The Origins of Rap?


Posted On: Saturday - December 1st 2018 7:57PM MST
In Topics: 
  Music  Humor

Kids today! Well, 5-7 year-old kids have probably always talked smack like this:

"Well, you eat chocolate and poop for breakfast."

"You drink blood and pee, and you eat butts."

"You drink pee, and you eat boogers AND butts."

"Eating boogers is OK. Watch, see I literally ate my booger.
It's fine! Now, I'm eating ear wax."

"You eat butts and eat boogers in your hot chocolate like marshmallows." (See now that kid's got potential.)

I'm just wondering if any reader can confirm that this kids' talk was the origins of Rap and/or Hip-Hop. It occurred to me, after witnessing this illustrious conversation today, that it would seem to likely be the case. Though I have a pretty good knowledge of the best of rock and pop music of the last 50 years, I am no accredited music historian. You don't need that to know that rap and hip-hop suck ass.

Now, others may say that the rap all started with Aerosmith's Walk this Way. As much as Peak Stupidity would like to embed this song to illustrate the point. I don't see it as one of that band's best songs. Let's go with Sweet Emotion from the most famous album by Steve Tyler and his band, Toys in the Attic. Besides a great hard rock sound, Steve Tyler throws in some good lyric lines. "Your get-up-and-go must have got up and went." is one of the best, but go listen to Adam's Apple sometime for a different slant on the Adam & Eve story. It's from the same album.




At the time of this 1975 album, Aerosmith was:

Steven Tyler – vocals, keyboards, harmonica, percussion
Joe Perry – lead guitar, acoustic guitar, slide guitar, backing vocals, percussion
Brad Whitford – rhythm guitar, lead guitar
Tom Hamilton – bass, rhythm guitar on "Uncle Salty"
Joey Kramer – drums, percussion


Comments (2)




We're detecting an increase in the stupid, Mr. Sulu ...


Posted On: Friday - November 30th 2018 8:05PM MST
In Topics: 
  TV, aka Gov't Media  Humor

... and it's emanating from right here at the helm.



Ex-Starship Enterprise Helmsman Sulu, otherwise known as George Takei, has had some strange emanations of stupid, which may require his removal from not just the starship fleet, but possibly this instance of the universe itself. Peak Stupidity spent some time on the Holo-deck researching naked instances of young Uhura George Takei tweets and came upon a cloud of stupid never before explored in the entire Milky Way Galaxy. Bring it up on the big 19" CRT screen, Mr. Spock:



This from a guy who complains about having to lower phaser setting to stun?


First, as a slight aside, but completely stupidity-oriented, this was perhaps the first time I'd viewed an actual twitter page without getting to it by accident. What a clusterfuck that whole twitter thing is! I can't tell who's replying to whom, who's following this other guy, and how the hell people could possibly want to waste their lives by sending out this crap every 5 or 10 minutes. As the evil side of Captain Kirk admonished his audience at the convention, "Get a life, people!"

Anyway, Mr. Takei is apparently as lefty as they come. That's to be expected in the entertainment industry, but during the latest infotainment on our ongoing southern-border invasion, this man tweeted his stupidity about it for all to see. (Well, I didn't directly, but it came up under a Steve Sailer post.) The guy's freakin' Japanese, for crying out loud, and has got to know some history of the Pacific Theater of WWII. As an American born to Japanese parents he was interned during that war in Arkansas and California and had an aunt and baby cousin blown/burned up in Hiroshima. He's got to know something about violent weapons, and tear gas (CS gas) doesn't compare to any of that from the brutal island war in the Pacific. Whose side is he on? Oh, I guess that pretty well explains the internment camps - one thing FDR might have gotten right, then.

Is is because he's gay? I've not met a single gay person who is any kind of true conservative. Mr. Takei should have admired the tolerance in this country even in the late 1960's when Star Trek ran on TV with a Diverse crew, before diversity was ever made up and forced down American's throats. The agenda was "hey, all the nations of Earth will get together, people now, people now, and boldly go forth ..." Tell you what, without those white guys designing and running those ships like the USS Enterprise nobody would have been boldly going anywhere, even on TV.

Was the crew of the Enterprise under the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy already in 1966? Did the crew, or even the audience, know that Mr. Sulu was gay? Not that it mattered a whole lot, but it would fit in with the diversity and leave more hot aliens for the Captain, Science Officer (though not very good with the ladies), Head of Engineering, and Bones to bone. Speaking of TV shows with gays, a decade later, there was a show called Three's Company. In this comedy show, Jack Tripper shared an apartment with 2 lovely ladies, one arguably a good bit hotter than the other. Jack, however, had to appear gay to his landlords, so they would not think anything romantic was going on, even though he wasn't getting any anyway, at least on-screen ... no off-screen either from any ladies, as the actor John Ritter is gay himself. That's real irony, come to think of it.

A gay actor pretending he's pretending to be gay. That was easy!



Oh, back to Mr. Sulu and the US Southern so-called border, rather than hear from this dipshit helmsman, let's see what the Captain has to say. Come in, Captain, is there any intelligent life down there?
"Mr. Spock, are you detecting mariachi music on the scanners? I’m seeing lots of … fake IDs … people mooching off welfare…. claiming … erroneous deductions … swamping the …. Mr. Spock, do you read? swamping the emergency roo … ugghhh … detecting 0.45% blood ... alcohol levels, ... Scotty … must. .. close … the …. uhhhggh… border ….



No comments - Click here to start thread



Ronnie vs. Donnie - 1: The Personalities


Posted On: Friday - November 30th 2018 3:37PM MST
In Topics: 
  Trump  Americans  US Feral Government

(I hope it's not too confusing but, the first actual discussion on this was in the intro. This post should then be labeled 1, and so on, as I can see some interesting contrasts here.)



One more thing that I could have added to the end of that Intro, but I'll put here: After I had written that post, I read the same evening another great column by our Number 1 (literary, at least) Pundit, Miss Ann Coulter. It was a big beratement of President Trump for not having fulfilled his most basic anti-immigration-invasion promises after almost 2 years now. Besides reading this latest great column for that, you will notice, as I did, that Miss Coulter made comparisons to Ronald Reagan and his accomplishments ... well, I don't want to spoil the ending, but you can probably see what's coming later on that. It's somewhat coincidental in that I'm on this Ronnie v. Donnie kick, but this happens quite a bit in our little pundit world. ;-}

OK, on the personalities and methods of President Trump versus the late great President Ronald Reagan, we can't see two men being much farther apart really. Mr. Reagan was a true statesman and an orator of no small renown. Mr. Trump is a loudmouthed, brash bit-city businessman. Though his speeches made as President were often written by speechwriters (like the execrable broad Peggy Noonan), earlier on, Mr. Reagan had made radio addresses weekly* for a number of years that were well written and spoken. Mr. Reagan, though he was lambasted and name-called in the press regularly (more on this stuff in another post), was so polished, smiling, and polite, that even the politicians on left still liked him when they dealt with him in person. (Granted, it was a more civil era.) In the time of Reagan, compromises and deals could still be made with the left, though they were often times broken (in Reagan's words here.) His manner helped him get things done when he was opposed by the House and Senate for most of his 8 years in the White House.

Mr. Reagan grew up in the old middle America. He lived in Illinois farm country, where he spent some time working in radio (politics already!) and then moved to California back when many midwesterners did (not just the Old Okies). It was a white conservative land back then. Mr. Reagan didn't fight in the war (WWII, the big one), and he, in fact, got into the least conservative business that America and California probably had, the Hollywood-based movie industry. That's when he learned who his enemies were. Lots of people know no history of his battles first for and then against the actor's unions, the latter when he realized who damn Socialist/Communist some of his colleagues were. This is where he came to have his very principled conservative views. He then spent a number of working years at General Electric, where he was employed as a spokesman of some sort. He honed his speaking skills and his political ideas during this time.

President Trump, on the other hand, though interested in politics for a long time, did not spend time in the same type of world that Mr. Reagan did. He lived in the always-somewhat-corrupt big-money world of New York City real estate as a big-time developer. He talks like a New Yorker (no, not popular, but we've put up with it because of his promises .. going on 2 years, dude!) He's in your face like a New Yorker. Now, it's probably what we need at this point, as a statesman in the vein of Mr. Reagan may not be able to push back against the much-more-vicious Lyin' Press and ctrl-left crowd that regular Americans are up against. The quick in-your-face retort is what is needed, though that's not to say Ronald Reagan was not quick with a reply. He was, in fact, known for his one-liners**, but it sure wasn't on the same level of incivility maintained by Trump. It's a different time, 3 decades after Ronald Reagan LEFT office, and the country has changed for the far worse. The right must fight fire with fire.

As far as these two men's methods of getting things done, as President, the important factor in my mind is the delegation of work and authority. Reagan had been governor of California, and Trump had been a long-time executive of companies building big high-rise projects. They both had plenty of executive experience, and that means knowing that one cannot do it all himself. An executive must delegate work to those competent people he can trust. That's been the problem with Donald Trump, as I've mentioned before on this blog, and it is his 1st obvious losing comparison to Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan picked his team from many of his long-time insider political buddies. He had a long political life already by the time he took office in 1981, from CA governor through the 1976 campaign for the GOP nomination. He did good with getting a cabinet of conservatives, albeit some of which who may have gone somewhat rogue.

Mr. Trump, though, seems to have really failed badly in this important regard. I believe it's because this high-level political scene is not what he's got experience with AND the man doesn't have the kind of strongly-held principles that Mr. Reagan did. When Mr. Trump ran a building project, he'd have to have trusted a lead structural engineer to make decisions on that aspect of it, as he himself did not have the knowledge, and rightly knew that. That's why you delegate. On becoming President, I believe Mr. Trump trusted way too many others as experienced insider picks that had the knowledge to do the job, because he didn't realize: This is all politics - there are no experts that know anything that your 70-year life of experience and instincts don't already tell you. These expert politicians aren't experts in squat-all, and they are making it up as they go along. Lastly, insiders are the LAST THING WE NEED at this point. Trumps's delegation of work in his administration has been an absolute failure.

Additionally, though President Reagan had some cabinet members that he had to change out, and I'm sure there were many squabbles over whether he'd be able to stick to his conservative principles, that was kept mostly in the White House. There were leaks as always (at least when the Lyin' Press is against you, as it was bound to be when you were a conservative, even back in Reagan's time). However, the President of the US wasn't in twitter arguments, or the 1980's equivalent, with his own damn employees! Look, a the regular Peak Stupidity reader will know that we like this guy, but Mr. Trump has been failing due to picking almost all the wrong people to help him get a job done, and his squabbles with these people have been made in public for all to see. It's time for him to go back to his roots, pick some trusted friends and/or former employees for the jobs, and not worry that they are not experts in the American political establishment. That'd be a feature, not a bug.

Having mentioned Ronald Reagan's great oratory skills above, I do want to contrast his with that of Donald Trump. It's also an effect of the times we live in, but, though Mr. Trump's vocabulary and style are NOT statesmanlike, his "speechmaking" is probably MORE effective than Mr. Reagan's was. Reagan could keep the crowd listening, and lay out the principles of conservatism in a way Trump couldn't dream of. However, it was still just speechmaking. I put quotes around that word in reference to Mr. Trump, as he really doesn't give speeches in the traditional way at all. He has rallies and gets the crowd riled up an excited. His talk goes back and forth, and around in circles, but he is really WITH the crowd. Reagan had speeches, but Trump has pep ralllies. I think the pep rallies are indeed what we need right now.

That's all well and good, but Trump's problem seems to be, as I mentioned in that intro. post, that he thinks the talk is all that's necessary sometimes. Encouragement, when all about you, the media establishment puts out it's usual lies, is a good thing. It is no doubt very helpful in rallying the base to vote, but what good is voting if the politicians you successfully elect don't really do any good for you? That's what happened - two years of President Trump and a GOP House and Senate, and what ?? Nada. Nada whole lot. I wish the current President would use the bully pulpit and (yes, sigh..) even the tweets to target Americans to help him get the work done - "Impeach Judge X in this district in California." "Tell Congressman Y to vote YES on ABC, or you will not re-elect him." That would need some attention to detail, which Trump doesn't have, and his traitorous underlings refuse to take part in.

In their dealings with the Congress and the media, there is a difference in these men in the trust factor. Though I mentioned that President Trump has put TOO MUCH trust in his beltway-boy advisors that only want to continue the back-stabbing of Americans (along with the President himself), I think President Reagan had too much trust in another sense. As a midwest-raised, old-time Californian (back when it was populated with 80-90% regular Amricans), Mr. Reagan thought people in government and the press would keep their word. His misplaced trust here was especially bad in his dealings with the US Congress. President Trump, coming from his NYC big-real-estate-deal background is supposed to be a much better wheeler-dealer and not so naive. More on this with regard to policy will be in latter posts.

I mentioned this already, but it deserves more mention: President Reagan was a man of principle***. I have no doubt about that from my readings of his biography and his own writings. I never saw Donald Trump as a principled man, as that type of personality would not have helped him as a NY big shot personality and smoozer in his business. When he came out swinging against massive immigration in the summer of '15, that didn't matter so much. The immigration issue is existential, so, no matter what else, like a somewhat Statist mindset that he has, we could live with that. I still think his lack of principles wouldn't matter right now if he'd get the right people to do the job we've expected. His heart is in the right place, on the side of the average regular American, and I could also say the same for President Reagan.





* This vinyl album is all I could find on amazon, but I'd read an entire book, from the library, of the transcripts of some of this stuff - I cannot find it now.

** When asked about being too old to be President during his campaign for the 2nd term in 1984, President Reagan retorted "I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." This is one his most famous ones, with more here.

*** ... at least, that is, until after he was shot by John Hinkley early in his 1st term (only 2 1/2 months in). Was that possibly a hint from the Deep State that he'd better play ball? The more I learn about what happened with that assassination attempt, the more I think so. That could explain some of President Reagan's latter policies. He should never have hooked up with George H.W. Bush, CIA, and no, not "hooked up" in the modern sense, but it was probably more unseemly than that would have been.


***********************************
[Updated 11/30, couple hours later:]
Added
3rd/4th to last paragraphs on speeches and rallies.
***********************************

************************************
[Update - 12/7:]
Added short paragraph on trust,
to fortell more info in Part 3.
************************************


Comments (2)




Chinese vs. American infrastructure - "From Scratch" vs. Repair modes


Posted On: Thursday - November 29th 2018 4:15PM MST
In Topics: 
  China  Economics

In this corner, the Challenger, gleaming new Chinese roadways:



And it this corner, work goes on fixing this old subway in America:



After posting here about the amazing build-out of infrastructure in China going on, and lately reading the two posts by pundit Fred Reed about what he observed in his two weeks there (Part 1 and Part 2), there's a major point to be made when comparing all this to the same structures/systems in America. That is, America has been mostly built-out for a while, one could probably say from 70-odd years ago (after WWII) to the 1980's sometime. The period is very arguable, I realize, and would depend if we are talking trains, roads, skyscrapers, or what.

In China, nothing of consequence** was built until the mid-1980's after Chairman Deng's reforms of (basically easing way up on) Communism took hold. Before that, it didn't matter what the hell the Central Committee wanted, and how the money would be raised, THERE WAS NO MONEY. They could barely survive back then, much less build skyscrapers. Now, all that money they've been collecting from selling us the Cheap China-made Crap is there for the spending - 1000s of miles of new roadway (each year, I would bet), a high-speed rail network (in way < 10 years!), and dozens of cities that all look like New York, but with better lighting (the Chinese are nothing if not connoisseur of lighting everything the hell up). Why can't we in America keep up with this type of thing, one may say, if keeping up with the Jones Laos is your thing? I don't personally thing that the fancy cites are what it takes to be a great country, but your infrastructure can't be slowly collapsing either.

Besides the fact that possibly our governments are mostly broke already, there is another big factor that makes it hard to keep up with the Laos: Starting from scratch is SO MUCH EASIER than keeping the old stuff running. This is true for roads, subways, sewer systems, and the whole gamut that defines an infrastructure that befits a decent civilization.

America was a young country once. It may have not have been building the SAME gleaming new stuff, but some of it was amazing, built 1/2 to a whole CENTURY before what the Chinese are building now. Some of it does the same function after 114 years, no China-made crap this is:



(Black & white pictures were all you got back in the NYC subway's time of glory.)


However, face it, we get old, and stuff gets old. The constant repairs going on in New York city have been a fact of life for a century. It's so much more difficult to divert traffic and dig up and under the road for a week with expensive union labor than it is to build a city street anew. In other cities I've seen new techniques to knock out old leaking concrete sewer lines with a cool machine, using another machine to run a plastic pipe through. Cool! However, each house still had to have the street dug up in front for the new connection, then filled back in then repaved with the usual imperfect surface remaining. It's the same problem for repairing rail lines that are old*** vs laying down new track with a machine that lays down sections at a time of 2 rails and ties together in short order.

If you don't pay attention this stuff, then I hope you are familiar with old houses. Whether it's your money or your time and sweat, everything is much more hassle, if not impossible, to make like new. "Well, I can knock out this wall, but the wiring's got to be re-routed, and there are pipes in the way." "To run the new wires to replace what the squirrels have been eating, we've got to pull it all, and we're going to run into cross pieces requiring knocking out part of the walls." "I'd like to put new flooring in, but I'm gonna see how bad the sub-flooring is, and I know I'm not gonna like what I see. That'll require tearing this whole room apart." ... etc., on and on it goes. How about "Let's just burn this thing to the ground - I've had enough!"

The same can be said for NY City (especially the "burning to the ground" part, though that's a job that Americans just won't do - we'll need some immigrants for that ...), along with all that's been built and finished 100 to 25 years ago all over America.

This is not to detract from the amazing projects that the Chinese have been building all over:

This is just one in THOUSANDS, maybe TENS of THOUSAND of the like:



It's rough terrain over most of that country. We have our mountains too, but much of America can be paved over with drainage created, with just the standard road-crossing bridges for new roadways. I give the Chinese a lot of credit and awe over this stuff. However, over here, we are in repair mode, and you can't always just tear down and build anew. We're in a really tough state to try to keep up with the Lao's, and it doesn't help that we're beyond broke!





* I'll give Mr. Reed credit, as I also did here, that these 2 posts were not Anti-American or Anti-Americans, as his stuff has been lately. It was just a travelog from someone writing the way a reporter SHOULD (yes, highly irregular, I know!)

** OK, except for that one big wall ...

*** Thanks to the wonderful Mighty Machines videos from mid-'90's to late '00's Canadian TV, I've seen sets of machines that will knock out old ties, punch passageways, put new ones in, and set in the spikes. Still, it's way more trouble than with new stuff.


Comments (5)




The Eagles - In the City and lack of a better post.


Posted On: Wednesday - November 28th 2018 5:20PM MST
In Topics: 
  Music

Come on, Eagles, could you Take it Easy?



I had a good humorous post coming, based on the Eagles song above that they will not let anyone keep up. (Well, yeah, there is the one concert version, in which YOU CAN'T HEAR SQUAT, that comes up on top, and then one with a computer voice saying the lyrics - who does that?!) Are the remaining Eagles that hard up on money that they need to sell a $0.99 copy of The Greeks Don't Want No Freaks every 2 or 3 days, so they don't want Peak Stupidity to get ahold of it? These guys could say "hell froze over"* again, and regroup and make a million bucks a piece anytime they want. I noticed that it was hard to get 2 other songs before when I needed them for this blog, The Last Resort, and Already Gone. Both, however, appeared on youtube long after my posts were written and read. OK, then, I'll check every once and a while if this song appears and write the post.

While searching for 15 minutes, I did decide that The Long Run album, their last album before they split up*, had some other great songs. This one, In the City, was sung by a sort of part-time member of the band who I believe became full-time on that Long Run tour. Joe Walsh, featured here, with one of his solo numbers, was one of the many 1970's Southern California music artists, lots of whom hung out and helped each other in various ways with the music. He's got a unique voice, and doesn't it sound like he's singing this from across the street?



The Long Run album was made well past the phase in which the band made the great country rock. That stuff was influenced by the banjo player/singer Bernie Leadon, who had left the band before Hotel California. In addition, IMO, the bassist Randy Meisner had a mellow country-like influence too, and he left the band after Hotel California to be replaced by Tim Schmidt.

It was impossible to top the great songs of the Hotel California album, but this one wasn't half bad. The band playing on The Long Run album and tour was:

Don Felder – guitars, organ, backing vocals
Glenn Frey – guitars, keyboards, vocals
Don Henley – drums, percussion, vocals
Timothy B. Schmit – bass guitar, vocals
Joe Walsh – guitars, keyboards, vocals


* Because the band was full of artists that were talented enough to be stars in their own rights, there was much rivalry and animosity, especially once they went to the top of the charts, as they say said. When they broke up after this album, one of them had answered a question about getting back together with "yeah, when hell freezes over." They've gotten together since to do tours and make the big bucks, most memorably in the mid-1990's with the "Hell Freezes Over" album. Sure, they could do it again and sell out the shows.


Comments (4)




Ronnie vs. Donnie - Intro.


Posted On: Wednesday - November 28th 2018 4:39PM MST
In Topics: 
  Trump  Americans  US Feral Government



The DrudgeReport (yeah, I know!) has the headline "Trump Brags : 'I Blow Ronald Reagan Away'". Even with the assumption of usual Donald Trump hype and Matt Drudge ultra-hype, this was one that I just had to click on. The Washington Examiner article is short and fair - the thing is that, name notwithstanding, the "Examiner" series of websites are not part of the MSM, "system media", or Lyin' Press, as Peak Stupidity puts it. Therefore, one can get some fairness. It just used to be, and maybe still is, that these sites have long been terrible usability-wise, hence the general avoidance of links to them here.

In interest of fairness, President Trump stated that per a new favorable book, Trump's Enemies, he "blows Ronald Reagan away", but is still disappointed at the American public's non-realization. of that. Here are his words:
“The amazing thing is that you have certain people who are conservative Republicans that if my name weren’t Trump, if it were John Smith, they would say I’m the greatest president in history and I blow Ronald Reagan away,” said Trump.

“All these guys that if they looked at my agenda with a different name...and he got the biggest regulation cuts in history in less than two years, judges, environmental stuff, getting out of the Paris horror show. If you said that conservative president John Smith did that, they would say he’s the greatest president. Far greater than Ronald Reagan,” added the president.

Trump has often declared that his list of achievements is historic. Secrets recently listed 289 major victories that stack up well against recent presidents.
Due to lack of visibility through the veil of the Lyin' Press, I will not pretend to know about all the 289 victories, but just based on Trump's further talk on this (in the article), I believe he confuses running his mouth with getting things done oftentimes. Don't get me wrong - his heart is in the right place, just like Ronald Reagan, and the bully pulpit CAN make a difference. I know we all appreciate lots of his statements against the current-day ctrl-left establishment. However, I've gotta say this, and those with a long-enough memory to know where this comes from will probably also agree with me: I saw Ronald Reagan. I voted for Ronald Reagan. I wholeheartedly supported Ronald Reagan, and President Trump, you're no Ronald Reagan!. Unlike the original statement of this sort made by Lloyd Bentson*, I don't mean this all in a one-sided way.

These two American Presidents are so un-alike that I want to make a whole lot of comparisons now, though I see right away that this will likely take 2 to 4 more posts. Let me just make this one an introduction, starting with what President Donald Trump and the late President Ronald Reagan DO have in common: Both of these men are/were supported by conservative patriotic Americans at a time when things looked like they were, or actually are, going to hell in this country. They were both very anti-establishment and not supported by the mainstream Republicans as they ran for INITIAL election and in the primary elections for the GOP. Peak Stupidity looks favorably on both of these guys, so let's consider all this discussion in light of that.

No, I DO NOT think President Trump "blows" President Reagan "away", by any means. In the interest of not spoiling the ending of this series though, let me make my arguments on the following topics first, and then it'll be time to pick the best man:

1) Differences in personalities, and methods of leading.
2) Difference in principles.
3) Comparison of Foreign Policy.
4) Comparison of Domestic Policy.
5) Results

The thought of comparing Donnie and Ronnie had never occurred to me until seeing that Drudge headline, precisely because they are so different. More to come, then ....


*Lloyd Bentson was a Vice-Presidential candidate running with Democrat Michael Dukakis and his statement was made in a VP candidate debate with Republican Dan Quayle (running mate to George H.W. Bush - CIA) in 1988. "You are no Jack Kennedy." was the the gist of it, and at the time, I didn't reckon that was any kind of insult at all.



No comments - Click here to start thread



Peak Stupidity Celebrates 2nd Blogversary!


Posted On: Tuesday - November 27th 2018 6:09PM MST
In Topics: 
  Websites



Yep, it was November 27th of 2016 when this blog began it's very important work of blogging stupidity to the world. Yes, WORLDWIDE - it' the World Wide Web, is it not? "Stupidity does not stop at the border!" - George Bush (one of those 2 idiots, I think). We welcome readers from all over the world, so long as they are not in Russia, China, or Indonesia (yes a new one) trying to spam our comment section with viagra ads.

With a little bit of a last-fortnight push, the Peak Stupidity blog ended up with 500 blog posts by our 1st Blogversary. The rate of posting has slowed since then, as the very post this morning put us at 865 of them total. That's a nice number though, as it's exactly 1 post per day average over the last year. No we don't post every day, so the rate is probably 1.2 posts per "posting day", but I don't think that means anything, come to think about it. Any reader who's followed us* for long would have realized that the posts have gotten significantly longer, on average. I'd already noticed that 1 year ago.

The numbers are pretty good, folks. I don't like to give out raw data, but "Site Visits" are up in the many thousands monthly and "Page Views" are in the lower 5 digits. I don't want to compare to our first month, December of '16, since the numbers were very low, though growing as the site got recognized by the search engines, etc. A year-to-year comparison for each of the last 3 months (after subtracting out a good guess of that Russian spam** and some Indonesian attempted something-or-other last month), gives these numbers:

Growth in Peak Stupidity Traffic (in % change year over year):
MONTH: Visits y/y      Views y/y
Sept '18/'17:      172      101
Oct '18/'17:      115      99
Nov*** '18/'17:      185      119


I would now like to give wholehearted thanks to all of you regular readers for giving some thought toward the opinions of Peak Stupidity. If I didn't know a very decent number of people read the posts, I probably wouldn't have the motivation to keep on. Though there are not many comments, the ones that appear here are from very polite, erudite and interesting commenters, and I do appreciate each and every one I get.

Upon running this blog, I had first thought, say in the first year, that I might just run out of subjects to post on or get repetitive. I do repeat some basic themes, but I will definitely not run out of posts, and they keep coming, often in groups of 3 to 5 in my head, about ever other day I peruse my small reading space on the internet. Then there are 1 to 3 weekly that come from daily life observations. It does not look like we are at Peak Stupidity yet, so I'm not worried anymore about lack of material!

What's next? I think I will stick with the essay-type posts, at least 3-5 a week, but will try to put in some short "hey, look as this s__t!" ones in more. (They often turn into essays now, is the thing. I've got to learn to cut them off better.) I added the Bread and Circuses Topic Key just yesterday, but I hesitiate to add more keys, as I need to go through 865 posts and assign more of them. That'll be a job.

Speaking of jobs, we come to the big elephant in the room. I appreciate my readers more due to the fact that you all put up with the very simple navigation features, which is NOT VERY MUCH. Work on the website itself is something I haven't even thought about since summer '17. When I get started, I'll make a number of changes for the better. As I'd written during an aborted attempt (see just 1st paragraph), it's not the complications, but just the time involved in trying to both blog and work on the software, that's the problem. I will ease the minds of those who don't like change too much, that the format will remain the same. It's not pretty, but you're used to it, right? That's how I'd feel about it.

Again, thank you all very much for reading!


* No, no, not that FaceBook/Twitter "Following" stuff! We don't partake in that crap. I meant just plain keeping up with the blog.

** Peak Stupidity put the kibosh on that spam over 1 year back. It's very clear no humans are much involved (besides possibly just logging the site on some form), as it didn't take much, but we still want to apologize for making it easy to lose a comment with our fix, especially for 1st-time readers. You want CAPTCHA? No, you don't want CAPTCHA.

*** Extrapolated linearly for last 4 days of Nov. 2018


Comments (2)




The Fun Feminism of the 1970's


Posted On: Tuesday - November 27th 2018 9:40AM MST
In Topics: 
  Music  TV, aka Gov't Media  Feminism

Two Famous Tennis Foes having Fun, Forty-Five years ago:



Something someone wrote somewhere in a blog comment recently related to the famous Billie Jean King vs. Bobby Riggs tennis match of 1973, brought these current thoughts up to be expounded upon here today on Peak Stupidity. Billie Jean King was a competent woman tennis player during the time, and a 26-year-older player named Bobby Riggs challenged her to this famous "Battle of the Sexes" (Oh, wait, now it'd be "Battle of the Genders", wouldn't it?) It was a big thing at the time, as big as frivolous "things" like this could be back in the day well before 24/7 infotainment.

My memory of this event is kind of hazy and mostly just associated with the great Elton John song below. However, a 5-year old Takimag* article, I'd read a few years back, had more fun details, and can be read here - it's called Bobby Rigged (nice easy pun there!), and is continued on a 2nd page. Mr. Taki argues against some rumors that'd come out that the match was rigged, but one can easily understand how that could be seen as a reason for Mr. Riggs' participation in the match. When you think back on the 1970's, without the ubiquitous cameras and other forms of Artificial Stupidity, doing schemes like rigging games and other cons, had to be a lot less worrisome. You'd have to be a bigshot Suprano-type Mafioso, or Russian or Arab diplomat to warrant the placement of expensive bugging devices that could easily be defeated by acts like walking outside! I'm sure getting beat at his sport by a woman was not something Bobby Riggs would enjoy by itself, so he surely had some ulterior motives. (BTW, "rigged" is such a 1970's word too.)

About the feminism, as we try to stay on topic here, upon thinking back, and now seeing a bunch of photos of the Ms. (yes, she may have been the 1st or 2nd Ms there ever was) King and Mr. Riggs together, it all looks like good fun. Just look at them. This tennis match, and a number of them like it at the time, were viewed with a little less stupidity than can be seen today in the world of feminism. Sure, Billie Jean King had the grrrll power, though that wasn't the term then, and woman could be all proud and you could hear them roar (usually off the court, back at the hotel) and shit. However, I'm pretty sure that all understood that the current male tennis greats, the Jimmy Conners and Boris Beckers, would have pounded Ms. King into the ground with not a single point scored by the female side. Fun was to be had by all, tennis fans and others, and the men could humor their woman by watching this entertaining tennis match with them. Who took it seriously?

And then there was Maude ♪♫♬ ... Even the uberfeminist purported head-of-household (filing jointly?) in the Maude TV show of the time, spun off from All in the Family, though containing lots of feminist lines and slogans, was not to be taken seriously. (OK, the only thing to take seriously was Maude's show-daughter's big hooters, probably the reason they errr, it, stayed on the air to begin with.) Somehow, the jokes in the show, and the overt feminist theme, made it more palatable than later (even 1970's, still) TV shows, in which the agenda was more hidden inside the characters' actions and lifestyle.

That's not to say that the feminists BEHIND the scenes were not dead serious about their society-destroying feminist stupidity. There were the Hildabeasts of Yesteryear, of course. Their agenda kept on infiltrating. The affirmative action that has impeded or destroyed 10's of millions of men's careers, and the divorce law family destruction were all in progress. There was even the ERA a freakin' proposed Amendment to the US Constitutions, guaranteeing, I'm no lawyer, but God knows what, just one year earlier. This was APPROVED, for crying out loud, by the US House and Senate, but never ratified by the 3/4 of States required by the 1979 deadline.

Just as an aside on that "Equal Rights" Amendment, what was the idea there? Did woman have fewer rights in the courts of law, as the name would suggest? Was it to guarantee the stupidity of equality of OUTCOMES? That never works. If not that, then what? Equality of sentencing would have been really fun, as that'd have tripled the number of women in jails across the country. Right now, the p-factor still holds sway in the court of law, and sentencing if very UNEQUAL. Luckily, Americans at the State level were not as stupid as those in the Feral Government in the '70's, though I think the stupidity has been EQUALIZED since then.

During the 1970's, on the visible level of society though, feminism was kind of a fun joke, like pet rocks, sweat bands, and jogging until you drop dead. Look at another picture and tell me whether these folks were just the tweeters of yesteryear. Nah, instead of the modern-day foul-mouthed tweets by children of great privilege and low work output, you had Bobby Riggs and Ms. (for fun) Billie Jean King playing a 3-set tennis match. Because TV news, as mentioned earlier, was only a thing for 30 minutes daily, if you bothered at all, this big piece of infotainment was not pushed on those who didn't want any part of the silliness of it. On the other hand, you may not have every been able to find out that the 55 y/o Mr. Riggs purposefully did not exercise or play ANY tennis for 2 months prior to the match with 29 y/o Billie Jean King. It's not like riding a bicycle, you know, except in the aerobic sense.

Who's having more fun - these folks or the mad-tweeters of today?



(And what are those people doing just hanging out on the roof?
And how come the tennis balls look white in these Black&White photos?)


Just as another fun aside (least for me), this famous Battle of the Sexes took place just when tennis was becoming a big sport for the American general public. Not everyone needed to be a country-club member or have a clay court behind the mansion anymore. Tennis was BIG, BIG, BIG, in the 1970s' with the women and men in white, and the shushing of the crowd, and now, the newest thing, COLORED TENNIS BALLS! Yes, the reader may not know that the balls were white until about the early '70's as the public wanted to try something new (aside from bigger racket heads a bit later). I believe it was the fact the fluorescent paint and dyes were new, but first there was the green/yellow that is standard now, but there were bright orange balls (like hunter's clothing) for a few years, and there was even purple for a while. No, I am not hallucinating about the purple, though it's true that this was a drug-friendly period in American history.

Oh, right, "WHO WON?! JUST! ANSWER! THE! QUESTION!", the reader may have rightfully been asking for the last 5 minutes. Ms. King beat Mr. Riggs in 3 straight sets - YOU GO GIRL! How much do you want to bet that Bobby Riggs did this for the publicity value? If he did beat the lady, it would have looked as if he were a mean bully, so there'd have been no gain in that, hence the laying off of tennis and other exercise for 2 months prior.

What came of of the popular feminism of the time were things like paying attention to more women's sports, not just the volleyball and tennis due to the outfits (SO MUCH BETTER during the time before the William's brothers). The reason I even remember anything about the match is this: A woman's tennis team, in a woman's tennis league, was formed with Ms. King being a starring member in 1974 of the (Holy Moley, still in business! Who knew?!) Philadelphia Freedoms. Now, lots of us may know that women don't aren't exactly team players. They don't work well in areas in which one has to work for a very specific goal while putting oneself only in a position that does the most good for the team. Take the reality survivor shows, please, as an example. Because it doesn't work well, and also (back to reality) women having the lower amount of talent/skill in most sports, we don't care about watching ... except for, yes, beach volleyball.

Where this is leading to, finally, is my association of that tennis match with Mr. Elton John's great song, Philadelphia Freedom from 1975. It is one of his few hit songs that was not to be part of an album. Elton John wanted this song to be in honor of this women's tennis team, as Mr. John, later, during the long latter part of his career as a gay entertainer, must have felt some kinship due to ... well, I don't really know... Mr. Bernie Taupin, Elton's lyricist, has stated that the song was not specifically about anything, but because America's Bicentennial year of founding, 1976 was the next year, this song was very much associated with America, back in the days of freedom.... back in the days when even feminism had not yet intruded fully on our freedom.

Make what you will of the lyrics - you know how we feel about them - but this is one of Elton's very best:



It's the same great Elton John band:

Elton John - Vocals, keyboards
Davey Johnstone - Guitar
Dee Murray - Bass
Nigel Olson - Drums


*As much as Peak Stupidity has badmouthed that site for it's truly annoying ads-taking-over-browser windows deal, this is a good read, as Mr. Taki-something-or-other-in-Greek had some inside knowledge of this tennis crowd as a participant, and in general, he writes good stuff (pity about the major unnecessary annoyances of his site).



No comments - Click here to start thread



SportsBall as the Circuses in the "Bread and Circuses"


Posted On: Monday - November 26th 2018 5:44PM MST
In Topics: 
  TV, aka Gov't Media  Big-Biz Stupidity  Bread and Circuses

Football is Big Business.



What do you do when you interact with someone, knowing it'll just be for a short while, saying in a motel lobby, or sitting by him in an airplane, before he's got all the electronics out and running? "How about the cold weather?!" Nah, that can be a big No-No now, what with Global Climate DisruptionTM being so political and all. Nope, better not talk about the weather! "Oh, Arkansas, huh, yeah, those Razorbacks, blah, blah ..." That's much better. It's what people do now, look at a jersey, hat or just figure from where you told them you're from and start off about football. This is EVERYWHERE now, and I want no part of it.

Everyone's supposed to care, if only a little bit. Saying "Football? I don't give a crap." is apparently rude in today's America. OK, maybe it always was, but how about "Man, our country's getting changed for the worse daily. I'm not worried about the sports right now. Here's the latest ..."? Now, that's even ruder, as politics is a big No-No, just like the weather, which is politics. It's probably always been somewhat of a bad idea to start out like this with someone, but then this used to be a more unified country and the divisions were not so big.

Well football is big business, I'll give it that. It's got to be the biggest business in all that people call the "sportsball", usually meaning big spectator sports that entertain, suck up people's time, and distract them from thinking about real, important things. Though it's only 8 weekends a year or so for each city with a pro team, and maybe 6-7 for college (the small ones having fewer due to, yeah, it's not as much money), the events are huge, and the money spent is huge. I don't even want to look it up, but something tells me seats at a pro game are going to be in the $50-100 range. (Sure, feel free to edify me in the comments.) Try bringing a family of 5, paying for parking, and buying food and drinks there (they search your stuff, so you can't sneak it in anymore). I'd say it'd set you back $400-$500 if you're lucky.

In college, the students used to get their tickets free, but I don't know anymore. Are they too spoiled by the school loan money to try to make a buck by scalping them, as we did, to people more interested in the game? In those games, such as the Crimson Tide in the pic above, it's the alumni and those in the state that seem to care even though they never even attended who spend the big bucks. I mean biz-jets and King-Airs fly in from all over for these things, and those weekends must bring in 10's of millions of bucks into town.

One can watch this stuff on TV, and be just as excited. That's cheap enough, though the support for ESPN, et al, and the cable company is still a part of (what I see as) the problem. Look, if you don't play, I just don't get this distraction. Look at the players. Are they your peers? What do you have in common with the thugs in these games?



I can get it with the young people, but the country is full of middle-aged people who get bent out of shape about this stuff. Do they get this excited or bent out of shape about what's happening to their country, to this degree, I mean? A commenter on a blog (isn't that where most of this stuff starts?) brought up the hash-tags. He mentioned the most popular, or is it trending ones? I don't read 'em, but his point was that #ThisOrThatAboutSportsball tweets beat out all the #PoliticalStuff. To me, it's more easily seen when guys get drunk. That's when they often can get fighting mad about this sportsball stuff. Could they possibly channel this anger toward what's gonna happen to them and their families by the big screw job that the elites of this country are doing, or are they not drunk enough for that?

Very decent people will not let themselves get excited about what's coming down in the future compared to what's happening in sportsball. Unfortunately, their political enemies, say the antifa types, don't even have to be drunk to be angry and excited about the politics. You may not want it, but the real fight is coming to you, sportsball fans, so channel your thoughts a bit.

Or on second thought, is this what it's about?



Look, guys. They only show them for say, 3 seconds at a time on TV to titillate you (and assillate you?). Do you think I took that pic myself from the sidelines behind the waterboy? No, you can get a lot better than this, and all over the web. However, to actually GET some of this, you've got to be one of the big frat-boys on campus, or better yet, one of the players. You can't touch any of this stuff, you're not a part of that world, except for your generous funding of it, so ... I dunno.

It's true that there are plenty of people, many that I know, for which sportsball is just a hobby, like any other, do care very much for the future, and are actively doing what they can to help keep their country. I don't know why this bugs me so much, but maybe it's the phrase "Bread and Circuses". If Panera Bread and The Atlanta Bread Company, are the "bread", then sportsball events are the "circuses". It's all quite a big distraction from the fall of Rome America.



No comments - Click here to start thread



Edie Brickell - A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall


Posted On: Saturday - November 24th 2018 8:34PM MST
In Topics: 
  Music

Yes, Peak Stupidity is still in business. Until the stupid stops, we will rage on here relentlessly. It's been long enough of a hiatus, though, that some of the ideas have been lost in browser tabs all over creation. However, more feminist, financial, and China stupidity are on the way next week, at the very least.

We haven't presented any music by the late-1980's star pop singer Edie Brickell. This is a Bob Dylan political song, but since he really never could sing worth a crap, this is the better version:

Edie Brickell's band was The New Bohemians.




No comments - Click here to start thread



Jordan Peterson vs. Modern Reality


Posted On: Wednesday - November 21st 2018 7:07PM MST
In Topics: 
  Commies  Genderbenders  Student and other Snowflakes  University  Pundits  ctrl-left

True to our usual untimeliness, Peak Stupidity just viewed a 17 minute video, embedded below, from back in March of '17. The video is footage of Canadian professor of Psychology Jordan Peterson having it out with some loud/foul-mouthed protesters trying to impede him from speaking to students at one McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. By "having it out", we really mean "putting up with" the best he could.

It's a real nuthouse. There's Professor Peterson sitting "calmly" on the right,
delivering a lecture that nobody can hear.




In case you haven't heard about this celebrity of modern psychology/self-help, Mr. Peterson is an anti-PC crusader who has had enough with the oppressive environment on campuses in Canada. Yes, if you can believe it's possible, the PC is worse there than in the US. I have not heard anything I heartily disagreed with from Professor Peterson. Though I'm not quite enamored with the guy, he definitely provides a service to our side. Peak Stupidity featured Peterson before in this truly interesting 1 hour and 43 minute discussion with Camille Paglia on feminism. (OK, the first 30 minutes on graduate school in art could be comfortably skipped.) The discussion was pretty damn interesting to keep THIS GUY entertained for that long by 2 people conversing at a table, and occasionally taking drinks of water, so, check it out if you have time.

In the video below, Professor Peterson spent the 1st 10 minutes (of that video at least) trying to talk while the crowd of ctrl-left nutbags shouted, including using a megaphone, beat drumsticks together, held up posters, and definitely made totalitarian pricks out of themselves inside the large classroom,. Due to the subtitles, one can see, but hardly hear, what Peterson was saying to his sympathetic but seemingly-powerless sympathetic portion of the audience.

Oh, wait, I forgot to say what the problem was that the megaphone, loudmouthed crowd had - they didn't like that Jordan Peterson didn't support the REQUIRED use of the 17-odd gender-bender pronouns to address people. He did not support legislation on this, but never went so far as to say it was because they were all silly, unreasonable sickos, even. (BTW, yeah we thought there were 72 flavors, but what the hell do we know?) It's not like the guy was in favor of controlling the Canadian borders or, gasp!, a Trump fan... well at least as far as these sickos seemed to know. We have featured these student snowflakes in video before, but it's been a while. Prepare to be disgusted.

There's really more to be disgusted about though. While inside the classroom, there was not too much Peterson and his sympathetic audience could do without getting violent, and as the Professor said, making the situation worse. This is due to the fact that university administrators of either hard-core ctrl-left themselves and/or don't want to make waves and turn off the gravy train, i.e. they are real cowards. Even just grabbing that megaphone, or pulling a poster out of the guy's hands would be seen as very likely the worst harm they'd (oh, I mean Zee'd, to use the proper pronoun) ever been through. Per-cussive shock waves and other reper-cussions would be felt throughout the land for months.

Then the Professor finally gave up and went outside to lecture to his students on what was learned by him/them not getting violent and upset*, (never even getting around to any of his talk on the ridiculous legislation after this). I didn't particularly agree with all of this ad lib lecture. It's contradictory, what he said, and to paraphrase what he said with what was left of his hoarse voice after trying to be heard inside, then outside,:
This was all annoying, but THAT's OK [there's that fag psychology talk again]. We did the right thing by staying calm. Things will only be solved via conversations. This free speech is necessary so that we can educate these [ctrl-left] people. The most important thing is that we be more articulate and more well-read than them.
Now, it's nice that he's urging his listeners (over the increasingly noisy ctrl-left crowd that came outside to f__k with him some more) to be well-read and articulate, as "that's what they're hear for". Earlier though he explained that these ...
"attempts to shut people down are being made ... as an expression of a philosophy grounded partly in post-modernism and partly in Marxism ..." [Those infernal Commies, again - what's new? In their view:] ".. the whole world is nothing but a battleground between groups of different interests, there's no dialogue, there is no possibility of talking between the groups. It's just a power stage where combat has to take place. So the reason that speakers with whom the radical post-modernists and Marxist don't agree are denied a platform, is because those people do not believe, from a philosophical position, that dialogue can bring consensus ..."
What the deal? Can these people be reasoned with via articulate speech, so's that you can tell them why you need free speech, when they drown out your conversation? What's the plan for when they later on get violent?

"Nothing's more powerful than articulate speech!". I really beg to differ, Professor Peterson. Even the lowly .22 LR round is more powerful, not to mention the .308 ARs and rocket-powered grenades. Do you think these people want a dialogue after what you just went through (OK, 1 1/2 years back)? How will you get through to them when they don't want to listen? They won't listen not because they know they are in the right. They won't listen because they want to shut you down in more ways than you think, Professor. How'd articulate speech from the well-read work 100 years ago in dealing with the Bolsheviks in Russia? How about against Chairman Mao 71 years back in China? Probably as the most extreme example, how'd it work for the near 1/3 of the entire population of Cambodia in the late 1970's when people were shot just because their wearing of spectacles made them APPEAR pretty well-read and articulate? No, Professor, this will not end your way. These people will have to be shut down with extreme prejudice at some point.

Think about this, Jordan Peterson. Would it not have made an even bigger impact on youtube, if a group had come into that classroom with some 2 x 4's and made, well, an impact? Think of the hits, man?!





Well, I guess Peak Stupidity can definitely designate the 3rd week of November as anti-Commie week. Again, Happy Thanksgiving - no internet tomorrow.


* Actually, I believe Professor Peterson was really upset in the classroom but got himself in some weird psychological state to calm down. Keep in mind his own weirdness, seeing that most psychologist have their own problems, explaining why they are in this field - see Psychologists - Heal Thyselves!.



No comments - Click here to start thread



Brazilian Bikini Butt Brawl Brings BumBum Banishment


Posted On: Tuesday - November 20th 2018 9:46PM MST
In Topics: 
  Humor  Female Stupidity



(Photographers were afforded many more such opportunities for butt-shots, I assure you.)

This is 2-week old news, but we're absolutely sure the reader will be interested. This annual contest for display of the Best Butts of Brazil turned ugly (OK, I'll explain that in a minute) this year, as one of the contestants disputed the validity of the purported winner's rear end. It's called the "BumBum" contest, but IMO, "bum" is not at all a sexy term for a woman's butt. Maybe that's just a British thing, but unarguably, the word "derriere" does a much better job as a descriptive term for a nice one. "Rear" is OK, as a back-up.

OK, you're gonna want to go to the video, I'm su ... wait, just wait for it ... I wanted to remark that this article about the contest ... OK, you'll be back.
.
.

"Read" it yet? Good, I was trying to warn all readers that the pictures in that article, and I guess a number of the runner-up-butts in general are, well, not my type. Oh, and there was no cat fight, if that's what you were hoping for ... like me. I like what I saw in the video, in which, the point is, that the young lady who took it upon herself to claim the sash was under the impression that the declared winner had a fake butt, created via surgery. Why would I care? Maybe the surgeon should be the one collecting the prize. Is that her problem? My problem is that if this is the Best of Brazil, then I'm not happy with the contest, so maybe it's just as well they won't hold it again due to this unfortunate incident.

As much as I like smaller butts though, I believe that the termination of the Miss BumBum of Brazil contest is possibly one of the stupidest marketing decisions since the creation of New Coke. It's worse than the decision of the Miss American pageant producers to not have the swimwear competition, as at least we can still see women's personalities on TV, hahaaa, hahahaaa, yeah, right. "No, can't have a catfight between two bikini beauties on TV - ratings are bound to plummet." - no sane marketing manager on this planet.

Alright, well those were Brazilian girls at the top with those bright green Brazilian-flag colored pieces of string. I like this next crowd better, but I'm not sure if they're Brazilian. The picture just came up, and it works here.

Well, if you're gonna get flagged as "inappropriate,
you may as well go (almost) all the way.




There may be light posting through the Thanksgiving holiday, readers, but I will try to put a few up. Enjoy the time with your families.



No comments - Click here to start thread



More Commies and the Rhyming of History


Posted On: Tuesday - November 20th 2018 10:18AM MST
In Topics: 
  Commies  General Stupidity  The Russians  History  China

Number 1 Commie in all Unz-beckistan:



Peak Stupidity will at first admit a broken promise, one made in the 1st of 2 posts trashing out the pundit Fred Reed, as I was truly sick of that guy's stupidity. I still stand by my opinions of him in Fred Reed's Lifelong Siesta (Part 2), and I'd promised not to read him anymore. Well, I did see his Intelligent Design: Two Weeks in Chengdu and Environs* headline. Seeing as how we have some knowledge of China over here, once I read "Chengdu" I had to go check that one out.

The column itself was a good Reed (get it? [uhhghh - Ed]), as Fred Reed DID NOT do his usual trashing of all things regarding Americans. It was just some observations of his (mostly good) impression of China from the huge city of Chengdu. As commenters started piling on, the discussion went to the politics, of course. We've discussed before (and here how it seems like the Commies have been crawling out of the woodwork, as of late. True, you get all kinds on the internet. I'd read before a few articles on the unz site written by flat-out unapologetic Communists, and some of their followers gotta keep up and chime in, I suppose.

This stuff was RIDICULOUS however! (I urge the reader to take an hour or 2 and enjoy the stupidity.) There were the Chi-Coms spouting out revised history in praise of Chairman Mao, initially agreeing with, but later arguing with, the Russian Commie who wrote the post displayed with the nice red border above. Oh, what were the arguments over? They were over which country had the biggest increase in steel production and GDP under their totalitarian dear leaders, which of these two enemies of the United States were screwed over the most by not being sent free food by us** when they were starving, and, oh, yeah, why that starvation and misery was just bad luck or non existent. It was truly like a Twilight Zone episode on there, per post, #300:
And now, at mile marker #300, I present to you a phenomenon, stranger than that can be imagined by the common blogger. Pervasive throughout a comment section under an obscure Fred Reed travelogue article, on a website deemed to present alternate viewpoints, we find words that have transcended time itself … writing that is SO antiquated, at a radioactive level of stupidity that is transUranic, beyond the Lanthanides, well into the 3-digit atomic values of stupidity … it can be nothing less than a warp in the fabric of time.

I give you arguments over an anti-human philosophy long-debunked and shown to cause death and human misery for billions … appearing on this page 6 DECADES later, made earnestly by a new generation in a condition of ignorance and illiteracy not seen since ancient Sumeria during the time of the Hittites. How did these words get to this page over the ether and 60 years of time?

You, the unz reader, have just entered the Twilight Zone.
These commenters could easily be Soviet and Chi-Com diplomats, writing telegrams back and forth in one of those typical Commie spats that used to go on and sometimes kill a few more million people, back in the 1940's through late 1970's (remember VietNam vs. China?). I have known people whose employers have just this decade moved their manufacturing operations out of the deep caves in China where they were placed to avoid a war with the wrong-type-of-Communist Soviets, back around the early 1960's! Yeah, I don't know, maybe you get more work done in a cave too ... not as many smoke breaks. Americans used to enjoy those intra-Commie feuds, as they kept the weapons from being always pointed in our direction.

How could this type of discussion come back, though? Did nobody learn anything? Could a young Russian man never talk to anyone over 50 years old, and therefore long for the days of the Motherland? How about a Chinaman? It'd seem even more ludicrous to argue for the China of Chairman Mao, as the Chinese are doing so well right now, compared to their 5,000 year history and are damn proud of of that (and their 5,000 year history)! It's quite possible the ignorant commenters are young Americans bearing the fruits of our 5-decades-running program of Educational Stupidity.

I'll tell myself again that this is just the internet, and it's full of all types, including the occasional Communist retard or two. However, it being the internet, there are lots of place to look up facts, and plenty of variety to where comparisons can be made and the truth sorted out, upon one's making an effort. Now, along with that come the blatant lies on the Lyin' Press sites that used to be the monopoly of information on TV. Even those types haven't gone as far as to lie about fairly-recent factual history right in front of our eyes yet. Perhaps that is coming. "Truth is the first casualty of war", they say.

Says a well-known commenter about the "which Communism was better?" arguments:
I really hate to hai-Jack this thread, but we should really have a contest here. Which Communism was best?

On the one hand, in China it was shorter, only 3 decades or so of hard-core Communism, in which fewer than 30,000,000, OK, 40,000,000 million souls perished via starvation, so there just wasn’t enough TIME to really double-down and get that “according to his means” shit going. After ending all the “troubles”, Chairman Mao’s purge Great Leap Forward of ’59-’61 and then the Cultural Revolution of ’66-70′s were part of that “uniting the country thing” to make that omelet outta them eggs. No trouble there. Then they had to go all capitalist and screw it all up by making people rich enough to eat enough rice to get diabetes.

On the other hand, the Soviet Union had 7 decades to have multiple starvation periods, with the wars in between to pick up THE PEOPLE’S spirits a tad. They had enough money to put the 1st man in earth orbit, and another man make the 1st space walk, but the heating bills had to suffer a bit. We got some good writing out of the whole thing, as life in the Gulag did wonders to inspired Alex Solzhenitsyn, or example.

It’s really a toss up, IMO. You had your bread and cabbage lines in the Motherland of the USSR, but in the other Motherland, China, you had your ration cards for American-sent feed corn. Life was hard, but they all LOVE LOVE LOVED it, or else!

Wait, I’ve left out Cambodia. How’d that Communism work out? Let’s not forget Cuba either, no, heavens no, with that FREE healthcare to beat all. I mean, if you got bitten by a shark while trying to sail 90 miles of ocean to the evil Capitalist USA in a 2-man rubber raft, they would fix you right up in the prison hospital back home, FOR FREE!

Man, Communists, I don’t know which of you to pick. YOU’RE ALL WINNERS!
With all these recent Peak Stupidity posts on Communism, easily thought-of as a thing of the past, the reader may rightly wonder if this blogger sees Commies under the bed. No, not yet, but if history continues to rhyme in this way, and it comes down to dealing with people like these, there may very well be Communists under my bed. They will be dead of course, having been dispatched and left until nightfall next to the spare ammo.



* I am pretty sure a little trick here was to include the "Intelligent Design" wording to gather loads of comments from readers who have argued the hell out of that subject when Mr. Reed had written on it at least 2, maybe 3 times in the past. This article had absolutely nothing to do with intelligent design, and Reed's opinions on it, which I mostly agree with.

** That is also wrong, as event though they were arch-enemies, America sent feed corn to China in the 1970's (at least), and future-president Herbert Hoover was in charge of a program in the early 1920's to ship food to starving Russians.



No comments - Click here to start thread



"But, we were led to believe there would be no math."


Posted On: Monday - November 19th 2018 7:16PM MST
In Topics: 
  Global Climate Stupidity

- Global Climate Disruption Science team leader

Been craving for that long-awaited next post on Global Climate Stupidity? Well, fret not, dear reader as the long drought is over, or so our mathematical model has told us. It's possible that there'll now be 40 days and nights of heavy rainfall, but then, our modeling is a work in progress (would that the scientists would be this honest about it, right?)

A Zerohedge article from last week, Climate Scientists Admit To Major Math Error After Global Warming Study Debunked, relates how some of this Global Climate DisruptionTM research has been going down. It's not like this article is an expose of this whole global crapshow, as ZH does tend toward the side of extra hype. However, this article is a very good example to illustrate the trouble any scientific/engineering type should have with anyone's claim to a working mathematical model of the entire world climate.

Peak Stupidity has expounded on the difficulty of mathematical modeling of complex processes near our blog-birth, so please read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5, with Summaries - Part 1 and Part 2. Let's look at this example, though.
The co-author of a widely-cited global warming study has owned up to a major math error uncovered six days after its Oct. 31 publication by an independent scientist.

The study used a new method of measuring the ocean's absorption of heat
[SIC - "energy"], and concluded - through incorrect math - that 60% more heat [Dammit! SIC - "energy"] had been absorbed than previously thought.
Hey, this, the energy absorption by the oceans, is just one process, one little part of their whole model, but math modeling of nature is one of those things that require EVERY PART to be right. Even then, it doesn't usually work without a whole lot more effort.
Shortly after the article was published, however, independent UK-based researcher Nicholas Lewis published a comprehensive blog post, claiming he had found a "major problem" with the research.
“So far as I can see, their method vastly underestimates the uncertainty,” Lewis said in an interview Tuesday, “as well as biasing up significantly, nearly 30 percent, the central estimate.”

Lewis added that he tends “to read a large number of papers, and, having a mathematics as well as a physics background, I tend to look at them quite carefully, and see if they make sense. And where they don’t make sense — with this one, it’s fairly obvious it didn’t make sense — I look into them more deeply.”

Lewis has argued in past studies and commentaries that climate scientists are predicting too much warming because of their reliance on computer simulations, and that current data from the planet itself suggests global warming will be less severe than feared. -Washington Post
[not my Bold - either ZH or Wash. Post]
Note that this was an independent British blogger, not really a "peer", per academia, of the original researches whose paper was already published.
When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there," said Ralph Keeling, a scientist with the Scripps Institute of Oceanography who co-authored the paper with Princeton University scientist and lead author, Laure Resplandy. "We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly."
Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.

“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.” -San Diego Union-Tribune
[again, not my bolding]
Error margins from the calculations of effects of individual processes in a complicated model will accumulate to make the output complete garbage. Listen, it's not like this blogger here can do better right now (though, it's not my field, of course). However, I don't claim to have a serious model of the Earth's climate either! Part of the problem, as I wrote in Part 2 of the "Politics of GCDTM", is in with the reporters, not necessarily the scientists. Do you think any of these "journalists" can read the whole original paper, or really understand what the blogger's correction was about? We'd be really lucky if one of them can properly read the last few paragraphs, the Conclusion of the paper. I'll write more on that at the end of this post, speaking of Conclusions. OK, here comes the weaseling out of the original author:
Note from co-author Ralph Keeling Nov. 9, 2018: I am working with my co-authors to address two problems that came to our attention since publication. These problems, related to incorrectly treating systematic errors in the O2 measurements and the use of a constant land O2:C exchange ratio of 1.1, do not invalidate the study’s methodology or the new insights into ocean biogeochemistry on which it is based. We expect the combined effect of these two corrections to have a small impact on our calculations of overall heat uptake, but with larger margins of error. We are redoing the calculations and preparing author corrections for submission to Nature. -Scripps.ucsd.edu [MY bolding, this time]
OK, I get it. You have new methods that may help model parts of the climate better. This was just a math mistake. You've got new insights learned from the results WITH the math error ... whoaaa... hold on, partner! You're losing me. Oh, and you still have the number right, but with a much larger margin of error, meaning ... well, you don't that number very well. Yet, energy uptake by the ocean is as important a part of the model as any, is it not. It ain't like the world is covered with only 2/3 ocean, it's like 3/4!

If these scientists would put the word out clearly that all this is a work in progress, I'd have no problem with their work. "We're working on a model. There's a lot more work to be done." "We don't know every process in the energy balance, or at least don't know enough to model all of them, cough, ice ages, cough cough ..." Fine. However, this is not what the public gets to hear, which brings me to the promised conclusion.

Here's my point regarding journalism's role in this scam: At the beginning of the ZH article (of which I've pretty much included the whole thing!) on the ORIGINAL REPORT - The report was covered or referenced by MSM outlets worldwide, including the Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, Reuters and others. Now, as far as the correction goes - The scientists have submitted a correction to the journal Nature, which published the study. It'll be a note in Nature. Hey, I know, that's how science is done. This is how journalism is done though: That note WILL NOT BE COVERED by these MSM outlets worldwide. They don't want corrections, they want fear-spreading red-colored graphs and numbers, scary HOT, HOT, HOT temperatures, hurricanes, lack of snow, and dogs and cats living together! Corrections in Nature don't cut it at all.

PS: About the graphic at the top. No, this does not relate directly to the math mistake discussed here. It's flashy, is one thing, but it reminds me, and possibly will the reader, about the problems with lots of this Global Climate DisruptionTM data. This post was about margins of error in the data. You've probably seen those tall error bars that appear in lots of the observational (not from models) data graphs of temperature. Those error bars are usually pretty large compared to the trend in the data itself. I give kudos to scientists for being honest about this (part of why I don't think the scientists are purposefully misleading most of the time). However, when your tolerances are that big compared to the data itself, you really don't have good results. I'm fine with that - the next thing to do would be to try to narrow the error bars. That's the hard part, for observational data, but more-so, for values obtained from these touted mathematical models.

*******************************************
[Updated 11/20:]
Added discussion of the top graphic and error bars.
***************************************



No comments - Click here to start thread



AntiChrist vs. AntiChrist: I'm staying outta this one


Posted On: Saturday - November 17th 2018 8:33PM MST
In Topics: 
  AntiChrist  ctrl-left  Bible/Religion  Big-Biz Stupidity

In this corner, the Champion, #1 AntiChrist in all Americastan*,
George Soros (... oros,... oros ....)




Peak Stupidity made mention of some candidates for AntiChrist very early in our blog life, starting with our thoughts here and here. Per our part-time intern, the Soros pictured above has been determined to be the closest to the AntiChrist we could think of. He's been screwing with the politics in the Western world since he emerged from his Nazi-Commie background and out of a vat of 3-month-old goulash in old Hungary. It just seems like the guy especially directs his AntiChristicity toward America in the New World, however.

You take any stupid protest, movement, election-results overturning, etc., and you will likely find this scum-bag behind it. It will continue until there is a stake through his heart, as this guy is well loaded with riches from his economic scheming. This Globalist, Neocon, crony-capitalist, evil rat-bastard is someone straight outta Revelation, if you ask me. Though we see him up in the top picture hanging with the dead (not THE DEAD, just the plain old dead), I don't really think even the dead would want him around.

I'd expect to find the Soros in bed with the other large evil-dealing bastards in the "TECH" "industry", say with heads of Google and Facebook. Therefore, I was surprised to read the Zerohedge headline Soros Responds To "Alarming" Facebook Exposé; Demands "Thorough Investigation" a couple of days back.

Soros and Zuckerberg not getting along? Next thing, it'll be cats and dogs, living together.

And in this corner, the Challenger,
Functionally-autistic Facebook Founder,
one of the Four F.A.G.S. of the Apocalpse,
Mark Zuckerberg ( ... uckerberg ... berg... erg...)




Wouldn't you know it though, the 3rd candidate, yes, the Hildabeast herself, would have to be involved.
Following a shocking exposé in the New York Times revealing how Facebook resorted to guerilla tactics to deflect blame amid their various scandals, including hiring Republican PR firm Definers which cast liberal critics as operatives for liberal financier George Soros, top representatives for the Hungarian-American billionaire have demanded answers.

While Facebook was under fire on Capitol Hill for allowing Russians to purchase advertising during and after the 2016 US election, liberal critics blamed the company for Hillary Clinton's loss - including activist protesters who put a public face on liberal opposition to the social media giant.
I don't know about you all, but this just seems like a 1980's Iran vs. Iraq, or 1960's China vs. USSR type war, where you're much better off letting the two fight it out. Is this like that battle that started in Heaven, also from the Bible, as depicted pretty well by Christopher Walken in The Prophecy. Can two AntiChrists fight it out, right here in the good old USA, using millions of ctrl-left imbeciles as their pawns?

Can a geek like Zuckerberg even be an AntiChrist? He doesn't seem to have the charisma of an AntiChrist. Then again, he has duped a billion or so people out of their personal information and offered them nothing but virtual LIKES, guacamole recipes, and narratives of their significant others bowel movements. It takes a hard man to be that devious.

Peak Stupidity really doesn't know who to root for in this thing. Somehow, we feel, as usual, that the worst will happen - these two AntiChrist candidates may settle their differences in who gets to manipulate the American public the most, and kiss and make up. That's the kind of crap that Revelation is warning us about the most. Hellfire and brimstone are one thing - we've got hurricane shelters, but the pernicious lies that have gone on for the last half-century may lead to THE END:



Sorry for the light posting this week .. got very busy on Friday, then spent part of Saturday commenting against a number of out-and-out Commies on the unz blog. I've got a week worth of posts built up, so more on Monday evening.


* That's right, I'd heard he has a house in New York ... mighty daring of the guy, I'll give him that.



No comments - Click here to start thread