AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Feed the Wolf of History and Knowledge; Starve the Wolf of Hate and Ignorance

I keep going back to two things with regards to our current state of affairs in our society:

— knowledge of history
— feeding the wolf

By knowledge of history, I really mean a lack of knowledge of history. And not just general ideas, but specifics:

— inventions throughout the past 100 years that we now all take for granted
— improvements in technology over the past 100 years
— improvements in society over the past 100 years

Think about things like the railroad, airline industry, owning your own vehicle, the interstate highway system, the internet, central A/C and heat in homes, telephones, cell phones, dish washers in every home, microwaves.

These were all developed over the past 100 years and things we not only take for granted, but actually complain about! My flight got cancelled, my internet is slow, my cell phone lost signal, waaaaah!

Yet, think about how amazing those inventions are compared to what we had in 1920.

It’s simply overwhelming to think of all the amazing things built and created over the past 100 years.

How anyone can think about those things and then conclude that “America sucks”… just flabbergasting.

But that’s it, isn’t it? People don’t think about those things.

Which goes to the “Feed the Wolf” parable.

Two wolves fighting in your stomach. Which one will win? The one you feed.

The Left does nothing but feed the wolf that only looks at everything as bad. They never feed the wolf that sees the good.

But it’s not just the left. We all need to do a better job of reminding people just how amazing this country is and the amazing inventions and concepts and progress we have made in such a relatively small period of time.

Think about how just 30 years ago, we didn’t have the internet or laptops or cell phones.

July 8, 2020 , 1:29PM Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What Will the Next Four Months Bring?

I was wondering when Biden was going to choose a running mate, so I researched when candidates have chosen running mates in the past.

Typically, running mates have been chosen within a week or so of the party’s national convention.

The Democrat National Convention was originally scheduled for 07/13/20 in Milwaukee, WI. So we could have expected a running mate announcement this week.

But, due to WI Governor shutdown orders, the DNC is postponed until 08/17/20.

So I guess there will not be an announcement for another month or so.

Amazing that we still have 4 months to go until the election.

Consider that only 4 months ago, we were all living normal lives with no shutdowns and no Burn-Loot-Murder temper tantrums or “antifa” domestic terror activity.

What will the next 4 months bring?

July 5, 2020 , 8:29AM Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Being a User of Social Media is Structurally Identical to Being a Prisoner in a Chinese POW Camp

An excellent thread by Zero HP Lovecraft on Twitter:

During the Korean War, captured American soldiers found themselves in POW camps run by Chinese Communists. The Chinese treated captives quite differently than their allies, the North Koreans, who favored savagery and harsh punishment to gain compliance.

The Red Chinese engaged in what they called “lenient policy,” which was a sophisticated psychological assault on their captives. After the war, American psychologists questioned the returning prisoners intensively, because of the unsettling success of the Chinese program.

The Chinese were very effective in getting Americans to inform on one another, in contrast to the behavior of American POWs in WWII. For this reason, escape plans were quickly uncovered and escape attempts themselves were rarely successful.

When an escape did occur, the Chinese usually recovered the man easily by offering a mere bag of rice to anyone turning him in. In fact, nearly all American prisoners in the Chinese camps are said to have collaborated with the enemy in one form or another.

How did the Chinese get compliance from the American POWS? These men were trained to provide only name, rank, serial number. Short of torture, how could the captors hope to get such men to give military information, turn in fellow prisoners, or publicly denounce their country?

The Chinese answer was to start small and build. Prisoners were asked to make statements so mildly anti-American or pro-Communist as to seem inconsequential “The United States is not perfect.” “In a Communist country, unemployment is not a problem.”

Once they complied with these minor requests, the men were pushed to submit to more substantive ones. A man who had agreed that the United States is not perfect might be asked provide examples. He might then be asked to make a list of “problems with America” and sign his name.

Later, he might be asked to read his list in a discussion group with other prisoners. “After all, it’s what you really believe, isn’t it?” Still later he might be asked to write an essay expanding on his list and discussing these problems in greater detail.

The Chinese might then use his name and his essay in an anti-American radio broadcast beamed not only to the entire camp, but to other POW camps in North Korea, as well as to American forces in South Korea.

Suddenly he would find himself a “collaborator.” Aware that he had written the essay without any threats or coercion, a man would change his image of himself to be consistent with the deed and with the new collaborator label, resulting in more extensive acts of collaboration.

The majority collaborated by doing things which seemed trivial to them but which the Chinese were able to turn to their own advantage. This was particularly effective in eliciting confessions, self-criticism, and information during interrogation.

The majority of the men believed the Chinese story that the United States had used germ warfare, and many felt that their own forces had been the initial aggressors in starting the war. Similar inroads had been made in the political attitudes of the men:

Many expressed antipathy toward the Chinese Communists but at the same time praised them for “the fine job they have done in China.” Others stated that “although communism won’t work in America, I think it’s a good thing for Asia.”

Our best evidence of another man’s true feelings and beliefs is their behavior, not their words. What the Chinese knew is that a man uses this same evidence to know what he himself is like. He observes his behavior to understand his own beliefs, values, and attitudes.

Writing was one type of confirming action that the Chinese urged incessantly upon their prisoners. It was never enough to listen quietly or even to agree verbally; they were always pushed to write it down as well. Psychologist Edgar Schein describes this tactic:

A further technique was to have the man write out the question and then the [pro-Communist] answer. If he refused to write it voluntarily, he was asked to copy it from the notebooks, which must have seemed like a harmless enough concession. But, oh, those “harmless” concessions.

Seemingly trifling commitments can lead to extraordinary further behavior. A written declaration is physical evidence of your commitment, leaving no opportunity to forget or to deny what you have done. The irrevocably documented act drives you to make your self-image consistent.

We tend to think that a statement reflects the true attitude of the person who made it, even if we know the person did not freely choose to make it. Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, observers automatically assume that someone who makes a statement means it.

Think of the double-barreled effects on the self-image of a prisoner who wrote a pro-Chinese or anti-American statement. Not only was it a lasting personal reminder of his action, it was also likely to persuade those around him that the statement reflected his actual beliefs.

A similar technique involved political essay contests that were regularly held in camp. The prizes for winning were invariably small — a few cigarettes or a bit of fruit — but were sufficiently scarce that they generated interest from the men.

Usually the winning essays took a pro-Communist stand, but not always. Most prisoners would not want to enter a contest that required writing a Communist tract. So the prize was sometimes given to essays that supported the USA but made small concessions to the Chinese view.

The men participated voluntarily in the contests because they saw that they could win with an essay favorable to their own country. But perhaps without realizing it, they began to shade their essays a bit toward communism in order to have a better chance of winning.

The Chinese wanted as many Americans as possible to enter these contests so that, in the process, they might write things favorable to the Communist view. If, however, the idea was to attract large numbers of entrants, why were the prizes so small?

They chose to employ the smaller rewards because they wanted the men to own what they had done. No excuses, no ways out were allowed. A prisoner who salted his political essay with a few anti-American comments could not be permitted to shrug it off as motivated by a big reward.

It was not enough to wring commitments out of their men; those men had to be made to take inner responsibility for their actions. We accept inner responsibility for a behavior when we think we have chosen to perform it in the absence of strong outside pressures.

The big things to understand here are
1) when you see yourself doing something, you change your self-image to include “I am a person who does that thing”
2) when you think others see you a certain way, the same.
3) you will act in ways that are consistent with your self-image

So in light of that, please consider how being a user of Social Media, especially real-name social media, is structurally identical to being a prisoner in a Chinese POW camp during the Korean war.

When you endorse a cause on social media, the rewards are worthless. Tiny rewards mean that you will not perceive your statements as being coerced, you will own them. And yet, the public eye puts pressure on you to say things that are pro-social in a very particular way.

Most people want to appear compassionate. A political slogan, a bleeding heart story, these things that you spread virally, they change your self-image. And they leave you with evidence, public evidence, that you are the kind of person who speaks out about “systemic oppression”.

Social media created the feedback loop that drove everyone mad with social justice. Just like in the Chinese camp, the subtle but constant pressure to make cheap moralistic statements resulted in mass conversions. I believe this is the true cause of the “great awokening”.

June 15, 2020 , 7:21AM Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Joe Biden’s Sexist Pandering VP Running Mate List

Funny… I do not see Gretchen Whitmer on the list


— Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
— Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA)
— Susan Rice (former President Obama’s national security adviser)
— Congresswoman Val Demings (D-FL)
— Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms (D)
— New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D)

4 Black women, 1 White woman and 1 White woman pretending to be an Indian woman (feathers not dots).

And only 2 with any executive experience (Atlanta Mayor and NM Governor).

Governor Grisham has been Governor since JAN 2019.

Atlanta Mayor Bottoms has been Mayor since JAN 2018. And won a runoff election in DEC 2017 by less than 1000 votes against Independent Mary Norwood. 50.4% to 49.6%.

Looking at this solely from a political perspective, Florida is a toss-up state. Donald Trump won Florida by 113,000 votes in 2016. 49% to 47.8%. Florida has 29 EV. That would be a HUGE flip for the Democrat Party.

So, strategically, choosing a Florida politician as his running mate seems to make sense.

That said, Val Demings’ previous position before becoming a Congresswoman? Chief of Police of the Orlando Police Department.

Not sure how well that will go over in our current political environment…

June 13, 2020 , 1:42PM Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How to Refuse Ridiculous “Diversity Training” and Still Keep Your Job

This is excellent. Though I imagine it would not work for everyone. It would depend upon one’s standing within their company and how valuable one is as an employee. If you perform a job that is easily replaceable, then this would probably result in termination. But, it would still be a great way to call out HR’s BS as you head out the door.

This is copied from the comments section of a blog I frequently read:

This is kind of long so my apologies. Anyway, here we go.

The meeting was in person. I was surprised that there were not one but two executives there: the VP of Legal AND the VP of “inclusion and diversity.” My division HR rep was there and my director.

Director says “So you don’t want to take the required sensitivity training.” I say “I don’t think it would be a valuable use of my time, since we have a lot of work to do with this shutdown and all.” Then the VP of inclusion pipes in: “We are all very busy but it’s important that we all go through this training so we know how to interact with each other in an inclusive and accepting way.

Yeah, that’s pretty much verbatim.

So I’m getting a bit miffed but I’m holding it back. And at this point I have to give a big shout out to Alexthechick, because I listened to the 21 May podcast last night and part of it put me in the right frame of mind. I did get a little ranty but this is the flavor of it.

I looked Legal right in the eye and said “In my fifteen years with this organization, have there ever been any complaints or accusations about my not acting in an ‘inclusive and accepting way?‘” She said “no, no complaints at all.” I said “Requiring me to go through training is the company saying that I have a problem in this area.

VP of inclusion is looking a little shell shocked right now. Someone is questioning the validity of sensitivity training. Unlikely this has happened to her before.

I go on. “The training is undoubtedly aimed toward, frankly, getting me to be less racist. That’s the thing we’re all dancing around here. Well I have never had any kind of issue in that area, and in fact I find it extremely insulting to even SUGGEST I need any kind of training to treat people fairly and on their work product instead of their skin suits.

VP of inclusion says “well, this isn’t about you, it’s about making sure we all have a common understanding of racial and cultural issues that have recently been brought to light with the recent events.

So I can’t help myself. I say “Does that mean you think we are a racist company?

She looks at me. I look back. Serious pregnant pause. She then says “I think there is some work we should do in that area.

And I can’t help myself, I say “I agree. For instance, in this very room. We have the two executives here who are African American women (the VP of inclusion and VP of Legal), an Asian woman (HR), and the director of the division (Hispanic man). On the entire executive team there is only one white man, and he is retiring at the end of the year. Further, looking at the hires and promotions over the past six months it appears white men are very underrepresented.” Then I really channel Alexthechick and I quote her: “You need to tell me if this training is a condition of my employment. But before you answer, consider that our CEO has a growth strategy that relies on revenue. My work portfolio accounts for 27% of total company revenue and is our single largest portfolio. I’ve never had a complaint about the way I treat people in my section. But if this is a condition of my employment then I’m sure my talents would be appreciated elsewhere.

A bit of silence, then Legal says “As things are right now, we will not require you to attend the training. I would encourage you to do so, but it is ultimately your choice. XXXXXXXXXX, if you aren’t there next week people will wonder. What do you suggest?” I say “We’re all working remotely, no one will care or even notice.” So my Director says “you can have the day off if you want, it won’t go against your PTO balance.” And that was that. On the way out the door, my Director walks with me a bit and says, jokingly “You are SUCH an asshole!

So in a nutshell, I am still employed, I have a free day off, and I’m not going to stupid sensitivity training.

Heh. Legendary.

June 12, 2020 , 11:11PM Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment