Sunday, September 23, 2007

Three Curiosities You May Have Missed

First Curiousity ...
President Hugo Chavez wants Venezuelan clocks turned back half an hour and he wants it done in record time -- next Monday. source (hat tip to Eagle1)
What you probably missed about this change: At 3:00 PM, for example, in the old Venezuelan time zone it would also have been 3:00 PM in Washington, D.C., when it would have beeen 10:30 PM in the Islamic Republic of Iran (Tehran) .

From now on, when it is 3:00 PM in Caracas and 11:00 PM in the Islamic Republic of Iran (Tehran), its going to be 3:30 PM in Washington, D.C. As I said, it is curious. 2nd news source and here is a handy time calculator for your ongoing convenience.

...UPDATE CARACAS, Venezuela Sep 28, 2007 (AP)
Iran Strengthens Ties With South America
Ahmadinejad Cements Ties With Venezuela President Chavez, Declares 'No One Can Defeat Us'
Chavez greeted the Iranian leader warmly on a red carpet in front of the presidential palace, where they both stood before microphones and let loose with rhetoric challenging Washington.

Second Curiousity ...
The following (2) stories share the same underlying, statistical flaw, yet both produce the same preposterous, politically-inspired perception of viability:

Zogby: Congress Gets Just 11% Approval, Lowest Ever : "A paltry 11 percent rated Congress positively, beating the previous low of 14 percent in July. "
This is just hype. Why? Because approval polling had not begun before Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Congressional approval rating records were nonexistent prior to 1974. Viability: Do any of the presidential candidates who are current members of this same unpopular congress have a snowball's chance of winning the 2008 electiont? Biden (no), Brownback (no), Clinton (yes), Dodd (no), Edwards (no), Gravel (no), Hunter (no), Kucinich (no), Obama (no), McC'aint (no), Paul (no), Tancredo (no)? The answers are largely "No", but our mainstream media and national party organizations pursue the myth that it is "Yes".

Now consider a similar application of incomplete statistics:
Scientists this year issued a grim warning, saying that climate change is already on the march and is bound to worsen this century, heightening the risk of hunger, drought, flood and violent storms. source
Definition: Global Warming – gradual rise in the average surface temperatures of the oceans, earth and air to higher levels than ever before recorded.
FACTS: Daily temperature records were not maintained regularly before 1895. Reliable measurement and recording were still not available in most of the world until much later. See, while the actual record is limited at best to only the most recent 112 years, our mainstream media, congress and grant-grubbing scientists tells us that "Yes", global warming (or climate change) is viable. With little more than 100 years of temperature data and all of that during only the current, 12,000-year warm period between ice ages, scare mongers would have us believe that they can forecast global conditions for the next hundred years. How arrogant! If your favorite scientist had details of only yesterday’s global temperature record, how accurate would his/her forecasts of a record high temperature be for tomorrow? less than 1/100 of 1 % (Answer: Statistically irrelevant)

Third Curiousity ...
How one prediction leads logically to another:
Remember the The Move On Dot Organization Chart (cartoon)? I don't know how you feel about it. But it was published before the senate resolution. Some of the Bradz readers did not like it and tried to excuse the New York Times. The chief Bradz himself said, "...your radical political views seem to have led to a difficult relationship with either facts or research on this blog."

A minor controversy then ensued wherein I predicted "... be aware of the awful, longer term, progressive strategy that the Bradz are attempting to bring into being. Their aim (the DNC's aim) is for anyone who walks into a public library, school or public building to vote online, right there, as often as they like."

Guess what happened next (in addition to head Bradz's ad hominen attacks on Vigilis)?
The head Bradz commented, "Internet Voting would the most asinine, ridiculous, democracy-undercutting scheme every to be introduced to America. I've been critical of the DNC (to the their faces, at their '06 Chicago summer meeting) about their moves in this direction, as well as privately to their Voting Rights Institute."

To which Vigilis replied, "... denial of adopting the Dem party's ideal of online voting (and, of course, the attendant, rampant voter fraud) is now bronzed for posterity. Be assured it will be resurrected at the appropriate moment..."

Now, the necessary 2nd prediction: In order for head Bradz to be of continued use to the DNC machine he serves with my bronzed sword of Damocles hanging over his head, he will have to give up Bradz blog before the DNC assigns him water-carrying for their online voter movement. When will that be? When is any really bad idea attempted? When it offers political gain and job security to lawyers. Remember Hillary's "Health Care" during Bill's Reign?

Very curious. Who said "perception is reality"? Fooling all of the people all of the time is even beyond irresponsible bloggers.



At 24 September, 2007 16:57, Blogger BradF said...

As your blog seems to have no readers, this is likely a waste of time anyway, but I'll play along just one more time.

You seem to have as much trouble with timelines, as you do facts.

For a start, the comment that you incorrectly characterized as leading to a "controversy [which] then ensued" was made after your imagined controversial post (It wasn't controversial, it was just wholly wrong).

In fact, all of the comments on your knee-jerk MoveOn post were posted here only after I highlighted your obscure blog from The BRAD BLOG

(You're welcome, btw. Especially since linking to your blog is more than you were able to do when you foolishly embarrassed yourself by incorrectly characterizing mine.)

Further, your clearly very-active imagination then characterized my long ago made complete and unequivocal rejection of Internet Voting (and the DNC's interest therein) as if I had fallen into some super-secret trap set by the anonymous and cowardly blogger calling him or herself Vigilis.

To help you out, I pointed, with link to a post I'd made, in August of 2006, -- one very critical of the DNC, as with many of my posts -- called "DYSFUNCTION AT THE DNC" in which I characterized Internet Voting as follows:


Far more troubling for the moment, however, was a line included with the above recommendation for "Internet Voting on Inter-Party Elections." Say what?!!!

Yup, that's what they said, I believe. I have no idea if that currently refers to Democratic primaries, party caucus votes, or what. I hope to find out more in the future, but either way, I'd say that item was damned troubling no matter what it referred to. Whether primaries or caucus votes, knowing how easy it is to hack things on the Internet, it would seem that moving towards such voting is exactly the sort of thing these guys ought to be fighting to move away from! Are they out of their minds? Maybe.


Of course, it's highly possible that your clever scheme to hang your imaginary "bronzed source of Damocles" over my head could have cleverly been placed ahead of my statement from a year ago, due to your ability to slip the surly bonds of the time/space continuum, and launch yourself back in time to July of 2006, before I publicly condemned Internet Voting.

All of which would make as much sense as your unfounded, silly pronouncements, lacking entirely in evidence, merit or even (to quote you) "slightest citation of facts".

By all means, do NOT post a RETRACTION or APOLOGY for your original, entirely wrong allegations, as that would require you to admit that your original post was precisely the sort of cowardly "propaganda" you accused me (and others, incorrectly described as "leftist") of carrying out.

Instead of being a man and doing the right thing (as I would do, if I'd gotten something so horribly wrong on my blog), you'll just change the topic and come up with your next imaginary charge. Without evidence or merit to back it up, of course.

Color me unimpressed, Cap'n Vigi.

Whenever you wish to return to the Real World, I'm sure we'll be happy to welcome you back. Until then, stay away from sharp objects, chief.


Post a Comment

<< Home