Sunday, March 8, 2026
Saturday, March 7, 2026
My Comment on Facebook.
In response to...
John Coffey
Paranoid. I'm sorry, but every anti-vax person I have talked to is a conspiracy-theorist. Some of these are my closest friends, but they believe things like, "Bill Gates wants to kill us all.", and "Billionaires want to kill 90% of the human race." I would like to say that I have no idea where they get these ideas, but I have some ideas: First, I see many people online who fan the flames of paranoia. Second, almost 60 years ago, one of the Rockefeller's said that he would like to see the population decrease. I've seen some twisted logic that tries to apply this to all billionaires, like they want to commit mass extermination. As if Bill Gates wants the same things as the Rockefellers. Finally, there is a great resentment toward wealth: Someone commented to me that people in the medical field live in mansions so they can't be trusted. The argument is that the medical field is not interested in our welfare but only in profit.
I am repeatedly told that you have to "read between the lines" to get to the real truth. The problem with that idea is that it is open to wild interpretations not based on evidence.
Friday, March 6, 2026
George Washington discusses Shays’ Rebellion
Of Shays' Rebellion, Washington wrote, "if three years ago any person had told me that at this day, I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws & constitutions of our own making as now appears I should have thought him a bedlamite - a fit subject for a mad house." He wrote that if the government "shrinks, or is unable to enforce its laws . . . anarchy & confusion must prevail."
Washington did not wish to attend the Philadelphia Convention because he doubted what might be accomplished. He admitted that "powers are wanting" in government but wondered how such powers would be derived. He commented on Knox's plan for building a central national government, calling it "energetic, and I dare say, in every point of view is more desirable than the present one."
Washington did not wish to attend the Philadelphia Convention because he doubted what might be accomplished. He admitted that "powers are wanting" in government but wondered how such powers would be derived. He commented on Knox's plan for building a central national government, calling it "energetic, and I dare say, in every point of view is more desirable than the present one."
Shay's rebellion is often cited as the reason that we have the government we do.
Thursday, March 5, 2026
This Seems Strangely Topical
This seems to be the opposite of the Objectivist argument, which is that you shouldn't hurt other people because you invite retaliation. No matter how powerful you think that you are, even if you are the supreme dictator, others could rise up and depose you.
It seems self-evident that you can only oppose evil with force. This runs the risk of becoming evil yourself.
Contrary to the images we see in movies, heroes don't win wars, armies do. Wars are won by the cooperation of a vast number of people working together. Having an orderly society mostly free from evil works the same way. It takes force to maintain order. The power to impose order comes from a great many people cooperating. Societies are built on cooperation.
For this reason, I believe in the rule of law. A good society is one that has just laws. Bad societies either have bad laws or don't follow the rule of law. Corruption can destroy a society from within.
Mark 48 torpedo
Mk-48 and Mk-48 ADCAP torpedoes can be guided from a submarine by wires attached to the torpedo. They can also use their own active or passive sensors to execute programmed target search, acquisition, and attack procedures. The torpedo is designed to detonate under the keel of a surface ship, breaking the keel and destroying its structural integrity. In the event of a miss, it can circle back for another attempt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo
The news reports that this was used to sink an Iranian ship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo
The news reports that this was used to sink an Iranian ship.
Fwd: Minesota autism treatment up 34000% in 7 years
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Larry
Wednesday, March 4, 2026
Monday, March 2, 2026
I wrote this 7 years ago
I see a danger to the future existence of the human race, and it is the kind of thing that people should think about and prepare for now. Sometime in the next 50 years machines will be smarter than people. There are major technical hurdles to overcome, such as the inevitable end of Moore's Law, which probably means that it is not right around the corner or even within the next couple of decades, but it will happen, and easily within this century. And if for some reason it does happen within the next couple of decades then that means the results will be upon us that much sooner.
We can predict what will happen next and follow it to its logical conclusion, which is a future without people.
We can predict what will happen next and follow it to its logical conclusion, which is a future without people.
As machines become smarter, people will become increasingly reliant on technology. We can see that already with smartphones, which have only been with us for barely over a decade. Eventually machines will do all the heavy mental work, which will make our lives easier, but also make us more dependent.
And since we will be so dependent on the machines, we will start incorporating them into us. This will evolve over time until we are no longer purely human, but human machine hybrids. Perhaps when your biological brain dies, the machine part of you will be able to continue with all your memories intact. Maybe it would have an artificial body or maybe it would exist in a virtual world. It is likely that some would prefer to live in a virtual world where they can do more things than they could in the real world. Taken to the eventual extreme, our descendants would no longer bother with biological bodies and prefer to exist as machine intelligences either in the real world or in virtual ones.
The evolutionary pressure will be against purely biological people. Having machines incorporated into you will make you more productive, competitive, and increase your quality of life.
The future I describe might be long distant, but if it is not the future we want for the human race then we should start thinking about it now. Maybe we could have a Pure Human movement that would prohibit the merging of machine intelligence with human intelligence? This could be roughly analogous to the current legal ban on human cloning, because we very likely have the technology right now to clone humans, but countries ban it because they are uneasy about the implications of where that might take us.
However, we might not be able to prevent it. Linking machines with human intelligence is likely to happen in such small steps that we will easily adjust to it. It is sort of happening already with our dependence on computers. It could also start as a series of military applications where having the most effective soldiers determines who wins the wars. And once the genie is out of the bottle, we will never get it back in.
Best wishes,
John Coffey
P.S. Seven years later, I think that energy consumption and cost might become limiting factors in machine intelligence, at least in the short run.
The laws of physics won't allow us to make chips much smaller, and I just saw an article saying that it might be physically impossible to run a processor at 10 GHz. Right now, in theory, the only way to get more computing power is to have more processors, unless we invent a new technology like optical processors. However, upscaling requires more energy consumption and more cooling.
Sunday, March 1, 2026
Cops Shot An Innocent Schoolteacher 5X's and COVERED It Up
Federal officers have a right to protect themselves. However, in this case they don't seem to have been under threat.
On the morning of October 4, 2025, Marimar Martinez, a 30-year-old U.S. citizen and school teacher, was driving in her neighborhood of Brighton Park, Chicago when she observed federal immigration agents patrolling the area. She followed them in her car while honking her horn and shouting "la migra" to warn neighbors about the presence of immigration officers. While she was driving alongside a white Chevy Tahoe driven by Border Patrol agents, the two vehicles made contact. Martinez alleges that the Border Patrol vehicle sideswiped her, while government prosecutors later claimed that Martinez had attempted to "ram" the Border Patrol vehicle. A Border Patrol agent, identified in court filings as Charles Exum, then shot Martinez five times.[3][4][5]
...
The released evidence appeared to contradict key elements of the government narrative. In the bodycam footage, Exum appeared to turn the steering wheel of his vehicle to the left, toward Martinez, immediately prior to their collision. He initiated the turn toward Martinez after another agent in the vehicle said "it's time to get aggressive." The recording ran counter to the government claim that Martinez attempted to "ram" the agents. It appeared to support Martinez's claim that the Border Patrol agents swerved toward her vehicle.[11] Exum was subsequently put on administrative leave.
I don't trust Wikipedia to tell us the whole story.
The body cam shooting doesn't show us what happened with the cars, or what precipitated the incident, but it appears to show the agent turning into her car. It is possible that she tried to box in the government vehicle.
Officers are aware that they are being filmed, so it would be reasonable to think that they feel justified in their actions.
This incident has to be evaluated independently and it is not a reflection on other border enforcement actions.
Saturday, February 28, 2026
Friday, February 27, 2026
Is Fascism Back?
4 minutes ago (edited)
The political left engages in unjust name calling toward Trump. Just because Trump wants to do what he perceives as best for the United States, with his loyalty belonging only to the U.S., does not make him a fascist. He has no desire to do away with democracy, and he has acted within the confines of the law. However, current law gives the president a bit too much power, such as war powers, so maybe we should update the laws.
I mostly disagree with Trump's tariff policy. Tariffs might have some use when dealing with belligerent nations. The Supreme Court struck down Trump's justification for his tariff policy, while pointing out that he has other methods of imposing tariffs.
Thursday, February 26, 2026
Tuesday, February 24, 2026
Sunday, February 22, 2026
Saturday, February 21, 2026
Thursday, February 19, 2026
Sunday, February 15, 2026
Why the Economy Hasn't Crashed Yet
P.S. I have recently discovered Windows Reading Mode. You can highlight text and then select reading mode. Then hit play to have the text read aloud.
This is a different take on economics and Trump.
0 seconds ago
This "economist" has written only one book that reportedly blames inflation on everything except the government printing money. Some of the reviewers on Amazon called it "Liberal BS."
The anti-Trump people tend to spin facts in the worst possible way for Trump. I'm sure the same thing was true for Biden and Obama.
This video has ideas that ring true, but might be half truths and don't necessarily see the whole picture.
I understand why people hate Trump. He is a troll, a narcissist, and a bully. But he can also be a kind man that cares passionately about helping the country.. He came along at a time when Americans wanted someone strong to stand for them. Despite his personality flaws, he uses his influence to get things done. The country is going broke and has many problems, so Trump is the strong man that people need to fix things. Despite his flaws, I see Trump as a net positive.
If you privately own a business, you may think that you are your own boss, but you really work for your customers. If you don't provide the customers with what they need for a price that they are willing to pay, you won't have a business. In some businesses, you need to innovate or die. Corporations are no different. You may say that corporations work for the shareholders, but the companies are really working for their customers. The shareholders are just the investors.
Having people employed by the government and government regulations aren't necessarily a good thing unless they are doing positive work and not hindering the free market or just wasting resources, in which case getting rid of those things frees up resources that can be put to more productive use.
The fact the corporations curry favor from the government is a sign of a government that is too powerful with too much control. I don't doubt that there is corruption, since all major companies have lobbyists, but big government is the problem. The countries that are closer to socialism are always more corrupt because their governments have too much power.
Private individuals donate to politicians that they politically agree with. Companies are the same way. Some companies do benefit massively from government spending, but many private individuals are also dependent upon government spending, so they vote and donate accordingly.
Because of political influence, I have long thought that only private citizens should be allowed to donate to campaigns.
An atheist explains the most convincing argument for God
This argument has a physics way of thinking, saying that there must be a fundamental force behind the workings of the universe. However, physics has already identified the four forces that it believes are fundamental. Whether those fundamental forces have a cause might be impossible to determine, but if they did then they wouldn't be fundamental. And there may be no underlying cause because they are fundamental, meaning they are simply are.
One doesn't have to think about physics to believe in a god. Everything we see is created by something else. How far back in time does that go? So the religious argument is that you can't have creation without a creator. My problem with that line of reasoning is who created God and how far back does that go?
Logically, I have a problem with infinities. I assume that you can't have infinite anything, because infinite matter would have an infinite gravitational attraction. However, we assume that every moment in time had a moment that came before it and another that follows. Likewise, for every location in space, we assume that there is something beyond it. Does space go on forever?
What I am trying to say is that the universe makes no sense. It is either infinite or finite, and if it is finite, what lies beyond? Nothing? However, the toughest question to answer is why there is something instead of nothing at all? Either the fundamental cause was physical or something else. If you want to say that God was the fundamental cause, I can't prove you wrong.
I don't know that we will ever be able answer these questions. Religion is a failed science because it provides imperfect and usually false answers to why things are the way they are. Modern science has done a really good job of explaining how things work, but not necessarily why the universe exists.
Saturday, February 14, 2026
Friday, February 13, 2026
Thursday, February 12, 2026
Trump and Ukraine
FYI.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: John Coffey <john2001plus@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Sarah Paine: the Risk of Nuclear War, WW3 and NATO
To: Grant
From: John Coffey <john2001plus@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Sarah Paine: the Risk of Nuclear War, WW3 and NATO
To: Grant
Grant,
I don't know that Trump has alienated all our allies. He has insisted that countries not take advantage of us and pay more of their fair share where applicable. He claims to be looking out more for our interests.
I think that tariffs are in general bad policy, except as a trade negotiating tool, or to deal with hostile nations.
Trump tends to be hyperbolic and impulsive, while at the same time pursuing good goals. I see more good than bad, maybe by just a bit, but he is far better than the alternative. Harris wanted to tax unrealized capital gains.
In regard to Ukraine, your facts are correct, but Trump has been pursuing a negotiated settlement as opposed to endless costly war. (Biden was willing to spend the money while tying the hands of Ukraine.) Zelensky publicly said that he wasn't willing to concede anything, but he assumed that we would give them unlimited financial support. Trump is trying to force a settlement, so that we don't have to keep paying for this war.
At the start of the war I took the position that this was not in our national interest. Now that we have spent $200 billion we can't just walk away. Russia was also never going to walk away empty handed, so I think that Trump is just trying to settle this thing. It might not be the best for Ukraine, but they were never going to win completely against Russia, not unless Putin were to be deposed.
My reasoning is that we are going bankrupt, and fiscal reality will someday hit us really hard. I think that Trump understands this, and does not want the United States carrying the weight for other countries. Ukraine, at best should have been a European problem and not an American one.
Wednesday, February 11, 2026
Sarah Paine: the Risk of Nuclear War, WW3 and NATO
0 seconds ago
I would normally respect Sarah Paine, but Trump has stated that he is not interested in a military takeover of Greenland, so her entire argument is a strong reaction to a non-threat. I didn't realize she was so anti-Trump. She thinks that he is destroying alliances that keep the United States safe, but this seems like an overstatement. Despite his flaws, Trump seems smart enough to act in the best interest in the United States and surrounds himself with good advisors.
This might be my hottest take
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlThPXIVE8Y
@john2001plus
3 years ago
I would also kill all the mosquitoes.
3 years ago
I would also kill all the mosquitoes.
Tuesday, February 10, 2026
She Will Be Deąd In September Of This Year…
Fwd: Does the truth still matter?
FYI.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: John Coffey
To: Grant
From: John Coffey
To: Grant
Grant,
I do not want to see government overreach. Constitutional limits on federal government power started being ignored about 90 years ago.
There are two related issues here:
We live in a very dangerous world, so we must protect our national security, while not ignoring constitutional rights. BTW, I'm halfway through watching the movie Snowden, and even though Snowden may have had some valid concerns, I can't not forgive someone disclosing classified information. If I had done that in my job, I would be in prison.
People should follow the law when immigrating to this country, and we should enforce those laws. Without a border you don't have a country. You don't want just anybody sneaking in because you can't control whether it is a terrorist, drug dealer, or violent criminal.
I've argued with Steve, who thinks that we should allow anyone to cross the border with no restrictions whatsoever. That's like saying you would just let an invading army cross your border for the sake of freedom. There are a great many more people who want to move here than the other way around. What happens if everyone in the world who wants to come here is able to do so? At some point you have to have a limit, and that limit has no meaning unless you enforce it.
The political left is trying to score political points by turning this into a human rights issue, even if their position makes no sense. National elections are decided by very slim margins, and they only need to persuade 2% to regain power. Once they do so, I presume that they will open the floodgates again. Under current law, illegal aliens count for apportionment in Congress, and subsequently the Electoral College, which should be illegal. That is their real motive.
--
Saturday, February 7, 2026
RFK Jr. said this diet could 'cure' mental illness. Here's a fact check.
Doctors told HuffPost that Kennedy isn't necessarily all wrong in his claims, but there is way more to the story. Here's what to know:
Kennedy's comments align with the ideology his "Make America Health Again" campaign promotes, "which is 'natural' is better for your health," said Nicole Lippman-Barile, a clinical psychologist.
Kennedy has a history of demonizing medications like antidepressants, making statements claiming that they are more addictive than heroin and that they contribute to violent behavior, which is not proven.
There is ongoing research into the role nutrition plays in mental illness, but any claims that keto is a "cure" are way overstated.
Dr. Brooke Resch, a psychiatrist in Minnesota, said in an Instagram video that there is some evidence that suggests a keto diet may be beneficial in a mental health treatment plan, but there is not "a ton at this point" to support that.
Palmer, whom Kennedy likely referenced in his speech, has explored the potential impact of the keto diet on mental illnesses like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, but Lippman-Barile said his research is often made up of very small sample sizes or only covers short periods of time, like a few weeks or months.
"We also have no long-term studies looking at the keto diet and what that does for mental illness," she said.
"Even the most recent research that [Kennedy's] citing in this speech here says these exact same things ― that it's too soon to have this as a clinical recommendation"
Kennedy got his post by supporting Trump, but he has always seemed like an oddball to me.
Friday, February 6, 2026
Sometimes the Rules Just Don't Make Sense...But That Doesn't Mean You Break the Law
All his videos are about taxes, but his message seemed strangely apropos...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)