by baldilocks

Many, many people have wondered whether the Internet has made people more stupid than was so in generations prior to the Internet Age and I’ve wondered about this also. I still think that the answer is both ‘no’ and ‘yes.’

No: In the Internet Age, we not only have access to more information, but also access to a greater amount of people, and therefore, access to a greater amount of stupid people. They were always there; you just have awareness of more of them.

Yes: Many mistake large amounts of information for large amounts of intelligence and the Internet has provided many stupid people with the illusion of intelligence. Be advised: stupidity is not defined as limited intelligence. Stupidity consists of the limited ability to interpret information, coupled with the refusal to acknowledge the need for this ability.  Ever known an idiot who was full of hubris and arrogance about some information she has that you don’t have?

Thus, a stupid person is the inverse example of Harry Callahan’s timeless axiom.

In action, this state of affairs is demonstrated by a false dichotomy I’ve seen all over the place, including at the obvious place: why do non-Muslim observers judge Islam for what some Muslims do, but do not judge Christianity for what some Christians do?

A variation of that question was repeated yesterday. Here was my answer.

Both Christians and Muslims have individual standard-bearers. The standard-bearer for Christians: Jesus of Nazareth. The standard-bearer for Muslims: Mohammed.

When observers attempt to determine whether self-described Christians or Muslims are true believers in their respective faiths and are acting as such, the logical thing do is to measure the words and/or actions against the teachings of the appropriate standard-bearer and, then, come to a cogent conclusion [about the doctrine in question].

From the subsequent part of our conversation, the inquirer had no understanding of standards or standard-bearers and wasn’t inclined to consider the definitions and implications of either. We all know he’s not alone. However, he did seem proud of the amount of information he was able to call forth about the Bible. There, he had me. But the Devil is able to quote scripture better than any of us, so that’s a contest I don’t care about. (And, yes, I can see it now: “she called that man the Devil because he disagreed with her.” To infer that would fall under the stupidity umbrella which I described earlier.)

I predict that we will see more of this, since stupidity is easier than interpretation and the stupid are prone to taking any route which makes them appear to be intelligent–even if that route ultimately leads to their demise.

UPDATE: Fredo unbound.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel, tentatively titled, Arlen’s Harem, will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s Projects JOB: HER TRIP TO KENYA! Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>baldilocks

Summary: Everyone’s Looking for the Doctor but he’s throwing a Going away party for himself

Plot:   The Doctor’s meeting with the Pre-Teen Davros so affects him he withdraws, prompting Davros, Missy, Unit and Clara to go on a full court press to find him. Where is the Doctor? Why has he sent his confession dial to the Master/Missy and why is Davros so eager to see him before he (Davros) dies?

———————————–

Writing:  This episode is part one of a two parter which makes the story deceptive. When viewed alone it seems completely discombobulated, but when viewed as a two parter (Which is a traditional 2 hour four part Doctor Who story) it’s a lot better. There is a lot to take in here and while there is plenty to like it’s very hard to follow, particularly if you haven’t seen the prequel. The real problem with the episode is the amount of throw away in it that wouldn’t’ be throw away in the old 30 minute episode format of the 70’s 80. Or to put it another way, good writing in a so so cover.

Acting:   Capaldi and Coleman as usual are strong, both get some fun time but even in her short time on the screen comparatively Michelle Gomez really dominates the episode. I thought gender bending the Master was a cheap stunt but Gomez is just so damn good that it’s impossible to not like her. Julian Bleach’s plays Davros as if he never left the role Colony Sarff is a cool villain as sidekick to Davros. Jemma Redgrave doesn’t get her due here and the cameos of Claire Higgins & Kelly Hunter as the head of the shadow proclamation are cute but have little purpose.

Memorable Moments: help me? Guitar Solo, Pretty Woman, Mickey becomes Missy, Would you rather kill me, The hunt.

Doctor Who Flashbacks: 4th Doctor’s moral dilemma (Genesis of the Daleks) , A series of voice overs from doctors 5 Resurrection of the Daleks, 6 Revelation of the Daleks, 7 Remembrance of the Daleks & 10 The Stolen Earth are played.

Oddities:  Getting the Tank in and out of the TARDIS would have been odd, and the Dude stuff was a bit weird.

Pet Peeves:   If Colony Sarff & the Daleks don’t know where the Doctor is Bros a Dalek slave, and if all it takes is one snake to make one into a Dalek why isn’t he just converting Clara & Missy. Do we really need the lesbian hint stuff?

Great Quote(s) 

********************

The Doctor: Davros is my archenemy. Why would I want to talk with him?
Missy: Now wait, hang on a minute. Davros is your archenemy now? I’ll Scratch is eye out

*******************

Colony Sarff: Are you so dangerous, little man?
The Doctor: You want to know how dangerous I am? Davros sent you. You know how stupid you are? You came.

***********************************

Clara: OK, look. I guessed a party, but not like this. What is this? This isn’t you.
The Doctor: I spent all day yesterday in a bow tie, the day before in a long scarf. It’s my party, and all of me is invited.

*************************************

Davros: Do you know why you came, Doctor? You have a sense of duty. Of guilt, perhaps. And certainly of shame.
The Doctor: You flatter me.
Davros: Pity. I intended to accuse.

**************************************************
Davros: See how they play with her. See how they toy. They want her to run. They need her to run. Do you feel their need, Doctor? Their blood is screaming kill, kill, kill! Hunter and prey, held in the ecstasy of crisis. Is this not life at its purest?

***********************************************************************

Final Verdict:   4 stars. When I Watched it my reaction was What the hell was that?   This needed to be two 30 minute episodes

Ranking of Season:   1st of 1.

1. The Magician’s Apprentice

Top 10 Ranking in the Capaldi Era: 9th. My opinion of Robots of sherwood has grown and if it was considered a single episode with the next one it might have ranked higher.

1. Last Christmas
2. The Caretaker
3. Mummy on the Orient Express
4. Into the Dalek
5. Dark Water
6. Listen
7. Flatline
8. Robots of Sherwood
9. The Magician’s Apprentice
10. Time Heist

FYI you might be wondering why I took so long to start reviewing this season, it’s because no season required more thought to figure out.

General Erich Marks:  When you create a diversion, it’s for a reason.

The Longest Day 1962

When Joe Biden made his announcement that he was not running for president the speech sounded a lot to me like one that was meant to be an announcement to run with the ending changed.

I remember someone, maybe it was Rush, suggesting the reason why Barack Obama was looking over his shoulder at that speech was to make sure he said what he was supposed to say.

Hotair tells us that the Hill reports that in an interview pushing Obama’s gun agenda Biden says this about his decision not to run:

I regret it every day,

Ed Morrissey suggests the Dems might also regret this choice:

the Democratic Party may come to regret the lack of openings to other candidates in this race, reinforced by a debate schedule that seems to aim for My Mother The Car ratings. If Hillary Clinton boots another chance for the Clinton Restoration this fall, there will be plenty of recriminations, not regret, within their party about how their establishment closed ranks and locked out any potential for a better nominee.

I think that time of regret isn’t going to wait till after an election, it’s happening now and the reason I think that, is this:

I must admit, when I clicked this morning on Vox’s ”explainer” of Juanita Broaddrick’s rape allegation against Bill Clinton, I expected a whitewash. I was wrong. Not only did Dylan Matthews do an excellent job laying out the story, he reminded me of a number of details I’d forgotten….Matthews doesn’t just analyze Broaddrick’s allegations, he also evaluates Clinton’s defenses, and finds the denials less-than-compelling.

When it comes to sites in the tank for the left in general and Democrats in particular you cna’t do much better than Vox, founded by the origional Journo-listers yet looking at the Vox piece we see that National Review is correct they are playing the story straight:

Several friends of Broaddrick’s backed up the story. Norma Rogers, who was the director of nursing at Broaddrick’s nursing home at the time, told reporters that she entered the hotel room shortly after the assault allegedly took place and “found Mrs. Broaddrick crying and in ‘a state of shock.’ Her upper lip was puffed out and blue, and appeared to have been hit.” Kelsey elaborated to the New York Times, “She told me he forced himself on her, forced her to have intercourse.”

In the Dateline show, Broaddrick’s friends Louise Ma, Susan Lewis, and Jean Darden (Norma Rogers’s sister) all told NBC News that Broaddrick told them Bill Clinton raped her at the time. David Broaddrick — with whom Broaddrick was having an affair at the time; they both eventually left their spouses to marry each other — also told NBC that Broaddrick’s top lip was black after the alleged incident, and that she told him “that she had been raped by Bill Clinton.”

Vox even noted NBC delayed broadcasting their report on these accusations until after the Senate voted on the impeachment of Bill Clinton even though the interview took place more than a full three weeks before the vote

And this tidbit is something I had either not heard or completely forgot:

“It happened at a political rally, in Van Buren, Arkansas in the spring of 1978, at the home of local dentist,” Broaddrick
begins.

“She [Hillary Clinton] came directly to me as soon as she hit the door. I had been there only a few minutes, I only wanted to make an appearance and leave. She caught me and took my hand and said ‘I am so happy to meet you. I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill.'”

Broaddrick was stunned by Hillary’s comments.

Only weeks had passed, Broaddrick claims, since she had been raped in a Little Rock hotel room by then attorney general
Bill Clinton.

“Here her husband had just done this to me, and she was coming up to thank me? It was scary…

“I started to turn away and she held onto my hand and reiterated her phrase — looking less friendly and repeated her statement—-‘Everything you do for Bill’. I said nothing. She wasn’t letting me get away until she made her point. Shetalked low, the smile faded on the second thank you. I just released her hand from mine and left the gathering.”

Now what does this Vox piece mean?

It means that despite MSNBC editing out questions on the story asked to President Clinton and the MSM going all in on the Cruz Birther business stuff the story has penetrated enough that the voters too young to have heard about Bill Clinton’s violence toward women and Hillary’s and the MSM efforts to cover them up for political gain.  It means they have decided they want to know more and have started looking on twitter and the web.  It means the left has decided  they don’t dare let the only source of this material be people like, well me.

Thus they can present the case and the evidence and say

No one besides Bill Clinton and Juanita Broaddrick knows the true story here — and ultimately, the matter comes down to which of their two accounts one believes. There is certainly not enough here to convict Clinton in a court of law, even if there weren’t a statute of limitations. There’s no physical evidence. There’s just the word of Broaddrick and her friends against Clinton’s. To that end, I reached out both to the Hillary Clinton campaign and Bill Clinton’s personal representatives; the former did not reply, while the latter declined to comment.

The “not enough to convict” but the unwillingness of the Clintons to comment doesn’t help a lot, there is also this:

As Goldberg notes, some of the conservatives resurfacing the Broaddrick case are clearly doing so in bad faith to attack the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, who certainly did not personally assault Broaddrick (Broaddrick’s allegations of intimidation aside). But the Clinton critics have a point. There is a crucial tension between “believe survivors” and the “Juanita Broaddrick is lying” position of some Clinton defenders, lacking further information.

One answer might be giving up the former position. Many, including Harvard Law’s Jeannie Suk, have argued that defaulting to believing every accusation of rape “harms the overall credibility of sexual assault claims,” given that false claims do happen, albeit quite rarely.

This allows another talking point, attacking not the charges but the people who have brought them up but the fact that a mouth organ of the left is willing to talk about “false claims of rape” is earth shattering.  There is one person to blame for this development and David French names him:

Donald Trump’s direct attack on Clinton’s history of “he said, she said, she said, she said” sexual abuse allegations has been devastating. Mainstream and liberal media outlets have been forced to run piece after piece reminding older progressives and educating younger progressives about allegations that make Clinton look like a sexual predator halfway between Eliot Spitzer and Bill Cosby. And — truth be told — only Trump could have pulled this off. He doesn’t care about the media’s attempts to hector him into silence, and their addiction to his television presence means that he has far more opportunity to explain himself in his own words than any other GOP candidate — perhaps in history. 

I don’t know what the this tells you but I know what it tells me.  If the left is so frightened that it has decided to tell the Juanita Broaddrick story in a way that even the National Review describes as “fair” that means that no matter what some young women are saying in front of cameras Hillary Clinton is in real trouble and without Joe Biden able to run the alternative is Bernie Sanders.

Several months ago I predicted Hillary Clinton was finished, I presumed it was over the email evidence but the MSM once Biden was out of the picture dropped it going as I predicted all out for her regardless of the evidence.  I suspect in the atmosphere of Bill Cosby and Donald Trump’s willingness to exploit this, that is not possible when it comes to the alleged rape of Juanita Broaddrick, particularly for younger women members of the media who unlike say Andrea Mitchell are not already compromised by their decision to protect Bill Clinton at all costs two decades ago.  So today I repeat my prediction.

Hillary Clinton is dead candidate walking, she just doesn’t know it yet.

****************************************************************************

The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2016 is $22,000 That’s $62 a day

Given that fact I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.