I Call BS! The Shortage of Truckers is a Result of Deliberate Policy!

truckNowhere in this article does it mention the systematic policy attack on truckers. Extreme restrictions on truckers’ flexibility over when to drive has crushed productivity–rising wages or line-hauls won’t make up for having to spend more hours idle for every delivery. Demand for truckers is going up not only as demand for transportation has increased but also as each trucker is forced to be less productive, an effect that compounds the shortage of drivers by causing truckers who can’t make a living to exit  the industry resulting in even fewer trucker-hours to meet rising demand.
I have seen the momentum toward autonomous trucking accelerating past that for passenger cars since the company Otto was created by some well-connected tech folks to retrofit existing trucks with self-driving technology–that’s a sign of a short timeline IMO.
This WSJ article is portraying the undersupply of truckers as an unfortunate market failure–watch out for future articles that build on this underlying false assumption to argue that we have no choice but to adapt infrastructure to self-driving trucks in a hurry.
Of course, those who pay the freight will love such a subsidy allowing them to switch to a government-subsidized technology rather than compensate for government-implemented productivity crushing policies with higher wages. My guess is they are all in this together. Similarly, the uber-lyft model does not work without self-driving technology. Billions upon billions of dollars have been pumped into these businesses for years by very smart people–surely they know driverless is coming despite the tremendous cost and disruption it will visit upon taxpayers and laborers alike.
Maybe I’m wrong, but the way this article deliberately ignores the real problem with declining trucker supply makes me wonder, Why even write the article? Obviously, there’s some agenda at work. We will see what it is. #WTWOF

Trucking Companies Are Struggling to Attract Drivers to the Big-Rig Life
The U.S. freight market is speeding ahead, but recruiting new truck drivers to meet demand is proving harder to rev up

Not the first time the Journal fawns over a totalitarian dictatorship: "Authoritarianism Is China's Edge in AI"

Time and time again, I have seen The Wall Street Journal explain that the reason Russia and China are so together and are such a big threat to us is that they have the luxury of being totalitarian dictatorships that can get ‘er done without the fussy inconvenience of individual liberty or consensual government. Well, the Journal is at it again, but this time they are behind the times…the CIA’s InQTel venture capital firm is ALL OVER AI! (Who’s the authoritarian dictatorship now, huh?)
Here’s the article from yesterday’s Journal that triggered me…the title in the print edition was merely, Authoritarianism Is China’s Edge in AI–but they really spoonfeed it to you right up top on-line which included an in-your-face subtitle:
China’s Authoritarian State Has an Edge in Artificial Intelligence Development
A wealthy repressive state can press ahead with tech innovation unimpeded by privacy concerns

Beijing is bankrolling a big effort in AI, in part, to keep better track of homegrown individuals it considers criminals and dissidents, and to intimidate would-be opponents. That work involves fundamental research in image recognition, data collection and sorting that could have commercial spinoffs in the software used to run complex systems. A city with millions of self-driving cars, for instance, would need data analysis and the ability to recognize, say, that a ball bouncing across the street might be followed by a child chasing it.
“What gives China an edge is there is more of a sense of urgency,” says Paul Triolo, a technology research manager at Eurasia Group.

There’s for sure a sense of urgency here, but with that flare for democracy our media and government like to deliver it with. From easing us into a driverless world with DoD-generated technology and local governments mysteriously allowing tech-driven ride hailing services to destroy the taxi industry even in cities where gypsy cabs have been trying and failing for decades to do that very thing, to the next big story–an inexplicable rise in automobile deaths followed by shrill and panicked calls for zero tolerance for same. Urgency is building. And on top of it all, the infrastructure plan Obama could not get done, Trump will deliver, rest assured. #ItWillTakeARepublican. And finally, it’s all crap because InQTel is positively steaming ahead with AI, surveillance tech, etc., just like the vaunted Chinese Authoritarian State, so spare me, please.

Among the most innovative—and threatening—of the Chinese research involves surveillance. The Wall Street Journal has detailed how Beijing has turned its western Xinjiang region into a warren of facial scanners to track millions of Uighur minorities. Police there use hand-held devices to search smartphones for encrypted chat apps. A new twist: mobile facial-recognition units mounted on eyeglasses that police use to search crowds for fugitives, among other uses.
Artificial intelligence works by the collection of vast amounts of data used to “train” computer software to recognize patterns and reach conclusions, precisely the kind of skills needed to track a small number of dissidents among a sea of Chinese faces.
“A repressive state can be an engine of innovation,” says Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a tech policy center.

Oh, wow! I never thought of it like that! Repression is good. Yes, I get it now!
(Sorry, I actually don’t like sarcasm, but like I said, they’re triggering me!)
Seriously though, I have documented the Journal‘s coverage of the Chinese Police State and it scares me–they always throw in how much safer those people will be, in a “just sayin'” kind of way. (Don’t believe me? Reread the first line I quote from this article above.) But the facial recognition police goggles are a new one and sadly validate my prediction that the push for cop cams here are really for this purpose–facial recognition to be used at political events–not for the #MeTooers and the Pussy Hats but for those who try mightily to defend our foundational and inherent liberties.

AI may be different, say U.S. technology researchers. China’s AI effort is being joined by globally competitive internet powerhouses including Tencent Holdings Ltd. , which is focused on medical imaging, and Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. , which wants to help create smart cities that use sensors, cameras and computers to manage traffic. So far, the government is following their lead in technology development, AI researchers say, whatever the goals laid out in the government plan.

This smart cities thing is coming down–just read the latest from the World Economic Forum (the Davos people), or check out the Strong Cities Initiative or any other UN project aimed to bring localities into direct connection with the world government they are openly working toward–preferably a repressive authoritarian one, sounds like.

Chinese researchers may not have political freedom, they say, but they have the economic freedom to chart their own course. And the Chinese government doesn’t throw up roadblocks to the technology on the grounds of privacy, as occurs in the West.
“Freedom is very important,” says [Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher Erik] Brynjolfsson. “But there is more freedom in China to do startups than most people realize.”…
[S]ays Loren Graham, an emeritus MIT science historian….“Can a country like China with lots of money combine repression, creativity and economic success based on that creativity? If the answer is yes, then we will have to rethink everything.”

I guess the message is, freedom is all in how you define it. Maybe for Messrs. Brynjolfsson and Graham, startup macht frei.

This Video Is Getting Scrubbed – Here's Why….


At 2:14, “Mom” says, “I believe they had just earlier done after the break done some drills on this exact kind of situation which is I think why the teachers and students knew  what to do in this instance.”
Of course the mainstream media doesn’t care about the truth, which is why The Wall Street Journal ran this article today on how massacres like the 17 reported dead at MSD High can be mitigated with active shooter drills:
Schools Need Active-Shooter Drills
Most deaths occur during the first five minutes. Preparing teachers and students would save lives.

Hardly any American schools hold active-shooter drills, but almost all of them hold regular fire drills. It’s been 50 years since fire was a real threat to safety in America’s schools. It’s time to rethink those priorities.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines an active shooter as a person “actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.” Because schools don’t rehearse their responses to these situations, students and teachers are typically unsure what to do during incidents such as Wednesday’s mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Most often, school districts forgo active-shooter drills because they don’t want to scare their students….
[W]e should do everything possible to prepare our children and their teachers to protect themselves. Florida’s shooting underscores the need for immediate action…
Through regular active-shooter drills, schools can equip their students with the skills to react quickly and safely to frightening situations. It might frighten them at first, but they’ll get used to it, just like they’re used to fire drills.

There are many agenda items being served by this incident. The overall process of terrifying the population into giving up basic rights is called the Strategy of Tension. What could contribute more to tension than terrifying the children on a regular basis? If the agenda were really to protect the children, wouldn’t policy advocates reflect on the fact that Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School had just had such a drill that was on-point, yet 17 are reported dead and many more wounded?
 
Update (h/t Franny): “We just had all this training just three weeks ago”

 
 

The Doctor Is In [your house all the time watching you]! #ReadMyTwips #ICYMI

 

 

 

Rupert Murdoch's Ex Is A Chinese Foreign Agent?? That's what he says anyway! …Holiday Weekend Twitter Trip…#ReadMyTwips #ICYMI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Apprentice==>The Presidency, #LoseOnPurpose & more on Today's Twitter Trip #ReadMyTwips (Don't even ask about the whipped cream…)

Let’s kick it off with the first tweep tweet of the twitter trips!

 

 

 
 

They are blowing themselves up. #LoseOnPurpose? I honestly believe the GOP like to be the minority party that can’t actually deliver but at this rate they’ll end up being a 3d party. https://t.co/74LmdR67Rl

— Monica Perez (@MonicaPerezShow) January 11, 2018

Infrastructure Atrocity Propaganda, The Perfect Dialectic, Bannon as PodPerson & More…Today's Twitter Trip #ReadMyTwips

 

 

 

 

 

The Police State to the Rescue! & Other Topics in Today's Twitter Trip!

[Update] Click through on the following tweet to read the commentary…Ginny really sheds some light on why they “got away with everything” – maybe they didn’t actually do anything wrong…I noticed that with the alleged killer of Kate Steinle and the alleged arsonist in the I85 collapse narrative…it’s easy to think guilty until proven innocent when just reading the media or absorbing the court of public opinion. 

 

 

 

 

Resistance-Grade Weaponry (new glossary entry)

71eb06211dd3c2f5a77fa5117e463862--interesting-history-budapest
Hungarian Uprising 1956: Hungarian fighters battling Soviet armored troops in Budapest.

On my most recent show (which aired on WSB on Saturday, October 14, 2017, and will be posted as Propaganda Report Episode 73 at propagandareportdaily.com), I coined the term “Resistance-Grade Weaponry” for my glossary to mean long guns, fast guns, big guns, even body armor–in other words, anything that would actually aid the people in resisting tyranny. Tellingly, gun control activists focus on these types of weapons and even purely defensive equipment even though it’s handguns which are used in the vast majority of gun deaths, both murders and, of course, suicides. My cynical theory is that if the government is after the Second Amendment for the same reason I think it is after the other amendments in the Bill of Rights–that is, to neutralize our ability to curtail our government’s drive toward tyranny–it would want to get rid of the weapons that “We the People” could use to resist and fight back. Small arms on the other hand, would not be effective in a full on battle with government, but would give government agents the excuse to open fire on those who rise up–perhaps that’s why they don’t mind if we keep them.
Two examples of first movers being mowed down en masse are The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the Iraqi uprising, both of which the United States encouraged then failed to aid.
As a side note, I wonder if the NRA favors this kind of legislation (which is often does), because the less effective each of your weapons is, the more weapons you might want to buy.
Finally, #WTWOF: Trump has set the precedents of going behind the back of the GOP to work with Democrats as well as acting impulsively and emotionally…I expect him to sign some kind of gun control legislation in his first term, however minor it may seem.
 

From vulgarity to violence, Dumbing Us Down has turned to Decivilizing Us

Charlotte Iserbyte wrote The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America and John Taylor Gatto wrote Dumbing Us Down–both excellent books addressing the purposeful program of excising the ability to recognize manipulation or to find fallacies in arguments. Since John Dewey replaced classical education with modern education (a process succinctly described in the Dewey chapter of this excellent book: Makers of the Modern Mind, by Thomas P. Neill), the ability of the American public to recognize being manipulated through mass media, education and political lies has plummeted, as has their ability to lead and influence as citizens in the civic arena. This process has been going on in earnest for a hundred years, but I noticed in February 2016–earlier if you start with the speech that launched Trump’s campaign–a new process underway through which we are being what I’m calling “animalized” or “decivilized.”
Trump’s coarse language and tactless approach was for many a breath of fresh air in a world of discourse stifled by political correctness. While I found vulgarity and rudeness misinterpreted as boldness and courage during the Trump campaign, I did understand why people were so hungry for a straight shooter. I, myself, found it alienating and ineffective–insulting rather than liberating. I find name-calling a counter-productive substitute for clear argument and I was sorry to find citizens on the right not urging the high ground. I didn’t make a big deal of it–I view the whole world of DC politics as theater anyway, but the approach the directors of the play take can be informative. That’s why I sat up and took notice when Mexico’s former President Vicente Fox used outright vulgarity on television to attack Trump. I had already seen signs of a vulgarizing of the mainstream when establishment outlets started referring to Megyn Kelly’s anatomical processes (without mentioning that the Trump comment that started that firestorm was the same one he made about Chris Wallace)–that was unprecedented, as was Vicente Fox’s style of attack. I flagged these observations at the time, and noted that Trump would be blamed for the decline in standards, but I wasn’t reminded of these episodes until several months later when I heard open vulgarity on CNN and The Wall Street Journal in rapid fire. I tweeted:

It was only months after that that I heard voices in the mainstream media comment on Tom Perez’s use of vulgarity, complete with accusations from right and left that this was a result of the tone Trump had set.
Sh*t talking is Democrats’ new strategy (CNNPolitics, April 24, 2017)

Maybe it’s a calculated move to conjure up excitement. Maybe it’s a direct response to the President Donald Trump, who repeatedly riled up campaign crowds with expletives incorporated into policy pronouncements. Whatever the motivation, it appears to be a trend — and it’s not just Perez.

As I saw this trend gaining steam, it occurred to me that perhaps we were heading down the path of certain other countries where fisticuffs in the legislature is not unheard of:

It wasn’t long after that thought had occurred to me that we saw a political candidate reportedly shove a journalist:
Republican candidate charged with assault after ‘body-slamming’ Guardian reporter
And, out of Texas, the coup de grâce so-to-speak:
Protest, confrontation, death threat herald end of legislative session
The scripted and calculated nature of all this is made clear in the most recent example of a politician’s public profanity when Senator Kirsten Gellibrand says the F-word repeatedly and comments, “I understand this is a younger audience, it’s okay.” (Might I point out that as a person in a position of authority and respect, the fact that it’s a young audience should make her conclude it’s not okay, and she shouldn’t need someone else to tell her that.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3OLD94iyKI
Here are some other tweets I sent out along the way to flag the pattern:

While I observed this trend and flagged it as a psyop to turn us into animals without any hope for intelligent discourse, productive exchange of ideas or logical resolutions to problems with government, I did not expect today’s events when I began writing this post yesterday. I don’t know if this event is related to the #animalization / #decivilization psyop I’ve been observing, but I find it very difficult to believe some of the most powerful people in the world can congregate en masse and be left this vulnerable. Certainly the framing of it is playing into this theme from the get go.
Steve Scalise shooting: ‘Political rhetorical terrorism’ contributed to attack, rep says (compare how Rep Davis discusses the event in that article to how Rand Paul describes it here. Paul does give the Capitol Police their props but Davis is clearly making sure this crisis doesn’t go to waste. Fox, for the headline, of course pulls out of Senator Paul’s eight minute interview the one line that serves the authorities best: Capitol Police credited with preventing ‘massacre’ by stopping shooter)
Perhaps the vulgarity and violence will fold into the lock-down of government I expect as a result of Trump’s focus on leaks and restricting press access. I don’t know how it will all unfold, but I feel certain that the vulgarity and violence that is emerging is planned and is meant to further diminish our ability to have any meaningful or productive impact on our “representative” government.
Update: Well, that didn’t take long.
Access v. security? Baseball shooting prompts Georgia discussion

Perdue said the news “just accentuates: we’ve got to find a balance between being available and accessible to our constituents and the public and yet providing security for our leaders,” he said.

I really hope this psyop doesn’t fold into this Chekhov’s gun:

Update: I also realized that Kathy Griffin’s little charade was part of this whether she knew it or not; and it was also pointed out to me that the Berkeley riots and other student protests-turned-ugly are part of this.
The Harvard Ten story also fits this pattern – BTW I don’t believe for one minute ten kids who worked their whole lives to get into Harvard – the best & the brightest, so to speak – were so unsavvy about the dangers of stupid stuff on social media that they would congregate with each other – complete strangers with a hotline to their hopes and dreams – and risk it all. At the very least, I have to believe they were set-up, enticed into doing this somehow.