SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: zax who wrote (857200)5/15/2015 7:29:09 AM
From: longnshort3 Recommendations

Recommended By
Brumar89
FJB
Jane4IceCream

  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 1576825
 
Professor Gruber was right about you libs you are economical morons



To: zax who wrote (857200)5/15/2015 8:03:59 AM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 1576825
 
Amtrack engineer had ranted online about safety problems

[ This is the opposite of the liberal spin. It took Congress to MAKE Amtrack take safety measures they should have made on their own long ago. Congress even set a deadline (eoy 2015) to make sure they'd do it. Man, Democrats are such despicable liars. ]

The Amtrak engineer at the controls during Tuesday’s deadly Philadelphia derailment — whose train inexplicably sped up to a 106 mph going into a sharp curve — had been ranting online for years about the perils of ­fatigued train ­operators.

“Everyone wants an extension to hours of service to avoid inconvenience, but what will you say when the crew that’s been on duty for longer than 12 hours accidentally falls asleep [ Wonder if the guy nodded off? ] and passes a stop signal and rear-ends a loaded hazmat train, killing dozens or hundreds of people?” wrote a online train-forum member who identified himself as Brandon Bostian in some posts.

Amtrak officials would not say what Bostian’s work shift was on Tuesday, when the New York City-bound train derailed just after 9 p.m.

With Bostian, 32, at the controls, the train accelerated from about 70 mph to more than 106 mph in a little over a minute shortly before the curve, sending the train cars careening off the rails and killing eight people and injuring more than 200, officials said Thursday.

“It shouldn’t take an act of Congress to get industry to adopt common-sense safety systems on their own,” Bostian wrote on Trainorders.com in response to the 2008 collision of a commuter and freight train in Los Angeles’ Chatsworth neighborhood.

“I am convinced that a late 1920s-era cab signal system (with speed enforcement, which admittedly is a newer technology that’s only about fifty or sixty years old) would have either completely prevented the Chatsworth disaster or, worst case, would have resulted in a slow-speed impact.”

Twenty-five people died in the Chatsworth crash.

Bostian also raged at rail officials who he believed neglected to implement lifesaving technology until politicians had forced their hand.

“At any point over the previous EIGHTY years the railroad could have voluntarily implemented some form of this technology on the line where the fateful wreck took place. But instead, it took an act of Congress to get them to do it,” a post reads.

He was referring to “positive train control” on the tracks, a system that might have slowed the speeding train but has not yet been implemented systemwide even with a congres­sional deadline approaching at the end of this year.

“I wish the railroads had been more proactive in adopting active signaling systems from the get-go,” another post reads. “The reality is that they have had nearly a hundred years for the opportunity to implement some sort of system to mitigate human error, but with a few notable exceptions have failed to do so.”

Bostian also said that talking about safety problems among colleagues was discouraged. Engineers were scolded when discussing violations over their ­radio, he said, because some feared they would be disciplined.

“When I first started training on the railroad, I naively asked a question about a grade crossing protect order over the radio,” he wrote.

“As it turns out, we WERE in the process of ‘cutting corners’ and were not in full compliance with the rule when I asked about it, so I got scolded for mentioning it on the radio. Some people, whether they are correct or not, are under the impression that managers hearing inter-crew communication on the radio will use that information to discipline the crew for technical rule violations.”

He also mentioned a culture of silence among railroad employees, and how the reluctance to speak up could deter progress.

“It’s undeniable that the railroad culture is to avoid admitting to potential (I’ll call them) ‘operating irregularities’ on the recorded radio channel,” he wrote.

“This reluctance to speak up about impending situations for fear of discipline is a major hindrance to effective crew communication and Crew Resource Management, IMHO [In my humble opinion].”

Meanwhile the death toll from the Amtrak wreck rose to eight when a cadaver dog found a body in the first car.

................
http://nypost.com/2015/05/14/amtrak-engineer-had-ranted-online-for-more-safeguards/



To: zax who wrote (857200)5/15/2015 8:41:16 AM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1576825
 
Schrödinger's Jihad

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog 18 Comments

The great paradox of the War on Terror is that we are fighting an enemy that doesn’t exist. We are told incessantly that there is no such thing as a Muslim terrorist.

There may be a tiny minority of violent extremists, but they are only a tiny minority of no importance whatsoever. And yet we’ve been at war with this same infinitesimally tiny minority for decades.

This tiny minority has killed thousands of Americans. It has the support of entire governments in tiny countries like Pakistan (182 million), Iran (77 million) and Syria (22 million). We are told that this tiny minority is no way representative of the world’s billion Muslims, and yet it’s hard to find a Muslim country that doesn’t support or harbor a terrorist group.

We were told that the problems was their governments, but the Arab Spring showed us that democratic elections lead to governments that are even more supportive of tiny minority of extremists who are somehow taking over entire countries.

Everything we’ve been told is obviously a lie. And the best evidence comes from the liars themselves.

The media is howling that a bunch of cartoonists in Texas were irresponsible for sketching Islam’s dead warlord because they should have known that Muslim terrorists would come to kill them for it. But if the media is right and Islam is a religion of peace, then why should they have anticipated a terrorist attack?

And if Islam isn’t a religion of peace, then the media has been irresponsibly lying to us and the cartoonists have been risking their lives to warn us of that lie.

The talking heads on the television insist that the cartoon contest was irresponsible because there were bound to be “some crazies” who would “take the bait”. But if Islam is no more violent than any other religion, shouldn’t it be just as statistically likely that some Christian or Jewish crazies would attack one of the art exhibits, plays or musicals ridiculing and blaspheming against their religions?

Weren’t museums and galleries exhibiting “works of art” like Piss Christ or Shekhina provoking and baiting those Jewish and Christian crazies? And since there are more Christians than Muslims in America, isn’t it statistically far more likely that there should have been far more Christian terror attacks targeting blasphemous exhibits?

[ If Christian "teahadis" are really just like like the Taliban like liberals say, this should be LESS likely to produce a mass murder attempt than this .

But we all know that's not true. There's never been a single mass murder attempt over Piss Christ, which the western liberal media have no compunction about displaying .... unlike the Muhammed cartoon above. Ergo, liberals are a bunch of big fat liars. ]


We can only conclude that there is a much higher proportion of “crazies” among Muslims than among Christians. How much higher? 78 percent of Americans identify as Christians. 0.6 percent claim to be Muslims. Only 0.3 percent appear to be Sunnis, who are responsible for ISIS and Al Qaeda attacks.

There is indeed a tiny minority of extremists in America. It’s known as Islam.

What keeps the lie alive is another paradox. Call it Schrödinger's Jihad. The more famous Schrödinger's Cat is a paradox in which a cat in a sealed box with poison that has a 50 percent chance of being released is in an indeterminate state. It is neither dead nor alive until someone opens the box.

In Schrödinger's Jihad, the Muslim terrorist is in an indeterminate state until some Western observer opens the box, collapses his wave function and radicalizes him. The two Muslim Jihadists were in an indeterminate state until Pamela Geller and Bosch Fawstin and the other “provocateurs” suddenly turned them into terrorists in a matter of days or weeks. It didn’t matter that Elton Simpson, one of the Garland terrorists, had already been dragged into court for trying to link up with Jihadists in Africa.

Every Muslim is and isn’t a terrorist. He is both a peaceful spiritual person who is eager to embrace our way of life and a violent killer who can be set off by the slightest offense. Like the cat in the box that is neither dead nor alive, he is both violent and peaceful, moderate and extremist, a solid citizen and a terrorist. He does not choose which of these to be or to become; we decide what he will be.

[ One of the cats in the box is Rat's Cat Stevens. He sang Peace Train so that proves he's a saint thinks Rat, but Rushdie or Gellar can transform him into a death for blasphemy theocrat by an insult. ]


The Jihadist paradox is that the Muslim terrorist is always defined by what we do, not by what he does.


Islamic terrorism does not exist independently of the Western observer. It is not a Jihad with deep historical and theological roots within Islam, but a reaction to our interactions with Muslims.

Obama insists that talking about Islamic terrorism ‘summons’ them into being. By admitting the existence of Islamic terrorists, we ‘radicalize’ Muslims. Even the words ‘Islamic terrorism’ creates Islamic terrorists who otherwise wouldn’t exist.

The real threat is not from the terrorists, it’s from the truth.

When we tell the truth, people die. The truth turns Muslims into terrorists while the lies soothe them back into non-existence. Underneath all the academic terminology is the dream logic of wishful thinking. If we believe that Islam is a religion of peace, it will be a peaceful religion, and if we accept the reality that it’s violent, then it will become violent. Islam does not define itself. We define it however we want. Our entire counterterrorism policy is based around the perverse ostrich belief that Islamic terrorism is a problem that we create by recognizing its existence. If we ignore it, it will go away.

The lies about Islam are sustained by a deep conviction among liberals that the “Other” minorities are not real people with real beliefs and cultures, but victims in a game of power played out in the West. Islamic terrorism, like gay marriage or Global Warming, is just another step in the progressive pilgrim’s progress. It’s a problem that we caused and need to atone for in our cosmic karmic journey.

Westerners are privileged observers who have power while those minorities they observe do not. The duel between the Western left and right is taking place outside the box to determine what will be in the box once it’s forced open, while the oppressed minorities are in a state of indeterminacy in the box.

The Schrödinger's Jihad paradox has many other adjoining boxes. Some are filled with dictators and criminals. If the progressive observer can open the box and find the root cause, out comes a good person; if the right opens the box, then out will march the terrorists, drug dealers and warlords.

The other side of the rhetoric about oppression and colonization, of punching up and punching down is the conviction that those at the bottom do not have free will or agency. If the mugger chooses to mug, rather than being driven to it by poverty, if Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union gleefully chose conquest instead of being forced to it by Western imperialism, and if the Muslim terrorist is not a helpless victim, but an abuser, then the moral imperative of the left’s worldview collapses in a heap.

If Muslims are real people who are at least as capable of imperialism, racism, slavery and destroying the planet as any Westerner, and who have been doing all of these things a lot longer, then leftists would have to accept that they are tearing down the most progressive civilization on the planet on behalf of ridiculously reactionary civilizations. Not only would they no longer be the privileged observers in control of the future, but they would have to see themselves as destroyers of what is left of the future.

The left refuses to blame Islam or Muslims because that would mean admitting that they are people.

Schrödinger's Jihad is a child’s toy box for overgrown children who view Muslims as social justice dolls and terrorist action figures instead of people as flawed and complicated as they are. The left refuses to take Islamic theology seriously because it is incapable of understanding different points of view.

It approaches Islam as a race, rather than a religion, because it refuses to delve into what its beliefs are. Instead it chooses to see Muslims as blank slates to be filled with its ideology, as indeterminate patterns that can be reshaped into whatever they want them to be. It does not want to know what it says in the Koran, because that ruins its wonderful fantasy of Muslims as an oppressed race, rather than a creed.

Lies that are based on what we want to be true are the hardest to disprove. A lie that is tied into identity cannot be touched without destroying the entire identity of an individual or a movement.

The lies about Islam run into the heart of what the left is. To the left, everything is indeterminate and everything can be reshaped. Existence flows from power and power is pitted against progress. By destroying that which exists, they can bring their dreams to life. The dream is stronger than reality.

The left doesn’t really believe that Muslim terrorists exist except when we bring them to life. The real animating force behind Al Qaeda was George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. The true power behind ISIS is Pamela Geller or the Pentagon. The Westerner opens the box and the Muslim terrorist comes out. When Western civilization as we know it is destroyed, then the left believes Muslim terrorism will end. Kill the observer and the cat never existed. Destroy the dreamer and the nightmare dies with him.

The truth is more dangerous than the terrorists. Terrorists can kill the body, but truth can kill the dream.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2015/05/schrodingers-jihad.html



To: zax who wrote (857200)5/15/2015 8:43:51 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576825
 
Which has nothing to do with a financial crisis and recession during Bush's presidency right?

2.4% growth is ok for normal growth, but its weak during a recovery.

As for deficit to GDP, look over the whole terms. Obama's is much worse.



To: zax who wrote (857200)5/15/2015 8:45:21 AM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1576825
 
Boeing Shareholder Challenges Ethics of Company’s Relationship to Clintons

Boeing contributed $900,000 to Clinton Foundation, paid $250,000 for Bill Clinton speech

America’s largest airplane manufacturer Boeing is closely aligned with Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Boeing shareholders are now confronting company management about whether the relationship between Boeing, the Clinton Foundation, and the State Department under Hillary Clinton violated ethics rules, according to Fox News.

As secretary of state, Clinton had a beneficial relationship with Boeing. In 2009, she openly made “ a shameless pitch” to a Russian airline to purchase Boeing aircrafts, leading to an eventual $3.7 billion deal for Boeing. Two months after the deal, the Clinton Foundation received a $900,000 donation from Boeing. Two years later, Boeing also paid Bill Clinton $250,000 to deliver a speech.

[ I think it's okay for the State Dept to push products of American companies like Boeing, but for Boeing to bribe them to do it is another thing. ]

The chief lobbyist for Boeing, former Bill Clinton aide Tim Keating, also held a major fundraiser for Ready for Hillary Super PAC in 2014.

Fox News reports that Boeing shareholder David Almasi is challenging the company’s CEO on its relationship with the Clintons.

This chain of events is raising new questions for Clinton, and Boeing, as the former secretary of state launches her 2016 presidential campaign. The Boeing deal only adds to a growing list of business deals involving Clinton Foundation donors now coming under scrutiny.

Boeing shareholder David Almasi recently confronted CEO James McNerney about the ethics of it.

“That opens the door to charges of honest services fraud, that there was a quid pro quo between the Clinton Foundation, the State Department and Boeing,” Almasi said.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/boeing-shareholder-challenges-ethics-of-companys-relationship-to-clintons/




To: zax who wrote (857200)5/15/2015 9:12:01 AM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
TideGlider

  Respond to of 1576825
 
... why should businessmen, journalists, lobbyists and politicians who commute between Washington and points north have their travel costs subsidized by taxpayers? Train travel costs what it costs. Those who ride the trains should pay those costs, just like those who fly in airplanes. It is absurd that the richest and most powerful companies in the United States have their employees’ travel costs subsidized by you and me. This is cronyism at its worst. Amtrak should be a wholly private enterprise. Having ridden that Northeastern line that goes to Washington a number of times, I think it has great advantages over air travel and could easily charge enough money to be profitable in competent hands.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/where-you-see-tragedy-liberals-see-opportunity.php



To: zax who wrote (857200)5/15/2015 9:12:37 AM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
TideGlider

  Respond to of 1576825
 
ABC and Stephanopoulos ‘Make Brian Williams Look Like An Eagle Scout’

May 14th, 2015 - 12:07 pm

And now the amount of Stephanopoulos’ donation to the Clinton slush fund rises to $75,000. As John Nolte wrote earlier today at Big Journalism before that latest (bench-made bespoke John Lobb) shoe dropped, the news today regarding Stephanopoulos is worse than the Walter Mitty-style fantasies of Brian Williams:

The scandals that derailed the career of NBC News anchor Brian Williams are of the pathetic and pathological kind. Obviously, Williams is not to be trusted. Nevertheless, other than the Katrina fairytales that were obviously meant to damage President Bush, all of his lies were self-aggrandizing resume-enhancers. What ABC News and their chief political correspondent George Stephanopoulos are guilty of makes Williams and NBC News look like freshly-scrubbed Eagle Scouts.

With his $50,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation, and the decision not to reveal that donation to their viewers while reporting on various Clinton Foundation scandals, George Stephanopoulos and ABC News not only have a very personal conflict-of-interest with what is now the biggest story in the 2016 presidential race, they actively covered it up.

Without once informing its viewers that their anchorman’s personal $50,000 investment in the Clinton Foundation, ABC News serially-trotted Stephanopoulos out as an objective, unbiased reporter and analyst on the subject.

Worse still…

And after being caught, just like a sleazy and corrupt politician, ABC News ran to the left-wing Politico to dishonestly make it look as though they were being pro-active. Despite Politico agreeing to play along with dishonest headlines like this, ABC News and Stephanopoulos did not come forward to “disclose” his contribution. He and ABC News were caught by the Washington Free Beacon, and only then ran to a Politico that was obviously willing to play along. .

Quoting from the Politico, Ed Morrissey notes that Stephanopoulos will recuse himself from ABC’s GOP debate but not from continuing to run interference for his former boss covering the presidential campaign:

The “Good Morning America” co-anchor and host of “This Week” said that he would not moderate ABC’s GOP debate, which is scheduled to take place in February in New Hampshire. Republican Sen. Rand Paul said Thursday that Stephanopoulos should be prohibited from moderating any debates during the 2016 presidential campaign.

“I won’t moderate that debate,” Stephanopoulos said. “I think I’ve shown that I can moderate debates fairly*. That said, I know there have been questions made about moderating debates this year. I want to be sure I don’t deprive viewers of a good debate.”

But Stephanopoulos said that he would not recuse himself from coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign, despite urging from the office of Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, which said Thursday that Sen. Lee would be advised not to go on “This Week” unless the host “recuses himself from all 2016 coverage.”

To bring this post full circle, I’d like to think that we’ve entered the Brian Williams exit game phase of Stephanopoulos’ broadcast career with ABC, but that would involve both ABC understanding the severity of his bias and and the GOP, beyond Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul, willing to play hardball, both of which seem like fantasies at the moment. But as with Williams, drip..drip…drip…

* Half the country replies, “I think not, champ.”

Exit “Quote:”


jimgeraghty

? @jimgeraghty


"Man, Stephanopolous is a jackass."

Update: “‘Clinton Cash’ Author Slams Stephanopoulos, ABC News for ‘Massive Breach of Ethical Standards,’” Bloomberg reports:

When Peter Schweizer appeared on This Week on April 26 to promote his new book about the Clintons, he got a skeptical grilling from host George Stephanopoulos. One subject that wasn’t raised? The fact that Stephanopoulous has personally contributed $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, as Politico reported Thursday morning.

With the ABC host’s donations suddenly in the spotlight, Schweizer feels he got burned. “Really quite stunned by this,” he said in an e-mail. It’s “a massive breach of ethical standards. He fairly noted my four months working as a speech writer for George W. Bush. But he didn’t disclose this?”

Evidently not. In a statement, Stephanopoulos apologized. An ABC News spokesman told Politico reporter Dylan Byers the network would not take punitive action against its star host: “We accept his apology. It was an honest mistake.”

As honest as anything ever said by a former and current Clinton surrogate.

Update: “Flashback 1996: Why ABC shouldn’t hire Stephanopoulos,” from Byron York of the Washington Examiner, digging out his old reporter’s notebook today. I don’t think anybody would have had a problem if ABC had hired Stephanopoulos to be their inside baseball political commentator, like his Clinton colleague James Carville, or Karl Rove. But as York writes, it only took ABC a few years after hiring Stephanopoulos before they allowed him to pose as an “unbiased” anchorman and debate moderator.

By the way, add Ted Cruz to the growing chorus of GOP heavyweights who are saying “enough” to ABC

Read more: http://pjmedia.com#ixzz3aDDxd45c



To: zax who wrote (857200)5/15/2015 9:17:44 AM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
TideGlider

  Respond to of 1576825
 
FDA propose to lift ban on blood donation for gay, bisexual men

medicalnewstoday.com



To: zax who wrote (857200)5/15/2015 9:26:37 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576825
 
China’s Attack on Religious Liberty: A Model for Progressives?

by Ed Whelan May 14, 2015 10:55 AM

The Washington Post reported last week that “Chinese authorities have ordered Muslim shopkeepers and restaurant owners in its troubled Xinjiang region to sell alcohol and cigarettes, and promote them in ‘eye-catching displays,’ in an attempt to undermine Islam’s hold on local residents.” According to the order, anyone who fails to comply with it “will see their shops sealed off, their businesses suspended, and legal action pursued against them.”

Hmmm, sound familiar? This order, to be sure, is just one part of the aggressive campaign that China has launched against Islam. But it very much resembles the progressive effort in this country to dragoon religious believers to provide their services for ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs about what marriage is. It also calls to mind, as law professor (and Becket Fund attorney) Mark Rienzi points out in this USA Today op-ed, the HHS contraceptive mandate that the Obama administration tried to impose on employers with religious objections to facilitating contraception and/or abortifacients—and that, in the form of the so-called “accommodation,” it is still trying to impose on the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious ministries. As Rienzi observes, when other means of providing the objected-to services are widely available, a “dogged insistence” on forcing religious believers to violate their beliefs “is no better than China bullying Muslims to sell alcohol: an effort to weaken a religious belief that the government dislikes.” Such an assault on religious liberty is something that all Americans should oppose.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/418382/chinas-attack-religious-liberty-model-progressives-ed-whelan

While I have lots of problems with Islam, their ban on alcohol isn't one of them. Similarly, I don't care about their dietary laws, fasts, etc. It's only the violence and mistreatment of women that bother me.