Skip to main content

Check Your Settings


Check Your New Privacy Settings.
Face it. Keeping your privacy these days is not automatic. You must be an activist even to keep your buying transactions personal. You know your credit rating is easily determined by almost anyone. You accept Amazon knows what you’re buying.  But did you know that another site, VENMO.COM, knows this as well and sells the info.  Cash may make a comeback.

Check Your New Political Settings. 
Democrat? Republican?  No, no, no.  You must decide whether you are a tea-party Republican, establishment Republican, Trump Republican, moderate Democrat, socialist Democrat, leftist Democrat, Pelosi loyalist, and on and on – and on.  Even if you claim the mantel of “independent,” you must decide your type, moderate, left leaning, right leaning, and more. I’m sure we may find out there a few thousand Marxist independents, i.e. Marxists who revile the Democrats.  What to do? 

Check Your Toast Settings.
It is almost certain that attorney Michael Cohen has achieved the status of Stormy Daniels, someone to be trotted out from time-to-time, but who has no future with the Dems, CNN, FOX, etc.  He will be used for a while and then dumped. 

Stormy can always resume her career, as for example a stripper-at-the-home, but what can a lawyer do who violates his client’s trust. Gone is Mike. In two years time, we will have trouble recalling his name. 

The New Toast Squad:
Michael Cohen
James Comey
Roy Moore
Harvey Weinstein
Al Franken
Paul Manafort
Others:
Hillary Clinton has become a National Wart.  Compound W does not work.

Check Your Trade Settings.
Do you support or reject free trade, fair trade, balanced trade, NAFTA trade, TPP trade, or globalist trade?  Do you support or reject IP theft threats, tariff threats, agroecologist threats, or terrorist threats.  All impact Y-O-U and how all trade is transacted. Can you choose? Or is choice even relevant?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view