Blog Archive

Search This Blog


Saturday, August 29, 2015

Still hung up on widows 10

I am still tryig to make windows 10 work.  Some is the same  as windows 7 but not all. I am sorry I fell for downloading it.  It may be better but the learning curve doesn't make it worth the effort.  I suspect they will be hitting me for an up grade any time now.  kay was in bed after breakfast as she was dressed.  She stayed there until I left.  More tomorrow.  I hope I am better at windows 10 stinker

Friday, August 28, 2015

How to get rid of windpws 10

No video  today.  I recorded video but I also installed Windows 10. Most things work but some do not.  I am looking to removing it if I can find control pantel.
Kay was not happy when I got there.  She wanted to squeeze my hand but it has artritis so it hurts when she squeezes it.  I took her to the greeting area on the second floor where we watched the people come and go.  After a while I took her back to her room and I stayed there with her till time to go.  She was in a better mood then.   NO NO not that.  She was not happy to see me go.   She was back  to normal. 

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Friday, August 21, 2015

Paul Craig Roberts speaks on Justice

Something to think about

By Paul Craig Roberts
August 21, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - America’s First Black President is a traitor to his race and also to justice.
Obama has permitted the corrupt US Department of Justice (sic), over which he wields authority, to overturn the ruling of a US Federal Court of Appeals that prisoners sentenced illegally to longer terms than the law permits must be released once the legal portion of their sentence is served. The DOJ, devoid of all integrity, compassion, and sense of justice, said that “finality” of conviction was more important than justice. Indeed, the US Justice (sic) Department’s motto is: “Justice? We don’t need no stinkin’ justice!”
Alec Karakatsanis, a civil rights attorney and co-founder of Equal Justice Under Law, tells the story here:
See also here:
The concept of “finality” was an invention of a harebrained Republican conservative academic lionized by the Republican Federalist Society. In years past conservatives believed—indeed, still do—that the criminal justice system coddles criminals by allowing too many appeals against their unlawful convictions. The appeals were granted by judges who thought that the system was supposed to serve justice, but conservatives demonized justice as something that enabled criminals. A succession of Republican presidents turned the US Supreme Court into an organization that only serves the interests of private corporations. Justice is nowhere in the picture.
Appeals Court Judge, James Hill, a member of the court that ruled that prisoners did not have to serve the illegal portion of their sentences, when confronted with the Obama/DOJ deep-sixing of justice had this to say:
“A judicial system that values finality over justice is morally bankrupt.”
Obama’s DOJ says that there are too many black prisoners illegally sentenced to be released without upsetting the crime-fearful white population. According to Obama’s Justice (sic) Department, the fears of brainwashed whites take precedence over justice. Judge Hill said that the DOJ “calls itself, without a trace of irony, the Department of Justice.”
Judge Hill added: We used to call such systems as people sitting in prison serving sentences that were illegally imposed “gulags.” “Now we call them the United States.”
America is a gulag. We are ruled by a government that is devoid of all morality, all integrity, all compassion, all justice. The government of the United States stands for one thing and one thing only: Evil.
It is just as Chavez told the United Nations in 2006 referring to President George W. Bush’s address to the assembly the day before: “Yesterday, at this very podium, Satan himself stood speaking as if he owned the world. You can still smell the sulfur.”
If you are an American and you cannot smell the sulfur, you are tightly locked down in The Matrix. God help you. There is no Neo to rescue you. And you are too brainwashed and ignorant to be rescued by me.
You are part of the new Captive Nation.

Birthdays and forest fires

Sunday, August 16, 2015

Several  new developmen<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></ifr


Thursday, August 6, 2015

Bombing of Hiroshima Japan

See this video  of the atomic bombing of Japan.  Kept hidden for 20  years


Wednesday, July 8, 2015

Wednesday visit to Kay

tomorrow see how she reacts to my serenading her with the guitar

Sunday, July 5, 2015

Can scientists think?

Can Scientists Think?

Euclid Cannot Explain a Hamburger

June 5, 2015
On the Unz Review I find a piece by Razib Khan, Can a Religious Person be a Good Scientist? His answer, yes, is inarguable since, as he points out, many good scientists are religious (Newton, a Christian, by most accounts did pretty fair work.) But why should it be necessary to ask such a luminously foolish question?
Because we live in luminously foolish times. Mr. Khan cites, not approvingly, a scientist who wanted to have another dismissed from his position for being an evangelical Christian. Why? Well, you see, the manner of thinking of religious people renders them incapable of science.
This makes sense only in terms of bitter hostility to religion. Why can a Christian scientist not study, say, the possibilities of rotaxanes as bistable devices in molecular computers as well as can an atheist or agnostic?
While Christians can think about science, I wonder whether scientists, as scientists, can think about anything else. Are their mental capacities not grossly limited in comparison with those of other people?
It is a question of blinkers. They think inside a box containing only a part of reality.
Logical systems, such as those to which scientists are tightly wed, depend on assumptions and undefined primitives. Their conclusions cannot go beyond results derivable from their assumptions.
Consider plane geometry, a field encompassing the behavior of planes, lines, points, and angles. Like many branches of science and mathematics, it produces interesting and useful results. Yet it rests on things that cannot really be defined. (What is a point? “An infinitely localized whereness” perhaps?) It cannot explain things not contained in its premises. For example, it has nothing to say about mass, energy, volume, or chili dogs.  Yet these things exist. If a plane geometer thinks only within the postultes of his field (which of course no plane gemoteter does), he cannot understand the greater part of reality.
The silences as a whole enjoy the same strengths and suffer the same limitations. They deal with matter, energy, space, and time, however hyphenated, and nothing else. These are undefined. (Dorm-room definition: “Space is what keeps everything from being in the same place. Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.”)
Science enjoys great prestige as it has led to great results, such as iPhones. Perhaps bccause of this scientists, for some reason thought to be smarter than the rest of humanity, are seen as oracles and almost as priests. Yet they have nothing to say, and can have nothing to say, about meaning, purpose, origins, destiny, consciousness, beauty, right and wrong, Good and Evil, death, love or loathing.
These are matters of some importance to normal people whose thinking is not crippled by strict adherence to the Laws of Motion. A scientist, as a scientist, must dismiss them as empty abstractions, simply ignore them, or provide unsatisfactory answers and quickly change the subject.  A physicist may speak solemnly of the Big Bang, but it has no more explanatory power than Genesis. A child of six years will ask, “But where did God come from?” Or the Big Bang.
A man whose thinking has not been shackled by the restrictions of science can say, “This sunset is beautiful.” A scientist cannot not, not if he is thinking as a scientist. Beauty has no physical definition, the only kind allowable in the sciences. (I confess that in my ancient chemistry classes we accepted as the unit of beauty the millihelen, defined as “that amount of beauty necessary to launch one ship.”)
Trouble begins when one tries to stretch a system beyond its premises. Here we come to scientism, as distinct from science. A great many people, some of them scientists, want science to explain everything whatever. This of course is the function of a religion.
Scientism, like other varieties of political correctness, is de rigueur among much of the cognitive or approximately cognitive elite, and has been inculcated in the populace by endless repetition. The credo runs roughly Big Bang, stars form, planets, oceans, life, evolution, Manhattan. Acceptance—unexamined acceptance—of scientism is now regarded as evidence of right thinking. Most who accept it have no idea what they are accepting, but they know that it is the proper thing to do.
For much of the public, this is a sort of religion by Disney, the Force Be With You, with an origin of of the universe that, well, you know, the scientists understand it, and we are evolving upward and onward into like, better beings and all. And death? Let us speak of other things.
Here we come to Mr. Khan’s scientist who (as distinct from Mr. Khan) wants to remove Christians from the practice of science. A religion, however manqué, cannot brook any doubt whatever. A Christian cannot say, well, maybe Jesus was the son of God, but maybe Mary wasn’t a virgin after all. If he does, his faith no longer serves its function of providing certainty.  Any doubt threatens the whole edifice.
So with scientism.  Serious believers cannot abide heresy. The need to believe, to protect the edifice, is most commonly seen regarding the theory of evolution, any questioning of which results not in answers, but in fury.
The acolytes of scientism invariably see the enemy as Creationism, which they correctly if not consciously recognize as a competing religion. Thus the desire to remove believers in any religion from scientific posts. Thus the pathological outrage that arises if the schools of Kansas want to mention Biblical Creation. Why? Obviously doing so would not result in the burning of laboratories or crucifixion of chemists, and would be unlikely to discourage a kid from going into the sciences. This doesn’t matter. Heresy cannot be allowed.
Scientism is part of the curious culture-wide campaign to remove any trace of religion from public life. It is the equivalent of the Christian iconoclasm of the late Roman times: we must tear down the statues of those pagan gods. The purposes are identical.
Scientism requires a willful ignoring of undeniable aspects of reality, such as death. To a scientist, (again, thinking as a scientist), death means only the cessation of certain chemical processes. He says after the funeral, “John is gone,” but never, “Where has John gone?” But do not even atheists wake up at three a.m. and think, “Where are we? What is this all about?” And, ominously, “What comes next, if anything?” The atheist might reply, “Nothing”—but what if he is wrong? How does he know? Except to the religious, who don’t have the answers either, even to mention these questions seems slightly obscene.
Note that the premises of the sciences, if accepted other than provisionally for a paraticular investigation, lead to paradoxes, as for example the Aquarium Effect. Scientists view the universe as if it were an isolated system in a vast aquarium. They can look at it, poke at it with sticks and instruments, but they are apart from it. If they regard themselves as being within the system, problems arise.
For example, the brain is an electrochemical mechanism, all parts of which follow the laws of physics and chemistry. Successive states of a physical mechanism are completely determined by preceding states, just as they are in a computer. Physical systems cannot choose their behavior: a rock when dropped cannot decide to fall sideways. Our thoughts are therefore predestined. Are they then still thoughts?
Which leads to the obvious conclusion that one cannot simultaneously be part of a physical system and fully understand it. Like conjugate variables or something. But weare part of the universe.
Note that all science is physics. Chemistry is the physics of the interaction of atoms and molecules, biochemistry of particular classes of molecules. Consequently evolution is a subset of physics. (How is it not? Everything that happens in an organism from metabolism to mutation obeys the laws of physics. If this is not true, then physical behavior is affected by Something Outside of Physics—eeeeeeeeeek!)
Part of physics is the requirement of causality. Every physical event, which means every event, must have prior physical causes.  Anything that doesn’t can’t happen. But do we really know this? A normal person can wonder. A scientist cannot.
To amuse ourselves, let us assume that something physically inexplicable actually happened. Let us suppose that the shade of Elvis appeared in my living room, sang Blue Moon over Kentucky, and disappeared in a flash of green light. Remember, for the moment we assume that it really happened. How could a scientist, or the science, handle this?
I could tell my friend the astrophysicist about it, but he would assume that I was joking, lying, or delusional. I could tell him that my neighbors heard it, but he would say that it was a recording. I could say that people walking in the street saw it though my window, but he would say that it was an Elvis impersonator. The event not being reproducible, I could not possibly convince him—even though it had actually happened.
Scientism appears at its most desperate in matters of evolution, where things clearly explicable in physical terms (astronomy, electronics, combustion) bump up against things not nearly so explicable (life, consciousness, motivations).  Scientism always finds a way, however strained, to avoid the ravages of doubt. Conceding or even considering anything outside of that small scientific box would open up a Whole Lot of Doubt.
Consider Cochran’s Virus. Evolutionary theory of course says that traits that make for successful reproduction will flourish in a population. This makes sense and can be observed in many things. It fails badly in the case of homosexual men. As these produce no or few children, the selective pressure to eliminate them from the population would seem to be great. Yet they are not eliminated. Scientism cannot say that here perhaps is something not explained by the theory. That would shake the whole edifice. How does it manage this difficulty?
Desperatelly. The biologist Greg Cochran says that homosexuality is a disease caused by a virus. Which virus is that? We don’t know because it has not been discovered. What is the evidence for it? Why, homosexuality. Round and round….


 Fred on Everything

Kay's hot pants

Saturday, July 4, 2015

Friday, July 3, 2015

Beating the heat with hot pants

Monday, June 29, 2015

Living in assisted living

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Kay exercises. A irst

Sight seeing on way home  after seeing Kay.

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Kay, Romanesque in Tacoma

The last few pictures in the video are of the Federal court house....  I happened to take them when we were passing by one day.  Note the crosses in the windows. Where is the ACLU when we need them.Tacoma made the Federal court house ojt of an old railroad station when it was no longer needed as a rr station.  Tacoma has many buildings made out of this red Roman brick.  Tacoma ever burned to the ground like SF or Seattle did so all the old buildings are still with us unless they were torn down and not saved..

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Kay was proud of herself

Kay did great today.  I think she was proud of herself.

St Valentines day

Tacoma Fog earlier this year

Monday, June 22, 2015

Tacoma at sunrise Kay ok.

Tacoma at sunrise.  Kay in good spirits.  I can not get her to talk

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Friday, June 19, 2015

Kay on Friday.

Followig is the intrduction to a 55 minute video with the music removed.  Google will not let me include the music.  I will send free to anyone who might like to see what it is all about with the audio included.  Actually the audio narrative is  included because my voice is permissible.  I think the message is worth reading. I just looked at it and it is terrible.  google destroyed it.  Maybe when you look at it it will be ok.  Also google puts their garbage in place of my video

I am adding this to find out if this will stop google from adding their garbage to the end of my video.   Probably not but it is a try. I may go to Facebook for posting my daily updates and and say to heck with google.It ;looks like google also  destroyed the quality.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Short Visit

No video today as the one I did did not transfer then got deleted in the transfer process.  I  had an hour visit today.  Exercises start about 9 45 and I take her back to her room at 10 10 or 15 to get ready to  catch the return bus.  Some times it is late geting there so I may have a few minutes longer before I go down to get the bus.  So  with the short visit then the exercises we didn't have much else to do.  I am going to see if I can spend more time with her and also find out what other activities that might be going on and time some visits at that time so we can do more things together.  I do not get less lonesome the longer we are apart durng the evening.  I am always thinking of her after dinner in my room.  She needs to be near someone she knows.  I must find a way to do that

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Back to normal

Kay back to normal. For her

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Back to her old self.

No video today.  Kay was in the dining room and in good spirits.  I took her to the setee next to her room and she was back to her old self when it came to eating truffles.  The first one whole.  She also ate most of a cracker but that was all she ate.  Her walk was much better.  Rather most of it was.  After a little while she got slow again.  We attended the exercises and news.  I left her in good spirits and she smiled when I told her good bye.

Monday, June 15, 2015

Kay flying lsson, gets sick

Kay takes aflying lesson in former times.


Sunday, June 14, 2015

Kay did two things today.

Kay did two things today One good the other no.

Let us salute the flag

Another article by Fred Reed that might raise the ire of some people.  However if you had been blinded in VietNam like he has you might have a different perspective.   The 4th of July  is coming up but I have noticed the younger generations don't have a clue what it is supposed to mean.  It's just another day off to most I know.

Let Us Salute the Flag

On the Nobility of Motives

June 13, 2015
Aaaagh! Enough. I keep reading that I should Honor Our Troops. On airline flights, I am asked to applaud Our Young Men in Uniform. Why, for God’s sake? What have Our Troops done for me except cause me great embarrassment, cost money better spent on anything else, and kill millions of people that I have had no interest in killing? For this I am to thank them?
No, they don’t have noble motives. Men join the military because they need a job, because they want money for college or because they are bored or want to prove their manhood or go to exotic places and get laid. Basic training, jump school, being a tank gunner or doing nocturnal scuba insertions are much more appealing to a young man than selling fan belts at the NAPA outlet.
Patriotism? “Love of country” is an after-market add-on, good for a drink or a pat on the back at the Legion--nothing more than an expression of the pack instinct that makes men in all places and times join in groups to fight other groups. The pack instinct is why tribal warfare is continual among primitive peoples, why war, otherwise inexplicable, remains incessant between modern countries. It is why the gangs of young males in Chicago mirror military hierarchy, with territory to be expanded or defended, with leaders and insignia (e.g. black and god jackets for the Latin Kings ), with hand signs to signify identify and loyalty. It is why people join  screaming mobs in political conventions, why they become wildly emotional over football teams consisting largely of convicted felons who have nothing to do with the city.

The pattern of loyalty inward to one’s pack and hostility outward toward other packs explains the peculiar morality of the military (and of most other people). A Marine colonel will be at home a good neighbor, civic-minded, honest, cut the grass and help old ladies across the street. Come a war and he will mercilessly bomb any city he is told to bomb, and after killing he doesn’t care whom on the ground, he will go to the officers’ club where there will be high-fives and war stories.
We must not notice this, or the other feral dogs will turn on us. If you say that soldiers are morally indistinguishable from Mafia hit-men, you will arouse outrage—but there is no difference. A soldier who has never heard of Vietnam or Iraq goes when ordered to kill Vietnamese and Iraqis, and duly kills tehm. Guido and Vito, who have never heard of Hyman Blitzschein the store-owner who is behind on his protection payments, break Hyman’s leg when ordered to. What is the difference?
Morality is always a very thin veneer on top of the deeper savagery of the pack. Militaries encourage this savagery. From Joshua onward until very recently, armies regularly put cities to the sword, and generals allowed their troops to sack and rape rewards for good service. For those unfamiliar with such things, “putting cities…” meant killing every living thing within.
A graphic description of torture and murder routine in the Thirty Years War would have most readers retching. Today this sort of thing, when exposed, is held to be in bad taste. Only the United States engages openly in torture (put “Abu Ghraib) In Google images) but others do it.
Of course, much depends on who is doing what to whom. When the Germans bombed London, the English thought it barbaric. Later, when they were bombing German cities, it was a form of heroism. The Rape of Nanjing was hideous, while the frying of Hiroshima was not. Killing everyone in a city of a hundred thousand by hand would be very bad PR, but burning them to death from above is a cause for congratulations.
An effect of the pack instinct is the suppression of cognitive dissonance. If one noticed that a woman, campaigning for sexual abstinence, was pregnant with her seventh child, one might notice the contradiction. Patriots, or the American variety anyway, cannot notice that Our Boys, and Our Girls, are committing the routine atrocities that armies normally commit. Call it cognitive indifference.
American atrocities are always Isolated Incidents. An Isolated Incident is business-as-usual that is detected by the press. Thus torture is best avoided by restricting coverage.
It is de rigueur to spank of our boys fighting to defend America and our way of life, and to speak of their sacrifices. In the Fifties this spirit was exemplified by Superman jumping out of a window, while the voice-over intoned  “truth, justice, and the American way,” then thought to be related.
Actually soldiers are more sacrificed than sacrificing. Precisely how killing Afghan goat-herds protects the United States is not clear: careful students of geography have argued that Afghanistan is somewhere else. The evidence does seem to support this.
Today, the motives of wars are usually disguised so as to be palatable. It has been said that the British fought for empire, the French for la gloire de la France, the Russians to steal watches from the wounded, and the Americans for vague moral abstractions.  Thus Washington fights to rid Iraq of a cruel dictator, while supporting many others as cruel; fights to instill democracy, as if anyone anywhere cared whether Afghanistan were democratic; and to protect the world from nonexistent WMD.

The dog-pack instinct is most intense in the elite outfits, SEALs and Force Recon and Special Forces, with tightly-bonded small groups—the focus of males—working together. Powerful free-floating hostility characterizes the, and patriotism gives them a cover story for doing what they would want to do anyway.
Loyalty to a small band of warriors is easily transferred to an abstraction such as country or religious faith. Witness the fervor of Moslems today, or the enthusiasm for Christianity of illiterate Crusaders in the eleventh century who knew little of Christianity and certainly didn’t follow its moral precepts. Being swept up in a Cause gives an appearance of meaning to a life otherwise devoid of such. The flags, the hurrahs, the rhythmic thump-thump-thump of hundred of boots, the solidarity—these reinforce the pack instinct, and recruiters and politicians know it.
 And so a coal-miner who hates the coal company, hates suits and liberals and the rich and blacks and homosexuals and knows he is being exploited and doesn’t really like anybody at all except local friends, will discover unexpected loyalty when the Japanese bomb Pearl.
And now, let’s hear a huzzah for Our Boys.

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Kay more normal today

Kay much better than yesterday but the question remains.

Friday, June 12, 2015

I don't understand what is going on here.  I uploaded todays video and when I loked at it the front end was chopped off.  Probably just a few seconds but it is confusing.  I also have been embedding the video here so it is easy to see without going to youtube.   In any case you may have to click on the link here if I am unable to get the embed code. This will also appear on facebook.  I have to recheck youtube to see if I can get the embed code.  There may be a serious deterioration in Kay as there was a completely differenct meeting with her today.  I explain it in the video and also show some very old film of 35 or 40 years ago she appeared in.

This is the link if the embed code does not work.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Kay real bad

Kay was very bad today.  Usually she is weak physically.  today it seemed she had a hard time undersstandng when I got there.  I am not sure how soon she knew me after I got to her.  If I understood one caregiver said she was very bad.  He usually asks me how she is.  This worries me.
 I made a 3 minute video,
 Here it is.
 <iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

A slow day. But pictures added

A slow day

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>