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

Parsing Politics

Do you take issue with “the 47 percent?” Is it wrong that you’ve been categorized and divided through politics? Have you finally had enough… or does it just depend who’s counting?

Anyone who understands America is divided about it’s economic policy should also recognize politicians have always counted voters according to income.  In fact, dividing voters is what politics are all about.  And, in 2012 it’s no different.

If anything, it’s worse!

Today Americans are counted, polled, and pandered to everywhere they go. They are broken down, folded up, repackaged, and quantified. Supercomputers are busy at this very moment crunching complex algorithms that factor your last trip through the grocery store.  Netflix is currently trying to figure out which movies you like to watch.  It happens all the time.

If it isn’t politicians counting you then it is Google. When Google isn’t counting, it’s Visa or Walmart.  As voting consumers there’s hardly any decision you make anymore that isn’t counted or “classified” by someone, or some thing. For Visa it’s about what you buy. For politicians it’s what you think. In the end, it’s all about putting the right things in front of you.

So take it!

Yet Obama would like us to believe he’s not about “that.” He said last week he “represents all Americans.” So does this mean he’s different?  Compared to who ……   Romney!?

Consider: in 2012 Democrats knew they were going to have a tough time keeping the White House if it meant a battle over the economy. They also knew they would likely not score well amongst small business owners, evangelicals, and “tea party districts.” Therefore, the “job” for Democrats this year was not to “worry about them.” They needed to focus on groups they could win.  And just like Romney, they classified America.

To do this Democrats would first need to convince voters jobs weren’t all that’s important in the upcoming election.  So, they rose up to defend all those suffering at the hands of Republicans.  If you belonged to a group that Republicans have “targeted” you may be in trouble.  If you belong to a “special interest” and think the election is about the economy, you should reconsider.

It seems here Democrats understood – on the economy there was wiggle room.  “Occupy Wall Street” would have “47 percent” of America setting the stage for them. All they needed to do was take their place on it, and declare “an unfair economy.”  Voters, in the meantime, would have to battle “straw men” out to take away their rights.

Following September 2011, with the GOP officially battling for a candidate, and their strategy in place on the economy, Democrats set out determining their coalitions. It’s not hard to imagine here “the cocktail napkin” as it slid across the table from Axelrod to our “Commander and Cheif.”  It would’ve looked something like this –

A) “War on Women” – Winter

B) “Obama is for Gays” – Spring

C) “Amnesty for Under 17” – Summer

D) “End work for Welfare” – Fall

Through a process of empty gestures and bizarre executive orders the Obama Administration would make some declaration regarding each of the above topics. In order to substantiate a fight, Axelrod and his surrogates then took each cause before the pulpit of Sunday morning’s most convincing news programs. Additionally celebrities along side Sandra Fluke would help carry their message to the DNC, while President Obama avoided “tougher” news forums and instead made his case to late night audiences, morning talk shows, and the reader’s of America’s most popular entertainment rags.

Where foreign policy is concerned, Democrats would remind us there is “no Usama” because there “is Obama.” Bill Clinton would also be counted on, in spite of his unambiguous criticisms of the President, to lend credibility during the Democratic National Convention.

Additionally, a third stimulus plan, or “QE3,” was determined best held off till late in the election, as a means for providing one last shot of adrenalin to the economy, and would act as a final line in the Democrats first draft of the campaign. Then they would then sit back and watch for an “unexpected opportunity,” while defining the GOP candidate through the most destructive narrative they could find.

By May of 2012 it was all but certain who the competition was, and as luck would have it “opportunity” struck. In Romney’s “47% video” Democrats had the perfect weapon. Any concern about the manner in which the video was obtained would be cosidered secondary, and all but  overlooked  in today’s media.  As an added sting, and to distance themselves from it, James Carter the 4th would surface the video; whose grandfather Jimmy Carter was being frequently compared by Republicans to Obama as America’s worst President.

The video was used with precision, same as the stimulus.

Stimulus QE3 2012– has been considered a potential strategy by economists advising the White House for over a year.  And while quantitative easing is expected to lower prices for credit  over the short term it has yet to do much for unemployment.  It is also considered by some economists to have serious potential as a catalyst for inflation in years to come. Furthermore, since QE3 was regarded an “all else fails” strategy by the White House, its implementation at this point defies White House’s claims of an improving economy, and is expected by some economists to have no effect at all.

Accept for politics; as a digital currency swap hoped to promote activity in markets before the election.

Summation: Considering the overall strategy here and the ethics required, one might think such a plan leaves “47 percent” of America feeling a bit insulted. However, it’s brilliance should not be overlooked. All is fair in love and war …… and that includes politics. And, so far the plan is working.

If the Romney campaign wishes to compete against such a plan they will have to find a better way of communicating their message. The strength of the their plan is in it’s details, something many of America’s late night television and morning talk show viewers are glad to overlook. Therefore, they must be more forceful with details and why it is better. And, they must be more diligent about responding to accusations made of Romney by Democrats and the media. Frankly, if the Romney campaign wishes to compete against Obama they may just have to get “more dirty.”

Maybe the debates can change that.

In the end, it’s easy to see how an analysis like this is “just one more conservative crying foul.”  And it is.  Honestly, I am as insulted by Romney’s remarks as anybody.  But not because of what he said. Rather, because he said it….. during a campaign!

Certainly, the one’s most upset by Romney’s “47 percent remark” are those counting on him to win the election and bring reform back to Washington.  Far as the left should be concerned, all he did here was a favor.  And, an ironic one at that.

However, if you really think Obama’s so different, or you don’t think any of this is that ironic, why take my word for it?  How about letting Obama explain for himself? The following link is the full audio from his October 19, 1998 speech at Loyola College. In it he can be heard quite clearly discussing the power of “political parsing.” He even gives a definition for his “47 percent.”

“47 percent?” …… he said, I just call them “a majority coalition of welfare recipients!”