Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Bernardo de La Paz
Bernardo de La Paz's Journal
Bernardo de La Paz's Journal
March 3, 2023
There are dimensions of Stupid such as Wisdom and Clever
The Wisdom dimension is distinct from Clever. Other dimensions include Knowledge (memory and exposure to topics) and Emotional Intelligence.
The rump is clever about media and other people's money, but completely unwise about nationhood ("why do soldiers do it? What's in it for them?" ).
The rump is a salesperson and a con artist, so he has emotional intelligence, but he has little knowledge (drinking bleach for Covid, looking at sun in eclipse).
They are distinct. It is possible and desirable to be clever, wise, knowledgeable and emotionally perceptive at the same time. A person can know a lot but not know what to do with the knowledge, like say sports stats, history, and arcana.
Many people are wise (thankfully) though not especially clever or knowledgeable. These are the people who work hard, sometimes very hard, and support other people the very best they can whenever they can. They are generally tolerant and generally make wise votes. They are the salt of the earth and we are lucky to have them.
March 3, 2023
Critical Thinking: They have so little self-awareness that they are unaware how easily and frequently they are swayed by emotion and emotional framing. They fall prey to logical fallacies of all kinds and variations. They gish-gallop when debating ( "owning the libs" ).
Civics: Yes, they might be able to tell you why they hate the Amendment for electing Senators and other details of this or that in US political governance.
But they can't explain the basic fundamental reason for Peaceful Transfer of Power (no J6s) in the UNITED States of America.
Polarization works because Stupid not educated in critical thinking and civics: you got that right
Critical Thinking: They have so little self-awareness that they are unaware how easily and frequently they are swayed by emotion and emotional framing. They fall prey to logical fallacies of all kinds and variations. They gish-gallop when debating ( "owning the libs" ).
Civics: Yes, they might be able to tell you why they hate the Amendment for electing Senators and other details of this or that in US political governance.
But they can't explain the basic fundamental reason for Peaceful Transfer of Power (no J6s) in the UNITED States of America.
March 2, 2023
Grains and sugar are good for you, just not to excess.
Grains have lots of fiber.
Whole grains have lots of nutrients.
Ground flax seed has Omega-3.
Sugar is brain fuel. But don't binge or regularly overdo processed sugars, like white sugar or high fructose corn syrup, etc.
I put brown sugar on my oatmeal and a bunch in the 600 ml cup of black coffee I have in the morning. Then I don't put sugar on anything else all day, certainly not in the green tea I have in the afternoon. I don't drink soda (I used to drink a lot of Coca Cola).
The problem is not sugar so much, but how people use excess sugar and processed IN PLACE OF NUTRIENTS. Then the body cries out for nutrients and the person mistakes it for "hunger" and eats more processed food. But that doesn't have much nutrients either, so the cycle repeats.
If you eat healthy food, you can just about eat as much as you want and you will be satisfied sooner with fewer calories.
February 26, 2023
I made a post today in a thread about Trudeau defending some freedoms and that drew a positive response, which got me thinking, so I searched for it and I may have come up with a new turn of phrase.
So I am interested to know what you think of the concept: "Rights are shared, not owned".
What I am thinking of, at this point in the evolution of my thinking, is that when a right is given to a person it is shared by others, not owned by that person. It is not a right they can sell, but they can forgo a right, for example by not voting if they have a dog to shampoo that day.
Rights are extended to groups of people. People who did not have the right before. For example, the right to open a revolving line of credit in one's own name. This was not a widespread right until it was extended to women about 1963, only sixty years ago. So in this sense rights are shared.
But I'm more thinking about it in the broader sense that rights extended to a group of people are rights deepened and strengthened for even the people who used to have them previously. It's all tied up with concepts like diversity is strength because enabling diverse participation enlarges the talent pool and that is always desirable since people and humanity are faced with a beautiful but brutal universe on a daily basis: virus, quakes, the toxicity of burn clouds and the vagaries of winds, too many to list.
If we are "in it together", if we are United in fact as well as name, then we must extend as many rights as much as possible.
But rights must be balanced. There is no right that is absolute. All rights have to embrace exceptional circumstances and embrace other rights.
So, if we understand that rights are shared, I think we can get better at balancing rights.
The individual right to support and the societal right to national self-preservation are, for example, pitted against property rights and against the rights to the fruits of one's labour (freedom from taxation). Gun owners do not own the right to own weaponry because there are limits even gun nuts acknowledge. You can start at no backyard tactical nukes and work down from there. Why no nukes? Because the people living downwind have a right to no disruptive levels of radiation. Presumably unborn fetuses have some rights (avoiding abuse) but this has to be balanced against mothers rights to their own bodies. Which leads me to another reason.
No right is pure.
All rights are shades of gray, none black/white 0/1. Except perhaps rights that are only societal constructs, like the right to vote, the right to a fair trial, etc. But the rights to interact with physical objects and to interact or not with people are complicated by realities we all face in some form or another. Hence, shared experience. But shades of gray. My right to swing my fist stops well before it gets close to your nose. But how far away? A foot? A kilometre? A network's worth of digital packets?
Since no right is pure, they are like yin/yang, each containing a bit of the other, enfolding the other, embracing the other, united with the other. Thus rights are shared, not owned. amiright?
Rights evolve. Since rights are a societal issue, they are refined by people for the people. Thus they are shared that way too.
Anyway, I'm running out of energy on the topic for the moment.
Is it a good thing, a right thing, to say "rights are shared, not owned"? What do you take it to mean and what is your thinking?
I would like to read what you have to say about "Rights are shared, not owned"
I made a post today in a thread about Trudeau defending some freedoms and that drew a positive response, which got me thinking, so I searched for it and I may have come up with a new turn of phrase.
So I am interested to know what you think of the concept: "Rights are shared, not owned".
What I am thinking of, at this point in the evolution of my thinking, is that when a right is given to a person it is shared by others, not owned by that person. It is not a right they can sell, but they can forgo a right, for example by not voting if they have a dog to shampoo that day.
Rights are extended to groups of people. People who did not have the right before. For example, the right to open a revolving line of credit in one's own name. This was not a widespread right until it was extended to women about 1963, only sixty years ago. So in this sense rights are shared.
But I'm more thinking about it in the broader sense that rights extended to a group of people are rights deepened and strengthened for even the people who used to have them previously. It's all tied up with concepts like diversity is strength because enabling diverse participation enlarges the talent pool and that is always desirable since people and humanity are faced with a beautiful but brutal universe on a daily basis: virus, quakes, the toxicity of burn clouds and the vagaries of winds, too many to list.
If we are "in it together", if we are United in fact as well as name, then we must extend as many rights as much as possible.
But rights must be balanced. There is no right that is absolute. All rights have to embrace exceptional circumstances and embrace other rights.
So, if we understand that rights are shared, I think we can get better at balancing rights.
The individual right to support and the societal right to national self-preservation are, for example, pitted against property rights and against the rights to the fruits of one's labour (freedom from taxation). Gun owners do not own the right to own weaponry because there are limits even gun nuts acknowledge. You can start at no backyard tactical nukes and work down from there. Why no nukes? Because the people living downwind have a right to no disruptive levels of radiation. Presumably unborn fetuses have some rights (avoiding abuse) but this has to be balanced against mothers rights to their own bodies. Which leads me to another reason.
No right is pure.
All rights are shades of gray, none black/white 0/1. Except perhaps rights that are only societal constructs, like the right to vote, the right to a fair trial, etc. But the rights to interact with physical objects and to interact or not with people are complicated by realities we all face in some form or another. Hence, shared experience. But shades of gray. My right to swing my fist stops well before it gets close to your nose. But how far away? A foot? A kilometre? A network's worth of digital packets?
Since no right is pure, they are like yin/yang, each containing a bit of the other, enfolding the other, embracing the other, united with the other. Thus rights are shared, not owned. amiright?
Rights evolve. Since rights are a societal issue, they are refined by people for the people. Thus they are shared that way too.
Anyway, I'm running out of energy on the topic for the moment.
Is it a good thing, a right thing, to say "rights are shared, not owned"? What do you take it to mean and what is your thinking?
February 26, 2023
That means analyzing things like the philosophy of governance and evolution and the dynamics of crowds and the biology of the amygdala and so much.
As you point out, overblown expectations of endurance held by authoritarians are easy to find. The first that popped into my mind was the Thousand Year Reich.
And similarly to another of your points, there is no going back to whitebread 1950s. The 1950s lasted exactly ten years and are over and will never be repeated. Period. But simple self-evident obviousness does not convince the true believers.
I'm with you. If we truly believe "love triumphs", then we have to find the WAYS that it does
That means analyzing things like the philosophy of governance and evolution and the dynamics of crowds and the biology of the amygdala and so much.
As you point out, overblown expectations of endurance held by authoritarians are easy to find. The first that popped into my mind was the Thousand Year Reich.
And similarly to another of your points, there is no going back to whitebread 1950s. The 1950s lasted exactly ten years and are over and will never be repeated. Period. But simple self-evident obviousness does not convince the true believers.
February 26, 2023
Anti-vaxxers do not have the freedom to get sick and infect other people with deadly debilitating respiratory illnesses as a result of their selfishness, even if it is selfishness over their rights. Rights are shared, not owned.
Nor do they have the right to disrupt an event. Sure, picket the entrances, but they do not have the right to interfere.
That was no snap. It was full control of determined defense of true freedom, not antivax freedumb
Anti-vaxxers do not have the freedom to get sick and infect other people with deadly debilitating respiratory illnesses as a result of their selfishness, even if it is selfishness over their rights. Rights are shared, not owned.
Nor do they have the right to disrupt an event. Sure, picket the entrances, but they do not have the right to interfere.
February 26, 2023
(Good points you made about unbalanced relationships. Part of societal governance by the people of the people is balancing the wider set of relationships between all parts and levels and sectors of society.)
0) Undergirding everything is the concept of leaving them in our dust. Fundamentally if we simply get on with the business of "being the change we want to happen", we will succeed individually (on average), as a group, and as a nation. Fundamentally does not mean "only" or that it is sufficient. It means it is the foundation.
1) Enhancing truth telling in education (including history), social media, and "the" media.
2) Enhancing civics education, particularly the parts about "first they came for the ..." and about peaceful transfer of power after a properly scrutinized election is certified. Naive freshly converted proto-fascists always think they will be spared and will always be on top. Rights are not just for other people to protect them from whoever oppresses them, but for all people because all people might potentially be oppressed in some ways at some time.
3) Enhancing critical thinking. That means more logic and more debate, and includes explicit analysis of fallacious thinking. It includes more science, especially to make the point that science proves nothing. Scientists work to disprove theories; that is all they can do. They cannot prove a theory. (except perhaps the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics: "You can't win, you can't break even, the game is rigged"; I jest)
4) Enhancing transparency of government and other key functions of society.
5) Leveling the playing field in all ways possible. That means raising some people up (benefits) and holding some people back (taxes, though taxes on the wealth don't really hold them back at all).
6) Increasing taxes on the wealthy and closing loopholes. Hunh? Taxes? Yes, taxes. Wealth and income disparities are wide, growing wider, and are increasingly unsustainable. It is creating huge stresses on society with crumbling infrastructure, overpriced and unevenly available health care, education is starved, and on and on.
7) There are many more things that can be done, many by ordinary citizens in their daily duties, work, and life.
My ultimate point is to not despair, but to do what you can and there is stuff you can do.
I might prepend a list that starts with zero (mathematician/programmer indexing) with an item numbered
-1) Vote! Every time. Always. Get everyone to vote.
"What are we going to do about sociopathic Fascism?"
(Good points you made about unbalanced relationships. Part of societal governance by the people of the people is balancing the wider set of relationships between all parts and levels and sectors of society.)
0) Undergirding everything is the concept of leaving them in our dust. Fundamentally if we simply get on with the business of "being the change we want to happen", we will succeed individually (on average), as a group, and as a nation. Fundamentally does not mean "only" or that it is sufficient. It means it is the foundation.
1) Enhancing truth telling in education (including history), social media, and "the" media.
2) Enhancing civics education, particularly the parts about "first they came for the ..." and about peaceful transfer of power after a properly scrutinized election is certified. Naive freshly converted proto-fascists always think they will be spared and will always be on top. Rights are not just for other people to protect them from whoever oppresses them, but for all people because all people might potentially be oppressed in some ways at some time.
3) Enhancing critical thinking. That means more logic and more debate, and includes explicit analysis of fallacious thinking. It includes more science, especially to make the point that science proves nothing. Scientists work to disprove theories; that is all they can do. They cannot prove a theory. (except perhaps the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics: "You can't win, you can't break even, the game is rigged"; I jest)
4) Enhancing transparency of government and other key functions of society.
5) Leveling the playing field in all ways possible. That means raising some people up (benefits) and holding some people back (taxes, though taxes on the wealth don't really hold them back at all).
6) Increasing taxes on the wealthy and closing loopholes. Hunh? Taxes? Yes, taxes. Wealth and income disparities are wide, growing wider, and are increasingly unsustainable. It is creating huge stresses on society with crumbling infrastructure, overpriced and unevenly available health care, education is starved, and on and on.
7) There are many more things that can be done, many by ordinary citizens in their daily duties, work, and life.
My ultimate point is to not despair, but to do what you can and there is stuff you can do.
I might prepend a list that starts with zero (mathematician/programmer indexing) with an item numbered
-1) Vote! Every time. Always. Get everyone to vote.
February 24, 2023
It is hard to think of better advice than this:
For years I've been saying: Language, Mathematics, and Music are the keys for children (and adults too).
Writing well is key to communication which is key to persuasion and collaboration and teaching.
We live in a stochastic universe, so get with statistics early and often, as with as much math as can be digested.
Music is all about making disparate connections. Not just the music per se, but the cultures connected to and flowing through music.
Last sentence nails it
It is hard to think of better advice than this:
Their children are better off learning how to write well, how to think statistically, and how to draw connections between disparate subjects.
For years I've been saying: Language, Mathematics, and Music are the keys for children (and adults too).
Writing well is key to communication which is key to persuasion and collaboration and teaching.
We live in a stochastic universe, so get with statistics early and often, as with as much math as can be digested.
Music is all about making disparate connections. Not just the music per se, but the cultures connected to and flowing through music.
February 23, 2023
I'm pretty sure Garland is very aware of the clock and will have communicated the importance of this to Smith when he appointed him.
I don't know, but why am I sure? Because of Garland's sense of timing on things, most notably his appointment of Smith within days of tRump announcing, and tRump announcing within days of the close of the midterm elections.
Appointments like that do not get projected, nominated, interviewed, and negotiated within "days" or two/three weeks. Garland was cognizant of the 60 day clock (however vague/informal it may have been) before the elections and had to have the Smith appointment virtually in his suit pocket, ready for tRump if he were to announce (and he did).
Nov 8, 2022: midterms
Nov 15, 2022: the rump announces
Nov 18, 2022: Garland announces Jack Smith
I never had faith in a rosy outcome, rather more a "good" outcome. As the clock ticks, my faith wavers slightly more. Even so, I wouldn't dare make a prediction on when Smith indicts, other than "between now and 60 days before Nov 5, 2024".
I don't know
I'm pretty sure Garland is very aware of the clock and will have communicated the importance of this to Smith when he appointed him.
I don't know, but why am I sure? Because of Garland's sense of timing on things, most notably his appointment of Smith within days of tRump announcing, and tRump announcing within days of the close of the midterm elections.
Appointments like that do not get projected, nominated, interviewed, and negotiated within "days" or two/three weeks. Garland was cognizant of the 60 day clock (however vague/informal it may have been) before the elections and had to have the Smith appointment virtually in his suit pocket, ready for tRump if he were to announce (and he did).
Nov 8, 2022: midterms
Nov 15, 2022: the rump announces
Nov 18, 2022: Garland announces Jack Smith
I never had faith in a rosy outcome, rather more a "good" outcome. As the clock ticks, my faith wavers slightly more. Even so, I wouldn't dare make a prediction on when Smith indicts, other than "between now and 60 days before Nov 5, 2024".
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: Fri Jul 16, 2004, 11:36 PM
Number of posts: 48,982