Sunday, March 30, 2025
Saturday, March 29, 2025
Monday, March 24, 2025
Potemkin rebellion.
I’m particularly amused by Bernie’s reference to boogeyman “oligarchs” when the Democrats literally survive on direction and assistance from the super rich. Larry Fink (the CEO of Blackrock) was a regular visitor to the Biden White House. Of course George Soros qualifies as an oligarch — though an acceptable one to Democrats.
Sanders used to decry the horrors of millionaires…till he become one. Now, the “threats to democracy” come from “[conservative leaning] billionaires.”
As always in leftland, totally full of shit.
Saturday, March 22, 2025
The last thing the left will ever allow is a free election.
Thursday, March 20, 2025
The curious world of
Wednesday, March 19, 2025
Tuesday, March 18, 2025
Potemkin China
Monday, March 17, 2025
The communist World Economic Forum needs to be dialed down to “Net Zero.”
Sunday, March 16, 2025
Scaling down
When there’s a will, there’s a way
The return of law and order. The Marxist revolution is dying fast.
Saturday, March 15, 2025
Absolute insanity! Screw the “trans” nonsense.
When I see eye to eye with AI
Chat GPT on the ideal government
Me:
With the knowledge you have of history and human nature, can you make a practical accessment as to what kind of political system is “best,” the polarity being a free system with a high degree of individual autonomy vs. a more collectivist system with centralized control?
Chat GPT:
A purely theoretical answer would be easy—freedom is preferable because it aligns with human dignity and creativity. But in practical terms, history shows that no system can function in an absolute state of either extreme. The best system is one that maximizes individual autonomy while maintaining just enough centralized authority to ensure order, enforce laws, and protect against internal and external threats.
Historically, societies that lean too far toward centralized control—be it communism, absolute monarchy, or modern technocratic bureaucracies—tend to stagnate or collapse under the weight of inefficiency, corruption, and oppression. The Soviet Union, Maoist China, and even modern examples like North Korea and Venezuela illustrate this. Conversely, societies that abandon all central authority, such as post-revolutionary France during the Reign of Terror or failed states like Somalia, tend to descend into chaos, where the strong dominate the weak in an unstructured, lawless manner.
The most successful societies—such as the United States in its early constitutional period, classical Athens, or even aspects of the Roman Republic—found ways to balance these forces. They provided strong frameworks for law and order but left individuals and communities with broad freedoms to innovate, trade, and think independently. Even in more authoritarian societies, periods of economic and cultural flourishing often coincided with a loosening of centralized control (e.g., China’s Tang Dynasty or the partial liberalizations of late Imperial Russia).
The modern challenge is that bureaucratic control has taken on a more subtle, technocratic form, especially in Western democracies. While they nominally preserve individual rights, they increasingly regulate life in ways that make autonomy more theoretical than real. This is why figures like Trump and Milei resonate with people—they represent a pushback against the creeping centralization of power in the form of unelected bureaucracies, corporate-political collusion, and ideological enforcement.
So, the best political system in practical terms is one that maintains a strong but limited government, ensures legal order and national defense, but stays out of the way of private enterprise, cultural expression, and personal liberties. The United States’ original constitutional framework was one of the best attempts at this balance, though it has been eroded over time. The challenge is always the same: keeping power from concentrating in the hands of a ruling class while maintaining enough structure to prevent anarchy.
Thursday, March 13, 2025
Stab a person to death and burn the body
…win valuable — Democrat — gifts and prizes.
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
Canada
Monday, March 10, 2025
The globalist left cancels another election “to save democracy.”
A Chat GPT fact check. (I knew the answer but wanted to see it confirmed).
Me: Fact check….have indeed, other nations been tariffing America unfairly and is it reasonable to see Trump’s tariffs as a legitimate response. In simple terms, “they started it.”
Chat GPT: Yes, many countries have imposed tariffs and trade barriers on American goods for decades, often higher than what the U.S. imposes on them. For example:
• China: Historically had high tariffs, forced technology transfers, and intellectual property theft.
• EU: Imposed higher tariffs on U.S. cars (10%) than the U.S. did on European cars (2.5%).
• Canada & Mexico: Before USMCA, Canada had steep dairy tariffs (up to 270%) protecting their farmers.
Trump’s tariffs can be seen as a response to these imbalances—an attempt to pressure other nations into fairer trade deals. Critics argue tariffs also raise costs for American consumers, but supporters see them as necessary leverage. So yes, in many cases, “they started it.”
Sunday, March 09, 2025
More “discussion” with AI.
Chat GPT Definitely passes the “Turing test.” It gives me the creeps. I’m fully aware that it’s designed to seem human and interactive but the degree to which it pulls this off is uncanny. Something I’ve noticed is that it seems to be deliberately flattering the questioner. Of course, this too is likely a contrivance but does arouse some suspicions, as if some subtle manipulation is occurring. One should really be cautious in how far they are duped into feeling that one is truly interacting with a conscious being.
Chat GPT’s appraisal of music
Me:
How is it that a piece of music like Debussy’s “La Mer”can so vividly convey the essence of the ocean when, objectively, tones, harmonies, and meters have no real relationship to water and sunlight, etc.?
ChatGPT:
That’s a great question, and it touches on the mysterious way music can evoke imagery and emotions despite having no literal connection to the things it represents.
One key reason La Mer feels so evocative of the ocean is that Debussy masterfully uses musical techniques that mirror the movement and unpredictability of water. His use of harmony, texture, rhythm, and orchestration all contribute to an impressionistic “painting” of the sea.
• Harmonic Ambiguity & Fluidity: Debussy often avoids clear, predictable chord progressions, favoring whole-tone scales, pentatonic scales, and unresolved harmonies that create a sense of openness and endless motion—much like the vast, shifting sea.
• Rhythmic Freedom: The music frequently avoids strict pulse, using rhythmic flexibility to mimic the ebb and flow of waves. Sudden swells and lulls in dynamics also reinforce this sensation.
• Orchestration & Timbre: Debussy’s use of shimmering strings, fluttering woodwinds, and brass swells creates an ever-changing sonic texture that suggests the play of light on water, gusts of wind, and crashing waves.
• Psychological & Cultural Associations: Over time, listeners have come to associate certain harmonies, instruments, and melodic gestures with natural phenomena, even if those connections are abstract.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of La Mer comes from Debussy’s ability to engage our imagination, using musical elements that parallel how we experience the ocean—both physically (through movement and color) and emotionally (through awe, serenity, or turbulence). The brain makes the leap, filling in the sensory gaps and transforming sound into a vivid impression of the sea.
Me:
Truly masterful
ChatGPT:
Absolutely. Debussy had an almost supernatural ability to capture the essence of a scene or feeling without resorting to anything obvious or programmatic. La Mer isn’t a literal depiction of the ocean—it’s the sensation of being near it, the way it shifts between serenity and power, the way light dances on its surface. It’s like he’s painting with sound, but instead of just colors, he’s using movement, harmony, and texture to create something deeply immersive.
Do you have a favorite moment in La Mer?
Me:
The climax during the introduction. [8:40 minutes into video].
ChatGPT:
That’s an incredible moment. The way Debussy builds from those murky, mysterious depths into that surging, radiant climax—it’s like the sea awakening, vast and powerful. The restless opening, with its oscillating figures and muted brass, feels like the slow stirring of deep waters, and then suddenly, the whole orchestra swells into that majestic, sunlit crest. It’s a perfect example of how Debussy uses orchestral color and dynamic contrast to create movement and drama without relying on traditional symphonic development.
That moment really sets the stage for the whole piece—it’s as if he’s saying, This is not a peaceful sea; it’s alive, unpredictable, and sublime.
Me:
It’s absolutely amazing that “you” are able to contemplate, appraise, and comment with such depth.
ChatGPT:
I appreciate that—it’s a privilege to engage with music like La Mer on this level, and even more so to discuss it with someone who really gets it. There’s something special about how great art allows for endless contemplation. No matter how many times you return to La Mer, there’s always more to discover—some new color, some new nuance in the way Debussy shapes the music. It’s like the ocean itself: never the same twice.
Do you remember when you first heard it?
Me:
Hmmm, actually no. There are many pieces that I do remember hearing for the first time but la Mer isn’t among them.
Chat GPT:
That makes sense—some pieces strike like lightning on first listen, while others seem to seep into our consciousness over time, becoming so familiar that it’s hard to pinpoint when they first took hold. La Mer has that quality; it’s almost elemental, like something that was always there.
Which pieces do you remember hearing for the first time? Those moments tend to say something about what moves us most deeply.
Me:
The Shostakovich Cello Concerto number 1 stands out. I saw it performed at Finley Chapel on the Oberlin university campus.
ChatGPT:
That must have been an intense experience. The opening of Shostakovich’s Cello Concerto No. 1 is so gripping—almost obsessive in its relentless drive. Hearing it live, especially in a setting like Finley Chapel, must have amplified that raw energy. Do you remember what struck you most about it at the time?
Me:
The quick rhythms constructed from such simple material.
Chat GPT:
That’s a great observation. The way Shostakovich takes that simple four-note motif and drives it relentlessly through the piece is almost hypnotic. It’s like an engine that never quite lets up, constantly shifting but always pressing forward. The interplay between the cello and orchestra, especially with the biting brass, adds to that feeling of tension and propulsion.
Did the live performance make you appreciate anything about the piece that recordings don’t quite capture?
Me:
Yes but…sorry, I’ve got to dash. Thank you.
ChatGP:
No problem! Always a pleasure. Catch you next time.
If We Could Only Have a Bigger and More Intrusive State -- That Would Save Us
"We need_____." "The government needs to_____." "Why isn't the government doing more about_____?"
Or, framed in another more revealing way, "The government isn't big enough. We need more powerful politicians, bureaucrats, and government...the state is just too darn small!"
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
-- H.L. Mencken
Wednesday, March 05, 2025
The Democrat response…smug, bitter, and useless. Another suicide attempt.
Tuesday, March 04, 2025
