Learning How To Lie

Former Governor Kitzhaber does a good job here.

Imagine, sixteen years of policies that have driven the state from one of the most desirable, to one of the least desirable...for job creation.

This ad is slick, and when I talked to Chris last March, I told him, "He's going to pull up his pant leg and show boot. Try debating a boot."

Chris has the makings of a mensch, but needs to lose the current "campaign baggage." Having experts around is smart, but the family he's hired isn't going to cut through. He deserves better. He's being told, he has the best.

If you want a Republican governor, it's time to tell him to grow a pair. Of, whatever.

Governor K is just a redux of Governor K, who was a redux of Governor K. Sixteen years. It's more than time for a change. It's time for a colonoscopy. Oh, wait, you have a business. You're already receiving yours.

Jobs? Name one smart thing that Democrats have done in sixteen years that have helped create an environment where job creation was important. You can't. That isn't to say that the State of Oregon hasn't given hundreds of millions of dollars to companies that the Governor said were worthy of subsidy, in order to attract paper jobs.

Long-term?

No jobs. This state is dying. Democrats are lying. Republicans? Can't seem to gain the attention of the Oregonian. Truth? Who shives a git? Yeah, I know you do. You've read to here.

Can Liberty Be A Post-racial Concept?

Found at a Tootsie's place.

I almost headed this post with "may" rather than "can." When judges follow political guidelines rather than legal guidelines for making decisions, the question is better put as "can."

Watch, please.

Let’s Assume

Tim Geithner, our current Secretary of the Treasury, assumes that only 2 or 3 percent of the population will be affected by the rescission of the “Bush” tax cuts.

Let’s examine this.

In Clatsop County there are, according to Wiki, some 35-thousand people. Three percent of 35-thousand people are more than one thousand people.

Think about this.

What do we know about estimation techniques?* (Here's a brief example relying upon the T-test.**) It's hard to underestimate the lack of math background held by the general population. You can test it whenever you make a purchase; how many clerks are able to count your change back correctly?

This is one of the reasons why I have a hard time with the "social sciences." Talk to an MSW candidate and you find out that anything observed fifty-one percent of the time is a tie-breaker. The lack of statistical analysis is lost on these people. This is not to say that they are stupid. Or dumb.

A better analogy is one of never having received a blow-job. If you've never had one, you don't know a really startling thing; there are experiences you haven't had that are worthwhile. If ever a "social engineer" ever had a solid grounding is statistical inference, half of what fills the networks with "news" would never make it. Do you remember the Raelians? When does the National Enquirer ever meet or exceed our expectations of the "Mainstream Media"?

Daily.

My point is, there are a great number of really smart, caring, loving, intelligent people who are Leftists, who were never exposed to the sciences they tend to espouse that they care for. It's like a Monty Python sketch where monks move from town to town, beating themselves.



You can draw your own conclusions as to the value of either receiving or giving.

Getting back to the idea of "intelligence." There are some really smart people out there, who simply have never been challenged by math, statistics or logic. Religion? Never a concern. these are people who are simply uneducated, even though they have run their way through the Jacob's Gates of organized education.

We, through our elected officials, are willing to tell those thousand people in Clatsop County that social justice is a greater goal than putting people back to work. They, both our elected officials and our local investors, have become defensive. The "one thousand" are minding their P's and Q's. The wealthy don't' want their money taken from them. They view government telling them that they are "rich" an intrusion upon their privacy. And the worst thing is, if you live next door to them, you don't know that they are "wealthy." They're just like us.

It's like we all want to receive a blow-job, but we don't want to give one.

They are whores to greed...but we, ourselves, are pure. And then we find out our daughter's are dating one.

For all the "lovers" out there, here's a thought; work is not a four-letter word.

Giving of yourself for the satisfaction of the other is a capitalist thought. You do it well, you get rewarded. You get to do it again.

It's true in sex. It's true in life. It's true in living. It's true in business.

There is not a single successful entrepreneurial enterprise that has ever succeeded beyond the original capital investment that relied upon "snookering" either the investor or the customer. I've heard all types of debunking methods, from wasteful expenditure to unsustainable investment. What I'm afraid it all boils down to is, someone doesn't like a thing. Not that the "widgit" being produced doesn't have value, but that having created a new widgit, the value of that widgit is criticised for not having a clearly known value, a priori . That is, you're being "snookered" if the critic of your choice disagrees with your choice as an investor,for having invested in a "technology," or product, not foreseen by the folks who choose to evaluate products and technology in advance of their use and utilization. Conspicuous consumption has long been an object of such derision. For at nearly two-hundred years (more?), conspicuous consumption has been proffered as an example of sin, excess, or worse, sloth and gluttony. Mr. Microphone comes to mind.

Inventors, thankfully, don't worry about a priori conditions. Successful inventors only worry about workable solutions. The heuristic solution.

I don’t know about you, but my daily bread depends greatly upon that one-thousand. And the people whose lives depend upon those one-thousand will reach or exceed ten-thousand. The “other” ten-thousand in Clatsop County work for the government; as teachers, state and city workers, federal employees (including the military and the Coast Guard.) The other ten-thousand are children.

We only want to create jobs. Your elected politicians want to increase tax revenue.

At what point will you look at your future, your own self-interest?

Social justice is chimeric as a goal. Work is hard. Math is hard. Taking care of your family is hard. When you do it well, it is very satisfying.

Aren't you tired of the rhetoric of Change!™ yet?

*Classical theories model quantization effects as additive broadband noise. If this "noise" is truly uncorrelated with itself and the input signal, aliasing of the quantization error will be imperceptible. I will attempt to show, using spectral estimation techniques, for what bit depths the classical assumptions break down, and to what degree quantization and aliasing couple in the digitization of a narrowband signal.

**You have a parameter, such as the expression of a gene, and you’ve measured it in a bunch of normal samples and, say, a bunch of samples from tumors. You want to know if the parameter is higher or lower in the tumors. So you take the average of the normals and the average of the tumors, and you compare them. If the average is 2 in the normals and 3.5 in the tumors, then you might think, okay, this parameter is higher in tumors—maybe we should pay attention. But you don’t know if that difference is very large or something that you’re likely to see just by chance.

So a T-test takes the difference between two averages and compares it to how much the parameter actually varies within the normals or within the tumor group. If, within the normal group, the parameter varies, for example, from 2 to 2.1, and in the tumor group it varies from 3 to 3.1, then the difference of 2 to 3 between groups is probably important. But if the normals are varying from 2 to 10 and it's the same with the tumors, then the 2 to 3 difference is probably not that meaningful. That’s what a T-test tells you. And this is the basis of what you’re asking in gene-expression studies. You want to answer that question about a gene under particular circumstances. (Stanford's Robert Tibshirani on Significance Analysis of Microarrays)