Who moves and why - Musk and Twitter

 Elon Musk tweeted a meme about how the left has moved more to the left, and he has moved more to the right.  

Elon Musk tweets meme about America's political polarization as the left goes farther left.

Well in 2008, the first year in the meme, he was broke - sunk all his money into Tesla.  At the time over 150 million.  Remember 2008 - the world was in a depression, people were scrambling to save capitalism.  His actions were a typical entrepreneur - all in on his vision.  No problem with that - just remember that 90% of startups fail, an no-one hears about them..

In 2012, he says he moved closer to the center while the left kept moving left.  Maybe because they saw the bailout of the big companies, no banker got punished, and yet millions of people lost their homes. Hmmm.

In 2021 he says he is more to the right and the "left" is even more to the left (of course the "left" and "right" are never defined - it seems to be the extreme right and extreme left).  Maybe after 4 years of Trump and the destruction of virtually all they stood for, they dug their heels in - no compromise.  BTW- now he is worth 21 BILLION dollars.  Hmmm again.

""For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally," Musk tweeted Wednesday. "

Why should it upset anyone?  If his goal is to  'authenticate all real humans' on Twitter, then the platform would no longer be left or right, but just a representation of real people.

"If the goal is to ensure that every account is tied to a flesh-and-blood person, the platform will need some way to verify they are real. One possibility is an expansion of Twitter's existing verification program. Currently, to receive a blue check on their accounts, users have to supply a link to an official website that they're affiliated with, an official email address or a government-issued form of identification. Musk could stop short of requiring identification but require that users use their real names."

The problem is even with real people, you could be lying.  One term that seems to be in the news lately is projecting.  That is, accusing someone of something you yourself are guilt of.  In psychology, it used to be an unconscious trait, but now it has ben weaponized like gaslighting.  How will Twitter handle this, or are they expecting the "Wiki" effect to police it?  How does that stop trolls?

Free speech does not mean unlimited speech.  The "free speech" responsibility comes BEFORE it is uttered.  I would say it has to be true (or as true and can be discerned) and put out in a positive manner.  We need a Hippocratic Oath for speech - first do no harm.  

But Twitter's philosophy is not free speech.  it is:

"Twitter is reflective of real conversations happening in the world and that sometimes includes perspectives that may be offensive, controversial, and/or bigoted to others."

The problem is that everyone's opinion is not equally valid.  And to police it at all is a losing cause.  So you need rules BEFORE someone posts, and that usually involves a moderator.  So I give Musk a chance to fix Twitter, he did launch and land a spaceship, but I think he will find that science and physics is easier that human interaction, precisely because it is NOT rocket science.

Are Supreme Court Nominations Political

 

In 2016, then President Obama was trying to nominate a person to the Supreme Court.  He was blocked in Congress. Candidate Trump said he would pick form a list of 21 candidates - all vetted through the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society.  He even said he would nominate a candidate that would overturn Roe vs Wade, not because it is bad law, but because it is what he (Trump) believes in.

The first pick was Neil Gorsuch, one of those on the list.   When Justice Kennedy was to retire, Trump added 5 more to the list (of now 20) and on that was Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.  Some on the original list were certainly not as qualified, but that brings up an interesting question, what makes you qualified?  Is it just that you clerked for an existing justice?  Ivy League education?  Past rulings (if you were in a position for that?) 

What about age - since Supreme Court Judges normally serve into their 70's or more, should we not eliminate anyone under 55 in order to allow them to accumulate more knowledge and wisdom?

If Kavanaugh and Barrett were equal; in qualifications, it made political sense to put Kavanaugh in first, seeing as how this would have been politically appealing when Justice Ginsburg needed to be replaced.

In fact, sometimes you do not know the true ability of someone until thy have been on the court for a few years.  Many people who lauded John Roberts now criticize him, but maybe he has grown in the position an is able to lead the team - which it is - and act as a damper on some justices who might 

Former Preside Trump got to nominate 3 justices (should have been 2 but that is another essay)  but were these the best?  If Kavanagh and Barrett where some of the best, why were they not part of his list of 21, just a year before?  And if Trump had just looked at Conservative nominees, what about Liberal or Libertarian? Or maybe those with no political agenda -  would they not make the best judges?

So this argument about someone is not the best, is a non-starter.  We already know the person may not be the best, as the best person may never get in the mix.

So we end up with a qualified person, as we have learned from the previous nomination of Harriet Miers.  The person being nominated will be questioned on their politics, but not their credentials.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/01/how-the-federalist-society-became-the-de-facto-selector-of-republican-supreme-court-justices.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-abortion-case.html

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/17/politics/trump-supreme-court-list/index.html

Just because it is in quotations -

 Boy - cannot believe over  year since I wrote in this blog.....

First on Fox: Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an "inference" and "narrative" to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia, a filing from Special Counsel John Durham says.

Fox news story  Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia: Durham

Well if you go to the original document

Durham filing of conflict of Interest

When you search this document, you find the words "inference" and "narrative"

However - you do not find the word "infiltrate".  Hmmm....

The fact that it is in "quotations" implies that it IS in the filing.  

Does not seem to be in the original filing either, where a crime is actually stated.

Durham original filing 9/1/2016

The conservative media has ben all over the NYT for their Palin accusations (Corrected, but I believe all corrections should be on the front page), but I wonder if they will print a clarification in this case.

To quote Steve Martin - "Nah....."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edIi6hYpUoQ

The wrong way

What do the destruction during the summer protests, the storming of the Capitol and the Reddit/Gamestop  stock attack have in common?

The current mindset that 2 wrongs make a right.  

Now there have been many clichés for this:

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Payback is a bitch

If it is legal, what can't I do it?

They did it why can't I?

Turnabout is fair play.

But one that comes to MY mind - "The definition of Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results."

If we are to progress as a person, a country, a species; we need to stop repeating the same mistakes.

And how far has it gone?  This is what did it for me:

Justin Speak, 27, an evangelical pastor in California, and his wife, who recently left her job to raise their children, have made $1,700 off GameStop in the past week. Mr. Speak said that so far they had mainly put the money toward a new bed. He described a sense of frustration at how well those in the financial sector have done since the financial crisis of 2008.

“There’s a catharsis to actually making money off their pain a little bit,” he said of his modest earnings from GameStop. His wife put it more bluntly: “Eat the rich.”

‘Dumb Money’ Is on GameStop, and It’s Beating Wall Street at Its Own Game

I cannot find any scripture reading, that could even remotely justify that attitude.

And for those who think they are only hurting the rich, for every hedge fund losing money, I would bet there is a couple about to retire and cash out their 401k.  They might not have the option to wait out a correction.  People have been told for years that forget pensions and IRA's.  Put you money in the stock market.  It will be safe there.  The ironic thing is that you don't fix the problem by blowing up the storage room.

If you are looking for a short history of day trading and the problems it was supposed to solve and what it also caused - try looking at this.

 

Motivation?

 

Change - Why can't we?

 Change is inevitable - The old saying should be modified to say "Nothing is certain except death and taxes - AND change".    If change is inevitable, why do so many people fight it?  If change affects your belief, how do you handle it?  Can you handle it?  Before I get into a specific example, here is what I think are  the 3 main reasons people resist change:

1. Effort
2. Loss
3. Fear

Effort - Change usually requires effort on our part.  We don't like to put out more effort.  Maybe you are happy where we are.  Maybe you are going though some other changes and the effort is piling up.  Maybe you put a lot of effort into the LAST change and need a break.  In any case, change is going to require some effort.  Our goal is to decide how and what type of effort we are going to put into this change.  It could be short term, it could be for the rest of our lives.  And we may need help.

Loss - whenever there is change, there is the potential for loss.  It could be a financial, emotional, time or tradition loss.  Now some change involves gain.  Taking on a  better job for instance.  But there is the uncertainty of losing what we have now.  The NOW is certain, predictable and already accounted for.  Change involves the future, and that brings the potential for loss, even though it might be miniscule in percentage.  Humans have an aversion to loss, probably built into our DNA; as the leaders take the chances, while the group as a whole takes it carefully.

Fear - Fear can be paralyzing - it can keep us from moving at all.  Fear can take several forms, fear of a loss of purpose, loss of identity, loss of long held beliefs or fear that we have the ability to change.  Sometimes, the fear is that the change is so substantial; that our core beliefs might be challenged, and the fear is that we will loose who we are - so we cling to the now and lock off and out any new changes.  In the military, they sometimes have to "break" a person in order to build them up stronger.  To one degree or another, this "breaking" goes on each time we change, .  

There are books on change so I am sure I missed a lot.  These three reasons though, seem to be at the heart of why we do not like and resist change.  Now, what if change is NOT good for you?  What if change is just for change sake?  If you wish to face change, and how you are going to honestly deal with it, maybe you should review the three reasons people resist change and seriously examine what your motivation is.

Post Analysis - The Presidential Race of 2020

 I went back and did a Google Search around the 2016 election looking for the term "stolen election".  The majority of hits coming from Democrats right?  No, the majority were coming from Republicans BEFORE the election, especially by then candidate Trump, about how the election was about to be rigged and stolen from him.

The majority of Democratic complaints involved voter suppression, including the 300,000 people claimed to be stopped from voting in Wisconsin.   In fact people at the time were claiming it was a Republican program to disenfranchise voters.  This program the "Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program" was suspended in 2019.    Hold that thought.

The President claims to be successful.  Well in this case we agree.  He is so polarizing that he actually roused  the biggest turnout in history.  In this sense the Democrats maybe lucked into picking the best person.  By picking Joe Biden, they picked the person that would cause the least amount of controversy.  He was not Black, or Gay, or a Socialist, or anyone that the  Republicans could focus on.  He as "Sleepy Joe" the same way a muscle car that was dressed up as stock would be called a "Sleeper" at the dragstrip.  And while social media was the avenue of  "Conservative" information prior to the 2016 election, it was the same social media along with word of mouth, that spread the anti-Trump meme.  I will apologize if I snoozed many of my Facebook friends, not because of pro-Trump listings, but of the incessant anti-Trump posts.  But this convinced me that Trump had "released the Kraken", the group of voters who might sit at home and lament the election of someone they did not agree with.  The very language that the President used, backfired on him, not just to rouse his base, but to also rouse the opposition.  It was not so much that Joe Biden won, it was that the President lost.  He alienated and insulted so many people that they were tired and just said "Your Fired".

Now, did the Democrats do things better this time?  Did they make sure that people who were shut out from the election vote?  Did the elimination of the "Crosscheck" program bring more voters into the system?  Did they do a better job of making sure that the people had the right credentials?  Did the mail in ballots find a way legally around the blockade that the Republicans set up before? If we could analyze each person we might be able to quantify this.  For now, and after the latest Supreme Court Decision (or lack of a decision), it looks like it will be time to end this battle and prepare for the next one.

Now voting by mail will not go away.  In fact I predict it will increase with out problems.  I believe within 10 years, we will be voting electronically from the safety of our houses, with blockchain security and faster election results than ever before.  There is the chance of reduced anonymity.  That is to be worked out, but no more so than the lawn sign or bumper sticker on your car. Most voting started out as public proclamations, maybe we will go back to that.  But for now what we have is the best system and hats off to the legions of workers who volunteer to keep it that way.

PS - At this time we will not have to deal with this, but if the Texas suit was heard it might have led to the end of the Electoral College.  Yes it is in the Constitution but it has been amended before and will be amended again.  If you are not in a swing state, your vote basically does not count, or has a much lesser value.  If you are in a Democratic State or a Republican state the same applies.  Maybe some day we will find the balance between raw vote and the Electoral College, but not today.

What's the Use?

 I have found arguing with people does not work - their beliefs are so tied with their being that if they let them go they destroy themselves.

Now some beliefs are relatively harmless - like if you are a Patriots fan or believe Ford makes the best trucks, but some are dangerous, like Democrats are going to take away my guns, or that our elections are rigged.

Now I am working on some ideas of my own - egotistical?  Maybe.

Some things we can do:

1. Expand fact challenging (not fact checking) Ask people to show you the facts rather than telling them what you think the facts are.

2. Treat conspiracy theory spreaders like criminals - have a nation wide social media ban - like a no fly list for serial offenders - they are really no different than terrorists of the mind.  This will require a BIG change to how we look at free speech - i.e. you have the right to free speech but I do not have to be an amplifier for you.  Twitter and Facebook are moving in this direction.  Of course if they move to a subscription based service, that eliminates any argument against it. Of course doing away with anonymity will help.  Getting rid of comment sections on news sites will also go a long way to more civil discussion. 

3. Or ditch social media all together - I stopped watching nightly cable shows a long time ago and an enjoying my evenings.  I snooze Facebook friends at the slightest political (not philosophical) post.

4. Teach our children to think - easy with some - tougher for others.  The funny thing is that for the most part - the younger you are, the less you fall for fake news, but as you get older, even kids who grow up with technology start to fall back - so it may be a psychological not an intellectual issue.

5. Stop reading what Google and Facebook send you - start reading about what interests you.  By searching out knowledge for knowledge sake - you will wean yourself of the garbage that is force fed to you.

Of course I must be an optimist to believe any of this can come true.

As Pliny the Elder said (probably not Nelson Mandela)  "It always seems impossible until it is Done".

Seeing into the future

 This was a Letter to the Editor I wrote - It was published November 20 in the Waterbury Republican.

We wish we could see into the future, and science and engineering give us a method to maybe do that. It is called a control feedback loop. One you are very familiar with is the cruise control in your car. You set the speed for 65 mph and if you go faster the cruise control will let off on the accelerator and the car will slow down. If it slows down too much then the cruise control will accelerate and bring the car back to the set speed. There are many other examples, like the air conditioner in your house. Each has its own set point; the equilibrium it tries to maintain.

Humans as a group act like a control feedback loop. One example is the current Covid 19 crisis. At first, infections are low and people go about their normal business. As the virus spreads and more people get infected, people read about it in the paper or see it in the news; or unfortunately they might know someone who has gotten sick or died. They change their attitude and habits. Then the virus stops spreading and the numbers go down. After a while people go back to their old habits and the cycle starts over again; although hopefully, this time they respond quicker to the spike or enough people have adopted habits that keep the spike in check.

The set point of the virus is what we tolerate. For the healthcare industry it cannot be over the capacity to handle the patient load. If healthcare gets overwhelmed then it is no different than setting the cruise control on your car to 70 in a school zone. You will lose control and eventually crash. If this is the critical set point, then all others, economic, political or religious, must adapt to the set point. At some time a vaccine or improved medicine will allow us to return to a different set point. Until then, it pays us to pay attention to the numbers.

First Impressions

 Okay - writing this on Friday night - looks like Joe Biden is going to be the next President.

Now while the pundits  make their comments and all trash the pollsters I will throw in my 2 cents.

It was not a vote for Joe Biden, it was a vote against Donald Trump.  Your Fired!

If not for Covid, Trump probably would have won - maybe.  Biden ran the perfect race - kept his mouth shut, for the most part trashed the other side only on facts, and let the President put his foot in his mouth over and over and over - people grew tired of him.  They changed the channel.  They got what they wanted (tax cut and 3 Supreme Court Justices) and they decided Trump is too high maintenance.  

Now why do I say they did not vote for Biden?  People hate change - they like stability and what they know.  They are like the proverbial frog being boiled; if you change them slowly they don't notice it.  That is how they end up buying $1000 cell phones.   But they don't like sudden change.  That is why even though many conservatives voted for Biden, they also voted for their local Republican representatives.  They did not suddenly turn liberal - they just hated the guy who was running the show.

Now here is the problem.  After the yelling and the suing and the claims of fraud fade into reality, we will end up with a Democratic President, a Republican Senate (but the skin of its teeth) and a Democrat House (by the skin of its teeth).  They will still have to try and solve the trade imbalance intelligently, deal with the fact that the 1% IS killing the middle class, figure out how to handle automation taking people's jobs, understand and try to contain terrorism around the world, put some reigns on runaway technology like genetic engineering and social media (yes - runaway technology) while facing Climate Change and all types of inequality (racial, economic, educational, etc.) just to name a few problems.  In other words there is a lot to be done - change is inevitable.  If you just kick it down the road it just gets bigger and hungrier.  Oh, and did I mention Covid?  Instead of kicking its butt, we kicked it down the road - now we are paying the price.  Don't believe it is easy or that we are done with it soon either.

So if ANYONE thinks they have a mandate - think again.  If we don't realize that we are fighting the same issues and have to work together to solve them...well then we won't just be back where we started, we will be further behind...

Chris

The Showman

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_JF1FCnIOg

Step inside, hello! We've a most amazing show!
You'll enjoy it all we know
Step inside! Step inside!

We've got thrills and shocks, supersonic fighting cocks!
Leave your hammers at the box
Come inside! Come inside!

Roll up! Roll up! Roll up!
See the show!

Left behind the bars, rows of Bishops' heads in jars
And a bomb inside a car
Spectacular! Spectacular!

If you follow me there's a speciality
Some tears for you to see
Misery, misery

Roll up! Roll up! Roll up!
See the show!

Next upon the bill in our House of Vaudeville
We've a stripper in a till
What a thrill! What a thrill!

And not content with that
With our hands behind our backs
We pull Jesus from a hat!
Get into that! Get into that!

Roll up! Roll up! Roll up!
See the show!

Welcome back my friends, to the show that never ends
We're so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside

Songwriters: Greg Lake
Karn Evil 9 lyrics © Chrysalis Music, Music Sales Corp. O/b/o Leadchoice Ltd.

How do we fix this?

 Okay, no one is happy with the state of things in the country, much less the world.  So how do we fix this?

Well the first thing is to identify some of the issues that we can change and then - change them.  I would be boasting if I said I had all the answers, or even could properly identify all of the problems.  But let me take a swipe at it.

I think there are several problems we all can agree on.

1. We do not like the idea of politicians being in office for life.

2. We want everyone to pay a fair share of taxes.

3. We do not trust the Internet and Social Media - or do we?

First - the answer to #1 is term limits.  But how long would it take and would the results be worse than what we have now?

Second - who decides what is fair? How do you measure how you are doing?

Third - I am part of the Internet -this blog IS part of Social Media - should you even trust me?

In the next weeks I will review all these-  one at a time and make some suggestions.  

Let's see if you agree with any or all of them.

ChrisZ

Trolled Again

 Okay, lets look at this::
Goodyear - American owned company - 62,000 employees worldwide
Cooper Tires - American owned company - 9,000 employees worldwide
Firestone Japanese owned company (Bridgestone) - 40,000 employees
BF Goodrich - French owned company (Michelin) - ??? Employees
Uniroyal - French owned company - (Michelin) - 1000 employees
And you want to make America great again but picking on the only large American tire company.
Trolled again Mr President.
oh - by the way

WOODBURN, Ind. (WANE) — (March 2020)

Some 80 full-time jobs will be cut at the BF Goodrich plant in Woodburn, WANE 15 has confirmed.
The change will happen during the second quarter to continue with plans to stabilize the company’s production levels, according to a spokesperson with Michelin North American.

The layoffs have been evaluated over several months, and the company will work with the union to achieve the best result for all employees, WANE 15 was told.

Copyright 2020 Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Like a Virus

The country, indeed the world is going through a change of epic proportions.  A cultural shift that will affect us for generations.  This is not unlike a World War, or the Internet revolution.  Our lives will be changed and some feel helpless in its wake.

Let's look at the virus.  It is small, unseen by the naked eye.  It invades the body without our permission, and once inside affects each person differently.  For some people nothing happens.  It is as if they have a natural immunity to it.  But the immunity may have come from a previous experience to a virus - the body recognizes it and fights it.  Others it affects their lungs, making it impossible to breath.  Still others it affects their sense of smell and taste , so they cannot tell the difference between good and bad food.  Many have fevers, which can lead to disillusions and nightmares.  A few will have a reaction where the body destroys itself trying to fight the virus. Sadly some are affected by blood clots and may have to have operations or sadly limbs amputated.  This particular virus hits the elderly and those with preexisting medical conditions, the weak among us.  In the end, many of us who get the virus will survive, but all will have been affected.  Some day, hopefully soon, we will have a vaccine, which will allow out bodies to recognize the virus and battle it before it gets severe, and then we will be able to get back to normal, although it will not be the same normal.  Our world will have changed, just like it did after 9/11.

Racism is not unlike the virus.  No one is born a racist - the disease has to come from outside our body, but once inside, it takes over.  Some are immune.  No matter what someone says, or does, they are strong enough to see through it and fight it off before it takes hold.  With others it affects them in different ways.  Some it might manifest itself as hatred and violence, like the body fighting itself.  It destroys the person from within and takes massive effort and help from outside to cure it, if it can be cured.  For others it creates fear and ignorance.  These persons do not outwardly show any signs, they are asymptomatic - but they spread the disease without even knowing it.  They also do not see the virus around them; since they cannot experience it.  The cure for them is education and empathy.  Still others get the disease of racism, feel its destructive power and recover from it.  They see how it ruins peoples lives and society and hopefully can now admit the problem and work to solve it.

With the Covid virus, all our lives are affected.  We are quarantined, many stores closed, people have lost jobs and loved ones, we have to wear masks which is uncomfortable and what was normal is now changed.  With the uprising, which seems to be around the world, we are seeing a similar change.  Statues are being torn down, brands are being renamed, stories from history are being rewritten, mostly for the truth.  What was normal has been changed, the comfortable, uncomfortable.  People hate change, but that is what is happening.  All this could have been done already, many have been talked about for years if not decades.  Like the pandemic, it has gotten to the point where we feel like we have to deal with this problem once and for all.   The price for waiting so long is there will be collateral damage, there will be an over reaction.  This is not unlike ignoring a health problem - it will not go away by itself, it will just get worse to the point where a good limb gets cut off, or a body organ it damaged beyond repair.

The sad reality is there will be a vaccine for the Corvid Virus, but not everyone will take it, or maybe it will not work for everyone.  The same will be true for racism.  Many will think that we can eradicate it in one fell swoop, but that will not happen.  It will always be with us as it is based in the sin of pride.  And as long as humans are alive, there will be some who are not able to be cured.  For the rest of us, we will have to continually work to control it - to fight it, to contain it.  It will take a continuous effort or like the virus, it will mutate and come back.  Progress is not something that can be bought and put on a mantle to display.  It is a process where we dedicate part of our energy to fixing the problem.  The good news is that if we all work together, the load will be small.

ChrisZ

Why the Statues have to go.

Imagine you are the son or daughter of an American soldier who fought in WWII.  You are visiting Germany on a holiday and fly into Berlin airport.  There as you enter the airport you are greeted with a large statue of Nazi leader Hermann Göring.  What would your reaction be? (1).  Or if you visited Japan and found them honoring a Kamikaze pilot attacking Pearl Harbor?  You would probably be disgusted and wonder what the people where thinking? (2)

Statues were designed to honor and memorialize a person or event.  Thus we have the statue of the Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima.  Or the Statue of Liberty, in New York Harbor.  Or it might be a religious statue like the Pieta; Mary holding the crucified Christ.  The statue is usually there to give pride, encouragement and memories.  Well what if those memories represent failure, cruelty and hatred.  The toppling of statues is a well known tactic in war to demoralize the enemy.  But sometime is it the enemy - as the toppling of the statue of Stalin,torn down on October 23, 1956 by enraged anti-Soviet crowds during Hungary's October Revolution.

What the statue represents is also important,  It might have been commissioned for one reason, but then takes a life on of its own.  The reason the Civil War Monuments have to come down is practical as well as emotional.  It has already been 75 years since the end of WWII.  It has been 155 years since the end of the Civil War.    Even figuring 25 years between generations - it is over 6 generations since that war ended - why are we still fighting it?  Maybe because it was not about slavery - it was about power.  Now ask 10 historians and you will get different answers - political, economic, moral; but even Lincoln said; if he could save the nation without ending slavery he would.  And he abhorred slavery - maybe not as much as John Brown, but personally he did.

So maybe we keep fighting the Civil War because there was no clear victory.  The slaves were free but for what?  There was little money or economic support - most were free in word only.  It was 100 years later that they were still fighting for equality in housing, education and voting rights.  All the lives that were lost on both sides and we keep fighting, 155 years later  - when does it stop?

So in the goal of reconciliation and the ability to move forward, we need to tear down the statues and declare victory.  Not to dishonor the men, but to erase the memory, like cutting out a cancer.  The history will be taught in schools - not with regret, or boasting.  This was a terrible time in our country.  The Founders, as great men they were, kicked the can down the road when it came to slavery.  Are we strong enough as a country to stop the can and say no more? Here is where it stops; and start to build a new future.  That would make America great and the shining beacon to the world.

(1) This is far from a made up story - there was a memorial to Göring and when it was found out it was taken down.

(2) Japan had a sinilar problem with its "Comfort Women"exhibit.

Too much Regulation or too little?

This was a statement from another forum:

"Over the last 30+ years we have averaged more than 200 pages of new Federal Regulations every calendar day. We don't need more regulations.

What we need are folks with above average intelligence, competency and lack of political agenda to interpret the results."

The last bit I agree with.  I disagree that we need less regulations.  I think it is inevitable that we need more.  Why?  Look what did not exist 30 years ago: (and I am sure I am missing many more)

Credit Default Swaps
Internet Hackers
Autonomous vehicles
Identity theft
E-commerce
True cell phones
Social Networking
Cryptocurrency
3d Printing
CRISPR gene editing
Automation of jobs
E-Commerce
Cyber warfare
Climate change (whether man-made or not)
Globalization
Green Technology
Retirement plans - like all versions of 401Ks
Artificial Intelligence

Now just counting the number of pages is of little use:

“A Congressional Research Service study found that in 2015, less than a third of total pages in the Federal Register were about rules and regulations, and the number of final rule documents published in the Register has declined since the ’70s. When you winnow down to “major” rules, it’s usually less than 100 per year.”

https://www.marketplace.org/2018/01/19/counting-pages-regulations-waste-time-and-paper/

So as the world becomes more sophisticated, as things change, we need rules to reflect this change.  Think of all the rules that did not exist before the automobile - rules about roads, traffic signs, car designs, driver's licenses, and all the bureaucracy that went along with it.

Today we still cannot decide if a web browser is still an essential part of an operating system....

So here are my guidelines for new rules: (and we will need a rule for these guidelines - see how crazy it becomes - I will use rules for laws and regulations)
1. They need to have a purpose that can be understood by the common man - and needs to be stated in the beginning - sort of like the Prime Directive for each rule or change.
2. They need to encompass or replace the existing rules so there is no duplication or conflicts.
3. They need either a sunset or review date - unfortunately this implies growth in government workers, as if there are more rules it takes more people to monitor them - which should be in the rules
4. There should be no unfunded mandates.  All decisions should be economically sound.

"What we need are folks with above average intelligence, competency and lack of political agenda to interpret the results."

This is the challenge - and one of the biggest obstacles is collective selfishness, which will be the subject of my next post.

ChrisZ

Have I learned this too late

Note - Links in this post are for information only and do not imply endorsement.

Sometimes in life you trust too much or don't dig enough.  That is my issue with chemicals we use every day.  I trust that the regulations are studied and enforced in a way that protects people and lets them make the decisions they need to protect themselves.

That is until I listened to a radio broadcast on TCE, a chemical that has been linked to fetal heart defects, and other diseases such as cancer.

TCE (tetrathloroethylene) is a chemical that is used in cleaning and degreasing.   It is at the center of the Camp Lejeune tragedy, where our military families were exposed to toxic drinking water from the 50's through the early 80's.  But it is not just here that there was a problem.  Since this chemical was used by dry cleaners, even in the town of Torrington, where I live, many wells were closed up and changed over to city water due to ground contamination (not just by TCE) from dry cleaning establishments.

How does it affect me and my friends?  I was/am an auto mechanic and racing mechanic.  I use brake cleaning chemicals, some of which might contain TCE or a derivative of this, perthloroethylene.  Now this is found in Chlorinated brake cleaner, which has been used for many years.  Recently, Non-Chlorinated brake cleaner has come on the market.  This does not have TCE in it, in fact Chlorinated brake cleaner is banned for sale in California.  My mistake was believing the only change in the product was the propellant, and not the chemicals itself.

When I started as a mechanic, back in the 70's, brake cleaner was not heard of.  We would wash down brake parts with Safety-Kleen solvent or even gasoline (not that that is probably any better as it had lead in it at the time....)  Brake cleaner first came out in gallon cans that we loaded into pressurized spray bottles; only after I had left the trade full time did the spray cans come into being.

It was a miracle product, where before you had to take something apart and clean it in a tank, now you just hit it with some brake cleaner and you were done.  There was no training or instruction besides the small print on the cans - and we know how good we are about reading those.

The other thing about Chlorinated brake cleaner is that when heated past 315 degrees Celsius (about 600 F)  it can produce a deadly gas - Phosgen - which can seriously hurt or kill you.  Think of the times you were heating a bolt and then hit it with a chemical, like a brake cleaner or something like WD-40, if it was red hot then it was definitely hotter that that.

Now, it is proven that Chlorinated brake cleaner performs better that Non-Chlorinated.  The question is how much better and is the difference worth your health?  That is for you to decide.  For most people, if they use the brake cleaner is a well ventilated area, and use proper protection like gloves, then you have minimized the risk.  However, that goes for ANY chemical that is man made.

For those who are using this product in a commercial setting I urge you to look at the information and either change what you are using or put in place safeguards and train for you and your employees.  For the hobbyist the same advise holds.

Now the previous administration was about to strictly regulate this chemical as California has done.  The current administration is rolling back regulations, specifically TCE.

Many chemicals have improved our lives, and to not balance the benefits vs the side effects would be foolish.  But we should demand transparency from our government and the manufacturers of these chemicals.

ChrisZ

Gaslight #1 - Roger Stone

The current level of gaslighting - trying to convince someone that a truth is false and a falsehood is true, has reached a point where someone needs to document it.  I decided there are personally, several ways to handle it.
First, I could ignore it - but I would not sleep at night.
Second, I could write letter to the newspapers and go out in public - maybe someday
Third - I could research and document the truth and let others decide.

For now I will do the third.

Roger Stone is no angel.  Past history is not supposed to influence a trial, but when he has a history of doing the very thing he is accused of - well I cannot see how it can't.

Some things to start out with:
1. No one denies the DNC was hacked.  The question was who did it.  The Mueller Report points to the Russians.  You can do your own research on this one.
2. No one denies John Podesta's email was phished, and that he inadvertently  was taken advantage of.  Again, you can find more information here.
3. This information was leaked to WikiLeaks

Note: I use Wikipedia for reference just the same as people used to use the Encyclopedia Britannica.  If you have a question, feel free to look at their source documentation, or search for your own.  Many times I have already looked at original documents and found that Wikipedia summarizes it.

4. The information from WikiLeaks was released in apparent coordination with negative releases about then candidate Trump, in what appears is an attempt to offset the negative release.

5. Roger Stone claimed to several people (Like Steve Bannon, Rick Gates (partner of Paul Manafort) and Randy Credico, that he knew when the leaks would be occurring.

6. Roger Stone threated Randy Credico if he cooperated with the government.

7. Stone was found guilty an the prosecutors recommended jail time based on Federal Sentencing Guidelines.  These are just a suggestion and the judge is a final arbiter of the actual sentence.

8. There is appeal process to very trial up to the Supreme Court.

9. The Attorney General has the ability to review recommenced sentences.

The problem in this case is that the President seems to have gotten involved AFTER the recommended sentence got out.  Then the Attorney General stepped in.  This gives the appearance of Presidential influence.

Now there are still a lot of questions:
1. Did Roger Stone REALLY have access to Wikileaks?
2. Was there a direct connection between the Trump campaign and the release of information - or was it just a happy coincidence.
3. Was the recommended sentence discussed and approved or did the prosecutors work on their own.

Finally -There is the question about the truthfulness of the leaked emails.  If they were not true, so many people would not have apologized and/or resigned.  There is some question about some emails being tampered with.  I am not making any statement on this aspect.  I am just sticking to the facts in the Roger Stone trial.

2/15/2020

Update - Mixed up John Podesta and Leon Panetta - been corrected - cmz

My speech if I was on the floor of the house

Thank you Madam Speaker. 

I have heard my Honored Colleagues say over and over, that we are trying to impeach a Duly Elected I hope he is duly elected - or else we are impeaching the wrong man.

When then candidate Trump was running for office, he used words that were reckless, inciteful, sometimes even harmful. Sometimes they are effective in political battles. However, once elected, most Presidents put behind those words for ones of honesty, inclusion and compassion, with the understanding that they are now President of the entire United States, not just one political group or party. President Trump has not. You can be a rebel, an outsider, and accomplish your goals, without throwing out the Constitution. He took an oath "will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." But he slipped up. He let his personal needs outweigh the needs of the many. We are not voting on impeachment because he is Conservative or Republican. We do because we took an oath “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Responsibility Part 1

In the 60-'s, you could not grow up without hearing the jingle "Don't cross the street in the middle of the block".  Here is a revision as I cannot find an original.  Here is another PSA with the same theme.

The concept was that the pedestrian had a responsibility to be sure THEY kept themselves safe.

Today people ASSUME that because there is a crosswalk or because there is a sign that says yield to pedestrians  that they are absolved of any responsibility.

Combine this with people walking and driving with cell phones and is it no wonder pedestrian accidents are up?

Responsibility is a two way street (pun intended) .  Too many people say "But I had the right of way..".   To be responsible means more than believing you are right - it involves accepting that sometimes other people might be wrong.

ChrisZ

About that Ukraine Transcript

After reading the "Transcript" about President Trump's call to the Ukraine President, I have three thoughts:

1. That President Trump edited the transcript (which is admittedly not word for word) in order to satisfy his ego.

2. President Zelensky is the biggest suck up in history, or

3. President Zelensky, as a comedian, is having fun with our President.

My feeling it is between 1 and 2.

It would not surprise me that when we find (if we find) the original VR file of the conversation, we find that the Ukrainian President was a little less enthusiastic and also less sure of his answers.

Time will tell if I am right.

Trump is not a racist - he is a Troll

There has been a lot of speculation if Trump is a racist.  I don't know for sure, but he is reveling in the coverage he is getting in the media.  That is his goal, to get people stirred up on both sides so they don't deal with the real issues.  They spend so much time talking about what he said that they do not see what he is doing - classical magician - misdirection.

According to Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,^[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses^[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,^[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

Well Trump's Tweets certainly fit the description.

The question is, what do you do about it?  I thought the best thing was to call him out, line by line and show the falsehoods.  The problem is after over 10,000 false statements, there is too much time wasted making corrections.

So here is what I think the media should do - take a page out of Seinfeld, just say when quoting the President for example: He said "Yada, Yada, Yada." Because nothing he seems to say has any value whatsoever - so why give him attention?  He is just like a toddler throwing a tantrum.

The most important rule - don't feed trolls!

Won't get fooled again

    Once again the American population has been fooled.  The headlines following the release of the Muller report should have been.  "Proven that Russia interferes in our election process by manipulating social media.  President duped into thinking he has a mandate." but instead the headlines read "No Collusion".  Order # 3015-2017 was titled "Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference with the 2016 Presidential Election and Related Matters."  Robert Mueller was charged to investigate that plus any links between the Russian government and any individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.  Implicit in that is the President, but not explicit.  Some people related to the president were convicted of crimes, mostly lying to investigators.  But why would you lie if you did nothing wrong?  I think that is the most puzzling question.  Could the plot be so Machiavellian as to deliberately obstruct justice knowing that obstruction is hard to prove in the absence of a crime?  I get a headache just thinking about it. 

    As I wrote over two years ago, I thought there was no direct conspiracy to collude, but there was a lot of jumping on the bandwagon of false statements, hyperbole and innuendo.  There are many people who want their name cleared, but the only way to do that is to release the entire report.  My belief is that will not happen soon without selective releases of information favorable to those chosen, or unfavorable to those not.  I predict if this course is followed, then Robert Mueller will be called before Congress and then all h*ll will break loose - if he is allowed to talk.  Remember there are still ongoing investigations that he was involved with and that may not allow him to speak freely.  Hmmmm. 

    As many people are advising the President - it would be better to take your victory lap, hollow as it is, and then let it die down and go away.  But like a scab, he will pick at it until it starts bleeding again.  The American people have already gone back to reading about the Kardashians,   Justin Beiber and their Facebook posts; which means in a year or so we will be back to the same place we were 4 years ago...

Where have I heard this before?

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump threatened Sunday to push the government into a shutdown ahead of the coming spending deadline in September if Congress does not fund his border wall and change the nation's immigration laws.  CNN   7/29/2018

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that a government shutdown “could happen” and blamed Democrats for the looming threat, claiming “they want to have illegal immigrants pouring into the country, bringing with them crime."
NBC 12/6/2017

PHOENIX — President Trump on Tuesday threatened to shut down the government over border wall funding, said the North American Free Trade Agreement is likely to be terminated and signaled that he was prepared to pardon former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is anathema to the Latino community. Washington Post 8/23/2017

Looming above Washington as Congress and the White House attempt to avert a funding shutdown in only five days’ time, Donald Trump’s central campaign promise to build a wall on the Mexican border threatens to bring the US government to a halt this week in a national display of dysfunction.  The Guardian 4/23/2017

Okay - why did he not shut it down when he controlled both houses of Congress?  Why did he wait until the Democrats controlled the House?  Nah - could not be politics...

How quickly they forget

Representative Mark Meadows is upset that the Democrats cannot even come up with 5 billion dollars for President Trump's "wall".

He says this is just a small number.  Maybe he forgets the 1.5 TRILLION that the Republicans gave to the wealthy in the form of tax breaks.

Do you think if they had not squandered that money they may have been able to find the money for the wall?

Mis-Simplification

People who deny climate change often look to headlines for their ammunition:

THE PLANET NOW HAS MORE TREES THAN IT DID 35 YEARS AGO

The world is getting greener. Why does no one want to know?

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

Conservative web site used this information to claim that we have nothing to fear from "climate change" and that getting warmer is good for our planet.

I call this mis-simplification of the information.  They take a bit of information, out of context, present it with no backing data and draw a conclusion from it.

For example - the planet has more trees than it did 35 years ago.  Okay - some questions:
1. Was there a reason why 35 years ago we had a dearth of trees?
2. Are the trees today equal to trees prior to 35 years ago.
3. What about 100 years ago?
4. If there are more trees - are they the same trees?
5. What does more trees mean exactly?

Even in the case of the second headline, the author of the article (A) admits that the author of the study (B) he cites,  has told A to stop misquoting B!

So how do you identify mis-simplification?

1. The information comes from headlines, not a careful reading of the article
2. There information is too specific ("35 years")
3. The information is too logical - so obvious that it is hard to contradict.

Mis-simplification might is a major part of "fake news" and is being used to distract people from real issues and critical thinking.

How we convince people to recognize this?  We have to them to question their own biases.  That is a much more difficult problem.

Supreme Agony

In watching the circus which is the hearings for Supreme Court Nominee Kavanaugh, the following thought struck me.  For all those defending Judge Kavanaugh, with 100% certainty and how unfairly he is being treated, what about Bill Cosby?  What about all the priests and bishops of the Catholic Church who were accused and convicted of abuse.  What about the Hollywood producers and stars who ended up being guilty? 

We are going through a period in time where past sins are being dug up and used against people.  We have not yet drawn the line between what is fair and sensible and what is over the top.  Certainly what was done as a teenager is different than something done as an adult.  Certainly people can change and correct their faults.  As a Catholic, redemption is the key part of our beliefs.  However, redemption has a price. Honest admission of failings, expressing contrition, and leading a better life after.  I get the feeling Judge Kavanaugh has done the last one, not sure about the first two.

How come come nobody thought of this?

There is much talk about who is the "anonymous" writer in the NYT op ed.

What about is this is a compilation of many people?

The "author" does say "we" so might that also mean that several people contributed to it?

That way all could say they did not write (the entire) it, and not implicate any one other person.

Hmmm.

UPDATE - 3 days after this someone else had the same thought - Steve Bannon -not sure I want to be in that company....

Mark Twain and the new truth

It is alleged that Mark Twain said "A lie goes around the world before the truth even gets its pants on".

Whether he did or did not, he was credited with saying it.

Well I have come up with my own saying and hope to be a famous as he is.

"TRUTH FINDS ITS SEAT AT THE 50 YARD LINE."

The damage is done

Update 2/17/2018 - From what I have found out, Carter Page's surveillance started in October 2016.  It was renewed 3 times for 3 months each so unless it was renewed unknown to us, the surveillance ended in October 2017.  So if he was not currently under surveillance when the memo came out, they would claim that no unmasking took place.  I still wonder if finding out anyone was under surveillance so close to the ending of the surveillance was damaging, but technically, it is not unmasking.

One thing that has not been addressed with the release of the "Carter Page" memo, is that in unmasking Carter Page as the person who was being surveilled, this ended any information that was forthcoming from the surveillance.  Now, it might be that the information was already winding down, or that his identification was out there to the point that the information being gathered was not longer trustworthy; in fact could have been already been purposely misleading.  The fact is, now that Carter Page has been "unmasked", no more information will be coming from this investigation.

One year down

Okay,

Here is my quick review of the President Trump's first year in office.

1. Supreme Court Nominee - Here the President really owes a debt of gratitude to Mitch McConnell.  If McConnell did not take the risk of delaying the nomination of President Obama's nominee (remember Garland?), then there would be no nomination to make.
2. Economy - like it our not, 2017 was still President Obama's.  The Dow came from almost nothing (6400 in 2009), to end up at 19,887 in 2017.  It is just crossed 25000 as I write this, but my opinion is that it is overvalued and due for a correction.  Will companies buy back stock keep it high?  Tune in during 2018.
3. Jobs - for 2017, we see the same problem as the last 8 years - jobs that are created are either highly skilled or minimum wage and not enough workers to fill the first scenario.  With the college bubble about to bust (a correction in tuition), I think companies should spend some of their saved tax money, not to invest in machinery, but to invest in training centers for the workers they need.
4. I do not see any problem with controlling immigration and protecting our borders.  The "my way or the highway" attitude hurts more than helps.  The Republicans know they need to turn many non-citizens into good taxpaying citizens, but after demonizing them for so long,  how do they get to that point?  DACA will be the first turning point.
5. Foreign Policy.  The President has some good people who are being compromised by the 3am Tweets and other outbursts.  Then you wonder how many good people are being forced to say things they don't want to.  An example is Nikki Haley's "we are taking names" comments at the UN.  If the administration does not have the courage of their convictions to take some criticism, you wonder if they are right.  The "It is my ball and if you don't play by my rules I am going home" is a childish attitude.

And that is all I will comment on.  Happy New Year

ChrisZ

All over but he shouting

After living through this play twice before, I seem to know how it ends.

At first there are a lot of happy people who have maybe $20.00 more dollars in their pockets each week, but then after a few years they realize that the creep in fees, local taxes,  increases in cable bills and cell phone plans, end up costing much more. 

Then the retirement plans get cut, the roads get worse and it costs even more to get an education.  Eventually, people realize it was a stupid idea, and make steps to fix it.

Just when it is starting to work, people get greedy again and are sold anotehr bill of goods. 

Then the cycle starts again....

All we have to fear is fear itself

What drives people?  I am proposing that people are all driven by two opposite emotions: Pride and Fear.

Pride, or Ego, does not allow us to be wrong - it does not allow us to be objective.  It makes us deny evidence.  It gives us privilege, defined by us.

Fear is the opposite, but with the same effect - it shapes our beliefs and does not allow us to accept things that force us to change - we are afraid of change because it means we have to have put an effort into meeting this change - at our core, we do not like change.

The true response is humility, the desire to search for truth, even it it does not fit with our preconceived notions.  This means changing your beliefs when presented with evidence to the contrary.

We will never be able to completely take emotion out of our actions, nor be able to understand everything put before us. We are capable of making informed decisions, and the more people who make informed decisions, the more possible the the group decision will be correct.

What a 180 - Makes my head spin....

Today President Beamed on how he was right and the election was rigged.

Except - he was not referring to the Democratic Primary - he was referring to the General Election:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/21/donald-trump-fact-check-rigged-election-voter

‘Rigged election’

“The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary – but also at many polling places – SAD.” – 16 October, Twitter

“Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naïve!” – 17 October, Twitter

“So many cities are corrupt and voter fraud is very, very common.” – 17 October, Green Bay, Wisconsin

Do people have such short memories that they are this easily fooled?

The most $%$#@ I have heard - today

Steve Forbes was on a panel show on Fox.  the panel was of 4 men and 2 women - all but one of the panel (a man) was solidly in the Trump camp.

A the end of the segment, and at a point where no one could respond - Steve Forbes let out with this winner "I should not have to buy an insurance policy that covers pregnancy."  I am surprised that the women on the panel did not jump out of their seats and attack him.  What a %^%$# statement.  Does he not understand how insurance works?  Did he not have children himself?  Does he not have a mother? Should the women not have to pay into a policy that covers prostate exams? Should middle age people not have to pay into a policy that covers Alzheimers? 

The ACA tried to level the playing field but stating the minimum coverage that treats us all like individual human beings.  We band together as a society to provide health care for everyone.  The ambulance driver does not ask for your insurance card in an accident.  The emergency room doctor does not ask if his services are covered by your plan.  Do you want to get to the point where the police do not come to your house because you opted out of burglar protection on your taxes?

When we think about what these people are saying, we realize that we are being sold down the river by people who just wish to line their pockets.

Chris

Tom Price resigns from post - mirrors requested

I don't need to write - just to report:

Under pressure from Trump, Price resigns as health secretary over private plane uproar.

"I certainly don't like the optics," Trump told reporters as he headed for the presidential helicopter Marine One, en route to a weekend stay at his golf club in New Jersey. "I'm not happy, I can tell you that. I'm not happy."

Can someone please buy the President a mirror?

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=20322092#editor/target=post;postID=738009036454706782

The Next Great Bubble

Saturday, February 21, 2009
Chris's Words of Wisdom (WOW)
“This country will collapse economically, when the government cannot pay for the seemingly reasonable demands of the people .”

ChrisZ


I wrote this over 8 years ago - the next bubble will be the government bubble - what we are seeing this year in CT, IL and many other states.

My claim is that the state budgets are not allowed to expand and CONTRACT, like they do in normal business.  This is why government jobs always have to lag behind jobs in private industry.  For example:

Geno Auriemma is a great coach, but he should not be making 2 million dollars a year at UCONN.  His salary should have been capped at around $500,000. "Then he would have left UCONN!"  Right, and someone would have taken his place.  "But we would have not won all those championships!" Maybe, maybe not; but winning championships just led to more spending and increased taxes.

Teachers salaries and pensions should be phased out and moved to IRA's.  Current teachers with pensions should have them adjusted to current economic conditions.  No one group should be guaranteed isolation from the ups and downs of the economy and still be paid more than the average worker with the same skills.

Companies who lay off people because it is cheaper to deploy robots and pay unemployment, should be taxed extra for replacing people in the first place.  Technology is driving the economy and making a small group of people wealthier, with out any concern for the collateral damage in their wake.  You cannot claim protection against third world competitors while making record profits....

I give these as examples - not to pick on any person or group - every person is looking out for their own good.  Nothing wrong with that unless they look at the world as a unlimited salad bar.  The world is closer to a zero sum game, than an win/win or infinite sum game.

ChrisZ



 

Ego or not Ego

To be a president you have to have an ego.  What motivates it is another story.  Here are the presidents I remember in my lifetime:

Kennedy: Altruistic - driven by family pressure to be great
Johnson: Driven by fate - did not like Kennedy but felt he had to continue his work
Nixon: Driven by losses and a bit narcissistic - will hang on til last second
Ford: Not enough ego - fate put him there
Carter: A nice guy who really  thought niceness could win
Reagan: Another altruistic guy who I believe really thought he knew best
Bush 1: His turn - not egotistical enough
Clinton: A wheeler dealer - narcissistic but practical (knew when to fold them)
Bush 2: a bit of a puppet of Cheney and the GOP - toward the end was finding his swagger.
Obama: the chosen one - altruistic - the professor

Before we come to Trump

H Clinton: My turn -I worked and slaved my but off- put up with crap and should be rewarded.  Being first woman she would want to leave a legacy though.

Donald Trump - I am the best - but unlike Mohammed Ali -more talk than results - golden boy with opportunistic tendencies - everything revolves around me - willing to throw anyone under the bus if it makes him look good.   Not sure he really cares about America - just that he is best for America no matter what. a Realty TV show in the White House.

That is why I did not vote for him - not that Hillary was much better - but being the first woman would have forced her to be a better president.

Trump does not care - except about himself.

Scoutworthy

President Trump

A Scout is:

Trustworthy,         20%
Loyal,                   20%
Helpful,                40%
Friendly,               30%
Courteous,            20%
Kind,                    20%
Obedient,             10%
Cheerful,              20%
Thrifty,                 15%
Brave,                   10%
Clean,                   10%
and Reverent.       20%

Not much of a Scout

Predictions and Hindsight

There is a lot of speculation on if the Russians "stole" the election for Trump.  I will jump in and give you my thinking and let's see if it turns out to be true.

First we start with the fact that then businessman Donald Trump is an astute student of humanity.  His entire life has been that of exaggeration, boasting, confronting and intimidating.  He knew going into the primary that he could not best the other candidates on political knowledge and world affairs so he did not even try.  He played right to people's fears, anxiety and selfishness.  His Twitter account and use of right-wing media such as Fox (even when it seemed to be against him he was still using it for his advantage.  No conspiracy theory was off the table, no claim too outlandish, no correction unchallenged by turning back on the accuser.

Once he became the Republican candidate, people thought he would become more mature, even headed, and maybe even calm.  That did not work - enter Kellyanne Conway.  As per his previous persona, he doubled down with items like Hillary Clinton should be locked up, President Obama started ISIS, and that the election was already rigged against him.

Then a curious thing happened.  Social media became the method by which many people got their information.  Why read a newspaper when the news comes right to your phone.  Why search Google when your friends are all sending you news on Facebook.  Twitter allowed people to send rumors around the world before Politifact or any other fact-checking organization could respond.

People tend to believe what they want to hear and when they are bombarded by the same thing over and over and it becomes the truth - even if there is no shred of evidence.

Now enter the Russians.  I do not know their reason,  Maybe President Putin was mad at Hillary, maybe he wanted to help Trump, maybe he just wanted to mess with our minds.  Hacking the Democrats provided no information that would last more than a 24 hour news cycle.  Hacking the election machines was too daunting as it would only affect a small percentage of the votes.  So they hopped on the Trump bandwagon and started flooding social media with fake stories and unsubstantiated claims.  The fact that 100% of these were anti-Hillary just fueled the fire.

Now we have a perfect storm of two entities trying the same tactics and feeding off each other, and perhaps there was no direct collusion, just the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  Hillary Clinton was too slow or incapable of taking the fight back as she would always be firing from behind.  Even the statement that the Russians were interfering, normally a statement that would infuriate any American, was not looked as just another feeble attempt to change the focus from Clinton's "crimes".

So we had the perfect storm. One that fooled the pundits and the polls.  One that gave now President Trump the thought he had a mandate that he did not have.  Now that he is in office, he is finding that the real world in Washington does not work like the campaign trail.

The silver lining in this debacle?  If, and I believe it will be, it is shown that the Russians did play a part in upsetting our election process, people will come to the realization that they cannot blindly believe anything they hear.  They will be come the ultimate cynics.  This will be the beginning of a new era where people actually think and research what they hear.

Well I can hope.

Is it the method or the results?

When you were in school, you not only got credit for the right answer, but for "showing your work" which was to make sure that you did not just guess or cheat.

Both were important but in the end, if you showed you knew how to get the right answer, but did not get the right answer, you really did not know how to get it - did you?  Either that or you made a stupid mistake.  (My hand is up for that - a painful lesson.)

Now to today.  Let's start by establishing a truth.  A "leak" must be true by definition.  You cannot leak something that is not true - it is just something that is made up.  I cannot leak that President Trump is really 5 foot 5 inches tall, no matter how seriously or how widely published it is.

So to Representative Trey Gowdy.  Here is what he said in response to Senator Charles Schumer's comment that House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, be removed from that position. Note, the details of the events are not essential to the point I am going to make.

"I wish Senator Schumer and some of the other Democrats would be interested in the authenticity and reliability of the underlying data [rather than] the means by which it was acquired," Gowdy said.

Now, Let us go back a few weeks to when Rep Gowdy was asking FBI Director James Comey about if the leak on former national security adviser Michael Flynn was being investigated.

Gowdy asked Comey to also assure the American people that the FBI is investigating the leak which led to the resignation of Trump's national security adviser Michael Flynn over communications with the Russian ambassador.

"I can't," Comey responded. "But I hope people watching know how seriously we take leaks of classified information. But I don't want to confirm it by saying we're investigating it. I'm sorry I have to draw that line, I just think that's the right way to be."

Gowdy shook his head in response. He said he wouldn't argue, but that he and Comey agree the release of classified information is "most definitely" a crime.

He then asked Comey to "seek authority from whomever you need to seek authority from" to assure the American people that the leak is being investigated.

Okay - which one is it - in the first case the that fact but not the method is important, in the second, the method and not the fact is more important????

Hmmmmm.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/27/trey-gowdy-chuck-schumer-devin-nunes-intelligence-wiretap-info-white-house

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/20/gowdy-presses-comey-whether-flynn-leak-will-be-investigated

The Technique of Diminishing Exaggerations

This was Charles Krauthammer on Fox News Network 3/22/2017

“There appears to have been, for sure, um, illegal, if not illegal improper, unmasking of Americans,” the conservative pundit added. “We know that’s so because of the Flynn the unmasking.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/23/krauthammer-hesitates-to-say-nunes-revelations-vindicate-trump-we-are-in-the-dark-video/#ixzz4cAHBApqd

I have corrected the quote in the bold section, to better represent what Charles said and to give some inflection to this.  

In my mind, this is the Rush Limbaugh technique of Diminishing Exaggeration.

This usually goes like this:

1. Everybody is doing it
2. Most people are doing it
3. Many people are doing it
4. I heard about a guy who did it.

Look at his statements

1. There appears to have been,
2. for sure
3. illegal
4. if not illegal, improper

So he starts out by saying that there is an appearance.
Then he says it is for sure (definite)
Then he says it is illegal,
then he says it may not be illegal but improper.

A fair statement should have been:

There appears to be improper unmasking of American citizens

We do not have enough information to go beyond that.

But the words that will be picked up by people who have a bias are:

“There appears to have been, for sure, um, illegal, if not illegal improper, unmasking of Americans,” the conservative pundit added. “We know that’s so because of the Flynn the unmasking.”

Hmmmmm....

"All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Paul Simon from his song "The Boxer"

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/p/paulsimon390928.html