DONKEYS UNITE: BRAY

No deal Brexit = Trump deal

For those of you not Anglophile, not Macroeconomic, non-International Foreign Relations types, too frustrated with the current governing political party, or exasperated by all the endless anti-human drama, let me carefully and simply explain what we have just seen in the United Kingdom:

Russia, international power elites and domestic corrupt forces all decided and colluded to accept Moscow’s offer of weaponizing our democracies against the interest of the proletariat majority for which they were best designed.  

The British political scene, after Trump’s false election, left to a hardworking female Minister, Teresa May, a need to attempt to lead the shambolic powers that forced Trump and Brexit on our democracies.

The hamstring that these non-native forces created have deadlocked both nations in socio-political turmoil ever since.  Be clear: Russia loves it!

This left May unable to effectively deal with an impossible situation of panic negotiating a deal for which there was no true mandate or very real will politically.

Rather than Tory’s or Republican’s recognizing a national threat, and responsibly handing power back to the People for further instructions; the selfish principle of absolute power corrupting absolutely has then shown the elected powers the rest of the way, probably just as the Communists designed this anti-democratic process.

May’s dithering, premised upon missing actual national zeitgeist, brought a bad deal that UK government roundly rejected.  If your facts or hypothesis is wrong, then you don’t have a viable theory.  Russia has planted billions if not trillions of misinformations seeds to sprout confusion everywhere.

BREXIT, the British Exit from the very complicated and carefully constructed EU, was a rush job. Logically, if the British people voted on a majority referendum to undue five generations of hard work, blood, sweat, tears and literally world war(s), then it would be logical that their government returns to the people with a full recommendation to implement that directive.  So, in democracy, throwing it to the people, there would have automatically been another vote once Brexit won, and May had a complete process defined, and accepted by Parliament.

But that’s not what happened at all, and that is why Russia loves it.  They tasked a government   with no initiative, without natural logic or rhetoric, to wreck a process that one could argue has been ongoing in Europe since Charlemagne (9^thcentury CE). 

BREXIT is an impossible task, with unreasonable expectations, and sponsored by oligarchic ideas coming from foreign influence about what is best for our domestic citizenry.  It is time to BRAY:

            BRitish stAY

That is also the sound a Donkey makes, and so by now Americans, who would prefer a Democrat, even if they themselves are not a registered Democrat, also are probably ready by now to bray a “Hee-Haw.”

‘Take that Napoleon,’ the Russian counter intelligence officer most possibly said probably hoping we elect even more incompetents.  It’s understandable.

It isn’t that citizens were not expressing themselves, or voting their minds, three years ago, rather that at the margins, an old Soviet program designed to destroy any enemy socio-political system during warfare, was redesigned and implemented in the New Russia against adversaries, if not enemies.

Russia has shown: You only needed to trick about 2% of the populous from democratic nations, in this case either USA or UK population in 2016, and opposite to what Lincoln observed, “you can then fool most of the people.”

And the Communist weaponized democracy plan (from the earnest Cold War around the 60’s & 70’s probably) worked!

Right to Work

So why are our citizens (and the power elites) accepting this Faustian bargain?

One thought is that the “1%” are setting up systemized and semi-permanent destruction of labor, working poor, and the disenfranchised. 

In 2013, I worked in the Bakaan in ND as a back-office manager for a construction company. North Dakota and the state I moved to and have now lived in for five years non-stop, Colorado, have “right to work” laws.

Let’s be clear: This is an Orwellian title.

I eventually sorted out the accounts (receivable / payable) for this company with ~$50MM annual payroll. Right as things began to line up, I was terminated from my department (I was 43 then) by the twenty-something, who had been running the department, my Supervisor, and for no reason given was dismissed.

Without any further information, these last years, I deduced that ‘right to work,’ actually means the right to be fired by the inefficient, corrupt or reckless Supervisor, who you may discover their poor work that will fire them from company, against whom you may actually have more experience, skill, and right to be retained over as the good worker in the Company.  However, under this arrangement, your company has the right to be played by a corrupt actor, and you as a worker have the right to be kept in the dark, permanently, so as to be even further played.

So, really, it’s the right to be randomly fired for no reason without any documentation.  This helps cronyism, corruption, dishonesty, illegality, and general poor management.

Not what you want in the Annual Report of your publicly traded company, is it?  But for mid-sized non-publics this improves their profits, even if it disimproves their quality and business model.

This feature of NO-DEAL BREXIT, preferred by PM Johnson, et. al., and situation in our “Red State” America, is really the right for employers to destroy the labor market in any state where such a priority supposedly exists.  Hence paying lower overall wages in exchange for poorer quality work.

WWII Triumvirate and the Naughty piece of paper

At the Yalta Conference, 1945, Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt had the situation at hand, and had to agree to work together to put an end to full-fledged international warfare. For what?Y

So, what you don’t like Hitler, or Nazis, or whatever…. What do we get for helping?

Churchill referred to a ‘naughty small piece of paper’ the three had secretly negotiated, wasn’t declassified until the 80’s.  It gave Russia everything in Europe East of West Germany.  

Roosevelt was satisfied with USA mandatory financial opportunism and participation in rebuilding (Marshall Plan), Spanish claims from victory in 1915 Spanish-American war, and general control of Atlantic/Pacific dominance provided by ‘our’ Panama Canal.

Churchill and UK were given command of everything in Europe West of East Germany.

1960’s – 80’s European Common Market harmonization (also last time wages grew in USA)

As a youth studying WWII, it was amazing to behold the European Common Market, which took decades to coordinate.  

And yet with a simple majority, of less than a majority of the entirety of the UK voters, deciding to trash seventy pus years of careful multilateral coordination, put all that effort in the rubbish bin of history?

In the USA, wages in terms of real inflation have not moved significantly since Regan.

90’s post Communism Unilateralism

The Berlin Wall fell, precisely because the Soviet Union had absolutely lost its mandate from the people (that Communism aspires to represent the People better than any other).

Yet, Berlin, Beijing, and now even North Korea, want the spoils from modern economies of scale, international finance, and mass distribution of the economy and world resources.  That indicates an era that would be inclusive, International, and premised upon capitalistic free trade with reasonable regulatory apparatuses.

We have been the only unilateral power for under three decades and have failed in the USA to truly enshrine our role as liberator of the free world.  Instead, we ran a smash and grab job.  It was so “easy,” we are still in those conflicts 18 years later, and unfortunately like Korea, Germany, and Japan we will have servicemembers of our nation stationed there probably for generations.  That is not peace.

00’s Republican False War

When we were attacked 18 years ago by a dusty bunch of misogynist terrorists, because, well, we were the Unilateral Power.  We had a huge target on our back.

Had Bush the younger only focused upon Afghanistan, left us out from full warfare with Iraq, and instead prosecuted a straight forward conflict with clear goals and objectives, the war ought to be well over.

Except, even Obama had to remain for two terms in both Iraq and Afghanistan, because resources were not brought to bear judiciously by his predecessor, goals and objectives too ambitious, diffuse and unrealistic, and no full consensus for war.

In the 90’s, before Colin-Powell nonnerated (-90%) his reputation by selling the war to the UN with fake evidence, he had a military policy that won us the Gulf War— 1. Only go in with an exit strategy! & 2. If you break it fix it!!

Maybe, USA ought to think about being less adventurous, interventionist, and manipulative in matters of the military?

10’s Aftermath

So, now we are trying, very ex-post-facto, to finally fix it?

With no real strategy to exit, then we have yet to exit—it still is the original SNAFU FUGASI.  Had Bush treated Al-Qaeda and the Taliban like Obama did ISIS, then we would be much less involved by now.

Yet, Bush the Younger insisted that we must take Iraq (sigh, yes, for the oil).  This is a hangover from 1948, and the British claims from Empire. There was no real stated cause, justifying further access to those specific Natural Resources.

So, it is no wonder that by now more than half of veteran personnel who had fought in these conflicts consider them foreign adventures, not defensive wars.

2016 Russia

What would you say if Churchill, Roosevelt, or Stalin decided to not punish Germany for Annexing the Sudetenland or invading Poland?

Putin’s Russia has Annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine, exactly like Hitler (not an ad hominem)!

So, why would they want to disrupt geopolitics? Just to get a pipeline from Crimea to Paris??

Regardless of their endless motives, Russia attacked the US, UK, and lord knows who else by 2016.  We must stop denying this attack has happened.

There is nothing that suggests anything has been cleared up, or that it isn’t still an ongoing situation to be mitigated.

What is a Socialist?

A socialist is someone who believes that although government is formed by people for common defense often with rights of citizenry abrogated, but in exchange additional or improved rights inure to every citizen, without expectation of quid pro quo.

Every government that has had a ‘society’ to be designed, run and supported by the resources of that entity, then by definition is ‘socialist.’  Genghis Khan, Hitler and Stalin employed social-ism when they redirected resources away from normative distribution based on laws of supply and demand--- ONLY!

So, “Socialist,” is more a derogatory term referring in American ‘dog-whistle’ to what would have been McCarthy Communists, not ‘socialists.’

There has been no pure Capitalist system in the world—ever.  And “free-trade” is a myth, because now we know we need to peg price to carbon dioxide production with some taxation, tariff and/or trading system that accounts for industrial pollution rapidly consuming the Earth we know and understand. Therefore, there will never be a rational or logical escape by Society from small “s” socialism.

Gandhi, FDR, and Reagan were also all Socialists.  

It is pretty hard without socialism to defend and/or operate a society without people, or a system to enhance people away from ‘the law of the jungle.’  All societies have always been socialist by definition of the word social.

What is a Communist?

A Communist on the other hand is someone who believes in magic thinking about the world.  Were we developmentally stunted by ages four years old, then Communism might sort of work.  We would be psychologically stuck in the Dependency Phase of our lives.

But by the time we are nine or ten years old our comparative minds deduce that, ‘society is not always in my favor.’  So, we learn discretion, and that pinky promises are rarely kept eternally.

This is the perfect parent theory.  A top down elite fully control production and distribution of resources.  Thanks mommy.

But nanny-state, what color dress should I wear today to my Communist Party?

(Hopefully, I won’t be arbitrarily or capriciously punished or detained for guessing the wrong outfit, today.)

If you ever meet a Communist here is their rhetorical dismissal in favor of liberal democracy:

“So, as a Communist you believe in full faith for the State to determine everything and anything about your life no matter how orderly, arbitrarily or capriciously?”

‘Yes.’

“Ok, so today were giving you a choice, when do you want to schedule your execution?”

The Communist in total faith leaves all sense of responsibility to the state, until such time as the command and control distribute to you your responsibilities.  You said you love pure top down love, so that includes arbitrary and capricious executions of the (potentially very compliant yet vital) citizens.  In this example, it would become that Communist’s responsibility distributed by the state as a citizen to die!

Why “liberal” democracy is worth saving from the 10^thlargest economy?

So, what is a liberal?

A liberal means that you do not believe only the elite have a right to resources, power and access to capital.  Everyone who can take and pay a business loan, ought to be not only allowed to ‘fair consideration,’ but with equanimity to all citizens that they may be better able to deploy capital from the reasonable distribution of such funds.

Everyone who does not believe that a King, Queen or Emperor should make all their housing, employment and/or clothing decisions is then a sort of liberal.  Everyone who also believes that people should be allowed to vote instead of complying with “mandates from heaven,” is then a ‘liberal democrat.’

Show me the American who wished King George’s great grandchildren were running the USA to their whim and fetish, and I will say that citizen may not be a liberal democrat, otherwise…. Now tell that person they cannot vote to have a say, and then they are only a liberal without a vote.

How many Americans do you think want to make that trade with Putin and his people??

Why “Free Trade,’ is preferable to Trade War

Ideally, free trade makes a certain load of sense, but again then you turn twelve years old.  You recognize that people say things that don’t always match their deeds.  So, anyone who is a pure free-trader has a simplistic fantasy of distribution of resources, and is a poor business-person, because of no working knowledge of capitalist competition.

Good, competitive and open markets will always need impartial regulation and neutral enforcement mechanisms, until such time as all people agree to never cheat, steal or swindle one another, ever again.  And then without compunction still choose in perpetuity not to take advantage of the situation, even after the agreement was made.

That is almost the opposite definition of capitalism and sounds suspiciously like the justifications for the Trade War.  Beggar thy neighbor.

Capitalism thrives on opportunitism, I get 90% of resources because I tricked 98% of the people, is not a reasonable long-term method of managing International Macro-economies.

The ideal of Free Trade amongst international partners, rather, is that the starting premise that the negotiation is of mutual respect and fair cooperative distribution of resources between the macroeconomies, simultaneously, to better manage resources including competition.  

No part of that statement seems like there would then follow a righteous recommendation for no rules, regulations nor enforcement mechanisms.

A free-trader is someone who respects wholeset economies of scale and chooses to improve their efficiencies and distribution.  That in practice is the opposite of lawbreaking.

Why Democracy Works

When the zeitgeist of the UK citizenry was reminded of their diminished status, compared to USA and Russia, there was a logical rhetoric, “hey, what about Malta?”

Churchill probably left the meeting and this life imagining that the UK would be at the permanent head of the EU, or other such arrangement.  But 75 years of cooperation and compromise will inevitably stir such fundamental statist greed. Britain as an equal amongst European States created some resentment, probably unconsciously.  

This may only be one of the many spices from the flavor of BREXIT, but it bears out as one potential valid historical avenue of public discontent.

It is an ongoing question to the EU governors to demonstrate the great and general value of an united Europe, as opposed to having Europe dispositioned to become, yet again, subject to another Cesar, Napoleon or Hitler.

VOTE

Tell me, what is it called when a Corporation gets a tax break or other government incentive?

That is called ‘socialist redistribution of national resources.’  Otherwise, why does Amazon.com pay low to no tax every year as one of the largest operations?

So, every major and most minor American companies are socialist.  They freely petition, ask and receive resources distributed by the government.  That is capital “S” Socialist!

So, the big game in the USA (less able to say much further about UK) is blame individuals, workers, poor, disenfranchised, and others for state failure, and consider a huge government handout to corporation a capitalist event.  No part of that is not Socialist.

Since, 2008, The Great Recession, we have seen policy set by the elite for their own purposes and end games for the market.  The Economy does good, but how about the workers, downtrodden and disabled who already poured their troth to the nation, their state, city and company on behalf of growth of national GDP?

In 2009, TARP outright saved businesses but was also a greater (a) hand over of National Wealth to private parties, and (b) public transfer of private wealth than that 1917 Russia—very Commie. We nationalized Wall Street failure, and Bank of America is a benefactor from Communist allocation of resources.

We ignore at our very real risk as a (USA) nation the threats deployed and operated to this day against our society.  Enough is really enough!

No matter who you are, no matter what you believe, the most important thing for you to do is to consider all problems in your nation, see what solutions may exist, and vote, every time, for the person who most and best represents your actual interests. The perverse Wisdom of Crowds (corollary, The Masses are Asses).

At the very least, this democracy promises to end these foolish self-inflicted wounds by eventual operation of the vote.  But let’s be clear, everyone who wants you to be able to be fired at will, total worker disempowerment, also doesn’t want you to ever vote in your nation again so that we may still have Russian Troll Farms screwing with national cronyism, nepotism and corruption.

I hope and “BRAY” for our deliverance.

American Fallacy: Health Care

Fact Check.org released "clarification" to all the false argumentation in the media (bloggosphere inclusive).

Now lets examine the tactics of rhetoric used by such false claimants:

PRO-INSURANCE LOBBY;

Government Will Decide What Care I Get; Appeal to Emotion (Fear)

Private Insurance Will Be Illegal; Appeal to Emotion (Fear)

The House Bill Requires Suicide Counseling; Straw Man with a dash of Appeal to Fear (for those who are religiously against suicide)

Medicare Benefits Will Be Slashed; Appeal to Fear (in sales we call this Fear of Loss)

Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered; This is tricky... I am going to say in short order this is probably a Masked man fallacy, whereby substituting the word legal with illegal a whole barrage of fear and loathing can be unsheathed by jingoistic elements.

PRO-REFORM LOBBY;

The Bill Is Paid For; I would put this as a non-sequitur, but it could be more sinisterly interpreted as Irrelevant Conclusion, an argument that diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly.

Families Will Save $2,500; Bare assertion fallacy. Even though there may be some savings, the nature of that savings is internal not pocketbook according to the estimates.

------

So, we can see the Pro-Insurance Lobby is using pretty much a fear (argumentum ad baculum) to countervail the very factual fear invoked by (just one example of the argument) that "Medicare as-is will become bankrupt in less than a decade."

That raises legitimate fear for someone who is 58 ~ 64 who expects to have a life expectancy of 75 ~ 80 years where the last five to ten years require the most medical assistance!

The translation to Baby Boomers (all of you) = "Right when you need it the very most you wont have any guarantee for medical assistance or coverage!"

That pretty much should raise some fears for a generation which hasn't collectively been as kind to their bodies as they could have been (paging Doctor Leary).

***

The Pro-reform group seems, like many Democratic coalitions to have a broad range of messages, but in this instance not very many fallacies. I would not defend misstatements, misleading, misdirection, or, worst, false argumentation, but in this case there seems to be such an abundance of argumentum ad nauseam from the Pro-Insurance groups-- wherein a false thing is repeated over and over without nuance to the discussion, such that fatigue is the result (and by association the false assertion becomes true).

This morning a former British Minister for Health all but ridiculed the red herring arguments coming from the Pro-Insurance Lobby.

We in USA (ranked 37th in the World) are painfully misled by poor arguments by those who would interfere with the Hippocratic Principle in our democratic republics hope to become more respectable, lead a more decent lifestyle, and improve the health, welfare and happiness of our citizenry.

It is only a question of, "How Successful?"

I take the opportunity as history is unfolding to create the case for how to answer "how successful will Colorado's legalization be?"

We are almost at the end of the first quarter.  The preliminary figures for the state indicate $2.1 million per month Recreational and about $1.4 million per month for medicinal.

Therefore, , Governor H. et. al., who opposes the purpose or promise, and cautiously enforces the will of the people and law, put out an estimate that the right was quick to glom upon saying that $137million is the revised estimate, not the projected $578million!

Disappointed??  

Okay, so lets review the situation from the point of view of a Business Broker.

(A) Dispensaries and Recreational Dispensaries have the unique problem of being required by law to run an all cash business... only now being solved.  If taxation requires compliance, but compliance means not opening up a Federally Insured account, then we have a reporting problem by definition!

Business operators famously keep poor records.  They are involved in servicing their clients, meeting customer demand, and coordinating vendors.  So, why do we expect the skill sets include math, accounting, or record keeping?  

My experience reviewing hundreds of business opportunities over the years suggest that of the whole: 80% are well meaning but sloppy or contain some small errors; 10% are well kept; and 10% are just outright sad.

I think you must realize that most business owners are working ten hour days almost every day of every year.  No matter how well intentioned, mistakes can be made.  I would put bad actors at about 1 ~ 3% depending on how you define "bad."

Now try doing the whole thing as a cash basis accounting, with only cash.  That adds burden at least, and for comparison if you legally compelled McDonalds, Verizon or Comcast to have to operate that way they would declare Bankruptcy overnight.

(B) January sales figures?  Ever hear of "seasonally adjusted?"  We have endless data about how the cold weather this winter has reduced retail activities across the board.  This is only mitigated by the pent up demand, but there is also novelty effect to consider.  

The pent up demand may skew the figure higher, but number of dispensaries was very limited.  The novelty is a wash-- you would have customers who were trying it out to see what happens, and you would have regular clients possibly holding back to see how "safe" the situation appears.  Therefore, the Season and travel prohibitions (not to mention that in January most licenses for Rec hadn't been approved.... most places are getting their permits in Summer) take the most weight for the adjustment.

So if adjustments are a push, and the skew goes to "January figures," we include that January will probably in five years time be known in the business cycle of Cannabis that January is typically an average month to the mean.

(C) I was wrong, or right it doesn't matter:

1. kilv ‏@kilv Protected Tweets  Jan 21

   One store that was permitted in CO on Jan 1, '14, reported off the record that they had sold approximately $250,000 in the first two weeks.

   •  Reply 
   •  Delete 
   •  Favorite

   Collapse

   6:39 AM - 21 Jan 2014 · Details
2. kilv ‏@kilv Protected Tweets  Jan 29

   from that anecdote I estimate ~$500MM in annual tax revenues for CO directly attributable to legalization! Closer to $1BB counting knockons

    Hide conversation

   •  Reply 
   •  Delete 
   •  Favorite

   10:02 AM - 29 Jan 2014 · Details

   
   

Okay, so if there are (A) underreporting and (B) adjustments, then we have to consider the truth of how accounting and valuations work... We wont have the actual final and adjusted January '14 numbers until July of 2015!!!

TIME TO PANIC?

Oh no, this really hasn't worked out... I guess this has just been a disappointing experiment in personal freedom and individual liberty.

I relented, now I ask critics of anti-prohibition to relent and admit that actually in these government projections they have met the threshold (where the first $40 million goes to schools) for revenue to run the program, the powers that be will have surplus to spread around, and once again, because Macroeconomics is so vastly complex and so mundanely precise, is an inaccurate art; that therefore any law that pays for itself, improves freedom and liberty, and pays for other state functions-- by definition in Business is a success!

MY PREDICTION?

I am going to hang my hat on the ~$170million mark as the definition for Rec Sales Tax of success.  I will wait until July 2015 to see the whole picture, and then I will ask how the knock-on effects are calculated: employment, employees paying taxes, income generated being sent back into the economy; immigration; and other net benefits to the State.

I will point out that taken as a whole, the fuller effect, the net benefit to the economy will meet my prediction in my tweet, but again I am not that attached to how accurate my prognostication.  That isn't my job!

The state probably has included to some effect the above considerations, but the willingness to structure the dialogue of a government program that not only pays for itself, but earns, as one of disappointment and failure is a non-starter for what will inevitably become the very early days of a multi billion dollar legitimate industry!

4 years of low hanging fruit

Obama gave a somewhat inspired if not entirely exciting State of the Union.

The key notes I heard that I will hold him and the Democrats to account for in 4 years:

1. End the War
2. Universal pre-school
3. Access to benefits / retention of Obamacare-Social Security-Medicare
4. Improved Veterans Benefits
5. Active measures to improve the economy by improving Energy Independence and the Environment.

It is mostly on this last point that I will speak;

a. Tax Reform equals Environmental reform.
b. End subsidization of archane technologies and established players, back to investor of first and last resort.
c. Support STEMs in Education.

a. By closing loopholes in a conscientious and clear manner, there will no longer be a dispensation for making profit at all costs (where the environment takes the burden as resource and resolution).

Although not as clearly defined by the powers-that-be, the need for reform has a throughput onto the ideas introduced by Schumacher as Small is Beautiful. becomes that ecosystem and ecological thinking is in effect environmentally correct long-term economic development.

Obama was dancing at the edge of this thinking without removing any of his obvious commitments to the Corporate System.

However, a clever tax system will try to become clever by half playing "lets make a deal."  The second step to truly resolving the Environmental equation for Cost-Benefit-Analysis is for holistic and conscientious Tort Reform.  That is a hot potato in the Do Nothing Congress Part II we are effectively beginning to witness (although I am open to being wrong-- see Sequestration).


b. Corn Ethynol, Oil, and Fracking are all subsidized, although science clearly puts them in the back of the Carbon efficiency line (would that they list in order from most to least carbon efficient).  That carbon efficiency in conjunction with time for development (with unlimited resources) should inform what priority to grant and burse the otherwise limited resources dedicated to Energy and Technology.

As mentioned, the investments by the people for the people are best as first and last resort-- like radio and other experimental technologies the US government and the people have been the ones who "built the railroad," not the tycoons who then scooped up and organized for profit the activities.

Hopefully in four years we will have sensibly realigned subsides so that the only thing big oil is getting is small relief for the retooling of extant refineries to become clean, non-polluting, and carbon efficient.


c. All other social concerns aside, and with the full-throated support of the scientifically true "first five," as we call early childhood development, education and care in California, the next step is to raise a generation not afraid to do math, believe in science, or be transparent in their actions as citizens.

It is not the government that will lead the inevitable democratization of truth, rather it is the people.  Let's pay teachers what they are due for tending the most valuable natural resource we have, isn't it time?

I didn't hear a "socialist" argument as the Republicans over the decades are fond to label, rather a proactive agenda on education that accepted truths (like global warming) where for whatever reason the less than 1% of scientists disagree with the issue writ large (does climate change exist?).

A fact-based reality based education system will, informed by all the sciences and technologies, force a fundamental zugzwang by the Federal in favor of the local education officials-- and that is something I have heard every republican quick on the "commie," or "Socialist," trigger belly ache for power to rest in the local not Federal powers where education is concerned.

Yet, it was Bush II, who forced the random test driven multiple choice idiocracy called "no child left behind."

Incentivize the collaboration in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) with new and existing public-private relationships by also having the principles found in STEM, logic, and reason inform the process and development of this completely new world of education, knowledge, and technology, and any disadvantage from the retooling of our outmoded educational system (writ large) will fall away very quickly once children are given the access to tools already available-- just not very widely at time of publication.

Lets see if reason will spread like a disease in the next four years, or will we continue to appear as a gorilla chasing its tail to the rest of the world?

The New Plague

Ahh... 1346. It was not really the best of times, but probably could be in many ways the worst of times. Europe was attempting to shudder off the dark Ages, but that would come in another 200 years or so!


In the meantime, the process of mass animal domestication and production techniques had brought a bevy of diseases into the fore to attack the immune systems in the rural areas, and if that didn't travel past city walls, inside most cities the streets in these population centers served as open sewers!


Once sick, people would pray for you, doctors would make potions to calm your humours, and in extreme desperation you could get a barber to let some blood if the mercury tincture the doctors prescribed didn't work... What backwards times!


Unfortunately, in the intervening 663 years or so, we humans haven't seemed to learn our lessons very well!


(A) the process of mass animal domestication and production techniques had brought a bevy of diseases into the fore to attack the immune systems NOW: H1N1, H5N1, et. al.


(B) most population centers served as open sewers! If we consider that we know that toxic chemicals are analogous to "waste" back in the 14th Century; Then why have we out-moded labelling of toxic chemicals used daily, allow these and industrial chemical to be released in our water, air, and lands, and literally have a garbage island floating in our oceans killing food resources we rely upon?


(C) people would pray for you, NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT... I guess-- other than not too much has changed.


(D) doctors would make potions to calm your humours, NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT... I guess-- other than not too much has changed.


(E) in extreme desperation you could get a barber to let some blood
NOW: Except it is the Doctors who actually cut you up.


(F) if the mercury tincture the doctors prescribed didn't work NOW: Instead of various quicksilver and herbal tinctures we have chemical therapy, and other methods to poison the patient back into health.


Lets be clear, I am stating that (I) we are spewing poisons into our environment that (II) directly or indirectly lead to the creation of Cancer and other diseases, and (III) our medicine is confounded searching for remedy and cures (obviously the last 600+ years has seen dramatic improvement in medicine [which is a very good thing that we are doing our best to mitigate the situation] however for the point made here we are still attempting to cure symptoms as opposed to causes of illness). Yet if we confront the source of our problems (equivalent to underground sewage, sewage treatment, regular washing and bathing, and certain sanitary practices helped solve the Black Death), maybe we would have fewer, less virulent, and less aggressive strains of the modern version of disease we have been carrying through our human history?


Barring my Meta-behaviouralists social modification approach, we need to raise funds to assist our researchers, doctors, and practicianers to discover cures for these diseases.


So, as you can see in the upper left-hand corner of my Blog, there is a place for you to donate to the LLS. I am a member of Team In Training. Please act now to donate what you can: I am running the half marathon, so a $25 donation today works out to less than $2 per mile! THANK YOU.


My friend survived non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma when I was a pre-teen; My brother died at age 36 from an aggressive metastasisized prostate Cancer that used as one of its tactics treatment developed by LLS; and now I learn that my childhood hero Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has a rare form of blood borne Cancer.


To complete the puzzle of my adamance and disgust with the very existence of this disease called Cancer (which is really a wide array of diseases that have similar attack strategies against the healthy human body), I learned the day of my last blog that my sister has stage three breast cancer-- she is only 38!


In a prior post, I suggest we declare war on Cancer, and now I am no longer waiting for the politicians, or anyone else for that matter to do so... to quote the Bard, "Out Damn Spot!"

The Politics of Cynicism and Pretzel Logic: Part I Sarah Palin

Well it's no surprise that eight years after the tragedy of the nineleven we still see politicians like this:







The saddest bit is that we have many cynical fallacies to review today, but I am only going to dwell on two of them.



PART ONE SARAH PALIN


1. Death Panels. Just like Lois Griffin's stunning statement, "9... (beat) 11," there isn't some great piece of logic to examine beyond say an eight year old listening to a popular music song and misreading the lyrics (as I often have done my whole life [I thought Peter Gabriel released a song called "I Have the Tush," until my sister and her friend almost laughed me out [it was "I Have the Touch," BTW] of the car when I was twelve or so).


The actual entity is called "End of Life Counseling." A Council is a group of people... a panel. Another word for end of life is "Death." Death Panel!


It's cynical, zingy, and very school yard. Not to mention is entirely misleading, because the chasm between Counseling, and so to speak "Counciling," is very different. And now we get to the fallacy: You can have a Council that Counsels, but less often would you have a Counselor who Councils. Unless of course by Counselor we are using the term associated with a lawyer with whom we rely upon.


This is 'because A can be B, then B is A." And I feel this is charitable, because in reality this is just a cynical Appeal to Fear.



2. Obama mentioned in his speech that the costs of (a) the last eight years of war, and (b) the last eight years of tax cuts equal less than his proposed health care plan of $900BB over ten years.


Cost of the wars in the last eight years (see side calculator, too) is about right, and definiately on track that over ten years shall exceed the $900BB figure!


Cost of the tax cuts is easily correct at something like 200 ~ 250% of that value.


Which brings us to the fallacy. Mrs. Palin suggests that President Obama has disrespected the troops, because he made this assertion (of fact-- or at least accurate and open budget estimation [we are assuming the health care plan =$900BB over ten years]).


Health Care fix will cost less than the Wars. Health care is baaaad. Therefore Obama says Troops are bad!


She is missing some circuitry, but somehow has that magical cavewoman's reptilian mentality in tact (albeit getting her speaking points ostensibly from some Rovian Sith up and comer one would suspect [my cynicism]).


*sigh* here we go: (a) Obama says his plan is good, (b) Obama is not liked (by the arguer), (c) Obama does not like the war, (d) Republicans (theoretically) support the fallacious war in Iraq [still?], (e) the tone of the speech did contain an allusion to the fact that the war was fallacious, (f) War requires troops, and therefore (g) Obama said troops are "Baaaad!"


This is going to get pretty tricky (all from the POV of the arguement in Favor of Obama said Troops is Baaaad): NOT a is TRUE; b is TRUE; c is TRUE; d is TRUE; e is TRUE; f is TRUE; thus g. So do you see what happened yet?


By starting the element with one negative our result contains a negative assertion. For example: -a * b * c * d * e * f = g and g is a negative number!


Now to the actual contents of the argument: a is opinon, b is opinon, c is opinion, d is a position, e is an opinon, f is a statement of fact, and g is a fallacy!


Remove the opinions, and you get: position, statement, and fallacy. Or, "The Iraq War and the other Bush Wars are important, necessary and good; War requires troops; and Obama does not support the troops!"


Finally we come to the illicit process (inclusive of the negative assumption {tu quoque reversed- which is to say "you too," except the opposite version "not me"}): YOU think NOT The Iraq War and the other Bush Wars are important, necessary and good; War requires troops; therefore YOU think troops NOT good!


Disgusted yet? We didn't finish. (The Ad hominem implied, that is to say the NOT me BUT you think, is indicated by the asterisk *) Now that we have simplified the statement and the logics, lets find the fallacy within the fallacy (the first being a tu quoque reversed premissed upon opinions and assertions): (p) War requires (q) Troops, *YOU think (p) = NOT good (r), therefore *YOU think (q) = NOT good (r)!


This is called an illicit major. There is a failure to distribute. P = Q; P = NOT R; Therefore Q = NOT R.


Although I think it is somewhat accurate to characterize Obama Administration as being instinctively against War, in fact they have shown to be pragmatic and we are looking at increasing troop levels in Afganistan. So aside from this ILLICIT MAJOR inside the AD HOMINEM (that is to say against the person not the argument) which I am calling the REVERSED TU QUOQUE, we actually have the addition of a misrepresentation to the practical facts of what the opposite side has effectively done and implemented to add the STRAW MAN (misrepresentation of the position being argued against).


Those Rovian Siths love a good fallacy within a fallacy within a fallacy! First they miscomprehendate (to anticipate what Dubya might have called it) the speaker and then they fallacy the fallacy!



I am going to try to now enjoy the rest of my day, but I just had to point out how bloody rediculous it is that the media even covers such poor argumentation in the first place... unfortunately I think there is much more to come, so I put this as PART ONE!

Top Ten Triggers For the Snowe Health Bill Compromise Proposal

10. When there are more than 100,000 homeless people without health insurance coverage

9. When there are more than 100,000 people who lose health insurance (and can't afford the COBRA) when they lose their jobs

8. When Real Unemployment average for the USA is over 10.00% (currently ~17%)

7. When the average Californian has a 1 of 5 chance of claim denial by the top six insurance agencies (currently ~22%)

6. If a "death panel" of Insurance Actuaries, middle managers, and cost comptrollers deny someone coverage because of a "pre-existing condition"

5. If a "bankruptcy panel" of Insurance Actuaries, middle managers, and cost comptrollers deny someone's claim and they have to declare Bankruptcy

4. When the next 15,000 Americans become uninsured (that would be tomorrow)

3. When Insurance cost efficiencies exceed 15.00% (they currently average ~30%)

2. Before the next grandmother, a.k.a. "Granny," dies because a life saving treatment is denied by the health care coverage (HMO, Insurance, etc.)

1. Before the next child dies because a life saving treatment is denied by the health care coverage (HMO, Insurance, etc.)

Why the Republicans are "Communists"

Lets start off by defining communism via copying from Wikipedia;

"Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general."

That very good sentence is not what I mean by referring to the "W" administration as Communist.

Lets shade things in a little:

When I was growing up you were a Pinko, Commie, or as Wally George would say, "Looney Liberal" if you disagreed with trickle down economics.



Aside from Appeal to the Masses approach of name calling, why would I conclude that the label of Communist, as the many Republicanistas I have known over the many decades, would call someone, group, or argument which believed in any hint of the socialist concept of nationalization of wealth, be an appropriate adjective for the Republicans?

Lets construct the argument from the Republicans and their Administration.

(1) Paulson hands in a three page proposal to solicit $750BB by using an Appeal to Fear.

(2) The congress, after some questioning, submits to this request without examining the construct of mechanisms of oversight, re-regulation, or sufficient scientific or public input by certifying the Appeal to Fear and also using an Appeal to Consequences.

(3) Paulson in turn has "bailed out" only the richest and most influential corporations without any calculation towards restoring the credit markets. In doing this he acting as proxy for the "W" Administration has nationalized more dollar for dollar (adjusted) private wealth than did Lenin in the 1917 Russian Revolution.

The main difference between the almost 90 years and two continents? Lenin nationalized means of production, and Paulson/Bush have nationalized private failures.

As sickening as that statement is alone, it in my opinion gets worse.

(4) Now it also turns out that the execs and other elite do not have to take any pay cut for their failures.

The primary argument from all the trickle downers was that through facilitating the elites, you create more jobs, and thus have a social hierarchy which is a form of meritocracy. Often the arguments from those same trickle downers was that to have a state mechanism which takes care of less fortunate, say war veterans or people with disabilities, would reward failure, incompetence, or lacksadaisy. Can you see where I am going on this one?

The beneficiaries of the decades of pro-corporation, deregulatory, and trickle down thinking has been turned on its head by those very same people who would have argued (in the face of say a $700BB package to allow individuals who earn less than $50K per annum to write down their losses [not pay taxes], be reimbursed for incompetence, and be availed of debts incurred from their poor decisions by the US government) against such a blatant avoidance of capitalist consequences.

Those who would argue that somehow the Clinton years were not in this bag of hammers are dead wrong. Clinton worked with the Knut Gingrich congress to get those lazy welfare mothers back to work, for instance. Only Jimmy Carter tried to oppose the Nixonian economic dismantling of the Great Society and the New Deal-- and he was absolutely punished (for not doing a very good job of trying to swim against the current).

So, was Paulson's appeal true or false? Probably a little of both. Yes, the sky was falling, but not in the way anyone could comprehend-- or at least anyone who truly comprehended this did not say. (On a separate note, how convenient is it of the anti-government Republicans to not only have built the largest American bureaucracy in history, but to have also spared us poor innocent citizens from the awful and complex truth involved in the facts {thus a defacto Nanny State mentality, to boot}?)

So, was Congress reasonable or irrational to take such drastic action? Probably a bit of both. On the one hand to it was fairly unpopular (especially at first blush), but to have gone into lame duck session without action could have been political poison for reelection.

So will the companies chosen to be bailed out be a good or poor move by the collective US Government? Probably a bit of both, again: On the one hand if we are truly getting preferred stock interest, corporate bonds, and other repayment guarantees, then there is a real probability (say 30 ~ 55% chance) that the US government (and hence the taxpayer) will come out ahead in dollar for dollar inflation adjusted numbers at the end of two or three decades. On the other hand it is in my estimation also a fair probability that dollar for dollar we could come out behind.

Effectively the US Government will have to now manage a portfolio. On the other hand, it will control certain of these groups (like Fannie-Freddie). All the while being the regulator for these corporations! This is a Corporatist Socialism model which in large part has been the fantasy of many of the Pro-Business "Libertarians" I have read.

They showed Soylent Green on TV yesterday, and that is taking the overreach and complicit conspiracy between corporation and government to a natural and far reaching (if not simplistic) conclusion.



My recommendations for the new administration:

(a) Re-enforce various merit based pay systems/anti-golden parachute provisions for these loans, or they will become due. The Republicans (and many Dems) are fond these days of talking about mortgages and other legal devices as if these are mutable documents. The basis of law is the immutable nature of such binding agreements in writing and witnessed. If there is going to be any flexibility in interpreting legal agreements lets start with the fact that the intention of the parties was NO GOLDEN PARACHUTES!

(b) Envigorate and expand regulatory mechanisms. Further this by making public oversight commissions to review this triangle between the US Government as Stock/Bond holder, US Government as regulator and enforcer of laws, and as shepherd of tax dollars thus invested. (Think Customer, Regulator, and Broker-- of which US Govt is now all three.)

(c) Create new rules for this new use of tax dollars to further discourage cronyism, quid pro quo, and other unsavory action which could clearly emerge over time from this unholy trinity by creating trust fund and anti-collusion rules for the US Government as Broker.

(d) Create timelines (not in terms of time, rather in terms of event mile markers) which delineate the divestment of these holdings (as Customer).

(e) Enforce the bloody rules that are on the books! And simplify them so that even the company Receptionist could theoretically blow the whistle upon detecting malfeasance or felonious behaviour!!

So now I am going back in time, to 1987, Reagan is President, and I am going to visit Wally George and be on the lame-ass Hot Seat show to say, "We need to infuse business with $700BB in order to allow them to avoid losses, keep their jobs, and 'stimulate the economy.' I believe the government should become three times bigger than it is today. I think it will be good for us to avoid confusing our consumers, I mean citizens, with any real information or data germane to the decision making processes, because politicians know best. And then I believe as regulator, primary stock holder, and investor the US Government shouldn't be burdened by little details like accounting for how those funds are used by the corporations we deign to be worthy of state investments!"

Commie!