text:
\section*{Supporting Online Material}\vspace*{1em}

\subsection*{Materials and Methods: Fermi-LAT Data Analysis}\vspace*{1em}

\begin{multicols}{2}
\noindent\textbf{LAT data selection}\\
The LAT surveys the entire sky every 3 hours (two orbits). In this work,
we used data taken in this sky-survey mode between 4 August 2008 and 10 July 2012.
The data were processed using the Fermi
Science Tools\footnote{http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/analysis/scitools/overview.html}
(v9r28p0). We selected gamma-ray photons belonging to the ``Source'' class under the P7V6
event selections. Photons with reconstructed zenith angles larger than $100^\circ$
were rejected in order to exclude the bright contribution from the Earth's limb.
We also rejected photons recorded when the instrument was not operating in sky-survey mode,
or when its rocking angle exceeded $52^\circ$. Finally, we selected only photons
with energies $> 0.1$ GeV and found within $15^\circ$ of the direction of the pulsar.\\[-1em]

\noindent\textbf{LAT data spectral analysis}\\
We determined the gamma-ray spectral properties of PSR~J1311$-$3430{} by performing a binned likelihood
analysis of this data set, using the \texttt{pyLikelihood} tool. The Galactic diffuse emission
was modeled using the \textit{gll\_iem\_v02} map cube,
and the extragalactic emission and the residual instrumental backgrounds were
modeled jointly using the \textit{iso\_p7v6source} template\footnote{
http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/access/lat/BackgroundModels.html}. The
spectral model used in this analysis also included the contributions of 2FGL
sources \cite{FermiSecondSourceCatalog} within $20^\circ$ of the center
of the field of view, and the contribution from the pulsar was modeled
using an exponentially cut-off power-law (ECPL)
of the form $dN / dE \propto E^{-\Gamma} \exp( -E / E_c)$
where $E$ represents the photon energy, $\Gamma$ is the photon index and
$E_c$ is the cutoff energy of the spectrum. The normalizations of the
diffuse components were left free in the fit, as well as spectral parameters
of sources within $8^\circ$ of the pulsar sky position.
The best-fit spectral parameters for PSR~J1311$-$3430{} along with the derived photon
and energy fluxes are displayed in Table~1 and
characterize the pulse-phase-averaged gamma-ray spectrum of the pulsar (Fig.~S1).
The measured energy flux is consistent with that published earlier
for this gamma-ray source \cite{FermiSecondSourceCatalog}. We checked the best-fit
parameters listed in Table~1 with the \texttt{pointlike}
likelihood analysis tool \cite{KerrWeightedH2011}, and found results that are
consistent within uncertainties. The tool \texttt{gtsrcprob} and the spectral
model obtained from the likelihood analysis were finally used to calculate
the probabilities that the photons originate from PSR~J1311$-$3430{}.

We also performed a spectral analysis resolved in pulse
phase (rotational phase) for \linebreakPSR~J1311$-$3430{}.
For this, we divided the data set into ten segments according to pulse phase
and  measured the gamma-ray spectrum in each of those segments
in a binned likelihood analysis assuming an ECPL model for the pulsar (Fig.~S2).
As observed for other bright gamma-ray pulsars [e.g. \cite{FermiVela2}],
the spectral properties of PSR~J1311$-$3430{} evolve strongly with rotational phase, suggesting varying
emission altitudes and curvature radii of the magnetic field lines. In addition, significant
gamma-ray emission is detected over all rotational phases: selecting phases
between $0.8$ and $1.2$ we measured a photon flux for PSR~J1311$-$3430{}
of $(4.6 \pm 0.9) \times 10^{-8}$ photons\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$, and a photon flux
of $(2.8 \pm 1.6) \times 10^{-8}$ photons\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$ for pulse phases
between $0.9$ and $1.1$. In the former phase interval, the exponentially cut-off
power-law model is preferred over a simple power-law spectral shape at the
$\sim 3.5 \sigma$ significance level, and at $\sim 2.5 \sigma$ for the latter
phase interval. This potentially indicates a magnetospheric origin for this ``off-pulse'' emission.
The existence of magnetospheric emission in the off-pulse region of
the gamma-ray pulse profiles is predicted from theoretical models
under specific geometrical orientations \cite{Ackermann+2011} and can give
insights into the pulsar emission geometry.

We also conducted an analysis to look for an orbital modulation
of the gamma-ray flux and the spectrum. We subdivided the orbit into
ten equally spaced bins, and for each subset of data we performed a binned likelihood analysis.
The flux, the spectral index~$\Gamma$, and the energy cutoff~$E_c$ are
compatible with a constant value all along the orbit.
Thus, we proceeded to compute the formal 95\% confidence upper limits
on the amplitude of a sinusoidal modulation and
obtained $< 2.6 \times 10^{-8}$~photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$
for the flux, $< 0.32$ for $\Gamma$, and $< 2.2$~GeV for~$E_c$.
\pagebreak

\noindent\textbf{Pulsar search in LAT data}\\
To correct for the Doppler modulation due to the satellite's motion in the Solar System,
we applied barycenter corrections to the arrival times of the LAT gamma-ray photons
using the JPL DE405 Solar System ephemeris.

Constructing the parameter-space grid for the semi-coherent search
(the first stage of the hierarchical search scheme)
as efficiently as possible is of utmost importance, because this
stage dominates the overall computing cost.
For this purpose, we developed an algorithm that effectively utilizes
the metric formalism. The metric provides a geometric tool
measuring the expected fractional loss in squared signal-to-noise ratio
for any given pulsar-signal location at a nearby grid point.
The metric components along the search-space directions of
$f$ and $\dot f$ are constant across the entire space
[see, e.g., \cite{PletschAllen2009,Pletsch2010}].
In contrast, the orbital metric components (in search-space directions
of $\{P_{\rm orb}, T_{\rm asc}, x\}$) explicitly depend upon the search
parameters [see, e.g., \cite{Messenger2011}].
This implies that the metric (and so the grid-point density required
to not miss a signal) changes across orbital parameter space.
Therefore, constructing a simple lattice with constant spacings over
these dimensions would be highly inefficient, resulting in either vast
over- or under-covering of large parameter-space regions.

In contrast, the grid-construction algorithm we developed follows
a more efficient approach. While using constant spacings in
$f$ and $\dot f$, grid points over $\{P_{\rm orb}, T_{\rm asc}, x\}$
are first placed at random [e.g.,\cite{Harry+2009}].
Then those that are either too close together or too
far apart according to the metric are moved (barycentric shifts),
minimizing the maximum possible loss
in signal-to-noise ratio for any pulsar signal across
the entire search parameter space.
To accelerate this otherwise computationally-bound process, we divided the search
space into sub-volumes to avoid metric distance comparisons between a trial point
and {\it every} other grid point, exploiting an efficient hashing technique.
For an arbitrary point in parameter space, the index of the enclosing sub-volume
(and thus the parameters of its neighboring points) is obtained from a hash table
through a fast rounding operation.
By design the resulting grid ensured never losing
more than 30\% of the signal-to-noise ratio for any signal parameters.
Finally, we used simulated pulsar signals to validate this design goal.
This process is also highly accelerated by exploiting the hash table,
because it provides quick access to the closest grid points around
any given parameter-space location. This way, the search for each
simulated pulsar signal is computationally inexpensive, because only the
relevant subset of nearest grid points  around each signal are searched.

In the blind search, we obtained
the semi-coherent detection statistic (coherent Fourier power) computed
using a coherence window of $T = 2^{20}$\,s ($\sim$12~days) being incoherently
combined by sliding the window over the entire 4~years of LAT data)
over the entire $f$ grid by exploiting the efficiency of the fast Fourier transform (FFT) algorithm.
For this purpose, we divided total $f$ search range into separate bands
using a heterodyning bandwidth of $\Delta f_{\rm BW} = 128$\,Hz. Thus, the FFT
contains $T\,\Delta f_{\rm BW} \cong 10^{8}$ frequency bins.
This choice for $\Delta f_{\rm BW}$ allowed us to fit the computation into memory
on the ATLAS computing cluster to maximize performance.
In the $\dot f$ direction, we analyzed about $10^2$ uniformly spaced grid points.
The use of separate frequency bands is also extremely advantageous in view
of the orbital grids, which we adapted to each band.
This further reduced the computational cost, since the total number of required grid
points to cover the orbital parameter space
$\{P_{\rm orb}, T_{\rm asc}, x\}$ is about
$10^{7} \, \left( f_{\rm max} / 700\,{\rm Hz} \right)^3$ and
increases with $f_{\rm max}$ cubed,
where $f_{\rm max}$ is the highest spin frequency (most conservative choice) in
the search band (before heterodyning). Thus, in total the search grid covering the
frequency band near $700$\,Hz comprised about $10^{8}\times10^{2}\times10^{7} = 10^{17}$ points.
We note that the heterodyning step reduces the bandwidth of the data to $128$\,Hz, which is still
much larger than the narrow bandwidth of the signal (that is about $f\times 10^{-4}$,
which is $\sim 0.04$\,Hz for PSR~J1311$-$3430{}) that remains unaffected by this.
The heterodyning does not alter the pulsar signal shape (i.e., the extension
in parameter space) - it is merely shifted in the frequency domain and so the metric
is unaffected and still depends on $f_{\rm max}$, the original upper frequency.
This $f_{\rm max}^3$-dependency is readily seen from the fact that the amplitude
of the pulsar-rotational-phase modulation due to the binary motion is proportional
to the spin frequency~$f$. And, the metric components involve products
of first-order derivatives of the rotational phase with respect to the
parameters \cite{bc2:2000,PletschAllen2009,Pletsch2010,Messenger2011}.
As the number of grid points is proportional to the square root of the
metric determinant, it therefore increases with $f^3$ (one $f$ contribution
from each of the three orbital dimensions searched).

\end{multicols}

\begin{figure*}
\centering
	\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{figS1}
	\caption*{{\bf Fig.\,S1.}
	 Pulse-phase-averaged gamma-ray spectral energy distribution for PSR~J1311$-$3430{}.
	 Data points (solid squares) are derived from fits of individual energy bands with
	 variable widths, in which the pulsar is detected with a significance greater than $15\sigma$.
	 In these individual bands the pulsar emission is modeled with a simple power-law spectrum.
	 We calculated an upper limit for the highest energy band, in which
	 the pulsar was not detected with sufficient significance.
	 The solid curves represents the best-fit model obtained from the likelihood analysis
	 and dashed curves indicate the $1\sigma$ uncertainties.
	 \label{f:avg_spec}
	 }
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}
\centering
	\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{figS2.pdf}
	\caption*{{\bf Fig.\,S2.}
	 Pulse-phase-resolved gamma-ray  spectral analysis for PSR~J1311$-$3430{}
	 using 10~bins per rotation.
	 The different panels show the
	 photon index ({\bf top left}),
	 cutoff energy ({\bf top right}),
	 photon flux above 0.1~GeV ({\bf  bottom left}), and
          energy flux above 0.1~GeV ({\bf  bottom right}).
          Error bars indicate statistical $1\sigma$ uncertainties.
	 \label{f:ph_spec}
	 }
\end{figure*}

\end{document}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


text:
The Jefferson-Madison Debates: Are Today's Education and Politics Entering the Age of Star Trek?
"A shoe, too, is no longer a finished product, but an endless process of reimagining our extended feet, perhaps with disposable covers, sandals that morph as you walk, treads that shift, or floors that act as shoes." —Kevin Kelly
"We have long argued that as the Web extends in usage…increased access to factual information would improve the quality of public discourse. However, the opposite seems to be occurring." —Don and Alex Tapscott
Given how much technology has changed the world in the past twenty years, and how differently we now live, it's easy to assume that the Internet Revolution has brought the big change—and this era of massive shifts will slowly relax back into some kind of normality. But the truth is that we are just at the very beginning stages of the Information Age. The changes have just begun.
Following are a few of the major developments still ahead, as described by the experts on current technologies. As you think about each of these, consider the ramifications of these trends as they relate to the future of education, career, the economy, and the type of education needed for the emerging economy:
1. Autonomous vehicles. Self-driving cars are a reality.[i] How long they will co-exist with human drivers before the laws require all cars to be driven electronically remains to be seen.[ii] Self-driving planes, boats, and trucks will also change our lives drastically. Flying vehicles are next. As drone technology improves, taking people as passengers may not be too far away.
2. 3D Printing (additive manufacturing).[iii] This will revolutionize transportation, shipping, and manufacturing. Things that can be printed out in our own homes don't need to be built in factories, or shipped by truck, airplane, or even drone. 3D printing will also have significant impact in medicine by printing certain medical implants.[iv] In fact, 3D printers now print food, including candy—and some people think it even tastes good.[v] One taste tester wrote: "It tastes like an after-dinner mint mixed with a sugar cube."[vi]
3. 4D Printing. The printers will print smartobjects that are self-learning, and self-altering in response to their environment.[vii]
4. New Smart Materials. As Klaus Schwab, Founder of the World Economic Forum, put it: Some are "self-healing, self-cleaning, metals with memory that revert to their original shapes, chemicals and crystals that turn pressure into energy, and so on…. Take advanced nanomaterials [nano means smaller than the human eye can see] such as graphene, which is about 200-times stronger than steel, a million times thinner than a human hair, and an efficient conductor of heat and electricity. When graphene becomes price competitive…it could significantly disrupt the manufacturing and infrastructure industries."[viii]
5. iMoneyCenter. As Forbes put it: "Your cellphone will become a global bank. Mobile money accounts already outnumber traditional bank accounts in parts of the developing world, and new technology will turbocharge that trend, allowing payments to anyone, anywhere, in local currencies."[ix]
6. RFID (Radio Frequency Identification). Tiny tags can be put on pretty much anything, or anyone, and track where it is at any time, all over the world.[x] This technology is cheap and easy to use. The tags can even contain sensors that keep track of how well the item is doing, and what it is doing.[xi]
Kevin Kelly said of the various kinds of small digital devices that are being created: "A few are shrinking to the size of the period following this sentence. These macroscopic measurers can be inserted into watches, clothes, spectacles, or phones, or inexpensively dispersed in rooms, cars, offices, and public spaces.[xii] Sensors can be built to watch and listen." He also wrote: "Massive tracking and total surveillance are here to stay."[xiii]
The machines are becoming ubiquitous.[xiv] Moreover, a lot of people like it this way. One report summarized the trend as "Our Love-Hate Affair With AI."[xv]
The ramifications of the new era of machines for freedom and relationships of all kinds are immense.[xvi]
7. Gene Mapping and Synthetic Biology. This is popularly called the creation of "Designer Babies." "It will provide us with the ability to customize organisms by writing DNA."[xvii] "Today, a genome can be sequenced in a few hours for less than a thousand dollars."[xviii] And at some point scientists foresee artificial memory implanting into peoples' brains.[xix] Just download what you want to know—facts, dates, formulas, etc. Gene Mapping will impact agriculture and the energy sector (by producing biofuels) as well as medicine and education.[xx]
8. Personalized Medications. Medicine, from those used to treat advanced diseases to simple aspirin, will be personalized for each individual—"tailored to your DNA."[xxi] These will likely be very expensive at first, further widening the gap between the upper and other classes.
9. Non-Communicative Relationships. A number of popular magazines each month present articles that tell men and women they need to turn off their electronic gadgets and talk to their spouse or significant other. The articles are detailed and specific, with advice like "look your spouse in the eye while you talk to her," and "actually listen to the words he says and try to connect with his logic and feelings," etc.
The volume of such articles suggests that this is a serious problem. Relationships are often victims of addiction to electronic devices, texts, messages, and other incoming communication that is more highly valued than interaction with the live person in the same room.
Relationships and Roboticships
Moreover, emerging technology will very likely throw a serious monkey-wrench into many relationships. VR (Virtual Reality[xxii]) is incredibly advanced now, and will soon be on the market in extensive ways. A person can slip on a VR helmet or glasses and be transported mentally to a whole new world. Some VR research and development is focused on porn, although the tech world prefers the term "alternative relationships." How will this impact marriage, family, education, and stable relationships?
Robotics have reached the point that lifelike "partner dolls," sometimes called "sex dolls", that talk and interact are already available.[xxiii] Soon, experts say, they'll be easily accessible online and sold in our corner neighborhood stores.[xxiv] It's a potential revolution in lifestyles, and the impact on relationships will certainly be real.[xxv] It is unclear how this will influence marriage and family, but the prospects seem quite negative.
A number of apps try to fulfill the same need—for relationships in an electronic format.[xxvi] If we find it difficult now to put down our phones or take off our headphones to engage in meaningful conversation and relationships, imagine how difficult it will be to turn off the robots, apps, and VR glasses.[xxvii] VR, and lifelike personal relationship robots, can be programmed (or told by the user) to never argue, nag, disagree, shout, or storm away.[xxviii] Again, such devices won't take the place of quality, mature relationships, but they could very well hurt or make such relationships more difficult.[xxix]
10. The Rise of the Algorithms. Online technology now employs numerous advanced algorithms and AI technologies that are learning to do everything from sensing where our eyes are gazing (in order to know our interests and sell to us)[xxx] to what our politics are (as mentioned above, this could be to allow providers like Facebook and Google, or others, to determine what news feeds to send us—to promote their own political goals), to how empty the milk carton in our fridge is (in order to order a fresh one).
Schwab said: "Amazon and Netflix already possess algorithms that predict which films and books we may wish to watch and read. Dating and job placement sites suggest partners and jobs—in our neighborhood or anywhere in the world—that their systems [algorithms] figure might suit us best.
The Man AI in Charge
"What do we do? Trust the advice provided by an algorithm or that offered by family, friends, or colleagues? Would we consult an AI-driven robot doctor with a near perfect diagnosis success rate—or stick with the human physician with the assuring bedside manner we have known for years?"[xxxi]
AI is tasked with watching us and learning from us, and as AIs become smarter, some of them will be incredibly effective forecasters. Companies may even be valued based on their AI. For example, Kelly wrote: "Amazon's greatest asset is not its Prime delivery service but the many millions of reader reviews it has accumulated over the decades."[xxxii] These reviews, and the AI that runs them, learns from them, and uses them to help predict what books each user is likely to enjoy, is a huge asset.
The concept of establishing corporate boards of directors made up entirely of Artificial Intelligence is discussed openly and seriously.[xxxiii] Do we want algorithms in charge of everything?
In education, the possibilities are seemingly endless—and just as alarming. Kelly wrote: "The tiny camera eyes that now stare back at us from any screen can be trained with additional skills…researchers at MIT have taught the eyes in our machines to detect human emotions. As we watch the screen, the screen is watching us, where we look, and how we react.
"Since this perception is in real time, the smart software [algorithms] can adapt what I'm viewing. Say I am reading a book and my frown shows I've stumbled on a certain word; the text could expand a definition."[xxxiv]
This means that the text of the book is changing before you read it, based on what you have read so far and how you reacted. In other words, the computer is in effect censoring what you read before you even read it.
What about the author's intent? Well, that depends. The AI, or the people who commission and oversee the AI, may decide to carefully protect the original text, or they may not. They may edit, censor, distract, etc.—whatever they think best achieves their goals.
Remember that thing called Thinking?
They may even have different ways of dealing with different people—like Google gaming the search system so that people who look up a certain Republican candidate get the most negative articles about him on the first page, while those who search for his Democratic opponent get the most flattering articles (or vice versa).
Or they might simply guide your searches to the companies who paid them the most to do so. If these guides are personalized and targeted to each individual user (like in the movie Minority Report), different readers will literally be getting a very different education. One student will read very different things than a second student, while the third reads yet another thing—all determined by AI and/or those who program and control the AI.
Kelly continued: "Or, if it realizes I am reading the same passage, it could supply an annotation for that passage. Similarly, if it knows I am bored by a scene in a video, it could jump ahead or speed up the action."[xxxv] If we choose such functions on a menu, that's one thing. But what happens if the big businesses or the cyber-governmental-industrial-complex just decides that this kind of censorship is best for the people? Or for a certain group or type of people, such as those from a certain religion or political party?
On purely educational grounds, having the computer supply definitions, commentaries and links is bad for thinking. It teaches rote dependence on experts, even if the expert is an AI. If we don't have to question, ponder, or debate the books we read, we'll be thinking a lot less. The words censorship and brainwashing aren't farfetched in this context.
What about politics? The media and party-media machines already spread a lot of false information. What will happen when algorithms take over the media spin? It will personalize to each reader, each person using the Internet (or whatever kind of Supernet or Skynet takes its place). As such, the AI will learn how to confuse each person the most effectively. Again, this isn't far from the personalized billboards and ads in the movie Minority Report.
(Un)Locked Doors
On an even larger scale, if an algorithm claims to predict which of various candidates would make the best president, prime minister, judge or senator, do we just give up voting altogether? After all, the voters seldom put in leaders who truly deliver what they promised. Or will the experts try to convince us that an algorithm-based AI should be our president and Congress and Court and make our top government decisions—getting rid of human error altogether?
And in all this, let's not forget that someone can access the algorithms. All computers can be hacked—so far. As author Marc Goodman put it: "There's never been a computer system that's proven unhackable."[xxxvi] Bigger technologies mean bigger hacks, with more drastic impact on people.
And won't the growth of the Internet just funnel more and more power to a few elites who control the algorithms? The answer is "Yes. Emphatically yes!"
In fact, is there any way to stop this from happening?
11. "Reshoring." This means that when high tech processes like 3D printing, gene mapping, and RFID tagging become mainstream around the world, many industrial jobs will be lost—but a lot of high-tech jobs will move back to the most advanced nations in search of highly-trained workers with expertise in areas conducive to high tech.[xxxvii] Whether this will happen or not remains to be seen. It may not happen at all. "…many workers [may]…end up permanently unemployed, like horses unable to adjust to the invention of the tractors."[xxxviii]
12. Portfolio Careers. These occur where a person's career includes doing several different jobs for different employers in the same day.[xxxix] For example, one person might be a teacher during the school day, a restaurant manager during the evenings, and an eBay seller in his spare time—all to make ends meet. Portfolio careers may become very widespread in the new economy. A lot of people probably won't like such a development, leading to increased class divisions and conflicts.[xl]
13. Even Greater Class Divide. As Schwab wrote: "…half of all assets around the world are now controlled by the richest 1% of the global population, while the lower half" of the population control less than 1% of world assets.[xli] Or as the Tapscotts put it: "…the global 1 percent owns half of the world's wealth while 3.5 billion people earn fewer than 2 dollars a day."[xlii]
To be continued next week …
[i] Schwab, 15, 147-148; see also Kevin Kelly, The Inevitable, 2016, 50-51; Brynjolfsson, 14-20; See Sam Smith, "The Truth About the Future of Cars," Esquire, April 2016, 69-74; Erin Griffith, "Disconnected," Fortune, August 1, 2016, 44.
[ii] See Smith, 69-74.
[iii] Scwhab, 15; see also Brynjolfsson, 36-37; Kelly, 53.
[iv] Schwab, 15, 22, 161-167.
[v] Andrea Smith, "Print Your Candy and Eat it Too," Popular Science, January 2015, 24.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Schwab, 16.
[viii] Ibid., 17.
Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Education &Entrepreneurship &Foreign Affairs &Generations &Government &History &Independents &Information Age &Leadership &Liberty &Mission &Politics &Postmodernism &Producers &Prosperity &Science &Technology
An Update on the State of America: What's REALLY Happening?
October 28th, 2017 // 4:41 pm	@ Oliver DeMille
(It's Not What You See On the News)
"Keep your eyes on the ball."
I think every baseball coach I ever had repeated this advice like a mantra, and with good reason. A batter faces all kinds of distractions: players from the other team–both those on the field and those in the dugout–make a point of yelling, waving their arms, and doing whatever they can to distract a batter, to get him to take his eyes off the ball.
The catcher says things from behind the plate. The opposing crowd yells boisterously in the stands, waves banners or hats or small children, and some honk their car horns or chant pithy slogans in unison. The good batter learns to ignore all of this noise and mental clutter, to focus only on the ball—eyes on the ball, always.
The same focus is vital in politics. Most people realize this in a roundabout way, but they tend to think that media, the opposing party, and social media are trying to keep certain governmental leaders distracted. This does happen, but it's not the real problem. In fact, media outlets and political parties trying to divert each other pale in comparison to the actual distraction.
The Diversion
The real problem occurs when the citizens get distracted. When they "take their eyes off the ball." Both political parties routinely try to get citizens focused on tangents, and one of the most effective ways is to attack each other.
Nothing keeps people misdirected like a good bout of Washington name-calling. If that isn't working, the media can be counted on to up the ante and intensify the rhetoric, spin, and accusations.
The more the citizens who tend to stay informed on the news can be diverted by such tactics, the less they tend to pay attention to their real role, their crucial responsibility—to keep the government in check, not let politicians and/or bureaucracies quietly (or loudly, for that matter) chip away at their freedoms.
The media are supposed to help this important work by keeping a close eye on government and calling attention to federal excess and abuse. Sometimes they do this well, but mostly they join the political parties and politicians in creating more noise, clamor and misdirection.
The Constitution gets attacked each month in a number of ways, but the media and parties tend to redirect the American people to other things, loud and emotional issues that spread anger, division, and a focus on personalities, parties, special interest groups, "who said what" and "who responded how"—and "how dare they!" While this is happening, our freedoms are whittled away behind the scenes.
For example, as Senator Mike Lee pointed out, if the bills passed by Congress in any given year are stacked in one pile, and the policies adopted by the sprawling federal bureaucracy during the same time period (without any vote in Congress and usually with little or no media coverage) are stacked in another, the bureaucratic pile is many times higher than the first. Yet hardly anyone knows what the myriad government agencies are writing, implementing, and enforcing; almost nobody has a say in what they decide; and few even know it's happening. By the time such policies start directly hurting you and other people, it's often too late.
This occurs year after year, decade after decade. Add to this the various court precedents and additional policies established by local, state and federal judiciaries, executives, and legislatures across the nation, along with international precedent, treaties, and agreements that American courts and the other branches of government are bound by or choose to comply with, and the "behind the scenes" pile of government regulations, policies, penalties and rules has grown (and is growing) even more quickly.
The spread of governmental power in the past few decades has been almost exponential. Carly Fiorina was right when she repeatedly warned during the 2016 presidential primaries that America is being "crushed" under the overwhelming weight of regulatory overreach.
Yet this is seldom, almost never, mentioned in the media—mainstream or otherwise. It is simply a non-story for most Americans. Instead, the media distract us with the latest White House skirmish, presidential Tweet, ridiculous things said by the media, or outrageous words or actions by a political official (sometimes Republican, other times Democrat) or Hollywood celebrity, sports star or recording artist. Even sports shows, late night TV, and various celebrity-studded awards shows have recently joined the fray.
It all adds up to one glaring reality: Distraction, distraction, distraction. The problem isn't so much that perception is reality, but that "the news cycle is reality" for far too many Americans. And, in fact, for a growing number of people "the latest post is reality."
We are living in a new era of political interaction. "Get your daily distraction here!" Buy a magazine, turn on the news, or read the headlines on your smartphone—it's often at least 99% distraction. And no, this statistic isn't scientific, it's just my best guess. A true scientific study of the facts would quite possibly show that 99% is a bit low.
The real issues, the most important realities, almost never pop up on the morning smartphone update. They only rarely appear in a television news program, and even the once-highly-trusted print media now serve up large swaths of distraction. We live in tabloid nation, at times, even when we try to follow the news.
The truth is, I think most Americans kind of sensed this turn of events taking place during the 2015-2016 presidential elections. Media coverage was frequently so extreme that anyone who still trusts the media must not have watched the news during the past 24 months. Many on the Left are shocked by President Trump's tweets; a lot on the Right feel the same way about the nightly news.
That's what effective distraction is all about. It keeps us uneasy, concerned, worried about what the other ("evil") party might do. This kind of intense media environment is like a drug—great for ratings, but often light on truth. Those who get hooked have to get their daily fix, shake their heads, and try to sleep at night even though the world is "so close to the edge right now". Thanks to smartphones, too many of us are even addicted to the hourly fix, each new headline scrolling across the handheld screen to remind us to stay mainlined to the latest media report.
But there's more to all this than initially meets the eye. At the same time we witnessed this momentous shift in American news and politics, especially its growing levels of intensity and divisiveness, we also experienced something else—mostly unarticulated, a feeling, a fleeting glimpse of…something. We're not yet sure what it means, but it's starting to look a bit like…dare we say it?…a new sort of wisdom.
For example, during the election a friend told me he was deeply worried Trump would win. When I pressed him for details, he explained that he thought Trump represented a spreading American authoritarianism. Not conservatism. Not liberalism or progressivism.
Just a desire to have someone strong in charge who would ignore the old political ways of doing things and instead just get things done, torpedoes-away-style if needed.
I asked if he thought Hillary would be better, and he responded that she'd be normal—corrupt, a politician, the kind of president the red states would hate and watch closely. But predictable. And therefore better.
Then he said the really profound thing that made me stop and think. "With Hillary in the White House and a large Republican majority in the House," the government will be largely handicapped for the next four years. I like that."
He wasn't just seeing things as liberal versus conservative. He was looking past media and party distractions and keeping his eye on the ball. Agree or disagree with his conclusions, but it struck me that his main focus was figuring out how his vote could help limit Washington.
The most intriguing thing about this conversation wasn't the Hillary versus Trump issue, which for him seemed entirely secondary. His concern was that everything hinged on how to keep America from losing more of its freedoms. At the time, I thought it was a remarkable discussion.
But then another friend told me he supported Trump all through the Republican primaries because he believed Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, or any other mainstream politician might be elected along with Republican control of the House and Senate, meaning that there would be nobody to aggressively check their agenda.
"But with Trump in the White House," he predicted, "Republicans in Congress will work hard to check the president. He won't get very much done—just a few big and important things like deregulation of past executive orders, a Right-leaning Court appointee, and major tax cuts. Congress will only support the things we really need, not all the Trump rhetoric."
Again, we discussed the specifics, with me mostly asking questions, but the most interesting thing I took from this conversation was that he, too, was looking for an election outcome that would check and limit Washington. He had a very different view than the other friend, and ended up voting differently, but they both had the same top goals in mind—protect our freedom, reduce the power of Washington, reboot the Constitution.
Yet another friend took a drastically different viewpoint, but with the same ultimate goal. "I hope Hillary wins and both houses of Congress stay Republican, or that Trump wins and Democrats take control of the Senate," she said. Then she ended with: "Anything to get the checks and balances working better." Again: curtail Washington's power and let the Constitution shrink the overreach of government.
After this third conversation, I stopped being surprised when this approach came up. I didn't see it much in the national media, but I heard similar thoughts from at least a half-dozen other people. Unlike the other heated elections I'd closely watched since 1992, this time around a lot more people seemed to be seeking something more than "the better candidate." They wanted to see real change in Washington, not through a candidate, but by setting up Washington to do more internal fighting and do less. They wanted to limit the government.
Is this change occurring because people are starting to give up on party politics as a real solution to our national problems? Or are they reading the Constitution and founding ideas more deeply? Or, alternatively, are there growing concerns that Washington has just become too big, too unwieldy?
Was all this a coincidence? Maybe. Or perhaps there is a new wisdom, embryonic to be sure, rising in America. A new sense that if we want to be free, we're going to have to look past blind trust in what the media tell us and dig deeper, think more deeply and independently about our freedom and our politics.
Or could it be even more simple: Could it be that the media tipped their hand in 2015-2017, clearly signaling to a lot of Americans that it is "all in" for bigger government, more power to Washington, and more support for leaders who want to expand that power? As a result, perhaps a lot more people are looking around for new and better ways.
If there's one thing Donald Trump absolutely got right in 2016, it is that the time has arrived to "drain the swamp" that is Washington D.C. In fact, Barack Obama started his presidency with the same call for real change in Washington and the way it did business. So did Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, for that matter. All came to the Oval Office as outsiders, promising to put Washington back in line. History seems to be teaching us that presidents don't change the swamp as much as they want to.
If a new wisdom is percolating among the American people, it will need to use the power of the voting booth to put disruptors and real innovators in office—many offices—and never again settle for mainstream politicians and managers of the status quo (from either party).
To accomplish this, we'll have to learn to largely ignore distractions from party politics and the manic media and instead keep our eyes on the ball:
What is undermining the Constitution
and our freedoms this month?
That is the question.
This is what is really happening in America.
And the stakes could hardly be higher: If we're not up to the task, the elite politicians, bureaucracies, and media will win; families, middle America, the economy, and our posterity will be the losers.
Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Generations &Government &History &Independents &Information Age &Leadership &Liberty &Mission &Politics
One Great Challenge Facing America Today
August 26th, 2017 // 4:51 am	@ Oliver DeMille
The Coming Fall
Only 15 percent of Americans are on target to fund 1 year or more of their retirement. One single year. Yet many will live twenty to thirty years after retiring. This one fact alone is a major blow against conservatism.
It may in fact kill conservative principles and ideals in the next two decades, and it could deeply hurt the American economy and our freedoms in the process. This is not an exaggeration. Put simply:
How can conservatives expect to win elections or, even if they are victorious at the ballot box, actually pass conservative laws and policies when more than 85 percent of the American people are going to be fully dependent on someone else's money for housing, food and clothing, health care, and other expenses during retirement?
With the massive Baby Boom generation moving into retirement, many analysts ask: how can the United States implement anything short of collectivist socialism in the next thirty years?
To cut away the safety net, or to default on the promised Social Security and healthcare benefits workers paid into for decades, would be immoral and create widespread poverty for many of our most vulnerable. To buck up and pay for these obligations, and supplement them with what will be needed for millions of retirees to just get by, will require levels of taxation and regulation that will truly be nothing short of…well, socialism.
Bottom Dollar
Few people want to admit this reality—Republican politicians least of all. But over sixty years of government promises, spending money that should have been saved, inflating the currency, and putting numerous regulatory hurdles in the path of entrepreneurialism, innovation, and economic growth have taken their toll. A national debt north of $20 trillion dollars (more than $100 trillion when all the obligations and liabilities are met, and a lot more as these obligations and interest on the debt increase every month) leave us little wiggle room.
There are two realistic responses. First, we can go after major economic growth. This will require a systemic change in our economy—meaning mass deregulation and getting the government almost entirely out of the marketplace. Tax rates must come down drastically, and foreign-held corporate money must be encouraged to repatriate without penalty. Foreign direct investment must also be recruited (another reason tax rates must be significantly reduced).
The second option is to keep on the current path until we default, then allow an IMF bailout of the U.S. and the replacement of the dollar as the world reserve currency with International Monetary Fund SDR currency or some other (probably electronic) legal tender. This will result in a major reduction of the standard of living for most Americans and an explosion of additional government handouts. Most retirement and other savings that do exist will be wiped out, and nearly all Americans will go on the dole, with a few elites at the top, and both socialism and globalism will dominate.
The amazing thing, to me at least, is that many of our nation's leaders right now—in both parties—actually prefer the second option. Moreover, a lot of them believe that this is the best course for our future. They deeply believe in globalism, collectivist economics, and the end of America's attachment to free enterprise, gun rights, family values, and religion. They believe that government is the greatest power on earth, and deserves our universal allegiance and support. Even, ultimately, reverence. Anyone who disagrees, they believe, is small-minded or caught in the past—or both.
New or Old
Not only do many Democratic leaders hold this view, but a surprising number of Republican officials believe it as well, or at least they vote like they believe it (which brings the same results). This is a real battle, and the globalist elites are winning. The media, most of academia, and a majority of politicians are on their side. In their view, the future of the world is at stake—either a bright future of globalism (with elites in charge) or a return to dark-age tribalism, as they see it (where the regular people rule through small-minded, unenlightened democratic influence), will ensue. They are determined to ensure the globalist outcome.
They literally consider it a war–and one that is worth winning, whatever the cost. If academia, media, Hollywood and the lobbyist/D.C. bureaucracy/political party-apparatus can force the Trump administration to back down from anti-globalist policies and behaviors, so be it. That's what the hubbub is about on the nightly news, investigations, etc.
But if not, they'll take more drastic measures. A currency default might do it, causing bank holidays and massive layoffs. Or a serious shakeup in the White House—brought on by the Special Counsel, indictment of the President, or something else that circumvents the will of the voters and instead chases the goals of the elite. Something unexpected, of the same magnitude, could trigger a return of White House alignment to globalist goals. Today's elites in government, media, finance, etc. can hardly remember a time when globalism wasn't the clear agenda. Most of them are outraged at the very thought.
The rest of America has a serious problem. Remember the 85 percent of Americans who don't (or won't) have enough retirement savings to last more than a year? How are conservatives going to effectively promote smaller government and a return to genuine free enterprise in a nation strapped with the $20 trillion-plus national debt, $13 trillion in consumer debt, over $100 trillion owed in debt plus unfunded liabilities, and many millions (and growing) of retirees who will desperately need financial support?
I'm an optimist, because I believe the best days of America and the world are yet to come. Usually I infuse my writings with optimistic ideas on how we can really improve things in the days ahead. But right now I have to admit that I'm concerned. I'm not sure how we get past the economic hole we've dug for ourselves—not just politicians, but the regular people as well. We are culturally, if not actually, dependent on government spending and government growth.
Yes, a lot of people want the government to cut back, but they can't agree on what to cut. Almost all Americans want the government to keep spending for things that benefit them directly. The ones that support cuts mostly only support cutting other people's government benefits. Thus Congress doesn't actually fix much.
Unless this changes, Democrats will continue to be the party of bigger government and increased socialism while Republicans will talk about smaller government, limits, and Constitutional boundaries—but when the votes come to the Senate, truly conservative changes won't have enough Republican support to pass, and when cases make their way to the Supreme Court, free enterprising systemic changes to the government-corporate-K Street nexus won't have enough Justices behind them. Too many officials simply aren't willing to do what needs to be done. It's too hard, and too unpopular.
I'm not sure what can change this.
Of one thing I am certain, however. History is absolutely clear on this point. As goes entrepreneurship, so goes our nation. Ultimately, a major increase in effective entrepreneurship, innovation, and business ownership is going to make or break us. It will create growth if it happens, and that changes everything. Also, the future of entrepreneurship is something each of us can influence. Our next three decades will either bring massive economic growth or the rise of rampant socialism to America. To choose the path of growth, our government can help (by deregulation and choosing to be smaller)—but a lot more people engaging effective entrepreneurship is the indispensible. Period.
Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Entrepreneurship &Foreign Affairs &Generations &Government &History &Leadership &Liberty &Mini-Factories &Mission &Politics &Postmodernism &Producers &Prosperity
"The Coming Tide"
July 25th, 2017 // 7:22 am	@ Oliver DeMille
A Prediction
For decades the Democrats proudly saw themselves as the party of the little guy and the working poor. Republicans were considered the party of Wall Street, white collar professionals, and big business. But these alignments have changed during the opening years of the 21st Century. The Democrats are now, as The Atlantic put it, "a coalition of Millennials, minorities, and white professionals." The Republicans consist of whatever is left over, which amounts to a majority of people in the large majority of states.
Perhaps the most striking thing about this new political arrangement is that so many white-collar professionals are now Democrats. Moreover, a large number of them are genuinely liberal, even progressive. This is a major departure from historical trends.
The most obvious reason for this shift is something members of the professional class have in common: years of participation in and graduation from the modern American university system. To find success in today's campus environment often corresponds with embracing academe's general values, processes, and views. When such views emphasize diversity of thought and vigorous debate of different ideas, the result is a certain kind of learning—and a certain kind of graduate. This approach helped make American universities the best in the world.
But when such views and values include rejection of diverse ideas, religious values, and pressure to adopt one overarching political and cultural perspective (pervasively advanced by the Left), a different result is natural. A different kind of typical graduate is also inevitable. This is where we find ourselves today. As the American campus has moved increasingly Left, the culture experienced and accepted by a large number of its participants has followed suit.
College Flight
This leaves many conservative or religious families, and others who aren't particularly conservative or religious but don't want their college youth to be ridiculed for their views or indoctrinated with blatant liberalism, with a difficult choice. College, long considered a required rite of passage into adulthood by many families, is becoming less attractive to a lot of people. The rebuttal is that the financial rewards of a college degree make it unavoidable. This boils down to two widely accepted but currently weakening views:
College leads to financial success
Financial success requires college
Perception is never quite as accurate as reality. Belief #1 (college leads to financial success) is a partial truth. It turns out to be true for some people, not true for others. In the 2010s, it is false for more than half of college graduates. Belief #2 (financial success requires college), on the other hand, is patently false. There are many people with financial success and means who dropped out of college or never enrolled at all. Indeed, many business owners who never finished college find their company bombarded with resumes and applications of those who did.
Certainly college is an effective path to career for many people. However, a downside for parents who aren't committed liberal ideologues is the worry that many of today's universities will turn their children into exactly that. And the biggest losers in the current system—even in the few schools where religious or conservative values are acceptable—are students whose focus on career prep distracts them from getting a truly great education. Sadly, this describes a significant majority.
To be clear, all of this is part of a much larger national context. The bigger trend is that Americans are increasingly rejecting the 1960s promise of a society of experts who wisely and efficiently fix everything. The golden era of the American university was an outgrowth of this post-World War II zeitgeist: that everyone could participate in a society of experts, and that expertise and institutions held the solutions to all our national, world, community, material, and even personal problems.
Increased medical expertise and technology would make us truly healthy; better law schools and lawyers would ensure true justice to everyone; advanced technology and training in journalism would bring a golden age of media full of light and truth; business advances and expertise would eradicate poverty and bring prosperity to all. And so on….
The promise of what experts would bring the world was exciting, even intoxicating. True political experts, we were assured, would bring lasting peace, end conflicts, and spread happiness to every city and town. The Fed would ensure a stable and growing economy at all times, using modern expertise and financial algorithms to save us from major financial challenges. The promises were endless.
Over fifty years later, none of these expectations have been realized. Not even one of them. The entire "experts will fix everything" project is a bust. Just look at the current state of our politics, from the Clinton era to the Bush years, from Obama to Trump. Problems are far from solved. Many of our great national institutions, both public and private, have declined or lost their way. The citizenry's trust of our government, and of experts in general, is lower and lower each decade.
In truth, the era of the expert is insolvent. It's well past bankrupt, to be precise. We're still training more experts, but they still haven't solved the problems that caused us to want more of them in the first place. A lot of things have gotten worse. In short, something else is needed…
And soon.
While national debts continue to skyrocket (more than doubling in the past 8 years), markets show increased volatility, and governmental credit ratings are downgraded, many of the experts assure us that things are getting better. But all they've shown is that they don't really know what they're doing. They know how to keep themselves well paid and in power, but beyond that, they haven't fulfilled their purpose.
For example, imagine what would happen if we faced an economic depression like those the U.S. suffered in the 1930s, 1860s, or 1780s. When the Great Depression came, most Americans trusted the government, our leaders, and our national institutions. Today most citizens have very little trust in any of these; indeed, over sixty percent of Americas don't trust the government to do the right thing most of the time. If crisis comes in this atmosphere of mistrust, few solutions from Washington will find enough traction to be successful.
This is a dominant characteristic of our times: We can't seem to solve our national problems, big or small. We are mired in political squabbles, both between parties and within parties, and Washington accomplishes very little that actually helps the American people. It often causes harm, in fact.
As a people, we have largely lost trust not only in governmental officials and institutions but also in the media, Wall Street, Hollywood, the schools, big business…the list is long. Whom do we really trust as a people? Whom can we turn to in crisis—with real confidence they'll fix things? In short, which experts do we really believe have our backs anymore?
If the promise of "experts will save us, and all our youth should become experts" doesn't ring true anymore, what does? What is the answer? From the founding era through westward migration and the Industrial Revolution, the overarching goal of most Americans was to build a business and raise a family. This was our drive, our agenda. It was our national project, carried out by myriad individuals and families.
Then after World War II we turned our gaze in another direction: the career, a profession, education as job training, and daily life spent meeting the needs of the corporation or whatever organization employed us. In short, experts ruled and most people wanted to be experts. If they couldn't swing it themselves, they at least tried to make it a reality for their children. Even family goals were expected to bend or give way to the interests of employers. Schools, likewise, were reorganized to separate, grade, sort, and point young people in the direction most likely to meet corporate needs. Experts oversaw the entire process, literally from cradle to grave and almost everything in between.
As the evidence of expert limitations grows, and as our national faith in the power of experts to solve our problems erodes and crumbles, what is left? Where will we turn? A whole generation of Millennials grapple with this situation in their work life, and more decide to opt out of the system than join it. Where are we headed?
So far, nobody can definitively answer these questions. Time will tell, but in the meantime we must do our best to understand and prepare for the economy and world that is emerging in the post-faith-in-experts era. My opinion is that the most likely path forward is to reconnect with our American roots and turn our sights once again toward entrepreneurship. Business ownership is, in fact, the historical American pastime. The fact that many people abandoned it for half a century only worked because a few business owners did things on a big enough scale to employ the many.
But eventually, like any system where the many depend on the few for survival and progress, the few began taking more and more of the profits and power for themselves. In history this was called aristocracy, in more recent times it has been called socialism, and in our day it often gets away with calling itself capitalism. But whatever we call it, such a model is a far cry from the free enterprise system that turned America into a world leader—based firmly on freedom and the goal of most people to be independent owners and build their own businesses.
If and when this goal once again permeates our national mindset and our people's choices, we'll see the rise of a nation of problem-solvers. At that point, we won't be dependent on politicians to fix things, and as a result, things will actually get fixed. In the process, we'll naturally see a decreasing attachment to political parties and the rise of a non-political majority of business owners and family raisers.
There was once a name for just such goals: "The American Dream." It's time to bring it back.
To put it succinctly: Experts won't save us. Politicians won't fix what ails our nation. The solution will come, if at all, from a cultural change that marks the resurgence of a certain kind of person. At one point in history, people around the world had a word for such independent-thinking mavericks who took risks and then worked incredibly hard to make their businesses flourish and grow. They called them "Americans." What qualified one for such a title? A burning drive to build and lead one's own business, and to raise a family and community of young people with the same goal.
I think we'll witness the rebirth of this same "tide in human affairs" very soon. In fact, I believe it's already begun. But it faces strong headwinds blowing in the other direction, so we need to do better if we want the American Dream to succeed again. This is our key to the kind of future we want to pass down to our children and grandchildren.
Families, schools, communities and parents can either raise a nation of "independents" or a society of "dependents." One will bring freedom and opportunity, the other won't.
It's our choice, and the decision won't be made in Washington — or even at the ballot box.
Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Education &Entrepreneurship &Featured &Generations &Government &History &Independents &Information Age &Leadership &Liberty &Mission &Politics &Producers &Prosperity &Statesmanship
Chaos in Current Events!
June 21st, 2017 // 8:50 am	@ Oliver DeMille
History is Repeating Itself, But Do We Know Its Lesson?
Cycling Back Around
This is a chaotic time. Political scandals, media lies, shootings and violence based on political disagreements, terrorist attacks in formerly safe places. For the American people, it's both frustrating and scary.
It helps to step back and take a deep breath, then turn to history for answers. Since patterns frequently repeat, they can tell us a lot about what's actually happening—beyond the anger and intensity of nightly news reports. They can also tell us what's coming.
Here's how things work. Since the beginning of written history society has been split between three groups: 1) those in power, 2) those who have some power but are seeking more of it in order to be at the top of the power pyramid, and 3) other people who just want to live their lives. The good news is that in the United States today, a higher number of people are free to enjoy life and seek to live their dreams than perhaps any other society in known history. That's worth smiling about, no matter what the news tells us.
On the other hand, a lot of people today have a sense that things are heading in the wrong direction. We have a lot of problems, both here and abroad, and it often feels as if some spark will soon set off some kind of powder keg that leads to real crisis. It's a feeling like many Americans experienced in the late 1930s and early 1940s, or in the late 1850s and early 1860s. The American founding generation felt it at the beginning of the 1770s. In each of these cases, that sense of unease and anxiety was eventually followed by drastic challenges—Pearl Harbor, the Civil War, the Revolutionary War.
Indeed, according to the cycles of history, we're in that same turn of the pattern right now. It's unclear exactly what will happen to bring bigger national crisis, but a lot of people feel a foreboding sense that something momentous is about to come.
To put this in clear perspective, the news right now is a tale of four nations.
One: the business news reports almost daily signs of an economic upturn, more financial opportunity, and budding growth in a rebooting economy.
Two: international news reports increasing terror attacks, alarming danger signs in North Korea, Iran and from ISIS, and a looming energy building for more conflicts ahead with Russia and China.
Three: the mainstream media portrays the Trump White House and the Republican Congress as ineffective, and throws out daily allegations of Administration corruptions, lies, conspiracies and hidden agendas to hurt the nation.
Four: conservative media debunks these mainstream reports and points instead to the kind of alleged corruption on the Left: Loretta Lynch, James Comey, the Clinton Foundation, illegal leaks, violent "Resisters", DNC collusion with the mainstream media, Hillary Clinton's emails, etc.
It is amazing how often these competing sources of media tell exactly the opposite story about a given event from the day's news. Most people listening to all the reports are left deeply confused, or cynical. And those who only listen to one news source are frequently surprised by what friends tell them about the news. "But I listened to the total opposite on the morning news! You must be remembering that wrong."
To make sense of all this, let's put aside the noise and distraction. Let's be as blunt and direct as possible: We are living in one of those historical periods where we face an existence-level conflict. We are literally in the midst of an existential war. Such wars are both cold and hot, violent and emotional. They are deeply rooted in the conflict between major ideas—with two cultures battling to survive, to win, and to thrive. But each side feels that it must fully defeat an opposing culture in order to survive.
Such intellectual wars have always existed, but they only reach a crisis-point like the one we are now experiencing when certain factors align. First, instead of a general conflict among ideas, the populace finds itself facing off in a dramatic disagreement between two major viewpoints, two overall paradigms that cannot peacefully coexist. Second, the stakes are high enough that almost everyone in the society firmly picks one of the two sides. Even people who are usually moderate, or generally centrist in their views, feel strongly enough about the current situation to put aside their typical willingness to see both good and bad on both sides. They now clearly see one side as right and the other as wrong. Many people go further—they see their side as Good, and the other as Evil.
Third, and this is where—according to historical patterns—the real danger sets in, more and more people find their emotions leading them, and they stop really thinking about current events. Symbols, which are always important in society, become the main thing in such eras. Symbols take over. For example, we now live in a nation where millions of people don't even consider a certain policy if it is supported by the Trump Administration. They immediately think they "know" it is bad, wrong, hurtful—as soon as the name Trump is attached. In contrast, millions of other people have the exact same emotional reaction to anything attached to the name Obama, or Hillary Clinton. Rationality, consideration, and even empathy, are largely ignored. Millions basically turn off their brains and simply react to symbols—and their reactions are emotional, charged, and frequently downright angry. This turns violent more often than in less extreme eras of history.
Diverging Paths
In the current environment, winning has become the only goal for many in leadership, and for a majority of the population. And winning itself is defined as having certain people in power and in office, and/or other specific people out of power and out of office. Nothing but winning is acceptable to far too many in positions of influence and power—both public and in the private sector.
But there is an even worse situation, and it is the one we are now living. This occurs when one side believes that winning is the only important thing, and is willing to go to any length, any extreme, to win, while the other side still believes that some things are more important than winning.
When this happens, the side that only cares about winning becomes truly extreme, loses its moral sense and ethical compass, and goes entirely on the attack, using any means and justification it can muster. The other side, still convinced that morality is more important than winning, holds back, tries to show restraint, and attempts to use reason and appeals to decency to make its case. The result, in history, is mixed:
If an election is near, the anger gets channeled to the voting booth and a winning number of voters weigh in and throw their support behind the side arguing for decency, goodness, and wisdom.
If no election is imminent, the anger grows and is expressed mostly by the political class: those on the full attack win, while the side seeking reason and decency loses.
We are now witnessing the latter scenario. And history is clear on this point: Nations are drastically hurt by this approach. It tore the United States apart in the 1960s, where we witnessed the assassination of a President and two other major national leaders, along with massive violence, cultural civil war, and the destruction of national trust and cooperation. Similar events tore nations apart during the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and Bismarck's Wars. The French and Indian War, the War of the Roses, the 30 Years War, and a number of others followed the same pattern. World War I took Europe for a similar ride—or, more precisely, a similar culture war culminated in the muddy trenches full of blood and machine-gun casings that webbed the continent in World War I.
In each case, it came down to two great, competing ideas or cultures, large or powerful groups supporting each side, and, eventually, the rise of symbol to extreme levels that incited violence, irrationality, and all-out culture war. We are now witnessing the same stew. Any who aren't alarmed, or at least deeply concerned, don't understand the ebbs and flows of history.
The solution, as history teaches, is to clearly identify which idea is right—and reject the other. This finally ended the great conflicts listed above, whether the conflicting ideas were communism vs. democratic free enterprise, a divine right of kings vs. the inalienable rights of all, Nazism vs. parliamentary democracy, imperialism vs. self-determination, slavery vs. individual rights, etc.
Follow or Lead?
To make matters even more challenging, today we are engaged in two such wars at the same time. First, there is the battle of radical Islamic terrorism vs. democratic inalienable rights. The clear winner will be democratic inalienable rights, which is more popular than terrorism among Muslims and pretty much everyone else around the world. Only the terrorists themselves, a very small minority of the world's population, think theirs is the right idea.
The second great war being fought right now for control of our future is more complex. More difficult. Indeed, it threatens to tear our modern societies apart. It consists of, to put it as directly as possible, the competing ideas of democracy vs. aristocracy.
Elites choose the latter. They think society should be run by a few, and that the rest of us should accept the rule of our "betters." And be grateful.
This is the underlying battle of our times. It is the war being fought in Washington D.C. between the Establishment and the American voters, and in most of our schools (where young people are largely convinced that success consists of getting a job working for elites, showing gratitude to elites, and kowtowing to elites in return for the promised salaries, promotions, and employee benefits). It is the war being fought on our campuses, and in most of the television programs and movies we consume.
Sometimes the message from schools, campuses, and the entertainment media is blatant, while other times it is subtle. But the message is nearly always the same: "the values of elites are best", and "the rule of elites in all walks of life is just the way things are—and the way things should be". This viewpoint is repeated over and over: "The best we can do is fall in line and get the kind of education and careers elites want for us." Few people are able to spend many years in this system without succumbing to its promises and threats.
Perhaps the very center of this war is the media. Nearly every mainstream media report today communicates the same message: elites are the answer, we all need to adopt and celebrate elite values, all other values are obsolete or inferior, the voters get it wrong when they don't follow elite media guidance, and the best path for our children is to embrace elite values and get the kind of good jobs that are mostly available working for elites and furthering elite agendas. The message is clear, and it is repeated from many of our most venerated institutions: "Everyone who isn't an elite, or working for elites, is a loser, an outsider, an inferior."
The Choice Right Now
This is not an exaggeration. Step back, look at our society today, the culture wars that are brewing, the leaders and their battles, and the news media. We are the world described just above—run "of the elites, by the elites, and for the elites." The United States is a society at war, and the war is democracy vs. aristocracy. Note that aristocracy is promoted by nearly all of our major societal institutions. We are a world where all men and women are created equal, to paraphrase Orwell, but some, the elites (and those who adopt elite values and work for their goals), are to be treated more equal than others.
When the voters put in presidents and other leaders approved by elites they are applauded by the same elites. Media, academia, television, movies and experts of all stripes laud such officials and those who voted for them. When voters elect anyone who threatens or challenges elite values or goals, these same institutions turn to full attack mode. It's like a pack of jackals going after their worst enemy. It's Lord of the Flies. The courts are brought to bear, the media is weaponized, schools and universities become arms of elite propaganda, and the bulk of professionals and experts turn their attention to reversing or amending electoral "mistakes." The voters must be kept in their place. Their superiors must rule.
Again, to history—it has always been thus. In fact, this is what Burke and Santayana were talking about when they warned that those who don't learn from the mistakes of history are bound to repeat them. Specifically: The aristocrats have always known how to respond when a bit of democracy raises its head in challenge. They lie, they attack, they use innuendo, they mischaracterize, they publish false reports—followed by more false reports. When they do tell the truth, they spin it to promote their narrative. Where possible, they employ character assassination. If these fail, they look for another way. Any way to bring back elite rule and control.
This can go two ways, history shows us. If the people are swayed by such elite manipulations and tactics, the elites quickly regain their power. If not, if the people hold strong against elitist lies, agendas, and domination, democracy spreads and free enterprise flourishes.
Make no mistake. No matter how it looks (and remember that elites almost single-handedly control how it looks), the battles we witness on the nightly news are not personality vs. personality or even political party vs. political party. Something deeper is afoot. Aristocracy and Democracy are at war. Rule by elites vs. rule by the regular people. This is a true fork in the road. We will either remain a democratic, free enterprise nation, or we will become a fully functioning aristocracy.
This is our choice. Right now. And it boils down to whether we let the media sway our views, or not.
Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Education &Generations &Government &History &Independents &Information Age &Leadership &Liberty &Mission &Politics &Producers &Prosperity &Statesmanship

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Jewish Journal Highlights Several Temple Emanuel Events in Their Piece on What Happening in Jewish L.A.
Jewish Journal Highlights Shabbat Spark Services on List of Events Happening in Jewish L.A.
Temple Topics, our official quarterly newsletter, beautifully documents the life of our congregation with photos, inspirational stories, and educational commentaries from our clergy. Read each issue for information on upcoming events, religious services, holiday information, and more.
ChaiLights, our weekly email newsletter, gives you a calendar of all upcoming events, religious services, B'nai mitzvah and more. Click here for this week's ChaiLights.
To sign up for our newsletters, please email info@tebh.org.
Here you can read our last several issues of Temple Topics. For our full archive of online publications, click here.


Added by MarkDBlackwell (Mark D Blackwell) about 2 years ago. Updated almost 2 years ago.
I searched this issue list (for Descriptions including ftp), but didn't find this problem discussed.
Much smaller files transferred fine.
Eventually, using a test file of about 63 kilobytes, I discovered that if I specified a blocksize identical to the file length (in bytes), it worked. And the transfer failed when the blocksize was one byte smaller.
Since then, I've sent hundreds of files (many of which are approximately 1 or 2 megabytes in size) without experiencing this problem.
Why should I need to set the blocksize in this way? It seems undocumented, to say the least.
2.4.0p0 (x86_64-linux), and 2.3.3p222 (x64-mingw32).
Could you send us debug output by setting Net::FTP#debug_mode to true?
Make sure the output doesn't contain any sensitive information.
Presumably, some system misconfiguration (such as, Ping packets being blocked somewhere by a firewall?) has since been corrected.
So I close this issue. Thanks.


text:
Short-handed Vikings fall to College of San Mateo
Aaron Tolentino
Wide receivers Brandon Perrilliat (left) and Antwuin Prowes (right) walk back to the sideline in their game against College of San Mateo at Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill, California on November 10, 2017.
Aaron Tolentino, Sports Reporter
In their last home game of the year, the Vikings fell to the College of San Mateo Bulldogs 45-14 on Friday, Nov. 10 to finish the regular season with a 5-5 record.
In the first half the Vikings were right there with the Bulldogs but were unable to capitalize deep into Bulldogs' territory. One drive had kicker Prominence Akubuo-Onwuemeka's kick blocked and the other two had the Vikings going for it on fourth down and failing to convert.
The 9-1 Bulldogs took advantage of their opportunities to score with their standout wide receiver Rajae Johnson scoring two touchdowns with multiple Viking defenders draped all over him, pushing the lead to 17-0 at halftime.
"The score doesn't represent how close it was," said head coach Mike Darr. "That first half, we probably had more yards than them, we just didn't finish down in the red zone. Since we didn't really score, (score) should've been 3-0 at halftime."
For the Vikings, the story of the night was how decimated the team was by injuries on both sides of the ball.
"We had 13 starters out. We had two defensive lineman play offensive line. We had a tight end play defensive line, so these guys really played their butts off," said Darr.
It was tough, especially for this young team, to have players being forced to step up and play on both sides of the ball throughout.
"Today was tiring but I tried to play through it and get through the game," said wide receiver Antwuin Prowes, who caught a touchdown pass along with playing a heavy amount of time on defense as a defensive back.
From Darr to the fans in the stands, everyone saw how, it seemed, every other play another Viking was banged up and limped off the field.
"It's tough when you're already young and then you're making all those replacements," said Darr. "Second half, guys were getting banged up, guys were getting tired, losing more guys."
Defensive back Ronnie Preston (30) walks back to the sideline with his teammates in a game against College of San Mateo in Pleasant Hill, California on Nov. 10, 2017.
Credit to the Vikings, despite the plethora of injuries, who fought hard until the clock hit triple zero.
"We did a good job, never stopped fighting, that's what we really gotta do," said quarterback Matt Vitale.
A silver lining for the Vikings' offense was how they came alive towards the end of the game. Vitale and Prowes connected for two deep balls, one for a 57-yard score.
"It just clicked in the second half," said Vitale on Prowes ability to repeatedly beat one-on-one coverage. "I think we finally got it down and just started showing up. He's fast as hell, whenever he gets behind the DBs, there's no shot they can get him."
According to Vitale, the momentum built was huge as a confidence boost for the Vikings to bring to their next game, a potential bowl game.
The Vikings are guaranteed a spot for a bowl game if the defending NorCal champions, 8-1 American River College, beat 4-5 Sierra College on Saturday, Nov. 11.
The heart the Vikings showed Friday, despite all the adversity and injuries, is just the kind of heart that can win them more games in the future.
"We don't play this game for moral victories, but if there was a definition of one, (tonight) is what it was," said Darr.
Aaron Tolentino, Sports Editor
Sports editor, spring 2018. Staff member, fall 2017.
Unexpected COVID-19 Outbreak Ripples Through NFL
NBA Brings Social Justice Fight to the Finals
NBA Player Boycotts Ripple Across Sports World in Support of Racial Justice
Pandemic Stalls DVC Student Athletes' Hopes to Play at Four-Year Schools
First Team All Conference Forward Reflects Upon Season Finale
DVC Women's Basketball Win A Chance to Conquer the State Championship
After Defeating San Mateo, DVC Women's Softball Eyes Playoffs
Raoul Harley Drains Game Winner to Power Vikings Past First Round of Playoffs
Disappointing Loss Makes Men's Team a Long Shot for First Place in Big 8
Third Quarter Collapse Sinks DVC Women Against #1 Ranked Delta College


Do you love to bring your dog with you everywhere you go? I do, and often wish I could bring my dog, Jake, into stores and restaurants with me. Maybe it's just me projecting my own feelings onto the dog, but you know how it is. That look on their faces that make it seem like you're about to desert them forever when you have to leave them at home or outside of the store? It's heart-wrenching, isn't it?
Well, the good news is that more and more establishments are tweaking their policies to allow people to brings their dogs along after all. Motels and hotels, restaurants, cafe's and such are hopping on the dog friendly stores train.
*Note: If your dog is not a service dog, do not bring them into a store that is not dog-friendly. Additionally, many chain stores (including ones on this list) leave it up to the manager to decide whether their individual locations allow dogs or not. The best way to ensure you can bring your pooch inside is to call ahead and find out that specific store's policy.
Not on this particular list, but don't forget your local PetSmart and Petco stores.
Again, click on BarkPost's Post of Dog Friendly Stores to get the links to each of theses stores before you head out the door with your best doggy friend. Anyway, they have really awesome photos to go along with each store link. Check them out.
Which of these stores listed has you itching to bring your dog with you next time you go?
It's Barnes & Noble for me!
This is a Pet Parade Blog Hop. What is a Blog Hop?
our local Hobby Lobby will NOT allow dogs in unless they're service dogs.
I love this!! We love to bring Cocoa when we go out but can't if it's too hot or too cold since she has to be in the car. If more places would allow them in it would be wonderful!! There are lots I had no idea may allow dogs.
That's quite a list! But I think the most important thing you touched on is to call ahead and check with the management before going there with your pet. That makes so much sense that I don't get why so many people don't do it in the first place.


Looking for the best in cell phones? You've come to the right place! We have scoured the industry in search of the best deals on the finest name-brands, including Apple iPhone, Motorola, Samsung, Palm, Nokia, Sony, Blackberry, and Verizon. Click below on the name brand of your choice to find a wide selection of models in all sizes, types and price ranges. Our offerings are updated daily to make sure they represent the best prices on the Web.


text:
Home › The Wire
The Music Business Advice Book By Bobby Owsinski Now Available
Get It In Writing, Inc ⋅ Aug 7, 2018
Los Angeles, CA-August 2018…BOMG Publishing is pleased to announce the release of The Music Business Advice Book: 150 Immediately Useful Tips From The Pros by top-selling music industry author and blogger Bobby Owsinski.
The Music Business Advice Book is a compilation of 150 helpful quotes from 130 top music pros from various segments of the music industry. These experts previously shared these tips on Bobby Owsinski's Inner Circle Podcast over the course of almost 5 years.
These 150 tips cover everything from following your passion, learning to network, and working well with your musical team, to owning your own content and even figuring out how much to charge for your services. Also included are even some useful music production words of wisdom, as well as the indispensable "10 Rules Of Networking."
"I always close my Inner Circle podcast by asking my guest one final question – 'What was the best piece of business advice that was imparted to you or you learned along the way?'", revealed author Bobby Owsinski. "Many times the answers reinforced a few central points that we've all come to appreciate over the years, but some were so insightful that I knew they would be extremely helpful to so many in the business looking for a little guidance."
The experts quoted come from all areas of the music business, including recording and mixing engineers like Bob Brockman, Joe Chiccarelli, Josh Gudwin, and Vance Powell, mastering engineers like Gavin Lurssen and Ian Shepherd, producers like Ken Calliat, Mike Elizondo and Warren Huart, post-production gurus like Scott Gershin and Brian Schmidt, musicians like Pete Thorn, Mark Shulman and Shane Theriot, composers and songwriters like Richard Gibbs, Carmen Rizzo and Martin Page, managers like Candace Stewart, Rick Barker and Antony Bland, music publishers like Jamie Purpora and Greig Watts, label execs like Shan Dan Horan and Shawn Mikle, technologists like Steven Slate and Roger Linn, and music business advocates like Dae Bogen, Dave Kusek and David Scheirman. Of course, this is just a quick sampling as more than 100 additional equally celebrated music authorities who also contributed.
Among the many topics covered in the book include:
how to follow your passion without selling your soul
learning to network and why it's critical to finding work
determining what you're worth and how to charge for it
developing the right attitude and why it's the big key to getting ahead
discovering the most crucial aspects of your personal music business
getting paid from both clients and companies
keeping ownership of your own content
and even a few production gems of wisdom
The insights in The Music Business Advice Book are not only essential for those new to the music industry, but valuable to seasoned pros as well. Whether you're a musician, artist, in a band, an engineer, producer, songwriter or music exec, there's something in this book for everyone.
For a short time, The Music Business Advice Book carries a special introductory price of just $0.99 on Amazon's Kindle store. The print edition is priced at $19.99. A table of contents and book excerpts can be found at https://www.bobbyowsinski.com/music-business-advice-book.html.
SAE Institute Chicago is now offering diplomas in Audio Technology and Music Business as part of the school's Audio Technology Program and Music Business Program. (http://www.sae-usa.com)
Ah2 Music Reveals "Filtered Music" Catalog, and Names Longtime Universal Music Publishing Group Executive Scott James as VP, Business Development
Pacifica Music Catalog Launched by RipTide Music & PigFactory As A Collection of Modern Music for TV, Film & Other Productions
Premiere Hollywood Music Catalog "Riptide ONE" Now Available for National, International and Regional Advertisers and Brands from Riptide Music Group
Second Edition Of Bobby Owsinski's Social Media Promotion For Musicians Now Available
Aphex®'s New Audio Xciter™ Music App Now Available: Hear Your Music the Way It Was Meant to Sound
Warner/Chappell Music Acquires Renowned Production Music Company 615 Music


Distributing free leaflets across the UK is a perfectly legal activity in the majority of cases, though there are certain situations where permission is needed, or you may accidentally fall on the wrong side of the law.
If you're planning to deliver and distribute leaflets as part of a campaign yourself, then it's important to be aware of all the legal requirements, as this brief guide details. Alternatively, using our services here at Leafletdrop will make sure that your leaflet marketing campaign stays on the right side of the law at all times.
When Do and Don't You Need Permission?
Therefore, when using Leafletdrop or delivering leaflets through doors, you don't need to worry about gaining permission. Free printed materials can include anything from leaflets and cards to takeaway menus, promotional material and free newspapers.
The main situation when you will need permission to distribute leaflets is when they are being handed out on the street. When this is the case, you should check what the regulations are in your local area or where you wish to hand out leaflets, as you may need to apply for a licence or leaflet distribution in this manner may be banned.
In 2005 the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act was introduced by the UK government. One of the main reasons it was created was to prevent littering and hold those who do accountable. This allows local authorities to control leaflet distribution in their towns and cities, with regulations varying from free consent schemes to having to pay for a licence.
For example, in Manchester free leaflets can be handed out with consent from the city council. However, consent fees are based on a points system, so depending on the type of business and other factors this could be free, easily affordable or rather expensive to obtain. Other councils, such as in Leeds, allow leaflet distribution in the street but only in certain areas, charging a set amount per badge for each distributor.
Failure to get the correct licence for leaflet distribution in the street can result in a fixed penalty of up to £80 or a fine of up to £2,500. If you do get a licence but then break the regulations of it (such as distributing leaflets in an area outside of the agreed zone) the same penalties can be applied, along with a potential fine and a criminal record. Plus, your licence will likely be cancelled, and all printed leaflets confiscated until the end of any legal proceedings.
If you've applied for a licence and been turned down, you can appeal to your local magistrate's court if they've refused permission, put additional conditions on what, when and how you leaflet and withdrawn or changed its permission. For some small scale or community events you may even be eligible for a discount on any fees.
One of the easiest and effective ways to make sure you stay on the right side of the law with leaflet distribution is to get started with Leafletdrop. Sign up to begin your own personalised marketing campaigns and remain safe in the knowledge that everything is well within the law.


text:
SXSW EDU®
SXSW®
SXSW Online
TX High School Film
XR Exhibition
Gaming Awards
SXSW EDU Online
SXSW EDU Launch Competition
sxsw-cart-logo Shopping Cart
SXSW Release It $20
This item is not currently available for purchase. ×
Photo by Akash Kataria.
Is your company planning to launch a new product or service or to re-launch / update an existing product or service in early 2020? Then you'll want to be a part of SXSW Release It on Friday, March 13, 2020! A panel of judges comprised of technology industry experts, venture capitalists and high profile media will select the product or service most likely to succeed in the marketplace. Application deadline for this program is Friday, January 17, 2020, but presentation spots are limited so you are encouraged to apply to Release It as soon as possible.
To be eligible:
A company's product / service must have launched no earlier than Wednesday, January 1, 2020.
A company's product / service must not be launched after Friday, March 13, 2020.
Companies will be allowed to submit only one product or service to SXSW Release It. Companies who submit more than one product or service will not be eligible to participate in SXSW Release It.
Companies can not have presented in any of the following events: SXSW Pitch or SXSW EDU Launch.
Are you a company that has an innovative product or service? Apply here to have your company considered for the SXSW Release It Event® happening at SXSW 2020.
On-Sale Information...
SXSW Events
SXSW® SXSW EDU®
© 2018 - 2021 SXSW, LLC. SXSW®, SXSW EDU®, and South by Southwest® are trademarks owned by SXSW, LLC. Any unauthorized use of these names, or variations of these names, is a violation of state, federal, and international trademark laws.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | RFID Policy | Participation & Credentials Terms | Help