I learned the other day that one cannot say "It's a pretty sunset" within earshot of a Democrat.
In the modern mindset every word must be measured for political effect. Saying, "hey it's a pretty sunset" must be matched by a political diatribe aimed at spreading hatred of a progressive's enemies.
The haze that appears in the Salt Lake Valley is due primarily to a large amount of moisture on the ground trapped between two mountains. I know this because mountain valleys with few people develop the same haze.
The haze traps in pollutants.
So, saying it's a pretty sunset on the same day in which there is haze means progressives must spill forth with all of the hatred in their dark hearts.
Anyway, if you are near a Democrat, you need to learn to internalize statements such as "it's a pretty sunset."
Vocalizing a thought does not enhance a view. Spewed hated diminishes it.
In modern America one must learn to enjoy beauty without vocalization.
Progressives control the schools. Progressives teach that every word must be measured for political effect. This is our world. But is is kind of sad to live in a world where we cannot say "it's a pretty sunset."
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Filed Under Irrelevant
This just in: While in Illinois Obama gave a speech in which he "calls for improved tone in U.S. politics.:"
Sorry, Mr Political Activist in Chief, the tone of politics in America today is the result of your actions.
The reason I am opposed to the Alinsky style of Community Activism is that this Marxian style not only leads to poor decisions. I creates a feeling of disenfranchisement and sharp political division.
Obama spent the first seven years simply stomping on his opponents and shutting down discourse in our nation, then feigns surprise that his administration led to division and shrill politics.
I suspect that Obama's speech was well delivered and sounded. But, at this stage in the presidential game, it is irrelevant.
It is the actions that Obama took at the height of his political power and not the apologies given in lame duck speech that defines the Obama Administration as one of the most divisive administrations in US history. Today's speech should be filed under "I" for irrelevant.
Sorry, Mr Political Activist in Chief, the tone of politics in America today is the result of your actions.
The reason I am opposed to the Alinsky style of Community Activism is that this Marxian style not only leads to poor decisions. I creates a feeling of disenfranchisement and sharp political division.
Obama spent the first seven years simply stomping on his opponents and shutting down discourse in our nation, then feigns surprise that his administration led to division and shrill politics.
I suspect that Obama's speech was well delivered and sounded. But, at this stage in the presidential game, it is irrelevant.
It is the actions that Obama took at the height of his political power and not the apologies given in lame duck speech that defines the Obama Administration as one of the most divisive administrations in US history. Today's speech should be filed under "I" for irrelevant.
Monday, February 08, 2016
Occupy Malheur
The left and right are simply mirror images of each other.
The Tea Party movement out here in Mormon Country was largely hijacked by Clive Bundy style extremists who are driven by an ideology that demands privatization of Federally owned lands in the Mountain West.
Followers of the Bundy's engaged in an Occupy Malheur event in which Conservatives, many from here in Mormon Country, took control of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge near Lake Malheur just South of Burns, Oregon.
Tensions grew as roving militias from the Mountain West converged on Burns.
The event ended with someone named LaVoy Finicum being shot after driving through a road block and reaching for something (which the FBI says was a loaded gun) from his pocket.
Apparently, some people are wanting to make LaVoy Finicum's funeral in Kanab, Utah a media circus. I simply hope that people watching the aftermath of Occupy Malheur note how the Left and Right are simply mirror images of each other with both sides of the divide using conflict to advance questionable ideologies.
The Tea Party movement out here in Mormon Country was largely hijacked by Clive Bundy style extremists who are driven by an ideology that demands privatization of Federally owned lands in the Mountain West.
Followers of the Bundy's engaged in an Occupy Malheur event in which Conservatives, many from here in Mormon Country, took control of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge near Lake Malheur just South of Burns, Oregon.
Tensions grew as roving militias from the Mountain West converged on Burns.
The event ended with someone named LaVoy Finicum being shot after driving through a road block and reaching for something (which the FBI says was a loaded gun) from his pocket.
Apparently, some people are wanting to make LaVoy Finicum's funeral in Kanab, Utah a media circus. I simply hope that people watching the aftermath of Occupy Malheur note how the Left and Right are simply mirror images of each other with both sides of the divide using conflict to advance questionable ideologies.
Sunday, February 07, 2016
Deportation and Visas
This last GOP debate was much better than I expected.
Before jumping into my post. I want to counter a meme put forward by Trump. Trump claims that he is the most likely to beat Hillary Clinton.
I say the opposite is true. The Left is adept at exploiting wealth envy in campaigns. It is what they do best. As Trump's claim to fame is his ability to amass wealth and power, he is the candidate that the left is most likely to beat.
As for this post. I liked the direction that Rubio, and others, were taking with immigration debate. The salient point is that the US government must prove that it willing to enforce existing immigration laws before we can pass more lenient laws.
The United States is in a horrible situation where we have to deport millions of people.
Deporting millions sounds draconian until one looks at the numbers. Adding up the columns on the statistics page by the Bureau or Transportation Services indicates that over 250 million people entered the US in 2014. Most people entering the US are on a passport waver program which allows stays in the US for up to 90 days. The State Department issued about 10 millions of visas last year.
Both references bring up many unanswered questions. However, they establish that International Travel involves hundreds of millions of people.
Unfortunately, deportation is a necessary component of a smooth running international travel system.
A visa is a contract between a visitor and a host country.
Deportation is the primary mechanism for enforcing the contract.
Yes, I know, deportation is harsh. I would be against deportation except for the fact that it is intrinsic to a working visa system.
When one is dealing with hundreds of millions of travelers. It is not unreasonable to engage in millions of deportations each year.
I am for streamlining the deportation system because streamlined deportations allow for a more robust international travel system. When people follow the laws. We can actually increase travel.
To repeat my argument: A visa is a contract. Deportation is the enforcement mechanism of the contract. We have hundreds of millions of international travelers each year. A one percent fail rate means that we have to deport millions of people each year.
When the context of the argument is understood, the argument for deporting a million people is not harsh. It's simply a necessary part of making an international travel system work.
As for "sanctuary cities." The people who declare sanctuary cities feel great. However, these clowns are disrupting a system that involves hundreds of millions of people simply to make a feel good statement.
Standing against the clowns is largely a matter of showing the harm that they are doing to the hundreds of millions of legal travelers.
I do not believe that the US is going to end up deporting everyone whose violated their visa agreements since the last general amnesty.
However, the United States simply has to get a robust system of deportations in place to safeguard our current robust system of international travel. The last amnesty shows that the US government will not engage in reform after an amnesty.
The statistics show that our laws favor the reunion of families over other concerns.
As for the breaking up of families. This is the result of international travel and not American laws.
When a person chooses to move over long distances (crossing national borders and all). That person is engaged in an activity that breaks familial bonds.
It is the individual's choice to emigrate that breaks up the family and not American law.
Yes, it is true that we witness the results of a decision. But the break up is not caused by our laws. The fact that we witness a drama does not mean we caused the drama.
I've noticed that all humans have human connections. People from a region are often related to a huge number of people. Developing the idea that immigration should take place in huge packs limits our nation's ability to accept immigrants from a diversity of places, because we can't just look at the individual who wants to immigrate, but all of the people attached to the individual.
The statistics show that our current system favors relatives of immigrants over all others.
It is really sad that moving abroad breaks up families, but I find it foolish to blame our immigration laws for breaking up families as some break of family must occur whenever people move abroad.
Before jumping into my post. I want to counter a meme put forward by Trump. Trump claims that he is the most likely to beat Hillary Clinton.
I say the opposite is true. The Left is adept at exploiting wealth envy in campaigns. It is what they do best. As Trump's claim to fame is his ability to amass wealth and power, he is the candidate that the left is most likely to beat.
As for this post. I liked the direction that Rubio, and others, were taking with immigration debate. The salient point is that the US government must prove that it willing to enforce existing immigration laws before we can pass more lenient laws.
The United States is in a horrible situation where we have to deport millions of people.
Deporting millions sounds draconian until one looks at the numbers. Adding up the columns on the statistics page by the Bureau or Transportation Services indicates that over 250 million people entered the US in 2014. Most people entering the US are on a passport waver program which allows stays in the US for up to 90 days. The State Department issued about 10 millions of visas last year.
Both references bring up many unanswered questions. However, they establish that International Travel involves hundreds of millions of people.
Unfortunately, deportation is a necessary component of a smooth running international travel system.
A visa is a contract between a visitor and a host country.
Deportation is the primary mechanism for enforcing the contract.
Yes, I know, deportation is harsh. I would be against deportation except for the fact that it is intrinsic to a working visa system.
When one is dealing with hundreds of millions of travelers. It is not unreasonable to engage in millions of deportations each year.
I am for streamlining the deportation system because streamlined deportations allow for a more robust international travel system. When people follow the laws. We can actually increase travel.
To repeat my argument: A visa is a contract. Deportation is the enforcement mechanism of the contract. We have hundreds of millions of international travelers each year. A one percent fail rate means that we have to deport millions of people each year.
When the context of the argument is understood, the argument for deporting a million people is not harsh. It's simply a necessary part of making an international travel system work.
As for "sanctuary cities." The people who declare sanctuary cities feel great. However, these clowns are disrupting a system that involves hundreds of millions of people simply to make a feel good statement.
Standing against the clowns is largely a matter of showing the harm that they are doing to the hundreds of millions of legal travelers.
I do not believe that the US is going to end up deporting everyone whose violated their visa agreements since the last general amnesty.
However, the United States simply has to get a robust system of deportations in place to safeguard our current robust system of international travel. The last amnesty shows that the US government will not engage in reform after an amnesty.
Families and Immigration
One of the most persistent arguments against enforcing immigration laws is a belief that immigration laws break up families. Looking at the State Department Data, the vast majority of immigration visas are given to immediate and family sponsored immigrants. Over 90% of immigration visas are given for the purpose of keeping families together.The statistics show that our laws favor the reunion of families over other concerns.
As for the breaking up of families. This is the result of international travel and not American laws.
When a person chooses to move over long distances (crossing national borders and all). That person is engaged in an activity that breaks familial bonds.
It is the individual's choice to emigrate that breaks up the family and not American law.
Yes, it is true that we witness the results of a decision. But the break up is not caused by our laws. The fact that we witness a drama does not mean we caused the drama.
I've noticed that all humans have human connections. People from a region are often related to a huge number of people. Developing the idea that immigration should take place in huge packs limits our nation's ability to accept immigrants from a diversity of places, because we can't just look at the individual who wants to immigrate, but all of the people attached to the individual.
The statistics show that our current system favors relatives of immigrants over all others.
It is really sad that moving abroad breaks up families, but I find it foolish to blame our immigration laws for breaking up families as some break of family must occur whenever people move abroad.
Wednesday, February 03, 2016
Dynamic SQL
I used to enjoy programming.
I stopped enjoying programming with the release of XHTML and PHP 5 (which included the PDO Object). XHTML made the code for web pages excessively terse. The ugly PDO statement in PHP somehow made me feel sick every time I used it.
I finally had to confront the beast and ask why the PDO object makes me feel like puking.
I went back and was looked at the code I was writing before the release of PDO and it dawned on me.
Through the years I had developed a rather dynamic approach to SQL.
The way my code worked is that I would pull the DDL for a group of Tables from the database. (DDL refers to the CREATE TABLE Statement). My program would generate HTML forms from the DDL.
When you press submit, the program would, again, pull the DDL from the database. Analyze the data according to the defined constraints on the table and dynamically produce the SQL. The program would call mysql_query and insert the data.
In other words, I could create a web form in the time that it takes to write a CREATE TABLE Statement.
I was actually preparing to submit the programs I used to GitHub.
PHP programmers: Imagine how much more productive you could be if the program you used automatically generated forms from your SQL Tables, and imagine that same program generated the SQL to validate and insert the code into your database.
The PDO program is built around a static approach to SQL.
The flow of a PDO program is as follows:
You open a connection. Define a SQL Statement. Bind the Data to the Statement then execute the query.
PDO assumes that that SQL is static. It expects the SQL statement to be fully formed before looking at the data.
My programs were all building SQL statements step by step. They would only execute the SQL if the data passed all of the constraints.
I was able to do more with the mysql_query() command than the PDOStatement Object because the former allowed for dynamic creation of SQL while the latter is built on a regressive static model for SQL.
To prove that the dynamic approach to SQL is better. Let's imagine a simple User_Preference table with 20 defined items.
The user pulls up the preferences page and update only one or two of the twenty items.
My program cannot know, in advance, what preferences the user will change until it looks at the data.
PDO fails because it expects the program to define the SQL before looking at the data.
The program must either loop through the data twice (The first time to create the SQL statement, and second time to bind the data to the statement) or it needs to make a copy of the data in a buffer to bind to the SQL statement.
I downloaded the source code for PHP. I was actually considering creating a branch of PDO that would allow for the creation of SQL statements. But, I don't feel comfortable with my skills in c at this time (and my web site is broken).
So, what I want to do is to get back to the point where I can generate forms from the DDL Statement for a single table.
Since this regressive PDO is the biggest block to this goal. I decided to start with it. Here is the public test page for the code. Here is the code for the Test Page and Object.
The base of this program is code that I wrote a decade ago. The original program worked as follows. It defined the constraints on the data. It then looked at the data in $_POST and built a SQL query.
The flow for this version is: The program makes a copy of an array. It then looks at the definitions for the columns and finally constructs the SQL. It is very inefficient.
Yes, I wrote this code on 1/30/2015. I spent from 1/30 to 2/3 writing test scripts. I wanted the test page to work against live data. But I finally decided I didn't like having a page that just generates INSERT and UPDATE commands for no reason out in public.
The Test Page now just generates some sample SQL, but does not execute the code.
The next step is to create an object that generates a web form. That will be easier. Unfortunately, I have to spend the next several hours running chores.
Perhaps, if I complete this project, I can return to the point where creating web pages was fun.
I stopped enjoying programming with the release of XHTML and PHP 5 (which included the PDO Object). XHTML made the code for web pages excessively terse. The ugly PDO statement in PHP somehow made me feel sick every time I used it.
I finally had to confront the beast and ask why the PDO object makes me feel like puking.
I went back and was looked at the code I was writing before the release of PDO and it dawned on me.
Through the years I had developed a rather dynamic approach to SQL.
The way my code worked is that I would pull the DDL for a group of Tables from the database. (DDL refers to the CREATE TABLE Statement). My program would generate HTML forms from the DDL.
When you press submit, the program would, again, pull the DDL from the database. Analyze the data according to the defined constraints on the table and dynamically produce the SQL. The program would call mysql_query and insert the data.
In other words, I could create a web form in the time that it takes to write a CREATE TABLE Statement.
I was actually preparing to submit the programs I used to GitHub.
PHP programmers: Imagine how much more productive you could be if the program you used automatically generated forms from your SQL Tables, and imagine that same program generated the SQL to validate and insert the code into your database.
The PDO program is built around a static approach to SQL.
The flow of a PDO program is as follows:
You open a connection. Define a SQL Statement. Bind the Data to the Statement then execute the query.
PDO assumes that that SQL is static. It expects the SQL statement to be fully formed before looking at the data.
My programs were all building SQL statements step by step. They would only execute the SQL if the data passed all of the constraints.
I was able to do more with the mysql_query() command than the PDOStatement Object because the former allowed for dynamic creation of SQL while the latter is built on a regressive static model for SQL.
To prove that the dynamic approach to SQL is better. Let's imagine a simple User_Preference table with 20 defined items.
The user pulls up the preferences page and update only one or two of the twenty items.
My program cannot know, in advance, what preferences the user will change until it looks at the data.
PDO fails because it expects the program to define the SQL before looking at the data.
The program must either loop through the data twice (The first time to create the SQL statement, and second time to bind the data to the statement) or it needs to make a copy of the data in a buffer to bind to the SQL statement.
I downloaded the source code for PHP. I was actually considering creating a branch of PDO that would allow for the creation of SQL statements. But, I don't feel comfortable with my skills in c at this time (and my web site is broken).
So, what I want to do is to get back to the point where I can generate forms from the DDL Statement for a single table.
Since this regressive PDO is the biggest block to this goal. I decided to start with it. Here is the public test page for the code. Here is the code for the Test Page and Object.
The base of this program is code that I wrote a decade ago. The original program worked as follows. It defined the constraints on the data. It then looked at the data in $_POST and built a SQL query.
The flow for this version is: The program makes a copy of an array. It then looks at the definitions for the columns and finally constructs the SQL. It is very inefficient.
Yes, I wrote this code on 1/30/2015. I spent from 1/30 to 2/3 writing test scripts. I wanted the test page to work against live data. But I finally decided I didn't like having a page that just generates INSERT and UPDATE commands for no reason out in public.
The Test Page now just generates some sample SQL, but does not execute the code.
The next step is to create an object that generates a web form. That will be easier. Unfortunately, I have to spend the next several hours running chores.
Perhaps, if I complete this project, I can return to the point where creating web pages was fun.
Tuesday, February 02, 2016
Train Wrecks
I heard that several runaway trains are headed full speed into Iowa and that no-one's done any sort of line maintenance in the state for years.
The press is excited by the event as we might be looking at one of the worst train wrecks in our life time.
As for me, I've stopped blogging because I really have no interest in train wrecks.
Both the two major parties seem to be getting worse and worse.
Despite the great communication technology we have, the voices that want to stop the train wreck just can't break through.
I like Ben Carson ... but I think he spent too much time trying to create a conservative image and I am not really sure what direction he would lead the country.
I would love to see Rand Paul playing a bigger role in the GOP because the Pauls have thought through questions about liberty better than most of the GOP candidates.
As for the Democrats. Isn't anyone else interested in the strange phenomena that their Party only has three candidates and their campaigns seem more orchestrated than the GOP?
If the Democrats really were the party of the people one would expect a much more raucous primary.
Despite the fact that it is better organized than the GOP. The Democrats are more like a high speed passenger train running out control while the GOP is just a bunch of freight trains running out of control.
Freight train collisions are visually more appealing than high speed passenger train collisions, but the death and carnage of a TGV running off track is much higher than an freight train pile up.
Presidential politics is a train wreck. The answer to our nation's malaise will not be found in politics but in the people.
I think the best presidential candidate is the candidate who is most likely to listen to Congress and the people.
I see Trump as the worst candidate. I am hoping that the party will simply coalesce around who is every seen as the best candidate to beat Trump.
As for this year's crop of candidates. That is really the best the GOP can hope for.
My biggest fear is that Democrats will cross party lines to vote for Trump. If Trump wins the GOP nomination, the Democrats will be able to run a campaign on wealth envy and anti-capitalist sentiment.
If Trump wins, we will not only have an arrogant jerk as president. The nation will turn decidedly left as the Democrats run a pure Marxian campaign against Trump.
Both the Press and Socialist Left want Trump to win. I hope he stumbles.
As for me. I have no interest in watching train wrecks. So, I am just diverting my eyes while trying to find a better direction.
The press is excited by the event as we might be looking at one of the worst train wrecks in our life time.
As for me, I've stopped blogging because I really have no interest in train wrecks.
Both the two major parties seem to be getting worse and worse.
Despite the great communication technology we have, the voices that want to stop the train wreck just can't break through.
I like Ben Carson ... but I think he spent too much time trying to create a conservative image and I am not really sure what direction he would lead the country.
I would love to see Rand Paul playing a bigger role in the GOP because the Pauls have thought through questions about liberty better than most of the GOP candidates.
As for the Democrats. Isn't anyone else interested in the strange phenomena that their Party only has three candidates and their campaigns seem more orchestrated than the GOP?
If the Democrats really were the party of the people one would expect a much more raucous primary.
Despite the fact that it is better organized than the GOP. The Democrats are more like a high speed passenger train running out control while the GOP is just a bunch of freight trains running out of control.
Freight train collisions are visually more appealing than high speed passenger train collisions, but the death and carnage of a TGV running off track is much higher than an freight train pile up.
Presidential politics is a train wreck. The answer to our nation's malaise will not be found in politics but in the people.
I think the best presidential candidate is the candidate who is most likely to listen to Congress and the people.
I see Trump as the worst candidate. I am hoping that the party will simply coalesce around who is every seen as the best candidate to beat Trump.
As for this year's crop of candidates. That is really the best the GOP can hope for.
My biggest fear is that Democrats will cross party lines to vote for Trump. If Trump wins the GOP nomination, the Democrats will be able to run a campaign on wealth envy and anti-capitalist sentiment.
If Trump wins, we will not only have an arrogant jerk as president. The nation will turn decidedly left as the Democrats run a pure Marxian campaign against Trump.
Both the Press and Socialist Left want Trump to win. I hope he stumbles.
As for me. I have no interest in watching train wrecks. So, I am just diverting my eyes while trying to find a better direction.