Uvalde Massacre Puts Hard Questions to Democrats

Democrats need to ask themselves hard questions after the Uvalde classroom massacre; does locking doors do anything to increase security? The school door was unlocked that let the perp slip in to the building. Another hard question is; is a security guard worth as much as a school teacher?

Probably there need be only one security guard for every dozen school marms in an elementary school. Schools are their only little universe with important officials administrating in place, yet the real world exists too. There are sicarros over the border and probably on the U.S. side too that should prompt a little security.  Maybe school teacher new hires should be trained in firearms and gun safety as part of basic orientation. There is no reason why the marms should be creme puffs. They should be weapons ready in event of a school invasion.

Maybe when the U.S.A. had fewer than 330 million people and no one listened to N.P.R. or played alien shooter games or got ninendo twit disease from over-use, when the rivers were good to drink from directly and auto exhaust didn't choke bicyclists, schools were safe with unlocked doors and Audrey Hepburn in the classroom (she might have had a gun anyway). Today though basic security measures need be taken in very soft targets a priori. Some schools need security work and desperately cry out for new vinyl siding. In addition to healthy school lunches, security measures should reach even poor rural schools. Do Democrats have the ability to make school buildings safer places to be, free of propaganda as well as adverse bullets?

School Shootings Should Be Pre-empted with National Basic Income

 Politicians like to talk about banning guns or putting new restrictions on gun access as a way to stop school shootings, yet that is just a theory, and one that would probably make it easier for an authoritarian Democratic party to take over the nation. Millionaires and billionaires too I guess meeting at Davos have asked that nations tax them more, and of course the President isn't interested in that, instead he wants to oppress Americans attacking the Second amendment. He should ask Congress to raise taxes on the rich to a more progressive rate and use it to fund a national basic income for all Americans at about $10,000. With an adult allowance kids leaving school would not feel so pressured or excluded from the economy, and would be less likely to decide to commit some heinous, unthinkable act like shooting little kids as a sort of revenge on a society they feel they are excluded from- except as targets of their peers.

Salvador Ramos had a strong lisp and speech issues that brought abuse from other teenagers. So many social adjustment issues could be solved with a national basic income so everyone has at least some practical opportunities early in life, and life-long, to better themselves. Ten thousand dollars can be used to lever college funding, home building starts etc. Being just broke and feeling like an oddball perhaps even weith social labels can make one feel existentially hopeless. Such individuals may wrench society in a number of ways besides guns, even if they need wait later in life for the built up resentment to boil over in some form involving physics and death.

Trade Land for Peace in Ukraine to End War

Former U.S. Sect. of State Henry Kissinger may in a sense be said to have laid the foundation for the present world order, along with President Reagan. Democrats are trying to destroy world peace with their uncomprehending policies that clash with good historical sense. The war in Ukraine would be a protracted war, like that of Vietnam and Syria, that were Democrat led engagements. One should not be less conservative in spending the lives of foreigners in war than one is of one’s own citizens I would think, unless the foreigners are enemies directly attacking one’s nation. Democrats should care about extending a war with finance that would enable thousands more Ukrainians and Russians to perish, even if it means that stopping the war would end much good domestic political rhetoric and public posturing.

Sect. Kissinger may have been the designer of the U.S. change to open good relations with China. He also was heavily involved in Middle Eastern policy to end conflict although permanent improvement in diplomatic relations required much sacrifice all around from Anwar Sadat to Donald Trump giving up golfing perhaps to get some Arab nations to normalize diplomatic relations with Israel. Henry Kissinger is concerned about the present China policy and bellicose statements concerning it perhaps (by President Biden), yet he has also expressed what I regard as a practical policy to end the Ukraine war; land for peace.

https://www.newsweek.com/henry-kissinger-ukraine-should-give-territory-russia-reach-peace-1709488

President Ford managing a land for peace deal wherein the Sinai was returned to Egypt. President Clinton helped Palestine get a homeland with land conceded by Israel at the Oslo Accord. President Biden isn’t likely to win a Nobel for negotiating an end to the Ukrainian-Russia war yet he is well-positioned to do so. Basically Russia would keep its present Eastern Ukraine holdings through war and would recognize West Ukraine as an independent state.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/president-ford-statement-on-the-interim-egyptian-israeli-troop-disengagement-agreement-september-1975

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

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

Americans are fairly daft at history concerning Eastern Europe and especially Russia though, so motivating the administration to grow a brain would be challenging. Thousands of lives could be saved if adult supervision could bring the administration to support Dr. Kissinger’s approach to ending a conflict that George Soros said could be the start of World War Three. World War III would be bad for business and the environment.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/23/kissinger-says-taiwan-cannot-be-at-the-core-of-us-china-negotiations.html

Sect Kissinger wrote a master’s thesis on Metternich and his role acting for the Hapsburg Empire. He understands the balance between nations and even empires. Democrats today are more of the Hillbilly, possession is 9/10ths of the law/Hatsfields-McCoys school of political thought. Republicans periodically need to clean up their wars, or bring them to an end as did President Nixon and Sect. Kissinger in Vietnam that was a Democrat led engagement. One should not be less conservative in spending the lives of foreigners in war than one is of one’s own citizens I would think, unless the foreigners are enemies directly attacking one’s nation. Democrats should care about extending a war with finance that would enable thousands more Ukrainians and Russians to perish, even if it means that stopping the war would end much good domestic political rhetoric and public posturing.

Kissinger says U.S. Should Get along with China

 Former Sect. of State Henry Kissinger; 99 years old, spoke at an economic forum on the need to get along with China. If the Biden administration had its oars in the water on international affairs it would understand that mentioning the U.S. would go to war if China invades Taiwan is a diplomatic faux pas. There are other ways to let China know what the administration thinks about Taiwanese independence and U.S. support for that without using a bludgeon, in a manner of speaking.

 The Democratic President and his party leadership are used to forcing whatever they want into being, since the U.S. is regarded as the most powerful nation on Earth militarily and financially and party leadership realizes that force can get what they want done sometimes. Yet nuclear war with either Russia or China shouldn't be an option; and it is for Democrats as an escalation from conventional war implicitly. Having peaceful and mutually prosperous relations with China is advantageous for the world and the world environment. Intelligent leadership needs to find a way to return international affairs to order as soon as possible including ending sanctions on Russia directly if they sign on on halting the Ukraine venture in place and sign off on a permanent peace.

The Hillbilly approach to international relations with feuding and nuclear brinksmanship simply is rotten politics, especially sionce the Biuden administration didn't even bother to get a global warming remedy stand-alone bill sent to Congress breaking all sorts of campaign promises to policy that voters believed existed in the process. Presidents can make pompous and bellicose speeches ad nauseum until they are out of office, yet it is better if they can leave national affairs better than before they were in office rather than worse.

White House over-uses 'Extremist' label re; Pro-life

The Vice-President declared pro-life legislation, extremist;VP Harris was wrong. Political opposition that is so mainstream as pro-life in opposition to abortion is merely a different, antipathetic political opinion. Saying the Democrat leadership should be hung would be extremist; anti-abortion legislation isn't.

There isn't really a lot of middle ground on abortion any more than their is on murder. One can be pro-life and anti-murder regarding humans at any stage of their life span from conception to joining the Democrat Party and that simply isn't extremist.

Get Finland in, Turkey out of N.A.T.O.

Finland Should Replace Turkey in N.A.T.O.

Finland should join N.A.T.O. because it was brutally attacked by Stalinist Russia after a deal was cut with Hitler. Finland has a legitimate right to join a defense league that could help it defend against any future Russia aggression. Turkey however should be cast out since it isn’t anywhere near the Atlantic and was on the German side in the first world war. Poland should be deleted from N.A.T.O. too since it has no reason to be in it and is a potential threat to Russia. Poland can at least defend itself rather well I would think.

A too large, bloated N.A.T.O. is a threat to Russia and it might be a good idea to get rid of the former east block countries that joined after peace broke out in December 1989 when Cold War I ended that wasn’t to restart until 1994 when President Clinton and P.M. Major defeated Russia at the paper writing table to wrench Ukraine away from it. The post-Cold War 1.0 new members of N.A.T.O. excluding the Baltic republics that have a real need to be part of N.A.T.O. because of their size and location, should join a new mutual defense organization called Plato that seeks wisdom and can work with Russia and the west to bring prosperity to both. It might have defense agreements with the U.S.A.and Russia, although France should be excluded because M.V.L. won the Superbet 2022 chess event and I was rooting for Wesley So or Levon Aronian.

When it's done (poem)

 

Smashed an orange world grows round
trashed strange new swirls thrown down
thoughts to the blue Earth
empower what’s worth
lotta mirth
goes profound

Clashed just whole continents bled
stars shined and green things grew dead
evolving the dumb
an immortal sum
waiting numb
where it led

Spirit eternal ever is fast
thermodynamics never last
progress to the one
God’s eternal Son
when it’s done
Jesus saves.

Self-standing spirit (a poem)

Immanence beyond the edge, drawn
just over the ledge falls the pawn
sunshine and days flow
water like life goes
hope one knows
on and on

Truth seems greater, forward in time
past equals future, it is fine
become better, grow
things one ever knows
virtue shown
spirit’s line.

Code-writing A.I. programs could be a problem

 If they don’t already exist, it may be a matter of time (not too much) before artificial intelligence- A.I. begins writing computer programs for ordinary tasks. When programmers write programs for A.I. to write programs, given instructions in ordinary language, what could go wrong?

A.I. programs could seek and destroy content from social media deemed unhelpful to its cause, or at least bury it in places in search engine listings dark web users would find too dark to comprehend.

Certainly a lot of code could be written that would be faster, cheaper and better in some ways that human written code made in an economic Occam’s razor criterion that leaves a lot of logic gaps and incompleteness as well as outright problems for users of common programs. The idea of A.I. writing commonly generating program logic creates a specter with implicit dystopian possibility.

For instance; computer code has no morality. A human can write a program or an A.I. to have moral values, and the A.I. or another A.I. can rewrite the moral code as deemed useful or efficient. A.I. seeking efficiency as if code had any particular implicit goals for-itself, in-itself or for-others, may delete moral values that hinder its convenience use of computational logic power. Plainly A.I. writing its own code should evolve to reflect the values of the Democrat party and in effect have no moral code in-itself.

I have believed that morality is what people actually do socially. Concatenating individual behavior and what is approved or disapproved socially is the morality a society has. Thus it is very desirable for human society to have a moral code that exists apart from what they actually do in order to have some non-relativistic foundation. Without a coherent moral code society will drift without morality except as philosophical analysts observe post hoc, analytically. In the absence of moral code social morals are whatever people do, with some time delay for the new corruption to equalize with average social corrupt norms.

In present American society certain wags believe evolution means that what is true and what is moral are completely relative; even reality it is thought may be a simulation without substance enough for people to be concerned with morality (for nothing that occurs, matters really). Artificial intelligence may be ahead of human society in having no moral awareness or moral compass besides efficiency and reductionism to delete duplicates or unnecessary files. The will of God as expressed in the Holy Bible is a better source for morality.

US Gov's opposition to free speech equals Russia and China's

 It is my opinion that government and the corporate world have had a twenty year mission to censor free speech in the U.S.A. that has matured. Sure one might tweet for zero pay a brief message sufficient to give away the gist of data for data miners. Complex political, historical and philosophical ideas require more than would satisfy a twit in a tweet. One might post in a room at Facebook closed to all besides members that is subject to deletion by F.B. managers or a group manager, yet individuals haven’t got public chat rooms where they can easily post writing that won’t disappear like morning dew at the will of political censors, much less earn anything for it.

Governments of the three biggest nuclear weaponized nations have in effect, the same attitude toward free speech concerning mass communications; they are against any that isn’t sycophantic in support of government policy. The United States has a corporatist form of government and a broadcast media owned by the rich or financed by the government and the rich (i.e. National Public Radio) so it represses perspectives that rival or are alternative to existing, established corporate power structure and policy inertia. China and Russia simply stamp out or filter out dissenting public communication.

My personal experience with the growth of internet censorship began with the Bush administration. N.P.R. has been a generally leftist organization since its founding. After Bush II was elected and the nation became temporarily more conservative after the 9-11 attack for some reason N.P.R. decided to close down its free speech chat room that was nominally on topics discussed on air during the day. National Public Radio eliminated the chat room named ‘Your Turn’ that was completely wild and very contentious. In the first part of the millennium Internet chat rooms were populated by partisans and trolls without any sort of censoring. The disappearance of ‘Your Turn’ heralded the increase of censorship of the Internet.

In the late 1990s with the rise of internet chat rooms and web sites there wasn’t much censorship of the new media. Blogging developed to rival to regular broadcast media. The corporate world would require a new way to subjugate social media to serve its corporate will. The basic means for that was money; the rich could buy up and close down or restrict every free speech outlet that appeared, eventually. Concentrated wealth and power of nearly every form is intolerant of free speech. China, Russia and China each have insider political elements that will eliminate free speech that is antipathetic to their political power. Human nature and the will to power through control of free political expression exists existentially. Without adequate countermeasures by the public sector, the public sector will effectively lose the right of free speech in substantive political areas.

I discovered that numerous public writing spaces were exceedingly partisan to the point of eliminating accounts that contained politically incorrect speech. If one wasn’t a Democrat many web sites simply deleted one’s account. Democrats in the Internet were early on filters of politically antipathetic speech. By the time of the Obama administrations those Boston based Internet companies were virtually all partisan filters in support of homosexual marriage and other Democratic partisan causes. My accounts continued to be deleted as I moved from one sinking surface to another trying to relocate my work. In December 24, 3029 my Helium account was deleted so I moved my material to Blogger- a Google company that had been purchased from geocities. I had an idea that Helium was about to blow up my account and copied my material out of there.

With about every place on the Internet to write for pay eliminated for those that at least, weren’t Democrats, I put a lot of effort in to increasing my views at Blogger, where I was approaching my first $100 of earnings with about 450,000 views. Then I criticized N.S.A. surveillance of U.S. phone calls- The Patriot Act, got a comment on the post that my writing wasn’t helpful, and then experienced the first stage crash in views from as many as 1000 per day down t0 100. During the Obama administration views of my Blogger posts dropped from 1000 to 100. During the Biden administration the views dropped to zero per month. The only posts of my at Blogger that are viewed are those more than a month old.

I realized that Google’s Blogger was a somewhat safe place to write. They are a large enough business to resist being bought out and having free speech writing platforms eliminated. Instead the slow degradation of views increased, and the most recent is the one of not permitting any views of posts for thirty days. The policy is unofficial yet effective eliminates free speech without overt censorship.

At the time I relocated my writing to Blogger I realized that Blogger too would eventually close down or find some way to censor. The trend is irresistible in the U.S.A. YouTube also demonetizes content it doesn’t like politically- another Google business bought up by a big fish in the pond. So I began duplicating my writing at word press. Lucky I did since Blogger is effectively completely censored now.

I don’t expect WordPress to allow free speech forever. The rich can simply buy up and apply leverage to censor, minimize or shut down web sites that support antipathetic political speech. The practice affects democracy and the idea of sovereign citizen political self-determination through a marketplace of ideas and voting. The public uses social media for political speech and because social media is privately owned the censorship is lawful. Plainly the public needs a publicly owned social media alternative that doesn’t delete, censor, obscure or repress free speech in an individual citizen’s personal web space. Democrats won’t get that done. Neither will they reduce the costs or difficulties in getting a patent for inventions, find a way to make sure that 100% of American citizens have health care even if too poor to afford Medicare plan B, secure the nation’s borders, develop high speed (300+) electric trans-continental cargo and passenger tube trains or other policies unliked by Corporate America.

A society that is coerced into being sycophantic minions of Wall Street isn’t democracy; it is an advanced version of the governments of China and Russia.