HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Kelvin Mace » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »

Kelvin Mace

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Home country: USA
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 16,552

Journal Archives

Is bragging about abusing the jury system

something the admins want to look into?


My prediction: Within 48 hours

of the issue of the Harriet Tubman $20, we will have news stories about the bill being defaced with racial slurs. The dateline will be Texas or South Carolina.

Navy SEAL who claims shooting Osama Bin Laden charged with DUI

Source: Washington Post

Robert James O’Neill, the former member of SEAL Team 6 who claimed to have shot and killed al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden in a 2011 raid was charged with DUI in his hometown of Butte, Mont., Friday.

According to George Skuletich, the undersheriff of Butte-Silver Bow City and County, local officers responded to the parking lot of a local convenience store after multiple complaints of a man sleeping in the front seat of his car with the engine running.

The officers recognized O’Neill, 39, and proceeded to wake him. After a brief conversation, the officers noticed that he was impaired, said Skuletich. The officers then proceeded to administer one field sobriety test–known as the horizontal gaze–that O’Neill failed. O’Neill then refused any further field sobriety tests and was detained.

At the local jail, O’Neill took and failed a second sobriety test and then refused to take a breathalyzer or blood test. He was charged shortly after and released on bond for $685. His license is currently suspended and in the interim he was given a 72 hour temporary driver’s license, as it is his first offense, said Skueletich. O’Neill is expected to appear in court Monday.

Attempts to reach O’Neill were not successful.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/04/08/navy-seal-who-claimed-to-shoot-osama-bin-laden-charged-with-dui/

I've met a few military "elite" types, and they aren't braggarts.

Ritual Human Sacrifice: Keeping the 99% in their place?

I would argue that eternal warfare, waged by the poor for the profit of the rich, is the new ritual human sacrifice:

Thanks to math, we can calculate the benefits of human sacrifice
Ars Technica

Most of us would agree that human sacrifice is a bad idea. Yet many ancient civilizations (and some more modern ones) engaged in religious rituals that involved sacrificing people. Why do so many societies evolve a system of human sacrifice, despite the obvious moral drawbacks? A group of social scientists has just published a statistical analysis in Nature that reveals how this grisly practice has fairly predictable results, which benefit elites in socially stratified cultures.

The group examined 93 Austronesian cultures in the Pacific Islands, drawing information from the Pulotu Database of Pacific Religions to determine which groups had human sacrifice and when. Previous analysts have suggested that human sacrifice helps to maintain social stratification. In this new study, the researchers wanted to understand the relationship between human sacrifice and social stratification over time.

To do that, they created statistical models using Bayesian methods, testing to see how human sacrifice affected societies that fit into three buckets: egalitarian, moderately stratified, and highly stratified. They write:

Evidence of human sacrifice was observed in 40 of the 93 cultures sampled (43%). Human sacrifice was practiced in 5 of the 20 egalitarian societies (25%), 17 of the 46 moderately stratified societies (37%), and 18 of the 27 highly stratified societies (67%) sampled.

The researchers ran these societies through several different probabilistic models, exploring how the cultures had changed over time and what role (if any) human sacrifice played in those changes.

What they found is probably not too surprising, though it is revealing. Human sacrifice has the effect of maintaining stability in highly stratified cultures, and it can also turn a moderately stratified society into a highly stratified one. Interestingly, egalitarian societies that introduced human sacrifice did not become stratified.

Human sacrifice, in other words, is a useful tool for elites who want to maintain their power in a stratified society. This is especially true in the Austronesian context, where religious and political leaders were often the ones doing the sacrificing, and the sacrificial humans were generally slaves or people with low social standing

Senate leader to attorney general: Defend LGBT law or resign

Source: Greensboro News & Record

A top legislative Republican says North Carolina's Democratic attorney general should resign if he won't defend a far-reaching new state law that in part voids Charlotte's anti-discrimination ordinance.

Senate Leader Phil Berger said Tuesday that Attorney General Roy Cooper appears to be pandering to left-wing backers as he runs for governor against incumbent Republican Gov. Pat McCrory. Berger says Cooper's campaigning is making it impossible for him to fulfill his duties as attorney general.

Berger issued a statement after Cooper said he won't defend in court the new state law that prevents local governments from adopting anti-discrimination measures for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Cooper says in response to Berger's comments that he's doing his job and will keep doing it.

Read more: http://www.greensboro.com/news/government/attorney-general-cooper-won-t-defend-transgender-law-in-court/article_ba5c8e64-85cc-525e-a229-ccd2ac1f8e7e.html

This will get interesting. Maybe this will help us break the state free from Art Pope and his employees this November.

Alabama's creepy governor denying a sexual relationship with aide he totaly had a relationship with

Warning, brain bleach may be needed.


This is why we are not about to be replaced by robots

I have seen and commented on a number of stories in the last few weeks where people were posting stories about the imminent replacement of humans in manufacturing by robots.

Folks, it is not going to happen any time soon, and by "soon", I mean any time in the next century. People constantly undervalue the marvel of engineering that is the human body and the human brain. Humans are flexible, agile and clever, something robots simply are not.

And here is an article from Popular Mechanics underscoring my point precisely. Here is the world's most powerful computer, trying and failing at a task a five year old can pull off without breaking a sweat: Identifying objects from a picture. Watson, IBM's genius computer that won a game of Jeopardy against human champions, fails epically when asked to "look at" pictures and identify what's in them. My favorite one is where it identifies a John Deer tractor as a "gazebo" with 61% confidence.

Robots have a use in the world, but at this time, and for some time to come, it will be in very specific tasks, in very controlled environments.

Humans rule!

(P.S.: Actually, the biggest fail is where Watson cannot identify a picture of itself.)

Nate Silver at 538 said Bernie's chance of winning MI was <1%



Hey, maybe Christie is going to pull a "Game of Thrones" move on Trump?

Go all Red Wedding on him at the convention.

Maybe I can pitch it as a new reality TV series....

Incrimentalism? I ain't got time for that.

A confession:

Once upon a time I was an incrementalist. A pragmatist. A person who believed you had to work within the system to change the system. I was also a Catholic who believed that I could work within the Church to change its culture to a more enlightened and liberal viewpoint.

Then two things happened.

The child molestation scandal exploded and I saw the vile perversity that the Church "leaders" had been hiding and perpetuating for centuries.

Around the same time I read a biography of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, who also found himself confronting an ethical and moral crisis on the question of whether to oppose slavery in a pragmatic, moderate and incremental manner, or to adopt a radical and "unrealistic" attitude toward the problem.

I quote the words that leapt off the page and set a fire in my soul:

In Park-street Church, on the Fourth of July, 1829, in an address on slavery, I unreflectingly assented to the popular but pernicious doctrine of gradual abolition. I seize this opportunity to make a full and unequivocal recantation, and thus publicly to ask pardon of my God, of my country, and of my brethren the poor slaves, for having uttered a sentiment so full of timidity, injustice and absurdity. A similar recantation, from my pen, was published in the Genius of Universal Emancipation at Baltimore, in September, 1829. My con-science is now satisfied.

I am aware, that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; —but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead

At that point I realized that by trying to engage the Church on its own terms, by its own rules, not only was I doomed to accomplish nothing, but I became an accomplice to the evil that it did by lending it the legitimacy of my society, minor though it may be. By attending any service, donating any money, I was enabling the molestation of children, and the oppression of women, lesbians, gays and trans individuals who suffered at the hands of their "teaching".

This I would no longer do.

I unequivocally broke with the church, and over the course of years, left religion behind entirely.

Today I hear the same arguments being made in this election. I am told that I must be pragmatic, realistic and sensible. I must vote for the one candidate who, despite their "faults", is the only one who can "win in November". If I refuse to support that person, then I doom us all to a much worse fate. They agree with me that change is needed, but admonish me that change takes time, and I have to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Now is a time for action, not starry-eyed dreams. Yet their "action" is to support a policy of gradualism that has done nothing but merely slow down this country's march to the right. My guy can't win, they tell me, because his policies and plans will never be accepted by "the people" because they are "too radical". If I refuse to vote for the incremental status quo, I am throwing women, children, minorities, gays, lesbians, trans people, et al, to a Randian dystopia AND IT WILL BE ALL MY FAULT.

No. It will not.

The time for radical change is now. And it is our last chance. The reality is that this country is hurtling toward the abyss at 60 mph with a hundred feet to go. We have a choice of two drivers:

One will gently apply the brakes, and drive us over the edge at a more restrained 45 mph.

The other will jam on the brakes, and slam the transmission into reverse.

The rest of the country will pick between one of these two, and a driver who will stomp the accelerator, hit the nitrous booster and light the JATO rockets.

Of these three choices, only one driver has any chance of keeping the country alive. The other two mean certain death.

Think I am exaggerating?

Well the "live or die" issue of our time is not campaign finance reform, not marriage equality, gun control, abortion rights or income inequality.

It is global warming.

After decades of warning people that we were approaching the point of no return, we have now either reached it, or passed it. Ahead lies mass extinction, famine, pestilence, and war on a cataclysmic scale.

Our choice of candidates, as "Democrats/Liberals/Progressives" is simple:

The person who will take radical measures to cut carbon emissions and build a green energy infrastructure, or the person who will compromise and only implement realistic plans with consensus "buy in" from the relevant stake holders.

The first person will probably fail, but might, just might succeed.

The second person will fail, PERIOD.

And that, my friends, is what is on the line. After the primary we will either choose between two candidates who will both drive us into abyss, or one who will drive into the abyss with maniacal glee and one who will do his damndest to stop on the edge.

I refuse to be blamed if you pick wrong.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »