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.
Sunday, June 14, 2020
Thursday, May 21, 2020
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
"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
Sunday, March 01, 2020
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
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
Saturday, February 15, 2020
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
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
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
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.”
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.”
Sunday, November 10, 2019
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
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
Saturday, September 28, 2019
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.
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.
Saturday, July 27, 2019
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!
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!
Thursday, March 28, 2019
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...
Sunday, January 13, 2019
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...
Sunday, December 23, 2018
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?
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?
Saturday, December 22, 2018
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.
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.
Sunday, September 30, 2018
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.
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.
Saturday, September 08, 2018
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....
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....
Saturday, September 01, 2018
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."
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."
Sunday, February 04, 2018
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 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.
Saturday, January 06, 2018
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
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
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
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....
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....
Saturday, December 09, 2017
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.
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.
Friday, November 03, 2017
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)