The truth at any cost lowers all other costs — curated by former US spy Robert David Steele.
…military victory is dead. And it was killed by a bunch of cheap stuff.
By ML Cavanaugh
RealClear Defense, September 15, 2016
We live in the cheap war era, where the attacker has the advantage and the violent veto is always possible. Political leaders can speak and say tough stuff, promise ruthless revenge – it doesn’t matter, ultimately, because if you can’t disarm the enemy, you can’t parade the tanks.
Above headline by Phi Beta Iota editors. Below is original headline.
Harvard: Does the University Sell What the Customer Wants?
Consider fat and sugar. The answer is my reaction to “Sugar Industry Secretly Paid for Favorable Harvard Research.” For the moment, let’s assume that this article is spot on.
The write up informed me:
As nutrition debates raged in the 1960s, prominent Harvard nutritionists published two reviews in a top medical journal downplaying the role of sugar in coronary heart disease. Newly unearthed documents reveal what they didn’t say: A sugar industry trade group initiated and paid for the studies, examined drafts, and laid out a clear objective to protect sugar’s reputation in the public eye.
Lousy Backlog? Sell with Interesting Assertions.
If you are struggling to fill the sales pipeline, you will feel some pressure. If you really need to make sales, marketing collateral may be an easy weapon to seize. I read “Examples of False Claims about Self-Service Analytics.” The write up singles out interesting sales assertions and offers them up in a listicle. I loved the write up. I lack the energy to sift through the slices of baloney in my enterprise search files. Therefore, let’s highlight the work the brave person who singled out eight vendors’ marketing statements as containing what the author called “false claims.” Personally I think each of these claims is probably rock solid when viewed from the point of view of the vendors’ legal advisers.
Continue reading “Stephen E. Arnold: Marketing Assertions — Legal Lies?”
Brain cancer replaces leukemia as deadliest cancer for kids, study shows
The new numbers are a result of major advances in leukemia treatment and lack of progress when it comes to brain cancer, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Further to the Phi Beta Iota comments on the mistaken limitation of OSINT to passive monitoring of web sites and such….
Prevalent approaches to countering ‘radicalisation’ ineffective, conceptually flawed
“A lack of research based on primary sources has been one of the major impediments to progress in the field of (counter-) terrorism studies… As numerous leading experts have warned, the consequences of an overreliance on secondary sources of information, such as newspapers, has led to a great amount of theorising based on a perilously small empirical foundation.”
More extracts, 2 cartoons, comment by Robert Steele below.
Continue reading “Antechinus: CIA Killed OSINT at Birth — 80% of “OSINT” Studies are Bullshit”
Harvard study: Political ‘dysfunction' crippling U.S. economy
America’s dysfunctional political system has emerged as the biggest threat to its economic competitiveness, according to a new Harvard Business School study. . . .
The authors polled Harvard Business School alumni on the political reforms they thought were needed. “By far the most common category of suggestion was changing the election process, including steps such as modifying the primary system and shortening elections,” the authors found. Others suggested “limiting campaign contributions from corporations and unions,” “changes to Congressional rules and norms,” and the institution of term limits. Continue reading “Mongoose: Harvard Says Greatest Threat To USA Is Its Own Dysfunctional Political System…”
Instance of the LinkedIn Blue Pencil
Steele says:
Yesterday I was censored by LinkedIn when I tried to post a story [by someone else] on “The Madness of Queen Hillary.” Coming as it does in the aftermath of Google manipulating both search and spam results in favor of Hillary Clinton, Facebook blocking YouTubes from Alex Jones, and Twitter censoring trending results associated with Hillary Clinton’s health, I have realized that the major social media enterprises have become part of a police state where the opinions of we “unredeemable deplorables” are easily censored.
Why I asked myself would LinkedIn censor a member’s essay about a campaign that is dominating the news cycle in just about every form of media I check out? I asked Steele this question, and he writes:
Eric Schmidt is on record as saying that he has the right and the ability to control “hate speech” online. The “digital innovators” in the White House are all committed to Hillary Clinton in part so they can keep their jobs and continue to play with new means of manipulating the information environment. This happened because the White House ignored my 1994 letter calling for major investments in the integrity and security of the cyber domain (and actually allowed NSA to gut what security existed, with the complicity of IT CEOs, for the convenience of our mass surveillance program), and because in the absence of legitimate oversight in the public interest, social media enterprises will trend toward the abuse of their power, much as banks and corporations have in the material world.
