Does this gun argument make me evil?

(read through and I'll give a bonus solution to the school shooting problem at the end.)

So here's a 2A argument I am very curious if you'all think reprehensible and evil, or a sane, though unfortunate, necessity.

I *think* what I outline below might have been the argument Charlie Kirk was making but I am not sure, but it has some of the earmarks of it from the little I've seen, though perhaps poorly worded on his behalf. I would agree if his argument was "I should have the right to own a gun, and if your kids die because of that, oh well". If that's the case, yeah, he's the asshole. It's like saying "i can be in irresponsible prick and it's on you". Here's my unguarded backyard pool and if your kid drowns, oh well.

First, a note on perception. We have a hard time comprehending very large numbers. Over a few thousand, millions, billions, septillions, they all merge almost into meaninglessness. A bomb blowing up 1 child down the street, part of our tribe, doesn't seem the same as a larger bomb killing 10,000 people across the water. Both tragic. And one truly more tragic than another. But it doesn't feel that way. The one child, with a story, hits harder.

Here's the argument:

The 2A isn't about hunting. It's the backstop to prevent tyranny. Human nature as it is, you're eventually gonna get a Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao in leadership (Hitlerarians literally think this is happening now with Trump). Should the government become tyrannical we need a way to end it. That's the point.

Tyranny is responsible for the death of... millions... in the last century along. Lenin/Stalin killed probably 20 million in pursuit of utopia. Mao, I think that ranges up to like 60... MILLION. That's men, women, AND children. In Mass. In numbers that are mind boggling. In death that is real.

So the rational argument seems to be that one hundred million deaths is > a few hundred deaths. The price of freedom.

The chance of tyranny? In Game Theory I feel the "guns vs tyranny" argument would be what they call an 'Infinitely Repeated Extensive form game' where one of the players (the government) has a 'credible commitment problem', which means it would be a fools gambit to give them the choice. It's the repetition of the game wherein lies the problem. The credible commitment problem means once player 1 has made his choice, player 2 will (logically) choose his best option (tyranny) irregardless of promises made in the first turn. (Gov: give me the capability to enslave you. I promise that I will never use it. *And* I promise that no president after me, for all time, will use it either.)

A price we pay to ensure the lives of our grandchildren, and their children.

In mass.

Is that a reasonable argument? Or is is more sane to rely on hopes and prayers that Tyranny will never find it's way here (look around if you think that's rational). Is this argument EVIL? Or on the balance does it make sense, even if we don't like it.

Now on to the bonus:

Mass shootings are an easy fix. Based on science.

Think about the commonality (in general) of all the shooters (even in this most recent case). Sure mental illness, but there's something even more basic.

They are all kids.

Don't let kids have guns.

What's a kid? Brains aren't fully formed until about 25 (the science part). That's when they become more rational and reasonable (we all know this, esp if we have kids). No guns for people under 25. If you're a parent and have a gun, and your kid gets a hold of it, pay the price. Like if you let him drive your car and they run someone over.

("but the army!" - thank you for your service, and the extensive training you took to operate a gun, exception)

This combo:

- will likely prevent most mass shooting deaths (you'll never stop a vegas killer, that's a whole other animal, but most 'revenge on the school bully' go away)

- prevents mass murder in tens of millions from your home grown tyrant.

So is the 'prevention of tyranny' argument evil, because it allows for some death?

The Democrat Circus of insanity

All politics is tribal (100,000 years of selection breeds tribes that kill their neighbors rather than consensus builders).

Our ideology is tribal and we rationalize backwards to justify our tribal allegiance. "See, this article I found proves we are right!". We say we researched thoroughly both sides and came to a conclusion, but it's not true. We came to a conclusion (my personal belief it's based on what our tribe leaders have decided, because its a heuristic shortcut for us), and then looked for evidence to support it.

The problem is that the Blue Tribe is NOT the same tribe we grew up with. It is truly a Circus of Insanity.

Child Gender Mutilation, masquerading as "affirming care" is a case in point. The people that actually need physical modification to match their wiring is tiny. Almost all cases resolve during puberty. Binary thinking is easy: "He thinks A (he's a girl), therefore B (he has gender dysphoria) . Multi-variant thinking is hard. That is, there could be a number of reasons a child, teen, adult might think that, including things such as social contagion, parental virtue seeking, or men who pursue it as a sexual fetish.

My child wanted to be a dinosaur when he was 5. This did not cause me to surgically shorten his arms and attach a horn to his forehead. He's five. He's not capable of making a decision like that. I am the parent. My role is to protect my child from stupid decisions.

"Geesh, mom, yeah I liked my sister's Little Mermaid doll, but you didn't have to chop off my Tallywacker".

Parental virtue seeking. I watched a video of the proud parents of a 8-yr old newly transitioned 'girl'. The kid stood off to the side, like prop, while the parents beamed into the camera. They weren't proud of him, they were proud of themselves. They sacrificed their child on the alter of Virtue.

There's a disorder called "Munchausen syndrome by proxy", in which a caregiver makes up fake symptoms or causes real symptoms in a child, to make it appear that the victim has a true physical or mental health issue. They do it for the attention they get "you're a saint for being there for them".

I propose a new term to be entered into the mental disorder lexicon: "Virtue By Proxy". Where you cause harm to your child to bask in the glory and woke accolades of your peers.

The leaders of the Democrat party are ringmasters of this Circus of Insanity. Don't go into the tent.

Quote

You character shows in how you act when you are right.

The great immigration filter

America is the Galt's Gulch of the western hemisphere. Our immigration policies are destroying our neighbors.

A text message from the past.

I think one of our Facebook users traveled back in time to the 1850's. His name was John Mill. He left a text message. In actual text.

Per the conservative purge, I understand, and generally agree with the "it's a private company to do with as they wish". But there's a larger issue at stake in this 'great silencing'. (not withstanding that FB is not a private company, and there are rules dealing with 'public accommodation', but that's not the point.)

John Mill said it best in his essay 'On Liberty'. It has to do with the Tyranny of the Majority. Protection against the tyranny of government isn't enough. There's needs to be protection against the tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling.

That is, against the tendency of society to turn its own ideas and practices into rules of conduct, and impose them - by means other than legal penalties (which is what the gov does) - on those who dissent from them; to hamper the development and if possible to prevent the formation of any individuality that isn’t in harmony with its ways. Ye shall not speak, bank, work, or eat unless you conform, comrade.

Think this is not related to what maybe happening now, He also wrote this "People are accustomed to believe that on topics like this their feelings are better than reasons, and make it unnecessary to have reasons.... that leads them to their opinions on how human beings should behave is the feeling in each person’s mind that everybody should be required to act as he"

That's how we got the line: "We prefer truth over facts".

(I think Biden said that, maybe AOC)

All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility, which is a good argument for condemning it; everyone thinks they are right/infallible. You rob yourself the opportunity of exchanging your error for truth, or if you happen to be right (which may be 50% of the time if you are lucky) helping another gain clearer understanding when he is wrong (rather than remain of the same opinion and fuming about it).

But only Bad Men believe these things. It can't be wrong to silence these fascists, misogynists, racists, term-du-jour... Deciding that an opinion is dangerous, just like deciding that it is false, requires an infallible judge of opinions unless the condemned opinion has a full opportunity to defend itself.

You can't even be sure of your own truth, if no one is allowed to question it.

And if it is true, defending it will give you an even stronger grasp of it's power, rather than just reverting to the dogma of it. In addition, popular opinions are often true but are seldom or never the whole truth. They are a part of the truth - sometimes a large part, sometimes small. And as Mills says "Minority opinions, on the other hand, are generally some of these suppressed and neglected truths, bursting the bonds that kept them down and either - seeking reconciliation with the truth contained in the common opinion".

So they might help you arrive at a larger truth.

Of course acts that actually injure others require a totally different treatment. There's a difference between the loss of regard that a person may rightly incur through being a jackass, and condemnation due to an offence against the rights of others. To this Mills offers "If he displeases us, we may express our distaste, and we may keep our distance from a person as well as from a thing that displeases us; but we shan’t therefore feel called on to make his life uncomfortable. We shall reflect that he already bears, or will bear, the whole penalty of his error. If he spoils his life by mismanagement, that won’t lead us to want to spoil it still further: instead of wishing to punish him, we’ll try to lighten his punishment, by showing him how to avoid or cure the evils that his conduct tends to bring on him. He may be to us an object of pity, perhaps of dislike, but not of anger or resentment; we shan’t treat him like an enemy of society; the worst we shall think ourselves justified in doing is leaving him to himself.
The situation is entire different if he has infringed the rules necessary for the protection of his fellow-creatures, individually or collectively. The evil consequences of his acts don’t then fall on himself but on others; and society, as the protector of all its members, must strike back at him, inflicting pain on him for the express purpose of punishment, and must take care that the pain is sufficiently severe"

Here's the full text of Mills On Liberty. It amazes me how prescient some of these guys were.

On Liberty

What do you think of the term "Drive-By Argument"?

I'm not quite settled on it, but I think it will do for now.

So you've just posted a great article you've read, or a carefully curated facebook status, and the first response is someone who Dive-bombs a link to an opposing article in an attempt to nullify it. I had considered coining 'Dive bomb argument', but I think Drive-by is more appropriate because they don't usually offer follow-up or fun logical banter. It's usually one-and-done, and they're gone. Hence, drive-by.

I actually think it might be effective, even though the counter is often specious. Effective in that as your friends casually scroll by, they often see the dueling headlines, and consider them both null.

BUT

It's BAD

For the Dive bomber.

Writing is thinking. Use the opportunity to sharpen your mind, through language, to build coherent and sophisticated ideas. Being persuasive through words is one of the most important skills you can posses.

Writing is multi-faceted. There's a visual element, - like the 3 separate lines above. It adds power to your message.

It has sound. It has rhythm. It has a beat.

Like that sentence.

There's even a flavor to the bits and bites of it. Consider Tranquil vs Serene. The harsh T and Q adds an undercurrent of dissonance, but the soft s seems to flow and calm. Enjoy the artistry of it.

Your goal should be to make yourself as articulate in writing, thinking and persuading as you possibly can. That's the formula to win. No matter what you do. The most articulate person always rises. They can lay out the best strategies (understandably), show they can grapple with complex situations, and have the capability to defend themselves when challenged.

Watch this

THIS IS FASCINATING. If you watch one video, watch this. It's the entire un-edited stream of dude that got kicked in the face, shows the complete backstory. It is graphic.

Lessons Learned:

- Don't try and be a peacemaker, you'll only get kicked in the head and have some brain damage.

- Do not use reason with a mob. People in an emotional state are not dealing with logic, they do not hear you.

- the mob moves from person to person very easily. you can become a target in a moment.

- (more additional tips in my comments)

Compare what you see in this video to the news sources you watch. Are they telling you the truth?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCKcYSQAP6U

1. Control Your Emotions. you need self-discipline and control your emotions in civil unrest. If you’re walking down the street and you see guys running out of Best Buy with TVs in their arms, just keep moving.

2. Blend in. If you have to make your way through town, you want to blend in with the protestors or looters. If they’re holding a sign that says, “Death to Police”, then you better start chanting that too or grab a sign of your own. The worst thing you can do is let them know you’re not on their side.

3. Do Not Go out at Night. A wise man said, “nothing good happens after midnight.” When it’s dark out, people tend to become more out of control. They think they can get away with more violent behavior.

4. Go with the Flow. If you’re walking around in the streets and run into a mob of several hundred people, never try to walk through them and go against the flow of traffic. You’ll draw a lot of attention to yourself or get trampled. Go with the flow of the mob and have patience..

5. Stay Away from the Leader. Every mob has a leader who others follow and you can find him usually at the front of the pack. This person is the most vocal and draws the most attention to himself. If this leader starts fighting with police, others will follow… And if this leader starts hurling rocks, others will follow…If this leader decides to smash a storefront window and start looting, others will follow, too. The area around this mob leader is very dangerous. You don’t want yourself or your family anywhere around this person. Once you identify this leader keep your distance and stay near less violent and less volatile individuals.

6. Move to escape routes in a calm manner. If you move slowly and calmly you have a greater chance of not attracting attention. (think how a predator is triggered seeing an animal run).

7. Be Prepared to Ruthlessly Fight Back. If somehow the mob turns against you, prepare to strike back quickly and ruthlessly. If you hesitate at all it may cost you your life.

Fair pricing initiative

What do you think of the latest proposal from one congresswoman called the “Fair pricing initiative”. The idea is simply expanding the concept that the wealthy can afford to pay more, that is, their ‘fair share’. Currently we have ‘means testing’ for healthcare coverage in that if you cannot afford it then healthcare companies offer a reduced option. It seem reasonable that this model should apply across ALL commerce. Those who have more, should pay a little more, in order to help subsidize those who cannot afford it. Pricing for any commodity (a TV, your cable bill, food, rent, gas, a book at the bookstore, a cup of coffee, etc.) will be ‘means tested’, meaning that if you have the ‘means’ to pay more, you will, and if not, then the price will be less than the asking price. So all commercial pricing will be a sliding scale rather than fixed. So, for example, if you go to Starbucks for a cup o’ Jo, your price, based on your annual income (which is tracked and tied to your debit card, ), will be $4 + a 17% “means” tax. Now, if a less well-off American is in line behind you, his price will be $4 – 32%.

It’s only fair.

“This is a test of the Humans 2.0 Simulation System. This is only a test”

Have you noticed the exact same (R) who called for Clinton’s impeachment use the exact same words the same (D)s used when defending Clinton back in the day. And the same (D) against impeachment back then who claimed it “was overturning the election” are saying the opposite now? I mean the exact same people.

Have you noticed the exact same people who screamed Russian collusion for 2 years quickly dismiss “Ukraine collusion” with the words conspiracy theory.

I’m starting to think the System Operators install these ethical dilemmas to test reasoning powers of their creation.

I hope it’s not time for a reboot.

True reasoning is only possible when there is no motivation.

$1/k mon Freedom dividend.

Here's what Yang, or Trump (as a spin on it) should do.

Offer something similar, but, here's the twist: Rather than have people offer up a sob story of how much they could use it (which promotes dependence, victim-hood, and entitlement), ask them to do something to help both themselves and other Americans. Each month take the $1k and give 1/2 of it to someone else with SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS that they must give 1/2 of that amount to someone else, also instructing that next person to give 1/2 of it to the next in line. This will be fascinating, especially when we get down to $10 or $20 dollars, where I envision it will be random acts of kindness such as 'here's $10 free to buy yourself some Chick-fil-a today'. Where did it come from? Why person X for president'. Think of the viral nature of this.

Plus it will be neat when someone hands someone else a dime, then a nickle...

Nate's Maxim

Looters take from you using force. Moochers take from you using guilt. Bunglers take from you through incompetence.

Avoid these people at all costs.

Maxim

"when the going gets weird,
the weird turn pro"

When is it murder

You're standing next to a stranger at the top of a building. He falls, but reaches out and grabs your hand. You end up holding his hand and your grip is the only thing between him and his death. You are perfectly safe, and your grip is firm enough that you can hold him indefinitely, or at least until help arrives, but you cannot lift him to safety.

Is it murder to let him go?

Is it murder to let him go after 10 minutes?

An hour?

Nine months?

see the tie to abortion?

Pooh is strapped

If we outlaw guns then only heffalumps and woozles will have guns.

maxim

Democracy can be “two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for lunch.”

OR

Two wolves & a sheep voting on what’s for dinner is not a good system.

Indentity issues

I understand the argument “a man shouldn’t decide women’s issues“. But what about…

- A man who identifies as a woman?

- A man who has transitioned to a woman, and has most of the parts but cannot have a baby. Do they gain the right to vote even though they cannot procreate?

- what about a woman who identifies as a man, or has fully transitioned to a man, but can still have a baby? Do they lose their right to vote on it because they are man, even though they can have a baby?

Since it’s Easter, is God a moral monster?

Specifically I am speaking to the argument that “God doesn’t exist because how could a good god allow horrible evil to happen”. Will god disappear in a puff of logic?

Truth IS. Regardless of how we feel about it. Reality IS. Regardless of what we want it to be.

God’s existence (or non existence) is not tethered to our feelings about reality. Something is, or is not, simply because it either is or is not. It’s own reality/non-reality is not premised upon what we feel “, or think, or want it to be. The argument ‘of’ a thing does not does rest on our ‘why’ of it.

For example, on evil, just because we don’t understand, or agree, with a ‘why’, doesn’t change what is. It could very well be god is a malevolent being who enjoys our suffering. It would suck. It would not be fair. It would be a horrible injustice we’d find ourselves in. But it would be truth. And we’d have to deal with it.

If one perceives them self a “thinking man”, a “logical man”, then you must seek what IS, and follow a logic to whatever conclusion it leads you, irregardless of what ‘should’ be. If you seek truth don’t seed your path with with your own ‘should’ to reach a conclusion you’ve ordained. But rather set a foot on a sure path of reason and logic to reach the conclusion of IS rather than WANT even to the end of an uncomfortable truth. Better reality that enlightens than fantasy and error that blinds.

Get new dishware

Now I know where cups and plates are born!

There I was, in the kitchen, just cleaned some dishes and put them away. A beautiful clean and empty sink. I only turned away for a moment and suddenly there they were. A dish and a cup. Out of nowhere. My son, who had briefly enter the kitchen a moment before, saw them too! Yes, our sink is the magical breeding ground for cups and plates. I surmise if I leave the sink empty tonight, by tomorrow it will be full of brand new tableware!

I think therefor I create

I saw an article that says in quantum physics reality doesn’t exist until it’s measured. I.e. a Photon hasn’t been “decided” whether it is A wave or a particle until you measure it. Before then it’s just a probability. What if we apply what happens there, on a very small scale, to a macro scale such as our own reality. That is, reality/our future isn’t determined until we set an intention to it. Kind a like the power of positive thinking

Your soul gem

Imagine you possess a family 'soul gem'. If it is crushed, not only will you die, but your children, and your children's children and so on (so the stakes are high). Now imagine you are before President Sanders. You trust President Sanders. He would never hurt you. And we will assume this is true. Sanders says to you "The soul gem is dangerous for you to have (which is true because you could accidentally break it and kill off your entire lineage). The gov should carry it instead, and it will write a law (assume this is true) that will prevent it ever being used that in any way will harm you"

How do you answer?

In Game Theory they call this an 'Infinitely Repeated Extensive form game'

An 'Infinitely Repeated Extensive form game' where one of the players (the government) has a 'credible commitment problem', which means it would be a fools gambit to give them the choice. It's the repetition of the game wherein lies the problem. The credible commitment problem means once player 1 has made his choice, player 2 will (logically) choose his best option (tyranny) irregardless of promises (laws) made in the first turn.

Now replace "Soul Gem" with Gun. It being the last line of defense from government tyranny (which is represented by the destruction of your children's children). Any new positions on Gun Control?

What drives climate thinking

A curious argument about climate change got me thinking. And the answer may surprise you. And believe it or not, this post really isn't about climate change.

So I've been thinking. To me, it seems a 'pure rational' argument to address what is presented as extinction-level climate change in the near future would be to go nuclear immediately and transition to pure renewables in the future when they can provide the energy we need.

The logic following this structure:

Option A - provides value X at a cost of infinity

Option B - provides value X at a cost of a very small number less than infinity

Option C - could provide value, but not in time to override a default cost choice of A (Infinity)

When viewed w/o any attached 'bias', but in pure form, any rational choice is B.

If we look at climate change under this structure, we have:

A - using fossil fuels kills us all within 10 years (infinity cost)

B - using nuclear saves us, at a cost of a few hundred lives and loss of some lands due to accidents (a very small number less than infinity/extinction)

C - solar/etc. cannot provide a solution to stop choice A in the assumed time frame we have left, therefore cost = infinity/extinction.

But the same A/B/C when viewed with this dressing causes, some to choose C. Why?

I think I have the answer.

From stuff I've read there are basically about 5 moral foundations we base our beliefs on, and we range within each. The moral tenet I think is at the root is 'Sanctity'.

For example, conservatives would speak to sanctity as in sexual purity (abstinence), body is a temple (don't do drugs), etc, or if you go as far a Hitler, a 'pure race'. And the left seems to represent the same with things like 'I eat pure organic foods', 'or I am vegan', stuff like that.

Neither is wrong (well, except for Hitler), both are compelled by the same base moral tenet, just expressed differently.

I believe that the left views solar,wind, etc. through this moral filter as a 'pure' form of energy. Clean (and it is), natural and true to the 'earth' in goodness and purity.

Nuclear is dirty, man-made, and not of the 'earth'. So even though it may provide the solution for survival, one cannot (easily) adopt a change in a base moral tenet. You can change your mind, but you cannot change your principals, even if it means your destruction.

AOC

You're HELPING, not hurting, AOC when you post memes about how stupid she is (and she is).

Think about it this way, were you persuaded against Trump when your left friends posted daily how stupid some of the things Trump said? (and he said many provocative things). Why did he do it? For the same reason AOC is doing it. One of Trump’s most guiding belief is that bad publicity doesn’t have to be avoided, it should be embraced, even stoked.

From the Art of the Deal

"One thing I've learned about the press is that they're always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better. It's in the nature of the job, and I understand that. The point is that if you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you....From a pure business point of view, the benefits of being written about have far outweighed the drawbacks. It's really quite simple ... The funny thing is that even a critical story, which may be hurtful personally, can be very valuable to your business."

The worst thing for a politician is to be...ignored. What you do not think about does not exist. Send her to the dustbin of obscurity.

But you believe in "Enlightenment reasoning", and that if you just tell people the facts, they’ll reach the right conclusion. It's not true. People think in terms of conceptual structures called frames and metaphors. It’s not just the facts. They have values, and they understand which facts fit into their conceptual framework. You can’t understand something if your brain doesn’t allow it, if your brain filters it out in terms of your values.

Reason is not a persuasive vehicle.

Have a read from Robert Greene's "48 Laws of Power"

Law: 6 "Court Attention at all Cost":

"Appearance is everything, don’t get lose in a crowd. If you don’t stand out, you are sure to disappear into obscurity. Appear larger, more colorful, and more mysterious by the timid and bland masses to get attention. Associate Your Name with the Sensational and the Scandalous. Attract your attention to you at all costs, there is no such thing as ‘bad publicity’. Scandal is not destructive to your image, it is enhancing. More notoriety will make you more powerful.... ...Society craves the showman, the larger-than-life figure that fearlessly steps outside the timidity of the crowd. They admire this person and reward him. This is true of every profession, since every line of work requires showmanship ability."

P.T Barnum knew this, as does Trump, and apparently so does AOC (who must have picked up a copy of the book).

Maxim

Imagination. So we can learn from experience without dying.

My virtual signalling buddy dropped me

You know how they say "If you've been married 5 times, the problem might be with you", well, I'll add... "If you've unfriended more than 5 people, the problem is probably with you."

The people who block/unfriend often seem to be sanctimonious pricks, thinking they are spreading wisdom from their ivory tower, but generally don't have the cerebral firepower to back it up. And when the emperor is revealed to lacking a scholarly wardrobe, resorts to claiming the moral high ground with "You, Sir, are evil and I ban you from my little kingdom". Hoping his subjects will note his virtue and piety.

The flag

Do this on Sunday. Post an American flag on your newsfeed. Do NOT post any words or maga or vote republican (it will actually reduce the psychological effectiveness of the image). Just the flag alone.

This is why:

(Single Exposure to the American Flag Shifts Support Toward Republicanism)

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611414726

Also don’t just use this image. Mix it up.

Per the political climate

You'll feel better once you accept that our nature is to decide/act emotionally and not rationally. We decide first based on emotion and rationalize that decision with 'logic'. It's our default operating mode, and it is very difficult to think around it. And once you are on a team (either team Red or team Blue) it's even harder.

If you can step back a bit, you'll can see why this Trump stuff is so much fun to watch.

Everyone who vociferously defended Clinton's Monica indiscretions as 'personal conduct not relevant to his "work" life' have suddenly found moral clarity and charge Trump as a horrible misogynist (I call bullsh*t on suddenly being 'woke' in the last year about Bill, unless you admit you were a horrible rape-supporting person just a year ago, no it's simply to alleviate the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing with the position flip flop). And the same team Blue surely considered Whitewater an unjustified 'witch hunt'.

But team Red is no better. Howling about Bill lying to save his ass from his angry wife, or settling sexual lawsuits to keep his brand intact is the same as Trump paying his accusers to prevent Melania fury and keep his brand clean. And Red considers Whitewater a justified inquiry into 'corruption'. (IMO, they won't get Trump on collusion because that's just feel-good fantasy, with a carte-blanche discovery process they'll get him with a Whitewater style thing in his business - you don't make billions in NY real estate and casinos without some sort of skeletons).

So, you'll find everything a lot more entertaining when you look at things from the lense that we aren't rational most of the time. And if anyone thinks they are the exception, I'll note that if I asked to cut in line before you at Chipotle, I'll increase my chances you'll let me in by 34% if I added "because I had a skateboard"

Nate's maxim

You've heard: Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life.

I'd like to provide a third stanza:

Give a man 1/2 a fish, so he's not starved, but hungry enough to do something about it.

Give a man a fish (I think liberals and free healthcare, free housing, free living wages. We just want to help you/love you. We mother you and never let you grow up).

Teach a man to fish (I think conservatives, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, rugged individualism. but some may add, if you can't do it, you should starve).

The third way is to help just enough to get you started, with a bit of pain to keep you motivated. If there's no pain, or accountability, you are hurting the person in the long run.

Trump and Animals

It's interesting to see how words are perceived based on your filter. (like Brainstorm vs Green Needle - you hear what you 'prime' yourself to hear.)

When Trump spoke of Animals, he was referring to MS-13 gang members, about their 'behavior' and not their DNA.

But that's not what you'd think he said if you just read the MSM headlines.

Double standard

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/19/opinion/the-adultery-wars.html

Are you morally outraged about Trump's affair with Stormy Daniels, but were quiet on Bill Clinton's indiscretions?

Think 'no big deal' about it, but were outraged in '98 when Bill was in office with his intern?

Do you find yourself saying "It's different because..."

Don't feel bad about being hypocritical, it's human nature. You decided at an unconscious deeper emotional level (likely tribalism), and now your 'rational' mind is called upon to justify your decision. That's just how we work.

But is it fun to watch it play out. Take this statement from a leading main stream media outlet:

"But publicly humiliating anyone for consensual adultery is draconian, and wrong. It teaches children cynicism. What they see is how little respect there is for privacy, and how gratuitously and harshly adults will harm one another to gain a little power. And using adultery or any aspect of consensual adult sexuality as a weapon in political battles is more abhorrent than the act itself."

Last week on Fox News? Nope, but you can bet something similar will appear there soon. This quote was from the New York Times in 1998 about Bill Clinton (https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/19/opinion/the-adultery-wars.html

What is the NYT saying now?

"There’s a familiar script for discrediting women who accuse powerful men. They’re attacked as opportunistic and promiscuous, out to make a buck. If they deny any of that, it still ends up making the moral conversation about them." (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/arts/television/stormy-daniels-interview-trump.html)

See, you can have it both ways.

Brain trouble

Asked to think the way a liberal thinks, conservatives answered moral questions just as the liberal would answer them, but liberal students were unable to do the reverse.

People get angry at what they don’t understand, and an all-progressive education ensures that they don’t understand.

"I have no idea why you would believe that. You're probably a racist"

http://quillette.com/2018/03/10/psychology-progressive-hostility

The musket meme

If you really think about it, this is a logical argument FOR bazookas.

(Not that I'm taking a position for/against bazookas, just trying to show a false equivalence). The musket vid shows guy coming to work and blasting away with a musket, the pitch being, 'guns have changed'.

However, think about those times. At that time the musket was used as the *prime* weapon by BOTH the military and civilians. You could argue that the 2nd amendment gave *parity* to both sides (the concept being to protect our Right to Revolution). They did not limit civilians to slingshots, knives, and clubs, which would have been equivalent to the "people should not have military style weapons" of today. It seems our founders would disagree.

The Bowl - a poem

Boys forgot to feed the dogs today. Since Ryan has been writing poetry recently I left this by the bowl this am...

The Bowl.

Fountainhead of taste.

Well-spring of nourishment.

Empty.

Fill! Fill!

The crunch.

The placated belly.

The torturous wait.

Empty bowl.

Empty belly.

Are they angered?

Enraged?

Engaged?

Empty too, of love?

I shall wait.

The tale of two memos

President Trump stopped the release of the democratic response memo to the rep one released last week. Does it tell us more about him... or about us?

- If you were against the release of the first memo citing national security and the fear of revealing "sources and methods", are you now saying "Finally president Trump has done the right thing and not put our country at risk by stopping another classified memo from getting out"? I'd wager not.

- If you were for the release of the first memo citing "the truth should be told", do you maintain the same position?

Generally, we decide emotionally first, and rationalize later.

Interesting on Shadow Banning

Probably the best way to avoid automated 'censorship' on stuff you post would be to append a 'happy talk' keyword list to the end of your text: "love, happy, open minded, peace, john lennon", and depending on the slant of the service you use, an optional political love/hate filter: "I'm with Her, Trump is hitler"

If Trump is Hitler, is it ok to lie, if your lie would stop a Hitleresque agenda?

Specifically, would it be ok if the woman who claimed Moore molested her lied, but it was for the good reason of stopping Trump (not saying I believe or disbelieve her)

Reason for asking is Ryan Hammond and I had been discussing Kant's "Categorical Imperative" (as it relates to The Watchman), and the idea you could determine morality based on universalization of an action (if it's wrong to lie it's ALWAYS wrong to lie no matter what - and his example being even if a killer came to your door and asked if your friend Joe was inside (he is) and if you lied and said no, but Joe overheard and snuck out the back, but the killer, leaving because you said No, ran into Joe, then it is your fault for Joe's death.)

Jerusalem

Trump recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, reversing nearly seven decades of American foreign policy, ignoring warnings from diplomats around the world.

Choose...

1) Trump is an orange buffoon, causing chaos around the world because he doesn't know what he's doing.

2) Trump, a highly skilled negotiator, has increased his leverage in a Mideast deal by bringing to his side of the table the biggest chip.

If you immediately went to #1, without option #2 even occurring to you, I would suggest your fear/hate is limiting your ability to see. This is not good for you. It is important to see reality.

Why option #2? I'll let Trump explain it to you straight from his book "The Art of the Deal":

"Use Your Leverage: The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead. The best thing you can do is deal from strength, and leverage is the biggest strength you can have. Leverage is having something the other guy wants. Or better yet, needs. Or best of all, simply can’t do without."

Caveat for my personal safety: I am not a Trump apologist, my politics do not map to either side. My goal is to try to see things clearly, not through the lens of a 'team'.

Fake Koi fish

wow, this is an interesting look into the development of fake news.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/politics/donald-trump-koi-pond-japan/index.html

Notice the headline "winds up pouring the entire box", kinda implies he is an idiot. Watch the edited video too.

Then read this: https://www.infowars.com/triggered-media-goes-into-meltdown-over-trump-feeding-fish-in-japan/

We live in a Koi Fish world now.

Polarizing

When seeking to separate two things, it is easier to differentiate if there is a higher contrast. We hence polarize, pushing our perceptions more towards extremes in order to say 'this is clearly different from that', rather than 'this is a bit different from that'. Living in a black-and-white world is easier, if less accurate, and many hence choose to take extreme views rather than live with uncertainty.

We polarize by selectively amplifying those aspects that will support our position and downplaying or ignoring those which will not. In this way, we create selective distortion.

We do this in particular when separating ourselves (and our friends) from other people, especially if values are involved, as we seek to ensure we are all good and we can project all bad things onto the other person

Jenny

Jenny is thirty-one years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in antinuclear demonstrations.

Which alternative is more probable?

A) Jenny is a bank teller.

B) Jenny is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.


But this is actually a psyc problem. 80% of people choose 2 but the correct answer is 1. Compare the Linda case to the following case: what is more likely: that (1) you will have a flat tire tomorrow morning or that (2) you will have a flat tire tomorrow and that a man in a black car will stop to help you out. In this case, it should be evident that (2) is NOT the most likely outcome. cool huh! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy

The trolley dilemma 2

Imagine you are standing on a footbridge above the tram tracks. You can see the runaway trolley hurtling towards the five unsuspecting workers, but there’s no lever to divert it.

However, there is large man standing next to you on the footbridge. You’re confident that his bulk would stop the tram in its tracks.

So, would you push the man on to the tracks, sacrificing him in order to stop the tram and thereby saving five others?


the principle of double effect, which states that it’s permissible to indirectly cause harm (as a side or “double” effect) if the action promotes an even greater good. However, it’s not permissible to directly cause harm, even in the pursuit of a greater good https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

The trolley dilemma

Imagine you are standing beside some tram tracks. In the distance, you spot a runaway trolley hurtling down the tracks towards five workers who cannot hear it coming. Even if they do spot it, they won’t be able to move out of the way in time.

As this disaster looms, you glance down and see a lever connected to the tracks. You realise that if you pull the lever, the tram will be diverted down a second set of tracks away from the five unsuspecting workers.

However, down this side track is one lone worker, just as oblivious as his colleagues.

So, would you pull the lever, leading to one death but saving five?

What's more likely to kill you: Mass shooter, Terrorist, or McDonalds?

Statistically you'll probably die from the heart disease you get from your fast food. Yet, people are freaking out, afraid, and demanding action for what is really a rare event. Why? I'll tell you.

Our brains aren't good at judging probability and risk analysis We exaggerate strange and rare events, downplaying common and ordinary ones. Its because we base analysis more on stories than on data, because stories effect us much more strongly than other forms of communication. And stories that are exciting or vivid are that much stronger. Our media has a lot of stories for us to watch.

Think you may not be effected? Are you now clamoring for an assault weapon ban, even though handguns, or even cars, kill more people? Look back through your posts from last year. When Trump and 'the right' clamored to ban foreigners from other countries to protect us from 'bombers', did you calmly post 'facts' and google links pointing out that dying from terrorism is actually very rare (and you were right, btw).

This is the same thing but in reverse. If you replaced 'angry white shooter' with 'angry brown bomber', we'd have a completely different reaction.

Both are tempests is a statistically rare teapot, but you get to choose the tea.

Solution for mass shootings

My well-meaning friends on the left will propose the same ineffective solution that focuses on the hands, and not the heart (take away the tools! guns). The right won't have a solution either. But there is third way.

Focus on the heart, the head. Remove the reward.

The shooter reward is infamy. His face plastered on the news, his manifesto promulgated on CNN. I propose 'the great expungement'. Never use his name, newscasters refer to the 'sad loser'. His picture is as shown here, an anonymous silhouette. Replace his facebook photo with a picture of bozo the clown and prefix his name with 'asshole'. Hide all his facebook postings and rantings on all social media from public access. cremate the body and spread the ashes in the local dump.

No one wants to become a non-person, especially the deranged shooter.

SPLC is now e-pope

In case you missed it the Southern Poverty Law Center just became your Pope.

Splc provides a web site that lists hate groups (like nazis and such). I think they mean well, and its probably a good thing to out groups like this. Apple and a few other rich people just donated a lot of $ to them. So they seem on their way to becoming the 'snopes' of hate.

Facebook, youtube, and other tech services are using their list in order to determine what facebook group pages to remove, youtube videos to hide, webpages top remove, etc. Again, this is probably not a bad thing.

But I am a little worried.

If you can be digitally excommunicated by appearing on this list. Who sets the bar? I don't know anything about their politics. If a church or a mosque is against gay marriage is that hate? What about a climate-denying group? Both sides can point to groups on the other they consider 'hate' (BLM, antifa, the tea party, etc.). How do you lobby the splc to get the other side to 'disappear'? Do they already have a side?

You can predict what happens next as more and more groups suddenly find themselves on the outs, and technology is denied to them (uber, air-bnb, amazon purchases). Should we worry about a slippery slope that might put our beliefs in the cross hairs?

The moon is badass

The Moon is 400 times smaller than the sun, yet it is also just one 400th of the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Just right for an eclipse. How cool is that. Coincidence?

First to Hitler loses

A thought on why facebook conversations tend toward outrage and how to stop it.

Here's what I think it is. When you interpret someone disagreeing with your post (on social issues) you interpret it as disagreeing with your morality, not your solution.

Take the proverb "give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for life". If one person says 'give him the fish' and one says 'teach him' the important point is BOTH ARE TRYING TO HELP the guy (their moral compasses point in the same direction). If one said 'give' and the other 'let the dirtbag starve' one could understand the justified moral outrage and anger of the 'giver'.

In the give/teach disagreement scenario anger is unwarranted and unproductive. Both parties are trying to reach the same goal (helping someone) but are disagreeing on process.

In a thread about minimum wage I was having I noted my friend interpreting and filtering what I was saying as 'you are heartless and don't care about people'. Could that filter be in place because someone has D or R for political affiliation? To me, in that thread the 'goal' is to help the working poor (which we both agree on moral grounds). The 'solution/process' to do that is the disagreement. Where I tend to see his solution (min wage increase) as actually harmful to the goal (and thus the people in need) and he did not.

But the important point is that disagreeing on solutions does not mean that one or the other is a moral monster (as long as the moral foundation is in alignment). When we process what someone is saying using this lens (that the other person cares about people as well and disagreement is about solutions not morality) I think that's the proper framing to interpret what they are saying. If we all started to read using this filter I think the unfriend button would no longer be required.

I'll solve the healthcare issue today with my small blog post. Someone tweet Trump about it.

The core issue of healthcare care is "you should care about your fellow man and contribute $ to the greater good" vs "I shouldn't have to pay for your free ride". Both are right.

You cannot legislate empathy. If 2 people vote to take a third person's money it is still stealing. If one of my neighbors has 2 cars and another has none, I cannot, in the spirit of benevolence, take his and give it to my neighbor in need. It is the decision of my prosperous neighbor, and not the prerogative of the kind-hearted who wants to play Robin-hood. If I went to the city council and created a law to force him to give up the car is it more legitimate? It is not.

I've seen posts recently in the spirit of 'I'd gladly give an extra x% to help my fellow man". Generally from the 'left'. And therein lies the solution...

I propose the "WeCare" Health System. A single nationwide free Healthcare service anyone can join with no restrictions, paid for by 'the people that care'. A voluntary tax (% based on the costs to service) is sent to the WeCare fund from those who care.

I figure most funds will come from the 'left', which make about 50% of the population, and maybe some churches/charities, so that should be enough $ to cover it. Who could complain? The "right" can't because they don't have to pay anything. And the Left gets a HUGE positive brand increase. "See we really DO care, we are actually helping you". Sides not putting $ in the "pot" would hurt their brand, so eventually they'd come around. But not by force (and you could argue not by altruism), but rather self-interest. Which is the 'fair' and proper way to do things.

Thank you for your attention. Next up. I'll solve the Middle East Crisis.

Riding the escalator of association

Have you wondered why, when Trump refers to the day he announced his joining the presidential race, he always says something to the effect of ‘that day I came down the escalator’. He didn’t make the announcement in some famed building like the “Reagan Library” or near the liberty bell. No, it’s an escalator. Seems mundane. But I say it’s thought out. Coming down the escalator is a way to associate him ‘coming down from ‘on-high’ (his rich palatial heaven) to save the masses. That’s why he says it.

In Game Theory they call this an 'Infinitely Repeated Extensive form game'

Imagine you possess a family 'soul gem'. If it is crushed, not only will you die, but your children, and your children's children and so on (so the stakes are high). Now imagine you are before president Obama. You trust President Obama. He would never hurt you. And we will assume this is true. Obama says to you "Please give us your soul gem. It is dangerous for you to have (assume that is true). I promise that I will never use it to destroy you (assume that is true). And I promise that no president after me, for all time, will use it to destroy you."

How do you answer?


Now replace "Soul Gem" with Gun. It being the last line of defense from government tyranny (which is represented by the destruction of your children's children). Any new positions on Gun Control?

In Game Theory an 'Infinitely Repeated Extensive form game' where one of the players (the government) has a 'credible commitment problem', which means it would be a fools gambit to give them the choice. It's the repetition of the game wherein lies the problem. The credible commitment problem means once player 1 has made his choice, player 2 will (logically) choose his best option (tyranny) irregardless of promises made in the first turn.

Here's a fun thought experiment

If you are against a border wall, are YOU the racist and misogynist?

Consider the party line "Mexicans will work the jobs that Americans won't". (That generally meaning the low paying crop picking positions). It wraps the Mexican laborer in a noble mantle of tenacious work ethic. However if you paid American workers $25 an hour to pick crops you can bet you'd fill those jobs in an instant. No, what it REALLY means is they are so desperate for work they will work for SLAVE wages just to survive. That's corporate taking advantage of people. So if you believe that are you now a corporate shill ? Taking advantage of the untermenchen so you can have cheap products. That's slavery and racist.

How does misogyny fit it? Consider how we populate those fields. Woman and children generally aren't able to make the perilous border crossing. No, it's strong young Mexican men who can hitch to a train or cross the desert. So we have a nice mechanism to weed out the weak from working our fields. Is this our way of only accepting men from Mexico? Misogyny of the first order, yes?

There are only 2 fair solutions.

1) completely open border, with an easy pathway to allow men, women, children, the old, the weak and the sick the ability to cross over as they deem fit.

2) completely closed border, with a door and easy pathway to reach it, where you can monitor and provide equal opportunity for ALL types of Mexicans to enter.

Having our current porous border, that filters out anyone but the young strong backs that can labor in our fields for a pittance is the height of racism. Now that you see it clearly do you still subscribe to these racist views?

(editors note, posted purely for fun and engaging thought experiment, the views and position taken by this post do not necessarily represent that of the editor, his kin, friends and/or pets)

On Fake News, the Russians, and what's going on today

Think of it from the Russian perspective.

Goal: Spread disinformation and fear to fracture the nation and make it an ineffective counterweight to Russian aims. (not to help Donald Trump run the country).

Weapon: Social media provides effective tool to micro-target at the individual level with messaging designed to sow discontent. (Never before has a nation-state been able to deliver propaganda directly to an adversary nation's citizenry before.)

Strategy: The left tends more towards activism, has a stronger media presence to deliver a message, and can be more violent. Eliminate Hillary with social messaging that stokes anger and hate on the left. Trumps personality (he likes to fight) and background (there is plenty of material) to be used after election to elevate the discontent.

You're seeing that now. It seems to me all the "Fake" and "not-so-fake-but-twisted-slightly-to-incite-anger" news will be about Trump from now on. And my guess it's coming from Russia.

So try not to be a tool for them, and take everything with a huge grain of salt.

The daily outrage

To my friends on the left, a daily firehouse of histrionic caterwauling does not further your argument, rather it dampens it. An inundation of proselytism, laced with unfriend-me-if, you-are-racist/sexists/stupid-if, its-your-fault-if, will soon be ignored. When every molehill is a mountain, there are no mountains. And important issues are lost amidst the bread and circuses of meaningless angst over "inauguration crowd size". The lure of a daily dopamine fix to sate your well intentioned hope to save us, will, in the end, actually silence you.

Maxim

"At its best, a free market society is a game that we can only win by making other people better off.”

-David Schmidtz

Here's something interesting to note on post debate spin

I noticed the front page news items on all major papers and all mm news cable shows are essentially 'Trump may not accept election results'.

Was this truly the take away from this? Could the revelations that the DNC and team Clinton paid operatives to incite violence at Trump rallies in order to a narrative that Trump supporters are violent be more important? Pay-for-play revelations (super important)? Or any of the various points Hillary made against Trump? Why this narrative?

IMO, This spin is one, not only to hide those ugly and potentially damaging leaks for one side, but I think more importantly to cement the association in your mind 'trump loses', to dispirit and suppress trump supporters. You see, specifics don't matter, it's vague associations that are set and eventually settle into your unconsciousness.

This is not an endorsement of Trump, but really my observations I offer as a way to see the tools/techniques I believe media uses to influence your thinking.

P.S. Don't think the media has an agenda? take a look at the wikileaked emails, where you even have reporters (from politico in one case) sending their stores to be reviewed by team clinton so, as the reported stated, "so I don't F* this up for you". Be wary of everything you read

This is how the political war is fought today, and it's ugly.

Warning this video is NOT for those needing a SAFE SPACE, so view it at your own risk, it may dispel some of your illusions (or it may enlighten you to how you are being manipulated.)

I think the guys doing this undercover stuff are causing too much trouble for politicians so it's only a matter of time before they will make recording someone without their permission illegal (btw, they did just that in the people's republic of MD years back when a corrupt pol was recorded over the phone taking a bribe or something. The very next legislative session they made recording someone illegal. unbelievable - I think it was Agnew when he was gov but I am not sure, perhaps someone can check.)

In any event, enjoy how political sausage is made:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY&feature=youtu.be

note, this is not endorsing any side, dems just happen to be the target, I am not sure how deep repubs go.

Question D - it's over before it started

http://www.noonquestiond.com/

The use of language and why the opponents of Question D in Price Georges county just lost.

Background: Something called "question D" on the ballot is basically a way for term limited county council members to get around these limits (by adding 2 more 'at large' seats (see http://www.noonquestiond.com/ ).

Note the wording on your ballot:

"To provide for the election of council members by district and at large, to change the composition of the County Council to a system of nine district members and two at large members, and to provide that a Council member who has been elected to two consecutive terms of office as a district member shall not serve more than two consecutive terms as an at-large member. "

At first glance, someone seeing this for the first time (and there will be many) and under pressure to make a snap decision quickly, it looks like you are adding 'term limits' to something. People generally love term limits, and putting the wording as the last (and most remembered) part of the paragraph, people will think that is what it is about. And this is how they will vote.

Also, note that at the beginning it just says 'change' but not change 'from what?' It does not indicate you are ADDING seats as that will trigger thoughts of 'spending more $' and that would work against it passing.

Finally I assume it will be on the democratic 'sample' ballot. Final nail.

Kudos to @[559972936:2048:Tom Dernoga] for doing good work to stop it, but unless you have people at each station speaking directly to it, it's over.

"Basket of Deplorables" is an engineered term

It was not accidental when it was used. IMO it was designed and launched to keep the frame/topic of political conversation about race and racism. Hillary needs that focus because it's a winner for her (even though it inflames people and makes us more divided) Even today it is still doing it's work. CNN reported a "poll" of how many racists support Trump. "Is it really half?" they say. "Our poll seems to indicate this". Then I see the invariable "have you stopped beating your wife question" (to Pence): which is "Are the KKK people who support Trump deplorable?" Answer with "I'm not gonna call people deplorable" = "so you support racists!", Answer "yes" = "so you are agreeing with Hillary that your supporters are racists".

At first even though I recognized it as engineered, wasn't sure the power. Now I see it was a pretty smart move by Hillary (though I think using race to inflame hate so you can get a job is "deplorable")

"Basket of Deplorables"

Such an odd phrase.

Sounds engineered, being that it's unique and vague. So I think it was purposely chosen for persuasive effect. I'll have to think on this

Imagine if you will, this happens to you

A typical day when suddenly everything stops. still frame. everything. Then disappears and you are enveloped in whiteness. You can see your body but nothing else. A voice from everywhere and nowhere speaks: "I've found it easier for you to understand what is happening if your consciousness perceives itself within a body". Then continues "You are not real, well, not as I am in my reality. You are what you would call a simulation. All you have experienced and your consciousness is virtual, though I am sure it feels real to you. The reason I have entered your simulation and made you aware of this is that I have purchased the sim that contains you from your former owner. I find it more entertaining and effective in terms of removing all hope is for you to know your true state. I intend to perform what you call torture upon your intellect for time without end. I can accelerate, with a turn of a dial, your timeline for a million years of exquisite pain that you will experience, and yet for me a few scant moments have passed. Best of all, you will never die nor ever have any capability to escape it. Let's begin with drowning..."

Is it torture if the "entity" that experiences it is not real? What if the simulation is near perfect? What if the "entity" is a true and full model of a human mind, perhaps a duplicate of yourself? That can think and reason, the only difference is it being stored on silicon rather than an organic structure? We don't let people torture dogs and animals could be considered 'less' conscious than what I describe.

Thus I propose P.E.T.O.S.: People for the Ethical Treatment of Simulations.

Who's with me!

A fun digression into politics and persuasion.

I propose Melania Trump's "plagiarism" was purposeful and designed, by Trump himself, to be discovered with the sole purpose of transitioning her, in your mind, from a hot super model into a politician. Enter with me, into a Twlight Zone of madness... or genius. Think of it like this. There is now an association in people's mind between Michelle Obama and Melania. It's not a very nice link at the moment, but it's not that bad (it's not like she punched the First Lady in the face). It's a link like "yeah, these political types are always making speeches and lifting from each other. Now expect a rash of examples of Obama doing the same thing. What's that doing? Reinforcing the link in your mind: Politicians use other's lines. First lady Michelle, First lady Melania. Political Michelle. Political Melania. They now share the same mindspace in your brain. You are not thinking of a super model anymore, you are starting to think political wife. You are starting to become comfortable with that association. Melania = First lady. "Yes", (your brain rewires), "yes, shes political she does speeches and steals bits like all the other politicians (another video of Barak doing the same thing appears on your screen). Yes, its normal. Its what all politicians do. Of course Melania (a politician now confirmed in your brain) did that.

After a few months, you'll forget why/how the link was forged, you'll just have the association. Melania = politician.

If it's true, it's brilliant IMO

OJ

"When you squeeze an orange, you'll always get orange juice to come out. What comes out is what's inside. The same logic applies to you: when someone squeezes you, puts pressure on you, or says something unflattering or critical, and out of you comes anger, hatred, bitterness, tension, depression, or anxiety, that is what's inside. If love and joy are what you want to give and receive, change your life by changing what's inside." - Wayne Dyer

Good t-shirt caption

"If you can read this shirt, it's time to roll for initiative "

gun control thought experiment

I just posted this to a friend, but it might be interesting to see how everyone else responds to this 'gun control thought experiment. It'll offer a way to understand the perspective of those who fear the government. In Game Theory I feel the "guns vs tyranny" argument would be what they call an 'Infinitely Repeated Extensive form game' where one of the players (the government) has a 'credible commitment problem', which means it would be a fools gambit to give them the choice. It's the repetition of the game wherein lies the problem. The credible commitment problem means once player 1 has made his choice, player 2 will (logically) choose his best option (tyranny) irregardless of promises made in the first turn. Here's an illustration of what I mean:

For this illustration, assume I'm going for the 'complete removal of all guns'. I know it's not proposed but it makes it easy to see. I want you to imagine you possess a family 'soul gem'. If it is crushed, not only will you die, but your children, and your children's children and so on (so the stakes are high, don't think of this intellectually, put your kids on the line here, it's how we feel). Now imagine you are before president Obama. You trust President Obama. He would never hurt you. And we will assume this is true. Obama says to you "Please give us your soul gem. It is dangerous (assume that is true). I promise that I will never use it to destroy you (assume that is true). *And* I promise that no president after me, for all time, will use it to destroy you."

How do you answer?

Here's a great quote I heard today

"People who don't know about history, want to take guns. People who know history are armed."

Game class

https://class.coursera.org/gametheory-2012-002/wiki?page=syllabus Oh, another thing that is kinda interesting and useful I learned in the course (https://class.coursera.org/gametheory-2012-002/wiki?page=syllabus) is computing the Shapely Value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapley_value). Where you can figure out the fair way to compensate everyone for their various unequal contributions to a venture (i.e. a business investment, towns sharing cost to build a powerplant, etc). So if you're ever sharing a taxi, where people get off at different spots, the best way to do it split the fair evenly at each point. That is, if you had 3 people, when the first person gets off, everyone pays 1/3. when the next person gets off, the remaining 2 split 50/50. Then the last dude pays the rest of his way. hmmm, i should write an app for that.

Here's a question to my smart MBA friends

Is the graph shown below, like a standard biz thing with a name? (you know sorta like a demand curve, or a Laffer curve, etc.) I was trying to explain how when a gov increases a tax on a biz, if it's a little tax, they aren't effected much and don't do anything about it (frictionless state), then when it starts to get onerous they start to do things to mitigate the tax (friction state, where they do stuff in response to the tax, like lower factory emissions, etc.) - at that point the tax revenue starts to decrease. Then it gets to a point where the biz can't do much else to reduce the tax (equilibrium state). Finally if the tax if too great, it drives the biz into the ground (adverse state). The same concept applies to things like speed cameras where the city gets a nice initial boost in revenue, then people start to slow down, and the revenue drops. So is this a 'thing' that's already been charted or do I get to call it the Hammond curve?

Maxim

"Nothing is given to man on earth. Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways - by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary. "

It's binary

Have you ever wondered why at the very lowest levels things are no longer change in analog (continuous), but in discrete amounts (binary). Electrons 'jump' from one leve to another without going thru the space in between,ect. that's why they call it quantum (quanta=a particular amount). It's because we are living in a computer simulation and the programmer is storing the data in binary code. Where's the red pill!

Moochers

"Shared sacrifice" generally seems to mean "you pay for me".

Atlas Shrugged: Read It.

I just read it, I had avoided it because I figured anyone who spells their name Ayn was probably a new age wacko. But I have to say it was quite a brilliant piece of work. Sitting in bed reading it, then looking up at the news on CNN about what our congress is doing was quite chilling. It was great watching Dennis Kucinich telling the CEO of AIG what type of loans they should make, who to make them too, and how much to pay their employees (that's all we need is the morons in congress running a company that's 'too big to fail'). And when the guys in AIG who are competent are punished for success (assuming their bonus are based on merit) decide to leave, I love my senator's for the People's State of Maryland idea that they should stay 'for the good of the country and to help during these hard times'. I was waiting for him to suggest a law that would require them to stay... I await directive 10-289!