Twitter Lifts NY Post Ban In Time For Leftist October Surprise

Twitter has not had an awakening. They have not seen the error of their ways. They lifted the ban on the NY Post and realigned their censorship standards in order to be able to allow the Left to publicize the coming smear against Trump. They changed their rules because they have been told the coming smear won't stand up on its own, it will in fact over time be found to be false, and they must get out of the way of its dissemination.

The Poll Takers Worry About Their Future

 Recently Frank Luntz remarked to the effect that should the pollsters get the Presidential election wrong in 2020, as they did in 2016, they should get out of the business. A move few believe they can feel the shame to actually fulfill. Because, for the pollsters, it isn't about the results except that increased accuracy increases their earning power. Polls are about two things,  (1 the financial benefit of the pollster, and (2 influencing the weak-minded voter. *

And, neither reason furthers the American dream, or the democratic republic with which we adhere.

Pollsters can manipulate the result through the questions they ask and the population they survey. And they are known to do this in order to achieve a desired outcome, of the voter's choosing the pollster's preference. They are in essence soap commercials telling the voter which brand is better, and better because it is more popular. They are taking advantage of a human desire to be with the winner. Since most voters really don't know much about the policies that will come along with the various candidates or the effect of such policies, they go along with the crowd. Pollsters will sometimes effort to cast the ballot for the voter, figuratively speaking, by presenting a version of where the crowd is going without regard to whether that is the truth. Lemmings isn't just a lampoon.

The only poll that matters happens in the ballot box has been said many times before. And, if we are to remain, or some say become, a truly representative government such should be the case.

So, I for one, would not mourn the demise of the pollster occupation. Let them learn to code instead.

*(Published polls,that is.  Internal polls within a campaign can be instructive to candidate's policy choices and beneficial to the citizenry as a means of informing our potential representative of our desires. Though these too can be in error if the pollster isn't conscientious and do serve as a source of income for the pollster.)

Show The Algorithm Source Code On Internet Search Engines

 Google it.

We all used to say that, they were at the forefront of searching the internet. The term became as universally used as the name Kleenex for facial tissue.

These days there are legitimate worries about bias in search results. Agendas ruin beauty.

Initially, as I understood it, Google promised us a simple non-biased formula; the most commonly searched results were shown at the top of the results page. While that may have never been the ideal method it had good intentions behind its formulation. Now, such a standard can be manipulated. Can? I think we can guarantee it is manipulated. Bots flood out hits for the promotion of an agenda causing an unnatural directing of the results in such a system. Or, does that standard even still exist? Search results can also be manipulated at the source. Now there are many search engines. Some promise anonymity. Some are certain to compile data of you from your search. Some purposefully direct the results to further an agenda.

There are other problems with information sharing in the news lately. Social platforms have come under the command of authoritarian fascists intent of undermining our First Amendment Right to free speech. Substituting their judgement, (or is it a fear driven cancellation of the others),  for the free discourse the brilliant founders of this country so clearly trusted to filter ideas.

With so many threats to free speech we need remedial assurances that we get only what we seek.

Social platforms are a problem onto themselves, and possibly our laws can be fashioned to correct their errors.

Laws alone will not suffice when it comes to search engines. Right now, for no doubt proprietary reasons originally, the exact intent of the results we receive is unknowable. We ask, the search engine delivers. We may seem to notice the results are idealistically skewed, but we are left only to speculate. The ability to actually see the code that creates the search could remedy the inability to know why we got the results we got. Cumbersome to explore and analyze, perhaps. But, there are people who can do it, it doesn't require that each searcher will view and deduce the source code, just that some will and all can is enough to promote an honest system. (I am using source code as a description for the algorithm written for and utilized in the searching. In the same way you can right click and select View Page Source and see all of the coding written to create the page you are viewing it should be possible to view the algorithm behind a search).

I mentioned proprietary before. The idea that the algorithm is the property of the search engine and as such keeping it secret enhances its value to the company that owns it is perhaps a hurdle to enactment of my suggestion/plea, but one which must be overcome to ensure our freedom. If it means eliminating search engine algorithm from the list of intellectual property so be it.

The Covid Expert's Advice And A Carton Of Milk

 Both should come with an expiration date. Milk already does. The Covid expert's advice does not, though in reality, circumstances force an expiration upon so much of what they tell us.

This is a unique virus, we are told. So, it should not be a surprise when the best guess made with the most current information is revised or contradicted later. 

The first and perhaps most obvious example is Dr. Fauci initially saying that the general public did not need to wear face masks. We now know that he was intentionally misleading the public because he feared the correct information would lead to a run on face masks and a shortage for the medical personnel who must be kept safe so they are available to help others. Of course preventing panic is wise when facing an existential threat. But, I did not accept his answer in real time, common sense, and still believe he could have offered alternative sources for mouth/nose coverings for the general populace if he trusted the people to behave reasonably, conscientiously. Knowing, as a man of common sense, that people would have panicked and scarfed up every available ready made protective mask without regard for the imperative of an expert or other authority his choice is understandable. But, it was a lie when he told it, it came with an expiration date.

Other examples include lock downs, (W.H.O.) lately said they don't work), treatments, (depending on the day of the week some drugs show promise and then are completely discounted, then....), distance, ....and, well every aspect has shown the capacity for revision, aka an expiration date.

One day we will know which is the real story. Until then, while we still are in peril, use the commonly practiced methods every Mother should have taught their children. Stay clean. Stay away from infected people and places. Eat well. Rest. Nurture the common sense to protect yourself in spite of the experts and authorities.

Vet The Moderator

 Here comes the final Presidential Debate of the 2020 campaign. Days away. 

And, only now is it coming forth that the so-called moderator has significant Democratic ties, and is a well known left leaning member of the media. Such a surprise.

I suggest that in order for the President to receive a fair shot at presenting his ideas that an effort be made to vet the moderator ahead of the debate. The little chicky-poo who hosted the NBC town hall which replaced Debate number two was either willfully of totally ignorant of the President's often stated position on racists, he hates them and completely condemns them, repeatedly, as is, over and over and over and over ..... The evidence of his stance is publicly available, has always been publicly available and for Savannah (mixed woodland-grassland ecosystem) Guthrie to appear unaware of his well known stance is disturbing. Disturbing as in completely unbelievable. Anyone who cares to know who obviously be aware that the charges stemming form the cherry-picked portions of his speech following the horrors which occurred at Greensville were deliberately misleading. He said both sides of the Confederate statues debate had good people who deserved to be heard, i paraphrase, of course. He also, clearly and specifically distinguished those people from the White Supremacists who later attended and created trouble. Two separate groups, those concerned over the historical matters(good people on both sides of this one matter), and those who are haters. 

There are other examples of the President showing that he cares and believes in people of all races. There are other examples of the President condemning racists. Show them all to the moderator and have her sign a declaration that she has seen and understands his position for all races and against all racists. Make her, (in this coming debate the moderator is a woman), do this on camera and insist she show it to her audience on her television program before the debate. Make her provide to the satisfaction of the President's surrogates that she will not go into the debate with any possible ignorance of the true facts.

If, or should we yet expect when, she still behaves, states, presents to the viewers and candidates an opposing line to these facts the agreement should include a clause allowing her to be personally sued for everything she owns now and in the future. 

And, then having done this process for this issue, the same process needs to be completed for every other false myth that has been leveled against President Trump. And, only then should she be allowed to speak to the candidates.

Finally A Republican Fights Back

 So, all the usual people say the debates were too erratic, right? Too much talking over one another. Too much interrupting. Too much callousness. Too much, too much.

But, what some observers know is that the decorum displayed is exactly what the Democrats have been doing to our national discussion for, well, forever. So, why not join them when so many nice-mannered types have failed to get the Dems to come back to civil discourse? Setting an example for the radical left wing has failed to get the desired result. They, the leftist/progressive/Marxist/radical/un-American sect have been little more than angry willful children forever. Determined to get their way no matter what. Now unable to take what they have been serving up forever. 

So, now a Republican beats them at their own game, and their reaction is shut up you. Biden literally pulled that card during the debate. Biden, the programmed avatar for all those who wish to end the USA and its principles of government in favor of an idealized vision of them in power over a flock of blind sheep, could not fully and honestly engage the President. He could not say that his masters will end voting in this country by flooding this election with ballots. Ballots sent to know knows where and whom. Ballots filled out by who knows who. (If we had such precise knowledge of our national population we would not have needed such an expensive Census, a simple compilation of the masterfully accurate voter rolls would suffice).

President Trump is being criticized for interrupting during the debate. As if he was solely guilty of that supposed crime. I wish I could find a replay, my memory wants to believe Biden interrupted first, thus setting the standard? (Maybe not, maybe not at this debate, but certainly it has been a tactic of the Left going back to at least James Carville as the demon protector of Bill Clinton circa 1996). 

So, President Trump went full James Carville on Biden. So what?

Fox News this morning provided an accounting of how many interruptions each candidate committed. Their count had Trump interrupting slightly more than twice as many times as Biden interrupted Trump. 

So, what? It also says that Biden did it plenty. If he had as many salient points as Trump. If he had as much energy and drive as Trump. 

And, it also bears witness that Trump was debating twice as many opponents as was Biden. 

Yes, Trump had to debate both Biden. He also had to debate the so-called moderator, who is clearly not a non-factor, as he promised to be ahead of the debate, and is instead a functionary supporting Biden.

Bottom line. If Biden can't take the heat, stay in your basement.