Leftism Is Not Liberalism. Here Are the Differences.

Commentary from Dennis Prager on The Daily Signal.com:

What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal?

Answering this question is vital to understanding the crisis facing America and the West today. Yet few seem able to do it. I offer the following as a guide.

Here’s the first thing to know: The two have almost nothing in common.

On the contrary, liberalism has far more in common with conservatism than it does with leftism. The left has appropriated the word “liberal” so effectively that almost everyone—liberals, leftists, and conservatives—thinks they are synonymous.

But they aren’t. Let’s look at some important examples.

Race: This is perhaps the most obvious of the many moral differences between liberalism and leftism.

The essence of the liberal position on race was that the color of one’s skin is insignificant. To liberals of a generation ago, only racists believed that race is intrinsically significant. However, to the left, the notion that race is insignificant is itself racist.

Thus, the University of California officially regards the statement, “There is only one race, the human race,” as racist.

For that reason, liberals were passionately committed to racial integration. Liberals should be sickened by the existence of black dormitories and separate black graduations on university campuses.

Capitalism: Liberals have always been pro-capitalism, recognizing it for what it is: the only economic means of lifting great numbers out of poverty.

Liberals did often view government as able to play a bigger role in lifting people out of poverty than conservatives, but they were never opposed to capitalism, and they were never for socialism. Opposition to capitalism and advocacy of socialism are leftist values.

Nationalism: Liberals deeply believed in the nation-state, whether their nation was the United States, Great Britain, or France.

The left has always opposed nationalism because leftism is rooted in class solidarity, not national solidarity. The left has contempt for nationalism, seeing in it intellectual and moral primitivism at best, and the road to fascism at worst.

Liberals always wanted to protect American sovereignty and borders. The notion of open borders would have struck a liberal as just as objectionable as it does a conservative.  [read more]

What Mr. Prager calls a liberal is what sometimes are called the Old Left—eg FDR, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, etc. Although, Woodrow Wilson was a racist so he doesn’t completely fit the definition of a liberal. Senator Joe Biden is a liberal. The New Left got started somewhere in the 1960s.

The Wisdom of Winston Churchill 2

There is no case for a quarrel between wealth and poverty, it is a quarrel between methods of government and themes of government.

Great quarrels... arise from small occasions that but seldom from small causes.

The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is a rectitude and sincerity of his actions.

The difference between our outlook [conservatism] and the Socialist outlook is the difference between the ladder and the queue. We are for the ladder. Let all try their best to climb. They are for the queue.*

The Conservative Party stands for a way of life which at every stage multiplies the choice open to the Socialist devotees... We plan for choices they plan for rules.

Do not let spacious plans for a new world divert your energies from saving what is left of the old.

We must beware of trying to build a society in which no one counts for anything except a politician or an official, or a society where enterprise gains no reward and thrift no privileges.

Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities... Because it is the quality which guarantees all others.

Defeat is one thing; disgrace is another.

It is the people who control the Government - not the Government the people.

Dictatorship: the fetish worship of one man.

The process of the creation of new wealth is beneficial to the whole community.

Source: The Wit & Wisdom of Winston Churchill: A Treasury of More Than 1,000 Quotations and Anecdotes (1994) by James C. Humes.

*Bernie Sanders things waiting in line is a good thing because the successful has to wait in line too. Never mind that the poor and middle class has to wait in line for food too under socialism. That’s okay as long as the rich gets their punishment or as Sanders might say their “justice.” That should make the other groups feel better.

Nazism, Marxist Socialism, and AntiFa Differences

Source: What's Worse Than Liberal Socialism? Marxist Socialism from FEE.org

Basically, there are no differences according diagram above. Only the goals are different. Another commonality: All love big gov’t.

AntiFa and groups like them are just trying to implement Van Jones “top down—bottom up—inside out strategy.” AntiFa is the bott0m-up part. George Soros or whoever to controlling and donating money to AntiFa is the top-down part. Guess who is the inside-out part? If you said the American people, you would be correct. 

Hackers could train sex robots to kill, cyber security expert warns

From Fox News.com (Sept. 11):

A cyber security buff has issued a bizarre warning that sex robots could one day rise up and kill their owners if hackers can get inside their heads.

Last month, tech billionaire Elon Musk claimed that artificial intelligence could take over the planet, and he's not the only one concerned about the dangers of killer tech.

With sex robots becoming increasingly popular and sophisticated, Cyber security lecturer Dr. Nick Patterson revealed that the lifelike dolls could end up going all Terminator on us.

However, in the case of sex robots, the danger isn't that the love dolls will end up developing minds of their own, Westworld-style.

Instead, the risk is that hackers could breach the realistic robots' inner defenses and catch out their owners with their pants down.

Dr. Patterson told Star Online that hacking into many modern-day robots, including sexbots, would be a piece of cake compared to more sophisticated gadgets like mobiles and computers.

The tech expert, from Deakin University, Australia, said: "Hackers can hack into a robot or a robotic device and have full control of the connections, arms, legs and other attached tools like in some cases knives or welding devices.

“Once a robot is hacked, the hacker has full control and can issue instructions to the robot." [read more]

Well, if hackers can hack any computer system they can hack sexbots or any domestic robot for that matter like Rosie the Robot on the Jetsons cartoon. You wouldn’t want a robocook to come after you with a butcher knife. That wouldn’t be good.

The Wisdom of Winston Churchill

Youth for freedom and reform, maturity for judicious compromise, and old age for stability and repose.

If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you in only a precarious chance of survival.

An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last.

If the present tries to sit in judgment of the past, it will lose the future.

Books in all their variety are often the means by which civilization maybe carried triumphantly forward.

Broadly speaking, human beings may be divided into three classes:  those who are billed to death; those who are worried to death; and those who are bored to death.

On campaigning:   
First of all grin or as they say "smile." There is nothing like it. Next, be natural and quite easy as if you were talking to people in a quiet place about something in which you were much interested.
Third, cultivate a sense of detachment from the clatter and clamor proceeding around you.

The vice of capitalism is that it stands for the unequal sharing of blessings; whereas the virtue of socialism is that it stands for the equal sharing of misery.

Is it better to have equality at the price of poverty or well-being at the price of inequality?

Do not let us speak of Darker days, let us speak rather of sterner days.

Difficulties mastered are opportunities won.

To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.

The more man's choice is free, the more likely it is to be wise and fruitful not only to the chosen but to the community in which he dwells.

The flame of Christian ethics is still our best guide... only on this basis can we reconcile the rights of the individual with the demands of society.

Source: The Wit & Wisdom of Winston Churchill: A Treasury of More Than 1,000 Quotations and Anecdotes (1994) by James C. Humes.

Hillary Clinton could have used the political advice.

There Is No Such Thing as a ‘Deserving Dreamer’

From The Daily Signal.com (Sept. 6):

Over and over again, from the mouths of politicians in both parties, identity politics purveyors and cheap labor lobbyists, we hear the same refrains about President Barack Obama’s 800,000 amnestied illegal alien youths:

“They don’t deserve to be punished.”

“They deserve protection.”

“They deserve the American dream.”

Deserve, deserve, deserve.

Over and over again, in countless cookie-cutter op-ed pieces published over the past month, so-called Dreamers have vociferously lamented President Donald Trump’s push to eventually undo their unconstitutional five-year reprieves from deportation, plus coveted work permits:

“Dreamers like me have flourished under DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). Trump might take it all away.”

“If Trump ends DACA, Dreamers like me will return to a life of anxiety and doubt.”

“I feel exhausted, I feel frustrated, I feel angry, and in the worst moments, I feel helpless. I feel terrified that at any moment this program is going to be taken away and once again I won’t be able to work—how will I pay my bills? … What is going to happen to me if I get stopped on the street and I no longer have DACA? What’s going to happen to me if I get put into deportation proceedings and I don’t have thousands of dollars to hire an attorney to stay in this country?”

…………………..

Since when did DACA become the Depression and Anxiety Cure for Amnesty-seekers?

It’s this insatiable appetite for collective entitlement that demonstrates the perils of blanket amnesty. Give a privileged political class an inch and they’ll take, take, take until feckless public servants give away their country.

The proper response to illegal alien activists demanding that Washington act “Now!” to preserve their comfort, allay their anxieties, and extend their unconstitutional protections indefinitely is this:

Why?

Americans in uniform who’ve dedicated their lives to defending our nation are struggling to gain access to quality health care they’ve earned by action, not by accident or circumstance. Imagine their stress.

Five million American young people between 16-34 were unemployed last year and 50 million more are not even in the labor force. Imagine their anxiety.

Hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people from around the world are waiting patiently for their backlogged visa and green card applications to be reviewed. Imagine their frustration.

Why don’t their dreams come first?  [read more]

Good question. Shouldn’t legal immigrants dreams come first? Shouldn’t immigrants who want to be citizens have their citizenship streamlined? Or is it because the Dems think the term “dreamer” means an illegal who dreams about voting for the Democrat party? Just asking.

Dreamers used be called anchor babies. Maybe that’s a derogatory term. Then let’s call them “children of illegals.” That’s more accurate, I think, and to the point.

The term “dreamer” is a stereotype. It makes the children of illegals sound warm and fuzzy. Well, that may or may not be the case. Some anchor babies are in gangs. And like all stereotype the term “dreamer” can be good or bad. Usually, bad.

5 Reasons Marxism Has Nothing to Offer Millennials

From FEE.org:

For millennials looking to shake off a dull weekend with a good economics or philosophy book, Marxism is one topic you might want to avoid. Anyone who has taken the time to read either Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels would, hopefully, realize just how lucky they are to live in a relatively free society. But for those who do manage to find some merit in Marxism, here are five things every millennial should consider before subjecting their minds to the oft-appealing ideology.

1. Millennials Love Choice, Marxism Rejects It

Marxist doctrine discourages individual creativity in favor of state control over both social and economic aspects of life. It favors an economy dominated by the state, which is antithetical to a generation that loves innovation and choice. Even the most zealous socialists still have personal preferences: which movies to watch on Netflix, where to go out to eat via Uber or Lyft. Millennials would not be willing to sacrifice their real-world lifestyles for the utopian promises of Marxism.

………………………

2. Violence Is The Marxist Way

Karl Marx believed that violence was one of the primary means to defeat the capitalist order. For example, he responded to the 1849 counter-revolution in Vienna by explicitly encouraging his followers to embrace terrorism. Marx wrote:

“There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”

This statement would later inspire the violent radicalization of Soviet dictator, Vladimir Lenin—an avid devotee of Marx. Lenin eventually toppled the Russian democracy in 1917 and condemned millions of his own people to starvation and terror.

………………………

3. Marxism Discourages Public Dissent

Nowadays, governments are more responsible to their people greatly because of open public criticism and the possibility of revolt against an authoritarian state. Marxism only encourages revolt against capitalist government. But the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is to be absolute and unquestioned.

Marx and Engels were clear about their ideal government. For instance, Engels posited in The Iroquois Gens, a section of his 1884 book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, how crucial it is that the proletarian government maintain unchallenged authority. He glorified the workers' government, which he said was a natural extension of the family, drawing from the ideas of American social theorist Lewis H. Morgan.

This would be a non-starter for millennials, many of whom bridle against authority and are very keen on voicing criticism and their opinions in general.

4. Marxism Is the Gateway to Communism

Millennials are big fans of market freedom, in deed if not in expression. It wouldn't be out of the ordinary to see a Che Guevarra t-shirt on an iPhone-using Uber driver. However, Marxism ultimately results in system tantamount to universal slavery: a condition that would be absolutely intolerable to a generation accustomed to the app economy and everything-on-demand.

For example, Joseph Stalin’s forced land reforms between 1928 and 1933 exemplifies the brutality of communism. The Soviet leadership thought that collectivization would increase the use of the countryside for urban and industrial needs due to increasing demand for food by workers in industrializing Russia. Stalin forced his people to labor on their own farms and harvest their own crops all in the name of the state. This resulted in nearly ten million Russians dying due to excessive labor and starvation.

………………………..

5. Tear down this Wall

Communism ended in Eastern Europe in 1989 and since then, greater economic freedom has made governments more accountable to its people. Nowadays, criticizing the state is a fundamental right in most countries. It is highly unlikely that millennials would support a reversal of history when the world is such a better place to live in today.

Before communist nations like China started their capitalist reforms, the majority of the world was relatively poor. Millions died of poverty and hundreds of thousands were incarcerated. If Marxist ideals had dominated the world, many of the beautiful things humanity has achieved would be non-existent.

An authoritarian regime is the greatest enemy of freedom. Millennials need more liberty and more choice and Marxism does not offer these things. Therefore, we are better off appreciating the ideas of John Locke and Adam Smith, which have saved more lives than all the Marxist philosophers from Karl Marx to Slavoj Žižek.  [read more]

The three words that make brainstorming sessions at Google, Facebook, and IDEO more productive

From QZ.com (July 10):

Brainstorming can be a tricky business. There’s the awkward silence when your boss asks a far-fetched question and no one knows how to respond. The fear that you’ll toss out an idea only to draw blank stares. The collective sense of disappointment when the whole team wants to help, but can’t come up with anything new.

To avoid these pitfalls, the design firm IDEO has developed a brainstorming strategy that relies on three simple words: the phrase “How might we.”

At a recent creative leadership class at the firm’s office in New York City, put on by Adobe’s 99U conference, nearly every question was framed as a “How might we,” or HMW: How might we make our teams more engaged? How might we foster deeper relationships between employees? How might we inspire more frequent knowledge-sharing? The same approach is popular at Google and Facebook, according to the Harvard Business Review.

While the phrase “How might we” seems pretty basic, each word is intended to serve a specific purpose. “How” asks employees to be descriptive, “might” suggests there are good answers, but not a single correct answer, and “we” evokes inclusivity and teamwork, says Duane Bray, IDEO’s global head of talent. [read more]

Interesting. Congress could use this technique: How might we have the country more productive? How might we make the country more freer? How might we make citizens more personal responsible for their lives? Just thinking out loud.

Entrepreneurs Have Been Proving Experts Wrong Forever

Commentary from Ilya Pestov on FEE.org:

Below, I’ve listed the very worst predictions, which show how even the titans of industry don’t always know what they’re talking about. Whether they were predictions about technological progress, adoption rates, or market potential, we can all agree that these predictions were dead wrong.

1876: “This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication.” — William Orton, President of Western Union.

1876: “The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys.” — Sir William Preece, chief engineer, British Post Office.

1889: “Fooling around with alternating current (AC) is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever.” — Thomas Edison.

1903: “The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty — a fad.” —President of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford’s lawyer, Horace Rackham, not to invest in the Ford Motor Company.

1921: “The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to no one in particular?” — Associates of David Sarnoff responding to the latter’s call for investment in the radio.  [read more]

Physicists thought one time that atoms could not be manipulated individually. Now, we have nanotechnology. Unless there is a scientific reason why a product cannot be done then sometime in the future it could be. Even a scientific principles can change. One time scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth and the moon didn’t have craters.

Even in the fine arts experts can be wrong. A record company told The Beatles “we don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.”

The lesson here: Be skeptical or leery of experts.

Eliminating Down Syndrome Children Is Not Something to Be Proud Of

From The Daily Signal.com (Aug. 16):

This week, the CBS News program “On Assignment” included a long feature on what it described as the near eradication of Down syndrome in Iceland.

As the story unfolded, viewers learned of the impact of genetic screening and abortion on a countrywide scale.

On that tiny island, known to people mostly for its geothermal pools and Northern Lights, what one scientist called “heavy-handed genetic counseling” has led to the death in utero of nearly every boy and girl affected by Down syndrome.

The CBS News report focused on a single nation, but the trend toward elimination of children with Down syndrome is tragically widespread.

New genetic screening tools available earlier in pregnancy have exacerbated this situation, leading to the lethal rejection of the majority, perhaps the vast majority, of these children worldwide.

In France, an estimated 96 percent of children with Down syndrome are killed before birth. In the United States, estimates range between 61 percent and 93 percent.

There is no haven for these children, no safe place that tells them they are no more imperfect, no less beautiful, than you or I am.

Just 27 years ago, a future U.S. surgeon general, testifying before Congress, looked forward to the day when Down syndrome could be eliminated in America.

She did not mean by ameliorating the disease itself. She meant by searching for and destroying children who have the condition, which she said would have “an important, and positive, public-health effect.”  [read more]

Eugenics anyone? I wonder if they aborting these children because the Down syndrome children are happier than the people in Iceland. Actually, the truth is because the children are imperfect. That’s why. What’s next? Children with muscular dystrophy or mental disorders?

Notes on the The Great Partnership Book

The premise of the book: Both science and religion are compatible. Science analyzes and explains and religion integrates. Science breaks things down to their component parts. Religion binds people together in relationships of trust.

The founders of modern European politics were religious, and their key text was the Hebrew Bible. Using it as their warrant, they developed three revolutionary principles.

1. All legitimate constitutions are republican.
2. One of the tasks of the state is to fight poverty, if need be by redistribution of income and the widening of land ownership.
3. Principle of toleration, that it is no business of the state to legislate in matters of religious belief.

All three propositions were based, not on Plato or Aristotle, but on Leviticus and Deuteronomy and the books of Samuel and Kings.

Politics is about power, and at the heart of of the Abrahamic vision is a critique of power. Power is a fundamental assault on human dignity. When a person exercises power over another, the exerciser denies freedom to the other person, and that is dangerous to both. A free political order is possible only when the fundamental political act is a mutual promise between governor and governed [author’s emphasis]. But no human being can be trusted to keep his or her word when he or she has access to power – a power not available to opponents. Sooner or later, if not in the lifetime of the ruler, then in that of his/her descendants, there is an inescapable risk of tyranny.

Darwinism has immense religious implications:

1. It tells us that God delights in diversity.
2. This is Darwin’s wondrous discovery: the Creator made creation creative. We already knew that he made man creative. Now, thanks to Darwin, we know that is applies to nature too.
3. We know now that all life derives from a single source. The three-letter words of genetic code are the same in every creature.
4. Science and Genesis have now converged, in an utterly unexpected way, on the same metaphor. Life is linguistic.
5. The interconnectedness of all life – the fact that plants, animals and humans have a common origin – helps us understand in new depth the Bible’s phrasing, ‘Let the Earth bring forth…’ and its generic name for Homo sapiens, Adam (from adamah, meaning ‘the Earth’).

If there is no Judge, there is no reason to expect justice. If there is no God, there is no transcendental ‘Thou shalt not.’ Lose belief in God, and sooner or later you may lose belief in the possibility and necessity of justice.

Source: The Great Partnership. Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning (2011) by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.

Even Atheists Judge Atheists

From Live Science.com (Aug. 8):

Even people who don't believe in God judge other nonbelievers as less moral than religious types, new research finds.

The study showed that in 13 very different countries, people were more likely to think that a serial killer must be an atheist rather than a believer. These findings persisted even in highly secular countries such as Finland and China; they were also true even for people who reported zero belief in God.

"Even as secularism reduces overt religiosity in many places, religion has apparently still left a deep and abiding mark on human moral intuitions," study researcher Will Gervais, a psychologist at the University of Kentucky, wrote with his colleagues Aug. 7 in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. [read more]

You don’t have to be religious to judge people. The Left like Hillary Clinton believe people who don’t believe like she does are inferior. She called them “irredeemable deplorables.” In her last book, Clinton called President Trump a creep.

4 Lessons From History's Greatest Inventors

Commentary by Adam Noar on FEE.org:

I spend a lot of time reading about entrepreneurship and innovation because I admire people who take sensible but daring risks. I want to be more like them.

I recently left Google to start a technology company. I’ve spent much of my time talking with other founders. And I’ve read countless books and articles about the nature of startups.

But still, I’ve struggled to answer this fundamental question: What are the most important lessons from history’s innovators?

Thankfully, I discovered some thoughtful answers in the work of British author Harold Evans. The words he wrote left an indelible impression on me. And now I’m going to share with you some his most important insights.

Lesson #1: Make No Assumptions

“Ignorance that ignites curiosity is a better starting point than half-knowledge.” – Harold Evans

Edwin Armstrong exemplified this lesson. He was constantly trying to do things in radio circuitry he was told by the experts was impossible. He went on to invent FM Radio.

………………

Lesson #2: It’s OK to Borrow

More innovations come from borrowing and combination than from simple invention.

Jean Nidetch did not invent the diet she used for Weight Watchers.

Nolan Bushnell, who established Atari, did not invent the first home made video game.

…………………

Lesson #3: Nothing Works the First Time

“Too often impatient entrepreneurs expect instant results. History shows us that there are a hundred setbacks for every change.” – Harold Evans

USA Today, Amazon.com, and CNN struggled initially, but later thrived because their basic ideas were sound.

Innovation is often cut too soon because backers fail to appreciate that it takes time to work out the wrinkles.

……………………

Lesson #4: The Whole Can Be Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts

“Isolated innovators may produce wonders but they are more likely to succeed in a knowledge network, whether connected by geography or electronics. Connections between innovators are ubiquitous – one good innovation deserves another.” – Harold Evans

Many innovators flourish in partnerships. Take the partnership of Wozniak and Jobs at Apple. Or the partnership of Ida and William Rosenthal at Maidenform. Then there’s Marc Andreessen and Jim Clark at Netscape. The Wright brothers, and Sergey Brin and Larry Page at Google, the list goes on.   [read more]

Principles for Defeating Alinsky Tactics

1. Anticipate that the tactics will be used against you. You MUST be prepared with a response that does four things: (1) The response must adequately answer and/or deflect the charge; (2) The response must be sincere and honest; (3) The response must reveal the tactics they are using; (4) The response must flip the tactic and transfer the pressure from you to your opponent.
2. Define yourself positively before your opposition has the chance to define you.
3. Use ridicule to your advantage.   There are two things to keep in mind when using ridicule: (1) ridiculing your opponent can be effective if it is funny and not mean-spirited; (2) ridiculing yourself in a self-deprecating manner can be just as effective as ridiculing your opponent.
4. Emulate their use of Alinsky’s fourth rule – make them live up to their own book of rules.
5. Force your opponent to back up any and all accusations made against you.
6. Refuse to be targeted, and refuse to be smeared with the deeds of others.
7. Fight fire with fire.
8. Embrace religion, and not run from it.
9. Use what your opposition gives you.
10. Take away their talking points.
11. Be open and honest about your faults and failures from the outset. If your position on an issue has evolved, then admit it and explain what changed your mind. Remember, even Ronald Reagan was a Democrat at one time.
12. Never apologize for success, and extol the virtues of opportunity and individual achievement.
13. Always to make your argument, and your candidacy, about America. America’s best days are still square in front of her. NEVER apologize for America!
14. Not to allow yourself to be lumped in with any group or any less than flattering ideology.
15. Always to project America as strong.
16. Think more than one move ahead.
17. Know both sides of the issue.
18. Control the pressure.   Always force your opponent to react.
19. “Don’t fall for ‘implied’ attacks”.
20. Remember that the sooner you reveal anything that can be used against you – the sooner it will become old news.

Source: Rules for Radicals Defeated: A Practical Guide for Defeating Obama/Alinsky Tactics (2012) by Jeff Hedgpeth.

Good advice to anyone debating the Left especially conservative politicians even if Obama is out of office. The Left still use Alinksy tactics. Hillary Clinton sure does.

6 Stories of Super Successes Who Overcame Failure

From Entrepreneur.com (Dec. 8, 2014):

Failure is not the alternative to success. It’s something to be avoided, but it’s also only a temporary setback on a bigger, more significant course. Everybody encounters failure at one point or another. What truly matters is how you react to and learn from that failure.

Take the stories of these six entrepreneurs. Their stories end in massive success, but all of them are rooted in failure. They’re perfect examples of why failure should never stop you from following your vision.

1. Arianna Huffington got rejected by 36 publishers.
2. Bill Gates watched his first company crumble.
3. George Steinbrenner bankrupted a team.
4. Walt Disney was told he lacked creativity.
5. Steve Jobs was booted from his own company.
6. Milton Hershey started three candy companies before Hershey's.

Draw inspiration from these stories the next time you experience failure, no matter the scale. In the moment, some failure might seem like the end of the road, but remember, there are countless successful men and women in the world today who are only enjoying success because they decided to push past the inevitable bleakness of failure.

Learn from your mistakes, reflect and accept the failure, but revisit your passion and keep pursuing your goals no matter what.  [read more]

 

Marijuana Use Linked to Increased Risk of Dying from High Blood Pressure

From Live Science.com (Aug. 9):

Smoking pot is often considered safer than smoking cigarettes, but a new study suggests that marijuana use may increase a person's risk of death from high blood pressure.

Over the two-decade-long study period, marijuana users, whose level and frequency of smoking was not assessed in the study, had a more than threefold greater risk of dying from hypertension than nonusers. This increase in risk was greater than that associated with cigarette smoking, the researchers said.

"Support for liberal marijuana use is partly due to claims that it is beneficial, and possibly not harmful, to health," lead study author Barbara Yankey, a doctoral student of epidemiology and biostatistics at Georgia State University, said in a statement. "However, there is little research on the impact of marijuana use on cardiovascular and [stroke] mortality." [read more]

Thoughts of Max Picard

Only in a world of total discontinuity could a nullity such as Hitler become Führer, because only where everything is disjointed has comparison fallen into disuse. There was only Hitler, the nullity, before everybody’s eyes, and in this instable world wherein everything was changing at every moment one was glad that at least the one nullity, Hitler, remained stable before one’s eyes. An orderly world, a hierarchy, would automatically have placed the nullity, Hitler, into nothingness; he could not have been noticed. Hitler was the excrement of a diabolical world; a world of truth in its order would have pushed him aside. . . .

There is no permanence in this world of discontinuity. The ego exists only in the moment and for the moment. The individual, therefore, can have no evolution in the dimension of time. Everything has to be done in far too little time; hence, the individual gets restless and nervous. In discontinuity the individual also lacks context with his own personal history; he is lacking in the possibility of joining an experience with the context of previous experiences. Since life is lived solely in the moment and for the moment, the moment must carry all the burden; if the experience of a moment is grave, the individual is hit all the harder because the burden cannot be distributed through context with other things. That is what aggravates, exhausts, and unnerves the individual. The ego cries out loud; unable to expand in the dimension of time, the ego in its crying need explodes itself into the dimension of space. Then Hitler came and took over the job of crying into space for all the others, and because his was the loudest cry, he was accepted by all.

Western capitalism doesn’t have any humor either, today, and that comes from the fact that the West has lost its faith. A sense of humor can exist only in a world of faith. For in humor is a trace of the smile with which God observes the mistakes of man. That trace of God’s smile, in man, is our sense of humor.

Source: “Max Picard: A Man of Vision in Our Time.” The Essential Russell Kirk: Selected Essays (2006) by George A. Panichas [editor].

From Kleenex to Zippers: The Unpredictable Results of Entrepreneurs

Commentary from Burton W. Folsom on FEE.org:

The 1920s was a decade that taught us many lessons in economics—perhaps foremost among them is that cutting tax rates encouraged entrepreneurs to invest in a variety of revolutionary products, from radios to refrigerators.

A corollary lesson, however, is also important: When entrepreneurs are turned loose and their property rights are protected, what they eventually produce can’t be predicted—even by them. I want to describe four products that became part of American life in the 1920s—Kleenex tissues, the zipper, air conditioning, and Scotch tape.

Kimberly-Clark developed the material in Kleenex tissues from wood pulp in World War I as a substitute for cotton, which was in short supply. Originally called cellucotton, it was first used in wadded form as a surgical dressing. Later in the war, in its modern tissue form, it was used as a filter in gas masks.

After the war Kimberly-Clark had large supplies of cellucotton on hand and the company searched for years for new uses for their product. Finally, in 1924 the cellucotton became Kleenex tissues. The marketing staff at Kimberly-Clark believed the tissues had a niche market for removing cold cream and other cosmetics. Endorsements from Hollywood stars such as Helen Hayes and Gertrude Lawrence promoted Kleenex as soft and efficient for cleaning their faces.

Fortunately for Kimberly-Clark, their marketers were wise enough to read their mail, and expand their market. Many letters from customers asked,“Why don’t you ever say it’s good for blowing your nose?” That led the company to do test-marketing—and yes, indeed, more customers preferred Kleenex tissues to handkerchiefs. In fact, the company now boasted that tissues were healthier because they were disposable. “Don’t put a cold in your pocket” was the theme of the next wave of advertising. In 1929 Kimberly-Clark introduced the pop-up box. Sales grew further and were even strong during the Great Depression of the 1930s. [read more]

No planned economy can create products like those named in the article above. Why? Because socialism and communism cannot manufacture creativity and innovation. Although a planned economy can hamper creativity and innovation.

It is interesting to note that the most inventions came out of the 1920s when conservative Calvin Coolidge was president. Coincidence? I’ll let the reader decide.

Cannabis reduces creativity, but user generally not aware

From Science Daily.com (October 4, 2016):

Regular users of cannabis are less aware of their own mistakes, and they are not good at creative thinking. This is the conclusion drawn by psychologist Mikael Kowal from his research on the effects of cannabis. PhD defence 6 October.

Dopamine

Kowal conducted experiments on 40 regular users of cannabis. The control group of 20 non-users were given a placebo. Kowal studied the direct and chronic effects of cannabis on dopamine-related functions, such as creative thinking and the ability to recognise one's own mistakes. The brain chemical dopamine is important for the proper working of the brain and also plays a role in learning performance.

Less good at brainstorming

Kowal's research showed that cannabis users were less able to brainstorm, a mental process that is crucial for creative performance: 'There is a widespread belief among users that these drugs enhance creativity. This experiment disproves that belief.'

Poor at recognising mistakes

Kowal also demonstrated that for chronic users the brain processes involved in monitoring mistakes also work less effectively. A high dose of cannabis seems to influence both the unconscious processing of mistakes and also the later and more conscious stages of error processing. Kowal: 'It is important that we gather more knowledge about the effects of cannabis on a person's ability to detect mistakes. This can help with putting together a treatment programme for drug addiction.'  [read more]

I don’t think the dopers are aware of much around them unless they are low on Doritos. Or dope for that matter.

Thoughts of George Santayana

Individualism is the only ideal possible; and if individuals are subordinated to the state, it is only that they may fulfill their devotion to things rational and impersonal, a higher individualism. For a time, democracy and individualism exhibit a parallel growth; but presently democratic legislation presumes to regulate all things, and industrial liberalism, supported by democracy, aspires to replace individuality by efficient standardization; thus the man who loves beauty and variety will endeavor (like Socrates in Dialogues in Limbo) to puncture the bubbles of social planners who have forgotten the real aim of society, the life of mind and art.

“If you refuse to move in the prescribed direction, you are not simply different, you are arrested and perverse. The savage must not remain a savage, nor the nun a nun, and China must not keep its wall.”

“A man without traditions, if he could only be materially well equipped, would be purer, more rational, more virtuous than if he had been an heir to anything. Weh dir, dass du ein Enkel bist! Blessed are the orphans, for they shall deserve to have children; blessed the American!”

“Liberalism has merely cleared a field in which every soul and every corporate interest may fight with every other for domination. Whoever is victorious in this struggle will make an end of liberalism; and the new order, which will deem itself saved, will have to defend itself in the following age against a new crop of rebels.”

Source: “George Santayana Buries Liberalism.” The Essential Russell Kirk: Selected Essays (2006) by George A. Panichas [editor].

The text in quotes are the actually thoughts of George Santayana about the Left believes.