word choice before making it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    When President of the Land of Free basically proposes Ministry of Truth, the response by intelligentsia is … crickets. Nothing remarkable here, move on. And the media, ostensibly always hungry for scandalous content, completely ignores it – not a single mainstream media outlet, in print or on TV, picked up or commented on the AFP article (and the hapless AFP journalist who thought it newsworthy is probably censured by now).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Obviously, free speech is “Un-American.” And allowing people to voice dissenting opinions is “not who we are.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @sayless
    Obviously, free speech is “Un-American.” And allowing people to voice dissenting opinions is “not who we are.”

    And people with dissenting opinions are going to find themselves on The Wrong Side Of History tout suite if they don't come around PDQ.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Off topic:

    WSJ Editorial by David Gelernter – Oct 14, 2016.

    “The liberal theory is that, other things being equal, all human beings have an equal right to settle in America. For liberals this is too obvious to spell out. But it is also too ludicrous to defend. Does all mankind have a right to camp in your backyard, eat in your kitchen, work at your office and borrow your best jogging outfit? We fail in our duty if we don’t think carefully whom we want in this country, who would be best for America.”

    So not all neocons are for Hillary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Gelernter is a computer genius and was badly injured (lost his right hand) by one of the Unabomber's bombs (not clear why he was chosen as a target).

    For those who believe IQ is heritable, his name means "one who is learned" (in the Talmud). To become learned you had to have the intellectual chops - dummies need not apply.

    I really liked the editorial and recommend it - it's essence is that yes, all the stuff that they are saying about Trump and women is probably true, but even so, Hillary is worse. A worse human and will make a worse President. I can accept that more than I can accept the idea that each and every one of these women coming forward is a bald faced liar (and ugly to boot!) and Trump is a choir boy.

    , @Anonymous
    David Horowitz is another neocon who is pro Trump.

    What distinguishes pro-Trump neocons like Horowitz and Gelernter from anti-Trump neocons like Kristol and Wolfowitz is that the latter are very close to the halls of power and influence in Washington. A Trump victory energizes and legitimizes Buchananite politics in the GOP, which has been dormant for 25 years, and makes these anti-Trump neocons' jobs a lot harder. Their jobs for the past 25 years have involved steering the GOP away from Buchananite politics. This explains why even David Frum, who's anti-immigration, is anti-Trump. Frum famously attacked Buchanan in the run-up to the Iraq War as one of the "unpatriotic conservatives".

    Guys like Horowitz and Gelernter on the other hand, have much less direct involvement and influence in policymaking in Washington. So their primary concerns about Muslims, terror, and Israel are satisfied by Trump without any compromise.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    They have always been rather more independent-minded. When I was in university, our conservative student organization wouldn't invite Horowitz to campus because he was too far outside the mainstream. Gelernter has always struck me as more interested in ideas than power, so not surprised he is open to "alt-right"ish things.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "So not all neocons are for Hillary."

    And? Is there a reason I should care? I don't feel the need to check my opinions against those of neo-cons, or seek their approval. They hosed up this country massively. I really don't care what they think. Any of them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @The most deplorable one
    It is weird comparing that bastion of truth, Wikipedia, with Infogalactic. For example, look at the Mike Cernovich pages:

    Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Cernovich

    Infogalactic: https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Mike_Cernovich

    Note that Wikipedia manages to leave out lots of detail but, given their ideological bent, also leaves out the criticism.

    Was Infogalactic cramming all that criticism in there to make Wikipedia and the critics look bad?

    Is a self-published e-book author prominent enough to have a Wikipedia page? This isn’t about censorship. There has to be some standards for Wiki pages on individuals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TWS
    Self published? Of course, he was also never a best seller on Amazon. I've never read his stuff but misrepresenting him and his accomplishments is both petty and dishonest.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Now, this little baby used to be a Mark Super VII Quantum E-meter, but wait until you see how well it does truthiness curation! Its got knobs, dials. Only a deplorable heretic would doubt its accuracy! For great truth! Science!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Maybe they can figure out a way too to have your employer and the police know whether you’re getting your info from a source that has basic truthiness curation enabled.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. LOL he said truthiness. Isn’t that from Will Ferrell doing Bush?

    I think this is Obama being Obama, speechifying for the sake of the American Soul with no idea what that means policy-wise—because he has no intention of backing his airy rhetoric with a policy. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think he has any idea what he’s talking about.

    I can remember reading an essay by Hugh Hewitt like ten years ago in the Weekly Standard about Nicholas Leehman attempting to modernize the columbia school of journalism because plainly the specialists who had taken to blogging were making reporters and journalists look obtuse and obsolete. But then, Steve recently remarked, in relation to Andrew Sullizan’s piece about how he got burned out blogging, that there are very few of the first real bloggers left, and it does occur to me that I can’t remember the last time some sharp blogger disrobed faulty reporting. Oh yeah, Steve’s UVA coup. And I think that’s the revealing incident: reporters are stealing leads from bloggers like Steve and giving them no credit. That’s probably why there are few left: blogging does not earn.

    WHICH IS WHY WE SHOULD GIVE STEVE MORE MONEY.

    I don’t think I speak for myself when I say my written media diet consists of little more than checking this blog six times a day. How bout, Here lies Steve Sailer, curator of truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ATX Hipster

    I don’t think I speak for myself when I say my written media diet consists of little more than checking this blog six times a day.
     
    Wired just ran a piece about compulsively checking 538 that could just as easily been about my iSteve habit.

    I first remember hearing "truthiness" from Steve Colbert talking about Wikipedia sometime around 05/06.

    Anyways, speaking of Wired, did everybody know immigrants fuel innovation? The whole article, written by Steve Jobs' widow, is weapons-grade schmaltz:


    The American melting pot, with its new eyes and new imagi­nations, is an incubator for innovation.
     

    Immigrants, with their hopes and energies, should be seen not as threats but as blessings.
     

    Immigrants have not only made our society wealthier and more productive but also more decent. They have enhanced our national character and made us more ethical people.
     
    Ms. Jobs is Disney's largest shareholder, and Disney has decided cheap H-1B employees are preferable to Americans, but I'm sure those facts are unrelated.
    , @415 reasons
    Isteve and drudge and if they don't cover it I didn't miss much
    , @Olorin

    I think this is Obama being Obama, speechifying for the sake of the American Soul with no idea what that means policy-wise—because he has no intention of backing his airy rhetoric with a policy. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think he has any idea what he’s talking about.
     
    Barack Hussein Obama is the equivalent of a nitrous-foamed can of whipped non-dairy dessert topping that a kid sticks the nozzle in their mouth and presses till it gushes out their nose.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. He basically wants the internet to be based on “truthiness tests” as seen through the eyes of academia, careerist bureaucrats, etc. Basically a left wing interpretation of the facts.

    This is our future if certain people can’t stop fainting and kvetching anytime there is another “victim” being paraded around by the likes of Gloria Allred.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Obama fails at epistemology. I would never go so far as to say that there is no objective truth, but in a secular society, empiricism and direct observation is what we all have to rely on for a common middle ground. The more abstract things get, the more they are subject to the influence of politics and ideological bias.

    Even Settled Science!!!111!! is becoming more and more subject to the influence of politics. And, a lot of people may not remember this, but in the true spirit of the Scientific Method, it’s supposed to be an account of the universe that is continually updated according to new data and more accurate understanding — not something that is ever “settled,” per se. Ergo, even according to Science, today’s truth is tomorrow’s outdated paradigm.

    But I’ve never seen Obama say anything to suggest that he’s capable of taking all that complexity into account. He’s all about muh constituency, muh voters HURR DURR

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. In this context, curation just means giving inconvenient truths, dissent, and hate facts a low PageRank score. Or not allowing search engines to find it at all.

    Time for the alt-right to makes its own search engine. Call it Pepe or FireFrog. A quarter of the US population would use it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Edited to add: Obama actually doesn’t seem like that bad of a guy. He only went along with all that war stuff because his power is limited and he got dragged into it by the people that got him elected. Hillary on the other hand, seems like she would be much more actively evil, if only her health will allow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Obama actually doesn’t seem like that bad of a guy.
     
    Right, because depriving millions of Americans of health care (you can keep the doctor/health care plan you want), through dishonesty and dead-of-night legislative prestidigitation, turning the Middle East into a perpetual war zone, converting Russia from ally to enemy, encouraging China's imperial ambitions, opening the borders to unlimited immigration, incurring enormous debts, politicizing and de-legitimizing the Justice Department and the FBI, and ramping up violent crime by targeting the police "doesn't seem that bad".

    Yep, Obama seems not that bad - and Saul Alinsky is applauding both Obama and your endorsement of Obama's perfidy from Hell. Obama's place next to Saul is secure. I hope you realize your post is evidence of you lobbying to join him.

    OTOH, you are right about Hill being more evil. But given your affection for the Dissembler-In-Chief I suspect you hinder the Trump road to righting our ship of state more than help it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Just saw the preview tonight for that “Denial” movie, the one about the David Irving suit. Reading Obama’s comments after seeing it makes me suspect that this is all battlespace preparation for a new censorship push.

    I’m no Holocaust denier, but I found the preview risible, because it made it seem like the movie was conceived as a stalking horse to advance the notion that some ideas just need to be shut down. I don’t even know the details of the suit — I seem to recall that the facts of the case were a lot more mundane than they are portrayed here — but it seems pretty clear that the message of the movie is, “some speech needs to be banned.” Maybe the movie will be different (previews can sometimes be way off), but it seemed like they were going out of the way to set up the parallel between right wing ideas in general and Holocaust denial, to make Left-wingers feel comfortable in eventually shutting down “hate speech.”

    That preview, these comments from Obama, some stuff Hillary has said, and some other stuff I’ve read give me the feeling that this might be the Left’s next big crusade, after they finish making transgender toilet rights mandatory across the entire country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @william munny
    That first amendment is really pesky. Which do they hate more, the first or second?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    OT: The, ahem, “final assault” on Mosul, Iraq — where the good guys (Al Qaida) break the will of ISIS — is being timed to coincide with election day.

    Look for Joy in Mudville to arrive just before the Sunday talk shows Nov 6. Obama/Hillary will make a joint appearance on Monday triumphant in optics produced by a famous Hollywood director.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. No need to “curate””–I’m not even sure how you’d do that anyway. The best way to discredit people who will believe anything is to hoax them. Piltdown man, Dan Rather, etc. The fringe right is primed to believe anything. There’s no discipline and no thought. Someone is likely planning to embarrass them badly and I don’t think it will take much effort.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. I’ve always argued, even during the early ’90s when the internet barely existed as of yet, that it was eventually doomed, that it was not the all-encompassing cultural revolution it was being sold as. The reasons for this were all interdependent and generational in nature, and my (here much abbreviated) argument went something like this.

    The physical existence of the internet is basically a one-off result of the enormous wealth of the Baby Boom generation and their ability to manipulate financial markets. The infrastructure that sustains the internet is both expensive and non self-liquidating in the traditional sense. Thus, in layman’s terms, the internet is basically wasted capital. The technology is only affordable to the masses because of the labor arbitrage resulting from globalization, and globalization is likewise an artifact of the Boomer generation’s characteristic social mood and not a permanent feature of the economy. The internet is also a great liability in wartime; it is both A) an unnecessary extravagance that cannot be supported as the economy turns towards the production of war materiel, and B) a soft target that makes us vulnerable to cyber-attacks and intelligence leaks. Therefore, as the Boomer generation fades, as their financial manipulations finally approach a day of reckoning, as globalization abates and as general war approaches, the continued existence of the internet will simply not be feasible.

    The social changes that will attend this transformation are both a result and an exacerbating cause of the internet’s decline, also working in an interdependent fashion. We see here one of those social changes aborning, viz. the desire by governments to control (i.e. tax, regulate, censor) internet content. Once that begins in earnest the internet’s decline will accelerate, because there will be very little demand for what it can provide. People will not be willing to pay for it and it will only be sustained, if at all, by compulsory taxation and fees, resulting in a very circumscribed, cumbersome, and limited experience. The prior years of rapid internet growth were only possible because of the opportunities for investment it afforded as a so-called “new frontier.” I am rather skeptical about the ultimate value of many of those opportunities, but at least the perception thereof at the time provided a case for investment. With the closing of the frontier, even that perception will be gone.

    It will be very interesting to watch the action in the financial markets as the dawning realization grows that companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and a host of Silicon Valley lesser lights have no real pathway to profitability and are basically just gigantic cash burning operations. As the tech sector sells off horrendously there will be calls for bailouts and recapitalizations of the affected companies, but neither the willingness nor the ability for continued QE will be anymore existent, the dry powder having already been wasted on the zombie banks and real estate boondoggles of the Great Recession. The drying up of investment capital will further retard R&D and Capex in the IT field and will depress interest in programming and computer science as career choices for qualified youth. The downward spiral will continue until a new equilibrium is reached in a world very much less tech-dependent as the one we occupy today.

    It should be apparent by now that anything Obama touches, he ruins. In the the coming years the internet will undergo its own version of the “NFL ratings plunge” we are witnessing as a result of BLM meddling in one of America’s national pastimes. Although Obama himself is at least as much effect as cause of the sweeping social changes his era will come to symbolize, he should never be excused of the ill effects simply because of the malice in his heart.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Dang. I might have to start reading your blog. I heard an interview with Chris Sacca where he said it was just obvious--obvious!--that Twitter was going to make money. How could people not see that? Of course, he never did explain how. A real emperor has no clothes moment.

    The only thing is that the Internet is really completely integrated into every facet of our lives now. I don't see how to go back.
    , @Jack D
    Disagree with much of what you say here. 1st of all, in terms of war (God forbid) the structure of the internet was a spinoff of defense technology in order to enable communication during wartime - the packet switching concept means that the internet automatically reroutes around outages - if you are sending to California from NY and Chicago has been nuked, your message will travel via Houston instead (or 100 other ways). Unless every possible path is blocked, the message still gets thru.

    2nd the internet is not just silly girls posting messages on their Facebook wall. A lot of real work gets done on the internet and the existence of the internet has revolutionized many industries. To some extent these industries have been free riders on the infrastructure supported by the more silly aspects, but if they had to, they would pay (more) to support their work.

    3rd, the existing infrastructure, even if it was a total waste (and it wasn't), has already been built out. Even if the return to the original investors who paid for all that fiber is zero (see Global Crossing) the fiber still exists and will be in service for many decades.

    As for tech dependency, I think we are just skimming the surface. You ain't seen nothin' yet. In the future, even more of your life will be run from your phone. Only 2% of grocery shopping is now done online. Broadcast networks are still on the air. Some voice traffic is still carried in analog over copper wires. In the end, everything is data and will be carried as data.
    , @Forbes
    The cloud and cloud computing will be the nexus of control of the internet. Through scale and consolidation there will only be a few providers--hence only a few gateways, like the big 3 broadcast networks of old.

    Try getting your dissident and alternative voice heard then.
    , @Charles Pewitt
    Barking up the right tree on this one.

    Monetary extremism and mass immigration are driving politics.

    Trump says monetary extremism is propping up asset bubbles. Trump says immigration is out of control.

    Hillary Clinton says she wants more nation-wrecking mass immigration. Hillary Clinton is a nasty whore for the big banks.

    Currrency electronically conjured up out of thin air; cultural cohesion deliberately destroyed by the demographic displacement of traditional populations.

    "Sometimes when my thoughts about the future are particulary gloomy, I find myself feeling more and more lighthearted." -- Sir Randolph Nettleby as played by James Mason in the film The Shooting Party
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Anonymous
    Is a self-published e-book author prominent enough to have a Wikipedia page? This isn't about censorship. There has to be some standards for Wiki pages on individuals.

    Self published? Of course, he was also never a best seller on Amazon. I’ve never read his stuff but misrepresenting him and his accomplishments is both petty and dishonest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    Selbstbauverlag has always been in bad odor, but some of the most useful books I have ever had were self-published.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Wouldn’t it be simpler if we all received neural implants? We could then better serve the collective, and the Borg Queen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. @TicklingTimeBomb
    One wonders if President Obama is up-to-date on the replication crisis in social psychology.

    Facts are a funny thing. The facts I've been hearing about from evolutionary psychology and biology are, to put it mildly, at odds with the facts coming out of sociology.

    (Of course, given that sociology departments are already more or less the ministry of truth, I think I know which facts will be forbidden...)

    On the other hand, you kind of have to pity the poor liberals. They inherited this giant, highly successful power structure from their liberal forebearers, and somehow it escaped their notice that the source of that power was HEGEMONY, not that they'd actually won any arguments. And so they thought that free speech was one of their values, and that the internet would be a great tool for spreading their wisdom... which has amounted to a kind of unilateral disarmament on their part.

    Obama is right to highlight the role of the three trusted, very corporate, very cozy with government television networks. That was indeed the source of a lot of American unity and cohesion... by filling the exact same role that Pravada did, or that the KCNA does.

    I too pity them. How were they to know? They were told that their side monopolized goodness and light, and that they didn’t need to bother learning anything else. Their self-constructed mind prison kept them ignorant of the fact that Truth isn’t progressive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Tiny Duck
    I agree with president Obama. Hate speech and falsehoods must be stopped at all costs

    The only people who disagree are white men. That tells you something right there

    Tiny Duck says, “I agree with president Obama. Hate speech and falsehoods must be stopped at all costs The only people who disagree are white men. That tells you something right there”

    Yeah, that tells us that white men are tolerant of free speech even if it is “hate speech and falsehoods” because they are confident that with openness, truth will ultimately prevail.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. What Obama’s remarks really mean is that we have to have a mechanism to establish that some opinions and some interpretations of reality are more authoritative and authentic than others, so that our future politics will be guided by the fundamental assumptions established by those authoritative and authentic opinions and interpretations that have received the USDT seal of approval.

    This sort of thing will supposedly mend the polarization taking place in our nation, because, obviously, we can’t get anything done until everyone agrees that: 1. Climate Change is happening, 2. All sexual orientations are innate, unchangeable, and equal, 3. All gender orientations are unquestionable because they are subjectively true, 4. All groupings of human beings are equal, and if all groupings of humans do not achieve precisely equal socio-economic results, positively or negatively (that includes incarceration) then that is spectral evidence for the existence of racism, 5. which is the greatest evil, and should be eradicated by education and by socio-economic handouts, 6. All historical interpretations that are more than 25 years old are unquestionable in detail, 7. Except for any re-interpretation of history that denigrates white people, males, straights, and people who are socially or economically successful. 8. The United States was established to be the Light Unto the Nations, and except for some lamentable occasions inspired by racism, has always allowed anyone who wants to come here to come here and live, and 9. They have perfect right to do so, because every human being has a right to pursue happiness wherever it leads, 10. Don’t pay any attention to any information that undercuts any of these theses or inspires contempt for any of the political, social, or economic policies carried out in the United States at any time because they would be wrong and such information has not been properly vetted and registered as authoritative by the US government.

    I’m sure there are more theses involved but those are the first ones that I could think of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    I’m sure there are more theses involved but those are the first ones that I could think of.
     
    That is an accurate and damning litany of absurdities routinely offered by our "opponents". But given that our "opponents" are represented so well by Slimy Tiny Duck, how can logic, reason and common sense dissuade them from attempting to consign us to the cesspool they hope we will inhabit?

    Is AndrewR right that we must raise the black flag? I hope not.

    When Trump wins Deeny Tuck will be livid, and livid Leftist have produced the greatest suffering in all of human history.

    I hope Trump is up to the task. But Trump can only succeed with lots of America-supporting subordinates. And there exactly zero of them in the USG right now.
    , @The Last Real Calvinist

    What Obama’s remarks really mean is that we have to have a mechanism to establish that some opinions and some interpretations of reality are more authoritative and authentic than others, so that our future politics will be guided by the fundamental assumptions established by those authoritative and authentic opinions and interpretations that have received the USDT seal of approval.

     

    Yes, that's an excellent summary. I listened to an audio clip of Obama's remarks, and got the feeling they weren't exactly off-the-cuff.

    His choice of the verb 'curate' was especially suggestive. Not many people would use it casually.

    I think our Leftist Overlords are searching for a sticky, not-too-alarming -- maybe even 'friendly' -- name for the intensification and enforcement of their information-gatekeeping and narrative-maintaining endeavors.

    In this context, 'curate' is not too bad; only a few 19th-century-literature-loving losers like me will see it and immediately think of a comic clergyman . . . .

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Name Withheld
    Off topic:

    WSJ Editorial by David Gelernter - Oct 14, 2016.

    "The liberal theory is that, other things being equal, all human beings have an equal right to settle in America. For liberals this is too obvious to spell out. But it is also too ludicrous to defend. Does all mankind have a right to camp in your backyard, eat in your kitchen, work at your office and borrow your best jogging outfit? We fail in our duty if we don’t think carefully whom we want in this country, who would be best for America."

    So not all neocons are for Hillary.

    Gelernter is a computer genius and was badly injured (lost his right hand) by one of the Unabomber’s bombs (not clear why he was chosen as a target).

    For those who believe IQ is heritable, his name means “one who is learned” (in the Talmud). To become learned you had to have the intellectual chops – dummies need not apply.

    I really liked the editorial and recommend it – it’s essence is that yes, all the stuff that they are saying about Trump and women is probably true, but even so, Hillary is worse. A worse human and will make a worse President. I can accept that more than I can accept the idea that each and every one of these women coming forward is a bald faced liar (and ugly to boot!) and Trump is a choir boy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Antonymous
    "For those who believe IQ is heritable, his name means “one who is learned” (in the Talmud)"

    The word gelernter is germanic in origin, not hebrew. To be pedantic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “for allowing conspiracy theorists a broad platform and destroying a common basis for debate.”

    What is the biggest and most serious conspiracy theory? Right now?

    It’s that the Russians are trying to ‘interfere’ with out elections. And Obama is threatening a cyber war, right this instant, to attack this conspiracy.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cia-prepping-possible-cyber-strike-against-russia-n666636

    Hey. I only wish I was making this up.

    Maybe the Russians are trying to influence our elections. God knows we meddle in every other county. But the proof? Yellow cake.

    And when I first read of this — our cyber war plans — I was thinking it was just more nutter talk. But no.

    The basic facts about Russia’s election-year hacking of the American political system are clear. For more than a year, the Russian government has repeatedly infiltrated the computers of both parties’ presidential campaigns to steal data and emails to influence the outcome of the election. In response, the Obama administration has promised a “proportional” response against Russia.

    When an attack has been identified, the next step is to attribute it — to determine whom to hold responsible. U.S. intelligence officials seem to have already done this, at least to the satisfaction of the White House. But it’s worth remembering that attribution is especially challenging in the world of cyber-conflict. The Russians have managed to cling to a veneer of deniability, at least in public, by relying on a clever pattern of cut-out agents, ranging from Russian cyber-criminals to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. This is a version of the hybrid warfare we’ve seen used so effectively in the attacks in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea — essentially using the cyber-equivalent of the unmarked soldiers (so-called little green men) that led the fight into Ukraine.

    This theory is from Foreign Policy. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/12/how-to-win-the-cyber-war-against-russia/

    Anything and everything will be leaked. However, the insinuation that our election is “rigged” if Hillary loses? It’s like some of the things that Trump as asserted (some of which I feel are over the top) and which he is constantly and mercilessly pounded on. But it is much much more serious. There is no proof that Russia is systematically leaking Hillary documents. But it is given an air of legitimacy by the President of the United States. And backed up with threats of cyber war.

    Meanwhile, it defies common sense that the Russians are a primary source of leaked documents. It may be frustrating that Obama can’t prove it. But it is hugely beneficial that it can never be disproved. No embarrassment abut the lack of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ in Iraq.

    And the problem is leaks? What if the leaked documents are authentic. True. There is some hope that if only we can blame Russia, then the content of the leaks is compromised.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. @Pat Casey
    LOL he said truthiness. Isn't that from Will Ferrell doing Bush?

    I think this is Obama being Obama, speechifying for the sake of the American Soul with no idea what that means policy-wise---because he has no intention of backing his airy rhetoric with a policy. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think he has any idea what he's talking about.

    I can remember reading an essay by Hugh Hewitt like ten years ago in the Weekly Standard about Nicholas Leehman attempting to modernize the columbia school of journalism because plainly the specialists who had taken to blogging were making reporters and journalists look obtuse and obsolete. But then, Steve recently remarked, in relation to Andrew Sullizan's piece about how he got burned out blogging, that there are very few of the first real bloggers left, and it does occur to me that I can't remember the last time some sharp blogger disrobed faulty reporting. Oh yeah, Steve's UVA coup. And I think that's the revealing incident: reporters are stealing leads from bloggers like Steve and giving them no credit. That's probably why there are few left: blogging does not earn.

    WHICH IS WHY WE SHOULD GIVE STEVE MORE MONEY.

    I don't think I speak for myself when I say my written media diet consists of little more than checking this blog six times a day. How bout, Here lies Steve Sailer, curator of truth.

    I don’t think I speak for myself when I say my written media diet consists of little more than checking this blog six times a day.

    Wired just ran a piece about compulsively checking 538 that could just as easily been about my iSteve habit.

    I first remember hearing “truthiness” from Steve Colbert talking about Wikipedia sometime around 05/06.

    Anyways, speaking of Wired, did everybody know immigrants fuel innovation? The whole article, written by Steve Jobs’ widow, is weapons-grade schmaltz:

    The American melting pot, with its new eyes and new imagi­nations, is an incubator for innovation.

    Immigrants, with their hopes and energies, should be seen not as threats but as blessings.

    Immigrants have not only made our society wealthier and more productive but also more decent. They have enhanced our national character and made us more ethical people.

    Ms. Jobs is Disney’s largest shareholder, and Disney has decided cheap H-1B employees are preferable to Americans, but I’m sure those facts are unrelated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @grapesoda
    Edited to add: Obama actually doesn't seem like that bad of a guy. He only went along with all that war stuff because his power is limited and he got dragged into it by the people that got him elected. Hillary on the other hand, seems like she would be much more actively evil, if only her health will allow.

    Obama actually doesn’t seem like that bad of a guy.

    Right, because depriving millions of Americans of health care (you can keep the doctor/health care plan you want), through dishonesty and dead-of-night legislative prestidigitation, turning the Middle East into a perpetual war zone, converting Russia from ally to enemy, encouraging China’s imperial ambitions, opening the borders to unlimited immigration, incurring enormous debts, politicizing and de-legitimizing the Justice Department and the FBI, and ramping up violent crime by targeting the police “doesn’t seem that bad”.

    Yep, Obama seems not that bad – and Saul Alinsky is applauding both Obama and your endorsement of Obama’s perfidy from Hell. Obama’s place next to Saul is secure. I hope you realize your post is evidence of you lobbying to join him.

    OTOH, you are right about Hill being more evil. But given your affection for the Dissembler-In-Chief I suspect you hinder the Trump road to righting our ship of state more than help it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Obama actually has been a moderating force in Mideast intervention. The only reason we haven't already intervened in Syria is that Obama hasn't given the green light.

    Russia wasn't an "ally" before the Obama administration. It's not clear how Russia could become an "ally" as we, NATO, and the Western Europeans understand the term, without Russia making various political and military changes and compromises that the Western Europeans would insist upon and which the current Russian regime would never accept.

    Hillary is among the biggest China hawks in foreign policy. That's not a reason to vote for her over Trump.

    http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/china-isnt-exactly-backing-hillary-clinton-for-the-us-election/news-story/9b5cf115f6708db3b35ff950a5480142

    On one hand, Clinton is known for her tough stance against China. She has previously publicly condemned the country’s record on human rights, its political system and internet censorship. She’s also accused the country of hacking US computers and stealing commercial secrets and government information.

    Over the weekend, fresh emails purportedly from her campaign leaked by Wikileaks revealed she told bankers three years ago that the United States had warned Beijing it would “ring China with missile defence”, unless it did more to stop North Korea.

    According to a hacked campaign document, her message to China in 2013 had been, “You either control them, or we’re going to have to defend against them”.

    But it’s her hawkish views on ownership of the South China Sea that have struck a particularly strong chord in China.

    In 2010, as Secretary of State, Clinton outraged Beijing after pushing the South China Sea to the top of the regional and US security agendas.

    She’s also expressed a desire for more US intervention in the disputed South China Sea region.

    ...

    In May, China’s official Xinhua news agency noted Trump’s more isolationist campaign compared to Clinton’s, who it described as an “old foreign policy hand” and important backer of the Asia-Pacific “pivot” that China considers a threat.

    “As far as she’s concerned, being tough on foreign policy is perhaps the best way to show America’s so called ‘leadership’,” it said in a commentary.

    In a brief op-ed for The Global Times earlier this year, Renmin University of China academic Wang Yiwei said the Chinese “regard Trump as a clown, funny and unscrupulous.”

    He went on to say: “I think Trump as US president will be good for the Sino-US relations. Trump sticks to isolationism when it comes to foreign policy. He doesn’t want the US to bear so many global responsibilities. In contrast, Clinton initiated the Asia-Pacific rebalancing strategy which is aimed at containing China.”
     
    , @Flip
    I don't like Obama and didn't vote for him, but if McCain had been elected we would have bombed Iran with very bad consequences.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. In a way, Obama is admitting that NY Times, the Wash Po, the 3 networks, CNN, etc. have lost their credibility by becoming leftist mouthpieces. In the past, the party line was that these sources were giving you the unvarnished truth, no spin (which was alway a lie). If you wanted to know the truth, you should ignore Fox News and those tens of thousands of of racis’s on the wild wild web and just listen to those 6 or so “authoritative ” sources.

    But now even he admits that these outlets have given up any pretense of being neutral sources, so we have to reinvent a new set of neutral sources.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheJester
    Agree, I seems that Obama is committed to somehow signing the final death notice on the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, the networks, and the Atlantic. MSM they are no more. It's long overdue. What will follow? We already have it. It's called the Alternative Media.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Matt Stevens
    Yeah, I think he knows exactly what truthiness means. He wants to make the whole world a safe space where nobody has to be exposed to any assertions or facts that challenge the liberal world view. It's all about the feels.

    Exactly.

    “The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.”

    In other words, a place he is still able to push his views onto you, but your views are muzzled.

    What President Obama is talking about is actually being done already—Wikipedia and its edit wars are the perfect example of what can go wrong when you try and curate in a misguided attempt to impose standards of “truthiness[sic].”

    Read More
    • Replies: @ic1000


    President Obama: “The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.”
     
    In other words, a place he is still able to push his views onto you, but your views are muzzled.
     
    Barack Obama and Eric Holder are sharing the 2018 Nobel Prize for Literature. The commendation reads, "For their tireless and successful efforts to modernize the word 'conversation,' bringing usage in line with its Newspeak definition."
    , @Jack D
    I've noticed quite recently that the MSM have begun to "curate" Donald Trump right in their news stories. I just heard something like this on NPR just now. They will say "Today Donald Trump said X" (so far so good) "despite the fact that there is no evidence that X is true". I don't think that was ever done in the past. Maybe from their POV Donald Trump is an unprecedented liar and "deserves" to be "curated" in this way, but this is something new AFAIK.
    , @The most deplorable one



    “The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.”

     

    In other words, a place he is still able to push his views onto you, but your views are muzzled.

     

    As I understand it, the goal of Infogalactic is to create a rating and filtering system, so that people can stay in their comfort zone.

    If a reader does not want to be confronted by hate facts and prefers authors of a certain ideological bent they can set their settings and when searching on subjects they will only be shown articles and context that matches their echo chamber.

    Who knows if they will achieve that.
    , @No_0ne
    Might want to check out Infogalactic (Vox Day's fork of wikipedia). Still running a little slow, but seems to be improving.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Name Withheld
    Off topic:

    WSJ Editorial by David Gelernter - Oct 14, 2016.

    "The liberal theory is that, other things being equal, all human beings have an equal right to settle in America. For liberals this is too obvious to spell out. But it is also too ludicrous to defend. Does all mankind have a right to camp in your backyard, eat in your kitchen, work at your office and borrow your best jogging outfit? We fail in our duty if we don’t think carefully whom we want in this country, who would be best for America."

    So not all neocons are for Hillary.

    David Horowitz is another neocon who is pro Trump.

    What distinguishes pro-Trump neocons like Horowitz and Gelernter from anti-Trump neocons like Kristol and Wolfowitz is that the latter are very close to the halls of power and influence in Washington. A Trump victory energizes and legitimizes Buchananite politics in the GOP, which has been dormant for 25 years, and makes these anti-Trump neocons’ jobs a lot harder. Their jobs for the past 25 years have involved steering the GOP away from Buchananite politics. This explains why even David Frum, who’s anti-immigration, is anti-Trump. Frum famously attacked Buchanan in the run-up to the Iraq War as one of the “unpatriotic conservatives”.

    Guys like Horowitz and Gelernter on the other hand, have much less direct involvement and influence in policymaking in Washington. So their primary concerns about Muslims, terror, and Israel are satisfied by Trump without any compromise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Horowitz and Gelernter are also honest thinkers.
    , @Forbes
    Shorter version: Kristol and Wolfowitz's jobs (influence) depend on Washington insider politics, Gerlernter and Horowitz's jobs don't.

    Follow the money--every time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @SPMoore8
    What Obama's remarks really mean is that we have to have a mechanism to establish that some opinions and some interpretations of reality are more authoritative and authentic than others, so that our future politics will be guided by the fundamental assumptions established by those authoritative and authentic opinions and interpretations that have received the USDT seal of approval.

    This sort of thing will supposedly mend the polarization taking place in our nation, because, obviously, we can't get anything done until everyone agrees that: 1. Climate Change is happening, 2. All sexual orientations are innate, unchangeable, and equal, 3. All gender orientations are unquestionable because they are subjectively true, 4. All groupings of human beings are equal, and if all groupings of humans do not achieve precisely equal socio-economic results, positively or negatively (that includes incarceration) then that is spectral evidence for the existence of racism, 5. which is the greatest evil, and should be eradicated by education and by socio-economic handouts, 6. All historical interpretations that are more than 25 years old are unquestionable in detail, 7. Except for any re-interpretation of history that denigrates white people, males, straights, and people who are socially or economically successful. 8. The United States was established to be the Light Unto the Nations, and except for some lamentable occasions inspired by racism, has always allowed anyone who wants to come here to come here and live, and 9. They have perfect right to do so, because every human being has a right to pursue happiness wherever it leads, 10. Don't pay any attention to any information that undercuts any of these theses or inspires contempt for any of the political, social, or economic policies carried out in the United States at any time because they would be wrong and such information has not been properly vetted and registered as authoritative by the US government.

    I'm sure there are more theses involved but those are the first ones that I could think of.

    I’m sure there are more theses involved but those are the first ones that I could think of.

    That is an accurate and damning litany of absurdities routinely offered by our “opponents”. But given that our “opponents” are represented so well by Slimy Tiny Duck, how can logic, reason and common sense dissuade them from attempting to consign us to the cesspool they hope we will inhabit?

    Is AndrewR right that we must raise the black flag? I hope not.

    When Trump wins Deeny Tuck will be livid, and livid Leftist have produced the greatest suffering in all of human history.

    I hope Trump is up to the task. But Trump can only succeed with lots of America-supporting subordinates. And there exactly zero of them in the USG right now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Truth? Ha.

    I would settle for a story about what we are doing in Syria that makes our intervention plausibly in our national interests.

    Not a truthie story … just something half assed argument about how we haven’t already lost. Anything.

    With the exception of some little girl bleeding from what we know must be violence from Assad/Russia. Any argument on humanitarian grounds is beyond idiocy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. “Censorship” sounds bad. So when the left wants to control information and censor political opponents, they are trying to preempt any accusations of censorship and shift meaning of language so their actions don’t have that label.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Obama actually doesn’t seem like that bad of a guy.
     
    Right, because depriving millions of Americans of health care (you can keep the doctor/health care plan you want), through dishonesty and dead-of-night legislative prestidigitation, turning the Middle East into a perpetual war zone, converting Russia from ally to enemy, encouraging China's imperial ambitions, opening the borders to unlimited immigration, incurring enormous debts, politicizing and de-legitimizing the Justice Department and the FBI, and ramping up violent crime by targeting the police "doesn't seem that bad".

    Yep, Obama seems not that bad - and Saul Alinsky is applauding both Obama and your endorsement of Obama's perfidy from Hell. Obama's place next to Saul is secure. I hope you realize your post is evidence of you lobbying to join him.

    OTOH, you are right about Hill being more evil. But given your affection for the Dissembler-In-Chief I suspect you hinder the Trump road to righting our ship of state more than help it.

    Obama actually has been a moderating force in Mideast intervention. The only reason we haven’t already intervened in Syria is that Obama hasn’t given the green light.

    Russia wasn’t an “ally” before the Obama administration. It’s not clear how Russia could become an “ally” as we, NATO, and the Western Europeans understand the term, without Russia making various political and military changes and compromises that the Western Europeans would insist upon and which the current Russian regime would never accept.

    Hillary is among the biggest China hawks in foreign policy. That’s not a reason to vote for her over Trump.

    http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/china-isnt-exactly-backing-hillary-clinton-for-the-us-election/news-story/9b5cf115f6708db3b35ff950a5480142

    On one hand, Clinton is known for her tough stance against China. She has previously publicly condemned the country’s record on human rights, its political system and internet censorship. She’s also accused the country of hacking US computers and stealing commercial secrets and government information.

    Over the weekend, fresh emails purportedly from her campaign leaked by Wikileaks revealed she told bankers three years ago that the United States had warned Beijing it would “ring China with missile defence”, unless it did more to stop North Korea.

    According to a hacked campaign document, her message to China in 2013 had been, “You either control them, or we’re going to have to defend against them”.

    But it’s her hawkish views on ownership of the South China Sea that have struck a particularly strong chord in China.

    In 2010, as Secretary of State, Clinton outraged Beijing after pushing the South China Sea to the top of the regional and US security agendas.

    She’s also expressed a desire for more US intervention in the disputed South China Sea region.

    In May, China’s official Xinhua news agency noted Trump’s more isolationist campaign compared to Clinton’s, who it described as an “old foreign policy hand” and important backer of the Asia-Pacific “pivot” that China considers a threat.

    “As far as she’s concerned, being tough on foreign policy is perhaps the best way to show America’s so called ‘leadership’,” it said in a commentary.

    In a brief op-ed for The Global Times earlier this year, Renmin University of China academic Wang Yiwei said the Chinese “regard Trump as a clown, funny and unscrupulous.”

    He went on to say: “I think Trump as US president will be good for the Sino-US relations. Trump sticks to isolationism when it comes to foreign policy. He doesn’t want the US to bear so many global responsibilities. In contrast, Clinton initiated the Asia-Pacific rebalancing strategy which is aimed at containing China.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    But Obama hasn't given the green light because of public opinion, not because he's moderate on the issue. If you'll recall, we came damn close to jumping in. There was massive public backlash, and the administration blinked.

    Bush the Younger might have done the same with Iraq, except the MSM propaganda campaign worked in that instance. They never could sell us on intervention in Syria partly because it's a screwy situation. We'd be allied with Al Queda possibly against a nuclear power (Russia). Then there's the fact that not only would we be fighting the Current Hitler of Convenience Assad, but ISIS as well. So that any gain against one might be a victory for the other.

    They couldn't tell us why we need to jump in, whatever is the actual reason. So they backed down. I don't think Obama as an individual has much of anything to do with that. Regarding foreign policy he's Federal Employee #6924107, or whatever.

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Obama actually has been a moderating force in Mideast intervention
     
    No Obama has not. Your post inverts the facts. Are you a Leftist?

    You do not blame the dam for the flood when its foundation has been destroyed. Obama destroyed the foundations of the political structure of the Middle East.

    Obama made sure The Duck was killed. The same Duck that dismantled his nuclear program and stemmed the tide of African "refugees." Obama’s stupidity could not have been exceeded in those circumstances, unless his purpose was to light up the Middle East in a regional conflagration. AFAIK no one thinks Obama is stupid.

    Killing the Duck ensured that Assad will never step aside because he does not want to die like The Duck did. And that Assad will stop at nothing to keep his hold on power.

    Killing the Duck also ensured that no regime will ever give up nuclear weapons, and those that would retain their illegitimate power need observe no bounds on the violence they inflict to keep their power. The Duck would be alive had he not given up nuclear weapons. Obama set a horrible precedent, one whose cost will not be counted just in money.

    Obama rode the red horse of Rev. 6:4. The blood of the dead, the maimed, the disfigured and the wounded in Libya and Syria is on Obama’s head. And the dead that will needlessly die due to his precedent will condemn him when he stands to account for his actions at the end of time.

    And Hillary signed on for it all.

    Vote Democrat, so the Democrats can do for America what they have done for Detroit, and do for the world what they have done for Syria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. How timely is this?

    Obama seems to have started the “truthiness” checking a bit earlier than we might have expected. No more “Wild West”, with all its destructive revelation of fact.

    Seriously, if the US government is behind this, how is that not manipulation of the election by the ruling party — not to mention outright censorship of the most pernicious, state-based kind?

    It’s going to be really outrageous and a deep offense to basic democracy if the American government has its hand in this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. The NYT is essentially not covering the Wikileaks.
    Over the last week there have been 8 pieces on the subject including 3 pushing the Trump Russian conspiracy; one self-serving piece against the media collusion scandal; one parochial piece about De Blasio; and the others non-threatening to HRC, such as my personal favorite: “Leaked emails show how hard Hillary worked to hone her campaign message.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. @Pat Casey
    LOL he said truthiness. Isn't that from Will Ferrell doing Bush?

    I think this is Obama being Obama, speechifying for the sake of the American Soul with no idea what that means policy-wise---because he has no intention of backing his airy rhetoric with a policy. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think he has any idea what he's talking about.

    I can remember reading an essay by Hugh Hewitt like ten years ago in the Weekly Standard about Nicholas Leehman attempting to modernize the columbia school of journalism because plainly the specialists who had taken to blogging were making reporters and journalists look obtuse and obsolete. But then, Steve recently remarked, in relation to Andrew Sullizan's piece about how he got burned out blogging, that there are very few of the first real bloggers left, and it does occur to me that I can't remember the last time some sharp blogger disrobed faulty reporting. Oh yeah, Steve's UVA coup. And I think that's the revealing incident: reporters are stealing leads from bloggers like Steve and giving them no credit. That's probably why there are few left: blogging does not earn.

    WHICH IS WHY WE SHOULD GIVE STEVE MORE MONEY.

    I don't think I speak for myself when I say my written media diet consists of little more than checking this blog six times a day. How bout, Here lies Steve Sailer, curator of truth.

    Isteve and drudge and if they don’t cover it I didn’t miss much

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Uh oh, it looks like Django got off his chain again. Somebody get his leash he’s shooting at the Left again. When is he going to stop trying to do things? That never works.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. Some truthiness will be revealed starting tomorrow, it seems:

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ROLLING_STONE_LAWSUIT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-10-16-09-08-28

    “It [gang rape] happens a lot more often than people might think,” Jackie replied.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. @SPMoore8
    What Obama's remarks really mean is that we have to have a mechanism to establish that some opinions and some interpretations of reality are more authoritative and authentic than others, so that our future politics will be guided by the fundamental assumptions established by those authoritative and authentic opinions and interpretations that have received the USDT seal of approval.

    This sort of thing will supposedly mend the polarization taking place in our nation, because, obviously, we can't get anything done until everyone agrees that: 1. Climate Change is happening, 2. All sexual orientations are innate, unchangeable, and equal, 3. All gender orientations are unquestionable because they are subjectively true, 4. All groupings of human beings are equal, and if all groupings of humans do not achieve precisely equal socio-economic results, positively or negatively (that includes incarceration) then that is spectral evidence for the existence of racism, 5. which is the greatest evil, and should be eradicated by education and by socio-economic handouts, 6. All historical interpretations that are more than 25 years old are unquestionable in detail, 7. Except for any re-interpretation of history that denigrates white people, males, straights, and people who are socially or economically successful. 8. The United States was established to be the Light Unto the Nations, and except for some lamentable occasions inspired by racism, has always allowed anyone who wants to come here to come here and live, and 9. They have perfect right to do so, because every human being has a right to pursue happiness wherever it leads, 10. Don't pay any attention to any information that undercuts any of these theses or inspires contempt for any of the political, social, or economic policies carried out in the United States at any time because they would be wrong and such information has not been properly vetted and registered as authoritative by the US government.

    I'm sure there are more theses involved but those are the first ones that I could think of.

    What Obama’s remarks really mean is that we have to have a mechanism to establish that some opinions and some interpretations of reality are more authoritative and authentic than others, so that our future politics will be guided by the fundamental assumptions established by those authoritative and authentic opinions and interpretations that have received the USDT seal of approval.

    Yes, that’s an excellent summary. I listened to an audio clip of Obama’s remarks, and got the feeling they weren’t exactly off-the-cuff.

    His choice of the verb ‘curate’ was especially suggestive. Not many people would use it casually.

    I think our Leftist Overlords are searching for a sticky, not-too-alarming — maybe even ‘friendly’ — name for the intensification and enforcement of their information-gatekeeping and narrative-maintaining endeavors.

    In this context, ‘curate’ is not too bad; only a few 19th-century-literature-loving losers like me will see it and immediately think of a comic clergyman . . . .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Curate is ubiquitous in the hipster world.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/fashion/04curate.html

    THE Tipping Point, a store in Houston that calls itself a sneaker lifestyle shop, does not just sell a collection of differently colored rubber soles, along with books, music and apparel. No, its Web site declares, the store “curates” its merchandise.

    Promoters at Piano’s, a nightclub on the Lower East Side, announced on their Web site that they will “curate a night of Curious burlesque.”

    Eric Demby, a founder of the Brooklyn Flea swap meet, does not hire vendors to serve grilled cheese sandwiches, pickles and tamales to hungry shoppers. He “personally curates the food stands,” according to New York magazine.

    And to think, not so long ago, curators worked at museums.

    The word “curate,” lofty and once rarely spoken outside exhibition corridors or British parishes, has become a fashionable code word among the aesthetically minded, who seem to paste it onto any activity that involves culling and selecting. In more print-centric times, the term of art was “edit” — as in a boutique edits its dress collections carefully. But now, among designers, disc jockeys, club promoters, bloggers and thrift-store owners, curate is code for “I have a discerning eye and great taste.”
     
    , @Lurker

    I listened to an audio clip of Obama’s remarks, and got the feeling they weren’t exactly off-the-cuff.
     
    Because he wasn't stuttering?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Tiny Duck
    I agree with president Obama. Hate speech and falsehoods must be stopped at all costs

    The only people who disagree are white men. That tells you something right there

    That’s the Tiny Duck we all know and love! I was beginning to think he’d lost his touch. Nice to see he’s got his groove back!

    I hereby nominate Tiny Duck as the official mascot of the iSteve comments section!

    Read More
    • Agree: PiltdownMan
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    I thought that was Whiskey?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    What Obama’s remarks really mean is that we have to have a mechanism to establish that some opinions and some interpretations of reality are more authoritative and authentic than others, so that our future politics will be guided by the fundamental assumptions established by those authoritative and authentic opinions and interpretations that have received the USDT seal of approval.

     

    Yes, that's an excellent summary. I listened to an audio clip of Obama's remarks, and got the feeling they weren't exactly off-the-cuff.

    His choice of the verb 'curate' was especially suggestive. Not many people would use it casually.

    I think our Leftist Overlords are searching for a sticky, not-too-alarming -- maybe even 'friendly' -- name for the intensification and enforcement of their information-gatekeeping and narrative-maintaining endeavors.

    In this context, 'curate' is not too bad; only a few 19th-century-literature-loving losers like me will see it and immediately think of a comic clergyman . . . .

    Curate is ubiquitous in the hipster world.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/fashion/04curate.html

    THE Tipping Point, a store in Houston that calls itself a sneaker lifestyle shop, does not just sell a collection of differently colored rubber soles, along with books, music and apparel. No, its Web site declares, the store “curates” its merchandise.

    Promoters at Piano’s, a nightclub on the Lower East Side, announced on their Web site that they will “curate a night of Curious burlesque.”

    Eric Demby, a founder of the Brooklyn Flea swap meet, does not hire vendors to serve grilled cheese sandwiches, pickles and tamales to hungry shoppers. He “personally curates the food stands,” according to New York magazine.

    And to think, not so long ago, curators worked at museums.

    The word “curate,” lofty and once rarely spoken outside exhibition corridors or British parishes, has become a fashionable code word among the aesthetically minded, who seem to paste it onto any activity that involves culling and selecting. In more print-centric times, the term of art was “edit” — as in a boutique edits its dress collections carefully. But now, among designers, disc jockeys, club promoters, bloggers and thrift-store owners, curate is code for “I have a discerning eye and great taste.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @lavoisier
    Agreed. He used the word to show to the low IQ journalists who worship him how smart he is.
    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    Thanks for this explanation; I didn't realize how common the term's usage has become.

    Then it figures Obama would pick it up and try to use it; perhaps his remarks were more casual than I thought. This fits with his use of 'truthiness', which sounded like him fishing for a sophisticated word to use, and coming up with a talk-show banality, which pretty much sums up his off-teleprompter oratorical skills.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. anon • Disclaimer says:

    I bet Obama’s comments were prompted by a recent WAPO story showing that Facebook is now repeatedly trending fake news.

    Remember, FB previously used human curators, but switched to an algorithm after a former employee alleged widespread liberal bias.

    Media bias bothers me as much as anyone, but having patently false lowbrow garbage go viral is probably a deeper problem than the sophistry we’re fed by “respectable” media outlets.

    So the issue is two-pronged: The Fourth Estate’s loss of any sense of basic fairness and impartiality, and, the manner in which news should be presented to the social media masses (where sharing and likes frequently lead to runaway effects for tabloid-esque stories).

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    I disagree. Rather have junk food than poison food.
    , @Jack D
    This is just a matter of fine-tuning the algorithm to distinguish fake news from real news without being overtly political. Not an insurmountable challenge.

    In a better world all they would need to do for now is hire reasonably fair minded curators instead of leftist idiots unable to distinguish truth from dogma. They can still be leftists - in the old days, most newspaper reporters were leftists too, but they were educated that they had professional responsibilities and needed to leave their personal opinions out of the news pages (or at least not to make it so obvious). But given that much of today's youth has been thoroughly marinated in PC leftism and poorly educated to boot, it's very hard to find such people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @TicklingTimeBomb
    One wonders if President Obama is up-to-date on the replication crisis in social psychology.

    Facts are a funny thing. The facts I've been hearing about from evolutionary psychology and biology are, to put it mildly, at odds with the facts coming out of sociology.

    (Of course, given that sociology departments are already more or less the ministry of truth, I think I know which facts will be forbidden...)

    On the other hand, you kind of have to pity the poor liberals. They inherited this giant, highly successful power structure from their liberal forebearers, and somehow it escaped their notice that the source of that power was HEGEMONY, not that they'd actually won any arguments. And so they thought that free speech was one of their values, and that the internet would be a great tool for spreading their wisdom... which has amounted to a kind of unilateral disarmament on their part.

    Obama is right to highlight the role of the three trusted, very corporate, very cozy with government television networks. That was indeed the source of a lot of American unity and cohesion... by filling the exact same role that Pravada did, or that the KCNA does.

    you kind of have to pity the poor liberals. They inherited this giant, highly successful power structure from their liberal forebearers, and somehow it escaped their notice that the source of that power was HEGEMONY, not that they’d actually won any arguments.

    That’s good, not seen it put that way before.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @The Last Real Calvinist

    What Obama’s remarks really mean is that we have to have a mechanism to establish that some opinions and some interpretations of reality are more authoritative and authentic than others, so that our future politics will be guided by the fundamental assumptions established by those authoritative and authentic opinions and interpretations that have received the USDT seal of approval.

     

    Yes, that's an excellent summary. I listened to an audio clip of Obama's remarks, and got the feeling they weren't exactly off-the-cuff.

    His choice of the verb 'curate' was especially suggestive. Not many people would use it casually.

    I think our Leftist Overlords are searching for a sticky, not-too-alarming -- maybe even 'friendly' -- name for the intensification and enforcement of their information-gatekeeping and narrative-maintaining endeavors.

    In this context, 'curate' is not too bad; only a few 19th-century-literature-loving losers like me will see it and immediately think of a comic clergyman . . . .

    I listened to an audio clip of Obama’s remarks, and got the feeling they weren’t exactly off-the-cuff.

    Because he wasn’t stuttering?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Coemgen
    I believe Obama's stammers/stutters are cued by the teleprompter to make his reading of speeches sound less robotic. His extemporaneous speech is most notable for his non sequiturs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Anonymous
    Obama actually has been a moderating force in Mideast intervention. The only reason we haven't already intervened in Syria is that Obama hasn't given the green light.

    Russia wasn't an "ally" before the Obama administration. It's not clear how Russia could become an "ally" as we, NATO, and the Western Europeans understand the term, without Russia making various political and military changes and compromises that the Western Europeans would insist upon and which the current Russian regime would never accept.

    Hillary is among the biggest China hawks in foreign policy. That's not a reason to vote for her over Trump.

    http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/china-isnt-exactly-backing-hillary-clinton-for-the-us-election/news-story/9b5cf115f6708db3b35ff950a5480142

    On one hand, Clinton is known for her tough stance against China. She has previously publicly condemned the country’s record on human rights, its political system and internet censorship. She’s also accused the country of hacking US computers and stealing commercial secrets and government information.

    Over the weekend, fresh emails purportedly from her campaign leaked by Wikileaks revealed she told bankers three years ago that the United States had warned Beijing it would “ring China with missile defence”, unless it did more to stop North Korea.

    According to a hacked campaign document, her message to China in 2013 had been, “You either control them, or we’re going to have to defend against them”.

    But it’s her hawkish views on ownership of the South China Sea that have struck a particularly strong chord in China.

    In 2010, as Secretary of State, Clinton outraged Beijing after pushing the South China Sea to the top of the regional and US security agendas.

    She’s also expressed a desire for more US intervention in the disputed South China Sea region.

    ...

    In May, China’s official Xinhua news agency noted Trump’s more isolationist campaign compared to Clinton’s, who it described as an “old foreign policy hand” and important backer of the Asia-Pacific “pivot” that China considers a threat.

    “As far as she’s concerned, being tough on foreign policy is perhaps the best way to show America’s so called ‘leadership’,” it said in a commentary.

    In a brief op-ed for The Global Times earlier this year, Renmin University of China academic Wang Yiwei said the Chinese “regard Trump as a clown, funny and unscrupulous.”

    He went on to say: “I think Trump as US president will be good for the Sino-US relations. Trump sticks to isolationism when it comes to foreign policy. He doesn’t want the US to bear so many global responsibilities. In contrast, Clinton initiated the Asia-Pacific rebalancing strategy which is aimed at containing China.”
     

    But Obama hasn’t given the green light because of public opinion, not because he’s moderate on the issue. If you’ll recall, we came damn close to jumping in. There was massive public backlash, and the administration blinked.

    Bush the Younger might have done the same with Iraq, except the MSM propaganda campaign worked in that instance. They never could sell us on intervention in Syria partly because it’s a screwy situation. We’d be allied with Al Queda possibly against a nuclear power (Russia). Then there’s the fact that not only would we be fighting the Current Hitler of Convenience Assad, but ISIS as well. So that any gain against one might be a victory for the other.

    They couldn’t tell us why we need to jump in, whatever is the actual reason. So they backed down. I don’t think Obama as an individual has much of anything to do with that. Regarding foreign policy he’s Federal Employee #6924107, or whatever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    Bush started making his big push for the Iraq Attaq around the time of the first anniversary of 9/11, right as the 2002 congressional campaigns were gearing up.

    Bush's popularity was still near its peak level. The country was still in shock over 9/11. Many folks were delusional enough to believe that a quick, painless, Desert Storm-style victory was possible.

    The vote on the war resolution came in mid-October, less than a month before the election. Few elected officials wanted to be seen as "betraying the troops," lest the voters toss them out, so most of them dutifully lent their assent to Bush's Invade-the-World, New-World-Disorder agenda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @anon
    I bet Obama's comments were prompted by a recent WAPO story showing that Facebook is now repeatedly trending fake news.

    Remember, FB previously used human curators, but switched to an algorithm after a former employee alleged widespread liberal bias.

    Media bias bothers me as much as anyone, but having patently false lowbrow garbage go viral is probably a deeper problem than the sophistry we're fed by "respectable" media outlets.

    So the issue is two-pronged: The Fourth Estate's loss of any sense of basic fairness and impartiality, and, the manner in which news should be presented to the social media masses (where sharing and likes frequently lead to runaway effects for tabloid-esque stories).

    I disagree. Rather have junk food than poison food.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Lurker

    I listened to an audio clip of Obama’s remarks, and got the feeling they weren’t exactly off-the-cuff.
     
    Because he wasn't stuttering?

    I believe Obama’s stammers/stutters are cued by the teleprompter to make his reading of speeches sound less robotic. His extemporaneous speech is most notable for his non sequiturs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. “We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to,” Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.

    Well, Obviously, that “curating” is going to involve shutting down Unz, Taki’s, VDARE, Amren, etc…. HuffPo and Daily Kos and NPR will be just fine because everybody agrees with them… right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. @Mr. Blank
    That's the Tiny Duck we all know and love! I was beginning to think he'd lost his touch. Nice to see he's got his groove back!

    I hereby nominate Tiny Duck as the official mascot of the iSteve comments section!

    I thought that was Whiskey?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind

    I thought that was Whiskey?
     
    C'mon, people. Whiskey, bless him, actually believes in something, whether or not he has become annoying around here for repeating it over and over and over again.

    The Web-ster, on the other hand, is just making stuff up to be annoying, just for the sake of annoyance. Those comments have long ago stopped being provocative, let alone having any content.

    By the way, where is Whiskey, and could he serve us up some more comments for our reading pleasure?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @newrouter
    >The answer must be curating for truthiness.<

    or competing narratives:

    Don't take his word for it. Don't take my word for it. See the current versions for yourself.

    Infogalactic: Mike Cernovich
    Wikipedia: Mike Cernovich


    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/compare-and-contrast.html

    Wikipedia editors have deleted the Wikipedia info page on Infogalactic.

    Sorry, this page was recently deleted (within the last 24 hours). The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

    00:30, 17 October 2016 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Infogalactic (A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

    00:17, 15 October 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Infogalactic (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

    lol.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. I would like some journalist to ask Barack Obama to tell the whole truth about his relationship to Bill Ayers.

    * Did they know each other in New York, before Obama moved to Chicago?

    * How did Ayers set up Obama as the Board Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge?

    * Did Ayers ghost-write Dreams from My Father?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gringo
    I would like some journalist to ask Barack Obama to tell the whole truth about his relationship to Bill Ayers.

    Were some journalist to do that, Obama's reply would most likely have a closer relationship to "truthiness" than to "truth."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Name Withheld
    Off topic:

    WSJ Editorial by David Gelernter - Oct 14, 2016.

    "The liberal theory is that, other things being equal, all human beings have an equal right to settle in America. For liberals this is too obvious to spell out. But it is also too ludicrous to defend. Does all mankind have a right to camp in your backyard, eat in your kitchen, work at your office and borrow your best jogging outfit? We fail in our duty if we don’t think carefully whom we want in this country, who would be best for America."

    So not all neocons are for Hillary.

    They have always been rather more independent-minded. When I was in university, our conservative student organization wouldn’t invite Horowitz to campus because he was too far outside the mainstream. Gelernter has always struck me as more interested in ideas than power, so not surprised he is open to “alt-right”ish things.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Intelligent Dasein
    I've always argued, even during the early '90s when the internet barely existed as of yet, that it was eventually doomed, that it was not the all-encompassing cultural revolution it was being sold as. The reasons for this were all interdependent and generational in nature, and my (here much abbreviated) argument went something like this.

    The physical existence of the internet is basically a one-off result of the enormous wealth of the Baby Boom generation and their ability to manipulate financial markets. The infrastructure that sustains the internet is both expensive and non self-liquidating in the traditional sense. Thus, in layman's terms, the internet is basically wasted capital. The technology is only affordable to the masses because of the labor arbitrage resulting from globalization, and globalization is likewise an artifact of the Boomer generation's characteristic social mood and not a permanent feature of the economy. The internet is also a great liability in wartime; it is both A) an unnecessary extravagance that cannot be supported as the economy turns towards the production of war materiel, and B) a soft target that makes us vulnerable to cyber-attacks and intelligence leaks. Therefore, as the Boomer generation fades, as their financial manipulations finally approach a day of reckoning, as globalization abates and as general war approaches, the continued existence of the internet will simply not be feasible.

    The social changes that will attend this transformation are both a result and an exacerbating cause of the internet's decline, also working in an interdependent fashion. We see here one of those social changes aborning, viz. the desire by governments to control (i.e. tax, regulate, censor) internet content. Once that begins in earnest the internet's decline will accelerate, because there will be very little demand for what it can provide. People will not be willing to pay for it and it will only be sustained, if at all, by compulsory taxation and fees, resulting in a very circumscribed, cumbersome, and limited experience. The prior years of rapid internet growth were only possible because of the opportunities for investment it afforded as a so-called "new frontier." I am rather skeptical about the ultimate value of many of those opportunities, but at least the perception thereof at the time provided a case for investment. With the closing of the frontier, even that perception will be gone.

    It will be very interesting to watch the action in the financial markets as the dawning realization grows that companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and a host of Silicon Valley lesser lights have no real pathway to profitability and are basically just gigantic cash burning operations. As the tech sector sells off horrendously there will be calls for bailouts and recapitalizations of the affected companies, but neither the willingness nor the ability for continued QE will be anymore existent, the dry powder having already been wasted on the zombie banks and real estate boondoggles of the Great Recession. The drying up of investment capital will further retard R&D and Capex in the IT field and will depress interest in programming and computer science as career choices for qualified youth. The downward spiral will continue until a new equilibrium is reached in a world very much less tech-dependent as the one we occupy today.

    It should be apparent by now that anything Obama touches, he ruins. In the the coming years the internet will undergo its own version of the "NFL ratings plunge" we are witnessing as a result of BLM meddling in one of America's national pastimes. Although Obama himself is at least as much effect as cause of the sweeping social changes his era will come to symbolize, he should never be excused of the ill effects simply because of the malice in his heart.

    Dang. I might have to start reading your blog. I heard an interview with Chris Sacca where he said it was just obvious–obvious!–that Twitter was going to make money. How could people not see that? Of course, he never did explain how. A real emperor has no clothes moment.

    The only thing is that the Internet is really completely integrated into every facet of our lives now. I don’t see how to go back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    You ain't got nothin in the blog?
    , @Stan Adams

    The only thing is that the Internet is really completely integrated into every facet of our lives now. I don’t see how to go back.
     
    This.

    I don't buy the notion that the Internet is helping to destroy the power structure. The power structure is more adaptive than we give it credit for.

    Don't forget that, in the '60s, the hippies were afraid of computers - those big mainframes were tools of The Man, used by the government to keep track of everyone's draft registrations. It wasn't until the late '70s and early '80s, when PCs started becoming popular, that the computer was redefined as a means of personal empowerment. But now, with cloud computing and the smartphone - as sinister a friendly-yet-deadly mind-control/tracking device as any ever conceived by a Bond villain - we have come full circle. Most folks don't care that they don't have even a smidgen of privacy anymore - what matters is that they can take kewl selfies.

    I'm typing this not on a shiny new smartphone but on a crappy old HP laptop. I have to plug in a USB keyboard because the built-in one is mushy and sticky. (Also, I have big hands - ha ha.) I learned to type on an old IBM keyboard, with my hands on the clickety-clack "home keys," so I can't stand most keyboards built in the last 10 years. But I like having a real computer at my disposal. I have an iPhone, too, but I still prefer to use my laptop for most things.

    If you believe the polls, millennials - the folks who've never known a world without the 'Net - are backing Hillary three-to-one. For them - us* - the Internet is like running water: something they take for granted, something they don't even think about. They should be the ones leading the charge, saying, "Everything we've been told about the world by the schools and the media and the government is bullshit!" And yet they're the ones who are hopelessly delusional.

    Again, this is true only if you believe the polls:
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/17/millennial-vote-presidential-race-trump-clinton/92136482/

    For all we know, the great silent mass of millennials - a monolithic generation speaking with one voice, having spent its formative years reading truth-telling Internet blogs and making snarky comments on them, is now merged into a single mighty entity - a being harnessing the power of the entire Force distilled into the consciousness of a lone Jedi Knight with billions of midi-chlorians. It's not inconceivable that this brave knight is ready to rise up, hoist Donald Trump upon his shoulders, and lead us confidently into the brave new post-PC world. Then, after we build the border wall, we can all merge into the Singularity and download thoughts of nirvana - and maybe even a few Nirvana songs, to throw the assimilated Xers a bone - into our unified hivemind until the end of time. But I'm not counting on it.

    *I'm north of 30 and south of 35, but the bullshit spewed about what millennials supposedly believe sure as hell doesn't apply to me. Who came up with that wretched term, anyway?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @PiltdownMan
    Exactly.

    “The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.”
     

    In other words, a place he is still able to push his views onto you, but your views are muzzled.

    What President Obama is talking about is actually being done already—Wikipedia and its edit wars are the perfect example of what can go wrong when you try and curate in a misguided attempt to impose standards of "truthiness[sic]."

    President Obama: “The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.”

    In other words, a place he is still able to push his views onto you, but your views are muzzled.

    Barack Obama and Eric Holder are sharing the 2018 Nobel Prize for Literature. The commendation reads, “For their tireless and successful efforts to modernize the word ‘conversation,’ bringing usage in line with its Newspeak definition.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Chrisnonymous
    Dang. I might have to start reading your blog. I heard an interview with Chris Sacca where he said it was just obvious--obvious!--that Twitter was going to make money. How could people not see that? Of course, he never did explain how. A real emperor has no clothes moment.

    The only thing is that the Internet is really completely integrated into every facet of our lives now. I don't see how to go back.

    You ain’t got nothin in the blog?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    Unfortunately no. I don't really have time to blog right now, but I appreciate the sentiments. Maybe I'll just cross-post my iSteve comments for now to at least get the ball rolling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @PiltdownMan
    Exactly.

    “The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.”
     

    In other words, a place he is still able to push his views onto you, but your views are muzzled.

    What President Obama is talking about is actually being done already—Wikipedia and its edit wars are the perfect example of what can go wrong when you try and curate in a misguided attempt to impose standards of "truthiness[sic]."

    I’ve noticed quite recently that the MSM have begun to “curate” Donald Trump right in their news stories. I just heard something like this on NPR just now. They will say “Today Donald Trump said X” (so far so good) “despite the fact that there is no evidence that X is true”. I don’t think that was ever done in the past. Maybe from their POV Donald Trump is an unprecedented liar and “deserves” to be “curated” in this way, but this is something new AFAIK.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    An astute comment, Jack.

    I'll just add that they also curate Wikileaks by reference to Trump and/or Russia. Of course, this is both different than 'curate' in the notion of 'curating' great specialty coffees and more like displaying painting in a museum. That is, an art exhibit is more than just selection. It involves developing a context as well as a written narrative to support the selections.

    Mainstream 'high' art is highly conventional. It's what Museums do. To call it a convention makes more sense than calling it a social construct. Scratch the surface, and it is obvious that it involves judgment at every step. Contrast that, however, with the current fad of 'outsider art'.

    The point being that I actually find traditional curation desirable. I like art museums and like the fact that 'outsider art' is labeled as such and avoidable.

    However, treating science as if it were art is crazy. Do we need to curate physics? History? Political discourse?

    It is impossible to put too fine a point on it. But curating facts is insane.

    Trump as punk rock? How about Trump as outsider art. I get it. That's why I hate the guy. He makes up facts -- but they are uncomfortably close to the truth. Like Mexican criminality. It's sort of false (yet sort of true), yet look as MS 13. More serious than anything that Trump has ever mentioned. It's from South of the Border ... but not Mexico. And in Chicago, Mexicans are pushing out blacks .... so it is a huge win for the city. But, of course, we are now way beyond what can be noticed.
    , @Clyde
    Gov't NPR stations come in clear. I will assume this is why you were listening. At least the old SNL had the mojo to parody these slow talk dopes. I do tune in from time to time so I know where they are at these days.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Obama’s remarks are understandable if one considers his world view as a form of [secular]religion: We need a mechnism for establishing orthodoxy and identifying heresy. The next step will, of course, be identifying and reeducating or suppressing heretics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. Obama is the perfect caricature of the supremely confident fool. He knows virtually nothing that is true, but trusts without any hint of doubt in his own wisdom. He genuinely believes that he is the bearer of all that is good and true in this world, and that there must be a way to insure that only right thinking people like himself have access to the dissemination of that true knowledge. It is odd that he seems unaware that this is the situation we are now in today with the MSM–only people like Obama should be allowed to express an opinion.

    This is why fools like Obama are so supremely confident that they are right. No one can challenge their stupidity in a “respectable “public forum like the MSM. How else can you explain the utter idiocy of the genius Coates expressing with supreme confidence that there is no evidence for racial differences in intelligence? These subjects are not to be debated. They are as axiomatic as geometric principles to the good and the great. And because our elites are locked into a world where their confidence in their knowledge is inversely proportional to what is actually true, our society and our civilization are heading down the tubes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    There is such a thing as a "useful fiction". All of post-Roman Western civilization was based on the premise that there is some guy upstairs who judges your deeds after you are dead. This may or may not be true, but it was useful for people to behave as if it was. It was useful up to a point - if people overdid it and spent their entire life praying and preparing for the next one, not much got done.

    Up to a point, the idea that all humans are equal (not in intelligence but in human dignity) is useful as well. It (along with the older useful fictions) prevents us from doing Nazi like things like euthanizing the disabled. The problems come when people overgeneralize the useful fiction and take it too far and believe in it too literally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Anon
    Curate is ubiquitous in the hipster world.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/fashion/04curate.html

    THE Tipping Point, a store in Houston that calls itself a sneaker lifestyle shop, does not just sell a collection of differently colored rubber soles, along with books, music and apparel. No, its Web site declares, the store “curates” its merchandise.

    Promoters at Piano’s, a nightclub on the Lower East Side, announced on their Web site that they will “curate a night of Curious burlesque.”

    Eric Demby, a founder of the Brooklyn Flea swap meet, does not hire vendors to serve grilled cheese sandwiches, pickles and tamales to hungry shoppers. He “personally curates the food stands,” according to New York magazine.

    And to think, not so long ago, curators worked at museums.

    The word “curate,” lofty and once rarely spoken outside exhibition corridors or British parishes, has become a fashionable code word among the aesthetically minded, who seem to paste it onto any activity that involves culling and selecting. In more print-centric times, the term of art was “edit” — as in a boutique edits its dress collections carefully. But now, among designers, disc jockeys, club promoters, bloggers and thrift-store owners, curate is code for “I have a discerning eye and great taste.”
     

    Agreed. He used the word to show to the low IQ journalists who worship him how smart he is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Hunsdon
    I thought that was Whiskey?

    I thought that was Whiskey?

    C’mon, people. Whiskey, bless him, actually believes in something, whether or not he has become annoying around here for repeating it over and over and over again.

    The Web-ster, on the other hand, is just making stuff up to be annoying, just for the sake of annoyance. Those comments have long ago stopped being provocative, let alone having any content.

    By the way, where is Whiskey, and could he serve us up some more comments for our reading pleasure?

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Sounds like a trial balloon of sorts. The government will issue a seal of good housekeeping to some sites? It certainly sounds like there’s a plan brewing to exert government control over the contents of what’s available on the internet. Usually they sell things like this to ‘protect the children’ or some other high-minded sounding ruse. Of course, the government itself is the biggest source of lies, propaganda and disinformation there is but I guess even with it’s vast resources there’s still some doubt that that’s enough. The president apparently doesn’t trust the average person to ‘curate’ things on their own but need Big Sister to do so on their behalf. For their own good, naturally.

    Read More
    • Agree: Opinionator
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Nah, this was just a speech and this is the first and last you will hear of it. Obama is done with initiatives. He'll go back to playing golf and looking at the plans for his Presidential Library (BTW, how did it come to be that every President gets his own Taj Mahal - the Romans used to elevate dead Emperors to god status but we used to be a democracy?)

    The impetus for this speech is that Donald Trump keeps "lying" and yet the MSM is compelled to report his "lies" (up to a point). As soon as the election is over and "liars" like Donald no longer have access to the big megaphone (he and others like him will still say the same things, but the MSM just won't print them and most people will never hear them), things will settle down again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Chrisnonymous
    You ain't got nothin in the blog?

    Unfortunately no. I don’t really have time to blog right now, but I appreciate the sentiments. Maybe I’ll just cross-post my iSteve comments for now to at least get the ball rolling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @lavoisier
    Obama is the perfect caricature of the supremely confident fool. He knows virtually nothing that is true, but trusts without any hint of doubt in his own wisdom. He genuinely believes that he is the bearer of all that is good and true in this world, and that there must be a way to insure that only right thinking people like himself have access to the dissemination of that true knowledge. It is odd that he seems unaware that this is the situation we are now in today with the MSM--only people like Obama should be allowed to express an opinion.

    This is why fools like Obama are so supremely confident that they are right. No one can challenge their stupidity in a "respectable "public forum like the MSM. How else can you explain the utter idiocy of the genius Coates expressing with supreme confidence that there is no evidence for racial differences in intelligence? These subjects are not to be debated. They are as axiomatic as geometric principles to the good and the great. And because our elites are locked into a world where their confidence in their knowledge is inversely proportional to what is actually true, our society and our civilization are heading down the tubes.

    There is such a thing as a “useful fiction”. All of post-Roman Western civilization was based on the premise that there is some guy upstairs who judges your deeds after you are dead. This may or may not be true, but it was useful for people to behave as if it was. It was useful up to a point – if people overdid it and spent their entire life praying and preparing for the next one, not much got done.

    Up to a point, the idea that all humans are equal (not in intelligence but in human dignity) is useful as well. It (along with the older useful fictions) prevents us from doing Nazi like things like euthanizing the disabled. The problems come when people overgeneralize the useful fiction and take it too far and believe in it too literally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @lavoisier
    I don't think depraved behavior towards another has to be based on a sense of superiority. It comes from being depraved.

    The problem I have with the not very useful fiction of all races being equal is that obvious inequality then becomes prima facie evidence of systemic racism. This will cause racial resentment that the less talented often feel towards the more talented. And this, in turn, can lead to the hostility of the Black Lives Matter movement with its attendant carnage and trillions of dollars spent trying to make unequal people equal.

    In general, I do not think fiction is ever useful when it is presented as truth.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @anonymous
    Sounds like a trial balloon of sorts. The government will issue a seal of good housekeeping to some sites? It certainly sounds like there's a plan brewing to exert government control over the contents of what's available on the internet. Usually they sell things like this to 'protect the children' or some other high-minded sounding ruse. Of course, the government itself is the biggest source of lies, propaganda and disinformation there is but I guess even with it's vast resources there's still some doubt that that's enough. The president apparently doesn't trust the average person to 'curate' things on their own but need Big Sister to do so on their behalf. For their own good, naturally.

    Nah, this was just a speech and this is the first and last you will hear of it. Obama is done with initiatives. He’ll go back to playing golf and looking at the plans for his Presidential Library (BTW, how did it come to be that every President gets his own Taj Mahal – the Romans used to elevate dead Emperors to god status but we used to be a democracy?)

    The impetus for this speech is that Donald Trump keeps “lying” and yet the MSM is compelled to report his “lies” (up to a point). As soon as the election is over and “liars” like Donald no longer have access to the big megaphone (he and others like him will still say the same things, but the MSM just won’t print them and most people will never hear them), things will settle down again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterike
    (BTW, how did it come to be that every President gets his own Taj Mahal

    I guess since the Clinton's perfected the "Presidential library as slush fund" idea, now everybody wants one. What, you think Barack and Michelle are ever going to actually WORK again? No, they will give speeches (for six and seven figures) and make phone calls to government cronies in exchange for their bribes.... er, speaking fees. Life is good, for some people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Anonymous
    David Horowitz is another neocon who is pro Trump.

    What distinguishes pro-Trump neocons like Horowitz and Gelernter from anti-Trump neocons like Kristol and Wolfowitz is that the latter are very close to the halls of power and influence in Washington. A Trump victory energizes and legitimizes Buchananite politics in the GOP, which has been dormant for 25 years, and makes these anti-Trump neocons' jobs a lot harder. Their jobs for the past 25 years have involved steering the GOP away from Buchananite politics. This explains why even David Frum, who's anti-immigration, is anti-Trump. Frum famously attacked Buchanan in the run-up to the Iraq War as one of the "unpatriotic conservatives".

    Guys like Horowitz and Gelernter on the other hand, have much less direct involvement and influence in policymaking in Washington. So their primary concerns about Muslims, terror, and Israel are satisfied by Trump without any compromise.

    Horowitz and Gelernter are also honest thinkers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Intelligent Dasein
    I've always argued, even during the early '90s when the internet barely existed as of yet, that it was eventually doomed, that it was not the all-encompassing cultural revolution it was being sold as. The reasons for this were all interdependent and generational in nature, and my (here much abbreviated) argument went something like this.

    The physical existence of the internet is basically a one-off result of the enormous wealth of the Baby Boom generation and their ability to manipulate financial markets. The infrastructure that sustains the internet is both expensive and non self-liquidating in the traditional sense. Thus, in layman's terms, the internet is basically wasted capital. The technology is only affordable to the masses because of the labor arbitrage resulting from globalization, and globalization is likewise an artifact of the Boomer generation's characteristic social mood and not a permanent feature of the economy. The internet is also a great liability in wartime; it is both A) an unnecessary extravagance that cannot be supported as the economy turns towards the production of war materiel, and B) a soft target that makes us vulnerable to cyber-attacks and intelligence leaks. Therefore, as the Boomer generation fades, as their financial manipulations finally approach a day of reckoning, as globalization abates and as general war approaches, the continued existence of the internet will simply not be feasible.

    The social changes that will attend this transformation are both a result and an exacerbating cause of the internet's decline, also working in an interdependent fashion. We see here one of those social changes aborning, viz. the desire by governments to control (i.e. tax, regulate, censor) internet content. Once that begins in earnest the internet's decline will accelerate, because there will be very little demand for what it can provide. People will not be willing to pay for it and it will only be sustained, if at all, by compulsory taxation and fees, resulting in a very circumscribed, cumbersome, and limited experience. The prior years of rapid internet growth were only possible because of the opportunities for investment it afforded as a so-called "new frontier." I am rather skeptical about the ultimate value of many of those opportunities, but at least the perception thereof at the time provided a case for investment. With the closing of the frontier, even that perception will be gone.

    It will be very interesting to watch the action in the financial markets as the dawning realization grows that companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and a host of Silicon Valley lesser lights have no real pathway to profitability and are basically just gigantic cash burning operations. As the tech sector sells off horrendously there will be calls for bailouts and recapitalizations of the affected companies, but neither the willingness nor the ability for continued QE will be anymore existent, the dry powder having already been wasted on the zombie banks and real estate boondoggles of the Great Recession. The drying up of investment capital will further retard R&D and Capex in the IT field and will depress interest in programming and computer science as career choices for qualified youth. The downward spiral will continue until a new equilibrium is reached in a world very much less tech-dependent as the one we occupy today.

    It should be apparent by now that anything Obama touches, he ruins. In the the coming years the internet will undergo its own version of the "NFL ratings plunge" we are witnessing as a result of BLM meddling in one of America's national pastimes. Although Obama himself is at least as much effect as cause of the sweeping social changes his era will come to symbolize, he should never be excused of the ill effects simply because of the malice in his heart.

    Disagree with much of what you say here. 1st of all, in terms of war (God forbid) the structure of the internet was a spinoff of defense technology in order to enable communication during wartime – the packet switching concept means that the internet automatically reroutes around outages – if you are sending to California from NY and Chicago has been nuked, your message will travel via Houston instead (or 100 other ways). Unless every possible path is blocked, the message still gets thru.

    2nd the internet is not just silly girls posting messages on their Facebook wall. A lot of real work gets done on the internet and the existence of the internet has revolutionized many industries. To some extent these industries have been free riders on the infrastructure supported by the more silly aspects, but if they had to, they would pay (more) to support their work.

    3rd, the existing infrastructure, even if it was a total waste (and it wasn’t), has already been built out. Even if the return to the original investors who paid for all that fiber is zero (see Global Crossing) the fiber still exists and will be in service for many decades.

    As for tech dependency, I think we are just skimming the surface. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. In the future, even more of your life will be run from your phone. Only 2% of grocery shopping is now done online. Broadcast networks are still on the air. Some voice traffic is still carried in analog over copper wires. In the end, everything is data and will be carried as data.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    Why would you want to shop for groceries online? I wouldn't want some stranger picking out my food.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @anon
    I bet Obama's comments were prompted by a recent WAPO story showing that Facebook is now repeatedly trending fake news.

    Remember, FB previously used human curators, but switched to an algorithm after a former employee alleged widespread liberal bias.

    Media bias bothers me as much as anyone, but having patently false lowbrow garbage go viral is probably a deeper problem than the sophistry we're fed by "respectable" media outlets.

    So the issue is two-pronged: The Fourth Estate's loss of any sense of basic fairness and impartiality, and, the manner in which news should be presented to the social media masses (where sharing and likes frequently lead to runaway effects for tabloid-esque stories).

    This is just a matter of fine-tuning the algorithm to distinguish fake news from real news without being overtly political. Not an insurmountable challenge.

    In a better world all they would need to do for now is hire reasonably fair minded curators instead of leftist idiots unable to distinguish truth from dogma. They can still be leftists – in the old days, most newspaper reporters were leftists too, but they were educated that they had professional responsibilities and needed to leave their personal opinions out of the news pages (or at least not to make it so obvious). But given that much of today’s youth has been thoroughly marinated in PC leftism and poorly educated to boot, it’s very hard to find such people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NOTA
    It is not a trivial matter to have a computer program distinguish fake news from real news. It's not all that trivial even for a human to do so--note the large number of people who will like or repost fake news stories that reenforce their beliefs.

    Obama's talking about a real problem. The prestige media used to more-or-less define consensus reality in the US--conspiracy theorists on one side and experts on the other side noticed holes in that consensus reality, and the media worldview was riddled with blind spots and often dead wrong. But it was a more-or-less logically consistent worldview, and it was widely shared. You could use it as the basis of discussion about what policies we should pursue, or what was missing from that worldview.

    The rise of the internet has allowed us to bypass the prestige media, more and more. For smart people looking for good information, that means we're better informed than ever. For dumb and inattentive people, that means they're far less informed than before, and a lot more of what they know isn't actually true. And the fragmentation has led to the loss of a shared set of agreed-upon facts that can be the basis for an actual discussion.

    I don't know what a solution would look like. Certainly a US government agency defining the truth would create more problems than it would solve. But there really is a problem.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @PiltdownMan
    Exactly.

    “The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.”
     

    In other words, a place he is still able to push his views onto you, but your views are muzzled.

    What President Obama is talking about is actually being done already—Wikipedia and its edit wars are the perfect example of what can go wrong when you try and curate in a misguided attempt to impose standards of "truthiness[sic]."

    “The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.”

    In other words, a place he is still able to push his views onto you, but your views are muzzled.

    As I understand it, the goal of Infogalactic is to create a rating and filtering system, so that people can stay in their comfort zone.

    If a reader does not want to be confronted by hate facts and prefers authors of a certain ideological bent they can set their settings and when searching on subjects they will only be shown articles and context that matches their echo chamber.

    Who knows if they will achieve that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Name Withheld
    Off topic:

    WSJ Editorial by David Gelernter - Oct 14, 2016.

    "The liberal theory is that, other things being equal, all human beings have an equal right to settle in America. For liberals this is too obvious to spell out. But it is also too ludicrous to defend. Does all mankind have a right to camp in your backyard, eat in your kitchen, work at your office and borrow your best jogging outfit? We fail in our duty if we don’t think carefully whom we want in this country, who would be best for America."

    So not all neocons are for Hillary.

    “So not all neocons are for Hillary.”

    And? Is there a reason I should care? I don’t feel the need to check my opinions against those of neo-cons, or seek their approval. They hosed up this country massively. I really don’t care what they think. Any of them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Intelligent Dasein
    I've always argued, even during the early '90s when the internet barely existed as of yet, that it was eventually doomed, that it was not the all-encompassing cultural revolution it was being sold as. The reasons for this were all interdependent and generational in nature, and my (here much abbreviated) argument went something like this.

    The physical existence of the internet is basically a one-off result of the enormous wealth of the Baby Boom generation and their ability to manipulate financial markets. The infrastructure that sustains the internet is both expensive and non self-liquidating in the traditional sense. Thus, in layman's terms, the internet is basically wasted capital. The technology is only affordable to the masses because of the labor arbitrage resulting from globalization, and globalization is likewise an artifact of the Boomer generation's characteristic social mood and not a permanent feature of the economy. The internet is also a great liability in wartime; it is both A) an unnecessary extravagance that cannot be supported as the economy turns towards the production of war materiel, and B) a soft target that makes us vulnerable to cyber-attacks and intelligence leaks. Therefore, as the Boomer generation fades, as their financial manipulations finally approach a day of reckoning, as globalization abates and as general war approaches, the continued existence of the internet will simply not be feasible.

    The social changes that will attend this transformation are both a result and an exacerbating cause of the internet's decline, also working in an interdependent fashion. We see here one of those social changes aborning, viz. the desire by governments to control (i.e. tax, regulate, censor) internet content. Once that begins in earnest the internet's decline will accelerate, because there will be very little demand for what it can provide. People will not be willing to pay for it and it will only be sustained, if at all, by compulsory taxation and fees, resulting in a very circumscribed, cumbersome, and limited experience. The prior years of rapid internet growth were only possible because of the opportunities for investment it afforded as a so-called "new frontier." I am rather skeptical about the ultimate value of many of those opportunities, but at least the perception thereof at the time provided a case for investment. With the closing of the frontier, even that perception will be gone.

    It will be very interesting to watch the action in the financial markets as the dawning realization grows that companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and a host of Silicon Valley lesser lights have no real pathway to profitability and are basically just gigantic cash burning operations. As the tech sector sells off horrendously there will be calls for bailouts and recapitalizations of the affected companies, but neither the willingness nor the ability for continued QE will be anymore existent, the dry powder having already been wasted on the zombie banks and real estate boondoggles of the Great Recession. The drying up of investment capital will further retard R&D and Capex in the IT field and will depress interest in programming and computer science as career choices for qualified youth. The downward spiral will continue until a new equilibrium is reached in a world very much less tech-dependent as the one we occupy today.

    It should be apparent by now that anything Obama touches, he ruins. In the the coming years the internet will undergo its own version of the "NFL ratings plunge" we are witnessing as a result of BLM meddling in one of America's national pastimes. Although Obama himself is at least as much effect as cause of the sweeping social changes his era will come to symbolize, he should never be excused of the ill effects simply because of the malice in his heart.

    The cloud and cloud computing will be the nexus of control of the internet. Through scale and consolidation there will only be a few providers–hence only a few gateways, like the big 3 broadcast networks of old.

    Try getting your dissident and alternative voice heard then.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Anonymous
    David Horowitz is another neocon who is pro Trump.

    What distinguishes pro-Trump neocons like Horowitz and Gelernter from anti-Trump neocons like Kristol and Wolfowitz is that the latter are very close to the halls of power and influence in Washington. A Trump victory energizes and legitimizes Buchananite politics in the GOP, which has been dormant for 25 years, and makes these anti-Trump neocons' jobs a lot harder. Their jobs for the past 25 years have involved steering the GOP away from Buchananite politics. This explains why even David Frum, who's anti-immigration, is anti-Trump. Frum famously attacked Buchanan in the run-up to the Iraq War as one of the "unpatriotic conservatives".

    Guys like Horowitz and Gelernter on the other hand, have much less direct involvement and influence in policymaking in Washington. So their primary concerns about Muslims, terror, and Israel are satisfied by Trump without any compromise.

    Shorter version: Kristol and Wolfowitz’s jobs (influence) depend on Washington insider politics, Gerlernter and Horowitz’s jobs don’t.

    Follow the money–every time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Sounds to me like maybe someone wants us to all agree on the truth, whether or not it’s actually truth will be irrelevant so long as we all agree on it. Maybe a vote. Now thats Democracy!

    Read More
    • Replies: @NOTA
    We should all want to agree on truth, right? It's a better world when we can agree on known facts instrad of debating them endlessly. One problem is that anyone in a position to define what the facts are and are not, is also in a position to put a huge thumb on the scales of any public discussion. Do blacks and whites have the same average IQ? Does the MMR vaccine cause autism? Did Turkey commit genocide against the Armenians? Was Obama born in the US?

    These are all factual questions whose answers are known and easily knowable, yet they're also questions that are or have been controversial, and on which some influential people have been willing to spend resources and political capital pushing back on the truth or muddying it, for their own purposes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @JohnnyD
    Obviously, free speech is "Un-American." And allowing people to voice dissenting opinions is "not who we are."

    Obviously, free speech is “Un-American.” And allowing people to voice dissenting opinions is “not who we are.”

    And people with dissenting opinions are going to find themselves on The Wrong Side Of History tout suite if they don’t come around PDQ.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Obama appears to be taking his cues from the villains of a Japanese videogame from 2001…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKl6WjfDqYA#t=0m20s

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "Create context?"

    "Rrrrr."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. They are hollowing out every source of legitimacy they have, beyond three hots and a cot. If we get a truly rocky economic patch, the speed with which the torches, ropes, and pitchforks come out will be astonishing.

    They better hope they can keep the plates in the air indefinitely. If they think illiterate goatherds are rough, they’re in for a real surprise.

    The physical existence of the internet is basically a one-off result of the enormous wealth of the Baby Boom generation and their ability to manipulate financial markets. The infrastructure that sustains the internet is both expensive and non self-liquidating in the traditional sense. Thus, in layman’s terms, the internet is basically wasted capital.

    What fraction of the cost of the current internet would be represented by something similar to what it was at its beginnings? E.g., phones + text? Cell phones aren’t a first-world thing any more. In fact, they’re a thing where land lines never got much traction. Given that, email and blogs aren’t much of a step up. And that’s enough to point and laugh at the Emperor from now until Doomsday.

    This Internet will be light enough to run peer-to-peer on cell phones.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. Dirk Dagger [AKA "oarsman:regatta"] says: • Website

    A Truth and Reconciliation Commission? Sign me up. What could be more fairer than that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  92. More black empty suit babble from Obama. Using the hip/hipster words curate and truthiness to make it seem like he has something impressive to say. I must also blame his audiences for lapping up his boring jive. Did he get to use his fave buzzword “sustainable”?

    The great Empty Black Suit essay from Joseph Kay, posted eight years ago. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011380.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  93. Recalling past days when three television channels delivered fact-based news that most people trusted…

    The news wasn’t more truthful then. We just didn’t have any way to know what they were lying about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Yes. What is going on now is the democratization of journalism, and the government is trying to keep the former gatekeepers' hands on the Megaphone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. “curating function ”

    “that people agree to”

    And government is just a word for the things we do together.

    What could go wrong?

    I feel like I’m living in Bizarro America that our “leaders” dare to say this sort of thing publicly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  95. @Jack D
    Nah, this was just a speech and this is the first and last you will hear of it. Obama is done with initiatives. He'll go back to playing golf and looking at the plans for his Presidential Library (BTW, how did it come to be that every President gets his own Taj Mahal - the Romans used to elevate dead Emperors to god status but we used to be a democracy?)

    The impetus for this speech is that Donald Trump keeps "lying" and yet the MSM is compelled to report his "lies" (up to a point). As soon as the election is over and "liars" like Donald no longer have access to the big megaphone (he and others like him will still say the same things, but the MSM just won't print them and most people will never hear them), things will settle down again.

    (BTW, how did it come to be that every President gets his own Taj Mahal

    I guess since the Clinton’s perfected the “Presidential library as slush fund” idea, now everybody wants one. What, you think Barack and Michelle are ever going to actually WORK again? No, they will give speeches (for six and seven figures) and make phone calls to government cronies in exchange for their bribes…. er, speaking fees. Life is good, for some people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Jack D
    In a way, Obama is admitting that NY Times, the Wash Po, the 3 networks, CNN, etc. have lost their credibility by becoming leftist mouthpieces. In the past, the party line was that these sources were giving you the unvarnished truth, no spin (which was alway a lie). If you wanted to know the truth, you should ignore Fox News and those tens of thousands of of racis's on the wild wild web and just listen to those 6 or so "authoritative " sources.

    But now even he admits that these outlets have given up any pretense of being neutral sources, so we have to reinvent a new set of neutral sources.

    Agree, I seems that Obama is committed to somehow signing the final death notice on the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, the networks, and the Atlantic. MSM they are no more. It’s long overdue. What will follow? We already have it. It’s called the Alternative Media.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @PiltdownMan
    Exactly.

    “The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.”
     

    In other words, a place he is still able to push his views onto you, but your views are muzzled.

    What President Obama is talking about is actually being done already—Wikipedia and its edit wars are the perfect example of what can go wrong when you try and curate in a misguided attempt to impose standards of "truthiness[sic]."

    Might want to check out Infogalactic (Vox Day’s fork of wikipedia). Still running a little slow, but seems to be improving.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @TicklingTimeBomb
    One wonders if President Obama is up-to-date on the replication crisis in social psychology.

    Facts are a funny thing. The facts I've been hearing about from evolutionary psychology and biology are, to put it mildly, at odds with the facts coming out of sociology.

    (Of course, given that sociology departments are already more or less the ministry of truth, I think I know which facts will be forbidden...)

    On the other hand, you kind of have to pity the poor liberals. They inherited this giant, highly successful power structure from their liberal forebearers, and somehow it escaped their notice that the source of that power was HEGEMONY, not that they'd actually won any arguments. And so they thought that free speech was one of their values, and that the internet would be a great tool for spreading their wisdom... which has amounted to a kind of unilateral disarmament on their part.

    Obama is right to highlight the role of the three trusted, very corporate, very cozy with government television networks. That was indeed the source of a lot of American unity and cohesion... by filling the exact same role that Pravada did, or that the KCNA does.

    “The facts I’ve been hearing about from evolutionary psychology and biology are, to put it mildly, at odds with the facts [sic] coming out of sociology.”

    Let’s not forget cultural anthropology. That was probably the earliest takeover of any of the social sciences– Boas’ cult was essentially in place by the 1920s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Mike Sylwester
    I would like some journalist to ask Barack Obama to tell the whole truth about his relationship to Bill Ayers.

    * Did they know each other in New York, before Obama moved to Chicago?

    * How did Ayers set up Obama as the Board Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge?

    * Did Ayers ghost-write Dreams from My Father?

    I would like some journalist to ask Barack Obama to tell the whole truth about his relationship to Bill Ayers.

    Were some journalist to do that, Obama’s reply would most likely have a closer relationship to “truthiness” than to “truth.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Jack D
    Disagree with much of what you say here. 1st of all, in terms of war (God forbid) the structure of the internet was a spinoff of defense technology in order to enable communication during wartime - the packet switching concept means that the internet automatically reroutes around outages - if you are sending to California from NY and Chicago has been nuked, your message will travel via Houston instead (or 100 other ways). Unless every possible path is blocked, the message still gets thru.

    2nd the internet is not just silly girls posting messages on their Facebook wall. A lot of real work gets done on the internet and the existence of the internet has revolutionized many industries. To some extent these industries have been free riders on the infrastructure supported by the more silly aspects, but if they had to, they would pay (more) to support their work.

    3rd, the existing infrastructure, even if it was a total waste (and it wasn't), has already been built out. Even if the return to the original investors who paid for all that fiber is zero (see Global Crossing) the fiber still exists and will be in service for many decades.

    As for tech dependency, I think we are just skimming the surface. You ain't seen nothin' yet. In the future, even more of your life will be run from your phone. Only 2% of grocery shopping is now done online. Broadcast networks are still on the air. Some voice traffic is still carried in analog over copper wires. In the end, everything is data and will be carried as data.

    Why would you want to shop for groceries online? I wouldn’t want some stranger picking out my food.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Canned goods, paper goods, packaged dairy and baked goods, frozen food, etc. - who cares? There could be a little greengrocer/butcher shop for the stuff you want to squeeze and sniff and the rest would just show up at your door.

    The real problem has been the economics - you are your own unpaid labor force when you walk up and down the aisles of the supermarket.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @guest
    But Obama hasn't given the green light because of public opinion, not because he's moderate on the issue. If you'll recall, we came damn close to jumping in. There was massive public backlash, and the administration blinked.

    Bush the Younger might have done the same with Iraq, except the MSM propaganda campaign worked in that instance. They never could sell us on intervention in Syria partly because it's a screwy situation. We'd be allied with Al Queda possibly against a nuclear power (Russia). Then there's the fact that not only would we be fighting the Current Hitler of Convenience Assad, but ISIS as well. So that any gain against one might be a victory for the other.

    They couldn't tell us why we need to jump in, whatever is the actual reason. So they backed down. I don't think Obama as an individual has much of anything to do with that. Regarding foreign policy he's Federal Employee #6924107, or whatever.

    Bush started making his big push for the Iraq Attaq around the time of the first anniversary of 9/11, right as the 2002 congressional campaigns were gearing up.

    Bush’s popularity was still near its peak level. The country was still in shock over 9/11. Many folks were delusional enough to believe that a quick, painless, Desert Storm-style victory was possible.

    The vote on the war resolution came in mid-October, less than a month before the election. Few elected officials wanted to be seen as “betraying the troops,” lest the voters toss them out, so most of them dutifully lent their assent to Bush’s Invade-the-World, New-World-Disorder agenda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Intelligent Dasein
    I've always argued, even during the early '90s when the internet barely existed as of yet, that it was eventually doomed, that it was not the all-encompassing cultural revolution it was being sold as. The reasons for this were all interdependent and generational in nature, and my (here much abbreviated) argument went something like this.

    The physical existence of the internet is basically a one-off result of the enormous wealth of the Baby Boom generation and their ability to manipulate financial markets. The infrastructure that sustains the internet is both expensive and non self-liquidating in the traditional sense. Thus, in layman's terms, the internet is basically wasted capital. The technology is only affordable to the masses because of the labor arbitrage resulting from globalization, and globalization is likewise an artifact of the Boomer generation's characteristic social mood and not a permanent feature of the economy. The internet is also a great liability in wartime; it is both A) an unnecessary extravagance that cannot be supported as the economy turns towards the production of war materiel, and B) a soft target that makes us vulnerable to cyber-attacks and intelligence leaks. Therefore, as the Boomer generation fades, as their financial manipulations finally approach a day of reckoning, as globalization abates and as general war approaches, the continued existence of the internet will simply not be feasible.

    The social changes that will attend this transformation are both a result and an exacerbating cause of the internet's decline, also working in an interdependent fashion. We see here one of those social changes aborning, viz. the desire by governments to control (i.e. tax, regulate, censor) internet content. Once that begins in earnest the internet's decline will accelerate, because there will be very little demand for what it can provide. People will not be willing to pay for it and it will only be sustained, if at all, by compulsory taxation and fees, resulting in a very circumscribed, cumbersome, and limited experience. The prior years of rapid internet growth were only possible because of the opportunities for investment it afforded as a so-called "new frontier." I am rather skeptical about the ultimate value of many of those opportunities, but at least the perception thereof at the time provided a case for investment. With the closing of the frontier, even that perception will be gone.

    It will be very interesting to watch the action in the financial markets as the dawning realization grows that companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and a host of Silicon Valley lesser lights have no real pathway to profitability and are basically just gigantic cash burning operations. As the tech sector sells off horrendously there will be calls for bailouts and recapitalizations of the affected companies, but neither the willingness nor the ability for continued QE will be anymore existent, the dry powder having already been wasted on the zombie banks and real estate boondoggles of the Great Recession. The drying up of investment capital will further retard R&D and Capex in the IT field and will depress interest in programming and computer science as career choices for qualified youth. The downward spiral will continue until a new equilibrium is reached in a world very much less tech-dependent as the one we occupy today.

    It should be apparent by now that anything Obama touches, he ruins. In the the coming years the internet will undergo its own version of the "NFL ratings plunge" we are witnessing as a result of BLM meddling in one of America's national pastimes. Although Obama himself is at least as much effect as cause of the sweeping social changes his era will come to symbolize, he should never be excused of the ill effects simply because of the malice in his heart.

    Barking up the right tree on this one.

    Monetary extremism and mass immigration are driving politics.

    Trump says monetary extremism is propping up asset bubbles. Trump says immigration is out of control.

    Hillary Clinton says she wants more nation-wrecking mass immigration. Hillary Clinton is a nasty whore for the big banks.

    Currrency electronically conjured up out of thin air; cultural cohesion deliberately destroyed by the demographic displacement of traditional populations.

    “Sometimes when my thoughts about the future are particulary gloomy, I find myself feeling more and more lighthearted.” — Sir Randolph Nettleby as played by James Mason in the film The Shooting Party

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Obama actually doesn’t seem like that bad of a guy.
     
    Right, because depriving millions of Americans of health care (you can keep the doctor/health care plan you want), through dishonesty and dead-of-night legislative prestidigitation, turning the Middle East into a perpetual war zone, converting Russia from ally to enemy, encouraging China's imperial ambitions, opening the borders to unlimited immigration, incurring enormous debts, politicizing and de-legitimizing the Justice Department and the FBI, and ramping up violent crime by targeting the police "doesn't seem that bad".

    Yep, Obama seems not that bad - and Saul Alinsky is applauding both Obama and your endorsement of Obama's perfidy from Hell. Obama's place next to Saul is secure. I hope you realize your post is evidence of you lobbying to join him.

    OTOH, you are right about Hill being more evil. But given your affection for the Dissembler-In-Chief I suspect you hinder the Trump road to righting our ship of state more than help it.

    I don’t like Obama and didn’t vote for him, but if McCain had been elected we would have bombed Iran with very bad consequences.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    but if McCain had been elected we would have bombed Iran with very bad consequences.
     
    Maybe you are right, because McCain is an idiot, there can be no doubt about that.

    But McCain also follows the lead of the mainstream media, so their opinion may have dissuaded him from crying havoc etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Wait one.

    I thought “Wild Wild West” was a heroic black man fighting an evil Belfast white man with a giant robot spider (designed by CGI jockeys with very little understanding of mechanical engineering principles)?

    “Wild Wild West” is now a bad thing?

    It’s so hard to keep up with all this truthiness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    The 1999 movie starring Will Smith was based on the 1960s TV series starring Robert Conrad.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    I've noticed quite recently that the MSM have begun to "curate" Donald Trump right in their news stories. I just heard something like this on NPR just now. They will say "Today Donald Trump said X" (so far so good) "despite the fact that there is no evidence that X is true". I don't think that was ever done in the past. Maybe from their POV Donald Trump is an unprecedented liar and "deserves" to be "curated" in this way, but this is something new AFAIK.

    An astute comment, Jack.

    I’ll just add that they also curate Wikileaks by reference to Trump and/or Russia. Of course, this is both different than ‘curate’ in the notion of ‘curating’ great specialty coffees and more like displaying painting in a museum. That is, an art exhibit is more than just selection. It involves developing a context as well as a written narrative to support the selections.

    Mainstream ‘high’ art is highly conventional. It’s what Museums do. To call it a convention makes more sense than calling it a social construct. Scratch the surface, and it is obvious that it involves judgment at every step. Contrast that, however, with the current fad of ‘outsider art’.

    The point being that I actually find traditional curation desirable. I like art museums and like the fact that ‘outsider art’ is labeled as such and avoidable.

    However, treating science as if it were art is crazy. Do we need to curate physics? History? Political discourse?

    It is impossible to put too fine a point on it. But curating facts is insane.

    Trump as punk rock? How about Trump as outsider art. I get it. That’s why I hate the guy. He makes up facts — but they are uncomfortably close to the truth. Like Mexican criminality. It’s sort of false (yet sort of true), yet look as MS 13. More serious than anything that Trump has ever mentioned. It’s from South of the Border … but not Mexico. And in Chicago, Mexicans are pushing out blacks …. so it is a huge win for the city. But, of course, we are now way beyond what can be noticed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Jack D
    There is such a thing as a "useful fiction". All of post-Roman Western civilization was based on the premise that there is some guy upstairs who judges your deeds after you are dead. This may or may not be true, but it was useful for people to behave as if it was. It was useful up to a point - if people overdid it and spent their entire life praying and preparing for the next one, not much got done.

    Up to a point, the idea that all humans are equal (not in intelligence but in human dignity) is useful as well. It (along with the older useful fictions) prevents us from doing Nazi like things like euthanizing the disabled. The problems come when people overgeneralize the useful fiction and take it too far and believe in it too literally.

    I don’t think depraved behavior towards another has to be based on a sense of superiority. It comes from being depraved.

    The problem I have with the not very useful fiction of all races being equal is that obvious inequality then becomes prima facie evidence of systemic racism. This will cause racial resentment that the less talented often feel towards the more talented. And this, in turn, can lead to the hostility of the Black Lives Matter movement with its attendant carnage and trillions of dollars spent trying to make unequal people equal.

    In general, I do not think fiction is ever useful when it is presented as truth.

    Read More
    • Agree: res, Clyde
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Cloudbuster
    Recalling past days when three television channels delivered fact-based news that most people trusted...

    The news wasn't more truthful then. We just didn't have any way to know what they were lying about.

    Yes. What is going on now is the democratization of journalism, and the government is trying to keep the former gatekeepers’ hands on the Megaphone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. “If you like your facts, you can keep your facts.”

    Go on, pull the other one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  109. Perhaps we could have a state news service. Name it ‘Truthiness’. Or even just ‘Truth’.

    If we really wanted to be flashy, we could name it in Russian, which sounds cooler. ‘Pravda’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    3 months until he's out. Can't wait. But I'll miss his crazy antics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @Anonymous
    Obama appears to be taking his cues from the villains of a Japanese videogame from 2001...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKl6WjfDqYA#t=0m20s

    “Create context?”

    “Rrrrr.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Mr. Blank
    Just saw the preview tonight for that "Denial" movie, the one about the David Irving suit. Reading Obama's comments after seeing it makes me suspect that this is all battlespace preparation for a new censorship push.

    I'm no Holocaust denier, but I found the preview risible, because it made it seem like the movie was conceived as a stalking horse to advance the notion that some ideas just need to be shut down. I don't even know the details of the suit -- I seem to recall that the facts of the case were a lot more mundane than they are portrayed here -- but it seems pretty clear that the message of the movie is, "some speech needs to be banned." Maybe the movie will be different (previews can sometimes be way off), but it seemed like they were going out of the way to set up the parallel between right wing ideas in general and Holocaust denial, to make Left-wingers feel comfortable in eventually shutting down "hate speech."

    That preview, these comments from Obama, some stuff Hillary has said, and some other stuff I've read give me the feeling that this might be the Left's next big crusade, after they finish making transgender toilet rights mandatory across the entire country.

    That first amendment is really pesky. Which do they hate more, the first or second?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Olorin
    Wait one.

    I thought "Wild Wild West" was a heroic black man fighting an evil Belfast white man with a giant robot spider (designed by CGI jockeys with very little understanding of mechanical engineering principles)?

    "Wild Wild West" is now a bad thing?

    It's so hard to keep up with all this truthiness.

    The 1999 movie starring Will Smith was based on the 1960s TV series starring Robert Conrad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Well, if that Project Veritas Action video of Clinton operatives inciting violence at Trump rallies is for real, Obama is going to have his curating cut out for him. Gosh, I remember him when he was all about transparency and conversations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  114. @Chrisnonymous
    Dang. I might have to start reading your blog. I heard an interview with Chris Sacca where he said it was just obvious--obvious!--that Twitter was going to make money. How could people not see that? Of course, he never did explain how. A real emperor has no clothes moment.

    The only thing is that the Internet is really completely integrated into every facet of our lives now. I don't see how to go back.

    The only thing is that the Internet is really completely integrated into every facet of our lives now. I don’t see how to go back.

    This.

    I don’t buy the notion that the Internet is helping to destroy the power structure. The power structure is more adaptive than we give it credit for.

    Don’t forget that, in the ’60s, the hippies were afraid of computers – those big mainframes were tools of The Man, used by the government to keep track of everyone’s draft registrations. It wasn’t until the late ’70s and early ’80s, when PCs started becoming popular, that the computer was redefined as a means of personal empowerment. But now, with cloud computing and the smartphone – as sinister a friendly-yet-deadly mind-control/tracking device as any ever conceived by a Bond villain – we have come full circle. Most folks don’t care that they don’t have even a smidgen of privacy anymore – what matters is that they can take kewl selfies.

    I’m typing this not on a shiny new smartphone but on a crappy old HP laptop. I have to plug in a USB keyboard because the built-in one is mushy and sticky. (Also, I have big hands – ha ha.) I learned to type on an old IBM keyboard, with my hands on the clickety-clack “home keys,” so I can’t stand most keyboards built in the last 10 years. But I like having a real computer at my disposal. I have an iPhone, too, but I still prefer to use my laptop for most things.

    If you believe the polls, millennials – the folks who’ve never known a world without the ‘Net – are backing Hillary three-to-one. For them – us* – the Internet is like running water: something they take for granted, something they don’t even think about. They should be the ones leading the charge, saying, “Everything we’ve been told about the world by the schools and the media and the government is bullshit!” And yet they’re the ones who are hopelessly delusional.

    Again, this is true only if you believe the polls:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/17/millennial-vote-presidential-race-trump-clinton/92136482/

    For all we know, the great silent mass of millennials – a monolithic generation speaking with one voice, having spent its formative years reading truth-telling Internet blogs and making snarky comments on them, is now merged into a single mighty entity – a being harnessing the power of the entire Force distilled into the consciousness of a lone Jedi Knight with billions of midi-chlorians. It’s not inconceivable that this brave knight is ready to rise up, hoist Donald Trump upon his shoulders, and lead us confidently into the brave new post-PC world. Then, after we build the border wall, we can all merge into the Singularity and download thoughts of nirvana – and maybe even a few Nirvana songs, to throw the assimilated Xers a bone – into our unified hivemind until the end of time. But I’m not counting on it.

    *I’m north of 30 and south of 35, but the bullshit spewed about what millennials supposedly believe sure as hell doesn’t apply to me. Who came up with that wretched term, anyway?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. This sounds like rehashed Walter Lippmann to me. “Public opinions must be organized by the press if they are to be sound.” There are too many presses right now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  116. @melendwyr
    Perhaps we could have a state news service. Name it 'Truthiness'. Or even just 'Truth'.

    If we really wanted to be flashy, we could name it in Russian, which sounds cooler. 'Pravda'.

    3 months until he’s out. Can’t wait. But I’ll miss his crazy antics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Jack D
    Gelernter is a computer genius and was badly injured (lost his right hand) by one of the Unabomber's bombs (not clear why he was chosen as a target).

    For those who believe IQ is heritable, his name means "one who is learned" (in the Talmud). To become learned you had to have the intellectual chops - dummies need not apply.

    I really liked the editorial and recommend it - it's essence is that yes, all the stuff that they are saying about Trump and women is probably true, but even so, Hillary is worse. A worse human and will make a worse President. I can accept that more than I can accept the idea that each and every one of these women coming forward is a bald faced liar (and ugly to boot!) and Trump is a choir boy.

    “For those who believe IQ is heritable, his name means “one who is learned” (in the Talmud)”

    The word gelernter is germanic in origin, not hebrew. To be pedantic.

    Read More
    • Agree: Opinionator
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Well, actually it's Yiddish, but Yiddish is a Germanic language, so yes. I never said it was Hebrew.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Jack D
    I've noticed quite recently that the MSM have begun to "curate" Donald Trump right in their news stories. I just heard something like this on NPR just now. They will say "Today Donald Trump said X" (so far so good) "despite the fact that there is no evidence that X is true". I don't think that was ever done in the past. Maybe from their POV Donald Trump is an unprecedented liar and "deserves" to be "curated" in this way, but this is something new AFAIK.

    Gov’t NPR stations come in clear. I will assume this is why you were listening. At least the old SNL had the mojo to parody these slow talk dopes. I do tune in from time to time so I know where they are at these days.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Jesus, this guy is a moron.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  120. @Anon
    Curate is ubiquitous in the hipster world.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/fashion/04curate.html

    THE Tipping Point, a store in Houston that calls itself a sneaker lifestyle shop, does not just sell a collection of differently colored rubber soles, along with books, music and apparel. No, its Web site declares, the store “curates” its merchandise.

    Promoters at Piano’s, a nightclub on the Lower East Side, announced on their Web site that they will “curate a night of Curious burlesque.”

    Eric Demby, a founder of the Brooklyn Flea swap meet, does not hire vendors to serve grilled cheese sandwiches, pickles and tamales to hungry shoppers. He “personally curates the food stands,” according to New York magazine.

    And to think, not so long ago, curators worked at museums.

    The word “curate,” lofty and once rarely spoken outside exhibition corridors or British parishes, has become a fashionable code word among the aesthetically minded, who seem to paste it onto any activity that involves culling and selecting. In more print-centric times, the term of art was “edit” — as in a boutique edits its dress collections carefully. But now, among designers, disc jockeys, club promoters, bloggers and thrift-store owners, curate is code for “I have a discerning eye and great taste.”
     

    Thanks for this explanation; I didn’t realize how common the term’s usage has become.

    Then it figures Obama would pick it up and try to use it; perhaps his remarks were more casual than I thought. This fits with his use of ‘truthiness’, which sounded like him fishing for a sophisticated word to use, and coming up with a talk-show banality, which pretty much sums up his off-teleprompter oratorical skills.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Only 7 e-mail’s in the Podesta Files use the word “curate”. Nothing interesting that I could see. This one is from someone at Univision to Podesta himself, early Dec. ’15. Snippet:

    Hola John, hope all is well.
    As we had discussed when we had breakfast with Isaac in NY, we’ve been thinking about ideas for Univision/Fusion and Hillary.
    I had dinner today with Teddy and discussed some opportunities.
    The number one priority for us right now is Snapchat, across both companies. Fusion is launching on the Snapchat Discover US platform this coming Monday, December 7th and we’ll have a run until Jan 27th, 2016. We will be giving this a massive promotion across the companies’ platforms.
    Would be great if we can invite Hillary to ‘curate’ one of our daily Snapchat editions. Snapchat reaches 100 million daily users who view 4 billion videos per day on the platform. Fusion will be one of only 19 select media companies that are part of Snapchat Discover.

    This looks to be an after-party briefing of some sort. It’s forwarded by Sara Latham (who?) to Podesta (mid Nov ’15), originally from De’Ara Balenger (???). Snippet:

    I talked to him a lot before and after – I asked him what he thought about doing the radio show with an audience – which I think would allow us to curate an amazing collection of diverse influencers. This takes us out of his house and gives us more bang for the buck. I’m going to follow up with Betsaida on this!

    Curate some influencers. Hmmm.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  122. @Antonymous
    "For those who believe IQ is heritable, his name means “one who is learned” (in the Talmud)"

    The word gelernter is germanic in origin, not hebrew. To be pedantic.

    Well, actually it’s Yiddish, but Yiddish is a Germanic language, so yes. I never said it was Hebrew.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Is the Talmud written in Yiddish?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Jack D
    Well, actually it's Yiddish, but Yiddish is a Germanic language, so yes. I never said it was Hebrew.

    Is the Talmud written in Yiddish?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    No, it's written in Aramaic.

    Gelernter means (in Yiddish) one who is learned.

    Implicitly, it means (in Yiddish) one who is learned in studying the Talmud. The Talmud itself is written in Aramaic but often the learned discussions would take place in Yiddish (with a lot of Hebrew/Aramaic thrown in).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Anonymous
    Obama actually has been a moderating force in Mideast intervention. The only reason we haven't already intervened in Syria is that Obama hasn't given the green light.

    Russia wasn't an "ally" before the Obama administration. It's not clear how Russia could become an "ally" as we, NATO, and the Western Europeans understand the term, without Russia making various political and military changes and compromises that the Western Europeans would insist upon and which the current Russian regime would never accept.

    Hillary is among the biggest China hawks in foreign policy. That's not a reason to vote for her over Trump.

    http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/china-isnt-exactly-backing-hillary-clinton-for-the-us-election/news-story/9b5cf115f6708db3b35ff950a5480142

    On one hand, Clinton is known for her tough stance against China. She has previously publicly condemned the country’s record on human rights, its political system and internet censorship. She’s also accused the country of hacking US computers and stealing commercial secrets and government information.

    Over the weekend, fresh emails purportedly from her campaign leaked by Wikileaks revealed she told bankers three years ago that the United States had warned Beijing it would “ring China with missile defence”, unless it did more to stop North Korea.

    According to a hacked campaign document, her message to China in 2013 had been, “You either control them, or we’re going to have to defend against them”.

    But it’s her hawkish views on ownership of the South China Sea that have struck a particularly strong chord in China.

    In 2010, as Secretary of State, Clinton outraged Beijing after pushing the South China Sea to the top of the regional and US security agendas.

    She’s also expressed a desire for more US intervention in the disputed South China Sea region.

    ...

    In May, China’s official Xinhua news agency noted Trump’s more isolationist campaign compared to Clinton’s, who it described as an “old foreign policy hand” and important backer of the Asia-Pacific “pivot” that China considers a threat.

    “As far as she’s concerned, being tough on foreign policy is perhaps the best way to show America’s so called ‘leadership’,” it said in a commentary.

    In a brief op-ed for The Global Times earlier this year, Renmin University of China academic Wang Yiwei said the Chinese “regard Trump as a clown, funny and unscrupulous.”

    He went on to say: “I think Trump as US president will be good for the Sino-US relations. Trump sticks to isolationism when it comes to foreign policy. He doesn’t want the US to bear so many global responsibilities. In contrast, Clinton initiated the Asia-Pacific rebalancing strategy which is aimed at containing China.”
     

    Obama actually has been a moderating force in Mideast intervention

    No Obama has not. Your post inverts the facts. Are you a Leftist?

    You do not blame the dam for the flood when its foundation has been destroyed. Obama destroyed the foundations of the political structure of the Middle East.

    Obama made sure The Duck was killed. The same Duck that dismantled his nuclear program and stemmed the tide of African “refugees.” Obama’s stupidity could not have been exceeded in those circumstances, unless his purpose was to light up the Middle East in a regional conflagration. AFAIK no one thinks Obama is stupid.

    Killing the Duck ensured that Assad will never step aside because he does not want to die like The Duck did. And that Assad will stop at nothing to keep his hold on power.

    Killing the Duck also ensured that no regime will ever give up nuclear weapons, and those that would retain their illegitimate power need observe no bounds on the violence they inflict to keep their power. The Duck would be alive had he not given up nuclear weapons. Obama set a horrible precedent, one whose cost will not be counted just in money.

    Obama rode the red horse of Rev. 6:4. The blood of the dead, the maimed, the disfigured and the wounded in Libya and Syria is on Obama’s head. And the dead that will needlessly die due to his precedent will condemn him when he stands to account for his actions at the end of time.

    And Hillary signed on for it all.

    Vote Democrat, so the Democrats can do for America what they have done for Detroit, and do for the world what they have done for Syria.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Stan Adams
    Why would you want to shop for groceries online? I wouldn't want some stranger picking out my food.

    Canned goods, paper goods, packaged dairy and baked goods, frozen food, etc. – who cares? There could be a little greengrocer/butcher shop for the stuff you want to squeeze and sniff and the rest would just show up at your door.

    The real problem has been the economics – you are your own unpaid labor force when you walk up and down the aisles of the supermarket.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    By the way, #127 was my response to you. My point - I often try to have one, believe it or not - was that food is a strangely analog thing.

    That potluck dinner was a work-related function. The department head - a widely-loathed Hillary-esque pantsuit-wearer - demanded that we hold a potluck dinner on a Saturday night. She practically put a gun to the head of her long-suffering secretary to have her host the party at her house.

    That Saturday happened to be the day after we finished a big project that required a bunch of people to work insane amounts of overtime. So everyone was burned out and pissed off, and the last place we wanted to spend one of our precious weekend evenings was at our boss's secretary's house. There wasn't an unspoken agreement to try to sabotage the dinner, to convince K[name]catraz* that her idea was a horrible mistake, but there might as well have been.

    The secretary set the tone. She was normally neurotically organized and detail-oriented, but she did a sloppy job of preparing for the party. (This was her passive-aggressive way of showing us - but certainly not her boss - how unhappy she was at having to plan it.) When she came by my cubicle with the signup sheet, I simply wrote "dessert" on the line next to my name. She thanked me robotically and walked off without even looking at what I'd written. And I was the only one who bothered to bring something from a real bakery - someone brought a package of el-cheapo store-brand cookies with the $1 sale sticker still attached.

    (Yes, before the party, some of us were standing around the table, snickering at the miserable array of crappy food items on display.)

    But it turned out that the reason why the boss wanted us all there was so that she could announce her surprise retirement. (She was moving back up north to be with her ailing mother.) It was the funniest scene imaginable - everyone was *thrilled* that she was leaving, and yet we all had to pretend that we were devastated. Afterward, we all regretted that we'd brought such crappy dishes - hearing that we were soon to be rid of K[name]catraz got us in the mood for a hearty feast.

    At any rate, when we had a small goodbye party for her (in the office), I ordered a nice cake from the bakery. I took pains to make sure that the owner was the one who handled the order. K[name]catraz wrote me a thank-you note on her lovely stationery. (She misspelled my name.)

    *Her name began with a K sound. After a monumentally-boring/-pointless three-hour staff meeting - this lady was a shameless micromanager who demanded detailed "status updates" when there was absolutely nothing to report - someone joked that we were all "serving our terms in K[name]catraz." Somehow "K[name]catraz" became this lady's unofficial nickname.

    I once happened to be looking directly at the secretary when someone carelessly uttered the nickname out loud, not knowing that the boss was walking down the hallway, almost within earshot. The color went out of the secretary's cheeks and the light went out of her eyes.

    (She was supposed to be out of town, but had come back a day early. The fact that her pejorative nickname was uttered almost openly in her absence says a lot, doesn't it?)

    That night, the secretary called the careless person in a state of near-hysteria, screaming, "You almost gave me a heart attack! Never do that again!" Or so I heard. Afterward, people were a lot more careful.

    Now I am truly digressing, although I suspect that the effect K[name]catraz had on her employees is similar to the one that Hillary has on hers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Opinionator
    Is the Talmud written in Yiddish?

    No, it’s written in Aramaic.

    Gelernter means (in Yiddish) one who is learned.

    Implicitly, it means (in Yiddish) one who is learned in studying the Talmud. The Talmud itself is written in Aramaic but often the learned discussions would take place in Yiddish (with a lot of Hebrew/Aramaic thrown in).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Thanks
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Flip
    I don't like Obama and didn't vote for him, but if McCain had been elected we would have bombed Iran with very bad consequences.

    but if McCain had been elected we would have bombed Iran with very bad consequences.

    Maybe you are right, because McCain is an idiot, there can be no doubt about that.

    But McCain also follows the lead of the mainstream media, so their opinion may have dissuaded him from crying havoc etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Jack D
    No, it's written in Aramaic.

    Gelernter means (in Yiddish) one who is learned.

    Implicitly, it means (in Yiddish) one who is learned in studying the Talmud. The Talmud itself is written in Aramaic but often the learned discussions would take place in Yiddish (with a lot of Hebrew/Aramaic thrown in).

    Thanks

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. I care.

    If there are two cans on the shelf – one with a dent and one without – I want the one without the dent.

    I check expiration dates. That’s not to say that I’ll never drink expired milk, but when I buy a gallon of milk, I like to buy the container that has the latest date. (Sometimes the dates are two or three weeks apart. I don’t want to drink milk that’s been sitting on the shelf for weeks on end.) The same goes for anything else that’s perishable – I want the newest, freshest stuff I can get.

    I guess I could pay extra to have the store guarantee that I would always get the newest, freshest, dent-freest products that money can buy.

    You might be right – most folks might not care and would be happy to let someone else do all the work. Shopping takes up a lot of time. But some of us are a little more paranoid.

    Sometimes I stop at a bakery – I walk by it a lot.

    One of the employees doesn’t seem to like me – she always goes out of her way to give me the crappiest-looking pastries in the display case. One time, I ordered some cookies, and she dumped a bunch of half-broken cookies and crumbs in the box. Someone else who was ordering cookies at the same time got cookies from the tray fresh from the oven, even though there were still plenty of old cookies on the other tray. The thing is that the employee hadn’t put the new tray in the display case yet – she filled up the other person’s box in the kitchen area. I don’t think she knew that I knew what she was doing.

    (I could have protested, but the cookies were for a potluck dinner that I didn’t want to attend, and was planning to bail out on early, so I didn’t care. I wasn’t the only one – almost everyone else brought the cheapest, shittiest dishes they could find. Regrettably, I had to stay all the way through. The host served cold Swedish meatballs that still had little bits of ice stuck to them – they hadn’t been microwaved long enough. One older lady brought a bag of stale chips that – she quietly admitted to me – had been sitting in her pantry for over a month. Fortunately, we weren’t required to write our names on whatever it was that we brought – we put them on the table as we walked in.)

    But the owner always gives me the nicest-looking pastries, fresh from the oven. So I only go there when I see that the owner is in.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  130. @TWS
    Self published? Of course, he was also never a best seller on Amazon. I've never read his stuff but misrepresenting him and his accomplishments is both petty and dishonest.

    Selbstbauverlag has always been in bad odor, but some of the most useful books I have ever had were self-published.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Jack D
    Canned goods, paper goods, packaged dairy and baked goods, frozen food, etc. - who cares? There could be a little greengrocer/butcher shop for the stuff you want to squeeze and sniff and the rest would just show up at your door.

    The real problem has been the economics - you are your own unpaid labor force when you walk up and down the aisles of the supermarket.

    By the way, #127 was my response to you. My point – I often try to have one, believe it or not – was that food is a strangely analog thing.

    That potluck dinner was a work-related function. The department head – a widely-loathed Hillary-esque pantsuit-wearer – demanded that we hold a potluck dinner on a Saturday night. She practically put a gun to the head of her long-suffering secretary to have her host the party at her house.

    That Saturday happened to be the day after we finished a big project that required a bunch of people to work insane amounts of overtime. So everyone was burned out and pissed off, and the last place we wanted to spend one of our precious weekend evenings was at our boss’s secretary’s house. There wasn’t an unspoken agreement to try to sabotage the dinner, to convince K[name]catraz* that her idea was a horrible mistake, but there might as well have been.

    The secretary set the tone. She was normally neurotically organized and detail-oriented, but she did a sloppy job of preparing for the party. (This was her passive-aggressive way of showing us – but certainly not her boss – how unhappy she was at having to plan it.) When she came by my cubicle with the signup sheet, I simply wrote “dessert” on the line next to my name. She thanked me robotically and walked off without even looking at what I’d written. And I was the only one who bothered to bring something from a real bakery – someone brought a package of el-cheapo store-brand cookies with the $1 sale sticker still attached.

    (Yes, before the party, some of us were standing around the table, snickering at the miserable array of crappy food items on display.)

    But it turned out that the reason why the boss wanted us all there was so that she could announce her surprise retirement. (She was moving back up north to be with her ailing mother.) It was the funniest scene imaginable – everyone was *thrilled* that she was leaving, and yet we all had to pretend that we were devastated. Afterward, we all regretted that we’d brought such crappy dishes – hearing that we were soon to be rid of K[name]catraz got us in the mood for a hearty feast.

    At any rate, when we had a small goodbye party for her (in the office), I ordered a nice cake from the bakery. I took pains to make sure that the owner was the one who handled the order. K[name]catraz wrote me a thank-you note on her lovely stationery. (She misspelled my name.)

    *Her name began with a K sound. After a monumentally-boring/-pointless three-hour staff meeting – this lady was a shameless micromanager who demanded detailed “status updates” when there was absolutely nothing to report – someone joked that we were all “serving our terms in K[name]catraz.” Somehow “K[name]catraz” became this lady’s unofficial nickname.

    I once happened to be looking directly at the secretary when someone carelessly uttered the nickname out loud, not knowing that the boss was walking down the hallway, almost within earshot. The color went out of the secretary’s cheeks and the light went out of her eyes.

    (She was supposed to be out of town, but had come back a day early. The fact that her pejorative nickname was uttered almost openly in her absence says a lot, doesn’t it?)

    That night, the secretary called the careless person in a state of near-hysteria, screaming, “You almost gave me a heart attack! Never do that again!” Or so I heard. Afterward, people were a lot more careful.

    Now I am truly digressing, although I suspect that the effect K[name]catraz had on her employees is similar to the one that Hillary has on hers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Evidently HRC is a **** even to her security detail. This is my shocked face>

    http://heatst.com/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-terror/
    , @Jack D
    The numbers get changed so it's not #127 any more. I enjoyed your story even if it was a bit Grandpa Simpson-esque.

    As for getting stuff that is stale, outdated, dented, etc. one thing you might take some comfort from is that Amazon (who chances are would be the one doing this) has a very liberal refund policy. In many cases they don't even want the item back (what are THEY going to do with a dented can of soup?) Now if you were planning on having soup that night it might still be a problem, but economically you would be made whole. Maybe if the soup was free you might even decide to eat it anyway.

    BTW, as long as the hermetic seal is not broken and the can is not swelling up, a dent in a can has no significance. Most of those "Best Before" dates are also pure BS - the mfr wants nervous white ladies to throw the can away and buy another one. As long as the seal is intact, canned goods can last for decades. The flavor might fade a little but it remains perfectly safe to eat.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Jack D
    This is just a matter of fine-tuning the algorithm to distinguish fake news from real news without being overtly political. Not an insurmountable challenge.

    In a better world all they would need to do for now is hire reasonably fair minded curators instead of leftist idiots unable to distinguish truth from dogma. They can still be leftists - in the old days, most newspaper reporters were leftists too, but they were educated that they had professional responsibilities and needed to leave their personal opinions out of the news pages (or at least not to make it so obvious). But given that much of today's youth has been thoroughly marinated in PC leftism and poorly educated to boot, it's very hard to find such people.

    It is not a trivial matter to have a computer program distinguish fake news from real news. It’s not all that trivial even for a human to do so–note the large number of people who will like or repost fake news stories that reenforce their beliefs.

    Obama’s talking about a real problem. The prestige media used to more-or-less define consensus reality in the US–conspiracy theorists on one side and experts on the other side noticed holes in that consensus reality, and the media worldview was riddled with blind spots and often dead wrong. But it was a more-or-less logically consistent worldview, and it was widely shared. You could use it as the basis of discussion about what policies we should pursue, or what was missing from that worldview.

    The rise of the internet has allowed us to bypass the prestige media, more and more. For smart people looking for good information, that means we’re better informed than ever. For dumb and inattentive people, that means they’re far less informed than before, and a lot more of what they know isn’t actually true. And the fragmentation has led to the loss of a shared set of agreed-upon facts that can be the basis for an actual discussion.

    I don’t know what a solution would look like. Certainly a US government agency defining the truth would create more problems than it would solve. But there really is a problem.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Opinionator
    • Replies: @guest
    Conveniently, that "logically consistent worldview" happened to coincide with left-liberal progressivism. We gained by making everything else seem crazy because it gave us peace. (For a while.) Security is the primary goal of newsmedia, right?

    Is this Walter Lipmann's ghost, by the way?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @jane claire
    Sounds to me like maybe someone wants us to all agree on the truth, whether or not it's actually truth will be irrelevant so long as we all agree on it. Maybe a vote. Now thats Democracy!

    We should all want to agree on truth, right? It’s a better world when we can agree on known facts instrad of debating them endlessly. One problem is that anyone in a position to define what the facts are and are not, is also in a position to put a huge thumb on the scales of any public discussion. Do blacks and whites have the same average IQ? Does the MMR vaccine cause autism? Did Turkey commit genocide against the Armenians? Was Obama born in the US?

    These are all factual questions whose answers are known and easily knowable, yet they’re also questions that are or have been controversial, and on which some influential people have been willing to spend resources and political capital pushing back on the truth or muddying it, for their own purposes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Stan Adams
    By the way, #127 was my response to you. My point - I often try to have one, believe it or not - was that food is a strangely analog thing.

    That potluck dinner was a work-related function. The department head - a widely-loathed Hillary-esque pantsuit-wearer - demanded that we hold a potluck dinner on a Saturday night. She practically put a gun to the head of her long-suffering secretary to have her host the party at her house.

    That Saturday happened to be the day after we finished a big project that required a bunch of people to work insane amounts of overtime. So everyone was burned out and pissed off, and the last place we wanted to spend one of our precious weekend evenings was at our boss's secretary's house. There wasn't an unspoken agreement to try to sabotage the dinner, to convince K[name]catraz* that her idea was a horrible mistake, but there might as well have been.

    The secretary set the tone. She was normally neurotically organized and detail-oriented, but she did a sloppy job of preparing for the party. (This was her passive-aggressive way of showing us - but certainly not her boss - how unhappy she was at having to plan it.) When she came by my cubicle with the signup sheet, I simply wrote "dessert" on the line next to my name. She thanked me robotically and walked off without even looking at what I'd written. And I was the only one who bothered to bring something from a real bakery - someone brought a package of el-cheapo store-brand cookies with the $1 sale sticker still attached.

    (Yes, before the party, some of us were standing around the table, snickering at the miserable array of crappy food items on display.)

    But it turned out that the reason why the boss wanted us all there was so that she could announce her surprise retirement. (She was moving back up north to be with her ailing mother.) It was the funniest scene imaginable - everyone was *thrilled* that she was leaving, and yet we all had to pretend that we were devastated. Afterward, we all regretted that we'd brought such crappy dishes - hearing that we were soon to be rid of K[name]catraz got us in the mood for a hearty feast.

    At any rate, when we had a small goodbye party for her (in the office), I ordered a nice cake from the bakery. I took pains to make sure that the owner was the one who handled the order. K[name]catraz wrote me a thank-you note on her lovely stationery. (She misspelled my name.)

    *Her name began with a K sound. After a monumentally-boring/-pointless three-hour staff meeting - this lady was a shameless micromanager who demanded detailed "status updates" when there was absolutely nothing to report - someone joked that we were all "serving our terms in K[name]catraz." Somehow "K[name]catraz" became this lady's unofficial nickname.

    I once happened to be looking directly at the secretary when someone carelessly uttered the nickname out loud, not knowing that the boss was walking down the hallway, almost within earshot. The color went out of the secretary's cheeks and the light went out of her eyes.

    (She was supposed to be out of town, but had come back a day early. The fact that her pejorative nickname was uttered almost openly in her absence says a lot, doesn't it?)

    That night, the secretary called the careless person in a state of near-hysteria, screaming, "You almost gave me a heart attack! Never do that again!" Or so I heard. Afterward, people were a lot more careful.

    Now I am truly digressing, although I suspect that the effect K[name]catraz had on her employees is similar to the one that Hillary has on hers.

    Evidently HRC is a **** even to her security detail. This is my shocked face>

    http://heatst.com/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-terror/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Stan Adams
    By the way, #127 was my response to you. My point - I often try to have one, believe it or not - was that food is a strangely analog thing.

    That potluck dinner was a work-related function. The department head - a widely-loathed Hillary-esque pantsuit-wearer - demanded that we hold a potluck dinner on a Saturday night. She practically put a gun to the head of her long-suffering secretary to have her host the party at her house.

    That Saturday happened to be the day after we finished a big project that required a bunch of people to work insane amounts of overtime. So everyone was burned out and pissed off, and the last place we wanted to spend one of our precious weekend evenings was at our boss's secretary's house. There wasn't an unspoken agreement to try to sabotage the dinner, to convince K[name]catraz* that her idea was a horrible mistake, but there might as well have been.

    The secretary set the tone. She was normally neurotically organized and detail-oriented, but she did a sloppy job of preparing for the party. (This was her passive-aggressive way of showing us - but certainly not her boss - how unhappy she was at having to plan it.) When she came by my cubicle with the signup sheet, I simply wrote "dessert" on the line next to my name. She thanked me robotically and walked off without even looking at what I'd written. And I was the only one who bothered to bring something from a real bakery - someone brought a package of el-cheapo store-brand cookies with the $1 sale sticker still attached.

    (Yes, before the party, some of us were standing around the table, snickering at the miserable array of crappy food items on display.)

    But it turned out that the reason why the boss wanted us all there was so that she could announce her surprise retirement. (She was moving back up north to be with her ailing mother.) It was the funniest scene imaginable - everyone was *thrilled* that she was leaving, and yet we all had to pretend that we were devastated. Afterward, we all regretted that we'd brought such crappy dishes - hearing that we were soon to be rid of K[name]catraz got us in the mood for a hearty feast.

    At any rate, when we had a small goodbye party for her (in the office), I ordered a nice cake from the bakery. I took pains to make sure that the owner was the one who handled the order. K[name]catraz wrote me a thank-you note on her lovely stationery. (She misspelled my name.)

    *Her name began with a K sound. After a monumentally-boring/-pointless three-hour staff meeting - this lady was a shameless micromanager who demanded detailed "status updates" when there was absolutely nothing to report - someone joked that we were all "serving our terms in K[name]catraz." Somehow "K[name]catraz" became this lady's unofficial nickname.

    I once happened to be looking directly at the secretary when someone carelessly uttered the nickname out loud, not knowing that the boss was walking down the hallway, almost within earshot. The color went out of the secretary's cheeks and the light went out of her eyes.

    (She was supposed to be out of town, but had come back a day early. The fact that her pejorative nickname was uttered almost openly in her absence says a lot, doesn't it?)

    That night, the secretary called the careless person in a state of near-hysteria, screaming, "You almost gave me a heart attack! Never do that again!" Or so I heard. Afterward, people were a lot more careful.

    Now I am truly digressing, although I suspect that the effect K[name]catraz had on her employees is similar to the one that Hillary has on hers.

    The numbers get changed so it’s not #127 any more. I enjoyed your story even if it was a bit Grandpa Simpson-esque.

    As for getting stuff that is stale, outdated, dented, etc. one thing you might take some comfort from is that Amazon (who chances are would be the one doing this) has a very liberal refund policy. In many cases they don’t even want the item back (what are THEY going to do with a dented can of soup?) Now if you were planning on having soup that night it might still be a problem, but economically you would be made whole. Maybe if the soup was free you might even decide to eat it anyway.

    BTW, as long as the hermetic seal is not broken and the can is not swelling up, a dent in a can has no significance. Most of those “Best Before” dates are also pure BS – the mfr wants nervous white ladies to throw the can away and buy another one. As long as the seal is intact, canned goods can last for decades. The flavor might fade a little but it remains perfectly safe to eat.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @NOTA
    It is not a trivial matter to have a computer program distinguish fake news from real news. It's not all that trivial even for a human to do so--note the large number of people who will like or repost fake news stories that reenforce their beliefs.

    Obama's talking about a real problem. The prestige media used to more-or-less define consensus reality in the US--conspiracy theorists on one side and experts on the other side noticed holes in that consensus reality, and the media worldview was riddled with blind spots and often dead wrong. But it was a more-or-less logically consistent worldview, and it was widely shared. You could use it as the basis of discussion about what policies we should pursue, or what was missing from that worldview.

    The rise of the internet has allowed us to bypass the prestige media, more and more. For smart people looking for good information, that means we're better informed than ever. For dumb and inattentive people, that means they're far less informed than before, and a lot more of what they know isn't actually true. And the fragmentation has led to the loss of a shared set of agreed-upon facts that can be the basis for an actual discussion.

    I don't know what a solution would look like. Certainly a US government agency defining the truth would create more problems than it would solve. But there really is a problem.

    Conveniently, that “logically consistent worldview” happened to coincide with left-liberal progressivism. We gained by making everything else seem crazy because it gave us peace. (For a while.) Security is the primary goal of newsmedia, right?

    Is this Walter Lipmann’s ghost, by the way?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Pat Casey
    LOL he said truthiness. Isn't that from Will Ferrell doing Bush?

    I think this is Obama being Obama, speechifying for the sake of the American Soul with no idea what that means policy-wise---because he has no intention of backing his airy rhetoric with a policy. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think he has any idea what he's talking about.

    I can remember reading an essay by Hugh Hewitt like ten years ago in the Weekly Standard about Nicholas Leehman attempting to modernize the columbia school of journalism because plainly the specialists who had taken to blogging were making reporters and journalists look obtuse and obsolete. But then, Steve recently remarked, in relation to Andrew Sullizan's piece about how he got burned out blogging, that there are very few of the first real bloggers left, and it does occur to me that I can't remember the last time some sharp blogger disrobed faulty reporting. Oh yeah, Steve's UVA coup. And I think that's the revealing incident: reporters are stealing leads from bloggers like Steve and giving them no credit. That's probably why there are few left: blogging does not earn.

    WHICH IS WHY WE SHOULD GIVE STEVE MORE MONEY.

    I don't think I speak for myself when I say my written media diet consists of little more than checking this blog six times a day. How bout, Here lies Steve Sailer, curator of truth.

    I think this is Obama being Obama, speechifying for the sake of the American Soul with no idea what that means policy-wise—because he has no intention of backing his airy rhetoric with a policy. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think he has any idea what he’s talking about.

    Barack Hussein Obama is the equivalent of a nitrous-foamed can of whipped non-dairy dessert topping that a kid sticks the nozzle in their mouth and presses till it gushes out their nose.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. […] [Comment at Unz.com] […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored