tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-69831692024-03-23T14:04:13.474-04:00Dan Lipka Web Log"One morning I'm gonna reach up and grab a handful of stars and look over to God and say 'How 'bout that!'"
<br><br><br>
Please excuse all spelling mistakes and typos; this is more a metaphysical journey as opposed to a grammatical adventure. :)Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.comBlogger405125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-43945599854666785052023-09-21T15:50:00.006-04:002023-09-21T15:50:41.532-04:00Lessons from History - Democracy<p>"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - Winston Churchill</p><p>I am currently reading biographies on each of the US Presidents. I'm only on Madison, but I've learned some incredible insights into the dysfunctions of our government. Since the Articles of Confederation were adopted in 1777, politicians and the wealthy have been constantly undermining justice, equality, and the idea that they should prioritize the good of the nation above all else. The disgraces of current politicians are nothing new and have been part of US political culture since our country's founding. For example, the southern states refused to adopt the constitution unless it counted enslaved people at 3/5 of a person for the purposes of having more elected representatives in Congress (giving more power to voters in those states and ensuring slavery would continue). Jefferson secretly started a newspaper (edited by someone whom he got a job in the government) for the specific purpose of disparaging the Federalists, even when it included blatant lies and conspiracy theories. He did this while Secretary of State for George Washington (the newspaper often made up lies about Washington, whom Jefferson was advising on the highest level). Congressmen would hold up the country's budget until they got concessions on something completely unrelated (sound familiar). Congressmen and Senators used insider information to [blatantly] enrich themselves, often at the expense of regular citizens. For example, they ripped off veterans by buying government bonds they were paid with, at a discount because they knew that the Government had plans to pay full value in the near future (and created stock bubbles that required government bailouts). Madison helped create the first "political party," which had been looked at in disgust prior to that. From that point, political parties stopped compromising, and the majority party would just do what they wanted. The interests of rich and powerful interest groups had outweighed influence on policy, usually at the expense of regular citizens. The hypocrisy of our leaders was also on full display as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe all spoke of the inherent injustices of Slavery, yet they continued to own slaves (Washington had very few flaws, but this was a big one). I haven't even gotten to Andrew Jackson and the atrocities committed under his leadership as a General and President.</p><p>I was also amazed to learn that our democracy was set up expressly to be somewhat dysfunctional. The Founders knew that if any given branch of government had too much power, they would corrupt the whole system. So they purposely made powers vague and intertwined so that they constantly had to battle (and compromise) with each other. Issues like federal vs state rights were left in a never-ending debate so that neither side could ever win. In some ways, the goal of our democracy was just as much about avoiding tyranny as it to be functional. The founders knew the flaws of man, knew the problems they would cause, and built a system within that reality. </p><p>All that being said, Churchill was still correct. Democracy does have its flaws, but it is the best option out there. The United States has done some terrible things, but they have also had remarkable achievements. The very notion of a government "of the people and for the people" was born here and slowly spread to much of the world. The Constitution and Bill of Rights set a very high minimum standard for how government works. For all our country has done, we rarely have violated these sacred laws, which were an experiment when they were created. Democracy is the best option out there, but it requires constant vigilance as tyranny is always lurking in the shadows. </p><p><br /></p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-86007859504476581372023-09-21T15:03:00.002-04:002023-09-21T15:03:31.346-04:00Nefarious Conspiracy Theory<p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;">Tommy Tuberville was famous for being the head football coach at</span> Auburn University. He used this "creditability" to somehow become a US Senator. <span style="background-color: white;"> </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Currently, he is singlehandedly <span style="background-color: white; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures;"><a href="https://apnews.com/article/tuberville-military-holds-senate-officers-45c4230a8aee5222bf32b43823e29acc" target="_blank">holding up the confirmation</a> of over </span><span style="background-color: white; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures;">300</span><span style="background-color: white; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures;"> senior </span><span style="background-color: white; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures;">military </span><span style="background-color: white; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures;">officers in a protest over abortion. This "</span><span style="background-color: white;">unprecedented campaign to try to change Pentagon abortion policy by holding up hundreds of military nominations and promotions, forcing less experienced leaders into top jobs and raising concerns at the Pentagon about military readiness. </span><span style="background-color: white;">Senators in both parties have pushed back on Tuberville’s blockade, but Tuberville is dug in. He says he won’t drop the holds unless majority Democrats allow a vote on the [abortion] policy." He is also a person who, while a US Senator, </span>denied white nationalists are inherently racist.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">First of all, it is insane that one person could hold up these confirmations. To make things worse, it has nothing to do with the actual officers, but an abortion policy. </span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">This is where I start a conspiracy theory...</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">What if it isn't about abortion at all, what if it's about Trump. Trump has a very good chance at becoming President and there is a reasonable prospect that he will do everything possible to stay in power forever. Say he cancels elections, who is there to stop him. Not Congress, who doesn't have the votes to impeach him and is filled with loyalists. The only logical alternative to defend the Constitution (besides revolution) would be the military. Holding up these confirmations would give Trump a chance to appoint loyalists to these senior-level military positions. Make no mistake, Trump learned his lesson from Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, and he will never put anyone who is not loyal in a position of power within his administration or in the military. </span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Tommy Tuberville may be a stooge, but perhaps he is playing the long game for a coup.</span></p><p><br /></p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-69114827540571638502023-08-22T12:46:00.002-04:002023-08-22T12:46:26.799-04:00Should we be happy?<p>If you are literally right next to a child who is starving to death, and you do nothing, are you morally justified to enjoy life? Could you enjoy a TV show, play basketball, shop (or whatever you do that provides joy)?<br /><br />What is that child is in the next room? What if that starving child is in your community, but a mile away? What if that child is across the world? At what point is it ok to do nothing and think you are entitled to enjoy your life? Why does physical distance proportionally relate to what our moral obligations should be?<br /><br />At what point does the suffering of others overwhelm your own ability to be happy. If you are happy or unhappy, it won't help that child, so why not enjoy life (or is that wrong). What if you do a little to help (which is more than most people), is that enough? Do we need to completely dedicate oneself to helping those who are suffering in order to earn the right to be justifiably happy? </p><p>How often should we talk about these things? Should it be part of grade school discussions? Is it anyone's responsibly to contemplate ethics outside of religion or an advanced liberal arts education?<br /><br />Or does this ask too much of humans, who are innately selfish. Just being part of a society/civilization is hard enough. We see in wars what humans are like when they are not constrained by rules and it is worse than anything in the animal kingdom.<br /><br />Should we try to maximize happiness for others or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering-focused_ethics" target="_blank">reduce suffering</a> for them. Or should we be focused on "providing opportunities" for others and have that just be enough. There are not only personal questions (and ones I think about very often), but should also be political questions. If you are working in government, are an elected official, or a political party; how do you stand on these issues? Philosophy, like the mission of an organization, should be the foundation of our lives and our government. <br /><br /><br /></p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-28639082286666787602023-06-27T11:11:00.002-04:002023-06-27T11:11:50.752-04:00The Constitution and Justice<p>When the Supreme Court rules, they often struggle to understand the depth and meanings in some of the words or phrases in the Constitution. However, the Founders provided very clear language as to what they were trying to accomplish from a vision standpoint. Although not the law, the Preamble provides critical guidance that should be the first reference for any court ruling. <br /><br /><i>"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."</i><br /><br />Specifically, the word "Justice". It is the very first thing they wanted to establish. Justice should be the defining feature of any law, and anything that increase injustice should be unconstitutional. The very first question at any Supreme Court hearing should always be, "Does this law provide Justice to the people of the United States?" <br /><br />For example, the issue if gerrymandering can be seen as very complex and there are many laws that allow the Legislators to choose the shape of voting districts. However, shaping districts to minimize the voice of a group of people is simply not Justice. It doesn't meet the most basic standard of the what the framer's wanted. The rest of the laws are irrelevant. The Preamble is the "vision" for our country and Justice must always be at the center of our laws and society. </p><p><br /></p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-71331358817765349452023-04-26T13:06:00.001-04:002023-04-26T13:06:18.267-04:00Disney v DeSantis<p>It is odd that progressives may be on the side of a company like Disney, a huge corporation that always puts profits above everything else. Before Trump, Republicans were very friendly with large corporations, who in return lavished their candidates with campaign donations. Trump, and now other Conservatives, realized they could make corporations the enemy (as well as everyone else) and increase their donations by peddling to their core supporters. This change inevitably led to a clash, with the most high-profiled case being Disney vs DeSantis. I'm not going into the story of why or how this happened, but to say that Disney is going to win. They are smarter, have more money, more resources, better lawyers, better public relations, and can look at the big picture. They will do whatever it takes to crush their opposition (and prevent future opposition), even if it means closing Disney World and building a new one in a more friendly state (Disney is built new theme parks all around the world). Florida would lose a billion dollars in yearly tax revenue, and 75,000 of their residents would be out of a job. But I don't think it will come to this, as Disney will prevail much earlier and probably end up in a better place than they started. </p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-69100804368635441882023-04-17T13:00:00.002-04:002023-04-17T13:00:57.781-04:00Dominion-Fox Settlement<p>In 2020, Fox News decided that their ratings would be higher if they kept pumping out information that the Presidential Election was stolen, including, unproven conspiracy theories, like the voting machines were unreliable. This is giving Fox the benefit of the doubt that it was only about rating and money, and not straight out treason to undermine and overturn a completely legitimate election. Now, Dominion Voting is rightfully suing Fox for destroying their reputation in a field that one's reputation means everything. They are asking for $1.6 billion. I looked back and Dominion Voting is not that big of a company and only had earning of $120 million a year. </p><p>So is this lawsuit about getting to the truth or getting money for Dominion Voting? If Fox News offers them enough money, will they just go away, or is it about something more (like the trust people have in our elections). If they settle, will Dominion require Fox to admit they were wrong and have all of their "news" programs clearly state that there were no evidence of any significant fraud and the election was 100% legit. Furthermore, any host that says otherwise will be fired spreading lies. I have no faith in Dominion Voting (as I don't have faith of most businesses), and think they will take more money from Fox, and just require a very minimal statement from Fox. Are they looking at the big picture or their bottom line? </p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-16198485376023961382023-02-24T15:43:00.001-05:002023-02-24T15:43:23.859-05:00AI<p>The very first, interactive AI in here. The start of a revolution that will have enduring, exciting, life-changing, and a fantastic impact on our future. And how do we react as a culture? We try to break it, just unendingly try to purposefully confuse it into doing something ridiculous or self-serving. Well, at least that is what almost every single media story about this technology is about. There is nothing about people asking the AI for genuine information or help with something and getting a quick and accurate result. Did the Jetsons try to convince Rosey to take sides with the Nazis just because they wanted to see if it was possible? Was it this behavior that led Skynet to turn against us? </p><p>We hold a precious technology in our hands and it truly does reveal more about humanity than itself. I wonder what we are teaching AI about us and it will take from our actions?</p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-76130497522383830512023-01-03T11:15:00.001-05:002023-01-03T11:15:13.801-05:00What if? North Korea Edition<p> Dear World,<br /><br />My people are starving due to the sanctions that "Western" countries have unilaterally placed on our country. We have done nothing wrong. We seek to protect ourselves from nuclear attacks, with a viable counter-attack, just as many countries in the world due (including those countries who (hypocritically) have their own nukes, but won't let others have the same weapons of defense). How can the US says we can't have nuclear weapons, but they have thousands and remain the only country to actually use them. The "Western" countries criticize that we a country led by one person with total power; however, they are fine dealing with dozens of other countries with the same political structure, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Egypt (just to name a few).<br /><br />I must feed my people and therefore am giving the world an ultimatum. Lift all sanctions within 60 days or we will sell a nuclear weapon to the highest bidder. We will continue to sell nuclear weapons until the sanctions are lifted. Any attempt to pre-emptively attack us, will result in a full nuclear response. Please note that we currently have the ability to obliterate Japan, Los Angeles, Berlin, and Paris. <br /><br />If you care about the safety of the world, you have no choice. If you want to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of those who wish you harm, you have no choice. If you care about feeding starving people, you have no choice. I know that you feel like you lost in this conflict, but better to admit that now, before it will be get much worse.</p><p>Huge and Kisses,<br />Kim Jong Un</p><p><br /></p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-23458992862881937132022-11-15T11:02:00.005-05:002022-12-07T12:54:32.102-05:00Barely beating a corrupt, incompetent, treasonous opponent<p>The Democrats are feeling pretty good that they didn't get crushed in the mid-term elections. They held onto control of the Senate, but will probably lose control of the House. This is not acceptable and I consider it a overwhelming failure. All of the Democratic leaders should be replaced. Yes, they didn't get crushed, but their opponents were all pledging loyalty to a corrupt, incompetent, treasonous opponent. It is 100% clear (at best) that Donald Trump would have happily throw out the legitimate results of a election and remained in power if given the chance. However, it is much worse than that, he actively inspired and helped people to try and make this happen. This is treason! Trump is a corrupt as they come, surrounds himself is complete loyalists, and promote completely unqualified candidates. Yes, the Democrats can't win over anyway, except their own base. This is the Kansas City Chiefs beating the Jets 30-29 on a fluke play in the 4th quarter. Sure Kansas City won, but they should have crushed them. They played terrible and they should know that if they don't have significant changes they are going to lose the next time they face a decent opponent (see Ron DeSantis). The next two years are going to be a mess. <br /><br />Follow up (12/7/2022), the Democrats are so happy the won the Senate runoff in Georgia, but they should be ashamed. They put forward and qualified, experienced candidate and only got 51.4% of the vote against Hershel Walker (who has no experience or actual policies, as well as lots of controversies). If the Republics has put forward a decent candidate, they would have won. Trump will learn this lesson and adjust, but he did learn that a vast majority of base will vote for his candidate no matter what (which just allows him to feel free to pick complete loyalists).</p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-74434532854221640802022-11-08T12:24:00.001-05:002022-11-08T12:24:15.718-05:00Democrats: Take 3 steps back to avoid 100 steps back.<p>There is a reasonable chance that after the 2024 elections, that Donald Trump will be President and he will have loyalists in control of both houses of Congress. He will also have a very conservative Supreme Court (although I wouldn't consider them loyalists, yet). If that happens, there is another reasonable chance that he will do everything possible to ensure that every meaningful election moving forward will be corrupt (to ensure that he, his children, or his loyalist remain in power indefinitely). If this happens, it will be devastating for the fundamental principals of democracy, individual freedoms, objective media, and the experiment that is the United States. Although unlikely, this is very possible and similar things have been done, in other countries, a multitude of times over the past decade. <br /><br />Even if the chances of this are 5% (and I would say they are 30%), the Democrats are doing virtually nothing to ensure avoid this outcome. They NEED to say...</p><p>"Look, if Trump wins, than literally everything we have worked for over the past 100 years will be destroyed. Unions gone. Medicare, gone. Consumer right's, gone. Any environmental protections, gone. Abortion rights, gone. Taxes on the wealthy, gone. Services for the poor gone. Protections for the press, gone. Gun control, gone. This is not crazy, but realistic, given how Trump would aim to control information and power. In order to protect these items, we have to do everything possible to ensure Trump cannot win. We have to stop being more progressive (like helping kids pay for college or helping the environment) because it isn't helping to defeat Trump and if he wins, we could lose everything, literally. What will ensure that he loses? We need to adopt some of his policies, even if we don't agree with them. Make a pledge that for the next ten years, no Democrats in Congress (or a President) will ever propose any gun control laws. Enact full voter protections, including voter ID laws. Increase funding for the military, specifically to control illegal immigration (this is critical). Send troops to protect Ukraine. Publicly define socialism and disavow and Democrat that adheres to a strict definition of being a socialist. Immediately replace Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer will more moderate (and more charismatic) leaders. Cut some government programs and actually balance the budget this year, no matter what it takes. Give Trump nothing to run on, except for lies and Christian Nationalism (which still might be enough for him to win).</p><p>Take 3 steps back to avoid 100 steps back. The risk it too great. <br /></p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-55256285309246826152022-09-29T15:13:00.000-04:002022-09-29T15:13:26.792-04:00Student Debt Relief<p>The Biden administration is proposing to use approximately $400 Billion dollars to forgive some student debts (up to $20,000). I hate when I'm on the side of the Republicans, but this proposal is madness. </p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>This relief only applies to those with current debts. So if you just paid off your student debt, or worked through college to not have any debt, or if you are set to start college next year, well you are out of luck.</li><li>The villains here are the colleges who charge ridiculous amounts of money and do not provide the type of education that will realistically give students a manageable way to pay their debts. This program is actually just giving these colleges money.</li><li>This will give future students a false sense of security to go to unaffordable schools thinking they may get money down the line too. </li><li>Why do students get money for their debts, but not other people. This is a subsidy the excludes a vast majority of people.</li></ul> So what would be a better option:<p></p><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Force colleges to justify their tuition by explicitly showing how much money students will owe, what the expected income from someone with their major will be, and how much and how long it will take to pay off the debts.</li><li>Tax any college endowment over $500 million. Many colleges have endowments of <a href="https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/10-universities-with-the-biggest-endowments">billions of dollars</a>, yet they still charge students for tuition. How dare they!</li><li>Give more money to state colleges to make tuition cheaper and education better. California have proven that you have provide an elite education at an affordable price.</li><li>Provide education to high school students so they understand what they are getting into.</li><li>Ensure that any college that makes money from college sports, that 100% of any net revenue goes to education and not the college sports team. Student education should be the only priority. </li><li>Have a permanent program to provide college relief to those people who work to better society. For example, social workers are desperately needed and horrible underpaid. </li></ul></div>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-43965211418671947432022-09-15T12:21:00.003-04:002022-09-15T12:21:31.400-04:00Alternate Media Reality (continuing saga)<p>Last night, with the support of President Biden, a potential nation-crippling railroad workers' strike was averted. Is this a win for Biden? Well, not in my opinion, as it never should have gotten this far. However, a strike would have been a disaster for him. Let's see how the media is covering this:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Washington Post: It is the top story "White House reaches tentative agreement to avert national rail strike"</li><li>Fox News: Not only is there no article, but the 20th story is "National strike threats loom as labor unions become more emboldened", which is outdated.</li><li>NYTimes: it is the 3rd story, "Railroad Companies and Unions Reach Tentative Deal to Avoid a Strike"</li><li>NY Post: it is the 80th story (appox), right below a huge Hunter Biden story, "Biden says 'tentative' deal reached to avoid national rail strike".</li><li>USA Today: Top story "Biden calls tentative labor deal a 'big win for America' as railroad strike is averted: live updates"</li><li>Breitbart.com: 4th Article "RAIL STRIKE AVERTED AS DEAL REACHED" also titled "Bidenflation at Heart of Railroad Strike Close Call"</li><li>Wall Street Journal: 5th Article, "U.S. Railroad Strike Averted as Tentative Deal Is Reached, Biden Says"</li><li>Newsmax: Top Article: "Biden: Tentative Railway Labor Deal Reached, Averting Strike".</li><li>Donald Trump (Truth Social), there is no mention of the railroad strike in any post.</li></ul><div>So every time I do this, I add the research and than evaluate (I don't look for things that fit a specific narrative). Some interesting things here. Fox News isn't covering this at all. That is truly an atrocity as this is critical news for the entire country. Breitbart covered it, but it was extremely biased. I was most surprised by Newsmax, who not only highlighted this news, but also wrote a very straightforward article outlining the facts and context. </div><p></p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-42512030120550850972022-09-02T13:49:00.002-04:002022-09-02T13:49:31.793-04:00Biden's Speech (appropriate, but not enough)<p>President Biden's national address was long overdue. I have no doubt that Donald Trump is a danger to the progress of this country and freedoms of so many of our citizens (including those who currently support him). Trump (with the full support of many long-time and very powerful Republican leaders) is actively creating a new political party that has only one vision, which is to be completely loyal to Donald Trump. Whatever Trump says is the "Truth" and they will go wherever he takes them (regardless of the law or its impact). He has denigrated any opposition as to make it appear that he is the only option. He is following the fascist playbook with general incompetence, but it is still working. </p><p>Biden's speech addressed these issues relatively directly, with some details, in a very professional and Biden-esk manner. It was "presidential" and serious, but the call to active was very vague. This speech was years in the making, but I guess it is better late than never. The key here is that is desperately needs to be followed up by a complimentary speech by someone who is willing to be less respectful, more aggressive, and has a fighter's spirit. Someone younger, who the country could potentially turn to if things get worse. It could Kamala Harris, who is a fighter, but not inspiring or charismatic. </p><p>Since everyone in Congress reads this, I'm callout out <a href="http://caucus.militarytimes.com/speaker/anthony-brown/">Anthony Brown</a> and <a href="http://caucus.militarytimes.com/speaker/seth-moulton/" target="_blank">Seth Moulton</a> to take on this role. To be honest, all I know is there are young, smart, have military experience, and aren't from New York or California. Make it happen!</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="408" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wygovCnX8Uw" width="491" youtube-src-id="wygovCnX8Uw"></iframe></div><br /><p></p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-66681983239966535222022-08-29T10:09:00.003-04:002022-08-29T10:09:33.621-04:00"Riots in the streets"<p>As Donald Trump is being investigated for mishandling classified documents, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) says that there will be “riots in the streets” if former president Donald Trump is prosecuted for this crime. That is an overwhelmingly telling and horrifying statement. </p><p>If we look at history, Trump is doing everything imaginable to create an environment for fascism. Discredit the media, discredit the judiciary, discredit the voting system, cult of personality, create alternative truths, demand 100% loyalty, put loyalists in positions of power, and call loyalist to arm themselves. The next step it to have his loyalists act act local police. The only things he hasn't done (yet) is get loyalists in control of the military, create a secret police, and then cull almost everyone who helped him gain power. This last part always happens in the rise of an authoritarian government; once the party leader becomes a dictator they "remove" those powerful people who originally supported him when he tried to appear less radical. This is because these people were given promises of power and prestige when their side won, but a dictator doesn't want anyone else to have those things, or for there to be anyone who could potentially challenge him. Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Mike Pence, Marco Rubio (or anyone else who is popular and political ambitious) will have to go. And if Trump becomes President again (with a majority in both houses and loyalists in control of voting systems), he will make sure that any threats will be eliminated (which is easy enough, Trump will make up lies against them and fully support a loyalist candidate). Trump knows (or perhaps not) that these top officials clearly can't be trusted no matter how much they currently support Trump. They will turn on Trump when it is politically convenient, because they are not actually loyal to Trump, but to their own self-interest. </p><p>So when Lindsey Graham recognizes that Trump can use the treat of street violence to avoid being accountable (and thus above the law), he is setting in motion his own demise. </p><p>It is odd to recognize that there is a very real chance (although small as of now) that a fascist government will take control of this country. If that happens, this post will be found and I will be identified as a threat. This is a real possibility and I wonder if my musings are worth the consequences (since nobody reads these anyway).</p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-55150637603632752682022-06-30T13:45:00.002-04:002022-06-30T13:45:09.153-04:00Translator (Boring to Interesting) (Facts to Republicans)<p>The January 6th Commission has brought to light incredibly damming evidence against Dr. Trump and his staff/supporters. There is overwhelming evidence that he tried to illegally retain power, in what amounts to a coup. He knew his claims of voter fraud were not true and he repeatedly tried illegal ways to stop the certification of the election (including inciting a riot). However, for as professional as the commission has been, they are extremely boring. </p><p>They need somebody to translate for them. One person to translate to from boring political and legal terms into what is all means. This person needs to be use the word "treason" and hold collaborators to the highest standards. Than they need another person to translate what is happening to Trump supporters, "Trump doesn't care about the rule of law, will kill police or anyone else to maintain power. He thinks his you should <i>obey </i>anything he says without thinking. He answers to no one, especially not Jesus, and is playing you for a fool."</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="280" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-qv7k2_lc0M" width="337" youtube-src-id="-qv7k2_lc0M"></iframe></div><p></p><p><br /></p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-3476174360373689592022-06-10T13:14:00.002-04:002022-06-10T13:14:24.734-04:00Investigation into January 6th<p><span style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 20px;">The House committee that has spent a year investigating the Jan. 6 attacks is focused too much on the actual attack on the capitol and not on protecting the country from a tyrant.</span></p><p><span style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 20px;">1) They should ask every person, under oath, "did you see direct evidence that there was any amount of fraud that possible </span><span style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 20px;">could</span><span style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 20px;"> </span><span style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 20px;">have changed the results of the election". Since all the Trump supporters refused to testify (and the fact that this evidence does not exist), they will all say "no". They should just play them saying that over and over again. </span></p><p><span style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 20px;">2) They should lay out that the attack on the capitol was just one small part of Trump's plan to overthrow the will of the people and keep power. And that his plans started months before the election and continued past January 6th. </span></p><p><span style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 20px;">3) As for the actual attack, it was only partially the fault of the people on the ground, as they were manipulating into believing that the election was stolen. Trump put that into their heads even through he was knew it wasn't true. If we hadn't done that, they wouldn't have attacked (or even been there) </span></p><p><span style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 20px;">4) Insist that Donald Trump testify to defend himself. Welcome his side of the story, under oath. Call him a little whiney baby who is scared to stand up for those his supporters. </span></span></p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-18255043208903341442022-05-12T16:10:00.006-04:002022-05-12T16:41:23.617-04:00COVID Facts?<p><a href="https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-variants-of-concern-omicron">COVID is very contagious</a>.<br /><a href="https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home" target="_blank">COVID is still in our communities</a>.<br /><a href="https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination#:~:text=Natural%20immunity%20can%20decay%20within,Johnson%20%26%20Johnson%20vaccine." target="_blank">Natural Immunity will wear off</a>.<br /><a href="https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/11/09/israeli-study-shows-how-covid-19-immunity-wanes-over-time/#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20main%20studies,wane%20after%20several%20months." target="_blank">Vaccine Immunity will wear off</a>.</p><p>Using generally accepted logic and reason, COVID will be back, just the same as it has after other past lulls. The arguments against this usually involves wishes and knocking on wood. </p><p>Both reported cases and deaths between May 2021 and May 2022 are extraordinarily similar (cases are higher this year, but deaths are down). It is important to note that people are masking and going out significantly more now than a year ago, so it isn't apples v apples. </p><p>However, there is hope that our treatments are getting better, hospitals are more prepared, and not as many people are dying and in the past (of course many of the most at risk people may have already died). That being said, 500 people are still dying everyday. That is 5X more than die from the flu, and current deaths are at a seasonal low. So unless there is a better vaccine (unlikely because it's not profitable), things are going to get worse before they get better. Sorry.</p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-60326159031533950982022-05-03T11:22:00.002-04:002022-05-03T11:22:15.701-04:00End of Roe v Wade<p>Of course the conservative Supreme Court Justices are going to overturn Roe v Wade. This was one of their most important issues and there is literally nothing in the law that says they can't do this. There are plenty of precedents for overturning precedents. And if a Justice thinks abortion is murder than how could they not overturn. It's not like the original decision was unanimous, it was a one vote decision either way. Likewise, if the Justices have been telling their closest friends and inner circle that they would oppose Roe v Wade, how (or why) would they not do act on that. They would be outcasts if they didn't (that shouldn't matter, but it does). I've been saying for years that this is inevitable and that the Democrats should make a deal before it is too late. The deal is that abortions laws are left to the states (without any interstate restrictions), and in exchange they cannot be any nationwide federal law that outlaws abortions. The Congress and the Presidency are just inches from having a Republican majority, and I am 98% sure if Trump becomes President, and has a simply majority in the both houses, he will make sure their is a new Senate Leader who will completely scrap the filibuster and enact any laws they choose, including a nationwide ban on all abortions, a nationwide ban on any gun regulations, and anything else they want. The Democrats had the chance to do the same thing (while keeping the filibuster) under Obama and didn't act on anything important (for that, I will never forgive Nancy Pelosi). Now it is too late. This shouldn't have surprised anyone. <br /><br />Furthermore, overturning Roe v Wade, will have another, terrible impact. Now all politicians, state and federal can run for election on just one single issue. No longer are politicians supposed to be competent, responsible or moral, now they either agree or oppose a voter one one or perhaps a few issues. And the stronger they stand for those select issues, the more popular they will be (in this "culture war").</p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-74164973893506367472022-03-29T16:19:00.003-04:002022-03-29T16:19:13.500-04:00Is it news?<p> "White House logs from Jan. 6 show 7-hour gap in Trump calls" is the basic story. Seems pretty important who the President was talking to during an attack on the capitol (while they were trying to certify a newly elected President). Let's see who is covering this on their webpage.</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Washington Post - 2nd Story (after Ukraine)</li><li>Fox News - Literally nowhere on the home page (there was an article on the politics page, it was the 14th article listed</li><li>New York Times - There is nothing</li><li>Brietbart.com - There is nothing</li><li>The Guardian - 2nd major story (after Ukraine)</li><li>Boston Globe - 4th story</li><li>Yahoo news - Nothing</li><li>National Review - Nothing</li><li>AP News - 3rd article</li><li>Newsmax - Nothing (although there was an article on him hitting a hole-in-one</li><li>USA Today - 2nd article</li></ul><div>I'm just saying it takes a lot of effort to read all the news, from all the sources, and it is amazing how a "well-informed" person, who reads the news from one source, could still be missing out on a lot.</div><p></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-39796152411424255702022-03-23T12:32:00.001-04:002022-03-23T12:32:41.193-04:00Racism in the Criminal Justice System<p> Racism in the Criminal Justice System exists. Why not implement some simple solutions:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The defendant is never shown to the judge to the jury. They can be in the room (hidden) or attend virtually. Their face, attitude, clothing, or demeanor are completely irrelevant and should not be part of the trial. If the case specifically has to do with the size of a person, a similarly sized person can be brought it. Note that the defendant being hidden isn't an option that they can choose to hide or not, it is mandatory.</li><li>The lawyers should never see the jury, either during selection or during the proceedings. Questions can be asked during the jury selection process, but they can't actually see the person. This will also stop lawyers from trying to specifically manipulate a juror based on their reactions to what it said during the trial.</li><li>I'm not sure if the jury should be able to see the face of the people who take the stand. Obviously, if a defendant's sister is a witness and takes the stand, the jury can make reasonable assumptions. I would say that any witness's face could not be shown, but perhaps any expert witness providing evidence can be seen (but I would be ok to hide everyone). </li><li>In a change not related to race, there is no reason for the jury to see the trial live. If they watch it on tape, they "anything stricken from the record" would literally be taken out of the tape, so no need for somebody to magically forget what they just heard.</li></ul><div>Just a few easy solutions that will reduce injustice. </div><div><br /></div><p></p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-53881479460233852622022-03-22T14:53:00.001-04:002022-03-22T14:53:30.726-04:00Objectively Looking Back at COVID Stredegies - Part 1<p>After the initial lockdowns from COVID, states had very different strategies to manage the risks of increased infections vs risks to the economy vs risks to mental health. Two years later, we can look back at the states and see if there were significant changes in infections and deaths from COVID. Of course, the data is flawed, as cases don't include people who didn't want to get tested and states did have differences on which deaths counted as "COVID deaths", etc. </p><p>I choose to look at the four big states, based on size and politics. Two very liberal states and two very conservatives states. Before, I go on, it is worth noting that nobody knew at the time exactly what COVID was and what the future would hold. Nobody knows what the next variant will be or how it will impact people. However, with the miracle of retrospect, we can see who was right based on the reality that actually occurred.</p><p>Based on the charts below, it doesn't seem like the conservative states had significantly more cases of COVID or related deaths. The spike in the summer of 2021 definitely did impact Florida and Texas more than the other states, but most of the other surges didn't have a significant disparity. There are just the facts. </p><p>Now (if have the time), we would also need to look at how the economies did in each states, as well as school closures (which have a negative impact of education, especially younger kids). We need this data (and more) to really start to access the choices, but this data was interesting to me. </p><p>Source: https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=eur&areas=usa&areasRegional=usny&areasRegional=usfl&areasRegional=ustx&areasRegional=usca&cumulative=0&logScale=0&per100K=1&startDate=2020-06-01&values=cases</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiNv_Ob8yn-z5EEm9Oh_l-B9kxoyo3gdsxSL6FnHJ1bAtJOjh2y5HzXCYlFAHB2PJLeSlcXOrSk6d_dt-Iv5jksvIrkAm5GESojgZYvP4fhMaaORY403oJHQ98_7SB2li5ETk8VshWuf1_KfR5U-Jipjvnm5V3jMUqwpoL_VcQ7l1mx8Vtu1w" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="1516" data-original-width="1252" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiNv_Ob8yn-z5EEm9Oh_l-B9kxoyo3gdsxSL6FnHJ1bAtJOjh2y5HzXCYlFAHB2PJLeSlcXOrSk6d_dt-Iv5jksvIrkAm5GESojgZYvP4fhMaaORY403oJHQ98_7SB2li5ETk8VshWuf1_KfR5U-Jipjvnm5V3jMUqwpoL_VcQ7l1mx8Vtu1w=w529-h640" width="529" /></a></div><br /><p></p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-78393229493118660042022-03-18T15:03:00.006-04:002022-03-18T15:03:43.724-04:00[Why] End of the World<p>Yesterday's post was a little depressing, but the real depressing thing is that over the past 1,000 years [with the exception of weapons of mass destruction] life has gotten better for almost the entire human population. Extreme poverty and food insecurity are way down, medicine is doing amazing things, there is literally access to almost all the information in the history of the world at our fingertips, people have quality-of-life items that would be inconceivable 100 years ago (air conditioners, dish washers, laundry machines, phones, internet), we can communicate or travel easily to anywhere in the world, there are fewer and fewer dangerous jobs, child labor, slavery, etc. Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone in the world, but on average, people are much, much better off. And we put it all at risk with two very specific and avoidable things: war and destroying our environment. As for war, 99% of people are against it, and it only serves the elites, as they are literally risking an amazing future for all mankind because of their madness. We have the ability to feed, cloth, and educate every single person in the world; we have the ability to save our environment, and could do both with only moderate sacrifices among those who have an insane about of privilege. Amazingly, people don't demand a reasonable and rational approach of saving our ourselves from the only things that could destroy us all. We are so smart, yet so stupid.</p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-41602243212725344832022-03-17T15:16:00.000-04:002022-03-17T15:16:13.656-04:00End of the World<p>I didn't live through the real nuclear scares of the cold war. In my lifetime, I haven't actually been scared of dying in a war or the end of days. The idea of a "mutual assured destruction" seemed to prevent the major militaries of the world from fighting each other (at least fighting directly). But "mutual assured destruction" only works if those in charge are either thinking rationally, morally, or selfishly. Personally, I think the "selfishly" one is the most important, as leaders of countries have the most to lose (power, money, prestige, etc.). But if there was an autocratic head of a nuclear power, who has nothing to lose (perhaps, he is dying of something else), than there is very little standing in the way of the end of civilization. And I am not overexerting, there are <a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nuclear-weapons-by-country">8 (maybe 9)</a> countries in the world that have enough nuclear weapons to destroy every major city in the world (with the resulting radiation affected every person on earth). How unlikely is this? The odds of the end of civilization happening within the next few months are much, much better than winning the lottery. Is it inconvincible that Vladimir Putin will not stop with Ukraine, but instead accept sanctions and continue to rebuild the USSR by attacking Poland (a NATO country)? NATO would have to respond and that's almost definitely the end of it all. Putin would never surrender (knowing he would tried as a war criminal), so the only way out would be a coup in Russia (which would be possible). </p><p>I am not one to get scared because it is not a very helpful emotion. And I'm not scared now, but I should be. We all should be. </p><ol style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 1.2em; margin-top: 1.2em;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">Russia — 3039 nuclear weapons available. Dictator</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">United States — 2,361 nuclear weapons available. Donald Trump was just President.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/china-population" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #337ab7; outline: none !important; text-decoration-line: none;">China</a> — 350 nuclear weapons available. De-facto Dictator</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/france-population" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #337ab7; outline: none !important; text-decoration-line: none;">France</a> — 290 nuclear weapons available. Le Pen was almost President</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-kingdom-population" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #337ab7; outline: none !important; text-decoration-line: none;">United Kingdom</a> — 225 available nuclear weapons available. Boris Johnson, really?</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/pakistan-population" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #337ab7; outline: none !important; text-decoration-line: none;">Pakistan</a> — 165 available nuclear weapons, located directly next to their enemy.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/india-population" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #337ab7; outline: none !important; text-decoration-line: none;">India</a> — 156 available nuclear weapons, located directly next to their enemy.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/israel-population" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #337ab7; outline: none !important; text-decoration-line: none;">Israel</a> — 90 available nuclear weapons, located directly next to their enemy.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/north-korea-population" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #337ab7; outline: none !important; text-decoration-line: none;">North Korea</a> — 40-50 available nuclear weapons (estimated). Dictator.</li></ol>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-20298402189418911602022-02-15T16:53:00.001-05:002022-02-15T16:53:20.969-05:00Russian Ploy<p>The longer Russia waits on the Ukrainian boarder, the richer they are getting. Oil and gas are responsible for more than 60% of Russia's exports and provide more than 30% of the country's gross domestic product and those prices are skyrocketing. It is the highest its been in 8 years and up 40% of the pre-covid levels. And they can bargain for even better deals, as they have a lot of leverage now. Whatever they get is a bonus, and they can move their troops off and blame the war-crazy, corrupt Americans for trying to start a war. Than they can come back in six months and do this again. Or maybe just wait until there is a different US President, who might not care as much about NATO or protecting foreign democracies (and perhaps keeping oil prices high will increase the likelihood of a different US president in just two years). </p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6983169.post-39883573170691546072022-02-14T11:27:00.002-05:002022-02-14T11:27:07.145-05:00Barack Obama will regret his inaction<p>When Donald Trump is re-elected President in two years, Barack Obama is going to think to himself, "maybe I should have done more". Yes, of course he should be doing more. He is literally the only likeable Democrat on the national stage. Sure he is raising money, but is he changing minds? He needs a highly promoted monthly, 30-minute TV show to talk about a very specific issue. Keep it simple. Have last month's episode only about the people who are in hospitals for COVID and if they are vaccinated or not. This month, try to explain why inflation happens, what can be done about it and what can't. Have a episode on why its important to have an organized person as President, and not just someone who shares your ideas. One episode, on primetime, on every streaming service. I don't know if it will be enough to stop Trump, but at least he will be able to live with himself after 2024.</p>Dan Lipkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12657142125348213401noreply@blogger.com0