I can't decide if the panic over the Corona Virus is actually valid.
It seems like a severe case of the flu and most people who get it will just recover.
Yes it has a 2% or so mortality rate and we would prefer to contain it, but I'm not sure if all the panic is merited.
Of course now with Pence in charge we should be able to pray it away.
Unfortunately he won't be praying for who he considers sinners, so if he is successful it may be a repeat of Aids.
Thursday, February 27, 2020
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Congrats
Congrats are in order to Bernie Sanders, the winner in the Nevada Caucuses
Part of his victory is attributable, like all primary victories to the way they are conducted.
We have structured a system where enthusiasm and organization for a candidate can lead to a victory which may or may not translate into broader support.
It was partly what happened to the Republicans in 2016.
Whether the early lead can be sustained as we proceed through the primary season remains to be seen, with the big test coming up during the super primaries in early March.
If no one has a majority going into the convention it will be interesting to see what happens.
Part of his victory is attributable, like all primary victories to the way they are conducted.
We have structured a system where enthusiasm and organization for a candidate can lead to a victory which may or may not translate into broader support.
It was partly what happened to the Republicans in 2016.
Whether the early lead can be sustained as we proceed through the primary season remains to be seen, with the big test coming up during the super primaries in early March.
If no one has a majority going into the convention it will be interesting to see what happens.
Saturday, February 22, 2020
Smoke and Mirrors
Consider the current debates about the future of this country.
On one hand we have one party that says you are pretty much on your own. Earn what you need or go without.
The other party wants to guarantee a certain level of security to all Americans.
Health Care, Student Debt, Homelessness, Jobs, are areas that should be provided or at least enabled by the Government.
Of course it isn't quite as clear as that, but given the ability to do it, the most die hard Republicans would eliminate all those new deal things like Social Security and bank regulation as well as remove restriction on business owners and landlords about who they can hire or rent to.
Their theory is that economic forces would result in a fair system while motivating everybody to work hard. They have in fact achieved some notable successes in reducing Union influence and certain social programs.
While few would cite it at least in public, the immortal words of Ebenezer Scrooge rings true about the poor, “If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
Its pretty clear which vision is more popular so we see significant distractions used to mask the positions. Certain social issues have been used to garner support even when the economics would indicate otherwise.
Things like immigration, abortion, patriotism, are used to sway voters, even when many of the issues are fabricated. Take patriotism. Generally things that are not actually happening or at least not happening very much are presented as big issues. If some homeowners association won't allow flags to be displayed its pretty much their issue, yet you will likely see it as an attack on our rights.
It just isn't. The very same people who defend a baker's right to refuse service to people want to interfere in a homeowner's association setting rules.
The inconsistencies are ignored because it's all manipulated in the first place.
They need to use smoke and mirrors to hide the truth.
On one hand we have one party that says you are pretty much on your own. Earn what you need or go without.
The other party wants to guarantee a certain level of security to all Americans.
Health Care, Student Debt, Homelessness, Jobs, are areas that should be provided or at least enabled by the Government.
Of course it isn't quite as clear as that, but given the ability to do it, the most die hard Republicans would eliminate all those new deal things like Social Security and bank regulation as well as remove restriction on business owners and landlords about who they can hire or rent to.
Their theory is that economic forces would result in a fair system while motivating everybody to work hard. They have in fact achieved some notable successes in reducing Union influence and certain social programs.
While few would cite it at least in public, the immortal words of Ebenezer Scrooge rings true about the poor, “If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
Its pretty clear which vision is more popular so we see significant distractions used to mask the positions. Certain social issues have been used to garner support even when the economics would indicate otherwise.
Things like immigration, abortion, patriotism, are used to sway voters, even when many of the issues are fabricated. Take patriotism. Generally things that are not actually happening or at least not happening very much are presented as big issues. If some homeowners association won't allow flags to be displayed its pretty much their issue, yet you will likely see it as an attack on our rights.
It just isn't. The very same people who defend a baker's right to refuse service to people want to interfere in a homeowner's association setting rules.
The inconsistencies are ignored because it's all manipulated in the first place.
They need to use smoke and mirrors to hide the truth.
Friday, February 21, 2020
Economic Systems
Economics is both simple and complex.
At many levels it is simply adding and subtracting when we measure things like Gross Domestic Product or trade balances.
However the actual impact of the economy on individuals can be harder to determine.
This is similar to measuring the individual cells in a person to see how he is doing.
If all of them are doing fine except say the brain ones, we probably wouldn't give hive a high rating.
That's a bad analogy but individuals are in fact the economy and the goal of most economic theory.
Capitalism is generally concerned with improving the larger economy. Whether that leads to trickle down or not is debatable but arguing about what to do with more is better than arguing about what to eliminate.
Socialism, which is not necessarily Communism, is less concerned with the means of production but treats it as a collaborative effort where the fruits are shared equally.
So in Capitalism someone owns the apple tree and tends it, makes it grow, keeps it healthy and at the end owns all of the fruit which they trade to others for something of value.
In socialism the tree belongs to everyone, or no one and you simply take the fruit you need and leave the rest.
In Communism the tree belongs to the State who controls access to it and who gets what.
Socialism is problematic because in many cases the tree simply doesn't do well.
In Communism, the State is generally an inefficient owner since its goals are often disputed.
In Capitalism profit is the clear goal and motivator.
.Who gets the rewards though is also different and you have a system where the few get the biggest rewards but there are plenty of apples, or a system where the rewards are shared equally, but you generally have less apples.
If you don't get any apples it doesn't really matter though.
At many levels it is simply adding and subtracting when we measure things like Gross Domestic Product or trade balances.
However the actual impact of the economy on individuals can be harder to determine.
This is similar to measuring the individual cells in a person to see how he is doing.
If all of them are doing fine except say the brain ones, we probably wouldn't give hive a high rating.
That's a bad analogy but individuals are in fact the economy and the goal of most economic theory.
Capitalism is generally concerned with improving the larger economy. Whether that leads to trickle down or not is debatable but arguing about what to do with more is better than arguing about what to eliminate.
Socialism, which is not necessarily Communism, is less concerned with the means of production but treats it as a collaborative effort where the fruits are shared equally.
So in Capitalism someone owns the apple tree and tends it, makes it grow, keeps it healthy and at the end owns all of the fruit which they trade to others for something of value.
In socialism the tree belongs to everyone, or no one and you simply take the fruit you need and leave the rest.
In Communism the tree belongs to the State who controls access to it and who gets what.
Socialism is problematic because in many cases the tree simply doesn't do well.
In Communism, the State is generally an inefficient owner since its goals are often disputed.
In Capitalism profit is the clear goal and motivator.
.Who gets the rewards though is also different and you have a system where the few get the biggest rewards but there are plenty of apples, or a system where the rewards are shared equally, but you generally have less apples.
If you don't get any apples it doesn't really matter though.
Thursday, February 20, 2020
Word are now the Sticks
In general I believe everyone should be nice to everyone else. I reality I understand that lide isn't like that. The question becomes what part does the Government of the courts have in this.
I grew up at a time when the following chant was pretty common, "Sticks and Stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me". It was a response you made to someone who insulted you or made a derogatory statement about you.
Nowadays we seem to have decided that words can hurt you. Of course it was always pretty obvious that words could be painful, they led to emotional displays and sometimes violence. Still at least at one time we seemed to accept that what you said wasn't generally actionable.
This has changed and we now can pursue things like hostile workplaces, and harassment where no physical actions took place.
It didn't happen all at once, we live in a country where law is driven by precedents, so once one case determined something was wrong it became a precedent. The fact that it hadn't been wrong until that time was sort of a non-issue.
Once again I would like everyone to be nice but if someone is having a bad day and says you look ugly or oddly if they say you look nice, we might have a cause of action.
This is the political correctness that at times seems out of control.
It has almost become as popular as playing the lottery, hoping to get a documented instance that you can use.
Maybe we really have become a nation of overly sensitive victims.
I hope not.
I grew up at a time when the following chant was pretty common, "Sticks and Stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me". It was a response you made to someone who insulted you or made a derogatory statement about you.
Nowadays we seem to have decided that words can hurt you. Of course it was always pretty obvious that words could be painful, they led to emotional displays and sometimes violence. Still at least at one time we seemed to accept that what you said wasn't generally actionable.
This has changed and we now can pursue things like hostile workplaces, and harassment where no physical actions took place.
It didn't happen all at once, we live in a country where law is driven by precedents, so once one case determined something was wrong it became a precedent. The fact that it hadn't been wrong until that time was sort of a non-issue.
Once again I would like everyone to be nice but if someone is having a bad day and says you look ugly or oddly if they say you look nice, we might have a cause of action.
This is the political correctness that at times seems out of control.
It has almost become as popular as playing the lottery, hoping to get a documented instance that you can use.
Maybe we really have become a nation of overly sensitive victims.
I hope not.
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
Winning Policies
One of the things that I find annoying is how we see pundits talking about what Democrats have to do to win the next election.
What you never hear is that they should adopt good policies.
Instead we have to get this vote or that vote, pick a candidate who can win, focus on the right states, get out the vote etc.
Now all of these might be true from a political perspective but I like to think, maybe incorrectly that the voters care about the issues.
Hopefully real ones.
For example finding a way to make sure everyone can get quality medical care with having to declare bankruptcy.
Reestablishing a measure of fairness in our tax system.
Reducing the level of damage we are doing to our only planet.
Improve the safety of all Americans domestically.
Protect America from external threats.
Develop a fair and logical policy on immigration.
Improve our ability to compete globally by providing our children and adults with the skills they need.
Eliminate discrimination based on race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation while preserving everyone's individual belief system.
The eonomy we have now is creating sub-par jobs for many, driving up the national debt and increasing wealth disparity. It isn't the best we can do.
What you never hear is that they should adopt good policies.
Instead we have to get this vote or that vote, pick a candidate who can win, focus on the right states, get out the vote etc.
Now all of these might be true from a political perspective but I like to think, maybe incorrectly that the voters care about the issues.
Hopefully real ones.
For example finding a way to make sure everyone can get quality medical care with having to declare bankruptcy.
Reestablishing a measure of fairness in our tax system.
Reducing the level of damage we are doing to our only planet.
Improve the safety of all Americans domestically.
Protect America from external threats.
Develop a fair and logical policy on immigration.
Improve our ability to compete globally by providing our children and adults with the skills they need.
Eliminate discrimination based on race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation while preserving everyone's individual belief system.
The eonomy we have now is creating sub-par jobs for many, driving up the national debt and increasing wealth disparity. It isn't the best we can do.
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
Scientific Theory
If you consider the things large sections of our country seemingly believe, One has to wonder about our educational system.
Part of the reason for this is that much of what we know is based on science and all science theories.
Now take something like gravity. We know what it is, we know how to measure it and we know it varies somewhat based on factors such as altitude. So science makes statements like we know something is 99.99% certain. This doesn't imply there is any doubt, simply that because of the complex number of variables, we haven't measured every one.
Take vaccinations.
There is at this time no valid evidence that vaccinations cause autism. Does this mean that no vaccine has ever cause autism? We don't know that for sure. We know that getting a vaccination does not increase your chances of getting autism over not getting a vaccination. Since the cause for autism are not fully known, we can only eliminate it as a direct cause.
Science, unlike say Religion, excepts the possibility that theories can change if new data is discovered. Going back to Gravity we accepted Newtonian theory. Then with later developments we modified it using better knowledge.
That sort of thing doesn't negate the concept of Gravity it expands it to include the new data. Gravity is not a universal constant, it depends on where you are in the Universe.
No one on earth is going to start floating anytime soon. I am at least 99.9% certain of that.
Part of the reason for this is that much of what we know is based on science and all science theories.
Now take something like gravity. We know what it is, we know how to measure it and we know it varies somewhat based on factors such as altitude. So science makes statements like we know something is 99.99% certain. This doesn't imply there is any doubt, simply that because of the complex number of variables, we haven't measured every one.
Take vaccinations.
There is at this time no valid evidence that vaccinations cause autism. Does this mean that no vaccine has ever cause autism? We don't know that for sure. We know that getting a vaccination does not increase your chances of getting autism over not getting a vaccination. Since the cause for autism are not fully known, we can only eliminate it as a direct cause.
Science, unlike say Religion, excepts the possibility that theories can change if new data is discovered. Going back to Gravity we accepted Newtonian theory. Then with later developments we modified it using better knowledge.
That sort of thing doesn't negate the concept of Gravity it expands it to include the new data. Gravity is not a universal constant, it depends on where you are in the Universe.
No one on earth is going to start floating anytime soon. I am at least 99.9% certain of that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)