Category Archives: Globalization

Influencing People Through Fear

People who wish to influence or control others have long since understood one of our prime motivators is the use of fear. It drives our instinct to survive, fight or flight. No normal person wants to sign up for pain & suffering. Secondary control factors include, financial incentives (reward), social status & peer pressure (ego).

torture-devicesGovernments, especially those who have unlimited power to do what they want, have used fear to motivate or control the populace. Torture was part of their tool kit, and the thought of ending up humiliated in shackles, or placed on a rack, was enough to instil fear in most people.

burn_in_hell_graphic

Christianity found their tool with the word, “hell”. You don’t behave, or do what the group thinks, you’re going to end up in a highly undesirable zip code, for eternity.

We see it’s more than peer pressure to influence predictions of climate change, we have government grants for educational and research institutions which measure and computer model predictions. The arsenal of control and scaremongering is reinforced through sympathetic media on “global warming“. If the latest trends don’t follow “scientific prediction”, than it’s called “climate change”. You places your bets, then change the predictions based on latest trends.

Which ever way the thermometer and weather, especially severe weather patterns change, it’s always based on “climate change”. Therefore if you have a drought, a flood, a grouping of tornadoes, it’s attributed to climate change.

Who Decides?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), states the largest contributor to global warming is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) since 1750, particularly from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation.

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely (95–100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.IPCC AR5 WG1 Summary for Policymakers

We’ve been here before – More Lies

In November 2009, hackers gained access to a server used by the CRU and stole a large quantity of data, anonymously posting online more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents.

A series of independent public investigations of the allegations found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report exonerated the scientists, but found “a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA”. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged.

In 2011, an analysis of temperature data by the independent Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group, of whom some had stated they thought it was possible the CRU had manipulated the data, however concluded that “these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions”.

So, the hacked emails supposedly didn’t reveal anything that pointed out a bias or a skewing of results. Here’s what some of the email said, you decide. See
University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes.

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t… Our observing system is inadequate

You can click on the above link to see more of these emails.

More critical background and science history of Michael E. Mann found here.

Here we go again!

How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth?
| DailyMail February 11, 2017 | The following is an excerpt from their post.

The contentious paper at the heart of this furore – with the less than accessible title of Possible Artifacts Of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus – was published just six months before the Paris conference by the influential journal Science.

It made a sensational claim: that contrary to what scientists have been saying for years, there was no ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the early 21st Century.
Indeed, this ‘Pausebuster’ paper as it has become known, claimed the rate of warming was even higher than before, making ‘urgent action’ imperative.

The ongoing battle between a radio host and author vs. the scientist.  | Michael E. Mann v. Mark Steyn

ipcc_2001_tar_figure


We had an Election – What Happened?

The 2016 election in the United States is over. Perhaps what may be more important, are your local election results. If you don’t know what happened locally, I suggest you find out before you read this blog. Property and sales taxes, school and city leadership, judges & sheriffs may have changed. The local elections are going to affect you more than this national election.

OK, that’s not why you’re here. You’re probably finding this Presidential election a little hard to believe. Confused? Angry? Frustrated? Happy? Sad? Joyful? Well you’ve come to the right place. I summarize why this election ended up this way.

Who are the two major candidates?

donald_trump_head

Donald Trump

  • Chairman and president, The Trump Organization
  • Host, The Apprentice, The Celebrity Apprentice
  • Entrepreneur Initiative – University name dropped per New York Education Department demand
  • Owns hotels, casinos, entertainment resorts
  • Political experience – considered running for president in 1987, 2000, 2008, & 2012 (never ran or held public office)
  • Education: High school: New York Military Academy, class of 1964
  • Fordham University: 1964–1966 dropped out – resumed studies ~
  • University of Pennsylvania: The Wharton School 1968 graduate
hillary_clinton_head

Hillary Clinton

  • Secretary of state, 2009–13
  • Senator from New York 2001-2009
  • First lady of United States
  • Education: BA, Wellesley College, 1969
  • JD, Yale Law School, 1973. Postgraduate study at the Yale Child Study Center

 


Trump
290 Electoral Votes
61,201,031 – 47.0% of the total vote

Clinton
232 Electoral Votes
62,523,126 – 48.0% of the total vote

You’ve heard many explanations as to why Donald Trump won over Hillary Clinton. Most of them are people trying to find explanations for their predisposed choice. Online newspapers, various well known news organizations tried to avoid covering much of the negative publicity about Hillary Clinton.

She lost to Barrack Obama, but after he had his eight year tenure, many Democrats felt it was her time. They also wanted to set another precedent, getting the first female in the Whitehouse. I call it the beginning of the “selfie vote”.

The strategy by many in the media was to help Donald Trump become the winner of the Republican primary paired against Hillary Clinton. He wouldn’t be too harshly criticized or scrutinized unless and until he became the nominee. It was to be a slam dunk for her. In addition to the generally positive spin, the polls reinforced the idea of how far ahead she was of Trump, many of them decided to shame those in the electorate who might consider voting for him.

Here’s a summary of what the media and critics were saying about Trump

  • He’s a racist ~ There are not be enough white men in America to elect Trump.
  • Trump voters are uneducated ~ They aren’t college educated & they don’t believe government should try to control the climate
  • Ignorant Bible thumpers ~ They see him as someone chosen by God
  • He hates women ~ Anyone that votes for Trump is a misogynist
  • They don’t think they have a voice ~ Waging a war against outsiders

So what happened? Maybe, just maybe, the media and many Democrats got it wrong. The problem with the polls became obvious after he won. The overtly critical news media hurt their own cause. The weakness with Hillary Clinton as a candidate was superseded by the choice many wanted to claim was historical.

There have been far too many investigations into both her and her husband. The saying, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Well there’s so much smoke surrounding her, along with the most obvious public lies she’s made, that many voters believed there was a forest fire in her life.

Her candidacy, even though it would be a first for women, was a lot like business as usual. She had courted and was paid by many large corporations. This placed her in the common group of backroom wheeler dealers who have managed to help destroy the credibility of those in office. She already had credibility problems, this magnified it. Whenever under pressure, she would obfuscate or lie, only to be found out and have to backtrack.

Donald Trump had his own problems with his Trump University, his comments on women, and allusions to having a large male organ, in what has to be one of the most adolescent debate points in political theater. Nonetheless, he was seen as an outsider. Someone who would shake things up in Washington. The same tactic of Hope & Change by Barack Obama, once again reimagined by someone who knew how to sell himself to the public.

Trump supporters viewed their man as someone who gets things done, and willing to ‘break a few eggs to make an omelette’. They saw him as a person they could identify with, including personal faults, which many people recognized in themselves.

The Cult of Hillary Clinton, lead by a coalition of social justice activists, celebrities, and well monied financiers, was above criticism, more of an idea, which supports the notion, we must elect someone who mouths the words we want to hear, such as empowerment, fairness, equality, breaking glass ceilings.

I believe  Hillary Clinton fell to the damages of a thousand cuts. The artificial support by many in the media seemed to aide Donald Trump, more than harm him. His messages were always simple, to the point, and he didn’t dodge the criticism levied about his checkered past. She was defended and supported by people yelling, anyone supporting Trump was a racist and or a misogynist, ignoring the voter mix required for Barack Obama to have won in the past two elections

In the end, many voters thought he was less of a risk to the office, even with all of his baggage. Someone who voiced their concerns over jobs, spending, illegal immigration & potential increase of terrorism through the intake of middle east refugees. Clinton continued the idea of business as usual with expanded government programs & the associated spending, which has gotten us into unprecedented levels of national debt.

Plenty of Blame to Go Around

I read this article, first referenced by someone I connect with through Facebook. Admittedly, its a long article, and mine isn’t much shorter. Such is the challenge when you look at a major systemic problem. It can’t be answered through memes or twitter posts. I could go into a more in depth discussion on what this article attempts to explain, but I believe it would only be lost in the Ether. Current popular ideas circulated throughout many social media exchange points as well as mass media, run adverse to what I have to say in rebuttal to this article. I believe her article serves to promote a political ideology, which becomes more obvious as you get to the end, and realize it’s a promo to Bernie Sanders. I’m not interested in promotion of a candidate, a party or ideology. I prefer substance and facts. Obviously, even in the best of efforts, prevailing opinion and quotes from others, denote a view point.

I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
by By Jonna Ivin – April 1, 2016

Her article makes references to things which are historical and tries to draw parallels between some historical facts, and the authors politics without any rational explanation as to why she thinks Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of greedy, up with the rich, down with the poor, racist political hacks. Her explanation of war profiteering is the age old method of blaming the wealthy for creating wars with the thinnest of explanation, other than noting that such a thing exists. All of us would do well with this simple foundation of logic, correlation doesn’t necessarily indicate causation. Again we see the narrative, the wealthy have done better while the poor have done worse because of the greedy, racist, Republicans.

Statistics are wonderful and they can be used to say a lot about whatever the individual displaying them wants to say. Permit me the opportunity to politely disagree with some of these assumptions. First, I’ve lived through many years and most especially the Reagan years, which many now wish to disparage. Second, if you want to believe that one party owns the responsibility of the pain and suffering, you’re being setup and are not being intellectually honest. Both political parties have controlled and promoted their own selfish interests. Don’t believe me, then let’s further examine some of these ideas.

Since 1945, the House and Senate have been controlled by different parties only five times (10 years). And there have been only two complete turn-overs of Congress since 1945: one in 1949 and the other in 2007. The years for Congress controlled by Democrats have been far in excess of the Republicans. The Presidency has been occupied slightly more years by Republicans than Democrats (up to and including George Bush), that changed with President Obama. Most of the time the Congress was controlled by the opposing party to the President.

The Republicans have been in control of either the Senate or the House only 22 of the past 64 years. For 10 years, they were only in control of either the House or the Senate, the other 12 years they controlled both.

From 1960 to 1968, the Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House by large majority. During those years, the Presidents were also Democrats. 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act – 1964. Less than 70% of Democrats did. Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried hard to sustain a filibuster. Geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. In 1964, Barry Goldwater, was one of the few non-Confederate state senators to vote against the bill. He carried his home state of Arizona and swept the deep southern states. Strom Thurmond switched parties because he thought he would have a better chance of continuing segregation laws with Republicans because of Goldwater. He was wrong on both assumptions.

If history were to be used objectively, Republicans sponsored and passed the 13th Amendment banning slavery. They also wrote the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Republican support was nearly unanimous, while Democrats were unanimously opposed. Republicans James Mitchell Ashley & James F. Wilson were a pioneers in the advancement of federal protection for civil rights in the 1860’s. Democrats worked against it and helped to modify it’s implementation, especially in the south.

In fairness to the overall discussion, President Harry Truman (Democrat), attempted on more than one occasion to enact further civil rights legislation. His successor, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, gave his first State of the Union message in 1953, spoke out against specific acts of desegregation within the federal government and within the nation’s capital. In that year segregation ended in the District of Columbia’s hotels, restaurants, motion picture theaters, and Capital Housing Authority projects. Strom Thurmond (Democrat) of South Carolina made a one-man stand against 1957 Civil Rights Act, but it was passed in spite of him. Dwight Eisenhower was slow and reluctant to support civil rights but he publicly admitted the Brown v. Board of Education was the right decision, in spite of his dislike for Earl Warren, majority opinion, 1954.

Over fifty years ago, before a joint session of Congress, President Lyndon Johnson announced an “unconditional war on poverty in America.” Today, many in black leadership are critical of how that war has been waged. They note the expansion of government and a strategy focused on handouts that discourage self-improvement caused more harm than help to the poor. Some of the black activists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have made a luxurious living off their grievance activities. “The disastrous effects of the government’s management of anti-poverty initiatives are recognizable across racial lines, but the destruction is particularly evident in the black community. It effectively subsidized the dissolution of the black family by rendering the black man’s role as a husband and a father irrelevant, invisible and — more specifically — disposable. The result has been several generations of blacks born into broken homes and broken communities experiencing social, moral and economic chaos. It fosters an inescapable dependency that primarily, and oftentimes solely, relies on government to sustain livelihoods.”

Lower and middle income have been severely set back due to several factors. The Democrats have much to share in the responsibility of the laws and direction set in this country, as they’ve been in control during most of the past 60+ years. The Republicans have also supported laws such as NAFTA, and deregulation of securities, finance, and investment. They (Republicans) made an attempt to reign in the careless mismanagement of Fannie MAE & Freddie MAC, but were torpedoed by several key finance committee Democrats.

Manufacturing employed many “non-professional” people prior to the 1980’s. We’ve seen a rapid decline in heavy industry such as automotive and steel as examples. It used to be said when Detroit sneezes, America catches a cold. The decline of the American automotive industry has been far reaching because of how it affects many other support industries. Detroit was run very badly under Coleman Young, who served as mayor of Detroit, Michigan from 1974 to 1994. He left the city a fiscal and social wreck, but part of that can certainly be blamed on the mismanagement of the big automakers and the quality control of the American auto-worker combined. People looked to overseas manufactures for car purchases. Even to this day, I’m inclined to buy Toyota or Honda automobiles, (although I drive a Buick).

This isn’t news to most people, but they overlook the huge impact of the decline of manufacturing and the exodus of companies as they sought manufacturing of their products in lower cost labor markets. Look at most appliances, TV’s, washers, dryers, refrigerators, small kitchen appliances, replacement auto parts, video game consoles and smart phones. That’s a lot of money and a lot of jobs which are going to other countries. Look at the trade deficit, year after year it’s not favorable to the U.S.

Meanwhile, we’ve heard about the economy is evolving to a service industry. Here’s the basic problem with that. These jobs are highly competitive, not just within the domestic market. Many services can be performed outside of the U.S. and those within have a very low entry requirement, education requirements are typically some high school or may require high school graduation. They are low skill and thus low paying jobs. People might complain about low skilled labor rates are below poverty, then again, people pay for commodities based on perceived value. That’s why people shop for low cost goods at Walmart or Target. The individual consumer isn’t willing to pay a greater cost for higher priced labor, so they shop at discount retailers or online, such as Amazon.

Here’s the problem in a nut shell which people need to learn before there’s nothing but table scraps to fight over. People’s lives are improved through expanding the pie, not figuring out the best way to divide a smaller pie. It’s growth of industry, imagining, creating, and risking time, labor and fortune, that builds a real economy. Education in the trades are needed as well. We can’t be just a nation of lawyers, doctors, programmers, investment bankers, stock brokers, entertainers, professional athletes, and politicans.

Our government has learned nothing from the failed economic policies which have diminished wages, property values and the middle class, which we see in many large cities as well as several states. Look at most of the north east, the middle part of the country such as Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. The federal government has forestalled the massive poverty it’s pushing all of the middle and lower income class into through it’s debt expansion. The U.S. is addicted to credit and continues to spend as if there’s no end in sight. This can’t go on indefinitely, and while we blame Republicans or Democrats, we fail to examine their policies, history and understanding of what it takes to move an economy forward.

This is a complex topic, and I suspect those who are firmly entrenched into their past college studies, and divisive party politics won’t be able to see the forest for all the trees. Here are a few films which have attempted to address the cause or the indifference while “Rome Burns”.

  • Inside Job (2010) Everyone that’s interested in a portion of this topic, should see this film. Don’t be on your phone playing games or talking while this runs, because you will miss some key points.
  • I.O.U.S.A. (2008) America’s obsession with credit and it effects on it’s future. (No wonder it wasn’t a box office hit)
  • Up In the Air (2009) Although this film is more of a personal fictitious view, it’s a realistic human portrayal of the downsizing which myself and many others were affected by.
  • The Company Men (2011) Company Men focuses on both sides of the equation: the executives doing the firing, and the employees who are downsized and suffer through long periods of joblessness. It was a box office flop. It’s not your romance, Marvel or DC Entertainment fantasy. It’s an attempt at keeping it real through varied perspectives.
  • Frontline: The Warning (PBS Documentary, 2009) before the economic meltdown, one woman tried to warn about the threat to the financial system. She failed because greed and power / control won the day. Plenty of Democrats and Republicans to blame here.

Here’s a little more history on our financial meltdown.

Additional Links

Trivia note:
Future defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld at one time was the White House’s man in charge of anti-poverty programs such as the Peace Corps.