Silence is an Artform Itself, for some Writers

I prefer silence for writing in order not be distracted or influenced by irrelevant sound. Actually I've spent a lot of time in rural Alaska where I can hear an engine two miles distant or a rifle shot five miles away. In a quiet ecosystem one can listen to nature much better. Silence allows one to listen for danger; .e.g. a brown bear approaching quietly or of other interesting life. One may awaken with a whale snoring or in the morning with an exhalation. The raven's intelligent sounds in a tree above a tent. When one has a writing tool for writing words it seems good to imagine the distant places and cities where humans dwell, and the sounds of their machines, as strange phenomenalities temporally on the Earth. Eventually the time for writing ends and one must rejoin the world of Golden Arches and carbon monoxide.

Time for a Study How to Keep Government Closed Regularly

The U.S. Government has been partially closed none days so far and it is kind of a relief. President Trump should commission a study on how the government might be partially closed regularly in order to reduce the cost of government.

It is probable that a good systems analyst might discover ways to consolidate government services and agencies creatively and actually get more bang for the buck. If government could be closed 30% of the time, in theory it would cost 30% less.

With the military industrial complex dominating the federal budget and with the complete unwillingness of Democrats to fund security on a practical level like spending five billion to build some more miles of solid fencing on the Mexican border, closing the government might be the best way to prevent the federal deficit from getting worse and to stop Democrats from inventing more inefficient and less-than-optimal ways to spend federal dollars ostensibly to help middle class and poor people while the economics facts speak for themselves; wealth is being concentrated in the 1%.

The market has gone up from 850 to 23,000 since 1972 while the minimum wage has only gone up 5 dollars. Democrats are just enriching their party leaders.

Why People Think Armed Revolution that Works isn't Possible

The basic paradigm for why a successful revolution is thought to be impossible today goes something like this…Americans haven’t got enough weapons to defeat the military, so a conventional armed revolution isn’t likely unless the US military becomes so decayed and dopey that its quality drops to rotten door status. Corrupt political leaders working wickedness upon the cadres with homosexual drill sergeants who could abuse trainees might be tolerated, yet there might arise something that would offend the soldiers or citizens enough that revolt was deemed useful. If the nation allows in a near majority of Muslims to become radicalized they just might have the capacity to revolt for sundry reasons. Changes can historically occur to nations that ripen the moment for revolution. Under the despotic power of corporatism that can define an enthralled entertainment society or even socialism as democracy, few would jeopardize their comfort and peace.

A thousand soldiers of the 101st Airborne took charge of the Arkansas National Guard in defense of the order for Little Rock Schools to integrate. The local Guard where themselves recalcitrant about staying on the job. A number of political circumstances could arrive to influence the military about taking sides in a civil conflict. Perhaps a successful revolt would require that a large number of US military personnel side with the rebellion.

Nations Today Can Survive the Loss of a National Capital in Conflict

Maybe one must look to Iran and/or Iraq for understanding. In public political demonstrations fanatics sometimes bite the head off snakes. Perhaps that informs us of the theory of destroying a capital and the political leaders in it; without the head the body dies.

The paradigm may be old. It is possible that in modern general wars, should they occur- and general war is still rather improbable concerning the larger powers, discrete and detached, decentralized leadership with ad hoc organizations will survive the loss of a national capital. Smaller nations alternatively, that engage in war, may have much invested demographically and materially in a capital city and could not survive the loss.

China’s civil wars and the Japanese invasion show the adaptability of some economies and polities to reorganization beyond a traditional capital city with mobile leadership. Moscow is generally regarded as the heart of Russia since Kiev was lost to the Germans twice in the 20th century. Russia might nor survive the loss of Moscow as readily as the U.S. would survive possibly with repressed though sorrowful mirth the destruction of Washington D.C. (since the politicians seem inept starting with Bill Clinton).

In ancient times a capital was the real seat of power of royalty or undemocratic ruler. His or her weapons and wealth were concentrated in the capital city whereas today wealth and capital stock is dispersed globally. If a ruler wasn’t able to defend his or her capital it was a test of strength that was lost. If London had fallen, to the Romans or whomever, then the former Celtic tribes were truly cooked.

Consider what would occur if a nation suddenly had a capital conquered by some modern telecommunications firm that infects every phone it sold with bugs that forward information to a foreign government, or if the political leadership communicates on unsecured email servers that let foreign governments ditto every action the slaved government takes; that could be nearly as effective as a physical conquest of a capital though covert.

China Allows US Rice In Yet Skips Protein Rich Soy Beans

If China had dropped the tariff on soy beans that would have been a positive development. Although fried rice is very good, the Chinese might regard it as a useful import. Pragmatism might not count for evaluating the thought of politicians. Soy is vegetable protein and a useful ingredient for a well balanced die, while rice is starch with just 8% protein versus 30–40% for soy beans.

China allows first-ever U.S. rice imports ahead of trade talks

Partial Gov Shutdown Day 6; Why Not Annually Close 30% of the Time

The partial government shutdown may be a good thing in that it demonstrates that change is possible. The Texas legislature has a very brief annual session (140 days every other year). Why shouldn't the U.S. Government have annual partial closures and the Congress meet 30% less time. The challenge would be to become more efficient or get nothing down. Between the Congress and media noise the President has little enough time to actually execute.

Closing Congress and the government more often could save taxpayers and compel Congress persons to work more efficiently.

Magnus Carlsen vs Robert James Fischer

Robert James Fischer had natural genius inherited from his parents. He and Lasker were probably the smartest chess players since Morphy. Robert James was something of a juvenile delinquent in playing chess instead of being a physicist like his father, yet it couldn’t be helped. After winning the world championship, chess may have collapsed like a spent, inflated soufflé to him psychologically- a game of little value. The best player in the world, and not rich- chess didn’t pay much back in the day. Neither had it content besides being a game.

Was Robert James good or Magnus Carlsen as good? The apostle Paul;
Romans 3:10-12 King James Version (KJV)
“10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

Neither Robert James Fischer nor Magnus Carlsen are good. No one is good except God.
Robert James had the virtue of having defeated the Soviet chess machine. That helped end the cold war. The victory was as psychologically as valuable as the U.S. hockey team victory over the Soviet team in the Olympics; it shattered Soviet ideas of their skill level as being in some fields, invincible. I met a guy once who said that those that cannot do math have no soul (not true). Robert James showed the Soviets that Americans have soul.
Magnus Carlsen plays chess in an era where he could purchase the book of the last great Soviet grand master-world chess champ Garry Kasparov. He is champion in an era of political bungling that is reigniting the Cold war and prospects for nuclear war. It is a hyper-vain materialistic era and the avarice for pawns and parsimony of sacrifice is representative of the zeitgeist. Russia has said it has a new hypersonic nuclear weapons delivery vehicle launched from missiles that skips along the top of the atmosphere at five times the speed of sound and is highly maneuverable. The U.S. replies with a billion dollar contract to Lockheed to build one for-themselves. In theory, the rekindling of the Cold War is caused over the pawns of historically Russian Crimea and Ukraine.

Magnus Carlsen can play interesting chess more like that of Garry Kasparov now and then. Super GMs (over 2700 rating) no longer need concern themselves with being caught up in Cold War intrigue. Robert James Fischer probably would have been an outstanding physicist with the right early education. I am not so sure about Magnus Carlsen. I envision his alternative career development as that of an outstanding engineer- rather like Einstein’s son?, who developed an electro-magnetic linear accelerator to launch vehicles into space from the Earth kinetically and further; developed an electromagnetic field launcher in deep space to accelerate vehicles to a significant portion of the speed of light.
Lasker was a great mathematician and some of his work is still relevant.