Virtue Signaling = Affirmative Action for Dems in Showbiz

Buzz words tend to be annoying. Virtue signaling is a contemporary pop phrase for show biz. People that ordinarily would be typical Democrat Party voters are portrayed in Hero of the Soviet Union kinds of roles in acting. They expropriate traditional Republican straight white male roles and replace them with women, LGBLTQs and non-white race actors and actresses.

That people besides Republicans that are straight and white males want to star in Hollywood is understandable. Even so it is wrong to describe the drive to make the change to Democrat party characters as virtue for-itself. Not being an archetypal Republican does not make an actor or actress virtuous by default.

I find the politicization of virtue annoying, for the Democrat Party isn't much for classical or Christian virtue. They redefine virtue as meaning something like beyond good and evil- annoying. Super-powers or excellence in killing do not signal the presence of virtue. Doing the wrong things for virtuous reasons reduces the virtue rating by at least 50%. Socrates might have pondered that sort of thing.

Classical Platonic virtue isn't obvious to others. Aretaic ethics are the essence of classical virtue and the contemporary Democrat Party isn't anything like that. Ordinary people probably are not specially virtuous for being prosperous, spending and consuming a lot while following contemporary trends, fashions and language use-conforming consumerism and conspicuous consumption. Aborting 60 million babies since Rowe vs Wade, watching television networks and mainstream media owned by the 1%, acquiessing in 22 trillion dollars of debt, a society that pays soldiers mercenary wages instead of fielding volunteers serving motivated with patriotic public service as guardians of the state, allowing the democracy to be transformed into corporatism and marriage to morph into the meaninglessness of multiple-divorce and homosexuality are not examples of virtue at all. It is Orwellian takeover signaling-not virtue signaling.

It is fine to signal political preferences yet wrong to couple that with the word virtue unless one intends to debase the meaning of virtue. I have no idea how politicians and Hollywood without good ideas that could actually make society work better, imagine they are virtuous or are capable of signaling virtue. A high court that reinforces  social standards of godless swinishness isn't a good source for social instruction for virtue- much less Hollywood types.

If Hollywood portrays characters that do not support democracy, the reform of capitalism within democratic parameters, Christian ethics, honesty, philosophical learning, faith, courage in adversity, individualism, sobriety, temperance, ecological economics, space exploration, efficiency in technology and the elimination of poverty and oppression by others in the state or simply in society, inventiveness, excellence and Aretaic ethics it just isn't virtue. Sorry Hollywood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

Japan and Korea Should Settle Differences Right Away

Japan and Korea should quickly settle their dispute over reparations for Second World War Japanese harm to Koreans forced into slave labor, prostitution and so forth. The United States learned to forgive war reparations damages because it exacerbates bad attitudes and feelings in the defeated party left over from the war. It is better to move forward when possible. The U.S.A. did not seek monetary compensation of post-war Germany or Japan for their terrible acts and perhaps in part because of that they are regarded today as good enough allies. Korea is in the same position today and could choose not to be won-wise and yen foolish.

It might be better for Korea to forgive Japan's war debts once and for all, through law. Korea probably can benefit far more financially from working with the Japanese better than in pursuing seventy year old litigation against war-time enemies.

North korea may be watching the lessons about South Korea and japan too. The Dictator may be concerned that if peace breaks out and relations are normalized the South and others may seek reparations and legal damages that would cost North Korea a bundle. Hence it might be that nuclear weapons development are the sole way out.

 To labor the point a little; a forgiving South Korea and a cordial Japan might be better partners ahead for North Korea than belligerents fighting over every scrap bitterly. A better Korean social safety net might obviate the need for Japanese payments to the poor and long-suffering of South Korea.

Extinction Rebellion; Too Many People With Too Few Reform of Capitalism Ideas?

The Extinction Rebellion movement in reaction to global warming danger is handicapped-severely, by a paucity of good ideas about how to reform capitalism such that it would be transformed toward a sustainable ecological economic foundation. 

https://thinkprogress.org/the-radical-philosophy-of-extinction-rebellion-5857d3955b57/

Capitalism and democracy are the best tools for reforming economic infrastructure quickly, with structural adaptations to combat the world of environmental problems created as a result of human technological evolution and too many people living on Earth consuming its natural resources and polluting the air with greenhouse gases.

The leftist approach is to use global treaty agreements that reinforce global government and repress individual human rights. It is a wrong approach that leads to social conflict with great opportunity costs in dividing the electorate and rendering the default of concentrating wealth and power for corporate and communist elites inevitably reinforced. They need to understand that simple actions can go a long way toward reforming economic infrastructure that pollutes and harms the ecosphere; there are far more ecosphere problems than global warming that require remedies directly.

https://www.amazon.com/Ecological-Economics-Second-Principles-Applications/dp/1597266817

https://garycgibson.blogspot.com/2019/07/ossified-invention-in-us-political.html

The best tools of national government for ecospheric remediation are being left unused. Not a single nation on Earth has a sustainable ecospheric economic infrastructure. Global treaties won't change that.

https://sustainablepath.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/what-is-ecological-economics-one-pag-pdf-080123.pdf

http://www.ussee.org/ U.S. Society for Ecological Economics

Didn't Britain Expect the Iranians to Retaliate in Gulf?

The recent second seizure of a British oil tanker was  captured on video by an Iranian spec ops team rappelling from a helicopter. One wonders why the British were so characteristically unprepared to defended registered flag oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. Lax defense measures can encourage hostile actions.

English leadership must have known that Iran would be likely to retaliate after the seizure of an Iranian vessel earlier in retaliation for the seizure of another vessel and mines placed on oil tankers in the region by Iran. The capture video showed a turkey-helicopter of immense size hovering so close and slow that a blind and deaf soldier could strike it down with a javelin S15 should-fired missile. A little prep defense work goes a long way to stop state-sponsored piracy.

A few SBS personnel with guns and a couple of Stingers or Javelins might accompany British vessels travelling near Iran. Those people could arrive and depart via helicopter. It might be a good idea to have some kind of a vstol jet fighter close to back up mobile boat defense teams at least until the Iranians decide to make nice with good coffee-perhaps French dark roast.

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2019/07/21/report-iran-warns-uk-against-dangerous-and-unwise-moves-after-tanker-seizure/

Private civilian contractors might not be allowed by British law to own shoulder-fired surface to air missiles that are required for air defense against hostile air mobile ship attackers. They may not be allowed to have anti-tank missiles or .50 caliber machine guns either. Plainly the British civilian government should provide military personnel allowed to bring such defense items to the field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXIvKmU8I10

U.S. Has Three of Top Ten Highest Rated Chess Players Today

A mild surprise is the appearance of newly christened American Chess Federation player Leinier Dominguez-Perez in the world's top ten live ratings list. The other two are old, familiar top ten players. Missing from the top ten is former world number two Hikaru Nakamura, or the U.S.A. would have four of ten.

That's not bad for a country that had just one world champion; the late Robert James Fischer.

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/dortmund-2-4-dominguez-up-to-world-no-7

https://2700chess.com/

I learned chess at age 57. Most good players- class A players, start much earlier. Grandmasters almost always begin learning the game before age 12. It's hard for adults to find the time to invest in chess quantitatively enough to be very good at it. 

Dominguez-Perez  has a classical chess rating of 2763 and blitz of 2703. One improves watching the games of better players.

I.M.O. If one reaches 1600 one has a fair club chess game (at blitz). My blitz rating is 1403. 
https://www.chess.com/stats/live/blitz/garrison_gibson

Democrat Party 'Hit Squad' Continues Attack on President

The Democrat party self-styled 'squad' of radical pro-illegal immigration advocates is continuing its vociferous, interminable attack on the President of the United States. He is labeled a racist every opportunity they can get. Some interesting points about at least one member of the Democrat Party hit squad has emerged concerning Rep. Ilhan Omar; that she did have false elements with her own asylum claim.

It is challenging to know if that is real or fake news. A Minnesota State ethics panel is investigating the issue. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/18/powerline-blog-ilhan-omar-married-brother-asylum-false-name/#

https://www.newswars.com/omar-referred-to-somali-as-our-nation-back-home-in-2015-speech/

Rep Cortez is claiming that U.S. border control policy of the Trump administration is entirely racist. She is a Hispanic herself advocating lax enforcement of border control of illegal Hispanics primarily (though people as far as Africa also enter illegally). She apparently is unaware of the racism implicit in her own position.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/454019-ocasio-cortez-tears-into-trumps-immigration-agenda-its-about-ethnicity-and

Americans have been concerned about over-population since the 1960s. It was a cause for Planned Parenthood to exist and for a good part of three generations of American babies to be aborted. There have been more than 60 million abortions since Rowe vs. Wade in 1973. It was not just about women not wanting to have babies. Neither was that the problem with China. China forced a one-child per family policy because of over-population. A.O.C.'s policy of supporting millions of illegal immigrants is blind to demographic reality. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-slams-dem-support-for-squad-accuses-progressives-of-trash-talking-us

There are already more illegal aliens in the U.S.A. that the entire population of the country in 1860 when the civil war started. Bringing in millions of people more illegally is fundamentally crazy politics. People that don’t pay income tax yet live in the U.S.A. still require government services and spending for that. With twenty-one trillion dollars of public debt increasing public spending won’t help to reduce that or the nearly trillion dollars of annual payments for interest on the debt. Sober, legal immigration control is requisite for any sort of environmental policy of conservation to have a chance to become law or work in the U.S.A.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/21/video-knucklehead-rashida-tlaib-being-forcibly-ejected-security-2016-trump-detroit-speech-resurfaces/

The illegal immigrant attack on America is the present live manifestation of the global north-south hemisphere divide issue that has been anticipated by academics since the 1960s. Poor, highly fecund southerners would seek to migrate north. The numbers are so huge however that it presents issue of national survival to norther nations. The compassionate plan was to better the lives of southerners. How and what to do, and who would pay for a practical intervention was subject of debate. To do nothing and allow the worst case migration of hundreds of millions with other world ecosphere problems increasing plainly seems very dangerous for all. Like the national public debt, politicians tend to want to ignore the real challenges of addressing the issue. Awareness of the long-term consequences of doing nothing are substantial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North%E2%80%93South_divide

Three hundred and twenty million people in the U.S.A. already, is huge. The environment is in decay- and A.O.C. is one ostensibly concerned about the environment with the Green New Deal. It was apparently more of a Red New Deal than an environmental concept. 

How Conservatives Have Experienced Trickle-Down Economics

Conservatives don’t get an equal share of corporate profits when they don’t own the corporations. That is plain. If one compares the average lifestyle and standard of living of a conservative American citizen over the past century, during which time the rich got richer, the standard of living of conservatives has improved. Many can now afford to go on surfing vacations in Hawaii or farther (South America has good beaches for surfing?), few are barefoot and most don’t need to grow their own potatoes.

Many things trickle down in economics including prosperity, crap (the sht runs downhill principle), bad moral examples, good moral examples (yes there was one once and it’s not a myth) etc. Trickle down economics is never implemented; the rich might prefer to stop such leaks, it simple follows that some prosperity escapes the concentration of wealth because of the necessity to pay some kind of wages instead of the cheaper mode of enslaving workers.
In environmental economics there isn’t much of a trickle down or supply-side. 

The average conservative has a worse hunting-fishing experience than fifty years ago. The rich have fewer elephants to kill on safari. The supply of available wilderness is decreasing on Earth. Liberal economic policies of globalism and planetary human versus natural capital implementation have trashed environmental prospects.

Moon Landing was the Greatest American Tech Accomplishment of a Century

The Apollo 11 moon landing a half century ago was the apogee.

Apollo 11 Mission Overview

The second might be the invention of the transistor.

History of the transistor - Wikipedia

Who invented the transistor?

The third would be Watson (U.S.) and Crick’s D.N.A. insight. Maybe this was an Anglo-America invention. Watson was from the U.S.A. Linus Pauling published on the alpha helix structure of protein in 1951. He published a 3-part D.N.A. helix article in 1951. It was a two-part helix for D.N.A; an error Watson and Crick corrected working at the Cavendish lab in England.

The Hubble space telescope gets an honorable mention. Deep Field photo…

The greatest foreign technological achievement of the past century not by Americans were insights in quantum mechanics and cosmology by several foreign physicists. Theoretical physics discoveries led to innumerable materials applications.

P.A.M. Dirac | English physicist

Werner Heisenberg - Wikipedia

Max Born - Wikipedia

Erwin Schrödinger - Wikipedia

General relativity - Wikipedia Albert Einstein 1915 four years before the century metric parameter- not too much relatively speaking)

Karl Schwarzschild - Wikipedia also 1915- exact solution of select GR parameters

Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia

Ossified Invention in U.S. Political Economy

Political economy theory has ossified since the end of the cold war. The electorate of the United States is virtually illiterate on what political economy is. Academic elites seem equally ignorant of the malleability of political economy and its readiness for reconstructive invention. A.O.C.’s recent Green New Deal had a sentiment of expensive remediation of greenhouse gases and socialist redistribution presenting great opportunity costs; a very expensive and inadequate approach to the vast ecospheric decline problem of which global warming is just one symptom.

Some of the electorate knows of classical, semi-Aristotelian ideas of political philosophy forms such as tyranny, democracy and aristocracy. They may additionally know of socialism and communism. Today, some regard capitalism as akin to a political form too. It is in a particular paradigm supported by democracy.

Political forms may be synthetic and readily invented as may political economy. Many Americans mistakenly believe macro-economics is technical and empirically subject to scientific and rigorous fine-tuning. Any economy system once selected may be technically supported with ratios, distributive allocations and so forth. The idea of creative destruction was especially useful for global capitalist enterprises evolving into planetary corporatism and plutocracy. It benefited from an ability to work well with socialist nations such as China seeking free market principles and ideas to stimulate the moribund repression of a socialist dictatorship of the proletariat’s ruling elites. Socialism represses; stifles free speech and the marketplace of ideas, as does corporatism.

 The most notable fact of omission from the contemporary American political scene is the tools available for democracy to set or rest the parameters of political economy that could be utilized in transitioning the political economy of the nation to one that is ecologically responsible, sustainable and that eliminate undertows and rip tides of situation ally forced individual positions of repressive poverty. Democracy is something that is neglected today, except for electing status quo candidates that pursue pure consumptive political economies that are ruining the world ecosphere and causing a mass extinction. The latter may expand one day to include most of humanity too.

Capitalism is nothing more than material wealth. Capital acquisition is built up and sought by every form of government, though not necessarily. Natural capital is the wealth of water, land, ecosphere and the air that sustains life on this planet. Capitalism is a malapropism taken to mean a particular actualization of corporatist, market economics of advantage to the most rich most. It has a self-reinforcing networked concentration of wealth pattern. Politicians of both major parties support it though with some socialist redistributionist caveats.

Political economy is very difficult for ordinary voters to understand. They may encounter choices of old and venerable forms such as the perennial contest between capitalism and socialism-communism, yet as they pursue technical micro-economics and do not experience good ideas that would repackage the political economy within the democratic and free enterprise paradigm they elect to reinforce dysfunction policies given to them.

It would be possible to limit patent exclusivity to three years with 10% royalties for the inventor after three years if anyone manufactures and has sales with the invention. That would accelerate the pace of technological change locally. It would be possible to ban rectilinear lots and allow just circular with green space required between lots as a way to compel some green space for wildlife. It would be possible to cap the square feet of any housing for individuals, and to require that any constructions have no net loss of biota-possibly with greenery grown on the exterior of buildings. There are a number of ways to change the rules for a society within constitutional parameters to let government alter the political economy to one that provides theoretical life continuity for all remaining species including human life in the United States; other nations could follow the pattern changes if any nation, such as the United States, developed a political economy that is pro-quality growth and that stops the economic consumption of natural resources as if the environment itself was disposable over-all.

Human beings have limited capacity to think outside their usual occupational pursuits. They benefit from recurrent patterns of behavior such as commuting daily to work and a job with 2000 hours annually. Political economy is a non-proximal interest though it does affect them personally. Most politicians are not philosophers; they don’t have the time to think much about philosophical things even if it concerns the actual material and natural world they live in, so there is little prospect of leadership arising to guide the nation toward a free enterprise political economy paradigm that serves the interests of the people of the United States best.

While the political material in the public arena is just about redistributions or not, and while minorities or former minorities simple want to rise to the top of the capitalist consumer society without interest in bringing the nation toward an adaptive political economy of sustainability for all present life on Earth there is little prospect for change substantial enough to bring humanity and national voters back from the lemming-like vector of ecosphere disasters they are heading toward.

A democracy need support free enterprise because it is the most intelligent and free practice for individual life experience and creativity, yet free enterprise need by directed to exist within parameters of sustainable ecosphere political economics. Those enterprise practices that are least destructive to the environment would be favored over destructive ones. There should be object standards that are easy to comprehend for all free enterprisers to understand and comply with.

It might be a good idea to limit the amount of a nation’s wealth an individual may own, as a percent of national income, in order to defend democracy. An exception would be in free enterprise activity deemed glaringly beneficial for a sustainable economy and restoration of the environment. Examples might be space exploration and sustainable business and electric vehicles or power plants for them.

So long as economic activity is just that of free enterprise it is not a socialist political economy even when taxation is adequate to structure relief for the poor such that they would have enough capital to avoid economic traps and undertows.

Obamacare was a semi-socialist-corporatist takeover of the nation’s insurance that taxed young workers to redistribute their income in part, a large part, to middle class people and some of the poor. It would have been more practical to expand the nation’s existing Veterans hospital network and community clinics and provide free walk-in health service to those that are screened and proven to have no ability to afford necessary health care. Everyone else would buy their own health insurance or medical provisions. There is no cheaper or more practical way to actualize the compassionate conservatism that is a part of democracy.

Did President Trump Tweet Any Actual Racist Terms?

President Trump has been accused by the media and Democrats of making racist tweets. Yet he apparently did not use any actual racist terms such as the N word. He did not refer to his political adversaries as darkies. The Democrats pejoratively interpreted the tweets as racist because the four harpies attacking the President interminably aren't white people. Instead they are named 'women of color' by the media and Democrats- (colored used to be considered a racist term during the 1980s and 90s).

http://themillenniumreport.com/2016/11/china-ridicules-obamas-last-foreign-tour-washingtons-leadership-in-global-affairs-has-decayed/

https://www.infowars.com/omar-referred-to-somali-as-our-nation-back-home-in-2015-speech/

Colored people was condemned across the U.S.A. as a racist term in the era when the politically correct term black people became standard. Later the term black people was replaced by the more politically correct Afro-Americans, though black never became regarded as racist except perhaps by heroin users and elite Democrats.

If colored people is not a racist term, yet suggesting that political adversaries of a nation of immigrants go back where their ancestors immigrated from for a while if they hate the U.S.A. is racist, then it must be that the phrasing rather than the words are interpreted as pejoratively racist. Women of no sense is equivalent to women of color- one is offensive and the other isn't. The distribution matters; if all women are regarded as having no sense it is quite a bit different from twitting that four particular women have no sense.

A tweet suggesting the Gang of Four go back to where they came from if they don't like it in the U.S.A. is not implicitly racist. Democrats for decades have insisted the nation is a nation of immigrants. That means every American besides aboriginals have some foreign country to return to if they don't like it here.

https://garycgibson.blogspot.com/2019/07/media-spin-white-nationalism-vs-colored.html

President Trump implicitly acknowledged the citizenship of the Gang of Four when he said they could return to America if they liked, after they have finished repairing their own dysfunctional countries. The countries of national origin of the Gang of Four (or their ancestors) all have histories of terrorism. Puerto Rico had an active terrorist separation movement in the 70s, Somalia and Palestine are actively terrorist, and Boston had the marathon bombing.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6690073/Chelsea-Clinton-slams-Ilhan-Omar-anti-Semitic-tweet-Israel.html

President Trump has returned to the nation- Germany, where is ancestor came from, and probably couldn't make it any better. When he suggested the Gang of Four go back and look at their own nations of origin- there is a tremendous amount lacking for good society with liberty and justice for all in addition to a reasonable standard of living. Puerto Rico could be regarded as an exception perhaps. I am sure there must be something to improve in Puerto Rico though, if one were to look.

Immigrants from nations with cultures and standards of living inferior to the United States should temper their hatred of the U.S.A. I would guess that was the President's unabbreviated meaning of his twits-for-others, in-themselves.