Donating Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


IFG last won the day on September 22 2016

IFG had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

202 Excellent

1 Follower

About IFG

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    YAM, no longer + YHM & DXB

Recent Profile Visitors

3,763 profile views
  1. Indeed, UD', holy blasphemy was very curmudgeonly of me! Post amended - please do not force me to swallow IPA! I do think I've been pretty gentle and respectful considering a strongly-held opinion. There's really little alternative, if one wants to maintain an even keel going forward. I don't think the Trump cheering squad here quite appreciates the risks in this man as POTUS, but risk is not prediction, any more than HRC-favouring polls were. It's merely my own distillation of his policy aspirations (many IMHO misguided at best), and the wide-ranging implications of the normalization of that sort of politics and politician. As for not having met DJT, so what? He's been a public personality for 30-odd years. His actions have spoken loudly to us all, with no shortage of words either. Disregarding his past record for a moment, I get mixed signals right now on how he'll handle it all, but as the election phase is done unfolding, with many more to follow, a lot of outcomes we can preconceive, & some will come from left field. Events will almost certainly surprise us. Regardless, whatever his attributes and drawbacks, he's gonna be the Skipper for a while. For that duration, I hope that reasonable discussion remains possible, with a little less pollution from utter falsehood, and tolerance for the notion that ones interlocutors remain people of good will. I remain concerned about Trumpian infections of our Canadian politics; we may have much to learn watching all this unfold. Like you (I believe?), I have a ringside seat in FL for a good chunk of the year, and I sniffed this outcome in January, even as I hoped the polling was showing me wrong. Cheers, IFG
  2. For Pete's sake, why are all you folks so sure you know what happened, what was in peoples heads ... what "the people clearly said". About half of the folks who could vote, did vote. Maybe, just maybe, the vast majority of those bloody well voted for the party they always vote for regardless. The margin was tiny, either way it might have fallen, and also of course very fortuitously distributed for the "winner" as well, since the edge favoured the "loser". So winning an election does not always signal some momentous shift in "the people's" determined wisdom. Ontario did not turn socialist in 1990 with Rae, then right-wing with Harris, Canada in turn did not turn right-wing in 2006 with Harper, Mini-Trudeau does not reflect a grand movement back centre-left (& I don't know what's going on in Alberta at all ). Yet each of these elections brought the same talk of "the people's" great realignment. Perhaps, most of the time, election results are just reflecting temporary shifts, some groups are more motivated than others, and a small and shrinking few actually do swing. Sometimes, the outcome is an accident (Rae 1990 for sure, & I believe Justin's majority last year too). In representative elections (our parliament, the US's EC), these very small shifts are misrepresented in their magnitude. All the commentary here would have a bit more credibility if instead of just reflecting or reinforcing preference on little real foundation, it was recognized as the speculation it all is, and stated as such. Nothing is wrong with expressing a little doubt, & often questions are wiser in their asking than clamouring 'certainties'. But, back to Trump & the US - This is a particularly questionable candidate, not talking policy but in character and background, but I'm really concerned about the people, not the so-called 'leader. Some early transition signs are not encouraging to me. The calibre of the people who seem to surround him (political corruption and cravenness infect them at least as much as his opponents, and they will not likely be much "obstructed") ... disdain and avoidance of the press (it's fashionable to bash them, but that's another discussion) ... and the population at large? the general nihilism everywhere (including here BTW), one could go on ... "The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them." - George Orwell But as I said (optimistically) these things are said with some doubt, maybe vigilance lies out of sight ... Still hoping for the best - Cheers, IFG
  3. But by and large, J.O., they were not wrong. I read the following article before the election was out, and as it unfolded, was thinking Nate Silver had nailed it - in explaining the range of outcomes bracketed in the polling. How to Read Polls - Fivethirtyeight.com Excerts: "Our forecast has Clinton winning the national popular vote by 3.6 percentage points, which is similar to her lead in recent national polls. Her chances of winning the popular vote are 81 percent, according to our forecast .... "The track record of polling in American presidential elections is pretty good but a long way from perfect, and errors in the range of 3 percentage points have been somewhat common in the historical record .... "In our national polling average, about 12 percent of voters are either undecided or say they’ll vote for a third-party candidate. While this figure has declined over the past few weeks, it’s still much higher than in recent elections. Just 3 percent of voters were undecided at the end of the 2012 race, for example, according to RealClearPolitics. Clinton’s share of the vote — about 46 percent in national polls — is low for a leading candidate, and Trump’s share of 42 percent is the lowest of any candidate since Bob Dole in 1996 .... "As ought to be fairly intuitive, undecided voters make for a more uncertain outcome. If two-thirds of undecideds were to break for Trump, for instance, the candidates would tie in the popular vote at almost 50-50 .... "By definition, if Trump or Clinton beat their polls by 3 points nationally, they’ll also do so by 3 points in the average state.2Or at least, the average state weighted by that state’s turnout. If anything, in fact, the gain might be larger than that in the average swing state because swing states tend to have more swing voters than non-swing states do. (In FiveThirtyEight parlance, they’re more elastic — more responsive to changes in national trends.) .... "But if there’s a 3-point error against Clinton? That would still leave her with a narrow lead over Trump in the popular vote — by about the margin by which Gore beat Bush in 2000. But New Hampshire, which is currently the tipping-point state, would be exactly tied. Meanwhile, Clinton’s projected margin in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Colorado would shrink to about 1 percentage point, while Trump would be about 2 points ahead in Florida and North Carolina. It’s certainly not impossible that Clinton could win under those circumstances — her turnout operation might come in really handy — but she doesn’t have the Electoral College advantage that Obama did in 2012, when he led in states such as Ohio and Iowa and had larger leads than Clinton does in Michigan and Pennsylvania. In particular, Clinton could be vulnerable to a slump in African-American turnout." .... Obviously the other end of the range was a BIG Clinton win. The point is that polls give a sense of the odds, not a declarative forecast. When they're close, relatively small swings really change things. There's nothing pollsters can do about that. 538 is where I found the field goal analogy I posted earlier in the week. Pollsters weren't "wrong". HRC missed the 40-yarder. Unfortunately not practical, Moon', that would just keep important, possibly market-moving info in privileged hands. that genie should be out of the bottle. Voters have just gotta grow up and learn civic skills, or learn to like the government they deserve. The idea has its attractions, Don, but I remember an editorial by Jeff Greenfield prior to, I think it was maybe '92? He asked those disengaged 'citizens' who didn't care enough about the outcome to inform themselves, to stay the hell away. There might be something to that idea too? Cheers, IFG
  4. Fido, just try to imagine for a minute if Trump had won the popular vote and lost the EC. She, and POTUS, conceded, graciously and unequivocally! Sheesh! Seeker - OK, "the media" says a lot of things, but that's just the sort of dishonest slithering that Levant excels at. I'm not bothering with what some individual hack simply blathered, that's not "the media" saying anything. I'm talking about the ongoing deeper analysis of the coverage and prognostication. The coverage I've watched is dissecting it all pretty carefully, acknowledging the outcome did not match the projections, and trying to see why. I'm mostly on the US networks and papers, so I can't say about Globe' CBC etc. Briefly, it's obvious HRC failed to increase her favoured percentages as much as the D's thought she would (or Trump would ). But more crucially, her demographic didn't show up, and Trumps did. In several states that Trump flipped, he got about the same vote as Romney in 2012, and HRC got far less than Obama. It was a turnout loss, not a vote-shift loss, as Levant's graphs confirmed. But the same graphs are all over CNN et al as well, along with turn-out and vote totals. The analysis has been quite straightforward, unlike Levant's sleight-of-hand. OK, a little disclosure here. I've got a lot of relatives who are/were distinguished journalists - Globe, Herald, Gazette, MacLean's, CBC (long ago) etc. (hope you're not so jaundiced as to say there's no such thing, a lot of folks think all pilots are lazy and overpaid too, with about the same foundation). It's fair to say (& they'd agree) there is always a mind-set, in spite of any effort to set that aside. That is NOT the same thing as consciously framing everything to slant toward a party or ideology. One involves an imperfect effort to be objective, the other outright seeks to stack the deck. Levant's diatribe about voting percentages may reflect CBC etc., but it's not what the responsible analysts are saying south of the border. They're trying to get it right. If you all keep giving oxygen to biased websites, our news will rely solely on a shouting match of liars. I'll take the efforts of journos trying to be objective, skeptically read, at least until the confirm-my-bias-please crowd has killed them all off. The liberal-media-bias line, which does have a kernel of objective truth to it, is a Trojan horse for the ideologues. However flawed the execution, I try to find sources that seek to inform, rather than convince or reinforce. There are still media, and journos out there trying to do that, but if people just cocoon with their echo-chamber junk-sites, they'll disappear. Well, his graphs showed there was not that much percentage change at all. But to try to explain - if, say, 55% from block A with a 60-40 split show up, but only 50% of block B with a 40-60 split show up, the 60% from A beat the 60% from B. THAT's what happened here; my numbers are only illustrative, but block A here is proxy for the AWG's. Look, seeker, these are all over-simplifications, but the motivated voting of blue-collar, mostly white, mostly (not all) male voters gave trump the edge in some crucial states. It's that simple, but Levant can't resist concocting a more persuasive narrative for his crowd. If you're just keeping up with what's being said in the swamps, fine, I do that, but please do not be convinced by it. & No, I'm not going to argue about The Prince or the Clintons. They're both more complicated than suits the Levants of the world, and there are shades of grey. But my fingers are tired. TTYL, IFG
  5. I remember in the early days of GPWS; let's just say it was a lot better when algorithms got refined. I can't imagine not following EGPWS immediately in IMC, and never experienced any spurious warnings myself in VMC (except for some rare guidance in the flare ). Hypothetically, one might imagine a situation where a spurious warning is anticipated, and hold plans for ignoring it, but I think Vsplat is on point about disabling it if unavoidably necessary rather than 'desensitizing' what should be an almost visceral reaction in normal ops. Likewise on TCAS, delay is not good. I've read that the original designers did not want any visual display at all, on the assumption that pilots would waste time analyzing it & deciding whether they had a better idea . Superficially, I've seen this, but then it was TA's getting attention rather than actual RA's. I am curious about something, tho'.. I didn't have the opportunity for sim training on TCAS, not enabled on 727 sims. I read up as much as I could, and we did try some instructor-simulated profiles, but that doesn't get you through to a credible completed resolution, just the trainer's best guess. I did have some software a cut or two above the MSFlightsim level (Aerowinx 744) with several TCAS profiles, which I think helped to get the 'feel' of it. Here's a question: What are the current Sim-training modules like. I've read and heard anecdotally about incidents involving very aggressive manoeuvering, but my understanding of the TCAS system doesn't suggest that should be necessary, which to over-simplify, says the resolution seeks to change your anticipated altitude in 20 seconds by 500 ft. That shouldn't take more than about a 5ᴼ pitch change for 20 seconds, without multi-000 ft zooms (Lordy, what if you were in the stack at LGA?) or injured people. Lacking authentic sim experience, I'm curious how the modules are run. TIA & Cheers, IFG PS: Seeker, curious if you have any more detail in that lo-level RA, and how TCAS resolves such conflicts.
  6. Seeker, I thought you'd see through bullsh!t from Ezra Levant. The "mainstream media" has not been saying what he says they're saying. Levant is a libeling a$$hole, and his video is a mixture of untruth and spun deception of percentage graphs. Unless you are interested enough to ask me specifically to argue it out, I'm not wasting the time, because its not a 140-character explanation, but Trump won the turnout battle (just enough to turn the EC, NOT the actual vote BTW). Those disappointing percentages (for the D's) have been covered and discussed pretty accurately and honestly. They are rightfully embarrassed at being caught flat-footed, and unpacking it all pretty openly to understand how. Why are people here accepting the truly biased, consciously deceptive output from these ideological websites? Oh yeah ... liberal media bias etc ... whatever .... IFG Ed. to add - I ain't going to defend Saudi princelings (or Clinton greed), but again Levant chooses his truths. The Saudi Royal Family is even more scared of ISIS/Al Qaida/etc than the US is (if that's possible). Mid-East politics and money-flows are very complex (where did the word Byzantine come from?), but Ezra won't allow details to complicate his simplified narrative (get's in the Obama's-a-Muslim lick, tho'). No lie misleads as well as a half-truth, but if comforts you listen to him, carry on ... I
  7. The future and overseas markets dipped about 5% or so last night, likely can be attributed to a Brexit-ish swoon, but the dynamics here are more complicated, so todays uptick should be no more shocking, particularly in light of the multi-day losing streak prior during Trump's Comey-bump in the polls. There's still a lot of money sloshing around looking for a home, no return in safe havens. Some will see opportunity if Trump manages to regenerate the energy sector (ignoring environmental concerns if one cares at all), and re-deregulates markets (worked last time, didn't it?). One howling irony is listening to investors supposedly welcome new infrastructure spending - Obama tried repeatedly to get that thru' the Congress, to no avail (too much deficit spending they claimed), and he was not adding a huge tax cut. Lying in Wonderland. Anyway, in spite of the commentariat's babbling about "tanking" or "plunging" markets, real or imagined, some perspective: single-day single-digit drops in price, on a small fraction of total equities that actually trade, warrant far less breathless bloviating. Equally, it's just as premature to grant small rises any great import. If nothing else, a Trump administration is an uncertain proposition right now. We'll get a sense of the economics due time. I don't want to understate the outstanding risks, tho'. There are more unpleasant pathways ahead of us than good ones. I'm looking for some reassuring signs, in vain so far, but of course it's very early days. The current normalizing fluff everybody's putting out is worth nothing. Trump will remain the person he always was, we'll just have to wait to see how he plays this when the rubber hits the road. Hoping for the best, IFG
  8. Jaydee - I share your , but I'm not sure that it's your stuff Mo32a wants to suppress. I suspect he's more inclined to wish a pox on all houses? IAC, WRT your lament about the polls further up the thread: There were the same doubts about their accuracy in 2012, in the light of huge Romney rally crowds etc. Re: your theory about not canvassing some cohorts, my understanding is that their data base starts with the voter rolls, so if names are not registered, they can't vote anyway. They've gotten pretty sophisticated, but it's still just math, and the error factors are well-known - and frequently misunderstood and over-estimated. There are very few elections in which the average of polls is not borne out. e.g. Brexit was polled to be very close, and it was! It was the odds-makers and forecasters who thought they knew better that blew it - the very guys who downplayed the polls. But all is not lost for you yet. As I noted on the other thread: when they distill the numbers down to something intuitive, HRC is a 40-yard field goal to win the game in the NFL. Definitely a losable proposition (God forbid ) Cheers, IFG
  9. Well, not answering for DonH, but since I largely share his appraisal, my $0.02: this probably isn't the place for dissecting McLuhan but honestly, UD', DJT has been a very public figure for decades, and very proprietary about his image. His actions, outside of an initial core business in real estate development, provide much to inform about his character, regardless of his words and presentation, the content of which also inform. And who said anything about "beyond redemption"? (As if he'd ever seek or aspire to that IAC). WYSIWYG was supposed to be one of his principal virtues, wasn't it? So the impeachment process may be employed as a vehicle for reversal of a popular election, prior to any opportunities even to allege high crimes and misdemeanors? This from people who claim to revere the US constitution, interpreted as intended by the founders. With any knowledge at all about that history, hypocrisy is laid bare. & It's certainly not a commendable line of argument. Essentially, one side is saying that, if they lose the election, they will prevent the government from functioning, without regard for the voice of the people, so surrender and elect us. The Republicans can imply this threat because they have a gerrymandered lock on the House majority (hmm, rigged systems?). Our Canadian parliamentary system prevents that particular brand of chicanery, but it's still discomforting to see folks here discuss it approvingly. If you're suggesting that relations and trade between Canada and the US are headed for a rough patch either way, probably so. How rough? It may matter who wins; not at all sure there's no difference. IAC, we'll find out in due course. The best odds-makers would give HRC about as much chance as a 40-yard field goal to win in the NFL. Game's not over Cheers, IFG
  10. I'm curious. Assuming you refer to: Your source? From Military.com: .... In a later statement on the incident, Air Force Central Command said that the Russian fighter was escorting a Russian surveillance aircraft and inadvertently flew across the nose of the U.S. aircraft .... (For the entire article) Even Brietbart doesn't seem to support your take: .... The near-miss occurred late on October 17, when a Russian jet that was escorting a larger spy-plane manoeuvered in the vicinity of an American warplane, USAF Lt. Gen Jeff Harrigan said .... Brietbart article Both are datelined October 28. Credible updates since then? Ever ready to learn, what were you referring to? Cheers, IFG
  11. Must be something about B. B. King playing Ottawa, Moon'. I remember when he played in a smaller hall (I'm thinking Lisgar? early seventies, anyway). He and his band were comming up from their previous gig in Peterborough, in a blizzard. They were in different vehicles, and he made it barely on time, they were delayed. On he came with Peter Jermyn & Bob Coulthard from the MRQ. After about an hour, the band came onstage mid-song and smoothly took over. Brilliant memories indeed! Cheers, IFG
  12. More .... David Frum - The Seven Broken Guardrails of Democracy David Frum - The Conservative Case for Voting for Clinton And for those complacently & gladly assuming Trump will lose: Reposting Bluemic's Link From the Other Thread, Trump v. 2.0 The most eloquent and persuasive arguments against handing the White House keys to DJT come not from his nominal opponents, but from the other side of the aisle, i.e. the Party that put him up. Of course those who just want to tip the table over will dismiss them as elite lackeys. If they were more thoughtfully informed, they'd see how reckless and immature such a hasty disregard truly is. This is unprecedented behaviour, in somewhat unprecedented times. We shouldn't sneer at the Yanks', we could well follow them, as they're somewhat following European footsteps, in flirting with charlatans and their phony simplistic bromides. It's three generations since most of the folks in those mature democracies have faced real adversity. There has never been a better time or place to be alive. We got here by muddling through difficulties, maybe with plenty of acrimony, but not losing sight of the things demanding greater loyalty or sacrifice, and with an institutional memory of what real privation meant. Yet many now talk of themselves & their circumstances in ridiculously apocalyptic terms. Real apocalypse has faded from sight in the collective rear-view mirror. Democratic sausage-making is not pretty, even if it does beat all the alternatives. There's not a safety-net, tho', and History has shown that people sometimes take a wrong turn. I hope we don't take such a turn toward authoritarianism. Cheers, IFG
  13. Of course not literally what I meant, UD', tongue was firmly in cheek, but that was the most trivial part of my post. Since you didn't comment on my other suggestions (Comey's added commentary in July enmeshed him in his ill-handled political snarl, & a few of us might be credited for at least aspiring to "innocence"), I'll take it you think Comey's July presser was appropriate and professional, that you do tar us all with your brush, and your reticence indicates low interest in any of that. Fair enough, nothing ventured, nothing gained Cheers, IFG
  14. UD, you're focussed only on the narrow legalistic issues, but there are legitimate and realistic political concerns. Where the law applies, you're no doubt intimidated by the frequent sharing of legal knowledge here, I don't want to terrorize you any further . Let's agree that most of the legal commentary is ... exotic? But there does remain some issues with Mr. Comey's handling of the file. It's not likely that he's engaged in nefarious politicking, tho', just failed butt-covering. There's an aphorism about never attributing to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity (apocryphally attributed to Napoleon), and think it probably applies here, altho' "stupidity" is a little too harsh. Friday's announcement about new emails was not released into a vacuum; it followed a sequence of related events. The original investigation did not yield sufficient evidence to press any charges. Period. Nonetheless, Mr. Comey took it upon himself to publicly editorialize, unfavourably & at some length about the matter beyond his actual task, and his difficulties now flow from that. It was gratuitous and unnecessary, and ironically fed the opprobrium that fell upon him from those who wanted a different result, instead of mitigating it as I think was his intent, keeping alive a matter that might otherwise have faded. I doubt he anticipated the discussion about releasing the info about Russian hacking, OR the resurrection of the emails. He seems to be victim of 1st-stage thinking at each step of the way, and has been repeatedly been blind-sided by new, but predictable developments. I don't give him quite the free pass that you do. As for your final comment, some of us sift through the "reports", such as they are, actually searching forlornly for any credibility on either side. There's a lot of totally irresponsible circulation of crap on these pages from the nether regions of the 'web. Some of us are not persuaded by such bull$#!+ in the slightest, and refrain from the practice ourselves altogether. Doesn't that merit any credit? Cheers, IFG
  15. That aphorism was just one bon mot from Daniel Patrick Moynihan's substantial legacy in pursuit of "reasoned' discussion, Don. And I too was surprized when I learned that Adams was a 'Trumpeter'. I guess, and this has to be true for all of us, that for all the power of reason, we are all somewhat prisoner of other, sometimes greater angels and demons within us (speaking figuratively, of course!) Not quite right on either count, Defcon. I guess I just haven't been clear enough. On the first point, I've been trying repeatedly to say that the danger facing us here comes not from either of the candidates, but from the electorate. Making this point of course examines what candidates are saying, and even speculates on their character, but thru' a prism of the electorate's handling of all that. It's a fine distinction, perhaps, but important. As such, I'm not focussing on any despicabilities I may personally attach to either one, but the willful ignorance of it. I'm worried about the lack of any check or filter, the sense of "no matter what they say or do ...". I'm worried about the rampant traffic in utter falsehood. I'm worried that 'hard times' seems to be an excuse for, even to dignify all that. To me, it's banal that the candidates are flawed (regardless that I believe Trump far, far more so). Voters get what they elect/deserve. I am more concerned than ever before at the atrociously low quality of collective judgement. On the second point, you completely misconstrue my little challenge. Reasoned dialogue requires that weak or invalid supporting arguments be discarded, no matter how much they may resonate with our preconceptions. Making your opponent's case to yourself is a standard debater's exercise for good reasons. The challenge for folks like you, Defcon, was to dissect an argument close to your heart. There's plenty of picking there. As for that earlier, "opposite" challenge (I believe the one about internists treating neurological issues?), I'm loathe to retrace junk from the RW echo-chamber. Pneumonia does not require the attention of a neurologist, which can well await actual evidence of "neurological issues" stronger than the strident TV observations of unbridled partisans. Cheers, IFG