Privacy and use of info data

I’ve got a new thought. It might still have some wrinkles but I’ll throw it out there. All the attention focused on privacy and social media, I share your concerns. Then come all the news of Facebook selling your data info, without your permission or knowledge.

Surely they aren’t alone either. Obama pilfered data just fine. They cheered.

That said, who likes having their data used and sold off as a commodity? Then they promise you security. No, how about the owner of the info gets paid for their own information? What’s wrong with that? I like the idea that they pay me. Clicks and everything else is a cash cow for merchants of info. It is now a business model.

So how about they pay you for your data they want? We have a commodity they want, we create it. Why should we get cut out of the market? A middle man sells it off and you don’t know how it is used nor by whom. If it really is a market that is. That’s me. Glitches?

Right Ring | Bullright

The Left’s Hogg Business Model

Yes, give us a description how that anti-business model works. Inquiring minds.

The Media Matters thuggery behind the astroturfed boycott of Laura Ingraham Tolerance bullies.

Conservative Review — by Chris Pandolfo | March 30, 2018

Media Matters is once again using its tired, sleazebag astroturfing tactics to bully and intimidate those who don’t agree with its far-left agenda. This time, hiding behind a child, the despicable thugs are pushing for advertisers to boycott Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show after she mocked 17-year-old Parkland shooting survivor and anti-gun activist David Hogg, for which she has since apologized.

On Wednesday, Ingraham tweeted a Daily Wire story, “Gun rights provocateur David Hogg rejected by four colleges to which he applied,” adding “and whines about it.” Hogg responded on Twitter, asking about her “biggest advertisers” and tweeting “#BoycottIngramAdverts” [sic]. He later tweeted a list of Ingraham’s top twelve advertisers.

At 1:06 p.m. ET on Thursday, Ingraham apologized “for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland.” Yet after she apologized, at 2:15 p.m., Media Matters published a story on Ingraham’s “bullying” and linked to a list of her advertisers. Hogg rejected Ingraham’s apology exactly two hours after she issued it, saying “an apology in an effort just to save your advertisers is not enough” and demanding that she “denounce” Fox News’ coverage of the Parkland anti-gun activists, saying “It’s time to love thy neighbor, not mudsling at children.” The calls for an advertiser boycott against Ingraham continue, and according to Media Matters, nine companies have pulled their ads from “The Ingraham Angle,” including TripAdvisor, Joseph A. Bank, Hulu, Expedia, and Johnson & Johnson.

So a leftist social media mob has been organized against Ingraham, and there are a few important things to note.

First, this is not a grassroots effort led by Hogg. Media Matters has a long history of organizing boycotts against conservative media figures like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Hogg’s age and his victim status as a Parkland survivor are a shield that cowardly Media Matters is hiding behind to obscure its astroturfing. His voice is a sword the organization is taking advantage of to launch an attack on Ingraham (and other conservatives). The media is complicit in this abuse of a child.

Second, this is not a campaign against Ingraham. It’s still going on after she apologized. The real target is Fox News and anyone in conservative media. Media Matters founder David Brock has previously described the mission of his organization as “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against the Fox News channel. In 2010, arch-progressive financier George Soros gave $1 million to Media Matters, noting, “Media Matters is one of the few groups that attempts to hold Fox News accountable for the false and misleading information they so often broadcast.” This group has an agenda, and it’s out to destroy those who disagree with it.

Third, it will not stop with Laura Ingraham. Media Matters has previously used its social media mob to go after several conservatives. This is far from the last time it will attempt this, especially if it succeeds in driving more advertisers away from Ingraham’s show. The Left takes pleasure in ruining the lives and livelihoods of conservatives who do not submit to their agenda. And if you do submit, if you do back down, if you do apologize, these petty tyrants will keep trying to grind you into the dust. Who will be next? Another conservative media host? A real estate agent who tweets something that upsets the Left? Will they destroy her business? Or a doctor’s? A mechanic’s? ~ ~ [see]

 
Being schooled by children? Ed-U-K-shun.

But we’re told to lighten up. Then we’re attacked for supposedly attacking or hating the kids. I know I was.  Like we just hate kids. Saying anything back to or about these kids constitutes an “attack”. What kind of nonsense have we slipped into?

Now businesses are supposed to kowtow to the whims of children, who make the rules, law and decide who you should do business with. They decide where you can advertise or, more importantly, where you can’t. That’s a business model?

The world is supposed to look at this and say it is normal? What is wrong with all those that comply? Okay, corporations, do you want to turn the reins of your company over to children who can barely drive? How responsible is that? What does that portend for the future of the country or business?

So you liked those eyeballs a few years ago when you were targeting them as your captive audience of TV viewers. But now that they are intervening in your board room and bottom line, you just have to suck it up. There is nothing you can do about it.

Who makes your decisions?

As I have said here before, is that really how much you care about your company? These kids were obsessed with Nickelodeon while you were building a brand. Now you are going to turn the integrity of that brand over to children? And you can’t do anything about it but give it to them? I guess I’m confused…and disappointed.

David Hogg lists a bunch of businesses to boycott because of tweets from Laura that some universities have rejected him. Shouldn’t he be boycotting the universities? Oops, seems he already is. I guess it is how he deals with rejection. Somehow she’s the bully.

What is it called when you bully businesses into taking actions or making decisions to suit you, on a sliding scale? And instead of these children going on a national political campaign, shouldn’t they focus on the local politics and policies that led to this avoidable shooting?

Right Ring | Bullright

Impersonators Abound in 2018

The obnoxious left is at it again. In the electoral playground in Pa-18, they are running a so-called “moderate”. But anyone knows there is no such thing as moderate Democrat pols anymore. It is more the universal communist party. They have far more in common with Chairman Mao than Thomas Jefferson — with a hat tip to Marx.

Yet they continue this ruse that they can somehow be agreeable to Republicans and Trump policies alike. Well, what could go wrong? It’s a big lie, we know.

“Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery”…except when it’s a huge insult.

Let’s see, what does the left really stand for? The Democrats are anti-second amendment, anti-life, anti-capitalism, anti-family, anti-borders, anti-freedom, anti-freedom of speech, anti-freedom of religion, anti-business, anti-energy, anti-justice, anti-accountability, anti-law enforcement, anti-God, and anti-Israel. (and apparently anti-sanity too)

If the chameleon Lamb was half the moderate he claims to be, he would have had to abandon that Democrat asylum years ago. But he didn’t and he is not.

Instead it is a total mockery of any values and it is done for the sole purposes of politics. That shows what side he is on. It is the biggest insult to common sense to think he stands for anything but the new Socialist Democrat party. If this is their answer to Trump’s agenda, they lose. The kicker is the left does not like their pols talking that way either.

Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Right Ring | Bullright

The political marketplace: weaponizing business

Check out this foundation article included which seems a bit misleading – to be kind. It is about the Hannity advertising scheme going on. Let the dis-ingenuousness begin.

You know the routine: libs feign outrage over something in conservative media and turn it into a war on sponsors. Or war against them as the case may be. It is all too common. Even worse is the will of businesses to comply to demands. See full article:

(Marketwatch) – “E-Trade, TripAdvisor and Conagra are among the companies that say they will stop advertising on ‘Hannity’ in the wake of Roy Moore allegations.”

“Stop” being the operative word. Just keep that in mind and decide if that is misleading. Some companies make statements who were not currently advertising anyway. But it makes for good fodder for Media Matters extortionists. See what you notice in it.

Back to the M/O

But even the left’s outrage is disingenuous because the offense is not the real objective, the voice of the person is. Libs don’t want to watch the content regardless of the offense. They want the person or show canceled via their protest causing sponsors to abandon it, thereby hopefully getting it removed. The offending material is only an excuse to attack the show/host. The left has a pattern of these attack campaigns. And none other than Media Matters specializes in attacks on anyone or media that doesn’t cow-tow to their agenda.

It has had some success I won’t bother to list.

So it is all routine to the radical left but claiming it is about this or that issue is very deceptive. It is about silencing opposition, simple as that. We all know it but it is important. If they can only shut up their opposition they can railroad their agenda. Only one thing stands in their way, the 1st amendment — free speech and freedom of press. Actions of leftists don’t support either. Sure, they talk a good game when convenient.

Again, we know that. However, nothing stops them from pushing the envelope of their agenda further and further. As is the case when they go down their extensive ‘targets’ list to silence; or down their list of advertisers to the program.

First of all, when someone advertises, it does not mean they are endorsing all the opinions or content of the program. It is not a political endorsement either. It is, in fact, an advertisement to reach eyeballs or certain people. Their objective is sales or exposure to viewers. Again, it is not an endorsement of content or politics. Consumers know this.

You cannot hold the advertisers responsible for what the show does, and you cannot hold the network responsible for what the advertiser says. The network is not the customer service center for the company. And consumers shouldn’t be calling the company because they don’t like the programming. Each are independent with their own interests.

However, advertisers turn into political fodder when they are manipulated by activists like Media Matters and used in a silencing campaign against their targets. Companies are objects of extortion or intimidation in an effort to politicize, and then weaponize them.

Yes, they can go along willingly, but they can be threatened to go along as well. When they comply, they allow their brand and its recognition to be used for specious political motives. So political activists hijack and freely use brands toward their own political objectives.

Normally the problem or damage comes when companies do not give in to the threats. Then they are smeared just as the original target is. Some businesses take what they think is the “easy route” by complying to the demands. It is like the old mob protection racket, where they promise not to break your windows if you just pay the protection. In this case the payment of protection is dropping your ads from a certain target. So, in effect, they are asking the store owner to go break one of his own windows, with the promise they’ll help with the damage. The store owner then, consciously or not, enters into a cozy alliance with the villain racketeers. As long as you support their agenda with your own business practices, they will not cause you further injury.

Does enslavement enter your mind? What about the concept of private property? Something radicals do not have personally invested in it.

Just think about turning over your brand, or proprietary info, to activists for safekeeping? All the years of building your company and brand mean nothing to these extortionists. They only care about what you do with it, or more like how they can use your brand for their political objectives. The definition of Terrorism is threatening or harming people for political motives. Would you turn your car or house over to someone to use to further their own political agenda? I don’t think so.

Now we conservatives don’t sit around and say I don’t like this media or this person and take note of their sponsors to harass them into pulling their ads. It’s not something we do. We don’t hate watch them to track sponsors. And we know that those sponsors are not endorsing the content or opinions, only advertising to eyeballs or ears.

Fast forward to this latest attempt to weaponize Hannity’s sponsors over an interview he did with Roy Moore. The content was not the issue. The statements of Hannity was not the issue. Shutting Hannity down is the only issue. Another priority is the election in Alabama. (or elections is now a priority to Media Matters) And this plays to both ends, the election and silencing Hannity. In the left’s sponsor shakedown they solicit statements from advertisers to not advertise on the show. Keurig was one such company — whether sucked in naively or not.

Only this time the viewers, conservatives and free speech advocates intervened. They promptly told Keurig it had earned a boycott for their trouble. It wasn’t for Hannity but the principle. Over a few days, Keurig realized they tripped over people’s wrath by complying with the fascist left, Media Matters. A boycott was off to a bang but was criticized by MM as dumb for Sean to do.(it wasn’t him) The CEO then apologized to its employees — not the public — that it did not intend to take sides. Ha, too late. They were now involved and had their company held hostage to the left’s demands. Apologizing to the employees does not help that.

Videos popped up of former customers ejecting their coffee makers. This time was different. They may have been threatened with a boycott by Media Matters’ goons, but now they got an actual protest….anyway. See what you get playing games, trying to appease the left? Then came the oops to employees. A funny thing happened on the way to appeasing the fascists: they realized they will get a protest even if they appease the left, and very possibly a boycott too.

Then Libs didn’t realize we we were 6 weeks from Christmas and this puts their season at some risk. Well, that is the cost of getting into bed with the left. Do they care about your business? Do they care about your bottom line? Do they care about your employees? No, and they don’t care about your name or brand either since they are putting that at risk with their political campaigns. Does that mean anything to them? Not a cent, they are only using, abusing, politicizing, and weaponizing these companies.

By Wednesday, NYT had this piece saying advertisers were walking back tweets.

But by Tuesday, those companies were clarifying — or even deleting — statements they had made on the platform that indicated they had pulled ads from Mr. Hannity’s show because of comments he made about Roy S. Moore, the embattled Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama. Those moves followed a backlash against Keurig that included fans of Mr. Hannity posting videos of themselves destroying the company’s coffee makers.

“It’s pretty unusual to see companies like this handling an issue so poorly,” said Kara Alaimo, an assistant professor of public relations at Hofstra University. She said it was especially surprising to see companies like Realtor.com and Volvo delete widely circulated tweets.

The problem is that in the case of Hannity, he has a following including free speech advocates. In Media Matters’ corner, you have radical political hacks and their trolls attacking anything it disagrees with. An actual product or show has a consumer base, where MM does not — it operates on opposition. So fans and advocates or speech spoke up. I guess MM did not anticipate that. Then advertisers realized they could incur as much wrath from taking a stand against Hannity. (which shouldn’t be a compan’s role) They may have figured it is better to appeal to someone’s loyal base, rather than just oppose it. See the dynamics? Interesting that the left has always operated with free reign, where the default position was usually to side with it. But all you need is that big crack in the wall.

From the company point of view, who would want to be brow beaten into doing something or told by others how to spend their ad dollars? Then who wants their company dragged through the mud of politics? Their business model is the bottom line not politics. To add even more damage, MM hacks have also taken the liberty to start speaking for companies, if they are with them or if they are against them. And they usurp a certain power (liberty) over companies in the process. Then they have the nerve to act or even say they represent the best interests of the businesses. No they don’t. Remember the protection racket?

That stand and attitude should bother anyone in business. The idea that a company you built or run is suddenly turned over to whims of a political agenda should be concerning. That a brand you have a proprietary value in is being toyed with by political activists, is equivalent to squatting on your corporate name. It should be seen as an infringement. I think it is time someone send a cease and desist letter to the Media Matters protestors to stop using their name as part of political campaigns. That might send some chills into the corporate extortionists.

Until that happens, when companies and their ad money stand up on their own, independent of political hijackers and extortionists, they can be sucked into a whole lot of bad karma for appeasement policies. It can be a bigger liability than dealing with the protection racketeers.

My opinion is that when companies participate in these campaigns they become tools, weaponized by organizers, little more. I know some may think they are taking a stand but any short-term gains might not be worth the long-term damage and pain it can cause. Not to mention sort of losing control of your business. The issue is bigger than this though. This is a market model.(I don’t believe in it but it is) When companies are activated like this it has an effect on the economy. It turns them into cheap political interests like every other political organ. But actually they become more; they are radicalized and expended as mere political tools. Why would corporations allow themselves to be reduced to that?

I know some companies still take a stand on their special political issues, but they don’t have to morph into special interests or lobbyists. Using a company that way is careless.

Right Ring | Bullright

Pin the Tail on Elites and Mefia

That’s not a typo, its what happens when media acts like organized mafia.

Sharyl Attkisson: Media Distorting Facts to Serve World Elites at Levels Never Seen Before

by Dan Riehl  17 Jun 2016 |  Breitbart 

Sharyl Attkisson talked to Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Matt Boyle Friday about her new show, Full Measure with Sheryl Attkisson, as well as current events and an extremely disturbing trend. Elites have become adept at controlling media narratives, going so far as to ostracize reporters who “veer” from a particular narrative: “It’s certainly happening here in the United States,” said Attkisson.

Asked if American media appear to be aggressively pushing a particular narrative, specifically gun control in light of the recent terrorism in Orlando, Attkisson said:

I think they’ve been pushing narratives a lot for the last couple of years in a way I haven’t seen five years ago … ten years ago, for sure. It’s almost like someone’s given a license at the top. It used to be done kind of subtly, but now it’s sort of encouraged. It’s almost as if everybody’s on the same page now. I think it’s inappropriate. I think that different views should be represented. It doesn’t have to be 50-50 every time that every story has to be given equal time. But over time, different views should be heard, and we just don’t hear that anymore.

“I just got back from a conference in Russia, of all places, where global journalists gathered to talk about this as a trend globally, where government interests, corporate interests, special interests have learned how to use the news media,”Attkisson said, “how to use social media to control the narrative in ways, I think, more aggressively than has ever been done before.”

As for reporters, she asserted:

When they veer from the narrative that’s trying to be established by whatever power that exists, they’re controversialized, they’re bullied, they’re driven out of the mainstream. It’s a global trend. Whoever is trying to control the narrative has figured this out. They’re applying similar techniques around the world, and it’s certainly happening here in the United States.

Concerning public safety, Attkisson recently reported on Full Measure that Cleveland appears to be completely unprepared to host the upcoming GOP convention: “The head of policing said they’re not prepared; they haven’t been trained.”

She continued:

There is a complete disconnect between what the city official said is the preparation level and what the police said is the preparation level, and the head of the police unit said he’s worried his guys are going to get hurt, and they don’t have the equipment they expect. They fully think they’re going to be inundated with violent protesters because that’s what’s happened at other Trump events. So there’s concern there.

The full list of Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson shows can be found here. “There is fascinating stuff there you will not see on any other program,” said Attkisson.

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

Economy on the docket

So Wednesday night’s debate is supposedly on the economy.

CNBC is live blogging here.

It won’t be hard to beat Obama’s economy. Count the ways. That should be a win win for the Republicans but we’ll see how they, and CNBC, manage to divert any gains.

Let’s see, how could this go bad? (not that I’m not optimistic, just reserved)

I guess it leaves Lindsey Graham out of the mix… er maybe not the ‘mixing’.

Trump to Iowa: “What the hell are you people doing to me?

What’s a Liberal Mayor to Do?

Well, if you are Rahm Emanuel and it is Chicago, there can be only one answer to that question? Raise taxes… it’s always the solution.

So Rahm proposes raising taxes a half-billion dollars, or a measly 500 million, just to tide them over until, well, the next tax increase.

He suggested a choice between drastic cuts and raising taxes. Now who always wins that battle? Right. It could have something to do with big union contracts and the inability to keep these big lucrative contracts flowing like wild honey. Incidentally, the one business probably thriving above all others in Chicago are the Funeral parlors. (another story)

Good thing “Chicago is thriving” as he called it, otherwise it might not be able to afford the tax hike.(sort of a joke) It’s what Rahm calls “progressive” so at least there’s that.
Rahm Emanuel gave a speech where he said:

AOL

“In short, if we were to fund our pensions with cuts alone, our city services would become unreliable. Our city would become unlivable. And that would be totally unacceptable.”

Isn’t that one hell of an admission? (think about that) Outrageous. I mean if the cost to float those contracts requires a 20% cut to the police force, losing 48 fire departments and 40% of firefighters — just to afford them — then what in the world is in those contracts? Wouldn’t any sane person say wonder if and how they could afford those contracts?

So the answer is to raise the taxes — good thing they can afford them, uh? Right, rather save the contracts by raising taxes. No losses there. Or tell people that they will lose all their services they already paid for, if the city doesn’t raise taxes.(Is there a hostage negotiator in the house) Don’t worry because he calls it a “progressive” approach — who can dislike anything progressive? Guess what? Even Chicago Dems do not like hikes.

Breaking-bad Baltimore mayor wants riot bailout

You knew it was coming and now Baltimore planners are back at the public trough looking for relief for the riot damage.

The mayor who told the police to give them room to loot is scheming with her cohorts (aka partners in crime) to get Federal coffers via FEMA to pay for at least 75% of the damage, they are now pegging to about 20 million. (for opening bid)

See Washington Times

The planners are named Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, and Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, a Democrat. They are the ones responsible for the calculations, and the signatories of the request.

The payees are red-blooded Americans who keep FEMA afloat for such natural disasters as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and Superstorm Sandy, and FEMA, as you may or may not know, is no tightwad.

Why should they pay for their own malfeasance when the Federal Government can pick up the tab?

On a dual track with the economic damage, Rawlings stand-down order and the following charges from the prosecutor, had the effect of neutering the police. Since the riots the skyrocketing crime and murder rate are the direct results. And right on clockwork, they are complaining about police’s reluctance to enforce the law. Go figure. What a tangled web of lunacy Baltimore concocted.

But the 20 million is just a proposed starting estimate on the riot damage. At the same time they are asking for de facto bailout from taxpayers, Baltimore’s financial officer says the fiscal shape of the city is very good and strong. But why worry themselves over the expenses?

Now that I know that I think I’ll start calling her “super cell” Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.

Ref: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/1/deborah-simmons-stephanie-rawlings-blake-larry-hog/

Green grass and high tides: commencement du jour

With all the yap on the airwaves about commencement addresses, I thought it was time to tackle one of these speechified manifestos myself. So bear with me.

Not that conservatives usually get to speak at such an event. You know the numbers. If so, maybe it should go something like this. First, context is important: remember that they don’t really care what you say, it’s their day. But you the speaker must slice through those biases, however you can, without tempering your message. Enough as been said already on lofty “finer points” of ed-U-K-shun, so stuff that in the sock drawer. It isn’t your mom and pop’s type education we’re talking about now. Onward.

Hit a couple high points, and hit a few low ones, then sum it up as the world is your oyster and make lemonade out of lemons. Well, scratch that outline and just go for it.

I’d like to talk to you on this special day, and thank you for inviting me. Though it wasn’t so much an invitation as a booking arrangement. I just happened to be the one available.

While the fleeting idea of grand accomplishment is still thick in the air, I would like to address that. But it requires a little history or background. I’m not going to explain details of events, if you don’t know what they are you can Google it as I talk. I didn’t get paid a professor’s salary to come here and I don’t have tenure. So….

You may have the feeling right now that you have achieved a certain level, or reached some nirvana status. Whether or not that is on your way to higher aspirations or it is the height of your achievement is all open for debate.

Knowledge is power, education is achievement, and all that stuff hangs like a cloud over campuses like this. Academic accomplishment is still something to be proud of. (enjoy it while you can)

However, what I hope to do is remind you of just a few events. Of course you don’t remember but have you heard of Enron? Look it up if not. They were not bottom feeders, pardon the pun. Those involved in the scandal were educated, smart, accomplished people. There was the savings and loan(S & L) scandal. Bankers, educated, and smart people.

How about Nixon’s administration? You know all those people in the Watergate scandal – you don’t have to know their names — who were indicted or part of it were educated, intelligent people, lawyers and advisers. You might remember some of the Clintons’ scandals. Right, they don’t use that word scandal anymore because it’s a pejorative. That aside, remember those incidents called right-wing conspiracies that were always hovering around the Clintons and the White House? Let’s call them controversies just to be kind. Whatever you heard, there were some smart people in them. You don’t have to know all the details — which would require a four year course — to know they had intelligent and educated people in their circle.

You probably know about some media personalities in mainstream media. They are educated people, too, with degrees and such. Not without flaw, error or controversy.

That collective sampling of history sort of tells us something, doesn’t it? They can all be educated, very intelligent people but they make mistakes too. Sure, they aren’t perfect and none of us are. The lesson of all those things is simple.

So if you thought education was a status of achievement that would prevent you from screwing up, you are mistaken. If you thought education was your exemption ticket from scandal or problems, you were wrong. If you thought your education would diminish the chances of screwing up or even failing, you would be wrong.

Actually, your chances of finding yourself in a bad situation may have gone up with that new degree. It certainly will not save you from trouble. I’d like to take this opportunity to remind you that you are not immune because of your education or intelligence.

Some very intelligent and educated people created some pretty huge problems. Their education did not save them from corruption or scandal, and probably wouldn’t save you. Many good, successful people were also intelligent and educated.

If you studied anything on ethics, you know there are choices you will be asked to make. Sometimes it might be either or; sometimes it might be picking both at the same time; you may be forced to choose. You might have to decide if you really want that abortion you were told was your “right”? You might have to decide if that building the crowd broke all the windows in should be looted? You might have to decide whether or not you will be a witness to that assault or robbery you just saw? You may have to decide on a given day if you are going to be a spectator or intervene on behalf of a victim in the making? You might have to decide if what your boss told you to do is ethical? You might decide if money or gifts are really bribes? Or not; but you will have to make some choices.

And you will have to decide if you are going to vote, then whom you vote for? No choice is still a choice. You will have to determine if those in power really do speak for you or they are taking people’s votes for granted. You may be called on, at some point, to make a decision between the profitable thing and the right thing to do? You may also have to decide when enough is really enough? I nor anyone else can tell you what choices to make.

We can tell you or encourage you to make the right one but the decision is yours. So when you make the right choice a bell doesn’t go off, or a buzzer doesn’t sound when you make the wrong one. Sometimes you may not even know if it was the right decision, only that you made one. Sometime you might not be aware you made a choice. Or sometime you may think you really have no choice.

No one can give you the answers; we can’t even tell you the questions. We can tell you to make the right decision. Then own that decision. Don’t blame someone else, or justify it by some excuse. Just admit it was yours to make and live with your decision. You made a choice when you came here. Now live with that choice.

Why such concern about feeling a nirvana or sense of immunity to problems? Unchecked it can lead one right into false confidence. That concern is validated for a reason.

You have probably been warned about greed or heard it blamed as an enemy of society and social justice. CS Lewis in The Great Sin describes the subject this way:

“What is it that makes a man with 10,000 pounds a year anxious to get 20,000 a year? It is not the greed for more pleasure. 10,000 pounds will give all the luxuries that any man can really enjoy. It is Pride – the wish to be richer than some other rich man, and (still more) the wish for power.

For, of course, power is what Pride really enjoys: there is nothing makes a man feel so superior to others as being able to move them about like toy soldiers. Pride is competitive by its very nature: that is why it goes on and on. If I am a proud man, then, as long as there is one man in the whole world more powerful, or richer, or cleverer than I, he is my rival and my enemy.”

Proverbs 16:18 “Pride goeth before destruction: and the spirit is lifted up before a fall.”

RightRing | Bullright

A word on business appreciation

(isn’t there a national holiday for that or something?)

It’s being reported that CVS will rebuild two locations in Baltimore following the nasty, ugly riots and fires that followed. Sounds like a good idea, no?

In a press report, they say they are going to also donate 100,000 to a United Way in Baltimore area, and the “Fund for Rebuilding Baltimore.”. They claim they are really obligated to people’s health, and this is an extension of their efforts to help people.


Truth Revolt

“Our purpose as a company is helping people on their path to better health,” [CVS Health CEO Larry Merlo] said. “There is no better way that we can fulfill that purpose than to reopen our doors and get back to serving the community.”

You don’t say?
Well, pardon this satire: (hopefully everyone knows how satire works)

It turns out that it’s a great sign of appreciation to get looted and burned out. Who knew? It simply means they like you, in urban lingo. So take it as consumer appreciation.

This is not the first time. In Ferguson they looted and burned auto parts stores. That is probably where locals buy all their fancy accessories, parts and brakes for their rides. Naturally those stores would be at the top of thugs’ list to loot, destroy and burn. It’s a sign of endearment. It’s urban speak, sort of like getting jumped into a gang. But once you are in, well, all those perks.

So this is seen by retail insiders as a wise business move.(and great for the bottom line) It’s what you do. Maybe, like some stores in Ferguson, they will have the privilege of being looted or destroyed multiple times? Hey, that means you have really arrived.

So quit being so hard on them, it’s the right thing to do. Seems the more they like you, the more they rob you. Don’t you get it? It makes sense.

See you next riot ‘business appreciation day’. And what a healthy community it will be!

H/T to Truth Revolt

Obama’s trust deficit and BS surplus

And the trouble with peaceful protests that are not so peaceful

Obama just said that “there is no excuse for the violence and destruction we saw last night,” in his presser.

Well, but there are excuses. The liberals make them all the time. As does Al Sharpton, Malik Shabazz and Louis Farrakhan. So liberals come out all the time to do exactly that, rationalize the behavior of criminal thugs who are in the streets wreaking havoc on communities. It’s partly why we’re at this point. If not directly making excuses, they are welcoming the behavior by the signals they send to would be rioters and looters.

Then we have naive or sympathetic politicians who let them run wild, or even issue stand down orders to police. (but that’s really a larger topic) In Ferguson, they made the decision to back off and allow the destruction, rioting and looting of businesses that have absolutely no part in it. Pacify them with your loot and property. This time in Baltimore we saw the police stand off at a distance, in lockstep, watching as they burned the city.

But before the fact, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake actually said “We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.” Then claimed she never said it and blamed media for her own statement. The governor was calling the mayor to get her response on sending the resources like the national guard. She evidently did not want to bring them in or she would have been burning the phone line. (something she will also deny — it’s what liberals do) Let’s give credit where due to ilk like Mayor Ray Nagin, Mayor James Knowles, Governor Jay Nixon, Mayor Tom Barrett, and now Mayor Stephanie Blake as strident examples in stellar performances.

One burning building will be looped” on a news broadcast, but thousands of peaceful protestors who have been out there for days are marginalized, Obama said at his press conference. Then they always add that it is a few violent protestors. Since when do you need an army to create chaos? Is that the point the number of them? We’re always told you have a few bad apples. Well, they say bad apples in police departments taint the motives of the whole. Then they completely dismiss the violent protestors as just a few and that maybe they have good reason to be angry.

He referred to “a handful of criminals and thugs who tore up the place.” Again with the: “This is not new. It’s been going on for decades.” There is just a new awareness to these social problems because of technology and social media, Obama contends. Liberals all point back and say but we saw peaceful protests; in itself making excuses for and ignoring the currents of violent rioting. But that damage and cost is hard to ignore. Oh let’s remember long after the protestors and anarchists are gone the expenses are still very real. In fact, even more real than they were at the time because it is a constant reminder that cannot be covered easily. Reports are that Baltimore never really recovered from the 68 riots. Well, history does repeat itself.

The talking points are: there are some policemen who are not doing the right thing, like in every other sector. Then the nation must “do some soul searching,” Obama tells us. What kind of searching are they doing over accompanying violence and destruction to their message? Make excuses? That’s exactly what they’ve done by divert, deflect and deny.

Once again, my BS detector has exploded. The great, or strange, thing about the liberal “social justice” rhetoric is that they want to deny the chief ingredient in the movement is violence and destruction — sort of Darwinesque — along with personal attacks and smearing opponents, but that aside.

Every time one of these all too common episodes explode now, two things happen: People are outraged that this conduct is happening in our towns, on our streets. And Obama comes out to make a statement which ends up lending credence to protestors and the opportunist rioters who follow. Then we play this scientific game of trying to separate the protestors and their grievances from the rioters and their motives. And, in the meantime, some have gotten all too skilled at denial.

“Peaceful protests” and the looting must go on. It is far more than one or a handful of persons — a handful couldn’t do that much looting. More than one building was burned. And more than Obama is responsible for the problems as well. But suffice it to say that Obama promised unity in ‘hope and change.’ What he delivered was a nation of irreconcilable differences. That is whether you look at the national political level, or now within our towns and communities. If anyone’s chickens have come home to roost, it is those of progressives and Obama.

RightRing | Bullright

Where would you go?

This Map Proves You Could Be Paying Less In Income Taxes If You Lived Here Instead

Justin Koski — July 18, 2014 | Western Journalism

Do states with higher or lower taxes do better economically?

While everyone has their own opinions on the question, a new study on state economic prosperity and taxation will have some saying, “I told you so.”

Governors of states with high taxes will relentlessly deny their effects on the state, or simply justify them with fairness, necessity or needed to sustain the revenue.

Governors of states with low taxes, use that as a means to attract business. For example, Governor Rick Perry (R-Texas) ran advertisements throughout California just last year in an attempt to sway companies to move to Texas because of their lower taxes.


So which of the two is actually true?

The Mercatus Center, a research center at George Mason University conducted a study to find out just that. Its key findings are:

1-Higher taxes reduce economic growth. A one percent increase in taxes results in a 1.9 percent decrease in growth.
2-Taxes impact where people live. People move to states with lower rates and leave those with higher ones.
3-Income tax progressivity (higher rates as income increases) affects new firm creation.

The key findings illustrate that if a governor wants to bring in more residents, create more jobs and make life better for everyone in it, then instead of increasing the taxes, they need to be dropping them.

If only there was a way we could get this into the hands of Congress and see if they could apply these new findings to the whole country…

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/new-study-liberals-livid-challenges-everything-know-raising-taxes/?utm_source=MailChimp&utm_medium=email&utm_content=featured-stories&utm_campaign=DailyEmail07.18.14

— H/T to Dave

Thoughts: Experts

 

THOUGHTS
by
JUST GENE
about
EXPERTS

light bulb photo: light bulb utilitylight.jpg

”The Bomb will never go off; I speak as an expert in explosives.”
– – Admiral William Leahy , US Atomic Bomb Project

“There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom.”
— Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923 

“Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.”
— Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949 


“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” 

— Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

“I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people,
and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won’t last out the year.” 
— 
The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957


“But what is it good for?” 

— Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968,
commenting on the microchip.


“640K ought to be enough for anybody.”
— Bill Gates, 1981 

This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as
a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us”   
— Western Union internal memo, 1876. 


“The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value.
Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?”
— David Sarnoff’s associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

“The concept is interesting and well-formed, 
but in order
to earn better than a ‘C,’ the idea must be feasible”
— A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith’s paper proposing
reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.) 


“I’m just glad it’ll be Clark Gable who’s
falling on his face and not Gary Cooper” 
— 
Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in
“Gone With The Wind.”


“We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out”
— Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962. 

“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible” 

— Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895. 


“If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment.
The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this”  
– – Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads 


“Drill for oil? You mean drill into the
ground to try and find oil? You’re crazy” 
— Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.
“Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.” 
– – Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University , 1929. 


“Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value” 

— Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre , France .


“Everything that can be invented has been invented”
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Office of Patents, 1899.   

“The super computer is technologically impossible. It would take all of the water that flows
over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required.” 
— Professor of Electrical Engineering, New York University 


“I don’t know what use any one could find for a machine that would make
copies of documents. It certainly couldn’t be a feasible business by itself.” 
— the head of IBM, refusing to back the idea, forcing the inventor to found Xerox.
“The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut
from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon,” 
— Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.

And last but not least… 


“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” 

— Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

Tech Bubble: live or memorex

SHADES OF ’99: New Data Show The Tech Boom Is Looking More And More Like A Bubble

Jim Edwards | Business Insider
Jan. 20, 2014

With 2013 behind us, we’ve got another year of data on investment in the tech sector.

It’s very healthy indeed — perhaps too healthy.

Wikimedia Commons

We noted recently that tech investment appears to be approaching a peak, possibly a bubble. Now, with the new data in, the debate is not whether the tech sector has hit a peak. It has hit a peak. Some financial metrics in the tech sector — deal volume in particular — have actually exceeded those seen in 1999 and 2000, as we show below.

Rather, the debate now is whether this peak is part of a long, ongoing boom fueled by game-changing companies with real revenues and real customers — Facebook and Twitter being the most obvious — or whether the rollercoaster has reached the top of its track and is headed for a gut-wrenching fall.

Here’s the evidence.
The Nasdaq has hit 4,000 again. Last time it did that, it was 1999.

On it’s own, it’s just a coincidence. But remember that these stocks are responding to an environment in which interest rates are at zero. Stocks are the sensible alternative when there is no money to be earned via interest on savings. The moment the Fed raises rates, investors will be able to get a risk-free return greater than zero from cash savings … and a bunch of money will exit stocks. Falling stock prices will have a domino effect across the tech sector, as newly poor investors think twice about backing venture funds and new startups.

More: Businessinsider.com/tech-bubble-new-evidence-2014

Related: http://www.businessinsider.com/evidence-that-tech-sector-is-in-a-bubble-2013-11

How to make a story out of thin air

What do you do when you need something but there is no story? Well, if you are Gawker or HuffPo, take aim at Fox News. Nearly anything will do, for Leftinistas of Lap Dog Inc.

How exactly do you create a story? Just imply something sinister or secretive about Fox News. That should be easy.

We now know what it reportedly takes to keep a fired Fox News executive from spilling the beans on all the juicy inner workings at the network: about $8 million.

That’s the figure that Gawker said Brian Lewis, the ousted former consigliere to Roger Ailes, was paid by Fox News in a recently uncovered settlement.

Gawker, which reported the figure on Monday, described the payment as “hush money.” The site’s report is just the latest in a long-running story of intrigue inside one of the most secretive and cutthroat companies in the media industry.

So Lewis was a right-hand to Roger Ailes. Now that’s a story in itself for the Leftinistas. So he was paid money to not release information. Unless I missed something, a lot of people are paid money or sign non-disclosure agreements.

The cable news business is highly competitive. What prevents Mr. Lewis from, say, walking over to another network and spilling the details about Fox’s business? Or to reporters? This would. Hence, its really a non-story. But it does feed MSM vultures with fodder for conspiracy theories.

Such an arrangement would also prevent Brian Lewis from writing a tell-all book about Ailes and the inner workings at Fox. Seems more of a normal business practice to me. And the 8 million is probably about the amount of a book deal.

Now we come to the objectionable part. Did Lewis regret taking the money? I’m sure he won’t have a hard time spending it. It appears to be a lucrative deal for both Lewis and Fox. The article calls it hush money, or the price of silence, implying tons of secrets and juicy details the money is designed to protect – as prima facie on the 8 million.

The people who have no problems with calling for a 22.00 minimum-“living” wage, have their pants in a bunch at someone getting a lucrative non-disclosure arrangement. What’s the real problem? Are they just upset they cannot know all the inner workings of Fox? No doubt. Would those details be beneficial to someone? Probably. And would Brian Lewis stand to benefit by sale of information? Probably. So Fox gave him a sizable amount to keep information confidential. Is anything wrong with that? I don’t think so.

Still, it makes good headlines and filler for Leftinistas. On the other hand, these media darlings are not directly paid hush money to not report dirt on Obama’s regime. They do that for free. So does someone being compensated piss them off? What about finding a former Obama operative to dish dirt? Nah, that might be asking for trouble. But anyone who worked at Fox, there is market for that info. (and such would be a good reason for a non-disclosure agreement.)

They add that Fox has a history of large payouts, under “something of a cloud”, when someone leaves. Wow, that sounds downright scandalous. Beam me up, Scotty! I think they made the case for a non-disclosure.

We now know what it takes to make something a story at Gawker or HuffPo – Fox News.

[Ref: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/09/fox-news-brian-lewis-payment_n_4414656.html ]

RightRing | Bullright