This has me so fucking triggered. The whitewashing of slavery that these assholes have been on drives me fucking crazy.
My bad, dude. I just thought Boortz was so well known like a Limbaugh or Glenn Beck that I really wasn’t sure.
I'm positive this won't backfire, like at all Pentagon outlines ‘path forward’ for AI Spoiler by Talk Business & Politics staff ([email protected]) February 20, 2019 6:30 am 46 views The Department of Defense (DOD) on Feb. 12 released the summary of its strategy on artificial intelligence (AI) that describes how the nation’s military will leverage security technology into the future. Pentagon officials said the key tenets of the DOD strategy include speeding up the delivery and adoption of AI, establishing a common foundation for scaling the impact of the emerging technology across the military branches and enabling decentralized development and experimentation. The DOD’s plan also calls for evolving partnerships with industry, academia, allies and partners, as well as cultivating a leading AI workforce and for the U.S. military to take the lead in AI ethics and safety. The department’s strategic approach to AI also emphasizes its “rapid, iterative, and responsible delivery and then the use of lessons learned to create repeatable and scalable processes and systems that will improve functions and missions across the department.” “AI is poised to change the character of the future battlefield and the pace of threats faced in today’s security environment. The United States, together with its allies and partners, must adopt AI to maintain its strategic position and prevail on future battlefields,” the Pentagon said in a statement. “AI will impact every corner of the department, spanning operations, training, sustainment, force protection, recruiting, healthcare and others.” The focal point of DOD’s AI program is the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, established in June under DOD Chief Information Officer Dana Deasy and led by Lt. Gen. John “Jack” Shanahan. The goal of the center is to provide a common vision, mission and focus to drive department-wide AI capability delivery, officials said. DOD’s AI strategy supports the National Defense Strategy and is part of DOD’s overall efforts to modernize information technology to support the warfighter, defend against cyberattacks and leverage emerging technologies, officials said. More information on the DOD’s AI strategy is available here.
Must be my years as a shitty Republican in the 90’s and early 00’s that exposed me to him and broke my brain.
Far right hate is spiralling out of control – and politicians aren’t doing enough to stop it independent.co.uk/voices... Joe Scarborough Directly Blames Donald Trump For Domestic Terror Threat: It’s All His Fault huffingtonpost.com/entry/...
We are same. Scrolling through his Twitter feed for the first time, he seems way more overtly racist now, which is probably just a poor reflection on whoever that person was back then that had the same DNA as me, and not a change in the "talk master's" schtick.
The amount of people bitching about how a $15 minimum wage wouldn’t see their own income proportionally adjusted is a great reminder that most Americans don’t give a fuck about anyone but themselves. Giving someone slightly more opportunity and financial stability does not take away any of your own opportunity or financial stability. It’s the same idea as a gay marriage cheapening a heterosexual marriage. Give me a fucking break.
The Three Rhetorical Tricks That Bind Trump to His Base Political communication scholars explain how, for Trump, telling lies, shifting blame, and asserting his own greatness help him keep his core supporters. Spoiler This is arguably the month the Trump administration went fully Orwellian. The president declared an emergency where none existed. Unable to convince Congress to finance a wall on the Mexican border, he insisted construction was already underway. He even unveiled a deeply duplicitous re-election slogan: "Finish the wall!" It's easy to see these moves as the desperate improvisations of a cornered man. But scholars who study political communication know better. Trump, they argue, may only communicate to one third of the nation. But those voters pick up on his messaging, and their bond with their leader only strengthens as a result. "His strategy isn't laid out on paper anywhere," says Josh Scacco, an assistant professor of communication at the University of South Florida. "He would not be able to articulate it in any way." "But he has a brilliant gift for a leader: The ability to read an audience. It comes from years of being a cultural icon—knowing how to gain attention, and keep attention. It's not necessarily beneficial for democracy, but it's a gift." According to Scacco and his colleagues, the rhetorical ticks and other communication strategies Trump employs—the blatant falsehoods, the self-aggrandizement, the assertions of false consensus, and the framing of complicated issues in crude, simplistic language—all help him hold onto his core supporters. And while a keep-the-base-stirred-up strategy is obviously risky, it's not crazy. Given the peculiarities of the Electoral College, a candidate needn't have majority support to win. It happened once for Trump, and it could happen again—with the right messaging. "As a reality TV performer, Donald Trump understands the importance of a compelling visual," Scacco says. "That's why he doesn't want drone technology or 'invisible fencing' on the Mexican border. His voters need to see a wall." Mary Stuckey, professor of communication at the Pennsylvania State University. "But none of them lie this systematically. None of them—not even [Richard] Nixon—have had so little regard for facts. It's disheartening and it's dangerous. His supporters are participating in a group fantasy." "This is where his self-aggrandizing language also comes in, I think. That fantasy involves the belief that his people are being protected by a powerful leader. So his assertions that he is powerful allow the fantasy to continue." Trump is a master of "humbug, à la P.T. Barnum," argues Jennifer Mercieca, assistant professor of communications at Texas A&M University. "He only speaks in gilded prose. It's his brand. He isn't subtle. Things are stark—either the best or the worst." When Trump makes a dubious claim, "some of his supporters will think it's true," Mercieca says. "Some of his supporters will know it's not, but they'll think he's clever for trying to trick everyone." From Trump's perspective, that's a win-win. While Trump has set records when it comes to lying, the extreme certainty he projects—or attempts to project—is the continuation of a long trend in presidential discourse. In a recent study, Kayla Jordan of the University of Texas–Austin demonstrated that this trend can be traced back more than 100 years, as leaders have used mass communication to appeal to a larger, more diverse electorate. Trump's language "is lower in analytic thinking, and higher in confidence, than [that of] almost any previous American president," Jordan wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Some will decry this rhetorical approach as dumbing down our discourse, but it's arguably quite savvy. "People intuitively think that, if you speak confidently, you know what you're talking about," Jordan says. "We need to educate ourselves as to how politicians' speaking styles effect how we feel about their policies." In contrast with Jordan's historical approach, Scacco's research focuses on the way presidential communication styles are changing along with the recent revolution in technology. To a degree unmatched by any predecessor, Scacco says, Trump has the ability to "narrowcast" to his supporters, thanks to the Internet and social media. "He is only talking in places where his reality is affirmed," Scacco says. "He goes to places where his message is essentially cocooned by supportive people and supportive media." "Last week, Jim Acosta of CNN challenged him in a press conference about the 'national emergency,' and Trump immediately shut him down, calling him 'fake news,'" Scacco says. "The reason he did that was that he had to immediately inoculate his supporters from that type of messaging. By insulating his supporters, he helps to create and affirm his reality." But doesn't actual reality intrude at some point? "It does and it doesn't," Scacco says. "I have family in Western Pennsylvania, and a lot of them have talked about Trump's promises to open coal mines again. When that doesn't happen, a lot of them will rationalize it in some way. They might say it's Nancy Pelosi's fault, or the Democratic governor's fault. In their mind, it can't be Trump's fault." Which brings up another effective Trump technique: blame-shifting. "Every time he fails to get something done, he assigns blame," Scacco notes. "If and when the courts shut him down on this emergency declaration, he can then run against the system. That might actually strengthen his position with his supporters." Another verbal tick that Trump frequently uses is asserting, often erroneously, that his positions are popular. He frequently uses phrases like "Everybody knows that..." or, "Many people are saying...." He even insisted that federal workers were calling him to tell him they were OK with the government shutdown. "That's called a bandwagon or an 'ad populum' appeal," Mercieca says. "He's appealing to the wisdom of the crowd. He uses 'A lot of people say' or 'some friend' to bolster his position and lend credibility to whatever claim Trump is making. It's typically fallacious and easy to spot, but only if you are motivated to do so." latest rhetorical gambit is calling all opposition to him"socialism," and suggesting that, if he is defeated, America will rapidly degenerate into Venezuela. Could that argument work? "It works as what rhetoricians call 'devil terms,'" Stuckey says. "It labels something as bad without making an argument about why it's bad.... It certainly lacks the weight it had during the Red Scare and the Cold War." "It may not resonate with a growing chunk of the public," Scacco agrees. "But the substance of the term isn't a concern to Trump or his base. It's a marker of us vs. them, and a means of highlighting what is American vs. foreign." "Today, people associate socialism more with Scandinavian countries, which they see as relatively happy, healthy, and orderly,” Mercieca adds. “Socialism on that model doesn't look too bad. Call it the 'Ikea effect.'" If that approach fails, the Trump campaign's focus will likely shift back to the border. "One possibility is that Trump gets very little wall built but he tells his supporters that he did, and shows them images of portions of the wall that already exist," Scacco speculates. "He can point to them and say, 'This is the wall being built.'" That's reminiscent of a possibly apocryphal scene recreated in the film Citizen Kane, where the title character—an avatar for publisher William Randolph Hearst—tells an artist assigned to illustrate a story about a non-existent confrontation involving American forces: "You furnish the pictures. I'll furnish the war." Perhaps this time around, outlets such as Fox News will supply the pictures, and Trump will supply the wall. Ideas section is your destination for idea-driven features, voracious culture coverage, sharp opinion, and enlightening conversation. Help us shape our ongoing coverage by responding to a short reader survey.
Neal Boortz is a old blowhard who at one time had 4.5 hours a day on WSB radio in Atlanta. He retired about 10 years ago but I still see he's out there making shitty takes. Interestingly his longtime producer was African American, a guy named Royal Marshall who occasionally filled in for him. After Boortz retired I think he handed over the show to Herman Cain, another African American who I'm pretty sure is Trump supporter.
Well it is kind of shitty though. What if you had a minimum wage job and stayed there and worked your way up to a position where you make, say $18 an hour. Unless you're also getting a big pay bump you basically worked and stuck it out only to be paid nearly the same as someone who just started.
I don't derive satisifcation knowing that my salary is a certain # above those living in poverty. christ
I'm skeptical there is a single "wayward" republican in the entire country that is going to come home to the party because of Venezuela.
You dont because you havent had to scrape by and youre salary is well above that line (I assume). If you cant see how someone would be resentful and feel like it's unfair, then maybe work more seeing others' perspective. It doesnt mean theyre right. It's easy for most of us to objectively argue about minimum wage issues because we're so far removed from it. Like Illinihockey said - if youve been grinding away for years at a min wage job to make a 18 an hour, then someone gets to make close to that right away - it would take an awfully altruistic person to not think "Damn, that kind of sucks for me . These people are getting big raises, and I am not" .
you have no fucking clue. Although I assume it will change very soon, I've yet to live comfortably. I'm not gonna be bitter about someone getting a raise to get them above the poverty line. And a worker who has grinded for years should be mad at the gov't for taking so long, not the people getting pulled out of poverty. On top of that, the gov't should not refrain from acting because it will make a certain segment upset that they are missing out on the benefit.
if this is the example of the system being unfair that sticks with people except in passing they're lost
Any job I've worked at, when the entity bumps the minimum pay to start, they bump everyone else as well. There aren't any managers making what new employees make or anything close to it.
If they think it’s unfair that they went to grad school and aren’t making much more than someone that works at McDonald’s, they should take that up with their employer rather than saying “the McDonald’s employee shouldn’t be making that much.”
Poll: Most Americans Think Country is Divided, Have Unfavorable View of Trump usnews.com/news/p... Roseanne Barr calls Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a ‘Farrakhan loving…bug-eyed b---h’ foxnews.com/entert...
You guys should volunteer to have your salaries cut to bring everyone below you to the same level of pay.
Then you’ve been very fortunate to have not worked for large corporations. Large corps don’t have the time or inclination to rescale everyone’s pay based on the market for new hires.
It happens every place I’ve worked at. And if people are upset that minimum wage is being increased to a point that matches their salary, they need to determine if they’re in a minimum wage job and take that up with their employer.
Well can’t give people a livable wage because those already there will fill bad more can afford things
this is unbelievably disingenuous but totally unsurprising giving your posting. This started about people who make $18 an hour being upset about working so long under $15 an hour to get where they are. This isn't above people giving up their salaries so that others can make similar salaries. fuck
no, corporations should pay people fair wages so they don't have to live in poverty. not take it out of someone else's wages.
Im not comparing a business school graduate to a McDonalds worker. Im comparing a McDonald's worker that's been working at McDonalds for years, to see a person that's been there for 6 months get a huge raise, and not get one for themselves. Again, Im not saying theyre not being selfish. Im saying I can see that persons POV, and human nature of being a bit resentful.
Just looked it up, the starting salary for a teacher in Illinois is $39,000 a year. Since we're about to pass a $15 minimum wage, fast food employees are going to make slightly less than teachers.