I'm not afraid of artificial intelligence: it's easy to defeat them--just pull out their plug.

I've had this problem quite a bit with voice recognition, which shows as anyone well versed in this technology will tell you: "it would make more sense to call it artificial stupidity, than intelligence." In fact, it was dealing with artificial intelligence only to be shunted to a call centre where they don't speak my language (yet again) that led to me writing this.

Yes, a computer can appear intelligent as can someone with dementia appear lucid. But as Alan Turing pointed out, a human can tell the difference. Where artificial intelligence appears superior is that it can process a lot of information quickly. But there'a another computer saying: "GIGO" or "Garbage in, Garbage out." I wouldn't trust a machine to make decisions without a human there to veto that decision. And computers need electricity or some sort of power. They can only run things as long as their batteries can power up. Otherwise they are just expensive paper weights. The reality is that they can only deal with what they are written to do. They might add some other variations to their data base, but it might confuse them since it's really just pattern recognition and not true knowledge. Or as this cartoon points out:

Of course, later versions of the Daleks could fly. The aliens in M. Night Shyamalan's Signs were able to achieve interstellar travel, yet were unable to deal with doorknobs. Or the fact that Earth is covered with water. I think Robots would have even more difficult tasks to deal with if they had to actually deal with the real world instead of their limited universes.

Fred Hampton talks anarchists, SDS, Weathermen and the white working class

I've known about Fred Hampton for a while, but I became much more interested in him post-Riots. I've tossed "gun rights" in here since he talks about "self-defence", which would be be a very heated argument since Hampton was assassinated by the Chicago Police. A lot of people, myself included, believe this was because Hampton was very charismatic and unified, rather than divided. I'm sorry I don't live in the alternative reality where Malcolm Little became the first black US Supreme Court Justice and Hampton the first black president.

And a black composer for you!

Black History Month - What we don't know and are not taught: "Black Mozart"

Joseph Bologne, lived during the era of the American Revolution, 1745 -1799. He was French, the son of a slave mother and a wealthy planter father. His father essentially bought a title in 1757, and had taken his son to France for his education, along with his mother who continued to be a slave. He excelled in swordsmanship. He was SO unusual, so excellent at this skill, that when he graduated he directly became a member of the King's bodyguard, and was knighted. He also fought duels with prominent swordsmen who insulted him because he was bi-racial.

An obvious polymath, Saint-Georges was also an accomplished violinist at an early age (hence the comparison to Mozart) and became an accomplished composer in his own right as well. Saint-Georges was subsidized during his younger years by his father, but that money went to his apparently white and legitimate half-sister when his father died, leaving Saint-Georges to support himself by what he earned from his music and from the Orchestras he conducted. He continued to enjoy both tremendous popularity, but also periodic racism against him. He became a great favorite of Marie Antoinette. Saint-Georges began writing operas, met other famous talents in the music world, including the actual Mozart and Haydn. During this time his mother, who had continued to live with him, died - apparently still at least technically a slave by legal status if not in how she lived.

Subsequently, Saint-Georges spent time in England, including rubbing elbows with the Prince of Wales. Throughout his life among the nobility and wealthy, Saint Georges was an ardent supporter of the abolition of slavery.

When the French Revolution began, Saint-Georges volunteered, and headed up a legion of 'colored' troops, holding the rank of colonel. He fought on the side of the Republic against the monarchists, was imprisoned during the 'Terror', was released when the worst excesses of the Revolution were over. Without the patronage afforded him by the nobility prior to the revolution, he was somewhat less successful.

At one point he left France for about two years when there was a slave revolt on Caribbean island where he was born. Two years later he returned to France, again tried to rejoin his legion and again began composing and conducting music, as well as resuming playing the violin. He died in 1799 in comparative poverty.  He left behind as his legacy a large body of musical compositions, including operas, symphonies, concertos, chamber music, music for string quartets, and vocal music, many of which are still performed and recorded.

And he was also a character in the TV Show Nicholas Le Floch (Le Dîner de Gueux)!

A Black Author for you!

Next time the Politically Correct crowd want you to read a "black author" tell them you are a fan of Alexandre Dumas.

And the more European the title sounds the better, but any of the Three Musketeers/The D'Artagnan Romances series (The Three Musketeers, Twenty Years After, and The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later) would be the best bet.  There was a reason the BBC cast a mixed race actor to play Porthos in their version of the books.

Alexandre Dumas, AKA Alexandre Dumas père, author of The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo (and father of Alexandre Dumas fils, who wrote La Dame aux Camélias). Alexandre père's father (or, if you prefer, the père's père), General Alexandre (Alex) Dumas, was black Haitian, the son of an aristocratic French father, Marquis Alexandre Davy de la Pailleterie, and a freed slave, Marie-Cesette Dumas. Toss in that the father was a general in Napoleon's grande armée!

The writer's father's dad sold the boy as a slave to pay for his passage to France (that's remedial parenting classes for you, Marquis de la Pailleterie) before buying his freedom. Later, Alex rose through the ranks of the army to become a general before he was 30. He was so effective that that the Austrians called him Der schwarze Teufel ("the Black Devil"). During the French revolution fought with other black men in a unit called the African Legion.

Study up on this French writer and have a great time challenging people's stereotypes on race.

Neil Oliver - '...new covid facts are starting to seep out...'

I've been a fan of Neil's for a long time now. I'm glad to see he's now on Patreon.

A vote for the Green Party is...a vote for the Green Party (or any other third party for that matter)

 OK, I didn't vote for John Fetterman in the last Pennsylvania Election (FYI once one emmigrates from the US, one votes in the last place they were domiciled--it seems I am currently stuck with Philadelphia due to bureaucratic BS). I don't like him for a variety of reasons, but I also Demexited in 2016 and haven't looked back on the duopoly since. I'm not going to get into why I dislike the "Berners" who have remained within the Democratic Party other than to say that I dislike them.

I voted Green in 2022 even though Dr. Oz was not my type. Although, I was walking around singing "Arc en Ciel" the day of the election...

 

De toute façon...

My point, My vote for Jill Stein in 2016 didn't change the election result, the electoral college did that. And the Russians had nothing to do with that, unless you want to tell me that Catherine the Great promised the Continental Congress a "Donkey Show" a few centuries later on.

My Green Party votes haven't changed the results since the duopoly pretty much runs things for the time being in the US. And no matter what Fox news tries to tell people, there really isn't that much of a difference between the two parties.

Seriously, if the "Democrats" really were socialists, they would have run Sanders in 2016 (and 2020) and won.

Electoral college or not.

But the duopoly doesn't want that to happen. And anyone who remains within the duopoly is a traitor to the movement behind Bernie.

The Real Reason to be Afraid of Artificial Intelligence | Peter Haas | T...

I definitely agree with this: AI needs to be taken with careful skepticism. My car can pretty much drive itself, but I wouldn't trust it to drive anywhere without me having a veto power over what it does.

Lets toss in mistakes Siri and other voice recognition systems make. I used to collect them, but they became overwhelming.

AI cannot be trusted blindly, but it can help make life better when used WITH a human check on the system.

'We the People' - the three most misunderstood words in US history | Mar...

Like it or not, the US Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, are anything BUT popular documents. It was written in secret by a select group of people. Sure, there were debates, but they were anything open and above board until after the document was written. People forget that some people, the anti-Federalists, were against ratification of the constitution.

I don't totally agree with his analysis (the pronouns bit is anachronistic as heck), but he does make some very good points.

It wasn't written for the benefit of my ancestors who fought for independence and revolted at Morristown. It was written for the elite who said "We the people".

An interesting interview with Jeffrey Sachs

I agree with him about the quality of the current debate: especially that opposing opinions tend to be ignored.

Kari Lake and Election Denial

I occassionally watch Fox News for an opposing opinion, which is where I heard about Kari Lake. I am pretty sure I don't agree with her on most issues, but her being questioned about "election denial" was very interesting. One thing I learned is that one needs to use the same vocabulary when discussing an issue. If "election denial" is a term meaning that there is some sort of conspiracy to steal an election, then it makes things look like anyone who points out the fact that US elections are anything other than free and fair and held on a secret ballot sound cray-cray.

On the other hand, one of the essential principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is:

Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. . . . The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."

Article 21, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

The United States and other western nations spent a good part of the 20th Century pushing these principles on other countries, yet the US has moved further and further from this principle since the end of the Cold War.

The funny thing is that the election denial comes from the results of the electoral college and the fact that US elections are not "democratic".  Bernie Sanders would probably be president if that were the case.

And people would probably love him. Just remember that Vermont is pretty much a "red state", and I mean that in the ass backward US sense where "red" is conservative. Otherwise, it might make sense that they have a socialist representing them. Yet another thing which gets lost in the US media. 

Which is another thing Kari Lake attacks.

The reality is that the US needs serious election reform, yet it won't get it if it obfuscates the issues. The Electoral College is problematic, yet no one is willing to address it. Point out that Trump won the election despite losing the popular vote and his supporters aren't upset. I won't get into the machinations of the 2020 elections, but they are another glaring example of the need for election reform in the US. Had Barack Obama won an election with only 23% of the vote, I am sure that the people defending the "Constitution" would realise what an Amendment actually means and that the founders were well willing to use that process when the Constitution proved to need tweaking.

After all, the 12th Amendment was enacted in 1803 to reform the electoral college after a heavily contested election (Election of 1800).

Maybe what is needed is to have some serious, adult discussions about the issues facing the United States instead of tossing ad hominems.

See also: https://www.bitchute.com/video/P5ayS6uzV5c6/

Pew Charitable Trust on Cryptocurrencies

46% of Americans who have invested in cryptocurrency say it’s done worse than expected

Among the 16% of U.S. adults who say they have ever invested in, traded or used a cryptocurrency such as bitcoin or ether, 46% report their investments have done worse than they expected. By comparison, 15% of these Americans say their investments have done better than they expected; 31% say they’ve worked out about the same as they expected. The overall share of U.S. crypto users is unchanged since September 2021. 

• About half of Americans have heard about NFTs, but few have ever bought one

 

Three Arrows on "America's Coming Weimar Moment"

One of the reasons I Demexited in 2016 was that the Democratic Party really has no ideology: despite what Fox News and other rightwing media outlets would like to pretend. On the other hand, the Republicans have firmly planted themselved in the right. Had there been a real opposition, the US wouldn't be in the situation it is.

I strongly believe that there will be a radical reshaping of US Political system since it really isn't a Democratic Republic, or even the promised republic, by any stretch of the imagination. The founders knew there would have to be systemic changes, but the system has stagnated such that it is a one party system.

Three Arrows has a really super analysis of how the system will collapse: and it isn't from the duopoly kayfabe. 

Which is what Trump was really talking about, Not "Kovfefe".

Cut the distractions and work for change.

Is Crypto Really Going To Crash? (Yes) | Robert Reich

I'm not sure what to think about Robert Reich these days. OK, I have always liked him.

On the other hand, he is pretty much saying the same thing I have. Not sure if I would call this a Ponzi Scheme. I would go more with "pump and dump".

But Bob is usually pretty good in his analyses.

Please give this a squiz since it is worth it.

He surprises me that he aligns himself with the Democrats: especially post-Bernie.

The Crypto Crisis

Cryptocurrencies and Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) remind me of the stereotypical scam of buying the Brooklyn Bridge. NFTs could actuallty put that scam into practise since they are a digital asset that represents real-world objects like art, music, in-game items and videos.

I've got an NFT of the Brooklyn Bridge: you want to buy it?

Something about fools and money anyone?

Anyway, there has been a Cryptocurrency crash which has become public with Bitcoin, the largest cryptocurrency by market value, having a recent fall of more than 72 percent since its November high.

There is a great article on this by Trevor Jackson in Dissent, The Crypto Crisis. This pretty much sums up the problems with Crypto Currencies:

[At one time,] there were about 19,000 cryptocurrencies in existence. By the time you read these words, many of them will have failed. If you have heard of only one cryptocurrency, it is almost certainly Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a decentralized peer-to-peer network with no single clearinghouse and no equivalent to a central bank or money-issuing authority. Bitcoin the platform issues currency units called “bitcoins,” whose value is determined by supply and demand on several different exchanges. There is no single price of bitcoin. Demand is driven by its use in transactions. Supply is determined through “mining”: using computer processing power to solve increasingly complicated math problems. The inventors of Bitcoin have consistently maintained that there will be a finite supply of bitcoins, alleviating the danger of inflation and creating instead an intentionally deflationary system. All transactions are anonymous, and bitcoins are held in a digital “wallet.” A bitcoin spent in a transaction is really a unique code and a series of past transactions of that code in a kind of digital ledger, known as the blockchain. Imagine if every dollar you spend came with a list of every past transaction that dollar had been used in, thereby proving that you obtained it legally. It’s a way to verify transactions while preserving anonymity. Once a transaction happens, notice of it is sent to the entire Bitcoin network, and all the “miners” in the system race to verify the ledger of past transactions. If you win the verification race, you are awarded with new bitcoins.

He then gets into how problematic the crypto currency system happens to be, which is very.

As I said, if you don't like Fiat Currencies, you should avoid crypto like the plague. Fiat currencies at least have something backing them up. Crypto isn't even a commodity based currency, which also have their problems.

Crypto is the commidity.

And it's one that only exists in cyberspace.

It's unconstitutional if the rationale is based solely upon religious or ethical considerations

Big points to Judge Mitch Perry of the Jefferson County Circuit Court in Kentucky for doing what should be done in regard to this debate:

His July 22 ruling extended that order, saying there is “a substantial likelihood” that the new abortion ban violates “the rights to privacy and self-determination” protected by the state constitution, the Associated Press reported. 

But he also assumed that the laws are based on sectarian doctrine. 

“The General Assembly is not permitted to single out and endorse the doctrine of a favored faith for preferred treatment,” Perry wrote. “By taking this approach, the bans fail to account for the diverse religious views of many Kentuckians whose faith leads them to take very different views of when life begins.”

Perry said there is “nothing in our laws or history that allows for such theocratic based policymaking.”

 Exactly. The First Amendment, Freedom of Religion, and Separation of Church and State are based on the fact that a lot of early Americans came here for religious freedom. In other words, not to have the government, or anybody else, tell them how to practise their relgious beliefs.

This also gets down to what pro-choice means:

Don't have an abortion if you are against them, but don't tell someone else what to do with their body.

The founders were for a secular society because they didn't want a bunch of Catholics telling them What the Fuck to do in regard to religion. 

The Catholics on the Supreme Court should admit to that fact.

See also:

• Judge blocks abortion bans saying they are based on religious doctrine
  

You say you want a revolution????

I often note that the Declaration of Independence is a historic document, not a legal one, under the US Constitutional Framework. Per the US Constitution itself:

Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, mentions of inalienable rights, all men being created equal, and so forth really don't carry much legal weight.

That's because the Declaration of Independence was written as a justification for why the US should be independent from Britain. And in light of current events, it's full of bullshit.

Take, for example, these two complaints:

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

One of the main complaints of the people drafting this document was that the unelected, government in Britain was abrogating laws made by the colonial legislatures.

Or more concisely, unelected officials were taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws,

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

In short, the unelected officials wearing robes were destroying popularly enacted laws.

The gets to the topic of judicial deference, which also means that judges are umpires, not legislators.

There are reasons of public safety and good public policy WHY some laws should be on the books.

Also, there is the rule of law, which seems to have disappeared under the "conservative" atmosphere in the US.

On the other hand, the US was founded on the concept that unelected officials shouldn't be messing with laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

On the other hand, the tories pointed out that they would rather be ruled by one tyrant a thousand miles away than a thousand tyrants a mile away.

Oh, and since I mention the Second Amendment, these were complaints made by the colonists:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

Nothing about private arms.

What don't you understand about "Shall not be infringed?"

 What don't you get about taking shit out of context?????????

Seriously! If you are only going to look at a part of the Second Amendment, then why not just use the bit about domestic violence to make it a federal issue?

The Second Amendment was obsolete before the ink was dry on the Constitution,which if you clowns would know if you would actually do some serious research and look into the issue instead of taking shit out of context. Gun fetishists like to quote George Mason, Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention, who said:

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.

Now, if you read the entire statement from the transcript you see:

"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of people.... Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty."  3 Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution at 425-426. (J. Elliot ed., 1836).

Actually, people were getting out of serving in the militia during the War for Independence and it was a burden for the average person to have to serve. Look up the Morristown Rebellion by the Pennsylvania Line.

Anyway, Mason had a drastically different view of what exactly the Second Amendment was supposed to do and it wasn't to make sure that any dickhead who wanted to could walk down the street carrying a concealed weapon (BTW, carrying concealed weapons was considered something done by criminals, not respectable people in them days). Here is his proposal for the "right" from the above convention:

That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the Military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.

So, do me a favour, and unless you are actively suggesting a drastic reorganisation of the US military to be what Switzerland once had, please don't say you support the Second Amendment. Or as Joseph Story pointed out:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. ( Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833. Section 1890)

The Second Amendment fell victim to desuetude long ago.

OK, Feminists, now's your time!!!

 The word of the day is once again desuetude:

In law, desuetude is a doctrine that causes statutes, similar legislation, or legal principles to lapse and become unenforceable by a long habit of non-enforcement or lapse of time. It is what happens to laws that are not repealed when they become obsolete.

And it’s time the Supreme Court owned up that the Second Amendment has fallen victim to desuetude. It would be a truly conservative act to make that admission.  Here is Judge Robert Bork (The Tempting of America (1990)) on this issue:

“There is a problem with laws (which are not enforced). They are kept in the code books as precatory statements, affirmations of moral principle. It is quite arguable that this is an improper use of law, most particularly of criminal law, that statutes should not be on the books if no one intends to enforce them. It has been suggested that if anyone tried to enforce a law that had moldered in disuse for many years, the statute should be declared void by reason of desuetude or that the defendant should go free because the law had not provided fair warning.”

The Second Amendment relates to a framework of national defence which died out probably before the ink was dry on the Constitution, which is something I've gone into ad nauseum.

 But if the game of the day is to take obsolete sections of the US Constitution, I say let's take the domestic violence clause out and let it run havoc! Full text of Article IV, Section 4:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

Scalia demonstrated ignorance of the law when he said:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Actually, you dumbfuck, that is precisely what you should have done if you didn't want to make the US system of justice into a blatant joke (it already was a joke).

On the other hand, there are loads of domestic violence victims who could benefit by the reinterpretation of the Domestic violence clause.

And it's not even an amendment!

Let havoc reign in the halls of "justice"!

Putin is a definite narcissist.

Narcissists have a hard time admitting defeat or that they were wrong. Argue with my ex-wife is you don't believe me. Anyway, the drama seems to have toned down. So back to the Russian overt narc.

People are beginning to believe the Ukrainians when they releast the casualties and losses for the Russian army.

Ukrainian kids grow up hearing how their parents, grandparents, and Greatgrandparents fought the Germans and the Russians. It's the home of the partisan Otriads from Defiance. Of course, they are kicking Russian ass.

As for Nato expansion, all the former Eastern Block countries get it. The current spate of war crimes in Ukraine show why the West should have been doing all it could to supply the Ukrainians in the war to save their homeland.

Chernobyl is a good defence

 OK, getting back on my feet after leaving my narc wife, which is something that Doggone has been waiting for me to do for the last 12 years!

Anyway, I mentioned Chernobyl in a previous post. It seems that:

Several hundred Russian soldiers were forced to hastily withdraw from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine after suffering “acute radiation sickness” from contaminated soil, according to Ukrainian officials.

The Russians really effed this one! https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-troops-suffer-acute-radiation-sickness-after-digging-chernobyl-trenches