Rebane's Ruminations

About

November 2026
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

ARCHIVES

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

  • Dershowitz Defines Dangers

    George Rebane

    [This is the addended transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 13 September 2017.]

    Selectively celebrated and nationally prominent attorney and law professor Alan Dershowitz has become a familiar advocate of divers, sometimes conflicting, causes over the last few decades.  The country’s most prominent secular Jew has defended the likes of Patty Hearst, Mike Tyson, and O.J. Simpson.  On the political side Dershowitz is a dyed-in-the-wool progressive and a staunch Democrat, even acting as king-maker in the party.  His support for Hillary, then Barack, then again Hillary is understandable, but less so the whiplash induced by his current strong support for President Trump’s advocacy of various issues, especially those dovetailing with his longstanding pro-Israeli stance on mid-east politics.

    (more…)

    Posted at

    in

    , , , ,
    12 comments on Dershowitz Defines Dangers

  • Sandbox – 12sep17

    [Hillary's book – What Happened? – published today.  We're going on a short jaunt to a reunion of my old Army outfit, where we again renew ties with all those young lieutenants and captains, and our young pretty and perky wives with their infant fledglings in perambulators, all of whom now look pretty much like we do – tempest fugit.  On the trip Jo Ann will be reading and reporting on the travails of Hillary who today told the Dems the bad news, "I'm not going anywhere."  And one loud and clear message to her discerning readers (aka Democrats in high places) from between the lines of her book is, 'Don't assume that you know everything that I know about you all.' gjr]

    Posted at

    in

  • Samples of Snowflakes’ Safespace Sophistries

    George Rebane

    This Thursday conservative commentator Ben Shapiro is scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley.  To gird the fragile ideological loins of its student body, that campus’s Executive Vice President and Provost, Paul Alivisatos has published this memo for the university’s students and faculty.

    We are deeply concerned about the impact some speakers may have on individuals’ sense of safety and belonging. No one should be made to feel threatened or harassed simply because of who they are or for what they believe. For that reason, the following support services are being offered and encouraged:

    I strongly urge readers, especially the sheltered progressives among us who believe all this is just the offal of fevered foothill fascists, to go to the above links and read what the UC is today officially telling its community both explicitly and, more importantly, implicitly.  These are tough times for the development of critical thinkers and thought.  These sentiments (aka fears) are real, and you simply cannot make this stuff up.  (more here)

    Posted at

    in

    , ,
    25 comments on Samples of Snowflakes’ Safespace Sophistries

  • Fake News Defined

    George Rebane

    Since I took some considerable issue with the LWV’s attempt to illuminate the nation’s travails with fake news (here), the definition of which never quite emerged from that conclave, I thought it proper to make my own contribution to the same.  I believe that most people graced with critical thinking skills will more or less agree with the sequel.  In any event, when I subsequently refer to ‘fake news’, it is in this light.

    First, fake news falls into two broad categories – Insignificant and Misleading.  News stories about topics that are totally irrelevant to a medium’s consumers, and placed there out of lack of editorial attention or to please some other desire to fill ‘space’ or fulfill an innocent obligation, even if completely true in fact and form (e.g. fluff pieces), falls into fake news simply because it is not the kind of news which the outlet purports to deliver and fulfill the expectations of its consumers.

    Second, news stories which mislead, either intentionally or through poor journalism/editing (endemic these days), are also fake news.  Purposive misleading by a seemingly legitimate news item can be accomplished in the several ways that satisfy the definition lying, how lies can be told, and therefore fully conform to that semantic taxonomy.  I covered these variations some years back in ‘Lies and Lying’, and these are worth a revisit by anyone attempting to understand the present dissertation.

    It is important to peel off certain types of communication which many people thoughtlessly group with fake news.  Propaganda per se is not fake news if it hews to a truthful attempt to promote some agenda or conclusion.  We recall that propaganda is “information, ideas, OR rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.”  I have emphasized the ‘or’ to point out that this kind of purposive communication can also be totally legitimate, containing no false information or ideas, or even rumors that later turn out to be true.  Propaganda only becomes fake news when it subsumes the nature and purpose of lying – to deceive and/or mislead.

    We can equally eliminate the factual and opinionated denigration or celebration of individuals, organizations, or causes from the fake news category.  Editorials and commentaries that are factually correct and unabashedly make their purpose clear to their consumer, are by any means neither fake nor news.  (Satire is in its own category, and its absorption as fake news depends on the acumen of it consumer, and the known type of its source.)

    In summary, when a previously consumed media piece, ostensibly presented as news, is known or subsequently discovered as having been ‘designed to deceive in the sense of being counterfeit or not real’, then we can reliably ascribe it to be fake news and communicate that conclusion to others.  Else the more detailed considerations given above should come into play.

    Posted at

    in

    , ,
    55 comments on Fake News Defined

  • Scattershots – 6sep17 (updated 10sep17)

    George Rebane

    The local League of Women Voters presented a get together on ‘Fake News’ at Sierra College last night.  It featured Brooke Binkowski, Managing Editor of snopes.com and Randall ‘Fink’ Finkelstein, NC Scooper editor, both supposed experts on the topic.  It was a real jaw dropper.  Jo Ann and I had never attended a more lame, information free, and sophomoric presentation as we witnessed last night.  The LWV used to be a real heads up organization and source of non-partisan voter information before its joining the progressives.  No more.  The clear political implication was to obliquely point to the Republican Party and, of course, Trump (never leave him out) as the fount of fake news, which, by the way, no one was able to define – sort of like pornography.

    About half an hour into the thing, people of the Right and Left started walking out, as people realized that no one on stage knew what they were talking about.  We greeted Reinette Senum, who sat behind us, and saw her with some friends quietly get up and leave during an unbelievable sequence with Ms Binkowski, a certified feather-head.  (Ms Senum’s ascerbic post on the evening is on her Facebook page.)  And we still don’t have any idea why Mr Finkelstein was invited to participate.  Full disclosure – it pains me to admit that we were not the first to leave.  

     

    (more…)

    Posted at

    in

    , , ,
    54 comments on Scattershots – 6sep17 (updated 10sep17)

  • Great Divide – Yes Virginia, we really are very different

    George Rebane

    Today’s headline again corroborates what those who have paid attention have known for some years now.  The latest WSJ/NBC poll out today reports the stark differences between the country’s Right and Left as represented by their respective Republican and Democrat party affiliations.  The important part here is that the “WSJ/NBC News survey indicates a wide (and widening) split on cultural, economic issues.”  The best I can tell is that the only ones who have been in denial for years, and refuse to acknowledge this divide are the lightly read local lefties, which even includes their leading lights.  Limiting your input to the offerings and interpretations of DailyKos, HuffPo, CNN, MSNBC, … leaves a pretty big hole in a person’s understanding of what’s happening now.

    The data-filled 6sep17 WSJ report begins with –

    Divisions in America reach far beyond Washington into the nation’s culture, economy and social fabric, and the polarization began long before the rise of President Donald Trump, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey of social trends has found. … The findings help explain why political divisions are now especially hard to bridge. People who identify with either party increasingly disagree not just on policy; they inhabit separate worlds of differing social and cultural values and even see their economic outlook through a partisan lens.  (emphasis mine)

    Among the polls highlights are the drastic drop since Eisenhower of the opposite party’s support of the recently elected president.  That percentage has dropped from Eisenhower’s 60% to 8% for Trump.  The only reversals in the downtrend were for Bush1 and Bush2.

    A really significant change of attitudes in how confident Americans are that their children will have better lives than they have.  From August 2010 to August 2017 the Dems’ confidence fell from about 42% to 25%, and the Repubs’ confidence rose sharply from 12% to 48%.  You need to read the article to get the significance of this latest survey on the national attitudes.

    And today most of us see only the other party as doing all the bad things for/to the country.  Here’s part of local leftie Ms Nancy Eubanks’ outrage in her 6sep17 letter to The Union.

    After Trump's outrageous news conference in the aftermath of Charlottesville, many of you "say" you are against racism and bigotry, that you disavow White Supremacy and Neo-Nazi groups and what they stand for. But actions speak loader than words. You could do several things to show you really can put country above party. Stop voter suppression laws that disenfranchise minority groups. Support a new Voter Rights Act. Stop gerrymandering districts to discriminate against minority voters. In addition, take actions to show you won't compromise principles of openness and fairness. Pass a law requiring all presidents to disclose their income taxes. Require all presidents to divest themselves of any business interest so that presidents can't have any conflicts of interest. Take away the lease on the Trump Hotel in Washington D.C. so Trump can't continue to profit from that enterprise.

    You can’t make this stuff up; the schism is really real.

    Posted at

    in

    , , ,
    41 comments on Great Divide – Yes Virginia, we really are very different

  • Sandbox – 6sep17

    [Subsidies, conspiracies, DACA, DACA, DACA – oh my!  gjr]

    Posted at

    in

  • Scattershots – 3sep17 (updated)

    George Rebane

    Readers were recently introduced (here) to the sad story of the iGeners.  Professor Twenge of San Diego State expands on the travails of that sensitive, coddled, and brittle generation in her 2sep17 WSJ essay, ‘The Smartphone Generation vs Free Speech’.  Here we learn that the iGeners’ prime concern is “emotional safety”, something that makes them vulnerable to an open exchange of ideas and free speech.  At university, their overarching demand is that the administration continue to provide them a secure ‘home environment’ rather than an education that includes exposure to a diversity of thought.  Safety – physical, emotional, intellectual, … – is concern one.

    [update]  The constant din from socialists fomenting the goal of national collectivism is that government needs to be the final arbiter of everything and the universal source of succor for all.  Prescriptions promoting this agenda flow abundantly during times of disaster and depression.  To overuse a metaphor, to a socialist every storm, natural or social, is a perfect storm.  An expression of this arising from Harvey is government subsidies – who should get what and when.  In the 31aug17 Sandbox and 'Socialists' Conundrum' comment streams ‘corporate subsidies’ have become casus belli for our leftwing readers; specifically, why should Exxon/Mobil (XOM) receive any government favors?

    Such discussions always erupt and bloom enthusiastically without any of the participants agreeing on or even understanding the definition of ‘subsidy’.  And these proceed from the Left with the tacit premise that government creates the wealth that it selectively dispenses.  Few on the port side of our ship of state acknowledge that government has nothing save what it takes from its citizens and their wealth creating enterprises.  Some such takings are surrendered willingly; today most are not.  The Left counters this inconvenient truth by citing numbers indicating that most people are in favor of ever higher taxes and expanding leviathan.  What they seek to hide is that those seeking government redistributions are not the ones who create the wealth or pay sufficient/any taxes – they are simply voting on what should be done with other people’s money.

    In pillorying XOM, leftwingers bring in factors such as a privately held company’s executive salaries in the attempt to rile the proletariat against capitalism (an overarching goal).  The underlying theme is that the company really belongs to ‘the peehpul’, and it has gone rogue in its operations as a private enterprise.  The unstated companion thesis is that government bureaucrats would do a much better job managing such an asset for the benefit of its citizens if it were to nationalize and operate the company.  History provides no supporting evidence for this.

    North Korea cools US heads.  The 3sep17 WSJ reports “U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis warned North Korea in stark terms on Sunday that any attack on the U.S. or its allies would trigger a massive military response, in comments that came after a national-security briefing with President Donald Trump called in response to Pyongyang’s sixth and most powerful nuclear test.”  This should warm the cockles of progressive and libertarian hearts.  It used to be that we promised “fire and fury” in response to NK threats to homeland or allies.  Now the Fat Kid shoved that response up our collective bunghole, and told the world flat out that after his last ‘People’s 6.3 Earthquake’ he’s prepared to detonate a thermonuclear device over continental US that would effectively put us back into the 19th century within one millisecond.  That has scared and cooled our heads sufficiently to condition our response from ‘threat’ to ‘attack’.  Maybe our next step toward greater cool would be for Trump or Mattis or … to announce, ‘I want to make it perfectly clear, if NK kills one more than 20M Americans, and I do mean just one more single red-blooded American than 20M, then we will rain down a deluge of UN sanctions on that country like the world has never seen.’  If anything, that should stop them in their tracks.

    Posted at

    in

    ,
    64 comments on Scattershots – 3sep17 (updated)

  • The Socialists’ Conundrum

    [In his 22sep17 letter to The Union’s editor, my friend Norm Sauer shares the Left’s conundrum in a clear, concise, and complete format originally summarized by L. Poplack of Olympia (where they used to brew my favorite beer).  The only problem remaining – is the Left sharp enough to understand the situation?  From the local leftists the answer is an unambiguous NO.  gjr]

    Norm Sauer

    A "conundrum" is that which is puzzling or confusing. Consider the following, from Larry Poplack of Olympia, Washington:

    1. America is capitalist and greedy — yet half of the population is subsidized.
    2. Half of the population is subsidized — yet they think they are victims.
    3. They think they are victims — yet their representatives run the government.
    4. Their representatives run the government — yet the poor keep getting poorer.
    5. The poor keep getting poorer — yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
    6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about — yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

    The sad reality is the Democrat Progressive Socialist Party needs people to fail, be without jobs, without health care, without insurance, and in economic pain for the party to succeed. With such misery, more people will be incapable of helping themselves and big government will (help them) at the immoral expense of taking from the producers.

    The Progressive Socialists run from the Trump Administration's demonstrated job growth, reduced unemployment, surge in housing starts, the Dow's record highs, and decreased illegal border crossings.

    The conundrum: they say Trump and Republicans are crazy!

    Posted at

    in

    , , ,
    179 comments on The Socialists’ Conundrum

  • When disaster is certain, who pays? (codas added)

    George Rebane

    Every time I look at the news of floods, fires, earthquakes, and other large and predictable emergencies, the notion that the rest of us have to pay to make whole those who knowingly take those risks rubs me the wrong way.  I lived most of my life in SoCal, one of the world’s most notorious earthquake and wildfire zones.  But nowhere in our financial planning did we factor in that you and yours would have pay for resurrecting our financial fortunes if the Big One hit, and we found our house a rubble pile of 2x4s and stucco, with household goods marbled throughout.

    Yet decade after decade there are millions who expect, nay, demand that kind of response from their fellow Americans across the land.  They build and live in locales that are known to suffer from one kind of natural calamity or another with probability one – that’s certainty for the innumerates.  And when the inevitable happens, we have what’s happening in Texas right now.  (I really get frosted looking at big neighborhoods of million-dollar homes ass deep in water.)  The federal politicians spending other people’s money can’t wait to get in there and tell all the afflicted how government is going to bail them out, and make them come out even better than before disaster struck.

    Rebane Doctrine has the simple answer that puts the citizens’ gray matter back in their brain pans – the envelope please.  (And last night I heard national columnist and Manhattan Institute fellow Jason Riley agree.)  Get government out of the no-premium insurance business, and let the private sector take care of insuring those who insist on buying and living in known dangerous areas.  These greedy capitalists will know exactly how to price the premiums so no one gets a haircut when the inevitable happens.  You wanna live there, then you pay the price or take the risk.

    The cognitively handicapped will argue that we all benefit from having millions live in places where we have to pay for their certain losses.  But that is a position not supported by evidence.  Hurricane Harvey gave us the ability to draw a line back from the coast behind which building homes and businesses would almost certainly not suffer from conceivable future flooding.  Let the government provide flood insurance for those landward of that line, and those choosing to live on the gulf side would buy as much insurance as they want from the insurance companies.  And for those unfortunates insisting on losing everything, there are enough compassionate ones among us private citizens who appeal to the generous among us to help fund recovery – here's an example, JJ Watt of the Houston Texans at www.YouCaring.com/JJWatt who has raised over $12M for flood relief.

    The same goes for all the beachfront properties, those in high fire danger areas (where we lived for 25 years and paid for our fire and earthquake insurance which we finally had to use in November 1993 and January 1994), and, of course, all those good people enjoying the great California coastal climate waiting for the Big One while fixing things up in the interval from the ‘small’ ones.

    ‘Take what you will, but pay the price’ should instead read, ‘Take what you will, but don’t make others pay the price.’

    Coda:  And in the case of Houston, it looks like the nation's progressives also fault the people of Houston for the damage they have suffered from Harvey.  To them the country's fossil fuel hub is Sin City Numero Uno, that and a lack of enough government regulations helped bring on its flooding.  So how would they feel about the federal treasury being used to put Houston back together again?  (more here)

    Coda2:  And then there’s the serious question of how finely should an insurance company be able to design the premiums it charges.  If the national loss data clearly indicated that a certain subgroup of customers habitually suffer more of a certain kind of covered losses, should the premiums for that subgroup be higher than those subgroups who have lower claim frequencies and amounts?  Or should the insurance company be made to charge ‘everyone’ the same amount?  And how big is everyone?  We know (or at least we knew) that teen driver’s have a higher accident rate, and therefore their insurance premiums were higher so as to make the riskier cohort of insureds pay their ‘fair share’.  What are those fair shares, and what attributes of the insureds should the insurance company be able to take into account to offer a spectrum of premiums that recognizes the differential risks and keeps the costs down for those folks who are more careful or work/live in safer environments?

    For example, suppose Americans of Estonian extraction are shown to have a higher rate of home accidents than everyone else.  Should their premiums be commensurately higher, or should everyone shoulder the burden of the careless Estonian-Americans in their midst?  Or ask the same question where the careless cohort is defined by people of northern European extraction, or some other ethnic, religious, racial, or cultural discriminant.  In short, the perennial question in a society is ‘how widely should what kinds of risk be distributed?  Your answers will most likely also be a litmus test for your socio-political ideology.

    Posted at

    in

    , ,
    44 comments on When disaster is certain, who pays? (codas added)

RR FUNDAMENTALS

About the Bastiat Triangle

Glossary & Semantics

A Conservetarian Credo

Commenting Rules

RECENT POSTS

RECENT COMMENTS

CATEGORIES

12 comments on Dershowitz Defines Dangers