Li: ritual, propriety, etiquette. Hsiao: love within the family (parents for children and children for parents. Yi: righteousness--the noblest way to act in a situation. Xin: honesty and trustworthiness. Jen: benevolence, humaneness towards others. Chung: loyalty to the state and authority. --Confucius (Kong Fuzi)

All articles appear in reverse chronological order [newest first].

Post from FaceBook may not be viewable if not signed into FaceBook.
I believe the past is relevant, sometimes more than others of course. In most cases we are seeing history being repeated, so it is most relevant.

Wednesday, April 8, 2020

Even a Broken Clock Is Right Twice a Day

Claims that Trump stands to profit from the promotion of the malaria/lupus drug Hydroxychloroquine as treatment of COVID-19 are mostly false.
The problem, in this case, isn't that he is motivated by potential profit BUT that his motivation is his EGO. He is desperate for a talking point victory that gives him the high ground on the COVID-19 issue that he has continually mishandled. His Ego has him grasping for anything that promotes his powerful intelligence and his incredibly perceptive level of commonsense. His need for attention and affirmation is compounded by his lack of focus and concentration. This leads him to obsess on the first thing that 'might' be a winner for him. Instead of becoming more informed and embracing the data and facts, he seeks out a tidbit that if correct, would distinguish him from the experts, thus making him the smartest person all along.
He is gambling on his gut feeling, wishful thinking, and the confidence that he is such a good liar that can turn a lie into the truth just by repeating it enough. It has worked for him in the past as a businessman and President. After all, he has misspoken so often and when questioned on it ten minutes later blatantly denied it, then doubled down with another lie, and another lie, and so on and so on…
Eventually, he gets something right, by chance more than anything, and thus he will emerge with that one truth, or half-truth that he and his supporters will grasp, enshrine, and promote as prophetic wisdom.


  • Even a Broken Clock Is Right Twice a Day
    Meaning: A person who is considered to be unreliable can still be right about something every once in a while, even if it is by accident. This phrase is also said as ‘even a stopped clock is right twice a day.’ (The word ‘broken’ is sometimes substituted for the word ‘stopped.’)
    From   /even-a-broken-clock-is-right-twice> 
  • "Trump’s financial stake in these companies is virtually negligible — contained indirectly via mutual funds — and administered through three family trusts he does not control. As a generic drug, hydroxychloroquine is unlikely to provide any one company with significant profits compared to other proprietary drugs."

Saturday, April 4, 2020

Trumps inability to focus, analyze and delegate has cost us dearly in regards to COVID-19.

The Trump administration* sent 18 tons of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to China In February 2020.
It is the nature of our national character for our country to reach out and help poorer countries when they are in a crisis and need help. That is why we would send PPE's at the outbreak of that crisis... and no one is actually criticizing the Trump administration for what our nation did in the face of this crisis in China.
The criticism is for what Trump did in the face of a crisis in America. He downplayed the coming crisis for weeks while poo-pooing the coming dangers. As the crisis worsened he deflected blame to everyone else and constantly contradicted, misled and lied about the situation.

  1. South Korea had its first case of Covid19 on the same day as the United States. 
  2. By February South Korea had more cases than the US. 
  3. But South Korea managed to flatten its curve by March. 
  4. As of March 28th, the number of cases skyrocketed in the US but not South Korea. 

The total number of cases is relative to the size of the population and other factors but the size of a population does not affect the shape of the curve.
The South Koreans moved swiftly with decisive measures but the Trump administration did not.

Today, after all his blustering and self-congratulations, he is now grandstanding with claims that he really knew all along and didn't say the things he did say, and was acting behind the scenes as he tried to give a positive spin for the sake of morale. All evidence to the contrary his grandstanding has become an embarrassment.
The PPE shipment is more evidence that he didn't take the coming crisis seriously... if he or Secretary of State Pompeo were taking the threat seriously back in January, or February 1, why would they ship these PPEs on February 7? This would have been a valid time for "America First". This would have been the time to start getting PPEs to the states, not China, instead of saying the states are on their own, he should have been supplying them.
What he's being criticized for is his early casual attitude, his downplaying the potential crisis, his attacks on other's who saw it as a real crisis saying they made it up, fake news, political hoax, his constant self-congratulation in a crisis, and his flip-flopping from one minute to the next.
The fact is if he had any clue, was reading his daily briefings instead of twittering, or truly realized the coming nightmare he would have been criticizing the impeachment hearings for distracting from the crisis THEN, not now. He would have been criticizing the Dems for still campaigning, NOT still going out on the campaign trail himself. He would have stopped that shipment then, NOT letting it go through.
 It's Nero fiddling while Rome burned all over again'

"Like many other populist leaders around the world—including Donald Trump in
the The United States, Jair Bolsanaro in Brazil, and Imran Khan in Pakistan—Mexican 
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has mostly taken a dangerously
dismissive and outright irresponsible attitude toward the coronavirus…" ***

*by the Trump administration we mean Trump.

see also:

Wednesday, March 25, 2020

Shelter in place: Biblical?

It seems ironic that such a divisive and contradictory President would advise violating his own advice to 'shelter in place' by encouraging large church gatherings on easter. Especially for the stated goals of saving and enhancing the well being of the money changers at the temple (Bankers and Wall Streeters): Weren't the Israelites told to 'shelter in place' that night?

"during the tenth and final plague, God passes through the land of Egypt and strikes down the firstborn of every household. But the Jews have been told to mark their doors with the blood of a lamb they've sacrificed — the Passover offering — and so God “passes over” their homes."

In the Torah, the blood of this sacrifice sprinkled on the door-posts of the Israelites was to be a sign to God, when passing through the land to slay the first-born of the Egyptians that night, that he should pass by the houses of the Israelites (Exodus 12:1-28)

Even Israel's health ministry is advising limiting prayer and religious ceremonies to groups of ten or less. They also recommend 'home isolation'.

Thursday, March 19, 2020

Growing income inequality: The contribution of automation/mechanization and Artificial Intelligence to a smaller job market.

Remember those jobs that were shipped overseas by those so-called job creators? Remember the 2016 campaign rhetoric about bringing those jobs back? Well, the jobs coming back will not be the manual labor jobs that left.

Through the '50s, 60's and 70's there was an acceptance of the inevitable shift to automation, but it was progressing too slow. Many accepted it as inevitable but no one was ready for it. Mindsets and technology were to slow for corporate America, but corporate America couldn’t wait. Seeing the slow-motion increase of automation was drawing too much criticism and fear of job loss by the working man they realized that they needed an intermediate mechanism for developing automation technology and a fall guy to make way for the acceptance of automation. The intermediate mechanism was third world countries and the fall guy would be the unions.

Corporations shipped those jobs overseas to undercut unions. By villainizing union workers as the blame for high prices, they reduced their overhead greatly, but did you ever see a labor cost related price cut? No, because there is no such animal. After all lower prices weren’t the intent, higher profits were the motive.

Knowing that even non-union workers couldn’t compete with third-world wages, corporations lobbied for trade agreements that made it easier to ship American jobs overseas. In doing so they got the added benefits of avoiding regulation and environmental concerns as well as labor costs such as vacations, insurance, seniority, and safety regulations.
Still no related price reductions.

Corporate America villainized union workers by painting their good wages, benefits and job security as greedy detriments to low-cost manufacturing. Behind this villainization, corporate America was able to steadily ship those union jobs out of the country.

Those jobs will never return because they were never meant to. It wasn’t about reducing labor costs to acceptable levels, or lower prices… it was about reducing labor costs to near zero to increase profits! The rationalized shift to reduce manual labor cost was a distraction from the ultimate goal: automation/mechanization. Jobs were exported to reduce labor, environmental, benefits and safety cost until technology could catch up with the ultimate zero dollar manufacturing model:

As predicted workforce reductions have led to factories staffed with more machines and fewer workers, fewer supervisors, and once machines can fix machines, or even themselves, no supervisors or IT guys. Near zero labor cost.

That's what happened and now that most of those exported jobs have been mechanized they will return in the form of robotics and AI.
When was the last time you heard any rhetoric about bringing those jobs back? The 2016 election… and since then zilch!
“Declining unionization, increasingly demanding and empowered shareholders, decreasing real minimum wages, reduced worker protections, and the increases in outsourcing domestically and abroad have disempowered workers with profound consequences for the labor market and the broader economy,” the authors write in Declining Worker Power and American Economic Performance.

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

Health Care Costs Are a Top Priority for Most Voters

"As the 2020 election approaches, a new poll found that health care costs are the top issue for the majority of voters. In particular, Americans want health care and prescription drug costs cut, regardless of political affiliation."

"About 80 percent responded that lowering the cost of health care is extremely or very important, including 89 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of Republicans. Prescription drug prices saw similar responses, with 75 percent saying lowering costs is important and majorities in both parties ranking it as extremely or very important."

“Health care and drug costs are issues that affect every American,” said Robert Roach, Jr., President of the Alliance. “Elected officials should take note and take real action to lower skyrocketing prescription drug prices and out of pocket costs. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell must respond to the public’s demands and pass H.R. 3, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, not block it.”

source: "The Alliance for Retired Americans"

Sunday, February 23, 2020

Democratic Socialist are not Communist.

The Disparity and Deception of Labels and Party.

We often fail to see the many varied meanings and definitions of words. Especially words used in a religious or political context. This is why we sometimes promote bills, people and policies that we would never support if we looked beyond their titles and slogans to the minutia of their real intent.
We make the same mistake with people in politics by misinterpreting various labels attached to them:
liberal, conservative, progressive, socialist, social democrat, democratic socialist, communist… 
Can any of us give an informative and distinct definition of all these labels? I doubt it. In researching the difference between communism, socialism and social democrat I encountered 11 forms of socialism with an additional 23 sub-forms of those 11. Further complicating the labeling process is that most people who identify with the above labels and the additional labels of Democrat or Republican would be hard-pressed to define these labels to the satisfaction of everyone else who identifies with them.

It is the misuse of these labels that leads to applying the word socialism to any ideals that we find offensive. That, in turn, leads to the application of the word (as it suits us) to ideas that are not so offensive.
Case in point, the idea that welfare is socialism is an attack on welfare and any ideas that could be semantically traced back to socialism such as social security, tithing, charity, caring for the poor, public schools, etc. Consequently, this leads to defenders of welfare applying the same logic and semantics to point out the absurdity of linking everything to socialism. In truth, these ideals are all concepts that originated before the word socialism was ever spoken. But that is where we are. Labels like socialist, liberal, conservative are used to discredit a person or position in place of a convincing argument on the merits of a person or position.
With political labels comes a collection of people who are not monolithic in thought, in spite of their mutual acceptance of core principles differences will surface as they encounter specific solutions to the primary principle. While core principles may be agreed upon there are always layers of more nuanced thought. In other words with every specific issue there are varied position as to degree, commitment, solutions, etc.*

For decades, in every presidential election, Republicans have used the words 'leftist', liberal, socialist to describe every Democratic nominee. These words were 'dog whistles' for fears of communism and socialism. But socialism is not the same as communism and as mentioned above how do we accurately apply the label 'socialist'. We shouldn't because in the realm of politics even self-described labels are inaccurate and almost always used as a broad brush to misrepresent or denigrate.
What we should do is look at the party platform which is modified and restated every 4 years. We should also be familiar with their history. For individual candidates, we should look at their voting-record as well as their stated positions.

Labels and parties are meant to mislead us by accepting the whole without looking at the parts. Consider what they say about each other as less important than what they say on your issues, bolstered by their record. Decide based on what issues are important to you not by your impression of a party.

*All conservative republicans may think they agree on school prayer. That could almost be stated as a foregone conclusion except for one thing… Many religious people are actually in favor of the separation of church and state. If and when you get past 'we want school prayer' declaration there comes a more nuanced question, whose school prayer? Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Hebrew, etc. Once you go with the majority and decide on Christianity then you have to deal with which denomination,  Catholic or Protestant, and even after choosing between those two both include hundreds of denominations and sects to decide upon. In the end, the eventual solution will probably return us to where we started, which is not where there is no prayer allowed in school because prayer is allowed in school right now. The supreme court never outlawed school prayer. What they did do was the most reasonable and acceptable standard for school prayer possible: School prayer is allowable along as it is personal, not led by a school official, optional, and does not disrupt the objectives of the school, learning.

Saturday, February 22, 2020

Nevada Debate: The power of speaking up

By Emily Peck HUFFPOST
"At last night's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) went after Michael Bloomberg (Billionaire-NYC) over his use of nondisclosure agreements.

Bloomberg's company used NDAs to force women to stay silent about their experiences with sexual harassment and discrimination at the media and data company. Bloomberg tried to argue, weakly, that NDAs are good for everyone.

Typically, NDAs are the price you pay if you want to settle a lawsuit against a powerful person or company. The agreements essentially buy your silence. If you don't sign, you don't get the settlement money. Women faced with the huge costs of litigation may feel they have little choice. By keeping these stories quiet, however, bad actors get to keep doing bad acts.

"NDAs also helped cover up the sexual misconduct allegations involving former NBC 'Today' anchor Matt Lauer and other officials at NBC, as well as those involving Fox News founder Roger Ailes and former host Bill O’Reilly," writes my colleague Marina Fang.

I was reminded of this as I was reading Susan Fowler's new book about her time working at Uber. While there, Fowler was sexually harassed and retaliated against. The details are truly shocking and I encourage you to read the book. But we wouldn't know any of this had Fowler been bound by an NDA. Indeed, if she'd been silent, Uber might still be doing this stuff to its workers. Thanks to her, it's not."

Finally, The Real Elizabeth Warren Steps Up
“I’d like to talk about who we’re running against: a billionaire who calls women ’fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians,’” Warren said in her opening comments. “And, no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.”    read more

Bloomberg Says Women ‘Get Paid Exactly The Same As Men’ At His Company. They Don’t.
"Women occupy only 1 in 5 of the top quarter of the highest-paying jobs; the representation of women is largest in the bottom quarter of jobs."

"And although an equal share of men and women earn bonuses, the median women’s bonus is one-third lower than the median men’s bonus."     read more

Susan Fowler Perfectly Illustrates Why You Shouldn’t Silence Women
"The daughter of an evangelical preacher, she grew up dirt poor in rural Arizona, Fowler writes in a new memoir, “Whistleblower.” She and her six siblings were homeschooled until their mother was forced to go back to work."      read more

Annual Retiree Voting Record

The Alliance for Retired Americans’ annual voting record scores every U.S. Representative and Senator on issues affecting current and future retirees.

For 2019, we reviewed 10 key Senate and House votes for legislation that affected the health and well-being of retirees, including skyrocketing prescription drug prices.

A description of the Senate and House votes are available here.

Find your current federal representatives here.

Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Trumps Middle-east Policy: All just a matter of real estate buy-offs...

 ...what comes in the next 4 years? flipping countries like flipping houses:

  • 'America is not the whole world'
    One impeached, the other indicted, they posed as honest brokers with a common vision of a mythical Middle East peace.
  • Israel's Netanyahu indicted in corruption cases. 
    "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was formally indicted on corruption charges Tuesday, just hours before he was set to meet President Donald Trump for the unveiling of the US administration's long-anticipated Middle East plan."
  • Trump unveils Middle East plan that caters to Israel and was swiftly rejected by Palestinians
    "But the economic proposal was met with a thud in the Palestinian territories, where mistrust in the Trump administration reigns following a steady stream of policy moves that have bolstered Israel and undermined the Palestinian position: from US recognition of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as sovereign Israeli territory to cutting off all US support for aid projects aimed at helping Palestinians."
  • Brookings experts on the Middle East react to the White House’s peace plan.
    n January 28 at the White House, President Trump unveiled his plan for Middle East peace alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjanim Netanyahu. Below, Brookings experts on the peace process and the region more broadly offer their initial takes on the announcement."
  • Have Trump and Kim Jong Un fallen out of 'love'?
    North Korea is celebrating a "very important test" at a launch site that US President Donald Trump declared would be dismantled earlier this year -- the real-life culmination of a recent exchange of verbal projectiles across the Pacific.
  • Oslo Accords Fast Facts:
    (CNN)Here's a look at what you need to know about the Oslo Accords, a series of agreements between Israel and the Palestinians signed in the 1990s.

Thursday, February 13, 2020

Global Warming vs. Pollution: Can any sane person deny the reality of both?

by GlennDL
Denying global warming has gotten to be a cottage industry as prolific and profit-generating as any that preceded it.* 
As a result of the growth of this industry, it is difficult to find a 'denier' who isn't well equipped with an abundance of talking points masquerading as science. Whatever is their motivation these talking points embolden them to offer endless and often meaningless rebuttals of facts making civil debate tenuous if not impossible.
A collision of 'cherry-picked' facts and talking points will not produce a conversion of deniers, either uninformed or well-informed.
In terms of climate change, only the results of time will shock some people. One tactic is to instill doubt by avoiding the climate change argument and focusing on the antipollution argument. Argue the damage being done now by current pollution levels and past:
  • With 11,000 miles of coastline, The Great Lakes are the world's largest body of fresh water on earth (one-fifth of the planet's fresh surface water supply). It has been heavily polluted since the 1960s. In 1970 Lake Erie was declared a dead lake. Progress in reversing the decline of the Great Lakes over the last 60 years has been slow, precarious, and continually threatened.
  • The "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" is a floating collection of garbage in the Pacific that is estimated to be the size of the state of Texas.
    Another patch of garbage, discovered in 1972, has been found
    in the Atlantic Ocean. The Atlantic patch is smaller than the Pacific but still of significant size. It has been estimated with new technologies it would take 5 to 10 years to clean up the Pacific patch. Neither of these garbage patches was discovered until they reached a massive size. 
    The major source of this pollution is freshwater runoff such as the draining of the Great Lakes into the ocean, as well as run-off from other waterways and coastal cities. This runoff continues today… 50 years after the discovery of the Atlantic patch.
    Worse yet is the fact that there are bound to be more patches, smaller but growing and we are only seeing the garbage and debris that floats… what about the sub-service runoff?

There are other examples of serious pollution that rise to the level of potentially being a worldwide crisis: Killer smog in cities dating back over a hundred years, landfill shortages, fracking contamination, worldwide strip mining, deforestation, all threaten our current environment and sustainability. All have existed for decades while facing little resistance to exploitation. The solutions to these pressing problems are just as important to our current pollution problem as they are to our long term climate problem.
The idea that the world is just too big to pollute is critical to the climate deniers but the scope of unrelenting pollution on these levels dispute that claim.

Converting the deniers.
Diverting the debate from climate change to fighting pollution may be a more effective way of neutralizing the climate change-oriented talking points. By diverting the discussion from the talking points you may find a more effective way of getting your point across by addressing undeniable pollution facts that raise a sense of urgency. This approach can be effective in circumventing talking points. Not to say it works in converting every denier, or that it results in any more than stymieing the denier, but directly attacking the denier on his ground seldom works… no matter how right you are. They believe what they want to believe.
The objective in a debate is not to change the mind of someone but to persuade them to 'consider' a different possibility. That consideration can open the door to doubt.  If you fail to instill doubt in them whatever you accomplished at the moment will be reversed once they return to the environment that produced their position.
It's like trying to help someone in an abusive relationship. They know it's wrong and that they need to get out of it. But they cannot get out of the relationship until they get out of the environment and as long as they believe that things could change they will return to that relationship. They want to believe that things could change for the better but not until a seed of doubt is planted by a traumatic and eye-opening event will they truly leave that abusive relationship.
The problem with climate deniers is that there is little chance that a traumatic or eye-opening event will occur soon. Most of the effects of climate change occur slowly and over decades or centuries. Temperature changes, rising sea levels, the extinction of species, the decline in nutrients and protein in our food sources, the slow decline in some sources of drinkable water will all fail to register until we are past the point of reversal.

You can browbeat people into submission, you can out 'talking points' them, you can guilt or shame them into silence, and you can even get them to confess they're wrong, but these seldom result in changing their minds for any longer than it takes for them to get away from you, shun you, or decide to dislike you. You can even 'strawman' their sources to the point they realize the fallibility of those sources, but that will not guarantee their conversion. If you don't produce a seed of doubt they will simply continue to hold their belief below the surface.

  1. Did President Trump Reverse an Insecticide Ban After Receiving $1 Million from Dow Chemicals?
  2. World’s Largest Producer of Toxic Pesticide Chlorpyrifos Ends Its Production

*anti-vaccine myths, birthers, moon landing deniers, ancient flat earth beliefs

Rolled Back Under Trump

Search This Blog