My mantra when life gets real and stress is up

You have to go through this. There is no other way. Live by example. Be honest with yourself. There is no other way.

Repeat.

This actor has stepped up.

This is a clip from Sam Seder's daily show called "The Majority Report". The show is the relic of what it was during the Dubya year's (see the previous post) on what was called "Air America"

@6:30 timestamp: this moron starts talking about zero, and then watch what he does --- belittles Sam, but insists he's not making fun of him. Behold the massive projection of this fucking moron.

Equating the potential of human beings to a number is pathetic on the merits, because all numerical assessment is inherently biased by the humans who are determining the rubric through which such merits are assessed. But morons want to start equating workers with numbers, and then start elaborating about some pseudo-profound delusion about the number zero.

Or as was stated at the end of the above video : "There is nothing worse than undeserved pedantry".

Math question. Why has productivity increased exponentially, and yet wages have remained relatively constant?

Mike Malloy has been a hero of mine since I started listening to him back in the Dubya Bush days, circa 2002. Lately he has been doing a daily podcast with video on youtube from Georgia. He uses all the pejorative and profane language necessary to express himself, so fair warning.

The Aristocracy uses racism and xenophobia to keep the lower classes in line. As Beau explains so well in this video.

The fundamental flaw in all Libertarian philosophy consists of the following truth: no one individual exists or can exist without assistance from his or her community or fellow human beings. We have to talk to one another and have community discussions about what to do and how to proceed. There is also no automatic calibration that can be created which attaches individuals to their community or society that is independent of the social conditions and relations.

We are not primitive tribes, hunting and wandering off the land, living in temporary easily constructed and deconstructed abodes. Our nation is a heavily capital invested social order. Every person, every single day lives their life in the modern world (especially the United States) thanks to the infrastructure created by a heritage of fellow human beings and their community. Every where you go, everything you do, everything you eat in the modern world would not be possible were it not for unseen persons who provided these conveniences like indoor plumbing, septic systems, traffic lights, interstate highways, coffee shops, truck drivers, wharf attendants, train stations, restaurants, grocery stores, etc… Even in the ages before airports, every harbor or river port town needed a maned lighthouse and a reservoir of knowledgeable local professionals to navigate the waterways. A single ship (or plane) represents a plethora of different persons, both in the creation of the ship, and in the usage after the ship was created. The mere act of walking into a building is possible only because a large number of persons designed, organized, and physically constructed that building.

Libertarianism ignores this context when viewing capital creation from a historical perspective. When you purchase an item in a market (retail or internet) a whole infrastructure was or has been created that is being regulated by numerous unseen persons in order to maximize the efficiency of such markets. Libertarianism views these concerns as more easily addressed by the minimization or elimination of government because unclean humans are biased, and human governments tend towards authoritarianism. Libertarianism strips the people out of the background environment and portrays events based upon individual singularities, individual responsibilities, while ignoring the alternate reality of aristocracy evolving to authoritarianism. Libertarianism hides human reality behind the facade of money and mathematics — where only prices, formulas, mathematical algorithms and spending habits determine the development of society and community. However every advance was enabled by an environment. You can’t have automobiles without roads. You can’t have a free exchange of ideas (or an efficient market for goods and services) without a cheap postal service. You cannot have basic human services (police, fire, legal) effectively and efficiently administered without taxes paid for proportional to the level of income. Having a standing military or a state department gathering data and global relationships is also better done than when not influenced by the various potential agendas of private interests and the natural profit motives thereof.

Libertarianism is a belief that government is anathema to the natural order of human society. Intrusion of government into human affairs is thus viewed with an immoral character. Taxes in particular is the poster child for why the Libertarian Party exists — which is why Libertarianism is hijacked by large wealthy elite individuals who don’t want to pay taxes and need a justification. In the past, this was the difference between “Liberty” and “Freedom”. Liberty means you are not held accountable for your social or economic practices. Freedom means that the court of law or civil jurisprudence has no reason to limit your actions. In this sense, individuals have the Liberty to be Free, but not the Freedom to have Liberty. Either way you still have to pay taxes. In the Libertarian view, taxes are a theft from the productive uses of individuals because of the fundamental Libertarian premise that individual uses are always better than collective uses, ie. not having freedom to have Liberty.

This idea that the individual will always make better choices and can better use investment funds is the crux of the Libertarian philosophy, the conflict between Freedom and Liberty. The dynamic is often couched in a further belief that relying on individual choices is the best protection against authoritarianism. Human beings are irrational, often driven by needs that are dysfunctional to the larger society. Short term desires override long term needs, especially when such long term needs can be outsourced or externalized to other responsible agents and then ignored. Individuals are hard pressed to wait 20 or 30 years to make a marginal return on invested funds while taking large losses up front. Humans are more easily persuaded to make tons of money on the front end of the cycle, then getting out on the back end of the cycle when the losses accumulate. This has been the dynamic of the mass consumer economic system. Look at all the consumer items that were developed since World War Two. These events occurred because of short term profit motives, not from long term stability concerns. Making money was always the priority.

Hence, currently we are all dealing with the external costs of plastic refuse destroying ocean eco-systems and carbon pollution tipping the climate system equilibrium. We have infrastructure needs all over the 50 states that are not being addressed by the invisible hand of the free market because Libertarianism is a stillborn idea. Human beings are not solitary isolated individual units of economic production. All human progress is a collective effort, even in a capitalist society.

Which is what the word "capitalist" means btw, an economic system that relies upon the development of "capital" goods. The word is quite often twisted and construed by Libertarians, who confuse economic feudalism with the development and nurturing of capital goods. How these capital goods are created and distributed is more related to the social and cultural norms of the community and society, not to some abstract equilibrium models that balance market & wage prices, even when capital goods and markets are largely controlled by non-government entities.

Congressman, and true patriot, Adam Schiff makes these opening statements at today's 2nd hearing with Robert Mueller in the House Intelligence Committee.

Your report, for those who have taken the time to study it, is methodical and it is devastating, for it tells the story of a foreign adversary’s sweeping and systematic intervention in a close U.S. presidential election.That should be enough to deserve the attention of every American, as you well point out. But your report tells another story as well. For the story of the 2016 presidential election is also a story about disloyalty to country, about greed, and about lies. Your investigation determined that the Trump campaign – including Trump himself – knew that a foreign power was intervening in our election and welcomed it, built Russian meddling into their strategy, and used it.

Disloyalty to country. Those are strong words, but how else are we to describe a presidential campaign which did not inform the authorities of a foreign offer of dirt on their opponent, which did not publicly shun it or turn it away, but which instead invited it, encouraged it, and made full use of it. That disloyalty may not have been criminal. Constrained by uncooperative witnesses, the destruction of documents & the use of encrypted communications, your team was not able to establish each of the elements of the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, so not a provable crime, in any event.

But, I think, maybe, something worse. A crime is the violation of a law written by Congress. But disloyalty to country violates the very obligation of citizenship, our devotion to a core principle on which our nation was founded: That we, the people, not some foreign power that wishes us ill, we decide, who shall govern, us.

This also a story about money, about greed and corruption, about the leadership of a campaign willing to compromise the nation’s interest not only to win, but to make money at the same time.About a campaign chairman indebted to pro-Russian interests who tried to use his position to clear his debts and make millions. About a national security advisor using his position to make money from still other foreign interests.And about a candidate trying to make more money than all of them, through a real estate project that to him, was worth a fortune, hundreds of millions of dollars, and the realization of a lifelong ambition – a Trump Tower in the heart of Moscow.A candidate who, in fact, viewed his whole campaign as the greatest infomercial in history.

Donald Trump and his senior staff were not alone in their desire to use the election to make money. For Russia, too, there was a powerful financial motive. Putin wanted relief from U.S. economic sanctions...imposed in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and over human rights violations.The secret Trump Tower meeting between the Russians and senior campaign officials was about sanctions. The secret conversations between Flynn and the Russian ambassador were about sanctions.Trump and his team wanted more money for themselves, and the Russians wanted more money for themselves, and for their oligarchs.

But the story doesn’t end here either. For your report also tells a story about lies. Lots of lies. Lies about a gleaming tower in Moscow and lies about talks with the Kremlin. Lies about the firing of FBI Director James Comey, and lies about efforts to fire you, Mr. Mueller, and lies to cover it up.Lies about secret negotiations with the Russians over sanctions and lies about Wikileaks. Lies about polling data and lies about hush money payments. Lies about meetings in the Seychelles to set up secret back channels, and lies about a secret meeting in New York Trump Tower.Lies to the FBI, lies to your staff, and lies to our Committee.

And lies to obstruct an investigation into the most serious attack on our democracy by a foreign power in our history.That is where your report ends, Mr. Mueller, with a scheme to cover up, obstruct and deceive every bit as systematic and pervasive as the Russian disinformation campaign itself, but far more pernicious since this rot came from within.Even now, after 448 pages in two volumes, the deception continues. The President and his acolytes say your report found no collusion, though your report explicitly declined to address that question, since collusion can involve both criminal and non-criminal conduct.Your report laid out multiple offers of Russian help to the Trump campaign, the campaign’s acceptance of that help, and overt acts in furtherance of Russian help. To most Americans, that is the very definition of collusion, whether it is a crime or not.

They say your report found no evidence of obstruction, though you outline numerous actions by the President intended to obstruct the investigation. They say the President has been fully exonerated, though you specifically declare you could not exonerate him.In fact, they say your whole investigation was nothing more than a witch hunt, that the Russians didn’t interfere in our election, that it’s all a terrible hoax.The real crime, they say, is not that the Russians intervened to help Donald Trump, but that the FBI had the temerity to investigate it when they did.

But worst of all, worse than all the lies and the greed, is the disloyalty to country, for that too, continues. When asked, if the Russians intervene again, will you take their help, Mr. President? Why not, was the essence of his answer. Everyone does it.Not in the America envisioned by Jefferson, Madison & Hamilton. Not for those who believe in the idea that Lincoln labored until his dying day to preserve, the idea animating our great national experiment, so unique then, so precious still: That our government is chosen by our people, through our franchise, and not by some hostile foreign power.

I am mathematically pissed off.

We need to stop using these numerous polls, week after week, as a surrogate for democracy, because they are not only riddled with both sampling and non-sampling (systemic) errors, but they are also manipulated in ways that dilute their actual value.

Sampling a large population is useful. Obtaining data about a large population can often be expensive, in addition to propagating unforeseen systemic errors that can lead to erroneous conclusions. For example: if your method of sampling is ⅔ rds more likely to get a certain type of person, then that characteristic will be more likely representative in the sample. Hence, the modern sampling methods are more likely to rely upon people who are sedentary and willing to spend 10 or more minutes responding to a poll. Small samples are also likely to be effected on the extreme — akin to looking at sports players in a given week as opposed to the entire year. The smaller sample size can produce extremes more frequently than large samples.

Sampling is inherent to any collection of data. Data is also inherent to our modern scientific management believe systems, hence a need arose in the 18th and 19th centuries to quantify how to collect and analyze data. Frequency distributions, bar graphs, and line graphs showing changes over time are the most common. But these are measures of hard data. Pounds of imports of steel. Costs of health care per month. Numbers of traffic accidents per day. This collection of data is completely different to the matter of opinions, asking people what they believe or how they feel in relation to a constructed verbal question.

Opinion polls are not hard collections of data. What does it mean when 45% of your sample says “Yes”, 25% says “Maybe”, and 30% says “No” ? Which is a 3 index scale. Some scales are 5 or 6 or 10 — which is where the colloquial saying “He/She is a perfect 10” comes from. This is where humans are supposed to proportionally scale our emotions or sentiments or philosophical predispositions all along the range from 1 to “x” , where “x” is say 3, 5, 6, or 10. The notion of zero has no place here, since the number 1 means the lowest rank and zero would mean the absence of any such rank.

Mind you, it’s not like people think this deeply about these matters. Humans are intuitive when it comes to having opinions involving non-hard collections of data, where the numbers are ambiguous, not related to quantifiable measurements or weights. You can’t put your opinion or belief on a scale and measure the weight like you can with a watermelon or automobile, because the criteria or schema by which measurement occurs is different depending on both the life experiences of the person AND the context of what question is being asked. How people answer a question always depends upon the inherent null and full conceptions of the context — in other words, the absence or complete ramification.

So if you are asked, “How do you feel about X?”, your response depends upon a multitude of factors. Are you cognizant of X? Do you even know who X is? What is the experience by which you obtained your current knowledge or idea of X? Is your feeling or sentiment nuanced or singular? All of these questions matter when it comes to an interpretation of a poll based upon opinions, no less than obtaining a sample based upon slightly amorphous data. There are viable instances when a “Maybe” is actually a “Yes” or a “No”, not less than the issue of how one quantifiably interprets the difference between a 4 or a 5 on a 6 point scale.

This matter of the middle is what troubles the statistics of non-hard data collections. How do you interpret what is in between a “yes” or a “no” question? What happens when a Yes or No question forces the notion of “Maybe” to choose between two choices instead of three (or more) ? In most cases, “Maybe” actually means either “yes” or “no” because people are responding to the ambiguity of the context, or as a result of the sequence of questions that were asked.

This is why opinion polls are more reliable at the extremes. 60 to 40 versus 70 to 30 is a huge difference. As a rule of thumb, 10% is like one unit on a Richter Scale. Likewise, an event that does not ever cross a percentage threshold (say 50%) over a period of 3 or 4 or 5 or more years means a lot more than the up and down monthly measurements, which can be completely skewed by context, small sample size and relative ambiguity ( “are you confident”, “do you like”, “are you better off”, …) of the questions being asked.

240 Democrats plus 4 Republicans plus 1 independent vs. 187 Republicans

House Republicans who voted against Tuesday's resolution denouncing the President's Racist comments telling 4 Congresswomen of Color to
"go back" to their "crime infested" countries

• Rep. Ralph Abraham (LA-05)
• Rep. Robert Aderholt (AL-04)
• Rep. Rick Allen (GA-12)
• Rep. Mark Amodei (NV-02)
• Rep. Kelly Armstrong (ND-At-Large)
• Rep. Jodey Arrington (TX-19)
• Rep. Brian Babin (TX-36)
• Rep. Don Bacon (NE-02)
• Rep. Jim Baird (IN-04)
• Rep. Troy Balderson (OH-12)
• Rep. Jim Banks (IN-03)
• Rep. Andy Barr (KY-06)
• Rep. Jack Bergman (MI-01)
• Rep. Gus Bilirakis (FL-12)
• Rep. Rob Bishop (UT-01)
• Rep. Michael Bost (IL-12)
• Rep. Kevin Brady (TX-08)
• Rep. Mo Brooks (AL-05)
• Rep. Vern Buchanan (FL-16)
• Rep. Ken Buck (CO-04)
• Rep. Larry Bucshon (IN-08)
• Rep. Ted Budd (NC-13)
• Rep. Tim Burchett (TN-02)
• Rep. Bradley Byrne (AL-01)
• Rep. Ken Calvert (CA-42)
• Rep. Buddy Carter (GA-01)
• Rep. John Carter (TX-31)
• Rep. Steve Chabot (OH-01)
• Rep. Liz Cheney (WY-At-Large)
• Rep. Ben Cline (VA-06)
• Rep. Michael Cloud (TX-27)
• Rep. Tom Cole (OK-04)
• Rep. Doug Collins (GA-09)
• Rep. Chris Collins (NY-27)
• Rep. James Comer (KY-01)
• Rep. Mike Conaway (TX-11)
• Rep. Paul Cook (CA-08)
• Rep. Rick Crawford (AR-01)
• Rep. Dan Crenshaw (TX-02)
• Rep. John Curtis (UT-03)
• Rep. Warren Davidson (OH-08)
• Rep. Rodney Davis (IL-13)
• Rep. Scott DesJarlais (TN-04)
• Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25)
• Rep. Sean Duffy (WI-07)
• Rep. Jimmy Duncan (TN-02)
• Rep. Neal Dunn (FL-02)
• Rep. Tom Emmer (MN-06)
• Rep. Ron Estes (KS-04)
• Rep. Drew Ferguson (GA-03)
• Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (TN-03)
• Rep. Bill Flores (TX-17)
• Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (NE-01)
• Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC-05)
• Rep. Russ Fulcher (ID-01)
• Rep. Matt Gaetz (FL-01)
• Rep. Mike Gallagher (WI-08)
• Rep. Greg Gianforte (MT-At-Large)
• Rep. Bob Gibbs (OH-07)
• Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (OH-16)
• Rep. Lance Gooden (TX-05)
• Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ-04)
• Rep. Tom Graves (GA-14)
• Rep. Garret Graves (LA-06)
• Rep. Sam Graves (MO-06)
• Rep. Mark Green (TN-07)
• Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
• Rep. Glenn Grothman (WI-06)
• Rep. MIchael Guest (MS-03)
• Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY-02)
• Rep. Jim Hagedorn (MN-01)
• Rep. Andy Harris (MD-01)
• Rep. Vicky Hartzler (MO-04)
• Rep. Kevin Hern (OK-01)
• Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA-03)
• Rep. Jody Hice (GA-10)
• Rep. Clay Higgins (LA-03)
• Rep. French Hill (AR-02)
• Rep. George Holding (NC-02)
• Rep. Trey Hollingsworth (IN-09)
• Rep. Richard Hudson (NC-08)
• Rep. Bill Huizenga (MI-02)
• Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA-50)
• Rep. Mike Johnson (LA-04)
• Rep. Bill Johnson (OH-06)
• Rep. Dusty Johnson (SD-At-Large)
• Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-04)
• Rep. David Joyce (OH-14)
• Rep. John Joyce (PA-13)
• Rep. John Katko (NY-24)
• Rep. Fred Keller (PA-12)
• Rep. Trent Kelly (MS-01)
• Rep. Mike Kelly (PA-16)
• Rep. Steve King (IA-4)
• Rep. Peter King (NY-03)
• Rep. Adam Kinzinger (IL-16)
• Rep. David Kustoff (TN-08)
• Rep. Darin LaHood (IL-18)
• Rep. Doug LaMalfa (CA-01)
• Rep. Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
• Rep. Bob Latta (OH-05)
• Rep. Debbie Lesko (AZ-08)
• Rep. Billy Long (MO-07)
• Rep. Barry Loudermilk (GA-11)
• Rep. Frank Lucas (OK-03)
• Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-09)
• Rep. Roger Marshall (KS-01)
• Rep. Thomas Massie (KY-04)
• Rep. Brian Mast (FL-18)
• Rep. Kevin McCarthy (CA-23)
• Rep. Michael McCaul (TZ-10)
• Rep. Tom McClintock (CA-04)
• Rep. Patrick McHenry (NC-10)
• Rep. David McKinley (WV-01)
• Rep. Mark Meadows (NC-11)
• Rep. Dan Meuser (PA-09)
• Rep. Carol Miller (WV-03)
• Rep. Paul Mitchell (MI-10)
• Rep. John Moolenaar (MI-04)
• Rep. Alex Mooney (WV-02)
• Rep. Markwayne Mullin (OK-02)
• Rep. Dan Newhouse (WA-04)
• Rep. Ralph Norman (SC-05)
• Rep. Devin Nunes (CA-22)
• Rep. Pete Olson (TX-22)
• Rep. Steven Palazzo (MS-04)
• Rep. Gary Palmer (AL-06)
• Rep. Greg Pence (IN-06)
• Rep. Scott Perry (PA-10)
• Rep. Bill Posey (FL-08)
• Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX-04)
• Rep. Tom Reed (NY-23)
• Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (PA-14)
• Rep. Tom Rice (SC-07)
• Rep. Denver Riggleman (VA-05)
• Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02)
• Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05)
• Rep. Phil Roe (TN-01)
• Rep. Mike Rogers (AL-03)
• Rep. Hal Rogers (KY-05)
• Rep. Tom Rooney (FL-16)
• Rep. John Rose (TN-06)
• Rep. David Rouzer (NC-07)
• Rep. Chip Roy (TX-21)
• Rep. John Rutherford (FL-04)
• Rep. Steve Scalise (LA-01)
• Rep. David Schweikert (AZ-06)
• Rep. Austin Scott (GA-08)
• Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05)
• Rep. John Shimkus (IL-15)
• Rep. Mike Simpson (ID-02)
• Rep. Jason Smith (MO-08)
• Rep. Adrian Smith (NE-03)
• Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-04)
• Rep. Lloyd Smucker (PA-11)
• Rep. Ross Spano (FL-15)
• Rep. Pete Stauber (MN-08)
• Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY-21)
• Rep. Bryan Steil (WI-01)
• Rep. Greg Steube (FL-17)
• Rep. Chris Stewart (UT-02)
• Rep. Steve Stivers (OH-15)
• Rep. Van Taylor (TX-03)
• Rep. Glenn Thompson (PA-15)
• Rep. Mac Thornberry (TX-13)
• Rep. William Timmons (SC-04)
• Rep. Scott Tipton (CO-03)
• Rep. Mike Turner (OH-10)
• Rep. Ann Wagner (MO-02)
• Rep. Tim Walberg (MI-07)
• Rep. Greg Walden (OR-02)
• Rep. Mark Walker (NC-06)
• Rep. Jackie Walorski (IN-02)
• Rep. Michael Waltz (FL-06)
• Rep. Steve Watkins (KS-02)
• Rep. Randy Weber (TX-14)
• Rep. Daniel Webster (FL-11)
• Rep. Brad Wenstrup (OH-02)
• Rep. Bruce Westerman (AR-04)
• Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-02)
• Rep. Rob Wittman (VA-01)
• Rep. Steve Womack (AR-03)
• Rep. Rob Woodall (GA-07)
• Rep. Ron Wright (TX-06)
• Rep. Ted Yoho (FL-03)
• Rep. Dong Young (AK-At-Large)
• Rep. Lee Zeldin (NY-01)

They call the opposition names rather than discuss policy. They speak folklore and half-truths rather than explaining historical knowledge or elucidating legal documents and practices. They are shills for large donors who benefit from the current dysfunctional corporate/hedge-fund economic system, and their eyes are either blinded by access to such wealth, or they imbibe the philosophical dystopia because they are true believers.

We have reached a point where the obvious hypocrisy is blatant to the educated, and knowledgeable to even the ignorant. So what do our lords hording massive wealth do? They corporatize and downgrade education. They get rid of scientists. They create massive disinformation campaigns and hire stooges to prop up con artistry (I'm looking at you Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro).

And they use racist memes. White Nationalism and Nativism (Thailand) is rising all over the world. Steve Bannon is on tour in Europe right now stirring up the pot. Middle Aged WASP males are standing in front of audiences at lecterns sponsored by think tanks talking about concerns and worries and needing to stunt the "troubling trends" towards a "multicultural" society. Do a google on "racial dog whistle".

How far does this go?