Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Amazon Apps for Android

You've probably noticed I've stopped writing about politics.  To be honest, I've largely given up.  That leaves us with randomness, and I have some today:  Amazon Apps stinking on Android.

My wife and I enjoy some Sudoku on our phones while we're waiting in lines and such.  Only this weekend, our Amazon App, Andoku 2 stopped working.  The error looked like this:

That's actually Mahjong, for reasons I'll explain shortly.  The error is the same, though.  At that point we were fluctuating between 3G and 4G, so maybe it was the connection.  So, we tried WiFi where we were.  Same error.  WiFi at home (we have a rock solid connection at home with great throughput).  Same error.

So, I tried an uninstall from the Android Application Manager with the intent to reinstall.  Woops. 

There's no install option.  Pressing "Open" makes it think for a brief second, then nothing.  Pressing and holding Andoku 2 gives an uninstall option.  I tried that to see if that would make Amazon recognize the app wasn't on my device.  Nope, it pretended to uninstall and then nothing happened.

It's clear to me now that I should have uninstalled from Amazon's App store, but shouldn't there be a way to fix it?  Sure, if you speak whatever language Amazon tech support is speaking.  Here's their return e-mail when I asked for help:

I'm sorry for the trouble you faced with "Andoku Sudoku 2" app on your device.

I understand that in order to fix the issue, you've uninstalled the app "Andoku Sudoku 2" and now you're unable to reinstall it.

There can be several reasons behind this issue. Unfortunately, we are unable to determine the exact cause for the same.

I would love to assist you via email but this issue is too complex and can't be addressed via email. Seeing the complexity of the issue I request you to please contact us via call or chat so that we can try some real-time troubleshooting in an effort to resolve this problem.

This will allow us to do real-time troubleshooting and see where this process is failing and provide the troubleshooting steps to resolve the issue.

The reason we ask you to contact us over the phone or chat because when we have a live interaction with you, will allow us to do real-time troubleshooting and provide step by step troubleshooting to resolve the issue.

Please understand we don't want to provide any unwanted information which may caused any inconvenience to you or your device.

I hope you understand our limitation via email.

I understand asking you to reach us through live medium may cause inconvenience to you, but it helps us gather some additional information to help resolve this problem.

I'd request you to click on the below link and choose "Chat" or enter your contact number in the phone tab so that we will call you right away and get this resolved for you.
Um, seriously, Amazon.  Now, this fellow speaks way better English than I speak his language, but this still looks like something written by Mojo Jojo from the Powerpuff Girls.  Mojo, this was a $2 app.  Just make my account recognize it's not installed on the phone.

Okay, this is actually Bubbles doing a Mojo Jojo impression, but if you read the above e-mail, you get the idea.

As for giving my information over the phone to this fellow who is likely in India, I think I'll pass.  For a $2 app, I don't need to spread my information over several continents for that.

It was a relatively cheap way to learn an important lesson:  If I'm running Android, I should probably buy my apps from the Google store, not through the Amazon App store.  I did tell their customer service I'd share this lesson with my friends.  Howdy, friends.

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

If you're old and rich, Hillary's your girl

The results from NH tell a story:  If you're old or rich, Hillary is your girl.  

To be more specific, those older than 65 or making more than $200,000 per year voted for Hillary.

Much like Trump, Sanders tells  a simple story:  People are sick of the indistinguishable parties pretending how they stand on abortion makes any difference.  We want real choices, and the parties aren't offering those.  That doesn't even make Trump or Sanders good candidates.  Either would probably be a disaster.  But we're not voting for Bushes or Clintons anymore.

Saturday, February 6, 2016

What's Wrong With Trump?

There's a lot of support for Donald Trump as a presidential candidate with good reason:  he says a lot of the things people want to hear.  Demagoguery* on its own isn't enough to make me dislike a politician, because all politicians have to engage in it to some degree at some point.  Trump also thumbs his nose at the establishment, and the Republican party is severely in need of a reminder that they serve the people, not the other way around.  There's real appeal there.

I hope if you're a Trump fan you give me a fair read rather than just being upset.  If you've read much of my blog, you've probably noticed I strongly believe in maximizing human freedom with a strong focus on individual freedom.  My reasons for not supporting Trump are founded in a desire for individual liberty, and I can illustrate why I believe Trump is a threat to it.

There is an undeniable appeal to a man who speaks his mind and says a lot of the right things.  Those skeptical of Trump have wondered about his appeal, though, because he's made it pretty clear he'll say whatever people want to hear, and usually people are smart enough to catch on to that.  So many Trump opponents have decided his supporters are just stupid, but they're wrong.  In fact, when a national poll was conducted, there was only one powerful unifying affinity of Trump supporters, whether wealthy or poor, educated or not:  authoritarianism.

Here's one paragraph to get you reading the whole article:

"My finding is the result of a national poll I conducted in the last five days of December under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, sampling 1,800 registered voters across the country and the political spectrum. Running a standard statistical analysis, I found that education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’s preferred candidate. Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter."

Trump's language is telling.  He will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.  He will bomb the crap out of terrorists.  He will raise tariffs to punish companies leaving the U.S.**  He believes that once elected he will be an all-powerful dictator capable of doing anything he likes.  This is backed by the ceding of power by Congress to President Obama, a trend that's continued through several presidencies.***

There's ample evidence Trump will be happy to sacrifice individual rights and liberty to achieve his goals.  The National Review Online has done a great job of highlighting why conservatives and libertarians shouldn't back Trump, but one example stands out to me most strongly. 

Even in private business, Trump has been happy to use government power to seize private property through eminent domain.  For a full but easy to read explanation, have a look at this article:  Donald Trump and Eminent Domain. 
That brings us to the story of the...elderly widow in Atlantic City, which starts at about the same time. The woman, Vera Coking, had owned property near the Trump Plaza Hotel for three decades, and didn’t want to move. Trump thought the land was better suited for use as a park, a parking lot, and a waiting area for limousines.

He tried to negotiate, at one point offering Coking $1 million for the land. But she wasn’t budging. So New Jersey’s Casino Reinvestment Development Authority filed a lawsuit, instructing Coking to leave within 90 days and offering compensation of only $251,000.

Perhaps the only upside to this story is that in neither case did Trump succeed. The Bridgeport plan fizzled. Coking fought in court, and — in part because these were the days before Kelo was decided, no doubt — she was lucky enough to win. In 1998, a judge threw out the case.
If you're interested in the second case, please read the NRO article Donald Trump and Eminent Domain.

Trump is fine negotiating to get what he wants, but if he can't get his way, he'll bring down the might of the government on the person who dares to disagree with him. 

This philosophy isn't new.  It's Progressivism (click the label if you think it's a good thing--it isn't).  That's why Trump was a Democrat until 2009.  The label R or D doesn't much matter these days, because most of them are simply progressives (big government, lots of control). 

If you want a king, Donald Trump is your man.  If you want someone who will protect individual liberty and thumb their nose at the establishment, try Ted Cruz.  He isn't perfect, either, but he's a lot better than Trump if you like liberty.

*Demagoguery is an appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side. Demagoguery is a manipulative approach — often associated with dictators and sleazy politicians — that appeals to the worst nature of people.

**Tangent:  As a smarter tactic, try lowering corporate tax in the U.S. to make us competitive again.  This is especially smart because corporations don't actually absorb taxes-they pass them on in the form of slight price increases for goods and services, so any corporate tax is really just a hidden tax on everything you buy. 

***Congress, please get your act together.  Being a coequal branch is a serious responsibility.  Even liberals say your handing over power is dangerous:  http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/03/liberal-law-prof-obamas-unconstitutional-power-grabs-are-creating-a-very-dangerous-and-unstable-system/

Friday, December 25, 2015

They aren't spoilers. They're enhancers.

I'm delving into truly controversial ground:  spoilers.  I don't care about them.  I have no aversion to them.  In researching how common this is, since I hear so many people objecting to them, I didn't find any studies on percentage of people who care vs. percentage of people who don't, but I did find a very interesting article.

3 Reasons Why the Psychology of Spoilers Is Wrong

There's been a well-executed study done on enjoyment of spoiled stories vs. unspoiled stories, and the result may surprise you.  First, the science.  Then let me back it with some common sense.

The study took more than 700 people and simply asked them to read stories and rate their enjoyment of the stories.  Some of the stories were spoiled by the introduction, wherein story elements were introduced prior to the reading of the text.  The result?

Across all conditions, people enjoyed the spoiled stories the most. Here's what the researchers have to say about their results:
Writers use their artistry to make stories interesting, to engage readers, and to surprise them, but we found that giving away these surprises makes readers like stories better...spoilers may allow readers to organize developments, anticipate the implications of events, and resolve ambiguities that occur in the course of reading. It is possible that spoilers enhance enjoyment by actually increasing tension. Knowing the ending of Oedipus Rex may heighten the pleasurable tension caused by the disparity in knowledge between the omniscient reader and the character marching to his doom. This notion is consistent with the assertion that stories can be reread with no diminution of suspense…Erroneous intuitions about the nature of spoilers may persist because individual readers are unable to compare spoiled and unspoiled experiences of a novel story. 
In non-academic speak, spoilers may help people understand stories. Knowing what's going to happen might also make things more fun by giving you something to look forward to. This is supported by the research on rereading stories – most people enjoy a story as much, if not more, the second time they read it. 

I gotta admit, the experiment itself is pretty rock solid. It had a large sample size, was well counter-balanced across experimental conditions, and had solid statistical results. In science, we call this good internal validity - since the experiment was well designed and implemented, we know the results are trustworthy.
The author, after graciously conceding this is a good study, then goes on to explain why it's wrong.  However, I believe he's wrong.  That is, he's discarding science for emotion.  He's wrong.

Let's jump to the common sense back up for this science.  Do you rewatch movies you enjoy?  Do you reread stories you enjoy?  Of course you do, but why?  If you hate spoilers, you've already completely spoiled the story yourself, but somehow that doesn't lessen your enjoyment of the experience.  When the movie trilogy of Lord of the Rings was introduced, I went and saw it, even though I'd read the stories and the movies were nearly identical.  Knowing the plot twists and outcomes didn't lessen my enjoyment of the story.

The author claims the science and common sense are both wrong, and he cites his reasons:
1.  Emotional Investment

People who complain about getting spoilers are really invested in the story they're anticipating. I've been looking forward to Star Trek Into Darkness since the movie was announced in 2009. THAT'S 3 YEARS OF ANTICIPATION!
Using "Into Darkness" as an example works for me.  I'm a Trek fan.  I anticipated the movie.  I had no aversion to spoilers.  Note that he's using himself as a case study to prove these points, so my experience is an equally valid counter-argument.
2.  Enjoyment versus Anger

This experiment measured how much individuals enjoyed literature that was spoiled for them. But if you talk to anyone who's experienced a spoiler, they usually talk about getting mad. Anger at having a story spoiled and enjoying a story are two very different things.
To put this simply, that's dumb.  I hadn't heard the term "spoilers" until a few years ago.  Nobody objected to them in the 80's.  In fact, many people used (and still use) plot information to decide whether a book or movie is something they're interested in. 

The aversion to spoilers is something societal we made up a few years ago.  The response to spoilers is a learned one.  A fact of the human experience is that while we often can't control what happens to us, we can control our response.  That includes our emotional response.  Some people have bought into the idea that hearing spoilers should anger them.  They get angry.  The rest of us are baffled by this societal development, that somehow story-telling should offend someone.  Note that this learned response is inherently selfish:  "I don't mind if I spoil the story for myself.  I'll see/read it again and enjoy it more the second time.  If you spoil the story, I'll have a tantrum and resent you for life."
3.  Experiential Avoidance

Some people don't care about spoilers. Part of that comes from a lack of emotional investment in a story. Most of my non-Trekkie friends wouldn't care about the Star Trek Into Darkness spoiler I know - the movie is just another summer blockbuster to them.

But another huge factor is how you approach strong emotions. For a lot of people, intense suspense isn't a fun experience - it's something to be avoided. Psychologists call this experiential avoidance - the tendency to avoid thoughts, feelings, memories, and physical sensations that are unpleasant. For people who hate suspense, intentionally reading spoilers could really improve their movie watching experience.
This seems to have some validity until one thinks about it.  The first paragraph is simply wrong.  As a long time Trek fan, I had no negative reaction to "Into Darkness" spoilers.  Once again, I haven't bought into the learned response of upset/anger when someone else shares story elements with me.

Paragraph 2 isn't true, either.  Again, we rewatch and reread stories and the suspense is still there, even knowing the outcome.  Think of your favorite television series.  With few exceptions, the main cast isn't ever going to die even when the writers put them in peril.  You know this, yet their exposure to danger still works to create suspense, and you'll rewatch your favorite episodes.

In short, this author wants to discard science and common sense to justify his sense of entitlement to experience a story solely on his own terms.  As members of society, we don't get to do much solely on our own terms.  In fact, that's part of the fun of the human experience.  The interaction, the story-telling, the shared experience are fun.  Most of us thrive on them.  We've been telling and retelling stories around our fires since we developed language and fire.

So, if you hear a story enhancer, chill.  Engage your rational mind, discard the learned anger response and substitute for it the enjoyment of sharing a story with someone.  You'll enjoy your movie and life more.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Carnage in Paris

When mass shootings happen in the U.S., the Left is quick to insist gun control will fix it.  See my last post for what you can actually do to help stop mass shootings in the U.S.  Let's look at a case in a country with very strict gun control.  The people of France are for all intents and purposes totally disarmed.
Paris attacks: At least 153 killed in gunfire and blasts, French officials say

The lowlights:

• At least 153 people were killed in the Paris and Saint-Denis shootings and bombings, French officials said. Saint-Denis is home to the national stadium where the soccer match was being played.

The worst carnage occurred at Bataclan, with at least 112 left dead. A journalist who was at a rock concert there escaped and told CNN: "We lied down on the floor not to get hurt. It was a huge panic. The terrorists shot at us for 10 to 15 minutes. It was a bloodbath." Julien Pearce didn't hear the attackers speak, but he said one friend who escaped heard them talk about Iraq and Syria. Later, he said the men were speaking French. Two men dressed in black started shooting and after wounded people fell to the floor, the gunmen shot them again, execution-style, he said. 

Five suspected attackers have been "neutralized," said Paris prosecutor Fran├žois Molins. It was unclear whether that term meant the terrorists were dead.
There were six coordinated attacks, so we know more than the neutralized five attackers were involved, but should a possibly dozen men be able to murder 153 people?  Would that happen in Texas?  Even in California, where gun control is strict, someone would likely have pulled a concealed weapon and returned fire.  

Disarming a lawful citizens just makes them opposition-free targets.  With terrorism on the rise worldwide and the news media not doing their part to stop crazy mass shooters here, it doesn't feel like disarming the sane, non-fanatic citizens is the answer.  It certainly wasn't for 153 people in France.

Saturday, October 3, 2015

How you can stop mass shootings with a click of a button

You have a critical role in stopping the next mass shooting and you won't believe how easy it is.  It's not a donation.  It's simply changing a channel.  It is that effortless, and I'll explain why after explaining how.

Whenever you see news coverage of a mass shooting event that includes any details about the shooter, change the channel.  Most content providers these days get near real-time data about the number of people watching, and if you want to help, all you have to do is reduce those numbers.  Change the channel if they're giving details about the shooter, showing his picture, reading from his blog or trying to find his motive.  That's it. 

Here's why it works, from the WSJ article:  What Mass Killers Want—And How to Stop Them

Let me stress that this whole article is worth a read.  I hope the snippets that follow will encourage you to read it through, because you'll understand the phenomenon and how to help better, but here are the basics:

Whatever the witch's brew of influences that produced this grisly script, treating mass killings as a kind of epidemic or contagion largely frees us from having to understand the particular causes of each act. Instead, we can focus on disrupting the spread.

There is a precedent for this approach in dealing with another form of violence: suicides. A 2003 study led by Columbia University psychiatrist Madelyn Gould found "ample evidence" of a suicide contagion effect, fed by reports in the media. A 2011 study in the journal BMC Public Health found, unsurprisingly, that this effect is especially strong for novel forms of suicide that receive outsize attention in the press.

Some researchers have even put the theory to the test. In 1984, a rash of suicides broke out on the subway system in Vienna. As the death toll climbed, a group of researchers at the Austrian Association for Suicide Prevention theorized that sensational reporting was inadvertently glorifying the suicides. Three years into the epidemic, the researchers persuaded local media to change their coverage by minimizing details and photos, avoiding romantic language and simplistic explanations of motives, moving the stories from the front page and keeping the word "suicide" out of the headlines. Subway suicides promptly dropped by 75%.

This approach has been recommended by numerous public health and media organizations world-wide, from the U.K., Australia, Norway and Hong Kong to the U.S., where in 2001 a similar set of reporting guidelines was released jointly by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Mental Health and the surgeon general. It is difficult to say whether these guidelines have helped, since journalists' adherence to them has been scattered at best, but they might still serve as a basis for changing the reporting of massacres.

How might journalists and police change their practices to discourage mass shootings? First, they need to do more to deprive the killer of an audience:

Never publish a shooter's propaganda. Aside from the act itself, there is no greater aim for the mass killer than to see his own grievances broadcast far and wide. Many shooters directly cite the words of prior killers as inspiration. In 2007, the forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner told "Good Morning America" that the Virginia Tech shooter's self-photos and videotaped ramblings were a "PR tape" that was a "social catastrophe" for NBC News to have aired.

Hide their names and faces. With the possible exception of an at-large shooter, concealing their identities will remove much of the motivation for infamy.

Don't report on biography or speculate on motive. While most shooters have had difficult life events, they were rarely severe, and perpetrators are adept at grossly magnifying injustices they have suffered. Even talking about motive may encourage the perception that these acts can be justified.
Police and the media also can contain the contagion of mass shootings by withholding or embargoing details:

Minimize specifics and gory details. Shooters are motivated by infamy for their actions as much as by infamy for themselves. Details of the event also help other troubled minds turn abstract frustrations into concrete fantasies. There should be no play-by-play and no descriptions of the shooter's clothes, words, mannerisms or weaponry.

No photos or videos of the event. Images, like the security camera photos of the armed Columbine shooters, can become iconic and even go viral. Just this year, the FBI foolishly released images of the Navy Yard shooter in action.

Finally, journalists and public figures must remove the dark aura of mystery shrouding mass killings and create a new script about them.

Talk about the victims but minimize images of grieving families. Reports should shift attention away from the shooters without magnifying the horrified reactions that perpetrators hope to achieve.
Decrease the saturation. Return the smaller shootings to the realm of local coverage and decrease the amount of reporting on the rest. Unsettling as it sounds, treating these acts as more ordinary crimes could actually make them less ordinary.

Tell a different story. There is a damping effect on suicide from reports about people who considered it but found help instead. Some enterprising reporters might find similar stories to tell about would-be mass shooters who reconsidered.

If you see any information outlet failing to do the right thing, change the channel.  Only a drop in ratings will help them alter their coverage, and you drive ratings.  If you want to do even more, then write the management of the information outlet where you saw sensationalized coverage, send them the link to this or a similar article, and let them know you'll contact their advertisers about that station's perpetuating of the "blood porn" problem in our society. 

This will have more impact than getting a CCW and carrying, though if you want to I encourage that.  Changing the channel, contacting management and contacting advertisers can have nationwide effects.

Make a difference today and we can reduce or even eliminate these horrific events.  You can change the world with the remote control in your hand.

Monday, May 18, 2015

The Right to Self-Defense

As terrorist attacks of opportunity increase (and they will) we're going to continue to see why the 2nd Amendment beats camera surveillance.  Filming crimes so that suspects can be arrested later is a weak and ineffective response compared with actually being able to stop the crime or attack in progress.  Where the right to self-defense is respected and exercised, fewer innocents die when terrorists or criminals act.  It's that simple.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

If the FBI says "science" you should probably acquit

I'm pro law enforcement.  I support our police in their very tough job.  Even so, there have been some disturbing trends in recent years.  The militarization of our police has led to a police vs. civilians mentality that can be dangerous and even lead to out of control officers.  There are some great programs like community-oriented policing that help to combat that and remind officers and the average citizen that we're partners in making our neighborhoods safer.

Also, despite my pro law enforcement stance, I know you should never, ever talk to the police if you're suspected of anything.  Their job is to support the prosecution and put bad guys in jail.  For more, check out the videos linked here.

That brings me to some shockingly bad police work and going too far to get a conviction.  Most people trust the FBI.  If they are involved, we feel like they'll get the job done and the bad guy will go to prison.  Unfortunately, so do a lot of innocents.

FBI admits flaws in hair analysis over decades

From that article:
Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.

The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.
The Constitution, especially the Fourth and Fifth amendments, is designed to protect the innocent.   Penned by people who had seen friends go to prison at the whim of the crown, the intent was to prevent the government ever having the power to abuse its right to use force or imprison.  This should never have happened.

That's not the scariest part.  They've done it before.  Hearing about this issue triggered a memory of one from a decade ago.  This is again the FBI misrepresenting data to get false convictions.

Science Casts Doubt on FBI's Bullet Evidence

This article explains that the FBI for years has used trace impurities in lead to match crime scene rounds to rounds in possession of suspects.  The theory is that each batch of ammunition varies enough to determine if bullets used in a crime match a box in the suspect's possession.  If it matches, the rounds came from the suspect and the suspect is guilty.  It's often used when there's little or no other evidence.  It's so convincing California nearly passed a law based on the idea.

And it's junk science.
A Times examination of technical studies and trial transcripts -- and interviews with former FBI technicians, independent scientists and legal scholars -- suggests that the bureau's use of evidence derived from the lead in bullets may be based on faulty assumptions that greatly overstate the importance of matches.

The FBI likens its lead technique to fingerprint analysis. Bullets found at crime scenes are tested for minute amounts of arsenic, tin, silver and other contaminants or additives. Those findings are compared with results of similar analysis of bullets found in the possession of suspects. FBI examiners have claimed in court to be able to link one bullet to others from the same production run -- even from the same box.

The technique has proved especially important in cases in which prosecutors have little or no direct evidence, such as fingerprints or an eyewitness identification.
There is no dispute that trace elements of chemicals can be precisely measured in bullets. The controversy centers on how the FBI interprets the data.

For years, FBI laboratory examiners operated on the assumption that each batch of bullet lead was unique. So if the same trace elements were found in the same concentrations in two bullets, the reasoning went, those bullets must have been made at the same time and in the same place.

Premises Questioned

Recent scientific studies have concluded that this premise is wrong. Studying blocks of lead used in the manufacture of bullets, researchers have found the same chemical makeup in batches made at different times. They also have reported that the concentration of trace elements can vary significantly in the same casting of lead.

If the skeptics are right, the matches found by FBI lab technicians are meaningless.
Woops.  The trace impurities don't just differ from batch to batch but from round to round.   So a match could have come from anyone's box of ammunition, and two rounds fired from the same box may differ significantly from one another.

In both of these stories, it seems like the FBI was aware of the flaws and went ahead in overstating the significance of the evidence anyway.

The FBI won't want me on any juries.  If they say, "science" or "forensics" I'll be forced to acquit if there's no other strong evidence in the case.  I won't be party to a 95% error rate.  Understand that if the FBI techs said someone was guilty based on microscopic hair comparison, 95% of the time that wasn't true.  That's huge.  You could essentially acquit anyone they claimed was guilty if microscopic hair evidence was the basis for their argument.

Fortunately for the FBI, most people won't hear or remember these stories.  Don't be most people.  I appreciate law enforcement, but can't support putting innocent people in jail because of overzealous misrepresentation of evidence.

Saturday, April 18, 2015

A Progressive in the early 20th Century Meaning of the Word

She defines progressive differently than the early 20th century progressives did.  She said:  "I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century." Source  Woodrow Wilson, the first Leftist American Progressive president, brought us internment camps in World War I and thug squads to beat those who disagreed with his policies.  Wilson's propagandists are rumored to have been where Joseph Goebbels got his inspiration.  Hillary's stale ideas shouldn't be America's future.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

A Summary of Obama's Middle East Diplomacy

This sums it up nicely.  A little more smart diplomacy and we may have World War III.