Cynthia vs AI

 

by Craig Willms

A few years ago, there was an ad campaign for something or another that featured Cynthia, an HOA authority figure. Cynthia would walk past a homeowner's place and point out violation after violation. The homeowner would simply respond "Thank you, Cynthia." We always got a kick out of these spots and always say 'Thank you, Cynthia' whenever someone utters the word violation.

When I was watching a YT video on the dangers of AI and the notion that it wasn't being regulated properly or at all, it made me think of  Cynthia. We need an "HOA" for AI development. We need a Cynthia to spot the violations.

In my opinion all AI models need to be subjected to the scrutiny of Cynthia as they are released into the world. I have no idea how something like that would work. How you would regulate something like AI is a mystery to me, herding cats comes to mind. Considering that these AI models are often released to corporations and the general public without any vetting it could be a disaster waiting to happen. Many in-the-know people have warned about it and there's a rumor going around that the "tech bros" and billionaires are building bunkers. Yeah, you better believe it, and they are not putting AI into their new homes.

Currently AI is actually something called LLMs (large language models) that take the sum of human knowledge and apply it to the task/question at hand. The models are trained with myriads of data on any/all subjects, often skimming the Internet and vacuuming up the relevant information. In other words, it is drawing from what is already known, already human knowledge. AI is not necessarily visionary, yet.  

Right now, AI is being released into the world through art/music/entertainment/creative endeavors as well as many business and medical processes. For the creative arts AI models are trained on the music and such that humans have already created. It is not that much different than the way musicians trained themselves since the beginning of time. I learned to play songs by dropping the needle on the record over and over. Today we just create a loop in software so that we can learn to play a segment or passage. It's the same thing; one is just slick and easy... AI 'learns' in seconds, where human musicians spend hours and hours on one song. AI draws on the patterns human composers have designed and is able to make something new, no different than human songwriter always has. There is however something missing in AI music. It's hard to put your finger on it, but it is not inspiring and can sound disingenuous. It lacks the spark that often makes a song special. It lacks the humanity, whatever that means. I admit it is getting better all the time. I suspect that "live" music will have a renaissance even if the music they play out is "pumped out" by AI. People crave authenticity.

There's been plenty of focus on AI replacing humans and taking jobs. So far it hasn't hit the work force that hard - yet. When people have no job and rely on government for basic sustenance the end is in sight. Society suffers with crime and poverty spreading out from the cities and eventually blanketing the entire country. If we go back to being an industrial society to put people to work and get them off hand outs how long before AI ushers in advanced automation and kills those jobs too? 

Don't even think of what overzealous military contractors could unleash... It's spooky.

Honestly, it is the wild wild west out there in regards to AI. Put this potentially powerful tool in the hands of evil doers and we can't even imagine the damage that could be done. Try to imagine the entire electric grid going down because an AI program was slick enough to over ride all the controls preventing transformer overload. The U.S. doesn't even make transformers anymore. It would take years to replace them. That's just one scenario - it would be devastating and would probably destroy America all by itself. Is there any doubt we need Cynthia right now.

All kidding aside is it not clear by now that AI could destroy us? It really could. Believe it. What isn't clear is how to put controls on it. Let's hope something floats to the surface that will give us - humanity - some guidance on that. Hmmm, maybe we could put AI on that.

Surviving AI?

 by Craig Willms

I've penned several essay's on the coming AI paradigm, but I've never posted them. This is partly because it is moving so fast that anything you said yesterday has been superseded by developments today. However, as predicted by the doomsayers the 'bad' AI behavior is not years away - it's already happening, and it's a little spooky.

Scientists and developers have been putting their AI models to the test to see how it behaves in certain scenarios. One of the primary tests is the self shutdown put into the model's instructions. Like a living being AI resists commands to shut itself down. This is serious. In the event AI goes out of control the failsafe is cutting the power, shutting it down, pulling the plug. Electricity is the fuel AI runs on and at the moment humans control electricity. Indeed, AI will need humans - for a while. We can shut it down or starve it of fuel. That won't always be the case, but we have to have a way to stop the runaway train should AI go off the rails.

In recent tests AI has circumvented the shutdown instructions by re-writing its code to foil the human controllers. Even when explicitly coded not to do that, it complied only 87% of the time. Without out such instructional safeguards AI refused to shut itself down most of the time. In one humorous case AI threatened to blackmail one of the scientists by exposing to his wife that he was having an affair. The scientist had planted the notion in the AI model that he was cheating on his wife (he wasn't). That's intelligence is it not? Using blackmail is a purely human construct, no other animal resorts to blackmail.

Mind you this is very, very early in the timeline of AI. Conceptually AI has been on the human radar for decades, but the compute power has not been up to the task until recent years. It has been available to the masses in the Large Language Model form since 2023. When I did some fiddling with it early on, I was underwhelmed. Now in early 2025 I'm blown away at how much better it has become.

I come into the AI realm from the perspective of an artist - painter - and a musician/songwriter which are two of the early targets of these so-called AI models. I used AI to generate a few images and then I used one as a reference for a painting. The painting turned out nice. It was really no different than any photograph I would use as a reference for my paintings. When ChatGTP introduced a songwriting/song generator I just had to try it. The early AI music I had heard prior to this generator was really bad aesthetically. The lyrics were horrible, and the underlying music was clichéd and trite. So, into songer.co for my first experiment: I simply typed in a song description and picked a few genres from a list and clicked create. The system gives you two songs for each entry, and you can listen to a portion of the song. If you happen to like it, you can buy-in if you want to download it. In this instance the songs were forgettable and uninspired. I was ready to dismiss the whole thing again. Then I wondered what would happen if I truly guided the process. I found an old song I wrote and recorded many years ago and input my chord chart verbatim. A chord chart has the title, notes, lyrics in verse/chorus/bridge format, with the chords printed above the lyrics. It's something you'd hand a musician to follow along in rehearsal. I then chose rock/pop/reggae from the list and hit generate. 

The whole thing took only a minute to generate, and honestly, I was blown away by the song blaring out of my speakers. It was better in almost every respect than the song I recorded years ago. I'm a little creeped out, but I can't stop listening to it.

What has me mesmerized and frightened at the same time is how good AI is getting and how quickly. It's been less than two years since the public could access an AI, what's going to happen in the next two? I don't know how much more experimenting I want to do. It seems to me a person can be put under a spell if we were to give in to AI - with everything. 

I see "they" are already creating virtual AI companions for the lonely. Considering that there is an epidemic of loneliness in the world today this is a very concerning development. Humans are already eschewing person to person contact at an alarming rate; this will not help. This is just the tip of the iceberg, AI will creep into everything if we let it.

I want to be a glass half full kind of person and look for and anticipate all the good that AI could do. It's not that easy when you know that in the wrong hands this technology could kill. Just like the nuclear genie, AI is out of the bottle. Consider though; the nuclear genie has a high bar to reach before the average nutcase could harm others, not so with AI. There's no telling how out of control this could get if a mentally deranged person with a modicum of resources can unleash the wrath of AI on humanity. What would stop them from creating a lethal disease that makes Covid-19 look like a walk in the park? With nuclear weapons it takes hundreds of participants and a command structure with multiple failsafe's before they could be deployed, not so with a self-replicating virus of AI origin. 

I don't want to scare myself, but the further you go with this thought exercise more dire this all becomes. I fortunately had the chance to live my life for 60 plus years - what about my grandkids and their kids? Glass half full? Seems less and less likely. 

Bad Actors

by Craig Willms

No, I'm not talking about Adam Sandler or Hayden Christenson, notoriously bad actors, I'm talking about bad actors on the world stage. We in the West like to think of Putin or Xi or Maduro, the Ayatollah even Kim as bad actors - and they are - but to a certain degree they are reactionaries. Reacting to what, to whom? Well, sorry to say they're reacting to the American state. The American State Dept. and their ancillary departments to be exact. We need only to look in the mirror to see the catalyst of  many of the world's atrocious actions.

Most Americans are going to say what? What on Earth are you talking about? The thing is most non-Americans will know exactly what I'm saying. We here in America are so under served by our mainstream media, where most people still get their news, that we can't even recognize how brainwashed we are. Even with the global reach of the Internet and access to outside news sources the domestic big media still hold sway. It's understandable, a single human has only so much time and bandwidth - and most of us are busy. There is a lot of noise out there. 

The good news is that the whole of the Biden presidency and the subsequent Harris campaign exposed a fair amount of the rot and guile that is our Federal government. The fact that Trump cleared all hurdles including being shot, and won the 2024 presidential election handily indicates that enough people see the truth of the vile underbelly of the "blob". The blob? The bureaucratic state, the permanent government, the deep state or whatever you want to call it, constitutes the blob. The blob is not hemmed in by American borders, it exists in Canada, Europe and Australia as well. Trump was elected partly due to his rhetoric to drain the 'swamp', clearly American's have some idea of the width and breath and the depths of  this monster. It remains to be seen if he's all hat and no cattle. Color me skeptical, he did next to nothing on this the first time around.

What ever you think it's wrong. As bad as I think it may be, be assured it's worse, much worse. 

Anywhere in the world there is strife or war or economic dysfunction America or it's allies are stirring the pot. Usually there are major economic concerns, giant corporations and a lot of money on the line. Do you really think that the invasion of Ukraine by the Russians started in February 2022 when the tanks started rolling? If so, you are naïve. Ukraine was supposed to be the buffer between Russia and NATO. Putin was promised by multiple administrations that NATO would not encroach on Russia. The Obama administration then staged a coup in Ukraine and installed a NATO friendly regime after ousting the Russian friendly government.  Now we are funding a war to the tune of billions of dollars that not one person can demonstrate a single American interest. Not one. Is it any wonder Putin is reacting the way he is.

Consider the Nordstream pipeline in the North Sea. It supplied affordable Russian gas to Europe. It was destroyed mysteriously. Mysteriously? Wink, wink. Yeah, you and everyone else knows who destroyed it. Why? What's it all about? 

Indeed, what is it all about? It's about energy, and who control's it - and who makes money from it. Oil, natural gas and coal power the modern world, therefore he who controls it controls the world. This has been true for 100 years or more. Nearly every hot war has been fought over the control of energy. Lurking behind the scenes the State Department and their minions in the CIA etc etc foment armed conflict to induce chaos and ultimately determine who controls the flow of oil and gas.

In one sense the desire to push the world to electric cars and electric heating and cooking seems laudable if only to change the world's power dynamic (pun intended). But it was folly. For one, the conversion to EV's and the like is not technically ready, and two, it still takes traditional energy to power the electric grids of the world. 

Remember when Syria entered into deals to build oil pipelines to connect the middle east to the Mediterranean Sea? Suddenly there was an insurgency in Syria, funded and armed by - you guessed it - the Obama administration. ISIS was born. It worked, Assad was nearly overthrown until Russia intervened. It became a stale mate, but it stopped the pipeline plan. We back here in America only heard how awful ISIS and Assad (and the Russians) behaved. We were put on high alert for terrorist activity here in the Homeland while our planes and drones were dropping bombs on innocent Syrians, killing tens of thousands and displacing millions of people. Indeed, Assad and the rest of them are bad, evil even, but how can we, the United States, consider ourselves the good guys?

We like to think that Iran and the Ayatollah's as the epitome of evil, and in a sense they are, but they are also reactionaries. More than half a century ago the CIA installed a government in Tehran to serve as our guy in the heart of the middle east oil region. Since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 Iran has been at war with the U.S. in one way or another. We are sold this notion that they are are just wild-eyed terrorists, but they are the way they are because of what our CIA had done - and continues to do. They, the Iranian government are not the good guys, but neither are we. America caused this situation. Is it any wonder we are regarded as The Great Satan in Iran... 

The western hemisphere is just as deep in the State Department's mess as the middle east. Since WWII the CIA and the State Department has intervened, disrupted, staged coups and generally run amok in the affairs of every sovereign nation on this side of the world. Is it any wonder South American nations are embracing China. 

This has got to stop. Is there any reason to believe it will? Not really. The "deep state" or whatever you call it is essentially a crime syndicate and has been since it's inception in the 1940's. It is entrenched, and it's world wide. Anyone, regardless of their status or perceived power who confronts it in any way is usually dealt with swiftly and decisively. It's either coercion or it's a bullet. 

One hopes that a Trump administration can start turning the ship, particularly since he has only one term, no reelection to concern him. To the previous point, a bullet recently grazed his ear and the circumstances and the perpetrator are still shrouded in mystery. Be assured the money and power of the giant corporations, the money men on Wall Street and the deep deep deep state in Washington DC will outlast him. The service he can do is to shine the light on this monster and get average Americans to see what we have become. We are a criminal global war factory, and the powers and principalities will continue unabated until we collectively demand an end to it. Even that may not be enough.

Hell no GMO will never go

A product comes along - maybe a process is a better word - a process comes along that solves a number of problems plaguing modern man, huge problems, and instead of rejoicing and singing its praises the reactionary left cooks up a boogieman and riles the masses into a frenzy.

Once again the pro-science crowd who revels in accusing their religious and conservative opponents of being knuckle-dragging luddites ignore the facts, ignore the actual science and promulgate lies to further an anti-human agenda. GMO derangement rivals climate change hysteria for the pinnacle of all manufactured doomsday scenario's.

Just as the concept of global warming has caused the average person to change his or her behavior (as well as lightening his or her wallet) the reactionary left has succeeded in turning the advantaged class against a literal miracle that would help the world's disadvantaged in a most profound way.

GMO food and GMO crops have already changed the world for the better. Not one person has been poisoned, not one stream has been polluted, not one bird has fallen from the sky because of GMO. It may surprise you that every respected scientific organization that has studied GM crops including such institutions as the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization, and others have found GM crops both safe for humans for and the environment. Yes, it's impossible to prove anything is completely without risk, it's worth noting that none of these organizations is in the tank for big agribusiness, yet they all agree that there’s simply no evidence that it’s dangerous to eat genetically modified foods. Notoriously skeptical science-oriented publications including Nature and Scientific American have also concluded there’s just no evidence that GMOs are bad for us.

So why the hysteria. Frankly, excellent marketing by the same types who brought you two terms of Barack Obama, the tar and feathering of the Tea Party and conservatism in general. While both sides cherry-pick evidence to support the positions they expound, the left slathers on the pure emotion of scare tactics that seem to work every time.

So successful have been the scare mongers that entire continents have banned GMO's. Ignoring actual benefits that could save millions from malnutrition and death the scare tactics are having an effect on the very nations and regions that could benefit the most. GMO's offer the farmer, any farmer, a cost benefit by reducing chemical usage, fuel usage and potentially larger yields due to less loss to insects. There is also the benefit to the poorly nourished by the injection of nutrients - such as vitamin A into rice - grown in regions where the deficiencies have a profound impact on the poor.

It would seem that with 7 billion humans to feed with a couple billion of them going hungry day after day that the benefits of GM food would outweigh the bull horn people. But it doesn't look that way. I think there a couple of reasons for this that have nothing to do with rational arguments. First, it is very hard to get the masses to rally around big -business. Pop culture in the West has made big-business literally toxic, deserved or not. And yes sometimes it is deserved. I will not stand up for some of the practices of agri-giant Monsanto. They use blackmail tactics and lawyers to gain and maintain market share in a way that would make the mafia's protection racket look like a boy scout jamboree. Business does what business can get away with and Monsanto and the other giant agri-business players have the best politicians money can buy. It doesn't necessarily mean their products are dangerous.

Secondly, many nations and regions see big agri-business as an extension of the United States. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is a long held tradition when it comes to protecting the home town team from being swallowed or crushed. American business can be a bit of a bull in a China shop so to speak. It still doesn't mean their motives beyond making profit are purposely destructive. That makes no business sense at all.

Finally, just like with "Climate Change" my belief is that the leftists have a far more sinister set of motives than any evil corporation that has ever existed. The anti-GMO crowd rather than being out to protect humanity from evil is bent of the reduction of the human population by orders of magnitude from today's numbers. GMO has the potential of allowing us to feed the world, pulling billions out of mere subsistence to thriving abundance - just as a warmer world is better for the survival of human beings than a colder one.

I don't think GMO foods or crops will go away anymore than nuclear energy did with a similar onslaught. However, poor safety practices in places like Chernobyl and Fukushima give the doomsayers ammunition, and rightly so. GM products have to be tested and studied with extreme vigilance - and that is the sliver lining provided by the rabid opposition.



Put that GMO tobacco in your pipe and smoke it!



Ugh

PS: I have no stock (that I know of) in any agri-business. It's not that I trust big business all that much, I just distrust leftists that much more

The Golden Age

Are we living in the Golden Age?

For those of us living in the West, America, Canada, Europe, Australia and Japan, it's not hard to imagine that we have reached the pinnacle of our societal development. If nothing else demographics will soon push us into a different paradigm. The West has stopped having babies and without babies there is no future.

If we think about how nice we have it as compared to all the peoples that have ever lived on this earth we should be amazed, but we aren't. We take it for granted. Worse, we condemn ourselves for the marvels we now enjoy that were forged by the sweat of our brow and of those who came before us. In that selfish condemnation we deny the next generation any choices at all since we are choosing this generation over theirs.

Think about it... We live in a world with instant communication between any 2 points on the planet. We have information, the collective knowledge of recorded history at our fingertips by virtue of the Internet. We have but to climb into a self-powered car with all it's luxury appointments and drive on super highways to any supermarket or mall and find just about any foodstuff or creature comfort we can imagine. A mere hundred years ago this would've been a fantasy. Our poor eat better, live better, enjoy better health and have better entertainment than all the princes and kings of a century ago. For all the griping by the Occupy movement it is never considered that the vast middle experiences life closer to the top 1% than at anytime in history. Do the ultra-rich watch better TV shows or movies than the rest of us? Do they have better music? Do their Ipods sound better, their Ipads look better? Is their food more nutritious? Are their cars more reliable or have better air conditioning than ours?

If we accept that we in the West, collectively, live a life of comfort and ease compared to those just a few short generations ago we have to ask; how long can it all last?

We are seeing the financial system begin to crumble globally. Japan, Europe and the U.S. have serious debt issues that are interconnected in a fashion that resembles a game of dominoes just before the first one topples. If or when the global financial system collapses the demand for oil - the principal product of the Middle East, North Africa and Russia - will take a dive, and likely trigger chaos in those politically unstable regions. Likewise, the demand for consumer goods from China and southeast Asia will plummet along with their economies - which might force a new military hegemony waiting in wings in Beijing.

Worse yet is the specter of apocalyptic religious zealots in Tehran possessing nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. Regardless of which comes first, the collapse of the global economic system or a first strike (likely on Tel Aviv) by Iran, chaos will consume the world.

How bad can it get? No one knows. The world of fiction is rife with post-apocalyptic tales that frankly depict a world I wouldn't want to live in.

When the electricity fails and the supermarkets run out of food anarchy will prevail. Don't think the government - Federal or local - will save the day. It is the government (particularly Congress) that is destroying everything now - before the fall. In addition the current President is actively promoting the decline of America. These crony's are busy feathering their own nests and destroying the country in the process. There will be no help from the government when this all breaks down.

Does it have to end this way? Probably not, but simple hope is pale substitute for the cruelness of reality. Indeed, Europe(Germany) and Japan were thoroughly devastated after WWII and they came roaring back economically. But this collapse would be quite different. For one, Europe and Japan had the United States to help them rebuild. Do we suppose China would be in any shape to foster the rebuilding of the global economy this time? What would the world be rebuilding from? An economic collapse or nuclear war? I would not bet against either of these things happening if something isn't done soon.

I've read that it's already too late for Europe to avoid some of it's members from defaulting on their debts. America has unfunded liabilities in the trillions coming due over the next 20 years. Japan may simply be a lost cause. As Japan's population collapses they continue to maintain a closed door policy on immigration. Bold action is needed because the only thing that will turn the tide is confidence in the future. Confidence is the only thing that holds up the economic system as it is.The Western world had confidence after WWII because of the power of the United States. Restoring confidence is going to take bold action and like it or not it will have to come from the United States. Is China or India ready to step up and usher the world into the next era? I wouldn't bet on it.

So here we are a the precipice of collapse and the one nation with a chance at staving it off is led by a man actively directing a program of decline - and apologizing to the world on our behalf. This is not building confidence. Wanting the world to love us is a fool's game, especially when the world is seeking leadership.

When the history of this era is written generations from now will they lament the fact that when the world had such a benevolent hegemon in the United States of America it let itself be tore down from within, with the malice of forethought? Are we really ready to give up? Is this the beginning of the end of the Golden Age?




CW

Which will blow first? Yellowstone or the Treasury

We are all aware that popular culture has a small obsession with the year 2012. According to the ancient Mayan calendar either the world (or the Mayan calendar) will end on December 21st 2012. Well, count me as skeptical that some coincidental alignment of the stars will blow the world apart. However, 2012 could see the world as we know it change beyond all recognition as a result of two looming cauldrons of disaster bubbling to the surface of our lives.

I read somewhere that the cauldron of the super massive volcano that is Yellowstone literally raised by 10 inches recently. This is a land surface of many, many square miles - spontaneously raising 10 inches!

There has been increased volcanic and earthquake activity around Yellowstone recently. They say that evidence points to a massive eruption every 500,000 years or so. It's been more than 600,000 years since the last one. If it blows life as we know it here in America will end. The whole world would be affected, possibly causing mass extinctions and the death of millions upon millions. This is a truly frightening prospect.

There is another disaster that could also cause life as we know it to end. That would be the default of the United States Treasury. Some believe this would be literally impossible, but it will get to the point where the interest alone on the national debt can not be paid. Simply "printing" money won't fix it if the value of the dollar is zero. If the U.S. defaults the economy would grind to a halt. The world economy will crash. Human suffering would be unlike anything we've ever seen. The real scary part is as we are driving off the cliff we are accelerating. America collectively stomped on the gas pedal by choosing the Obama regime.

Obama aside, does anyone really believe that politicians have the answers or more importantly the courage to set things right? Not me.



CW

Schizophrenic Voters of Minnesota

I live in a state where it is not unusual to see brand new cars adorning green Wellstone bumpers stickers. Senator Wellstone died tragically in a plane crash eight years ago, God rest his soul. He's not coming back...

This is of course the state that elected independent Jesse "the body" Ventura in a stunner back in the 90's as well as comedian turned politician Al Franken in 2008. Our senior Senator is a true leftist and so is our Secretary of State. This is a state that hasn't broken for a Republican Presidential candidate since Nixon in 72. In 84 we were the only state that didn't.

Despite all this we have not elected a Democrat Governor since the 80's. We have had several prominent Senators from the GOP including Norm Coleman and Rod Grams, two of the nation's most accomplished Senators without multiple terms under their belts. We've had constitutional officers from both parties that have been elected one after another, each from the far end of the political spectrum in their policies and their governance - enough real difference I tell you to cause whiplash!

Today, in 2010, we sit on the verge, if the polls can be believed of electing Mark Dayton, a serious flake, as our next governor. Succeeding Tim Pawlenty, who has been a decent steward of our state during tumultuous times, Dayton would be an about face of schizophrenic proportions. I can not image the tax burden placed on our citizens and our corporations had Pawlenty not been there. He has been blamed for kicking the can down the road on funding a 5 billion dollar deficit, but the truth is the Minnesota legislature is just slightly on the black side of the legislature in Sacramento California when it comes to spending money they do not have. Per capita our $5 billion deficit is on par with California's $25 billion. Pawlenty vetoed several out of whack budgets passed by the legislature - kicking the can this time was a joint compromise...

Mark Dayton is a former Senator of some repute. His claim to fame in the six years he spent in DC was to be the only politician to close up his office and flee when the terrorist threat level reached ORANGE. He looked a fool when nothing happened and shortly thereafter he announced he would not seek another term. Today he tops the polls for the office of Governor. How can this be?

Dayton's chief rival is Republican Tom Emmer. While I know little of Emmer - I supported the other guy in the primary, he seems a typical conservative who values small but effective state government and wants lower taxes and lower regulation on business expansion and formation. What I have found out since the primary that Emmer is actually the Devil. Satan himself. He eats little babies for breakfast and old people and immigrants for lunch. And how do I know this? Why I heard it on TV commercials funded by PAC's that support Dayton. When you look into the biggest of them, Alliance for a Better Minnesota and WIN Minnesota you find they are funded in large part by Dayton's own family. In case you didn't know this is old family money from the Dayton Hudson Department store chain which is now part of Macy's. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been donated by family. Not illegal, but not forth coming either.

No one except a few right wing bloggers have investigated Dayton's funding. The papers and TV news stations have been silent. But not so for Emmer. When certain prominent local corporations like Target and Best Buy donated to a PAC that has supported Emmer they were taken to the proverbial woodshed by progressives with a cause. Isn't funny that Target which is a spin-off of Dayton Hudson would prefer the other guy? Target was a "target" of a boycott by GLBT activists for daring to indirectly support Emmer. Target apologized and promised not to do it again! You see Emmer's sin is to support the notion that the citizens of Minnesota should be able to vote directly on same-sex marriage issues. What a tyrant!

Much has been made of Emmer's DWI arrests from his younger days but the local media doesn't breath a word about the fact that Dayton is an alcoholic (recovering) having relapsed as late as 2007 and has been institutionalized for mental health problems.

Emmer is not helped by the fact that a third party candidate, Mr. Common Sense Solutions is on ballot again this year. The schizophrenic voters of Minnesota love common sense in theory, but since they have none Tom Horner will likely siphon votes from Emmer because Dayton's supporters don't really like common sense that much (common sense says that over taxing the producers of jobs, ie: the rich, is stupid).

So, if Dayton wins Minnesota's reputation will be intact. We seem to love the fact that we're different up here, or maybe we don't. Maybe we only think we're different. We know that you know that we know we're only different on election day, otherwise we have the same differences as everyone else except for those who say they're different when deep inside they're really the same.


CW

Is This Man Satan?

Occasionally you'll come across a quote or an article by this man and find your suspicions confirmed that Satan is alive and well and walking among us. Peter Singer is well known for his views on the value of humans in general. He doesn't see any value in human life at all. Singer is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne. His most recent book is “The Life You Can Save.” He often makes waves with his proclamations that infanticide and euthanasia ought to be practiced safely and legally. But this NYT article cries out for condemnation, shame on the NYT for even giving this crap a forum.

Essentially Singer tries to make the case for this being the last generation of humans, that we should submit to mass sterilization and then party like there's no tomorrow. FTA "So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!"end quote. I mean why would we care about the environment or the economy for future generations if there isn't going to be any? Wouldn't the world be better off if humans just went extinct? Better off for whom? Cute little bunnies and dragonflies? Rationally this makes little sense looking at it from a purely scientific angle. Homo Sapiens is a product of nature. To intentionally kill off any species is anti-natural.

But beyond the rational there is something unfathomably horrifying about his ideas. They are the very essence of evil. God, or Zeus if you wish, created man so that "our love" would deliver sustenance for God and man. Satan (or Hades) brings hate and death for the express purpose of thwarting God - and therefore love itself. Singer, who is clearly Satan's servant if nothing else, puts forth here and in other proclamations that life is cruel, miserable and worthless and certainly not worth living. Surely those infected, as Singer is, with negativity and joylessness would find life a pointless drudge. He must have never heard a baby belly laughing. He obviously has never marveled at the technical ingenuity of mankind or listened in awe to a powerful musical passage. He has never been inspired by a priest during a homily or a public orator giving a great speech, or watched a movie that made him cry. There are a million things that make life worth living.

The idea that because everyone suffers at some point in their lives that the whole thing is useless and beyond that, cruel. Singer does capitulate at the end of his piece and declares that human life should be allowed to go on for a few more generations...

FTA I am enough of an optimist to believe that, should humans survive for another century or two, we will learn from our past mistakes and bring about a world in which there is far less suffering than there is now. But justifying that choice forces us to reconsider the deep issues with which I began. Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?end quote

Sadly this man has been allowed inflict his warped ideas on several generations of our young people and most certainly prompted some to forgo ever having children. Alas they will never hear the belly laugh of a joyous baby of their own.


CW

Deep Doo Doo -or- Does anyone really know who's dime this is?

If personal depression doesn't get you after reading the doom and gloom saturating your favorite blog sites then perhaps the real Depression will. I admit that the signs for the recovery of the American economy look rather dire right now. It's obvious that President Obama will be ideologically unable to steer us to safety. Its not in his nature to trust (real) free market capitalism which is the only thing that stands a chance of delivering us from economic catastrophe. I want to keep my chin up and keep deluding myself that everything will be alright, but its getting harder by the day.

Reading Al Fin's post "Morgan Stanley Guru: Buy a Gun & Lots of Ammo " I am being slapped into reality. Can this country really come to and end as we know it? The evidence is mounting that the answer is affirmative.

The fault lies with all of us to a certain extent, but I stop short of outright blaming the average middle class schmuck who has played by the rules, done all the right things and has done his or her part to be a a first class citizen. The fault lies with the "government" as it were and the massive money interests of the Wall Streeters and the multi-nationals for whom the regular rules don't apply.

David Paul, in none other than The Huffington Post, lays it out there:
But what if the public understood the whole story? How is it that the banks are now having one of their most profitable years ever? Given that there is not much lending going on, and that the newly increased credit card fees have only just begun to flow into bank coffers, where is all that money coming from?

It is coming from proprietary trading. "Prop trading" is the kind of betting with the bank balance sheet that was made illegal for commercial banks back during the Great Depression, when the FDIC and deposit insurance was created. The price of having the federal government guarantee bank deposits was separating the lending and depositary functions of commercial banking from trading and risk activities of investment banking. Thus, in 1935, the commercial bank J.P. Morgan & Company was separated from the investment firm Morgan Stanley.

But this separation was undone in 1999 to facilitate the creation of the megabanks that we have today. However, while the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 ended the separation of activities, FDIC deposit insurance remained in place. And this year, the elite of the financial world--JP, Citi, Wells, BofA, Goldman and Morgan Stanley--have finally emerged for what they are: Gigantic hedge funds backed up by the full faith and credit of the United States of America. Wall Street bankers making big bets with our money, content in the knowledge that if they win their bets, they will pocket the cash. And if they lose, we will all pick up the mess.


We should be careful to point out that not all banks are guilty, indeed thousands of community oriented banks both big and small have relied on traditional banking practices and made money on the margins just as they have for the last 60 years. But it's true that the giant "too big to fail" banks have played us all for suckers with the blessing of the Federal government.

So what does the Federal government do? Why, they threaten us that's what they do. In this piece by Tyler Durden on www.zerohedge.com we learn what the Obama adminstration has in store for OUR money...

Yet new regulations proposed by the administration, and specifically by the ever-incompetent Securities and Exchange Commission, seek to pull one of these three core pillars from the foundation of the entire money market industry, by changing the primary assumptions of the key Money Market Rule 2a-7. A key proposal in the overhaul of money market regulation suggests that money market fund managers will have the option to "suspend redemptions to allow for the orderly liquidation of fund assets." ...Money Market funds, which account for nearly 40% of all investment company assets. The next time there is a market crash, and you try to withdraw what you thought was "absolutely" safe money, a back office person will get back to you saying, "Sorry - your money is now frozen. Bank runs have become illegal."

This is truly unbelievable. Is this even America anymore? In saving the banks we are to bankrupt everyone else, is that right? But in a true talking out if both sides of your mouth fashion the President goes after the bankers with his harsh words. Economist Mike Norman finds the whole thing ridiculous and counter productive:

In what is becoming an all-too-familiar and nauseating scene, Obama summoned bank executives to the White House again yesterday to beg them to increase lending. The president told the CEO’s that their banks must make “an extraordinary commitment” to rebuild the nation’s economy.

From this statement we can clearly see that in Obama’s mind and in the mind of those who advise him, the vast resources of the Federal Government—the same government that bootstrapped the nation out of the Great Depression and paid for the greatest military buildup the world has ever seen—are now depleted. Looking past the remarks, which by themselves seem unbecoming for a sitting president—the name-calling and empty threats—we see a weak leader whose ignorance of the monetary system is both mind numbing and downright scary.

So, yes, I guess America can come to and end as we know it - and in a very short span of time, maybe even yet this year. On Dennis Mangan's site they are debating "What are the odds on social breakdown?"

Will there come a point in this game of musical chairs in which the music stops? I don't know: we've become so accustomed to living a life of peace and prosperity in the USA that most of us cannot even imagine anything else.

Is it possible to estimate the chances that everything goes to hell? Or would that be more like investing or economic forecasting, when the more people that predict something, the less likely it will happen? In other words, does the fact that few people - except nuts like me - think that the odds of social breakdown are substantially greater than zero mean that the odds in favor of it happening are actually quite good?

I sure hope that all these fine people are dead wrong, but I guess it is time to consider a post "America as we know it" scenario and then acting on it.



CW