Why do people still think republicans are better at handling the economy when we're seen the awful results of their economic policies time and time again?
The previous two republican presidents sent the US economy, both times, into a downward death spiral and we've needed democrat presidents to fix the mess republicans left behind.
In the past republicans have always been pro-big business but I am astonished by the problems Ron DeSantis is having with Disney, a very conservative corporation, who nevertheless knows the sign of the times. Disney is so annoyed with DeSantis that they are suing him, and moving further developments away from Florida. Not even Chick-fil-A is safe from being classified as too 'woke', a word republicans throw around by conservatives as an abhorrent smear, but few can define. However I define 'woke' as 'the acknowledgement that other people (than (rich old) white men) are people too'. These are the kind of men who do stuff in the dark and in private, that never happened...
While DeSantis may feel no one is watching, an assumption most republicans make when they are doing whatever they do, people are watching, including and especially corporate America.
With the current fix to the debt ceiling behind us, we have to wonder why republican presidents never have to worry about debt ceilings when it's been proven time and time again that they do more to increase the national debt.
The people who always suffer most with the debt ceiling are those with the least, the poorest amongst us, and that is the cruelty of republican economics.
The idea of a small government is ridiculous when we have a government so small it fits inside every woman's uterus and in the underwear of every child making sure that they all remain asleep regarding their identity and gender.
I was told about gender spectrum when I was a child and I remained an aware cis-hetero-woman. But the republican approach to child care is keep them ignorant because otherwise we'll all be forced to have gender reassignment and divorce our hetero-spouse and marry someone of our own gender? Which I have to say is extremely amusing and no one's intention.
Everyone sees these book bans in school libraries, everyone knows there are people who are so out of touch with the universe they think their children will never find out about gender. And in my mind it is so embarrassing.

Some number of years ago I was talking to a libertarian who was writing some kind of manifesto on how the economy should be organized and when I asked him about women's access to money he said women should have children for love.

I wonder what the landlord/lady will say in response to "I am paying my rent with love." Or groceries, clothes... love baby. Of course, that may be code for prostitution? People may assume she may not have gotten married before popping out babies, and I say that men die, divorce and get sick too. And I have said that many times before.

But the reality is men don't like considering women as workers, they are really treated like their labor is not paid for, and they like to say they are doing the work they do for things like 'love' but the reality is it's free labor.

And now republicans are making it impossible for women to get an abortion, their only solution is that women should not get pregnant and when i have questioned on them on this, that is their only solution for me not to get pregnant.

If we lived in such a state my husband would get a vasectomy but what if we decide we want a child and things go wrong? I've read so many stories of things going wrong - and I know from first hand experience how fragile pregnancy can be. My mother miscarried three times and she really wanted those babies. 

Without any understanding or consultation with a medical doctor it seems these 'law makers' went gungho into the destruction of women's lives. Women's lives are inferior to the lives of the fetuses that dwell in their bodies, because while they may nod to incest and rape and the health of the woman, even if it is deemed necessary to have an abortion there are few hospitals willing to do it for fear of legal problems.

Pregnancy can be seriously debilitating, despite the nonsense that women's bodies are designed to have children. women can get gestational diabetes, break bones during labor, often die because they are pregnant. But those who want to prevent women gaining access to abortion conveniently lie about this reality or ignore it preferring the Disney version of storks arriving with freshly minted babies... and no women has any swollen ankles and experienced hours and hours of excruciating pain.

Yet men couldn't wear masks at the height of COVID because of their rights to freedom? Clearly men have rights women do not and that is nothing but injustice.

Every movie which has any police procedural in it is using facial recognition software and while there are companies who offer this 'technology' for sale to law enforcement, this 'tech' is not science. 

If it was science those providing this service to law enforcement should publish the data they use to train the neural network (a kind of AI) with, they would publish the network architecture and they would publish the error bars in their results. My guess is they are too ashamed or embarrassed to admit the likely error bars. But more likely, they just do not know themselves what the error bars really are.

For a start, neural networks produce a number between 0.0 and 1.0, with a range of computer based on floating point numbers in between. My understanding is (because when I've asked I got no answer) that any number greater than or equal .5 is a hit anything less is a miss. 

Let me put this in perspective, if the network produces .500000 then it's a hit, .49999999 is a miss. And if you don't know how computers handle floating point numbers you'll love to find out it pretty much rounds, so .4999 is very likely to become a .5 which will become a hit. So if you were at work surrounded by 50 of your work mates and the facial recognition software came up with a .4999 for killing someone's grandpa, too bad, it's prison time for you.

Unfortunately that .4999 is not statistical, it is based on the error the neural network has in it's comparison with the (usually) random numbers it's weights were set to before training began, and the input values (images) it was trained on. I have heard people gushing about how well 'deep' neural networks differentiate between images. Perhaps, but I think they are giving more credit to the network rather than actually understanding what the difference is that the network is doing. 

I don't know how long the network is trained on each image, or even if there is a single output or even multiple networks. And this were science comes in, a company offering this tech must publish this information, because science needs to meet the reproducibility requirement. Company's cannot hide behind in-house IP secrets. Because the tech is in the public domain on how to do this in broad brush strokes.

Because that .4999 may refer to the fact that the network just does not know, it is insufficiently trained, or just another random number. 

The results of lie detector tests are not admissible because they can be fooled, the results of facial recognition is even less credible. But try telling the punitive right that this tech is a complete failure when there is so much yellow journalism about AI. 

Why is it ‘love’ and ’sex’ are the ways we use to get our basic human needs met? Perhaps love is really about our necessary connections with others? We need each other so much, we like to call it by its own mysterious word 'love'. What does 'love' mean anyway? We do know we need to be needed, we do know we need our lives to be meaningful. Pair bonding means we're socially prioritizing this one person over all other people? And society acknowledges that this is your right. And I have said many times that sex is a socially sanctioned method of getting affection. Unfortunately, sex has equated with the long term success of your marriage rather than affection. This has translated into a covert method for men to get sex pretty much on demand (if you want to stop your husband wandering...). We all need affection, but only parents and their very young children are allowed to be affectionate without a sexual context, and this, I think, is a serious problem for society.

And while we might need to satisfy our sexual urges, we don't need to only have sex with another human being, we can manage this by ourself. (Do you need help in the bathroom?)

Anyway this is where I started and then I saw this article from the Guardian. You might agree, women should go home, lock the door and stay safe inside her home alone until some guy decides he needs to break in and use her for sex (rape) and potentially murder her.

Or we could call it what it is: men can be extremely dangerous. Even to other men. Did you notice in there that men are more likely to be murdered by a man? And if a man is raped he is much more likely to be raped by a man. Men are more likely to beat each other up. Let's face it men and women both have a man problem. Yes let me repeat myself, there are scary women out there but their numbers are vastly fewer than the number of dangerous men. And if you want further proof check out how many women verses men are in prison for violent crimes.

And why must a woman need a man to chaperone her? Why can't women go out together? To me it's a case of men opening up opportunities for each other to gain access to that most desirable asset, a woman.

It's easy to decide we are a horrible species if you listen to our complaints about ourselves. Most of us dismiss the rest of the population as being a bunch of idiots or nasty, and while this is possibly true, it is also a matter of perspective.

So I asked google, the font of all wisdom, what men are. It suggested search terms of (among other silly things)  waffles and lonely. When I asked it what women are, it suggested, more curiously, are talking, werewolves, blind to male advances, from Venus, hypergamous (I'd not heard the word before) and finally I found this, women are wonderful effect. I've not heard of this effect before, but compared to men... yeh. Women don't start wars, women don't do most of the violence. I am not saying there aren't women out there who aren't awful people but I don't know how many centuries ago a woman started a war, as opposed to defending her country in a war. And yes some women might be violent in that she slaps a kid or a man but is he genuinely afraid for his life when she slaps him? How many women go on these shooting sprees without a man? Yes I know a very few have but men do most of the killing sprees.

I found the google suggestions curious. Women as seen from a male perspective and men as individuals. It became even more so when I searched on 'older women'.

Anyway I digress.

I guess our introspection is proof we are trying to be better, trying to understand ourselves. And we have improved. It wasn't many centuries ago the government would hold public executions (the last public execution in the US was 1936! not even a century ago) are the people brought picnics to watch people die, although this was the 1600s. Also there were 'witch' killings. Pinker's book 'the better angels of our nature' puts forth this idea, but in my opinion society has gotten better because women have gotten more power. Even children have gotten more power. And society will be at it's best when everyone and their time is treated as equally important.

Men have a habit of basically saying, men aren't bad but humans are not good, which is away of putting the blame on everyone in our society rather than taking any blame for their own behavior. And men like to narrow themselves down to a uniform block. Uniform blocks exclude so much of who we are. But humanity is anything but a uniform block. We are extremely diverse. We are not all bad and we are not all good either, and no one is exclusively either. There are probably many more good men than there are bad, and similarly we shouldn't Disney-fy all children as being pure innocents. There is no doubt there are probably many very awful women too. But I think we need to see the spectrum of who we are rather than seeing a pigeon hole, or a generalization, because that is a lazy thinkers primary method of dismissing the differences - and to some extent I think we need to call ourselves humans rather than 'men' because we are a multitude (not just humans but our environment) and we have a multitude of responses.

At the same time some people like to magnify differences so we can dismiss whole portions of society as not being worthwhile. This is also lazy thinking.

We have distanced ourselves from our violent past, but we should never forget it. We need to marvel at how far we've come as a species. We do amazing things to help each other and other species all the time.

I always hate seeing someone else's misfortune, the car accident where all the spectators need to slow down and ogle, the royal family, and then the selfies with the dead or injured...

But it is a technique constantly used by GOP representatives to whip supporters up into a frenzy. I recently watched 'this place rules' and the talking heads whipped their listeners into such a frenzy that Jan 6 happened, yet the talking heads were no where to be found while their listeners were caught because they were mugging in their cameras in their selfies. And I guess that's why newspapers push such superbly stupid narratives, why so many stupid articles contained Trump in the title and use his face as a thumbnail to the point I refused to click on any articles with his face.

The republican bread and circuses show except there is no way republicans would provide a free meal to their supporters.

Why is it no one cares if republicans don't do the job they were elected to perform? They were elected to represent all of us, yet all they do is try to undermine us and our country by providing an embarrassing spectacle for the rest of the world. But, in general, republican representatives don't seem smart enough to understand what they are meant to be doing.

One day on twitter some republicans supporters were attacking me in their usual frenzied stupid way, and their only point was to upset me, I guess they were hoping for tears, I actually have no idea what they wanted or what the topic was because I turned around and said "Is that all you want? really? Because I want is a better world for all of us'. They left me alone after that.

I have no idea what republicans want beyond 'owning' liberals. I guess it's easy to control a group by telling them to hate other groups whether they are 'liberals' or 'immigrants' or especially 'illegal immigrants'. Then there are 'causes' like being anti LBTG or being an anti-abort or pro-guns or ...

It's really all the talking heads want is to 'own' the left. Like upsetting us is their huge victory. Not so that their kids will be happier or better educated or healthier than them or that infrastructure for our country will improve or their daughters will never be worried about being raped or beaten... or that their sons will be good human beings. That their kids could have a future without fear of climate change or gun violence and their kids could happily determine their own lives rather than live to someone else's pigeonhole for them. That they too could enjoy those freedoms and the security that comes with them. That they have access to quality healthcare. True freedom comes with education and acceptance of our differences.

But that is not what the right want. They want people who are easy to muster. Carefully controlled masses who'll go storm the capital. They don't want people thinking freely, knowing what words like socialism actually means rather than a term to scare a mass of people like it's a bogeyman.

There is something of E Roosevelt's quote: Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events and small minds discuss people.

I think a corollary might be: small minds discuss people, ogle other people's misfortune, are curious about stupid things, are easily herded and vote republican. Republicans are generally anti-education because education gives us the ultimate freedom.

The worst thing that happened this year was the fall of Roe v Wade. Disempowering women or making women of inferior importance to the contents of their uterus is really just another way of controlling the ballot box for republicans.

Making it even more difficult for women to vote is a win for republicans because it generally means less votes for democrats.

Guise is of course, won't someone think of the f*king fetus, when fetuses can't even vote.

I remember being on twitter, before some bernie bro got me unfairly kicked off, I was spruiking against some BS "prolife" battalion of clones and I said I'd probably never have an abortion to someone. But the moron battalion thought that meant I was prolife but no it makes me prochoice because it is my choice not to abort.  I cannot and refuse to make that choice for anyone else because I do not know their circumstances. It should always be up to the woman to decide because only she knows what is right for her.

Meanwhile my news feed is full of stories of women who want to be pregnant with viable fetuses but because laws were made without consultation with real doctors many women are dying because the fetus has died or might even kill her, yet even dead fetuses are more important than a woman's life or the safety of her future pregnanies.

I am not feeling very festive but we all know the sound of cash registers playing jingle bells. Anyway Trump is again gracing news outlets to the joy of newspaper owners. Fortunately things are looking worse and worse for him. Then I saw a photo of mount Rushmore, remember when he wanted his face among those presidents, yet do people remember him selfishly trying to cling to power when so many Americans were dying of COVID19?

I recently watched 'the anarchists' on HBO and it was very funny. Sad but funny. It was the kind of delusion that led people to go nuts for Trump. Why are people so easily led on by conspiracy? In my opinion it's because reality is by consensus. I know people (men) have scoffed when I've said that in the past because they like to believe there is some objective reality, but there is not - well mostly not. Most of what we know and think is contextual. Who I am and how I spell words, which words I chose is based on my context. It's based on years and years of 'this is how things are done'.

And how things are done depends on your social context. It's mostly the story of you. It fills your head with stuff like this is my home and these are the people I belong with. It is also why any kind of memory loss is so daunting for you and those close to you. I digress.

Anyway, the Anarchists don't see how they were cocooned by the influence of their US$$ and their government and how they had no way of protecting themselves from themselves or from others who may have problems with sharing reality. You don't have to be a veteran to have problems with reality, as the guy in 'the anarchists' did, which no doubt the 'anarchists' would blame government for veterans and the wars republicans inflict on us. Curiously once the US military destroyed the Iraqi government, spontaneous stability didn't develop instantaneously. I have asked 'anarchists' why this didn't happen but there was never an answer.

The cause that unites them is taxes. They are greedy and don't want to pay taxes. In my opinion I get way more from government than I get from corporations. For example, a stable economy, even corporations like a stable economy. Keeping a stable economy is difficult because republicans keep trashing the economy whenever they hold the presidency. Lowering taxation for those who can afford it does nothing for the economy but hurt the economy for everyone including the rich. And W trashed the economy hard. Needless to say Trump only wanted the presidency to help himself, whether it was to our money or keeping himself out of prison.

The government also stimulates the economy by offering incentives for various projects. Like the fixes to the road along the Big Sur, streamlining healthcare, paying for research like helping with the cost of developing technology...

The government also keep diplomatic relationships open with other countries to promote trade and for the benefit of the individuals whether it is tourism, business travel or other... 

I loved how the anarchists were all congratulating themselves on how intelligent they all are.

I used to assume if i could understand or do something then anybody could understand or do it also. I never thought I was particularly smart or had superior understanding and I still don't. But then one day quite recently that I was making all kinds of assumptions about others that were unjustified.

I don't know what you do or don't understand, what you chose to understand or what you decided to ignore, because I don't know anything about your education, your childhood or anything about your background. You may have decided to be not be particularly smart about math, for example, or your parents weren't particularly smart and told you it was okay to hate math... but I do think that how smart you is based on a series of decisions you've made over the years about what you were good at. But stuff happens. Perhaps you suffered some degree of brain damage so to some extent it is out of your hands how intelligent you can be.

There are all kinds of ways you can do to improve your intelligence.

1. Always check your assumptions. It can take awhile to even figure out what your assumptions are. Keep hunting, there is so much gold in finding out what your assumptions are. But beware the journey into wonderland like: what is real, who am I... this is the stuff of philosophers..., so be warned!

2. Question your sources. They may be saying something you've heard before, but it doesn't make it true. Why are they saying it, do they benefit from me believing, repeating what they said/say? If someone is saying something different, is it necessarily wrong?

More can be found in Sagan's baloney detection (critical thinking) kit, something we need commonly and now more than ever.

I remember thinking government is the problem, I'd heard it said, and I believed it. I have no idea why I even thought it, but I decided my belief was based on no real research or science and there are a great many people who benefit from dis-empowering government. For example I get much more from govt than I get from business. For example a stable economy, government is currently trying to control corporate greed by slowing inflation.

People will always try to put you in a box. Once they figure out which box you belong in, you are easily dismissed as irrelevant. The only way you can avoid being put into a box is by not using your most powerful weapon, your brain.

Why are women so mean to each other? I know I don't get it. Perhaps they know they can get away with it, after all women have been trained in the social pecking order. And women have been trained to roll over for it, whereas a man might hit you and he knows he'll probably get away with it because women have been trained to roll over after being hit, or whatever.

And sometimes those women we depend on most are the meanest, friends, mothers, sisters, female bosses, office mates... Perhaps that's about bonding, because mothers who are meanest have their offspring bond with them the most strongly, and perhaps that works beyond mother/offspring as what is commonly referred to as the stockholm syndrome?

I remember seeing women say 'I knew Amber Heard was lying', when I asked how they knew there would be silence, no answer... perhaps they answered but their response was buried under a pile of facebook spam. 

The biggest problem with all this blatant misogyny is that some men are using it as an excuse to abuse more women with their toxic masculinity. And now Dior are reusing the fat Johnny Depp ads for their toilet water 'Sauvage' which I can only assume smells like asshole.

Seriously, be nice to women. Giving birth has to be one of the most dangerous things humans do, yet women do it for each and everyone of us.