.
This is a simple relatively short list of ideas culled from a handful of books on how we can and should think. It comes from books about logic & intuition and left-brain & right-brain and problem-solving.
Sleep well before and after an intense mental workout.
Breathe deeply and slowly to calm the reptilian brain. [ This is the only conscious way to affect it. ]
Let the mind wander a bit. [ This is its default mode effortless mode. It's important not to overwork our self-control focus 'muscle'. ]
Decide and silently state your goal. [ This pushes selective attention into effect. It automatically filters out things not relevant to the object of focus, the goal. ]
[ Separate the crucial from the incidental information. Avoid early decision-making or free-association thinking as that leads to premature conclusions. ]
Silently state the situation to clarify things.
Freely imagine many paths to the goal and if you need to step back from conscious effort and change your focus to something else (a stroll in the woods or your magic pen or what's for dinner).
Deduce a solution which best fits the situation & goal -- the clean elegant solution.
Blunder-check to get the most precise effective linear variation/sequence-of-actions.
That's it. There is more which a person might do, but this list seems like the crux of the matter. It's still too big for efficient fast chess play, but it's getting there. It covers ways to use and to avoid problems with the reptilian brain, the mammalian (memory & image) brain and some primate brain issues. It shows how to use left & right brain to get full use of your toy and it is all based on real science which shows this works in reality. At least pieces of it do. Whether one could learn this entire list and really do this in some rigorous way is beyond me. I can easily see parts being practiced and done regularly. Anyone wanting to think better and get results could start here and it would probably be a good improvement on what we're already doing. At least that's what the book cover blurbs say.
Enjoy!
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Friday, July 26, 2013
Science Has Many Things to Say...Some Contradictory, Some Breakthroughs !
.
The bees are disappearing, no wait, they're making a comeback. Well, which is it?
Scientists discover what's killing the bees and it's worse than you thought
Reemergence of the bumblebee delights and perplexes scientists
Maybe it depends on the kind of bee in question.
Meanwhile, the North Pole is now a lake. Picture of the pole is a sad sight.
Here's another sad sight -- people earning ONLY $ 4.99 million / year must be sooo depressed.
The rich feel poor if they make less than 5 million. The poor darlings must so depressed when they can't get to the $ 5 mil mark. Well, there's hope for them in the next article.
Protein receptor crf1 identified as depression molecule. Maybe they'll have a great cure for poverty depression real soon.
Meanwhile, the rest of the 99% who really are poor will just have to do with food stamps (SNAP) if the Republicans don't eliminate it to cut the deficit. Sigh.
The bees are disappearing, no wait, they're making a comeback. Well, which is it?
Scientists discover what's killing the bees and it's worse than you thought
Reemergence of the bumblebee delights and perplexes scientists
Maybe it depends on the kind of bee in question.
Meanwhile, the North Pole is now a lake. Picture of the pole is a sad sight.
Here's another sad sight -- people earning ONLY $ 4.99 million / year must be sooo depressed.
The rich feel poor if they make less than 5 million. The poor darlings must so depressed when they can't get to the $ 5 mil mark. Well, there's hope for them in the next article.
Protein receptor crf1 identified as depression molecule. Maybe they'll have a great cure for poverty depression real soon.
Meanwhile, the rest of the 99% who really are poor will just have to do with food stamps (SNAP) if the Republicans don't eliminate it to cut the deficit. Sigh.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Wealth Disparity - Fair is Fair
.
Richest 300 persons on earth have more money than poorest 3 billion
As corporate profits reach record levels their effective tax rates decrease
The Right and many pundits say when the economy works right everyone benefits and it's natural for some who are particularly useful in the economy to grow richer and richer and richer. Now there are individuals and corporations who/which are extremely wealthy, yet the rules are rigged to help them by lowering their tax rates. Why would that be? Are they employing all the unemployed and under-employed? Are they using some of their tremendous revenues to pay workers more for their greater productivity?
Low-wage workers on federal contracts keep up pressure with third strike
Why would the government pay so little?
Economy of the squeegee carwasheros organizing across the country
Is our economy only working right when the tip-earners and car washeros are making starvation wages?
Speaker of the House John Boehner on his legacy fair to all protected
If John Boehner wants to be fair he could let Democrats participate by bringing up bills which have support from a majority of the House, including Democrats. Then maybe we could (at least) get the Republicans on the record about important issues to America, like wage levels.
How can Boehner be Speaker of the (whole) House when he won't let Dems bring up bills until the Republican caucus agrees?
How can anyone say the economy is working when so many are earning so little? Is that fair?
Richest 300 persons on earth have more money than poorest 3 billion
As corporate profits reach record levels their effective tax rates decrease
The Right and many pundits say when the economy works right everyone benefits and it's natural for some who are particularly useful in the economy to grow richer and richer and richer. Now there are individuals and corporations who/which are extremely wealthy, yet the rules are rigged to help them by lowering their tax rates. Why would that be? Are they employing all the unemployed and under-employed? Are they using some of their tremendous revenues to pay workers more for their greater productivity?
Low-wage workers on federal contracts keep up pressure with third strike
Why would the government pay so little?
Economy of the squeegee carwasheros organizing across the country
Is our economy only working right when the tip-earners and car washeros are making starvation wages?
Speaker of the House John Boehner on his legacy fair to all protected
If John Boehner wants to be fair he could let Democrats participate by bringing up bills which have support from a majority of the House, including Democrats. Then maybe we could (at least) get the Republicans on the record about important issues to America, like wage levels.
How can Boehner be Speaker of the (whole) House when he won't let Dems bring up bills until the Republican caucus agrees?
How can anyone say the economy is working when so many are earning so little? Is that fair?
Friday, July 19, 2013
How We Think and Gun Violence Legislation
.
One of the things we often do in a chess game, and I presume other things, is seize upon an idea and continue with it even when conditions have changed and we should reassess things.
I think something similar has often happened in the political world and it caused great frustration. When you have the English and Irish at loggerheads for hundreds of years there's a lack of creativity to find a peaceful solution. The same seems to exist in the Middle East where Israel is usually at a stand-off with its neighbors.
Recently, here in America, there has been far too much gun violence and the discussion about how to solve it has involved expansion of the background checks for gun purchases. Well, I continue to see news stories about children killing one another and eventually the sheer numbers of these hit me on the head like a 2" x 4" -- it's kids who don't know the dangers, not just the mentally challenged or criminals using guns.
The reassessment leads quickly to an obvious call for the required use of gun locks to prevent kids from playing bang bang.
9-year-old Mississippi boy shot by another child, parents in the next room
One of the things we often do in a chess game, and I presume other things, is seize upon an idea and continue with it even when conditions have changed and we should reassess things.
I think something similar has often happened in the political world and it caused great frustration. When you have the English and Irish at loggerheads for hundreds of years there's a lack of creativity to find a peaceful solution. The same seems to exist in the Middle East where Israel is usually at a stand-off with its neighbors.
Recently, here in America, there has been far too much gun violence and the discussion about how to solve it has involved expansion of the background checks for gun purchases. Well, I continue to see news stories about children killing one another and eventually the sheer numbers of these hit me on the head like a 2" x 4" -- it's kids who don't know the dangers, not just the mentally challenged or criminals using guns.
The reassessment leads quickly to an obvious call for the required use of gun locks to prevent kids from playing bang bang.
9-year-old Mississippi boy shot by another child, parents in the next room
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Some Good, Some Bizarre & Stupid
.
Some Good
Medical knowledge and technology and techniques continue to improve.
A new Cancer Knife to detect cancer as it goes!
Gene therapy promises to wipe-out rare childhood diseases!
Scientists switch-off chromosome that causes Downs Syndrome!
Some Bizarre & Stupid
We've all heard or watched or read about the Zimmerman murder trial, but did the news organizations tell us about this Florida woman gets 20 years for warning shot that hit nobody. I guess the Stand-Your-Ground law only applies to other folks. Zimmerman's defense lawyer said that if Trayvon Martin had fired the gun he wouldn't have been charged. I find it hard to believe.
Some Good
Medical knowledge and technology and techniques continue to improve.
A new Cancer Knife to detect cancer as it goes!
Gene therapy promises to wipe-out rare childhood diseases!
Scientists switch-off chromosome that causes Downs Syndrome!
Some Bizarre & Stupid
We've all heard or watched or read about the Zimmerman murder trial, but did the news organizations tell us about this Florida woman gets 20 years for warning shot that hit nobody. I guess the Stand-Your-Ground law only applies to other folks. Zimmerman's defense lawyer said that if Trayvon Martin had fired the gun he wouldn't have been charged. I find it hard to believe.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Immigration Reform
.
Many Republicans say immigration reform needs to be done, but there are a few components of it with which they have a problem. Well, the president has said for quite a long time that when there's differences we shouldn't let that stop us from agreeing to what we agree to and move forward on that. So, the Republicans in the House should simply look at the parts of the Senate bill they want and go from there. If there's more than that they want to do they should write something and see if Democrats will agree with any of it in conference.
If border security is something they want to spend a lot of money on they can always go home and campaign on that for the next elections. Maybe their constituents will be happy to pay the taxes for more and more and more. After all, they don't want to raise taxes and it will obviously have to come from the rich. Somehow I don't suspect that would go over too well with their campaign donors.
The big concession they need to make for their slothfulness is to let Democrats add an amendment to tax reform which will raise rates on somebody to pay down whatever debt the country has (while sunsetting that when the debt is at some sufficiently low level).
It's not really all that hard if you really want to get something done.
Many Republicans say immigration reform needs to be done, but there are a few components of it with which they have a problem. Well, the president has said for quite a long time that when there's differences we shouldn't let that stop us from agreeing to what we agree to and move forward on that. So, the Republicans in the House should simply look at the parts of the Senate bill they want and go from there. If there's more than that they want to do they should write something and see if Democrats will agree with any of it in conference.
If border security is something they want to spend a lot of money on they can always go home and campaign on that for the next elections. Maybe their constituents will be happy to pay the taxes for more and more and more. After all, they don't want to raise taxes and it will obviously have to come from the rich. Somehow I don't suspect that would go over too well with their campaign donors.
The big concession they need to make for their slothfulness is to let Democrats add an amendment to tax reform which will raise rates on somebody to pay down whatever debt the country has (while sunsetting that when the debt is at some sufficiently low level).
It's not really all that hard if you really want to get something done.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
How We Think: Part Infinity
.
Intuition, Right-Brain, image, wholistic, feeling, wordless, outside the box ...
non-thinking thinking, irrational, timeless, creative
Logic, Left-Brain, sequential, objects, within the box (and maybe consciousness)...
general thinking and concrete variations (sequences of moves), mental work and very tiring
Our intuitive Right-Brain thinking isn't so tiring we think, but an emotional component can quickly drain us and a paradigm shift can be overwhelming.
Our logical Left-Brain thinking is incredibly tiring when we focus on doing it for long. That's probably because it's unnatural to use our minds consciousness for work. We're used to just doing and using our conscious logical side to observe and redirect our efforts. Perhaps setting goals or some kind of guidelines is what that part of our mind does best. After all a plan is how to step-by-step reach a final wholistic conclusion.
Where do we fail?
When we're overloaded with variables, when our memory fails in the middle of a task, when we can't imagine and remember subtotals and other work-in-progress, when emotion overwhelms us, when our intuition and logical solutions clash, when we have biases which subconsciously distort things and sometimes when we just can't decide between two things. It's the conscious mental work we haven't been doing as humans which we aren't so good at (duh).
When I think of a move to play, make the move on the board and instantly realize it's a bad move, that's a disaster. Why couldn't I have evaluated the move before seeing it on the board?
When I think of several moves and I analyze each, but find each lacking and then for some unknown reason I either play the first move or some other next move without much further analysis, that's a potential disaster. Why would I be so weak as to give up on finding good moves supported by calculation?
When I get to a tough situation and can't find a passable move I fail. Then I bring the game to my friends and they see immediately what I should've done. How can that be when I'm the better player? How can the kibitzer who isn't involved in the game immediately see the/a good move, but I the player involved see nothing?
When I want to play a move, but can't discover if it's good though calculation and later I discover I wasn't even using my skills to properly calculate I wonder why I have these skills if during a game I'm not going to use them.
During a normal day a person may make hundreds of decisions, but during a day of blitz chess or tournament chess we have to make many times more. It's no wonder we get tired and the blood sugar drops to turn us into blithering idiots.
Given all these and other difficulties it's a wonder any of us can play consistently good chess games.
I decided to browse the net for what other people have to say about Intuition and Logic. Below are a few links for some of the most interesting posts I read.
How to successfully integrate intuition and logic
Logic vs intuition
Intuition
Transcendence through intuitive thinking
Bias vs logic in decision making
I won't say these were entirely enlightening, but I do like the idea of 'listening' to both Intuition and Logic to get closer to 'the answer' instead of trying to prove one is better than the other. I also like the idea (found on a post and somewhere else in a book by a chess player) that having an intuition doesn't mean we shouldn't check the calculations to see if it holds up to logical scrutiny. After all, intuited ideas have to be squeezed into the peg hole of a move (or move-sequence) on the chess board.
Perhaps where I missed moves I was looking in a too-narrow way instead of starting from the broad range of possibilities. I need to do more exploration of a position! Having a rigid ideology can be limiting. Having no ideology can be useless for finding one answer, even with a goal. Having a method, goal and just enough standards/ideology/belief-system to filter out truly bad moves might be better.
The suggestion we decide best with 3 candidate solutions/answers seems unfair because chess rarely offers up two, three or any particular number of potential solutions. Still, knowing we do best with three (candidates to choose from) can give us something to aim for.
I've also read in several places that we shouldn't be satisfied with one run-through of our method of finding a move and that if we have dissatisfaction in the candidates we should simply go back and find others. Make the method a loop with each iteration providing more information for the next go-round.
I especially like that we can think about chess positions and our plans as a combination of positions with static qualities the Right-Brain can get or reject as missing something and as starting points for various potential dynamic plans/options the Left-Brain can piece together. Aiming for sound solid safe positions won't get you anywhere unless the opponent simply walks his king out to greet your army. Aiming for dynamic plans may leave your defenses full of holes. Having both a whole position the Right-Brain can like and dynamic potentials the Left-Brain can find and work its way through seems like a better fit of our brains to the chess play task.
How can this all be pieced together to make a regular system? I think we have to accumulate information about the position each time it is changed by a move, so our current internal image of the position is complete. But, more than that we must explore possibilities to know where that position might be changed and what it could become. This exploration doesn't appear on the gamescore, but it's essential to really understand the potential. This wide-open view of the positions and their potentials is a bit brute-force, but it opens our eyes. After that we begin narrowing down with forcing or strategically important moves & sequences. To do that we have to know what those terms mean, but that can be learned. Essentially it's what has to be (or can be) done to effect the game's outcome to make a win from an equal start or to save a draw from a bad position. Knowing what our opponent's plans could be is as important as finding our own way forward.
After that it's the narrowing to move-sequences and one final move to be played. That's concrete conscious calculation and shouldn't be done too extensively to safe energy. Each position requires what it requires and we have to do what's needed...but no more.
Sometimes that final move choice is a matter of realizing which moves are awful and just playing what remains that seems okay. Sometimes there are several playable moves and we might seek to play them both in some order. Sometimes the playable choices lead in very different directions and we have to make that choice of direction to get the move.
One of the hardest choices to make is to wait. It seems anti-game or something, but once you've got a good position it's not easy to automatically make it better (or to harm the opponent's position). So, you wait. Or, as Jerry Brown, governor of California once said, to choose to not do anything is still a choice. Another great tactic top players use is to seek a position where their opponent has no useful moves and must wait. At that moment one player may be able to do useful things while the other cannot. That's a tremendously advantageous situation.
Should we therefore aim for a position or to have a plan to accomplish? I think, as I suggested above, we aim for both as they're both useful. Intuit a position, create a plan or goals and go to it.
Enough for now.
Intuition, Right-Brain, image, wholistic, feeling, wordless, outside the box ...
non-thinking thinking, irrational, timeless, creative
Logic, Left-Brain, sequential, objects, within the box (and maybe consciousness)...
general thinking and concrete variations (sequences of moves), mental work and very tiring
Our intuitive Right-Brain thinking isn't so tiring we think, but an emotional component can quickly drain us and a paradigm shift can be overwhelming.
Our logical Left-Brain thinking is incredibly tiring when we focus on doing it for long. That's probably because it's unnatural to use our minds consciousness for work. We're used to just doing and using our conscious logical side to observe and redirect our efforts. Perhaps setting goals or some kind of guidelines is what that part of our mind does best. After all a plan is how to step-by-step reach a final wholistic conclusion.
Where do we fail?
When we're overloaded with variables, when our memory fails in the middle of a task, when we can't imagine and remember subtotals and other work-in-progress, when emotion overwhelms us, when our intuition and logical solutions clash, when we have biases which subconsciously distort things and sometimes when we just can't decide between two things. It's the conscious mental work we haven't been doing as humans which we aren't so good at (duh).
When I think of a move to play, make the move on the board and instantly realize it's a bad move, that's a disaster. Why couldn't I have evaluated the move before seeing it on the board?
When I think of several moves and I analyze each, but find each lacking and then for some unknown reason I either play the first move or some other next move without much further analysis, that's a potential disaster. Why would I be so weak as to give up on finding good moves supported by calculation?
When I get to a tough situation and can't find a passable move I fail. Then I bring the game to my friends and they see immediately what I should've done. How can that be when I'm the better player? How can the kibitzer who isn't involved in the game immediately see the/a good move, but I the player involved see nothing?
When I want to play a move, but can't discover if it's good though calculation and later I discover I wasn't even using my skills to properly calculate I wonder why I have these skills if during a game I'm not going to use them.
During a normal day a person may make hundreds of decisions, but during a day of blitz chess or tournament chess we have to make many times more. It's no wonder we get tired and the blood sugar drops to turn us into blithering idiots.
Given all these and other difficulties it's a wonder any of us can play consistently good chess games.
I decided to browse the net for what other people have to say about Intuition and Logic. Below are a few links for some of the most interesting posts I read.
How to successfully integrate intuition and logic
Logic vs intuition
Intuition
Transcendence through intuitive thinking
Bias vs logic in decision making
I won't say these were entirely enlightening, but I do like the idea of 'listening' to both Intuition and Logic to get closer to 'the answer' instead of trying to prove one is better than the other. I also like the idea (found on a post and somewhere else in a book by a chess player) that having an intuition doesn't mean we shouldn't check the calculations to see if it holds up to logical scrutiny. After all, intuited ideas have to be squeezed into the peg hole of a move (or move-sequence) on the chess board.
Perhaps where I missed moves I was looking in a too-narrow way instead of starting from the broad range of possibilities. I need to do more exploration of a position! Having a rigid ideology can be limiting. Having no ideology can be useless for finding one answer, even with a goal. Having a method, goal and just enough standards/ideology/belief-system to filter out truly bad moves might be better.
The suggestion we decide best with 3 candidate solutions/answers seems unfair because chess rarely offers up two, three or any particular number of potential solutions. Still, knowing we do best with three (candidates to choose from) can give us something to aim for.
I've also read in several places that we shouldn't be satisfied with one run-through of our method of finding a move and that if we have dissatisfaction in the candidates we should simply go back and find others. Make the method a loop with each iteration providing more information for the next go-round.
I especially like that we can think about chess positions and our plans as a combination of positions with static qualities the Right-Brain can get or reject as missing something and as starting points for various potential dynamic plans/options the Left-Brain can piece together. Aiming for sound solid safe positions won't get you anywhere unless the opponent simply walks his king out to greet your army. Aiming for dynamic plans may leave your defenses full of holes. Having both a whole position the Right-Brain can like and dynamic potentials the Left-Brain can find and work its way through seems like a better fit of our brains to the chess play task.
How can this all be pieced together to make a regular system? I think we have to accumulate information about the position each time it is changed by a move, so our current internal image of the position is complete. But, more than that we must explore possibilities to know where that position might be changed and what it could become. This exploration doesn't appear on the gamescore, but it's essential to really understand the potential. This wide-open view of the positions and their potentials is a bit brute-force, but it opens our eyes. After that we begin narrowing down with forcing or strategically important moves & sequences. To do that we have to know what those terms mean, but that can be learned. Essentially it's what has to be (or can be) done to effect the game's outcome to make a win from an equal start or to save a draw from a bad position. Knowing what our opponent's plans could be is as important as finding our own way forward.
After that it's the narrowing to move-sequences and one final move to be played. That's concrete conscious calculation and shouldn't be done too extensively to safe energy. Each position requires what it requires and we have to do what's needed...but no more.
Sometimes that final move choice is a matter of realizing which moves are awful and just playing what remains that seems okay. Sometimes there are several playable moves and we might seek to play them both in some order. Sometimes the playable choices lead in very different directions and we have to make that choice of direction to get the move.
One of the hardest choices to make is to wait. It seems anti-game or something, but once you've got a good position it's not easy to automatically make it better (or to harm the opponent's position). So, you wait. Or, as Jerry Brown, governor of California once said, to choose to not do anything is still a choice. Another great tactic top players use is to seek a position where their opponent has no useful moves and must wait. At that moment one player may be able to do useful things while the other cannot. That's a tremendously advantageous situation.
Should we therefore aim for a position or to have a plan to accomplish? I think, as I suggested above, we aim for both as they're both useful. Intuit a position, create a plan or goals and go to it.
Enough for now.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
The Verdict Is In -- We Are A Somewhat Divided Nation
.
The Zimmerman trial verdict is "Not guilty" and it leaves me dumbfounded. But, I also recall the state of affairs when the OJ Simpson trial verdict of "Not guilty" came through. The nation is clearly divided.
In Congress the immigration reform legislation might not get a vote in the House of Representatives. It's clear there are representatives, and their constituents, who only want reform to build a big wall to keep out foreigners. If the legislation passes to improve the immigration system that would be terrific, but if this minority requires such legislative features as a gigantic anti-immigrant wall they will still have shot the nation in the foot.
In the Senate the Republicans deny the president warm bodies to fill administration offices by using the filibuster to prevent nominees a hearing or vote. It doesn't matter that the individuals are considered qualified by everyone. It only matters that the Republicans oppose Pres. Obama and anything Democrats want to do. Case in point: a few years ago when Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) was the majority leader he proposed ending the filibuster (or at least some parts of it). Today, now that the Democrats are agreeing to change the filibuster he is against it.
In the House of Representatives the Hastert Rule is in effect. Dennis Hastert was the Speaker of the House a few years ago and he instituted a rule not found in the Constitution. The rule says that only legislation which is approved by a majority of the majority party can come to the floor. This disallows all legislation Democrats propose and any proposed by a minority of the majority party. This crazy Republican rule shackles the House, so that only that which the vocal minority (the radical Right) support can be brought to a vote. Does current Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) care about this division of the House and its current ineffectiveness?
In Washington D.C. the people want a higher minimum wage, what they call a 'living wage'. In many states around the country there are state-wide minimum wage laws which are higher than the federal minimum wage. All around the country Walmart does business and makes a nice profit. But, in Washington D.C. the straw broke their back and they say they'll move out if the law is signed (it passed the City Council and awaits the mayor's signature). Ultimately Walmart is run by the Walton family who own a majority of it's corporate shares. Do the billionaire Waltons not have enough? Will they surrender-up the ghost if they don't make quite the same profit as yesterday?
White & Black, Republican & Democrat, Rich & Poor, the nation has major divisions which are not good. Will we hear Libertarians like Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) calling for Justice in the Zimmerman case? It's not likely as a young African-American was killed and Rand Paul only calls for Liberty and Justice for White men. Will we hear Constitutional geniuses on the Right calling for the Rule of Constitutional Law in the Senate to get the simple majority rule the Constitution calls for? It's not likely if that means opposing Mitch McConnell? Will we hear FOX television commentators or other Constitutional geniuses call for the House to be rid of the Hastert Rule to return to Constitutional order and real functionality of the House? It's not likely when they view that rule as key to maintaining unity of the Republican party -- regardless of what it does to the institution or the nation. When will we hear from billionaire CEOs and Wall St. leaders on the major divide between the 1% who have about half the nation's wealth and the 99% who have to share the other 50%? Do they care the real economy is struggling because their corporations aren't pumping more money into the pockets of the 99% (the workers)? They've worked hard to create the current situation, this mess, so I can't imagine they would want to see it change.
We are a nation divided and the people hate it.
The Zimmerman trial verdict is "Not guilty" and it leaves me dumbfounded. But, I also recall the state of affairs when the OJ Simpson trial verdict of "Not guilty" came through. The nation is clearly divided.
In Congress the immigration reform legislation might not get a vote in the House of Representatives. It's clear there are representatives, and their constituents, who only want reform to build a big wall to keep out foreigners. If the legislation passes to improve the immigration system that would be terrific, but if this minority requires such legislative features as a gigantic anti-immigrant wall they will still have shot the nation in the foot.
In the Senate the Republicans deny the president warm bodies to fill administration offices by using the filibuster to prevent nominees a hearing or vote. It doesn't matter that the individuals are considered qualified by everyone. It only matters that the Republicans oppose Pres. Obama and anything Democrats want to do. Case in point: a few years ago when Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) was the majority leader he proposed ending the filibuster (or at least some parts of it). Today, now that the Democrats are agreeing to change the filibuster he is against it.
In the House of Representatives the Hastert Rule is in effect. Dennis Hastert was the Speaker of the House a few years ago and he instituted a rule not found in the Constitution. The rule says that only legislation which is approved by a majority of the majority party can come to the floor. This disallows all legislation Democrats propose and any proposed by a minority of the majority party. This crazy Republican rule shackles the House, so that only that which the vocal minority (the radical Right) support can be brought to a vote. Does current Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) care about this division of the House and its current ineffectiveness?
In Washington D.C. the people want a higher minimum wage, what they call a 'living wage'. In many states around the country there are state-wide minimum wage laws which are higher than the federal minimum wage. All around the country Walmart does business and makes a nice profit. But, in Washington D.C. the straw broke their back and they say they'll move out if the law is signed (it passed the City Council and awaits the mayor's signature). Ultimately Walmart is run by the Walton family who own a majority of it's corporate shares. Do the billionaire Waltons not have enough? Will they surrender-up the ghost if they don't make quite the same profit as yesterday?
White & Black, Republican & Democrat, Rich & Poor, the nation has major divisions which are not good. Will we hear Libertarians like Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) calling for Justice in the Zimmerman case? It's not likely as a young African-American was killed and Rand Paul only calls for Liberty and Justice for White men. Will we hear Constitutional geniuses on the Right calling for the Rule of Constitutional Law in the Senate to get the simple majority rule the Constitution calls for? It's not likely if that means opposing Mitch McConnell? Will we hear FOX television commentators or other Constitutional geniuses call for the House to be rid of the Hastert Rule to return to Constitutional order and real functionality of the House? It's not likely when they view that rule as key to maintaining unity of the Republican party -- regardless of what it does to the institution or the nation. When will we hear from billionaire CEOs and Wall St. leaders on the major divide between the 1% who have about half the nation's wealth and the 99% who have to share the other 50%? Do they care the real economy is struggling because their corporations aren't pumping more money into the pockets of the 99% (the workers)? They've worked hard to create the current situation, this mess, so I can't imagine they would want to see it change.
We are a nation divided and the people hate it.
Friday, July 12, 2013
"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" - Dorothy to the Scarecrow
.
Republicans cut food stamps and the public responds!
Republicans refuse to regulate guns, so children fight back!
Republicans in Texas ban tampons from the audience gallery! Really?
THIS is why America elected Pres. Obama twice with over 50% each time. It's also the reason Americans should elect a Democratic-majority Congress to work with him.
Gun violence legislation.
Stronger (not weaker) regulation of banks.
Immigration reform.
An increased minimum wage instead of cut food stamps.
These are the kinds of things Democrats can do for America (and Americans) if they are given sufficient votes in Congress.
Republicans cut food stamps and the public responds!
Republicans refuse to regulate guns, so children fight back!
Republicans in Texas ban tampons from the audience gallery! Really?
THIS is why America elected Pres. Obama twice with over 50% each time. It's also the reason Americans should elect a Democratic-majority Congress to work with him.
Gun violence legislation.
Stronger (not weaker) regulation of banks.
Immigration reform.
An increased minimum wage instead of cut food stamps.
These are the kinds of things Democrats can do for America (and Americans) if they are given sufficient votes in Congress.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
The Economy is Sluggish. What Should Be Done?
.
In Washington, D.C. the city government is considering raising the minimum wage. The council has passed it and the mayor will have his say. Walmart was allowed into D.C. if they performed certain civic functions, but with this minimum wage increase they threaten to leave. The Washington Post writes about it and ThinkProgress.com also weighs-in.
Elsewhere the Koch brothers (billionaires of the Right-wing variety) are gearing up an anti-minimum-wage campaign. ThinkProgress.com tells that story too.
Kevin Drum writes at MotherJones.com about the plight of workers since the recent recession of 2007-2009. It's not a pretty picture.
The minimum wage is just over $ 7.00 and to have kept pace with the wage of the 1960s it would have to be closer to $ 15.00. It's time for another increase and pushing money into the hands of consumers will push the economy.
The Conservative argument that lower wages somehow benefit poor people is nonsense. Like the t.v. ad where a man asks kids which is better fast or slow, big or small, they always say big & fast and higher wages is always better for the worker. The growing inequality in America is a problem in its own way, but the slowly eroding wages of the lower-income American is a serious problem for national economic growth. Without consumption the GDP number shrinks and businesses won't have sufficient demand to hire more workers -- meaning higher unemployment.
"Lower wages help the economy"? What are they thinking?
In Washington, D.C. the city government is considering raising the minimum wage. The council has passed it and the mayor will have his say. Walmart was allowed into D.C. if they performed certain civic functions, but with this minimum wage increase they threaten to leave. The Washington Post writes about it and ThinkProgress.com also weighs-in.
Elsewhere the Koch brothers (billionaires of the Right-wing variety) are gearing up an anti-minimum-wage campaign. ThinkProgress.com tells that story too.
Kevin Drum writes at MotherJones.com about the plight of workers since the recent recession of 2007-2009. It's not a pretty picture.
The minimum wage is just over $ 7.00 and to have kept pace with the wage of the 1960s it would have to be closer to $ 15.00. It's time for another increase and pushing money into the hands of consumers will push the economy.
The Conservative argument that lower wages somehow benefit poor people is nonsense. Like the t.v. ad where a man asks kids which is better fast or slow, big or small, they always say big & fast and higher wages is always better for the worker. The growing inequality in America is a problem in its own way, but the slowly eroding wages of the lower-income American is a serious problem for national economic growth. Without consumption the GDP number shrinks and businesses won't have sufficient demand to hire more workers -- meaning higher unemployment.
"Lower wages help the economy"? What are they thinking?
Monday, July 8, 2013
Are ALL Corporations Horrible, or are there any good ones?
.
The law which establishes the possibility for the creation of a corporation was created by politicians working at the behest of the rich who wanted to do things together, pooling financial resources for a larger cause. The theory (I suppose) was that society would gain more than it gave up to let these rich people have 'limited liability'. Well, we've seen many abuses of child labor, bad working conditions, off-shoring of jobs and tremendous corporate lobbying of politicians (probably should be illegal) which allow them great power in the economic-financial system. The following links list some recent problems.
Tax Avoidance -- Twice the Amount of Social Security and Medicare
Growing Apart - a political history of American inequality
America's Wage Crisis
Four Contemptible Examples of Corporate Tax Avoidance
This may lead you to forever hate all corporations for any and all reasons. But, there are sometimes some good things which happen in the corporate world. The next link is about one of those.
Apple Plans Solar Farm to Support their Nevada Data Center
There are many others, but aside from the usual corporate bashing, which is required, I thought it would be interesting to show something positive.
The law which establishes the possibility for the creation of a corporation was created by politicians working at the behest of the rich who wanted to do things together, pooling financial resources for a larger cause. The theory (I suppose) was that society would gain more than it gave up to let these rich people have 'limited liability'. Well, we've seen many abuses of child labor, bad working conditions, off-shoring of jobs and tremendous corporate lobbying of politicians (probably should be illegal) which allow them great power in the economic-financial system. The following links list some recent problems.
Tax Avoidance -- Twice the Amount of Social Security and Medicare
Growing Apart - a political history of American inequality
America's Wage Crisis
Four Contemptible Examples of Corporate Tax Avoidance
This may lead you to forever hate all corporations for any and all reasons. But, there are sometimes some good things which happen in the corporate world. The next link is about one of those.
Apple Plans Solar Farm to Support their Nevada Data Center
There are many others, but aside from the usual corporate bashing, which is required, I thought it would be interesting to show something positive.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
An Observation and Question or Two about How We Think
.
In the political world the Israelis seem to think the Palestinians should NOT go to the U.N. to get recognition for a political state and they should instead follow the path the Jews took to create Israel. That would be sad because the Israeli state was created by a terrible means (WWII). The wars that followed to establish its permanence were even worse. But, the way a person knows their own history must always shape the way they think other people could proceed. Don't all wars involve killing and a state's loss? What of the "War against Terror"? What state would lose if al Qaeda were destroyed forever? Changes in paradigm are tough to understand.
Around the world supporters of Democracy may be wondering what the Egyptians are doing. First they have a revolution, then an election and then another revolution. What pattern is that? I think they're fighting for a working Democracy where there is power sharing. Maybe they're following the Iraqi event with an eye to what has happened in Iran or Israel to see what they should do. I think they are, in the end, creating their own path and that's confusing to everyone else who thinks there is only ONE path -- the one each of those people knows about. But, history does not govern the present or future, it only informs us.
In the chess world we use ideas about strategy or psychological chess to narrow our search for moves we feel are more likely to work (to produce victory). But, by the very act of shaping the box and sizing the box we limit ourselves to only finding moves from within the box. What if the answer lies outside the box? For example, I for many years played naturally and with only a few learned ideas about how to play bits of the game. I studied some books on the opening and ending and learned a bit from my own games. I didn't have a teacher. I proceeded, based on that alone, to strong expert strength. Then I was frustrated and gave up the game. Later I came back to it, after college, and began a more 'scientific-like' process of study. I studied the values as I saw them and got a bit stronger. I earned the master title and eventually drew a couple of grandmasters. That still didn't make me strong enough to beat titled players very often. What I had done was to learn the Values which improved my skill at keeping a safe position. It limited what I could do offensively, but I held out better against all opponents and still won a fair number of games. What was the golden mean where all-out offense and cautious safe play meet? Alekhin called it 'imagination' (for offense) and 'prudence' to stay safe.
Today I have another idea about playing offense and I'm working on using that while retaining the 'safety' side of my game. Hopefully this will help me regain the master title and to do better against FIDE titled players (FM, IM, GM).
Another interesting thing I've read is a quote by GM David Norwood (not terribly active these days) where he said being a grandmaster is the art of 'playing chess well, but without calculating a lot'. Several sources have said that and others have emphasized that calculation skill is very dubious and not often to be trusted. Apparently grandmasters consider it very difficult and uncertain. This means they must be playing to achieve patterns which make their positions 'easy to play', safe, viable and with chances to win. Yet, when you see the Kasparov books he includes tremendous calculation variations. Walter Browne's game notes & book is like that too. I think grandmasters, like everyone, have varying skills. Some core skills must be required, perhaps how to assess many kinds of positions and how to apply chess logic and select moves well.
What should a learning player do? Who should he follow? Well, what do these players who write books tell us? They say what they know from their own experience. Their paradigms are about developing to a high level with hard work, though not necessarily a lot more than lesser players. For example, Michael Adams said he developed to about FIDE 2600 without having read a chess book. Who can follow that course?
There are so many different ways to approach chess play it's hard for me to even list one or two. Some people are more imaginative and intuitive while others are logical and calculating. There seems to be no one fundamental skill set or method common to all great players. Surely Kasparov and Karpov were a bit different? Botvinnik and Tal! Leaving aside style there are simply different ways of thinking. Kasparov can write books about a game or two while Anand once wrote, "I played this move because it was my birthday." Who can suss out from that what their common skills might be? Intuition and calculation (or logic) seem most obvious, but brute force move-calculation has to be considered too. We use intuition when our right brain sees a pattern and a 'next step'. We can use logic when intuition fails us. There are books on both for learning players to study.
If it's true the moves come first and ideas later, then maybe it's the filtering of candidate moves by these strategic and logical ideas (our mental boxes) with the aid of calculation which is the better method.
In the political world the Israelis seem to think the Palestinians should NOT go to the U.N. to get recognition for a political state and they should instead follow the path the Jews took to create Israel. That would be sad because the Israeli state was created by a terrible means (WWII). The wars that followed to establish its permanence were even worse. But, the way a person knows their own history must always shape the way they think other people could proceed. Don't all wars involve killing and a state's loss? What of the "War against Terror"? What state would lose if al Qaeda were destroyed forever? Changes in paradigm are tough to understand.
Around the world supporters of Democracy may be wondering what the Egyptians are doing. First they have a revolution, then an election and then another revolution. What pattern is that? I think they're fighting for a working Democracy where there is power sharing. Maybe they're following the Iraqi event with an eye to what has happened in Iran or Israel to see what they should do. I think they are, in the end, creating their own path and that's confusing to everyone else who thinks there is only ONE path -- the one each of those people knows about. But, history does not govern the present or future, it only informs us.
In the chess world we use ideas about strategy or psychological chess to narrow our search for moves we feel are more likely to work (to produce victory). But, by the very act of shaping the box and sizing the box we limit ourselves to only finding moves from within the box. What if the answer lies outside the box? For example, I for many years played naturally and with only a few learned ideas about how to play bits of the game. I studied some books on the opening and ending and learned a bit from my own games. I didn't have a teacher. I proceeded, based on that alone, to strong expert strength. Then I was frustrated and gave up the game. Later I came back to it, after college, and began a more 'scientific-like' process of study. I studied the values as I saw them and got a bit stronger. I earned the master title and eventually drew a couple of grandmasters. That still didn't make me strong enough to beat titled players very often. What I had done was to learn the Values which improved my skill at keeping a safe position. It limited what I could do offensively, but I held out better against all opponents and still won a fair number of games. What was the golden mean where all-out offense and cautious safe play meet? Alekhin called it 'imagination' (for offense) and 'prudence' to stay safe.
Today I have another idea about playing offense and I'm working on using that while retaining the 'safety' side of my game. Hopefully this will help me regain the master title and to do better against FIDE titled players (FM, IM, GM).
Another interesting thing I've read is a quote by GM David Norwood (not terribly active these days) where he said being a grandmaster is the art of 'playing chess well, but without calculating a lot'. Several sources have said that and others have emphasized that calculation skill is very dubious and not often to be trusted. Apparently grandmasters consider it very difficult and uncertain. This means they must be playing to achieve patterns which make their positions 'easy to play', safe, viable and with chances to win. Yet, when you see the Kasparov books he includes tremendous calculation variations. Walter Browne's game notes & book is like that too. I think grandmasters, like everyone, have varying skills. Some core skills must be required, perhaps how to assess many kinds of positions and how to apply chess logic and select moves well.
What should a learning player do? Who should he follow? Well, what do these players who write books tell us? They say what they know from their own experience. Their paradigms are about developing to a high level with hard work, though not necessarily a lot more than lesser players. For example, Michael Adams said he developed to about FIDE 2600 without having read a chess book. Who can follow that course?
There are so many different ways to approach chess play it's hard for me to even list one or two. Some people are more imaginative and intuitive while others are logical and calculating. There seems to be no one fundamental skill set or method common to all great players. Surely Kasparov and Karpov were a bit different? Botvinnik and Tal! Leaving aside style there are simply different ways of thinking. Kasparov can write books about a game or two while Anand once wrote, "I played this move because it was my birthday." Who can suss out from that what their common skills might be? Intuition and calculation (or logic) seem most obvious, but brute force move-calculation has to be considered too. We use intuition when our right brain sees a pattern and a 'next step'. We can use logic when intuition fails us. There are books on both for learning players to study.
If it's true the moves come first and ideas later, then maybe it's the filtering of candidate moves by these strategic and logical ideas (our mental boxes) with the aid of calculation which is the better method.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Odds & Ends
.
Tax-dodging corporations don't deserve a lot of respect. The link is an article on less well-known things about corporations.
Update: Here's more on corporate taxes and how they avoid paying!
Sunday morning I watched Fareed Zakaria's program (The Take) and he said studies of 'big data' (in Virginia I think) showed violent crimes (presumably involving guns) increased regularly two weeks after gun shows (sales). There's more evidence the gun violence legislation needs to cover background checks at gun shows!
Fiber Optic Bandwidth may DOUBLE !! Woo hoo!
Corporations may use tax lawyers and interest groups may lobby behind closed doors, but illusionists use science to deceive! I especially found it interesting how they suggest that when the mind faces several things at once it is easily overcome. That's something chess players can definitely use.
Tax-dodging corporations don't deserve a lot of respect. The link is an article on less well-known things about corporations.
Update: Here's more on corporate taxes and how they avoid paying!
Sunday morning I watched Fareed Zakaria's program (The Take) and he said studies of 'big data' (in Virginia I think) showed violent crimes (presumably involving guns) increased regularly two weeks after gun shows (sales). There's more evidence the gun violence legislation needs to cover background checks at gun shows!
Fiber Optic Bandwidth may DOUBLE !! Woo hoo!
Corporations may use tax lawyers and interest groups may lobby behind closed doors, but illusionists use science to deceive! I especially found it interesting how they suggest that when the mind faces several things at once it is easily overcome. That's something chess players can definitely use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)