When It’s Gotta Be Bengazi, It’s Gotta Be Beacon!

“Benghazi” giving you headaches?  Does it seem sometimes all that stands between you and the White House is a 3rd world Country? 

At Beacon Global Strategies we get it, some days the whole world can look like “Benghazi.”  The last thing you’ll need in a campaign for President is a bunch of Americans who want the truth.  

Yes, in a 24 hour news cycle people need a think tank that can REALLY spin.  Beacon Global knows lying to America can be tricky.  Don’t go wandering the aisles, looking for support.  Just look to Beacon, and FIND your solution!

Beacon is a “one stop shopping source” for all matters “Benghazi.”  Republicans at the door, no PROBLEM.  We send anonymous tweets from IssaBLOWs@twitter.  We’ve got Mike Rogers meddling in his own committee. Heck, we even slash TIRES too!

Beacon Global’s poll tested narratives will keep EVERYBODY guessing.  We’ve got teams dedicated around the clock – to McCain, Graham, and Ayote.  Simply put, we CAN’T be beat.  Beacon Global Strategies  IS the best “Benghazi” solution around.   

– You’ll get started with –

“We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American Embassies over an awful internet video”

Afterward you can promise, “To get the guy who made that video”

– Follow up with a sympathetic gesture –

Like, “With all due respect, the fact is, we have four dead Americans!”

–  And nothing beats a good fist on the table –

Show a little defiance with, “What difference at this point does it make?”

In 2 years, we can promise to have America eating right from your hand.  And, forget about those Select Committees!

That’s right, we bought Mike Morell TOO!  Worst comes to worse, he’s PROMISED to take the fall! 

 

When It’s Gotta Be Benghazi, It’s Gotta Be Beacon!

(Now go run for President, and make us proud)

Advertisements

Climate Cargo Cult

The discussion of Cargo Cult Science reminds me of something Dr. Dean Edell once said, about how medical research can sometimes misinform culture.  As an example, he referred to alcohol and its effects on unborn children, and how much of what we think we “know” about this results from studies never fully explained by science.

It is true, Edell said, women who drink during pregnancy tend to have greater risk for birth defects.  However, he added their may be many contributing factors, any of which might not result from moderate alcohol consumption – women who drink often smoke or choose poor diets, may be vitamin deficient, or suffer from emotional trauma or depression.  And, a person’s choice to drink often reflects behavior in other areas of life, things which could also contribute to the poor health of an unborn child (FAS not withstanding).

Information about second-hand smoke has been treated much the same way in the United States.  With help from the anti-smoking lobby, studies on the subject have been widely distorted, resulting in many misconceptions throughout the culture.

Examples like these should be cause for people to question the role science can sometimes play in their daily life, especially as it pertains to agenda.  In fact, these practices have been shown to have dangerous effects.

For instance, it is accepted in medical research that erroneous results are often provided in peer review literature; overlooking or withholding certain information, which leaves doctors disadvantaged making critical health decisions.

In some cases this is done by accident, where the science is poor or researchers jump to conclusions.  In other situations – the more cynical moments – science is skewed to achieve notoriety, maintain research grants, or increase profit margins.

Dr. Richard Feynmanhits the nail on the head

1974 Caltech ” Cargo Cult Science speech

Listening to Feynman speak, one imagines he would consider feeding code into computer models – designed to establish a “pre-assigned expectation” – just another form of “Cargo Cult Science” (like Milliken’s values for viscosity of air, bad info in = bad info out).  Or, when “peer accepted” climatologists attempt to discredit a fellow PhD for “peer dissent,” it equals nothing short of censorship.

Interesting to note here – is how a convention like TED (a forum rife with theory) makes room to argue the disastrous state of  “peer review,” as it relates to medicine, but has yet to invite or post discussions held with any leading scientist who disagrees with, and can speak objectively, and non-politically, about theories involving “anthropogenic global climate change” – such as Henrik SvensmarkRichard Lindzen, Lennart BengtssonRobert M. Carter, Ross McKitrickNir Shaviv, …… and the list goes on.

For those who don’t know already, Dr. Feynman was one of the more brilliant scholars the last century produced – a physicist, and mathematician.  As a contributor to The Manhattan project and NASA’s shuttle program, he did not live to see today’s hyperbole surrounding “anthropogenic global climate change.”  Though if he had, it would be interesting to hear what he would say.

He did leave us with much great insight about the scientific process however, and about scientists themselves.  He spoke often of the need for rigorous integrity in the sciences, teaching his students –

Mother nature is what she is, whether we understand it, approve of it, or want it. He told students to beware of experts, especially those who tout their expertise. He insisted that true scientists are always humble in the face of awesome ignorance, and that even the most knowledgeable people should bear this. He also said that every great truth is immersed in uncertainty.  

Looking at the state of science and culture today, it seems Feynman’s rigor is something  “die-hard-climate-changers” rather not notice.   As they rally for legislation which threatens the world economy; they would further disadvantage the poor, and use tactics not so dissimilar to that of BigPharm or BigTobacco – veritably converse to Feynman’s consultation; they patronize the layman, protect their income and political influence, and prefer to ostracize those results and peers which don’t suit them.

Thankfully, the public seems to be catching on. The 2009 Climategate emails suggest a serious lack of integrity exists among some of today’s most influential climatologists.  It is unknown whether global temperature fluctuations the last 100 years are a creation of man, or just mother nature changing her mind.  Carbon levels are up, but as to what effect it is having on climate, science is still unclear.

Those who insist otherwise have not been honest with the evidence –  “building runways to nowhere, and waiting for planes” – another member of the “Climate Cargo Cult.”

Continue reading

Naked Emperors

Fascinating to think how few of us test the limits of perspective.   Our lives get full, leaving little time to consider an existence absent “our paradigms.”

So we take it for granted, these things, what we “know,” and what the world would look like without them.  Day to day we ramble on – earning a living, spellbound by TV’s and smartphones, kissing our loved ones good night, and planning for tomorrow.  Too often we accept what we are told, or that there is so much we will never know.  And, sadly it seems, for many this goes by without ever really knowing “our self.”

Overwhelmed by all that we see, we overlook that which made us.

So what if we were to stop for a moment, and sense the adrenaline – peering thru eyes of the “Shahidka black widow,” or feel showers falling thru trees as we blow dart our next meal from the rain forest canopy?  How would these things inform us?

It’s so different here, standing at the check out line, safe within our nation’s walls, learned what things “this history” has taught us.  Surely it is worth that each of us should try and imagine our world having removed the familiar filters.

To regularly reexamine what it is “to know” (something), for what or for why we believe this information, and to consider one individual experience next to the other –  that somehow, this is what it means to know ourselves – to see the emperor naked in it’s truest sense – “our paradigm.”

As with anything, it is relative. What can we “know” that isn’t first rendered by our prejudices and “experience?” To inquire is simply to ask, “who am I?” And, to wonder is to question “how did all this make me? ”

Certainly, we are the product our own choices. But what can be said for sure about those matters we decide on, and from where it came? By whom and by which culture have we been taught, and in each case what did we take from the lessons?

It is therefore, much of who we are as “thinking beings” will be out of our control.  And, if we wish to “know ourselves” in spite of this, we have no choice but to ask these questions.

“Uncommon Knowledge”

Viewing our world objectively, with David Berlinski

Step Outside the Moral Matrix: Understanding Moral Diversity

“If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between “for” and “against” is the minds worst disease.”

Sen-ts’an,  c.  700 C.E.

   Understanding Liberal and Conservative Values

 

“The restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights.”

Edmund Burke, 1790

Seriously, …. Who Farted!?

Well, it looks though there is mixed reaction among Independent voters to last night’s Vice Presidential debate. And for anyone who watched it’s no surprise.

But it is unfortunate….

Because without a doubt, if you had heard it on the radio you were sure Joe Biden won.  And yet, for those watching on TV it was something else, more a cruel reminder how ridiculous American politics have become.

There was style seen in last night’s debate, for sure.  At times there even appeared to be substance. Excuses came from both sides, depending on the topic.  But when the message mattered most, and viewers needed details, it seemed facts went missing; befogged in buffoonery, as though lost in a cloud only “good ole Joe Biden” could have made.

Yes, “good ole Joe” did all but lean left, frizz his face, and fart, to take away attentions from Paul Ryan last night (okay, make me proud Sedakis).  And surely, where hardcore Democrats are concerned he did some good. 

As expected, Joe came out fighting for the showdown in Danville.  He was well prepared and his experience showed, proving nimble and knowledgeable with the questions. Most importantly, Biden managed to stick several blows in the Kentucky debate, necessary for inspiring disheartened Democrats let down after Obama’s performance last week.  “Good ole Joe” even looked to the camera, and called on America several times asking, “who you gunna trust,” …. us, or them?

Nevertheless, for all his apparent success, it was Biden’s frequent condescending laughs, snorts, and grunts, which left many viewers dismayed.  In fact, he was counted having interrupted Paul Ryan some 82 times during the 90 minute debate; prompting many pundits to declare “it was the rudest debate performance ever seen.” And while Biden did manage to muzzle much of what Ryan had to say, one has to wonder if attempting to conjure a Ritalin-readied Lloyd Bentsen was really the best approach.

Afterward, more than a few liberals said they felt Biden’s antics probably worked against him.  Tom Brokaw added to this, saying he did not understand why someone would laugh while talking about    “a nuclear Iran.”

In spite of his apparent knowledge, it may be Joe’s performance worked against him with younger voters as well; appearing to be an aging patriarch, whose time has come; unable to accept wisdom from a younger generation, he swats at their ideas as though the facts are beyond them.

Yet it was “the facts” viewers at home so desperately needed.  And it was learned voters who understood too well just what they had seen.

Also not to be overlooked, is the way this debate appeared to female voters.  Women often find braggadocios or aggressive men to be a turn off.  And, while Biden’s behavior last night could be excused by some female Democrats as “necessary,” given the stakes,  it may  also  have  struck female Republican’s and Independent’s as being obnoxious, and obscene.

On the other hand, there was Paul Ryan.  He also did as expected last night.  Ryan showed up prepared, and was polite.  He was focused and knowledgeable. Many hacks had high hopes for his primetime debut; to be a “wonky-information-super-fest-full-of facts-and-figures.”   But the format of this debate  and circumstances  did not allow it.

At times last night Ryan even appeared to be getting shoved around, if not by his opponent then the moderator.  As a result, his inexperience showed.  It’s true he can explain facts & figures well to those who will listen, or can hear him.  But Democrats were counting on Joe last night, and he made sure there’ll be none of that.

In the end, most on the left will see last night’s debate as a win for Democrats.  Republicans will also declare themselves the winner; having achieved in Ryan, a polite, likeable, and knowledgeable alternative, for all America to see.  And, as snap polls show undecided voters remain, as always, “undecided” on this,  each camp can head back to their corners with heads held high, in anticipation of the next debate.

That’s right folks… it’s a tie!

Unless you count the American voter that is, who’s search for details in this debate were not made easy. They could look left for their answers, or right.  But when the facts emerged, they quickly were purged ……. by “good ole Joe” ….. and the “cloud” left there on the stage.