When pride tries to hide fall

Our species had some important advances in technology in late 1800's and early 1900's that greatly improved food production. Where advances with machines were a large part like with arrival of tractors. Plus industry got good at getting food to people all over the world. Supermarkets are modern marvels.

Historically food shocks had been most devastating area for humans and that changed. Should have been great! 

But instead massive wars erupted, mass conflict took over, and severe inequalities gained traction. And human species exploded into runaway growth.

Our species burned more and more relentlessly till blankets of carbon dioxide over world fueled more deadly weather. While accelerating evolution of viruses with stunning carelessness as behaved as if they were not most lethal things on planet.

Plenty of critiques questioned behavior that finally had clear consequences from 2020 when a pandemic was declared. And weather has worsened sharply, with huge flooding disasters created just by rain which are global now.

Yet, especially in nations like my own? Some insist things are ok! Claim original pandemic is over despite actual evidence showing is worse, and try to talk economy instead of rapidly disintegrating environment.

What is explanation? I think is pride.

Turns out critiques were correct. People did need to be responsible and be concerned about the future. 

Endless exploitation and greed were actually bad ideas. But folks many I think did think were successful with doomed behavior are not the types to admit were wrong have noticed.

Smart people though are working hard on handling reality rather than denying it for any reason. Is particularly sad to me that denial I perceive is for ego protection. People who screwed things up, actually behave worse as that is clear to try and hide that truth.

Our species though has always depended ultimately on dealing with reality and actually handling problems being deciding factor. 

Our communication with each other like am attempting with this post can talk from why of tragedy to path to renewal which I think is, responsible behavior.

Public health pays

After over two years since notice given of a novel coronavirus in 2019 the pandemic it has caused is worse than ever. More people have been killed this year than in 2020.

Historically pandemics are stopped by hygienic measures which continue to improve public health long after pandemic has gone.

Like we have focus on clean water as a result.

But our modern civilization is now in ideological conflict. Fighting for public health conflicts with people claiming it harms the economy.

Yeah is a bizarre situation.

Rather than focus on detecting the virus rapidly so people can avoid it, governments emphasized finding vaccines.

Sure, vaccines are great but pandemics end by hygienic measures. Ending a pandemic with a vaccine is literally a common plot in fiction. It is easy in theory but actually should go with policies to limit infections.

But with an ideology claiming that public health is too expensive governments have routinely let the virus causing the pandemic run wild while blaming individuals.

Without giving tools to know exactly where the virus is, or who has it, the public is left with few options.

I continue to try to avoid the virus by social distancing and staying home as venture out primarily for groceries. Thankfully I have that luxury.

The pandemic is worsening now with many now fatalistic about becoming infected. The ideology of refusing needed public health measures will collapse am sure. But will kill so many people first.

Governments still have to learn that public health pays for itself. Human beings are worth protecting.

Our US Constitution works

These are difficult times for our nation with continuing disasters, a lethal pandemic, and political unrest including an actual insurrection on Jan 6th of this year.

And our US Constitution has been repeatedly questioned as to efficacy in our modern world.

But read the document, and preceding president should have been removed for what US Constitution calls: high crimes and misdemeanors. 

The US Senate simply refused.

From very clear instructions, members of US Congress complicit with insurrection should have been removed from office.

Go back further, and under guidelines of US Constitution, the Speaker of the House had a duty to investigate fraudulent claims that lead to second Gulf war.

Over and over again, we have politicians who just ignored and did not do what US Constitution required them to do.

We, the People, have watched them in a political system gamed to make it difficult to remove politicians who know can flout our rules as a nation without fear of punishment or removal from office.

Notice how our nation has been saved though as only the federal judiciary of the three major branches has held the line. 

Our federal courts protected our nation relentlessly, and continue to do so, as blocked repeated attempts by politicians to ignore or break our laws.

Note, the US Supreme Court refused to support the previous president attempting to dispute election results.

When followed, our US Constitution has saved our nation.

What to do though about politicians who figured out how to ignore it, and are still in power?

That my fellow Americans, is up to us.

Power of prediction in politics

Have emphasized the predictive power we get with science, which to me is definitive. And helps so much with weeding out things which may claim to be, but actually are not, science. Which so many experience on the daily with flipping a light switch.

We unlike our ancestors have little excuse to get mystical about light on demand.

Where politics is an arena where prediction can have a massive impact. Like consider how important it could be, for you, to know much about what will happen politically long before it does.

But is it possible? With MY focus on predictive certainty one can debate to what extent political science exists! Like when was the last time you chuckled to yourself as noted prediction of a political scientist--people with the title do exist--as something DID happen as predicted? And you were like, yup that political scientist was dead on!!! (Um, I have never had that happen will note.)

Years ago talked what I call political science though which I found to be very depressing. And started by noting a prior post where hypothesized that wealthy people might prefer loaning the government money with bonds, like US Treasury bonds, versus supporting government with taxes. And full theory then is that in order to keep that happening they would do just about anything to drive up government debt, including if they could, start wars.

Today of course in the United States we have had yet another tax cut, where was less hidden why was happening than in the past with even slight explanation. And am telling you was predictable--though I decried it on my social media, and tried to get ahead by saying would not happen. Well shows the value of that as my own political science ideas would suggest it WOULD happen. And has also been a push for war I think, where was expecting that, as accepted theory there. And just so some people who are wealthy can try to pay less taxes? That is what the theory suggests strongly.

Oh yeah, in case you missed it with that analysis, point of tax cuts wasn't just the extra money wealthy did not have to pay into taxes, but to drive up the US national debt. They would need a steady pool of US Treasury notes so would work to maintain a federal deficit--according to the theory.

So am relying on predictive value. Theory suggests something and I check on what actually happens.

But very depressing predictions indeed. But with what value? Well let's say am not the only one who looks for predictive certainty. Others can check on such things themselves. Science is not about some person's opinion. Like that light bulb? Does not light because some guy says some things he calls science.

Predictive certainty is a powerful tool. Start thinking about how it might help you? And it might save your life, and the lives of others. Especially if you are a young person who might have been sent off to war, to fight so some already wealthy people, could get wealthier.

My belief is that as we value science properly, and value each other properly, we will get to better government. Oh and maybe get to political scientists who talk such things, and get that a ha I suggested earlier. We do need fewer surprises in politics and not more I do think.

We also need to expect more from each other. And I think is best when we expect the best from people who know, or should learn, better.

Power of prediction in politics? May quite simply be, helping enable a better world.


James Harris

Where explanation can help

There are a lot of facts on my side. Even my global attention reality is one of the most pertinent. Yet have found myself challenged in ways that apparently are against objective reason.

Grudgingly have decided maybe race is a factor with people so indoctrinated that certain types cannot do certain things they find it hard to focus on facts. But race is a social construct. Was made up by racists to justify treating certain humans horribly, by considering them a subspecies. So could say it was no more cruel to have a subhuman species as a slave than to have a horse.

Do you ride horses? Concept is the same. Race as a convenient dodge to escape the moral crush, of using a human, as an animal, or another way to put it, as like a beast of burden.

That notion that maybe there were subhumans who were distinguishable from full humans by race flew around the globe as an early example of a hostile meme. Relatedly other hostile memes involved business practices I say were learned after slavery, of using deliberate underpay. And those who used deliberate underpay learned how it also destroyed people in lots of ways psychologically, which are still in use today. While it also made them much more rich, on the wages they stole from their trusting workers.

Deliberate underpay still works to destroy people today.

Easily explained but you have to feel it. And you have to decide that you are no longer part of something that is against humanity.

We are all humans. That some of us can behave inhumanely is sadly not news to most of us am sure.

Such behavior is also against merit. The people who need such beliefs are not good enough on their own. And not surprisingly we have witnessed in the US that those who can behave with the worst motivations can also engage in relentless abuse. But that should not surprise.

And they trained a world best they could to literally worship them with money given as the primary measure of success as THAT they could STEAL in many ways. So they trained people to ignore how the money was made.

And many today think it does not matter how as long as you are rich.

And they themselves can be easy prey for human predators.

We don't have to cheat like that when instead we feel good enough to compete.

While many Americans have finally been taught a system of feel-good first. And not surprisingly drugs can work for them then, with nothing else needed.

With belief in merits of real accomplishment trained out of many, then too many people can find no reason to look to anything else except the feeling and there the drugs can do that for them.

We need to focus on merit, and is better when merit rules, where that to me simply means--finding the things that work best. And letting people do their best with support for those who earnestly try their best, and proper recognition for those who succeed well.

And without silly exceptions based on arbitrary rules. Do not think some person cannot do something that humans can do for arbitrary reasons like color of skin or other arbitrary known measures, because then you must think that person is less than human.

Humans can do much, and constantly do much for each other. And better rule that is cool, is to let human rule, where I like to rhyme, don't hate me. And also not joking, please do not hate me for arbitrary reasons especially not based on stupid rules where we know better.

Real success helps us all as we all depend so much on the success of prior humans with merit, which has given us great tools for success. Like this blog lets me talk to you, with quite advanced technology which required so much to get here. Our species has done much valuable for each of us.

We can learn better as human beings. That is a gift as well our species has.


James Harris

When civilization advances

My ability to take for granted advancing human civilization ended with my own major discoveries. And one of my most important was back December 1999, when introduced a new mathematical discipline, which I did not fully realize at the time.

Even when started making major finds, where a very challenging one was revealed to the world in 2004 when a paper had written was published by an at first brave math journal, which then disintegrated a little while after. Why? I had shown that existing accepted mathematical rules allow fake math results. Of course I expected the rules to be changed!

They were not and that was about fourteen years ago now. So now you know, if you believe me, or knew if know of that story that mathematicians around the globe have not only deliberately ignored the next great advance in mathematics, they have also hidden a problem that lets them fake success.

But advancing of human civilization is simply not easy. And reality of intense battles in the battles over ideas is actually not terribly surprising. With my story of course there is a racial component where I like the latest scientific results that race is a social construct. We know it was convenient to a time when slaves were a problem for Americans who claimed to love liberty. Our very Constitution talks about men being born equal with a right to pursuit of happiness, where in our times it is supposed to be people in general, without the gender bias.

Deciding there was such a thing as race where certain races were inferior and simply sub-human so human rules did not apply was a convenient dodge, which has been debunked in our times.

Yet inequalities remain where I have traced out much of that system.

Much of it was created simply by deliberate underpay am now certain. Like when slavery finally ended the former slaves were forced to go work for the people who had enslaved them, who maybe not surprisingly didn't pay them properly. But I now surmise they learned from watching what happened. They also gained control, and also helped them get more rich by simply taking money that had been earned by workers instead of giving it to them.

Soon American business concepts included deliberate underpay, which swept the globe. Businesses learned to leverage information against workers as if were decent business practice to pay them what you could get away with, rather than focusing always on proper pay.

It not only is stealing and helps business people who do it get wealthy at the expense of workers, but it also crushes the human spirit, and can help contain entire human populations. Also somehow the baggage can last. Today if there were any group that should be furious if paid less than they should be? It should be American Black folks, like myself.

I am, if that happens. Though have allowed some after had my major discoveries, just to study it. Have seen weirdly how with others? There is a learned resignation which I believe was learned over 150 years ago.

And in other countries, workers get that new, with deliberate underpay which in essence lets them have a form of part-time slavery which profits quite a few companies including American ones. The great news is that as the web helps people learn how much they should make for their efforts, pay is rising, around the globe.

Yet that was just one thing. And my arrival with a new great advance which helps humanity learn more powerful things upset more than just defunct notions around a social construct concept. My story pushed against a system which also have found included lots of people besides those caught by racial excuse, including women.

With that system deliberate underpay was most vicious for certain groups who could be so targeted based on forces which had brutal strength at a macro level, and have posted on as magnified bias, where consider as a group effect.

So along with Black folks, women could be targeted for deliberate underpay, but also crushed out of success with a certain peculiarity. Even being pushed out of areas where had been ok early, like with computer science, and the film industry in non-acting positions. While there were also limits in any area where intellectual achievement could push against the status quo including, yes, mathematics.

So yeah THAT suppression system has been working against me. So I study it.

Now over 18 years since my major discovery with major discoveries already helping our planet, am gratified to be able to also get answers in other areas. Sure found something wonderful for mathematics, but also was able to give answers that can help people in other areas.

Advancing of human civilization is a wonder. And we know these stories are just part of the grand story which is that of the human species.

May we ever keep discovering. May we ever keep learning.


James Harris

Pondering concept of magnified bias

Was quite a few years ago decided had handled subject of race here on this blog, as to concerns about American racism, and point of it was to be done with subject. Yet also have realized as looked around our globe and in my own country was clear others felt was a continuing concern, and also wondered how well I had handled it for myself, to establish a stable foundation.

Then also found myself stunned like others as learned of relentless predations upon a lot of people, with the news focused much on sexual predation of women in the entertainment industry. While there has also been a lot about sexual predation of males there and in the fashion industry. And even more tragically, children across industries regardless of gender though back to entertainment industry, much was focused on male children as maybe easier targets. See documentary An Open Secret for my primary reference on that one.

Reality has been abuse without regard for gender, including then of course transgender people as well. Just feel like should mention directly.

Yet feel like we DO have a society which condemns assaults against its members, and as the news is poring out, there is effort made to address. But how could it be this bad? And how does relate also to previously brought up concerns with subject of race?

And found myself thinking about early humans who traveled in small groups.

Today we can often find ourselves thankfully in relatively small groups of friends or family, or maybe even co-workers. Where is not like that past when you survived together or more likely died if were alone. And to me? That's powerful training built into us, where modern reality is less so, life and death with your cohorts.

Often when group decisions are made, would find myself at times realizing certain things would be off limits as someone in the group had a tendency to maybe not like something.

But why so powerful? Well imagine in the distant past, and as the group of humans struggling to survive is in an area, one member raises an alarm...suddenly all are tense. They narrowly escape some danger I might only imagine. Group survives till next thing.

Even slight biases maybe not even consciously understood by a SINGLE member of a group of humans might I think be magnified by the group itself. So a group of people who separately are very egalitarian? Very open minded? And very much against any number of social biases? Together may be something different.

How does that relate to all the primary things mentioned? And am not a psychologist or any type of social scientist, but I talk things to understand. But groups of humans might tolerate things that no individual in the group would accept!

Like a group of guys who find they tend to only like action movies with male leads. Who separately may watch regardless of gender. Or a group of women who find they only prefer certain races, where race is a social construct by the way, when you look at their choices as a group, versus what they say or even do individually.

Or people who individually are against sexual assault, but when they get together and talk, you hear them trend to a different attitude where if questioned, they'd insist was joking, and not serious. Where also they can refuse to believe facts, as a group, even when overwhelmingly show abuse occurred. But if talk to individuals? Is believed.

Now consider millions of such groups just in one nation like the US. And magnify biases across these groups maybe even reinforcing each other, as these groups interact.

Have you ever had a conversation that just seemed ok with your friends? Which part of you thought was messed up? Have had those conversations myself. Now I do wonder what I was part of, when had no clue.

Is a theory. Figured was worth putting out here on the web. And again, am not a social scientist. Am a concerned human, looking for useful answers. So what is the answer?

Check the bias if you detect it. Just ask, questions. With real friends? Could simply be enlightening.


James Harris

Business of risk

There is so much risk in life where people can pool resources with businesses which will pay out when needed, up to a point, if needed. And such businesses are called insurance companies.

So strangers will take care of your needs, because you've given them money along with enough other people, if you have a problem covered under a contract, which limits liability of the strangers.

And have posted about money and limited social trust before.

Business is about limiting liability to others, while community at its best will save you with its every breath, like if your nation goes to war. The United States as a community has fought. Like with other allied nations as a community of nations more than once to save our world, and community at the highest levels has no limits. And yeah, even family should not, though reality is that is not always true.

As a community the nation has a duty to its citizens, while to be a business an insurance company should only pay to the limits of a contract. But what if a person is sick and still needs care?

If your insurance runs out? Then your community, if you have it, should still care for you. And when it comes to health insurance, your nation should bear the responsibility, and that is probably best paid for at the national level, but could also be at the state level in the US working together with the federal level.

If an insurance company keeps paying past the contractual limits or takes on a person already sick?

Then that insurance company is NOT acting as a business.

Here's a tweet I made recently talking a subject have discussed here before:

Under my healthcare plan ANYONE can have any health insurance provider. Health insurers direct insure only their choice. Administer others. https://t.co/05LHNDrYYV

— James Harris (@jstevh) July 13, 2017

And the tweet links back to a prior tweet where I gave a rather simple healthcare plan which could fit into 140 characters. And will post the text here:

My healthcare plan: Preventive Care--everybody, Core Care--insurables, Expected Care--not easily insured, Elder Care--quality of life at end

Where explain all in a post, from 2009: My Healthcare Plan

That insurance companies can administer insurance even if they are NOT paying from the pool paid into to handle risk is not a wild idea.

Wealthy people will have an insurance company, when they will pay if, for instance, in a car accident. The insurance company has more expertise than a wealthy person who presumably rarely gets in an accident, with handling accidents, and that expertise is worth a LOT.

There is no reason for a person to stop receiving care if they reach caps in their health insurance!!!

And politicians know it.

The government can simply pick up the tab from that point on, while the insurance company continues to handle administration.

It's a simple idea folks. Harder to do in the past because administration was very expensive too, until computers made it very manageable.

So why would such a simple idea, which I put forward in 2009, not be part of the national discussion?

I can speculate. More than likely is about TAXES and POWER.

For instance, single payer healthcare would give vastly more power to the US Government, and some seem to desire it. While others seem intent on cutting their taxes by any means possible, and somehow have figured out a way to do so with healthcare a mess.

Some may wonder about the details, like what if people refuse to pay for insurance and just wait till they are sick, knowing is guaranteed? Well I explained one way to handle with a post I called health insurance responsibility back in 2012.

But limits of liability to be a business are just a reality. Without limiting liability, insurance companies can't act as true businesses, but with it they can focus on their strengths, without people caring as they still GET care.

Do you care with your health insurance, who pays if you need care, like if you're in the hospital as long as payment is guaranteed?

So if it switches from your insurance company paying direct, to the government paying you STILL get care. And don't even have to notice as still interact with same insurance company.

Why would you? Main thing for you is to get medical treatment and get well, not worry about who pays.

Why would anyone think you would?

James Harris

When distribution won

Lessons sharing knowledge of the past have been replaced by more potential where simplifying can be key to getting the best of the present. And with the web? Consider you reading this message which I can expect to have free distribution around planet Earth. But as importantly--YOU can do the same with something you might wish to present to others.

And many of you are so doing, as more and more people come online.

The ease with which we can distribute information, which is of course best when useful, is a sharp contrast to the past, where for instance to get political analysis, I would look to a few sources, as was far more limited in choice. For much might go to certain leading newspapers for that sort of thing. Or would consider certain magazines. And on the daily there were brief briefings expected on nightly news, or could look at a morning of content on Sunday talk shows, as discuss a very American experience which is what I lived--until the web revolutionized information distribution.

Today your political representative, rather than wishing on a press conference to reach constituents, or a newsletter probably signed on to by few, can send a tweet! Where that tweet can be a concise position, which is impossible for some news person to misquote. And yes, can be hard to put a position into a single tweet of 140 characters or into a few such, but that can push people to know their positions inside and out.

And everything else is still available. The news people are still working at delivering stories, though news organizations reportedly worry more and more about how they get paid, and the Sunday talk shows are still there as well as nightly briefings, though television struggles with holding on to viewers, as it must maintain relevance in a world where information flows freely from so many sources so people have choices.

I say it pressures all to be the best they can. From politicians pushed to be able to state positions they now know constituents probably WILL read versus in the past where maybe an interpretation through others might reach some, to news people pressured to get it right, with less leeway to interpret from personal bias, to politically active able to put their own messages out there, with same pressures.

Across the board with so much information available, people can check, and are checking.

Focusing on information distribution can help you figure out where you wish to be in the process am sure. Emphasis on that position is to look for a functional way to simplify.

And social media is most powerful as a conversation.

Conversation on social media is where political positions can be both presented and considered with reply from interested constituents. In the conversation, news stories presented can be challenged by parties represented as well as any people who know, or simply critiqued endlessly from almost anywhere, or anyone as people need their information to work well for their present day-to-day.

Sure some may simply work to disrupt the conversation maybe even simply for attention to themselves, but the need of the many is too great. We need to know, and people will work for what they need. And in our times? Information rules.

Sharing information? Helps us empower each other. And I think is a great thing.

Ease of information distribution has won the global conversation by enabling it.

And am so much happier with the potential to know more where before there was so much filtered through others on which I tried to rely. But also appreciate the work that is involved to get information I need, as to do so must learn to check sources! Must be able to cross-reference against multiple presentations. Must try to learn how you learn to understand how information can be manipulated.

It can be exhausting.

Knowledge takes work!

It can be mentally invigorating as well, but more importantly, can give a sense of being part of the conversation when so much additional change is happening. And based on how our country is set up the people of the United States have the duty and believe as a national community, have the knowledge--to govern the outcome as best we can for our nation.

The brilliance of the national conversation of course is not just a factor here in the United States but in nations around the globe where people are figuring it out, if they have free information distribution too. Not something to be taken for granted and not all have it.

But we do, and now is far easier for the people of the United States to discuss from coast-to-coast or wherever they are matters of importance with each other, and with others around the globe.


James Harris

Where one party rules

One of the more diabolical schemes in the history of the United States is still in process as the Republican Party decided to ignore a nominee for the Supreme Court made by President Obama, so they could try to install a presumably more malleable one. And that is one of the things on their agenda under President Trump who has nominated someone.

And with one party over all three branches of the US Government many may take it for granted that they will not seek to check each other. Though the system was designed with the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and Judicial Branch supposedly doing that to protect the American people.

The pursuit of one party rule in the United States fascinates me, especially as we can see problems with it notably in one country, China. And am not someone who talks China in the negative as believe the country has done much to modernize, and people have a right to their government. And the people of China have a Communist government which unapologetically has one party.

However, it must be accepted that it is hard for a single party to critique itself, and provide checks and balances.

That the United States is facing a constant attempt for one party rule in the modern era is rather puzzling and a cynical electorate seems to take for granted that our politicians have a certain level of corruptness. I, however, do not find it acceptable.

That the Supreme Court is being undermined with one of the one party schemes is a case in point, where small-minded partisans care not for their country, but for a mindless pursuit of an agenda of a segment.

Who knows where this attack on legal authority in the United States will lead. But we can be certain that those engaging in it, do not care.

They're too busy crafting schemes to get through while they have the one party dominance that they clearly believe removes the checks and balances carefully put into the system.

And as critical as I am of Republicans am not at all confident in Democrats either. After all, they seem to operate with the same ideas in mind trying to gain one party dominance for themselves, and the American people have to deal with the see-saw of partisans who seem to have lost concern for their country as a whole, working to divvy it up to advantage in the moment.

Where will it lead? How can we be sure?

When our political leadership is dominated by people who seem to crave a political model from China as to dominance of one party, how could anyone know?

I'm sure even China gets confused.

We Americans deserve the system that was envisioned where the three branches of government do not go into collusion with each other routinely, but vigorously defend the rights of ALL Americans, always.


James Harris

Ringing phone reality and my vet care

As much as care for veterans and problems with it get in the news it bothers me that in my experience am still facing the most stunning problem to me in terms of access to care, which is hearing a phone ring, and ring, and ring...until you give up.

At least in the past I remember getting to an answering machine, and waiting days for a callback. That didn't even happen this time this morning.

Not someone who wants to share lots as it is my personal life and medical information is very personal but thought could talk about some things related to my experience with care through US Department of Veterans Affairs. And very much appreciate that it is there and like that changes are being made but just this morning? I made some calls and once past the auto-answer, trying to get to a person found that the phone rang, and rang, and rang, until I gave up.

But I know am looking at a peak time so will try again later as you learn strategies and the basic answer I think is, there aren't enough people available to handle the phones. Why aren't there? Because I believe the bureaucratic system in place refuses to set up a working system so that phone lines have enough people. Which is my opinion.

There ARE more options for contact though like online which are being developed but if you're a veteran in crisis? At least you repeatedly get the advice which works which is to call 911. Yup. New message with the recorded voice after the auto-answer, I think, as do notice now after the recommendation if in crisis is to call a suicide crisis line, if you are suicidal, which thankfully I don't need but I fear if I did, would I get a ring, and ring, and ring? I don't trust that I would not. I think that's new. Sadly the need is there. I'm not so sure about the support. But I am not in a position to check, thankfully. The problem with getting a human being to answer at the VA is bizarre to me.

Have debated talking more about what I see as problems with veterans care, and having been in a VA facility in the past, was lucky enough to have my curiosity satisfied somewhat, as I heard a phone ring, in an office, of a VA staffer who was really good, but overworked in my opinion. The staffer was not in the office. I heard the phone ring, and ring, and ring, until it stopped. That person, back then as was over two years ago, probably went to an answering machine.

But it was weird seeing the reality and understanding why. Just were not enough people for that phone line. The person to whom it went probably should not have been answering directly as was a counselor who needed to be working all the time with veterans. To me is a wacky system.

May talk more about the subject and what I see as the primary problem rarely discussed properly with the VA system now in place. But there is a debate with myself and a simple reason to fear talking too much as really believe could impact my care.

To me the system in place makes it very hard to talk against it. The ability for retaliation against veterans is real, and there is very little help and HUGE hurdles to get over if you are wronged. The system is definitely setup to make it hard for veterans like myself to raise the alarm. And reality is for those who need it, the VA care that you can get DOES help immensely.

I greatly value the care I receive through the VA, and hesitate to mess that up. But this post should be ok, I think.

And to update as have edited this piece a bit, did call later and promptly got to a person which is great! But to me is a lot about technique, experience as timing is important. And yeah keep trying.


James Harris

Our grand national tolerance

The United States of America has faced some serious challenges, like emerging as an independent nation after the bold declaration that founded it, which required a fierce war of independence, and also surviving a bid to destroy it by states seceding from it, which was sort of the opposite, as the American Civil War was about inflicting death to bind, while the American Revolutionary War was about enduring death to escape.

"...give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry

Both events had people who really thought they were bad ideas. Not all colonists wanted independence from the British Empire. They were loyal citizens to it, and guess what? Can we say they were wrong? Our nation's founding citizens were mostly traitors to their nation of birth--not all were British--hellbent on starting a new nation, and thank God they succeeded and we get to continue the freedoms for which they fought, and many died, to have.

And when some time had passed and some decided the United States of America was no longer a good idea, were they wrong? How do we know? Nonetheless they were defeated in a war that forever changed the nation and the world as it introduced modern battle field techniques and ruthless war. The immensity of the slaughter can be lost on people today and hard to grasp, though later wars would greatly magnify it, peaking with World War II.

Flags have become extraordinary symbols, and for nations can help exemplify.

Our American flag has stood against the challenges to the life of the nation and emerged triumphant on the battlefield.

That fact is definitive for so many lives and maybe taken for granted by many Americans, though they might deny it, as some would rather fly a defeated flag in a nation that is very tolerant of dissent.

Wishing the United States of America were no longer here is not something I think most would display proudly, but those who wish the Confederacy had won the Civil War are stating that boldly with a symbol, and I welcome their freedom to say it in a nation brilliant for its tolerance. Don't believe me? Ask someone flying that flag: Do they wish the Confederacy had won?

Call it tradition if you will, but that defeated flag would not be bragging rights except for hope that maybe, just maybe, if those who believe work at it long enough, they can finally defeat the United States of America.

Won't happen though.

There were quite a few British who weren't exactly fans of that independence thing, and some went home, but for others this country was their home, still. As much as they might hate what they knew was treason, as it was.

They stayed in the new nation, and had children, and their children had children, and so on.

And somehow we all kind of get along together most of the time.

Too many may fail to appreciate the various forces hellbent on destroying this nation, from people who probably feel confident they are correct, who are citizens of a nation born in fire and blood. Which endures through it all, not because it forgets its history, but because it understands it.

The revolutionary spirit which created this nation still fires it in so many ways, and the freedoms that keep it alive are an inspiration to a world.

Thank you Patrick Henry and so many other patriots throughout this nation's history, as you gave us liberty. And it's up to each American generation to remember that liberty is a really cool thing to have.

I know I like it.


James Harris

Wages and civil rights

Can talk simply about topics like money with my own ideas, where it doesn't take much to delve into very contentious areas. Like already noted in a previous post that what I call political science leads easily to the hypothesis that wealthy people may drive up national debts as a tax deferment scheme.

Making a hypothesis does not make it so, but it does give a predictive framework, which you can test! And science is testable.

Here will look to see what my ideas about money as a social IOU given in exchange for a favor, which works best with strangers can do in the arena of wages and civil rights.

One of the stranger things with human beings I think can be on issues of value of effort, where for instance in times past, like in Old Europe, someone might work in a manor house for some Lord, and there was status in that, as well as food and lodgings. Wages were probably paid, but the condition of servitude was recognized. When wages were NOT paid, a condition of slavery was in place, which was something that was in the United States during a period.

That a condition of servitude could entail benefits all the way to a condition of slavery with a wage scale going to zero is important for what comes next.

In our times, people see pay primarily as the value returned in exchange for the service of their labor, which includes mental labor, when working for an employer which is distinguished from being self-employed even in our times.

Getting a proper return on the favor of a labor, say writing a computer program if a software developer, is important, as if an employer gets services without giving compensation then as seen above, the wage scale is at zero, which is slavery.

If we look at what happened in the US after the end of institutionalized slavery we can use these ideas to note something of interest: People previously slaves who were freed, often had little choice but to return to the people who had been enslaving them, only now in return for their services they were supposed to get adequate compensation.

Not surprisingly can have serious doubts on the notion that occurred, so from one perspective, their condition of slavery was not completely removed, but lessened, with significant responsibilities placed upon them, like housing. They were forced to make money somehow to purchase needed things, but were limited as to who was available to take the favor of their services in exchange for wages to people likely to value those the least. And under pressure to find some way to survive, things like sharecropping could push even closer back to the original condition.

So with my terminology, can say that workers were pushed into offering the favor of their services, to the very people who often had previously valued those services at nothing because they were slaves then.

Best thing would have been if they could start their own businesses.

That wages involve a valuation of the favor of services provided is key. Someone who honestly thinks workers are rather worthless can potentially pay a much lower wage, believing it is adequate compensation.

Return on the favor of effort is a fascinating subject, and the social IOU system we call money can have the flaw that to make money you both need someone who wants the favor of your services and that person needs to value those at a level that can vary, so what if in both areas there is a serious problem?

But yeah if you're working say at 80% of what you should be making as a wage? And you work Monday through Friday? Then conceivably on the simplest interpretation on Friday you're at 0 on the scale, and that day? You're a slave.

This approach can also be used to talk about pay disparities for women, who can be said to work for free from a certain day in the year, based on the percentage less they tend to receive than men doing the same work. The gender pay gap could also be seriously impacted by valuation of services, where someone might see a man doing the same amount of work as somehow doing them a bigger favor than a woman. That perceptual bias, however, if it exists is nonsense. If the work done is the same, then the favor is the same, and the compensation should be the same.

Is relevant though that in considering some of the worst horror stories around employment I've noticed in the news, they tend to occur in low wage areas, were people can be pressured in horrifying ways, leading to a lot of labor laws to try and curb abuses, as well as laws pushing against discriminatory hiring practices. Actually LOTS of laws to protect against all kinds of abuses, like a boss who pushes someone into sexual favors, or people pressured to steal or lie for an employer. Which can occur at higher wages too, of course.

But if someone is paid a lot less by this interpretation they're giving a favor without getting an appropriate return. And they're outside of natural bounds, and who might know better than the employee what their work is actually worth? The employer.

What kind of person could exploit with that kind of knowledge? Maybe the cascade of modern labor laws are revealing about what kind.

The basic concept is simple--if someone does you a favor you should give them equal favor in return, without exception to the best of your ability to give a return, where money is simply a convenient abstraction allowing people to enumerate the value of a favor.

Maybe the simplest thing is to force employers to not steal from workers, by having governments work tirelessly to be sure that return on the effort of the favor is commensurate with actual value to the employer. Shared information is very useful in this regard.

From one perspective then can argue that slavery did not completely die around the world in just this one respect, where the position is muddled by other compensations besides wages. Like the servants who had a wage, but other benefits working for a noble, so were in servitude but NOT slaves, technically.

But yeah, if working without compensation for efforts, as an employee, even for a day? That day may be the one where many experience a form of modern slavery which has simply not been called out as such. People may instead say, you're working for free! Um, what's the difference?

Which is yet another hypothesis. From my kind of political science perspective, then simply enough former slaves were consistently given less in return for their efforts than should have received, limiting them immensely.

Or in other words, quite simply, they weren't paid enough.

Then I could predict that government efforts to push people to give adequate return for favors, will force equality among them. Which may be a reason for some to fight to maintain unequal systems, to fight back for lower wages, so that they can devalue human effort, and the humans who give that effort as well.

Obviously, valuing human effort to the extent is opinion, can give lots of room to just claim those people aren't good enough for higher wages, whether that is true, or not, in any number of circumstances.

Government should, if the hypothesis is correct, disincentivize the benefit to that devaluation. Simply remove the reward for devaluing human effort.

And I suspect it's easier to suggest, than to get done. Especially if you have people who got away with it for a long time, and found huge financial rewards as a result.

Maybe society is very lucky in that most people simply will not behave that way, but will try to give an appropriate return on a favor received.


James Harris

Beyond the selfish gatherers

Most would probably agree our ancestors spent much of their time focused on basics like gathering food and having sources of potable water. And throughout human history the primary activity probably was focused on just those areas, with also gaining shelter, taking care of children being high on the list but further down. And then going down the line of priorities until there was time for things like entertainment.

As science and technology have increased predictability for so many humans, things have shifted and for instance in countries like the United States, where I grew up, very few people are directly working at producing food. Gathering it is as easy as going to a shopping market, which many take for granted.

I do not.

However, something else odd has happened. With money helping to fuel human civilization by allowing strangers to do favors for other strangers in exchange for a socially backed IOU we call money, human beings could move to many other things. Like today, a pedicure can be had. Theoretically a robot could someday give a pedicure, but I do wonder, what humans would want it?

If we focus on money as a way that humans interact with strangers, then there is no reason to believe human beings will not keep finding ways to employ each other, with contracts that allow limited social trust in that exchange of goods or services for remuneration.

So why so much inequity today in so many parts of the world that consider themselves well developed?

Simplest explanation will present--SOME humans apparently overly value gathering favors.

Like there are hoarders who will continue to pile up things in their living spaces for reasons that are gathering increasing study, I believe there are human beings who will gather social favors in the form of money, without regard to need. And they will do this gathering even if in so doing they destabilize society, and also do not give adequate return for the efforts of other humans.

Here I've noted the massive impact in US history of just one American who more than doubled the wages of his workers. Henry Ford managed to do something that shifted world history, and I think after him, others have been fighting a longer battle to reverse those lessons and nearly crashed the entire world economy in 2008, bringing the human story to a near stunning reversal which in the future may be seen simply as a sign of a mental illness prevalent with some not diagnosed.

Hoarding in a way that can destroy your nation? I think that qualifies as remarkable.

Why would a man fight for a billion dollars US as if his life depended on it if he already has half a billion? And convince himself his workers are worthless when without them he'd have nothing? Or that he shouldn't pay taxes at all, when without his country he would lack the ability to accrue his wealth? And then strut around like he's brilliant?

Few notice that relentless and ruthless aggregation of wealth has been promoted as a good, except to decry when it becomes the anthem of a movie. And finally maybe some were scared.

Greed is NOT good. And it never will be.

But face reality that today human beings in many areas suffer because other humans devalue their efforts, while accruing vast resources to themselves where it is dubious as to how that was deserved. Especially when you find that they view cheating as basic, lying as being smart, and have utter contempt for people who are destroyed by their behavior, when they trusted their society.

There is a basic faith I think most Americans like myself had that our country focused more on merit, gave opportunity, and valued its people. Which was shaken I think by some who were ruthless in exploitation of trust.

But that trust has gone. As a new political order begins to arise I think we will rethink how we value the efforts of strangers. How we decide who gets paid what. And realize that unlike our ancestors, desperate often for food and water, we decide our destiny in so many powerful nations.

So our communities have no excuse.

If there is plenty, yet so many are without even opportunity? Your society is corrupted, and I'm thinking you probably have people I see as parasitic lurking within your midst. Pulling resources to themselves--by any means they can without even a true enjoyment of it, as they are driven, like hoarders in ways they may not even understand.

Science will answer so many questions though. It's up to us to act on what we learn to be true.


James Harris

No fan of political despair, question? Often.

To me one of the more obvious things I see often with politics in America is an attempt at driving people to political despair, and convincing them there is no point in trying. Like you can easily bump into those who will talk calmly about why they don't vote. Or who will quietly assert that no matter how bad the current system is with Republicans and Democrats that there is no other choice.

But in this country? We Americans ARE free, whether you believe it or not.

It's a cool thing that protects a country where if you probe into what some people say, you realize they have become trapped into some kind of despairing reality, which does not make it true! It just means someone convinced.

I like questions probing into what is real, and political reality? It's a great arena to always keep asking for answers to important questions to you. So am going to give some questions I think are important, pulled from an earlier post. Where this time will show my answer with them for one. Where ALL my answers are in the original party platform of ideas for a new political party that I presented on this blog.

1. What do you think is the role of government?

The role of government is to protect and enable its citizens.

2. How do you feel about separation of Church and State?

3. What is your stance on freedom of information? Right to privacy?

4. To what extent do you believe people should be allowed to choose their own destiny, including a woman's right to choose?

5. Do you believe in a strong national defense?

6. What is your opinion of political recalls?

7. How do you think we best hold representatives and government in general accountable?

8. What is your position on government services for children?

9. Do you support universal healthcare?

10. Do you support the mortgage deduction? Charitable deductions? What is your position in general on taxes?

Ways our modern money is funny

One of the things am glad I did a while back is sit down and come up with my own explanations for money. So yeah figured some things out on my own and you can click the money tag at bottom of this post to chase down that path. In essence though I concluded that money is a social IOU which society guarantees, which is given at best in exchange for a favor. So money enumerates the value of a favor in my opinion.

In the past though before the modern monetary system, money I think was just one thing, like gold itself could be made into money, but was also just gold. And like, there were jewels. Ok there still are lots of things for riches, but today people focus on money. So people could have riches, where money was just a part of it, and how did the nobility gain riches in feudal societies as shift to a particular political system?

Sitting here typing this post can guess, so not saying did the research, but wars for riches were one way, as well as selling things from things owned by the nobility, but also think a lot of their money came from taxes.

So could the nobility go bankrupt? My understanding is, yes.

And the idea of simply minting money probably was abhorrent but not researching for this post! But today with modern money, of course, governments have figured out ways to simply make money, which typically involve government bonds.

Original ideas for government bonds were temporary funds, but lots of nations now have a constant supply of government bonds which allows them to run immense deficits, which to me is how modern money can get funny.

My own explanation for endless government deficits is that there were wealthy people who realized that if they bought government bonds and pushed governments to fund that way, they could avoid taxes. Though it actually simply pushes taxes down the road, though for some wealthy that could be enough to live a lifetime with a much smaller tax payment than otherwise.

In my opinion we have wealthy members of society willing to completely destabilize the social order ONLY to limit their taxes. No other motivation is necessary to explain a tremendous amount of problems of modern government.

These wealthy avoiding taxes in my opinion lack any moral guidance in this behavior.

And recently, some managed to get governments to bail them out around the concept of "too big to fail" which is something even the nobility couldn't do in the past.

We have modern rich who have pushed themselves beyond past nobility by controlling governments in such a way that they are rescued even when financially stupid.

And not against wealth at all, but do think that people should earn their money or I guess inherit it, is ok.

The nobility in the past did not have the same option of funny money.

If they were running out of riches, they could raise taxes, and possibly lead to rebellion, or they could go on a war to go grab riches.

In our time, we had demonstrated recently how some of our wealthy can just have the government make money for them, bail them out, and go on living in luxury.

I've seen no shame in their manipulate the government to save them game either. And I dare say, there are wealthy who probably have actually en toto earned nothing, who are in essence some of the greatest government welfare recipients in human history.


James Harris

Focusing on community with weapons discussion

My position when it comes to weapons is, simply that communities have the right under the US Constitution to defend themselves, all the way up to the biggest national community, which is the country itself.

That community interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is simply powerful, as the point is, that the needs of defense are what's important, and I think those writing it would have thought that obvious and been puzzled by modern debates focusing on individuals.

The reality for politics in the US is that so much is about "the People" which is a community focus. And I can understand those who wish the US Constitution to be an individually focused document, but even when giving substantial individual rights, the health of the nation as a whole was the point.

It IS better for the nation to have a free press for example, to keep the People informed, which importantly outs wrongdoing at all levels. It's healthy for democracy for people to be able to gather peacefully. It's best for freedom to be able speak one's mind publicly, for the nation.

And the nation must defend itself.

So much focus settles on guns though. So it's worth it to talk about them specifically.

One problem I think with debates around certain issues in the US is a refusal to be honest, for instance some people I think DO want to tell every American whether or not that person can own a gun, with the answer being, no. And while to such people their ideals make sense, the US Constitution does not agree. And there is a spectrum there all the way back to another extreme. While it also would probably be ludicrous to those writing the 2nd Amendment am sure, to believe it is saying any individual can own a gun, or carry a gun wherever a person so chooses. That just makes no sense and is against the needs of the community.

The United States has multiple levels of protection, with individuals empowered at all levels to act in the best interest of their community. And if you wish to go against your community? It is empowered to defend itself from you. As communities in the US can defend themselves against all enemies, foreign or domestic.


James Harris

Controlling weapons in the 21st century

Individual freedoms and liberty in general are worth fighting for--is a constant theme which indicates that defense of same can require such. The use of weapons in defense of liberty is not controversial if that is the actuality. So in self-defense of person or national defense against aggressor it is hardly problematic if weapons are used if available.

The US Constitution addresses weapons in the Bill of Rights with the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

While many seem to think "Arms" should be read as guns, as guns were known at the time of the writing, and "arms" is far more general, it makes more sense that arms in general with weapons as a synonym were intended.

Now consider a community tasked with its own defense, for instance if suddenly set upon by outlaws, and members of the community united in that defense using whatever weapons were available. Am sure no one would see that as problematic.

Now imagine a community where rogue police officers set upon the citizens and try to take over the town, am certain its population would welcome their disarmament!

The "security of a free State" seems critical, and if the protection is a self-defense then that flows from the individual up to the State itself, as a community united, where conflict in that regard would lean towards the State.

That individual rights and liberty are important when in pursuit of the greater good, would then indicate that if the State were taken over by hostile forces, so that it was at harm to itself, and its own principles, as embodied within the US Constitution, then individuals in defense of self would in actuality be acting in defense of the State at its best self when taking up arms against attacks on their liberty.

Thus then individuals have the right under the US Constitution to defend against internal tyranny even if official in nature, or from officials, like with the example of rogue police already given.

That good citizens have the right to have weapons is then seen as part of the security of a free State, and in our modern times can extend beyond what was true then, as for instance computer systems require defense. Then it would seem clear that American citizens are empowered under the US Constitution to have cyberdefenses, including cyberweapons, for their own use in self-defense. And can in fact use such weapons as required for their own defense and the defense of the State at its best self.

There is then NO defense of use of weapons for those acting against the State at its best self, and the State can of course deprive them of same, if their intent is to do harm to the United States of America or at a lesser level communities that make it up.

Proving intent to do harm should be a substantial burden on the State so that it is not used by corrupt officials to try and deprive citizens of their right to self-defense or by negligence or short-sightedness on the part of any US Government or state or local agency.

Intent to use any weapon to do harm can be accepted as a point of decision by established authority as to whether that intent is in keeping with the security of a free State.

For instance, if someone legally purchasing a weapon is simply asked whether or not, intends to do harm with that weapon, the answer can be used to determine whether or not access should be given, without contravening the spirit and letter of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

Weapons have been a part of human life as long as there have been humans. And weapons control is crucial to human civilization in maintaining a secure state where citizens are both free, and capable of defending that precious freedom.

Weapons control legislation should not be a point of contention for those dedicated to the security of their nation, but an arena of pride in the robustness of a US Constitution which manages to continue to defend us, even as our technological world moves ever forward.

James Harris

Innovation should work in politics too

As our world learns the astonishing efficacy of simple yet powerful ideas it is worth it to consider that politics could sure use some help as well.

As a ponderous political process continues in the presidential race, I can't help but think, can't our smart country do better to inspire us? Shouldn't the presidential race be a chance for the nation to focus on priorities? Figuring out better how to get things done?

Maybe an important key to getting to better politics is to expect better?

Which is why I don't like simply dismissing it as a mess.

Have my own political ideas, but for this short post just wish to suggest the idea:

Expect more in politics so we can get more.

Look for the political Innovators I suggest who can make you feel good about your politics, your nation, and our future as citizens on a planet that needs our best.


James Harris

So much good in a name

Growing up learned things about my country which maybe weren't exactly correct but did have that routine of seeing Americans as the good ones. And in entertainment could just kind of take it for granted that American heroes behaved a certain way. Though there were some nuances, for instance with movies about Vietnam.

After the September 11th terrorist attacks though so much changed. And was surprised to hear a narrative from some against what they saw as a too soft America. Some were even saying then that the country had to be more like the bad guys. Had to be meaner.

Some of the hostility against aspects of the US Constitution which actually are rather liberal, is something people may not realize today or fathom. There was a deep questioning of some American values. The nation I feel had to go to war, and we must protect ourselves, but I do wonder about those who clearly decided that what was before was not good enough.

Today few will openly question basic American values. Many will wrap themselves up in the American flag metaphorically, as they claim to want what's best for the country, while attacking the foundations of its existence.

Luckily the web can help! Was pleasantly surprised when I found myself enjoying reading the Declaration of Independence which made so much more sense to me as an adult, than when studied in school as a child. And for the first time really felt I could identify with the momentous decisions that were made which would lead to a vibrant nation, of which I can be proud to be a citizen.

Today politicians battle it out for so many things in our country, and I do think is lost the idea of having a good name. And also is too often lost in commentary the value in having a country with a great reputation for core human values.

The principles on which this nation were founded can stand against challenge. And have withstood it for centuries, proving themselves as great ideals even while not really met, as a nation built on liberty had slaves, or was hostile to its other immigrants, or waged wars of various kinds which could bring many to question.

What might be a greater challenge for my nation in our times though is a steady weakening of principle by people who dare not go against directly. Who claim allegiance while spitting on the behaviors that prove it. Like believing that abusing prisoners is ok, if you need information, as if this nation could ever celebrate beating up on those at your mercy.

Am not wise enough to think better than those principles, nor do I dare. But if I ever did, at least I'd be brave enough to admit it, rather than demean a name that has stood for something in this world.

The United States of America should always stand for something I firmly believe. And I prefer when it stands for greatness in values as well as so much else, yes material.

Where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will have meaning that resonates for many in a world as words that help herald a nation which will never yield to tyranny of any kind, the name should be one that comes to mind.


James Harris