AN ETHICAL DILEMMA: In Israel, Modern Medicine Grapples With Ghosts of the Third Reich

A Palestinian surgeon, a Jewish patient, a Nazi medical text — and an unlikely bond.

FOR THE FULL STORY:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/world/middleeast/nazi-medical-text-israel.html

I AM MORE INTERESTED in addressing the moral dilemma a case like this presents.

SO - given that the best way to save a 13 year old Jewish boy's life, was to use a guide through the intricate nerve pathways produced by the Nazis, who did so by dissecting bodies of prisoners  "many experts believe that most of the prisoners were Austrians condemned in the courts."

SO - is it ethical to use medical practices perfected by unethical means to save a life?

Would YOUR feelings be different if looking in from the outside  or if the child was YOUR child?

Please weigh in.

The Covid-19 Vaccine Disinformation War is Heating Up

The New York Times reports that social media is being flooded with lies and misinformation about non-existent Covid-19 vaccines. The situation is characterized by a combination of crackpot conspiracy theories, flat out lies, pseudoscience and some things that are of legitimate political and social concern. The mixing of some truth with a toxic message indicates that the anti-vaxx community has become much more sophisticated and organized in its use of dark free speech to. Propaganda that contains at least some truth tends to be more persuasive because the truth tends to deflect from lies, deceptions and motivated reasoning by making them appear more plausible. The goal is, among other things, to deceive, confuse, misinform and foment unwarranted distrust and fear among Americans.

A crackpot video

On May 4, a 26-minute video taken from a longer video entitled “Plandemic” was posted on YouTube. In it, a discredited scientist, Dr. Judy Mikovits, 62, claimed that global elites including Bill Gates and Dr. Anthony Fauci are using the coronavirus pandemic to shield a plot to expand their wealth and political power. As is usual for crackpot conspiracy theories, the theory is not accompanied by any evidence of a conspiracy. What Mikovits alleged was that existing vaccines have damaged people's immune systems, making them susceptible to diseases including Covid-19.

In 2011, Mikovits was fired from the Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease in Reno, NV, after her research into chronic fatigue syndrome was discredited.
The anti-vaxx community seized immediately on the crackpot science video and elevated Mikovits to what the NYT calls “a new star of virus disinformation.” The NYT writes:

“Her ascent was powered not only by the YouTube video but also by a book that she published in April, “Plague of Corruption,” which frames Dr. Mikovits as a truth-teller fighting deception in science. In recent weeks, she has become a darling of far-right publications like The Epoch Times and The Gateway Pundit. Mentions of her on social media and television have spiked to as high as 14,000 a day, according to the media insights company Zignal Labs.  

The rise of Dr. Mikovits is the latest twist in the virus disinformation wars, which have swelled throughout the pandemic. Conspiracy theorists have used the uncertainty and fear around the disease to mint many villains. Those include Dr. Fauci after he appeared to slight President Trump and Mr. Gates, a co-founder of Microsoft, as someone who started the disease. They have also pushed the baseless idea that 5G wireless waves can help cause the disease.”

The crackpots get organized and become sophisticated

In an analysis article for the NYT entitled, Get Ready for a Vaccine Information War, Kevin Roose discusses the growing sophistication of the anti-vaxx movement. Roose has been following the anti-vaxx movement for years. His concern is that, due to anti-vaxx conspiracy lies and pseudoscience, a significant number of Americans will refuse to take an effective Covid-19 vaccine if one can be successfully developed. Roose writes:

“I’ve been following the anti-vaccine community on and off for years, watching its members operate in private Facebook groups and Instagram accounts, and have found that they are much more organized and strategic than many of their critics believe. They are savvy media manipulators, effective communicators and experienced at exploiting the weaknesses of social media platforms. (Just one example: Shortly after Facebook and YouTube began taking down copies of “Plandemic” for violating their rules, I saw people in anti-vaccine groups editing it in subtle ways to evade the platforms’ automated enforcement software and reposting it.) 

First, because of the pandemic’s urgency, any promising Covid-19 vaccine is likely to be fast-tracked through the testing and approval process. It may not go through years of clinical trials and careful studies of possible long-term side effects, the way other drugs do. That could create an opening for anti-vaccine activists to claim that it is untested and dangerous, and to spin reasonable concerns about the vaccine into widespread, unfounded fears about its safety.”

Roose goes on to point out that if a vaccine is developed, it is possible that the Gates Foundation or the World Health Organization could have played a role. That would play into the conspiracy theories about what Gates or the WHO is really doing and why. Also, if a vaccine is developed, people may be required to take it, e.g., before flying on an airplane or going to a public school. That too would play into conspiracies the anti-vaxx community has voiced about mandatory vaccinations.

Finally, Roose checked with academics who study the anti-vaxx movement to see if there is empirical data to support his concerns about a rise in anti-vaxx propaganda. There is. A paper in Nature that published yesterday, The online competition between pro- and anti-vaccination views, reported that anti-vaxx propaganda and fake conspiracies “will dominate in a decade.”[1] The paper did not report how many people might turn against a Covid-19 vaccine if one is developed. The modeling data projects that although the number of people who are undecided about vaccines is huge, anti-vaxx messaging is predicted by one model to be dominant by about 2033. Time will tell if that modeling turns out to be correct or not.

The Vaxx, Anti-Vaxx and Undecided Online Ecosystem

A dark big picture

Arguably, a broader disturbing message can be taken from this situation. The new normal in American politics is a coalescence of the armies of dark free speech. They are unifying in their tactics and goals as they fight for what appears to be a generally anti-democratic, authoritarian, society and central government. Given the similarity in their tactics and generally anti-government tone, it appears that the anti-vaxx community can cooperate with most other conservative populist movement and groups or even formally unite with them. The similarities of the main conservative political movements, e.g., gun rights, abortion, free speech, anti-government, etc., appear to share a mindset that strongly rejects expertise, inconvenient facts and truths and rationality. This mindset, the 'irrationalist mind', has a strong affinity for fake truth, fake conspiracy theories and an intolerance of enemies (real or perceived) or disfavored groups. The out-people and groups are perceived, judged and attacked in intolerant moralistic, often bigoted terms.

If that analysis is basically correct, America's political and social situations are getting uglier, more reality- and science-detached and more intolerant. America is definitely going in the wrong direction.


Footnote:
1. The paper’s abstract: “Distrust in scientific expertise1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 is dangerous. Opposition to vaccination with a future vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, the causal agent of COVID-19, for example, could amplify outbreaks2,3,4, as happened for measles in 20195,6. Homemade remedies7,8 and falsehoods are being shared widely on the Internet, as well as dismissals of expert advice9,10,11. There is a lack of understanding about how this distrust evolves at the system level13,14. Here we provide a map of the contention surrounding vaccines that has emerged from the global pool of around three billion Facebook users. Its core reveals a multi-sided landscape of unprecedented intricacy that involves nearly 100 million individuals partitioned into highly dynamic, interconnected clusters across cities, countries, continents and languages. Although smaller in overall size, anti-vaccination clusters manage to become highly entangled with undecided clusters in the main online network, whereas pro-vaccination clusters are more peripheral. Our theoretical framework reproduces the recent explosive growth in anti-vaccination views, and predicts that these views will dominate in a decade. Insights provided by this framework can inform new policies and approaches to interrupt this shift to negative views. Our results challenge the conventional thinking about undecided individuals in issues of contention surrounding health, shed light on other issues of contention such as climate change11, and highlight the key role of network cluster dynamics in multi-species ecologies15.”

The researchers analogize the situation with warfare: “Support and potential recruitment of these green clusters (crowds) [undecided people] is akin to a battle for the ‘hearts and minds’ of individuals in insurgent warfare.”

UTILITY AND ALL THAT! Part 3

Arming You to Fight Mainstream Economic Theory by Reconstructing It Into What It’s Properly About--by Larry Motuz

Preface

This Part 3 is an unplanned-for detour prompted by many an intelligent comment which showed me such a detour was necessary.

What I will be outlining here can be summed up as: In production, the ‘utility’ of adding inputs to a fixed factor of production --like more feed to a cow-- is the increase of production -- gallons of milk-- arising from adding more units of the feed input to a fixed factor --er, the cow.

Diminishing returns will be observed as more units of the variable input {feed} are added to the fixed factor {a cow}. What’s generally see across all production, when more and more of any one variable input is used with a fixed factor of production, is an experience known as ‘diminishing returns’. Total production initially increases at diminishing rates of increase up to a production level that is a maximum. It then falls at increasing rates if more units of the variable input are then utilized.

There are, in other words, limits beyond which adding more of a variable input is not only not better but actually worsens production.

All this means is that, up to some point, additional installments of a variable factor to any fixed factor, are initially useful to raise production levels to a peak reached at some level of variable input utilization. This means that 'more is not always better’. There are productively optimal total additions of units of variable input to a fixed factor of production. Such productively optimal utilization of a variable input with fixed factors of production is not necessarily also economically optimal. {What's economically optimal depends upon the variable input costs and the expected revenues from the added output.)

In a nutshell, the same 'law' of diminishing returns was historically applied to consumption --the idea being that when more goods were added to a factor of consumption {the 'consumer': an implied person}, then the total production of subjective pleasure or satisfaction (measured somehow), just had to show the same kinds of diminishing returns up to subjective pleasure/satisfaction maximums.[See Note 1 below.]

Utility In Production

When the ‘utility’ of added inputs into production is defined as their contribution to total production, a benefit that is objectively measured, we can say that there appears to be a ‘law’ of diminishing incremental or marginal utility with respect to variable inputs applied to a fixed ‘production unit’.

Aside: A very serious set of issues arises when this law of diminishing returns --Viz., the diminishing returns of inputs in production when all other inputs, fixed or variable, are left unchanged -- is applied to ‘consumers’ who, in effect, ‘experience’ :: that is, internally produce :: levels of subjective pleasure or subjective satisfaction within themselves when buying goods. To be clear, when a good 'brings' subjective pleasure or satisfaction, it is necessarily the consumer who is producing that level of subjective pleasure or satisfaction within himself or herself. However, let's simply note here that this 'manufactured output' so to speak can neither be bought nor sold itself, so it is unlike objective production where both inputs and outputs have prices. Implicit notions that a 'consumer' is akin to manufacturers of objective goods and services sold in markets cannot apply. And, if we abandon that implicit notion, we must also abandon all of modern economic theory concerning the 'consumer' and 'consumer' welfare in aggregate.

The Shape of Objective Utility in Production

Utility in production is a value-in-use measure (a.k.a. a benefit-from-use measure). That's because utility in production is a recorded 'beneficial' change in output taking place when utilizing more units of a variable input when other production factors, fixed or variable, are unchanged. This is an 'other things being equal' condition also known as a ceteris paribus condition.

If we add units of fertilizer to an acre of farmland, these add more to the crop's size until a point where adding still more fertilizer begins to reduce the amount grown. Likewise, if you add more grave diggers with shovels to dig at a grave site, adding more diggers first helps. At some point, 'more' just get in each others' way. This adds to the time and monies spent digging this one grave if it gets dug at all.

So, and generally, adding more of an input to a fixed task or a fixed factor of production --like an acre of land or a machine-- leads to increases in total production only up to a point. After that, adding more decreases total production.

Let's get back to a cow and its feed for instance.

Kenneth Boulding in his book Economic Analysis, 3rd Edition,1955, illustrated how a cow's milk production (measured in gallons of milk) altered when a particular feed concentrate supplemented that cow’s diet.

That illustration (below) shows that adding units of concentrated feed initially led to increasing milk production and then to falling milk production.

Feed Concentrate (lbs)......0......4........8.......12.......16......20......24
Milk Production (gals.).....1......2.0.....2.8.....3.5.....3.9.....4.0.....3.9
Production rise (gals.)..... .0......1.0.....0.8.....0.7.....0.4.....0.1.....-0.1

Clearly, the cow’s total milk production rises in ever smaller amounts for every one 4 lb. unit of concentrated feed given to it.

Plotted on a graph, the total milk production per additional 4lb. unit of feed concentrate resembles a concave-downwards facing curve which rises from the origin (after adjusting for the +1 production before adding units of this input) to a maximum output of three gallons (4-1) when five units are utilized; and, falling to zero with more inputs (with 10 4lb. units utilized. [See Note 2 below.]

Obviously, this farmer would never give this cow more than five 4 lb Units of feed concentrate since the cow's total milk production declines when more is used. An economist would not only agree with the farmer but, also like that farmer, would also ask if the successive increases in revenues from sales of the increases in output equaled the additional costs of the feed concentrate feed. I.e., the farmer asks, "Is it worth my while?", which economists translate into, "Are the added revenues at the margin at least equal to the added costs of inputs at the margin? Both, in different ways, would say that the amounts to be used are ‘economically optimal’ only when the added costs of feed concentrate inputs are just equal to the added revenues obtained from the sale of the added output. (I need not get into how economists calculate this here but I will note that the 'marginal revenue product' curve for productive inputs is also the ‘demand’ curve business have for those variable inputs.)


All told, the rising sections of production curves show diminishing returns per added unit of the variable input, whereas falling sections show increasingly large reductions in total output per added unit. In practice this means that economists (and often engineers) tend to look at the former, rising sections when conducting analysis into the costs and benefits associated with variable inputs. [Only economists formally then derive 'demand curves' as such, however.]

Finally, objective utility for any producer is always measured as an increase in total output associated with increasing a variable input to a fixed factor of production while also holding other variable inputs fixed. This is its value-in-use, a.k.a. the benefit-from-use of variable inputs in this fashion.

I note here that marginal revenue product curve mentioned earlier measures the money value of the marginal gains in output when sold at market prices producers can sell for.

Subjective Utility in Consumption

These above matters become important when looking at how the ‘law of diminishing marginal utility’ has been shifted from being about producers’ demand for variable inputs into their production (always measurable units of output) to being about ‘consumers’ and their ‘demands’ for variable inputs :: goods :: which, upon their purchase, lead to their experiencing/(producing within themselves) increasing yet always immeasurable subjective levels of pleasure/satisfaction -- much like a cow producing invisible milk only it knows about and able to enjoy.


All people, including economists, agree that there is no objectively measurable unit of pleasure or satisfaction as an ‘output’ that ‘consumers’ produce within themselves when they buy goods. In effect, however, economic theory treats the consumer as a fixed factor of production, each of which then uses various goods as variable inputs to produce/generate subjective pleasures/satisfactions for itself by buying those 'goods'.{See Note 3 below.]

The ‘consumer’ uses variable inputs {‘goods’} by purchasing them. The 'consumer', in effect, is analogous to a farmer's cow to which feed is added or a machine to which variable inputs are added. All in all, the consumer is a fixed factor for the production of subjective pleasure/satisfaction.

Since this 'output', being subjective, can't be seen by anyone, it is simply presumed that 'diminishing returns' set in for such subjective pleasure/satisfaction production as can be observed for goods-production. Ignored in this transformation of consumers into fixed factors of production is the reality that there is no market for their subjective 'outputs'. Measurable benefits from the usages consumers have for the goods they purchase have vanished completely by assumption. And, of more than casual interest, somehow, values-in-use have become transmogrified into values-in-exchange despite the utter absence of any markets for the 'output' of the consumer.

Which means that whereas producers of commodities have a demand for variable inputs which is derived from their ability to generate sales for their outputs, for, for such producers, their marginal revenue from sales product curve, a.k.a, the marginal revenue product curves, are their demand curves for variable inputs, whereas consumers have no equivalent marginal revenues from sales for their 'outputs'.

All in all, this means that the demand for variable goods which consumers have must be very different from the demand producers have for variable inputs. If, indeed, a consumer cannot sell any of his or her 'subjective output', then this effectively means that some other way of constructing a consumer's demand curve for 'input' :: goods :: had to be constructed.

It was! It was an entirely fictional way of constructing consumer demand curves for goods, a way unlike any which might be applied to any producers of marketable goods. This was a construction that depended upon constructing seemingly plausible narratives which magically hid the problems work, much like the patterned distractions of magicians when performing tricks before their audiences. Such 'tricks' astound only as long as the subterfuge underlying them remain unrevealed.

Revealing the subterfuge is what the next installment, "Demand and All That!', will do.

This detour is over. I hope those commenters who prompted it now understand that I have not thrown out the 'law of diminishing marginal utility' except as it has been misapplied to consumers purchasing goods. The value-in-usages which goods have has been cavalierly set aside as if these are incapable of measurement or simply do not matter. They cannot be subsumed under headings like subjective pleasure/satisfaction when realizing these depends not merely upon preferences but also upon the measurable quantities of the various benefits being sought by consumers. And, though there are definite meanings to demand and to aggregate demand, those are not the meanings found in economic textbooks. An entirely new construction is required. It is one Keynes hinted at in his General Theory. It is one actually used practically, if only with a subliminal awareness, by many a practicing economist, especially 'unorthodox' ones who are always adjusting their 'blackboard economics'.

And it is one I intend to unfold.

NOTES:
Note 1. Today 'more is always better' in current consumer theory. There are no levels wherein consumers become, say, satiated, simply not wanting any more of a good. No limits as it were. No enough! No harm associated with passing any limits. Which means that somehow the current theory left its initial constructions of 'Utility' behind. Leaving that last issue for another day, I'll talk here only about the early construction of utility as subjective pleasure or satisfaction.)Note 1: Limits vanished because, uniquely in monetary economies, all goods are perfect price-substitutes for each other monetarily (if we can ignore possible transactions costs associated with finding buyers and delivering goods to them). The price architecture goods have in relation to each other and captured by their relative currency prices is a creation of monetary economies. This fact has not been fully appreciated by either orthodox or unorthodox economists. The misunderstandings this has caused so entered the modern analysis of consumer ‘choice’ behavior as to render it not merely useless, but also harmful to any proper understanding of consumer behavior, choice and welfare .]

Note 2. The formal shape which the plot traces is that of a curve which faces downwards: namely, a concave-downwards facing parabola. Mathematical functions having the form y = f(x> = ax*x + bx +c are either concave upwards or concave downwards. Concave-downwards facing curves which rise from the origin to a peak to then fall back to Zero at some greater value for x have the mathematical form y = f(x) = bx-ax*x (for ‘c”, a constant in all such cases, is zero). Since y = U = f(x> = bx-ax*x that, without any bells and whistles, is the general form of total production 'curves' when only one variable input is changing.]

Note 3. It is vital to all consumer theory in economics that, at the moment of purchase, the consumer perfectly foresees all of the future pleasures the 'good' will provide to him or her, bringing this foresight into the moment his or her decision is made about buying the 'good' or 'goods' up for purchase. It is vital because, without that assumption being made, the demand curve of the consumer relative to the prices that the consumer faces for 'inputs' cannot be derived. Therefore, if for any reason the consumer cannot see all of the future pleasures to be experienced with/produced by the 'good or goods, and if the total production of subjective pleasure or satisfaction does not exhibit diminishing returns, all consumer theory cannot provide any guidance to the levels of welfare consumers are said to have within the Theory of the Consumer. In short, if either is false, so is all of consumer theory.

Links to previous articles in this series:
1. Economics And All That! https://dispol.blogspot.com/2020/04/economics-and-all-that.html
2. Utility And All That! Part 1. https://dispol.blogspot.com/2020/04/utility-and-all-that-part-1.html
3. Utility And All That! Part 2. https://dispol.blogspot.com/2020/05/utility-and-all-that-part-2.html

Explained: When an unstoppable force meets an immovable object

While there may be no definitive answer to unstoppable force vs immovable object, a clearer understanding can be obtained by the concept of the ‘frame of reference.’



By Arkabrata Bala
https://qrius.com/explained-when-an-unstoppable-force-meets-an-immovable-object/

Philosophy remains at the forefoot on the idea of thinking or on the approach of most mathematicians and scientists and whenever you evolve your mind to suppose on the far side of the realm, you feel yourself to be beset by nothingness and darkness amidst the galaxy. In school, you would have stumbled upon a matter on which you would have wanted to do all forms of mental juggling.

A paradox, greatly acclaimed as the unstoppable force, is much like an “omnipotence paradox” that dares to challenge the omnipotence as “What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object ?” However, simply before you get on board, brood over this for a short while till it seems to be too deviant for you.

Breaking it into two

As the question engulfs us, sinking deeper and deeper into it in all probability, making us realise that what’s been asked is truly larger than the universe but it’s not quite so creative. While not saturating our brains further with all kinds of redefinitions settled by philosophers, let’s alter the two entities in hand: The unstoppable force and an immovable object.

An unstoppable force, from the perspective of a layman, sounds to be an imperious force, probably more forceful and fearful than an earthquake that sweeps away any object, irrespective of the size or mass that comes in its path. The energy of the force should not depreciate a trifle throughout the course of its transmission from one object to another.

Hence, by terminology, an unstoppable force, in order to become unstoppable, ought to possess infinite energy. On the other hand, an immovable object is non-submissive to any force of any magnitude, from being palpable to an asteroid attack, that is, it won’t shift from its place at all. This seems coherent only when it bears infinite mass or infinite inertia.

Historical appearances

History has never been kind to any of the futile attempts made in answering the question by investors but time and again, it remains a witness to, however, not one but many of its exuberant forms ever since the birth of humanity. One such instance remains embedded in an exceeding story of a philosophical book from the 3rd century BC, titled “Han Feizi.”

The story describes a merchant of spears and shields who tries his best to reap the simplest of his day. On being asked about his spear, he gives a handy reply that it could pierce any shield whilst his shield could defend any form of spears it encounters. The vendor becomes incontestable whilst being confronted with the aftermath of the attack of his spear on his shield. This paradox left its invisible and still inconspicuous footprint in mythology as well.

In the story of Teumassian Fox, who could never be caught and the hound Laelaps, who never missed what it hunted for, the crux goes back to stand one. Even in trendy Hollywood movies, this contradiction, that hasn’t lost its disarming charm a bit, has shown plenty of craze. From DC Comics’ “All-Star Superman” to the films “Imagine Me and You” and “Knight Rider, KITT”, each one became magnetised to that particular dialogue. In 2008, The Dark Knight the Joker enthralled the audience in their final scene with Batman.

A change in perspective

The contradiction can often be brought in analogy with many different conflicts of interest which are undesirable and so mind-boggling at the same time. Many answers were able to throw some light on this issue. However, none appeared so benignant. Dr Christopher Kaczor claimed that there is no contradiction in and on itself, however, just a false perplexity; false within the sense that it arises by choice once a misconception is employed to govern a specific outcome.

By his thoughts, a ubiquitous person would never need to modify his mind. If he wills, it might portray lack of power and deprivation of his worldly possessions. Dynamical fortune would be inconsistent and not called for with omniscience, instead of contradicting it. Currently, if we tend to keep the two concepts aspect by aspect, a force with infinite inertia would be as per the definition of an immovable object whose momentum or motion cannot be modified anyhow and would bring pause to any object moving thereto, thus making it an unstoppable force.

If we glance at it from a different perspective, we would cause an equivalent conclusion once more. For the force to be unstoppable, it might need all forms of energy from the planet. That may drain away all the sources of radiation and the mass of earth in its condensed form. Hence, nothing would remain so as to construct or revive an immovable object and now if we tend to take care of the immovable object first, it might need the complete mass of our planet and every scrap of radiation regenerated into mass. There would be no supply of energy left. Either of the two can sustain at a time. Both are interchangeable and thereby, meet at the same point.

After a while, a well-known Youtube channel, “minutephysics”, came up with an appreciable solution to this ever-popular paradox. The basis of this solution is the idea of the frame of reference. For instance, you are lying on your bed asleep. Somebody at your home would see you not moving the least bit. However, if we think out of the box and suppose that the same person is travelling in a rocket that is passing by the planet Earth, it would consider you to be moving. That is the concept of the frame of reference.

The ‘frame of reference’

Now, an immovable object can be made movable by producing an external force or acceleration on it. Newton’s 2nd Law states that Acceleration is equal to Force divided by Mass (A=F/M). So, an unaccelerated object is such an object which has infinite mass. Mathematically, this can be proven very simply, as A=F/M, where F is a finite quantity but M isn’t. This leads A to become zero. So, not being able to accelerate an object doesn’t essentially mean that it’s not moving but having said this, it can’t change its speed directly. This ends the talk about the immovable object.

Now, all kinds of unbeatable forces in nature are caused by particles like photons, gluons, gravitons and many others that interact with an object and change its momentum. The only way to not be affected by a force is to not interact with it at all. For example, light is an unstoppable force that every photon emanating from itself hits your body and changes your momentum while you can do nothing about it except if you are transparent or avoid the light altogether. So, all forces are already unstoppable.

An unstoppable force is not assigned to mean any force like electromagnetism or gravity, but something one cannot avoid himself from, that is, an object whose velocity cannot be changed by pushing on it, which means it cannot accelerate. Doesn’t this sound familiar? Recalling what we have learnt earlier, an unstoppable force must be identical to an unaccelerated object, this boils right down to the obvious conclusion that the unstoppable force and the immovable object are the same, however, viewed from different reference frames.

Since infinite mass requires infinite energy, anything existing alike is on the far side of our recognition but what if we ignore gravity and imagine if there were an unaccelerated object? Well, the first requirement would be an infinite source of free power which would allow us to contently break the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. So, if two such vastly large unaccelerated, immovable objects are nearing towards each other collided but since by definition, it’s out of the question for either of their velocities to alter, the sole risk is that they pass right through each other without any impact on each other at all.

Although this philosophical question is as old as humanity, philosophers are still ruminative over the imperial truth. The question has been so adroitly oriented that both the unstoppable force and the immovable object are analogous to each other, but nobody has put the mirror in between them. The paradox encapsulates the utility and the powerful intellectuality of humanity, which we hardly get to examine these days and regrettably, hold dear at such times.

What's left?

Matthew Dowd had an interesting tweet a few days ago:

 

 

I think Dowd is right.  There’s not a lot left for Trump to run on.

Can you think of anything?  Give us your thoughts.

Thanks for posting and recommending. 

Anti-Democratic GOP Authoritarian Tribalism Intensifies

The New York Times reports on a split within the GOP in congress over whether or how to provide financial aid to blue states. The pro-democracy side is not considering the politics of the states to be helped and the anti-democratic, authoritarian tribal side is criticizing blue states for irresponsibility behind their own poor financial condition in the face of Covid-19. Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) argued at a GOP meeting for the pro-democracy side by asserting that “blue states aren’t the only ones who are screwed.”

The intra-GOP split was sharpened by a letter from Democratic governors of five states, California, Colorado, Oregon, Nevada and Washington State. The letter asserted that that all 50 states would need $1 trillion in “direct and flexible relief” to deal with the financial fallout of Covid-19.

The NYT writes:

“Two days later, Senator Rick Scott of Florida made the opposite point, arriving at another party gathering with his own placard that showed how rosy his state’s financial picture was compared with those of three Democratic states: New York, Illinois and California. Why should Congress help struggling states and cities, he argued, when the bulk of the aid would go to Democratic strongholds that he said had a history of fiscal mismanagement? 

President Trump has not ruled out sending additional money to states. But he has gone after Democratic governors, accusing them of mismanaging their finances, and charged that the party’s members in Congress ‘want help — bailouts — and, you know, bailouts are very tough. And they happen to be Democrat states.’ 

‘The Republican states are in strong shape,’ he said last month. ‘I don’t know — is that luck or is that talent?’ 

On Monday, Mr. Trump again accused Democratic states of dragging their feet on reopening their economies. ‘There just seems to be no effort on certain blue states to get back into gear,’ he said. 

Mr. Trump has said that ‘we’re in no rush’ to produce another round of federal pandemic relief, and branded Democrats ‘stone-cold crazy.’”

Is that luck or is that talent?

The president raises a good question about the alleged good shape that republican states are in compared to democratic states. Looking at the big picture helps put the situation in context.

First and foremost, because the president botched the federal Covid-19 response and continues to fail to this day, one can argue that most of the responsibility for the financial impacts of Covid-19 on all states belongs mostly to an incompetent president. He had a chance to stop Covid-19 and he failed.

That is a combination of very bad luck and lack of talent that hits all states. By framing the issue as blue state fiscal irresponsibility, the president and Trump Party senators deflect from their own responsibility for the federal failure that caused the financial damage in the first place. That is tribal partisan, anti-democratic authoritarian propaganda.

Second, blue states dominate states that pay more in federal taxes than they get get back in federal spending. In the past, the amount of the imbalance for some states such as California was enormous. At present these ten states are net supporters of all other states in order of which state pays the most per state citizen: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Illinois, New Hampshire, Washington state, Nebraska and Colorado. Some former donor states are now net recipients. For example, starting in 2019, became a net recipient. In 2018, California paid $13.7 billion more in taxes than it received. Now California receives $12 more per resident than is sent to the federal government, about $480 million for 2019.

2014 data

In view of what GOP authoritarians want to do, blue states have every right to demand all of their excess federal money back, and to demand 100% equal federal spending among all states going forward. That would probably alter the reality of just how fiscally talented many red states really are. They aren't talented at all. They are welfare queens lucky to be subsidized by so many blue states. The authoritarian allegation that blues states are irresponsible is contradicted by the fact that some blue states have been major donors to red states for many years.

Third, the 2017 tax cut law that the GOP passed with no democratic votes intentionally targeted blue state taxpayers: “‘The Republican tax increase bill disproportionately hurts California taxpayers by capping SALT (state and local taxes) deductions. Today, the average California taxpayer takes a $22,000 deduction,’ de León pointed out. The GOP measure he said, would ‘cap it at $10,000, meaning Californians will be double-taxed.’” That is another bit of bad luck for blue states that are adversely impacted by the 2017 tax cut law, which mostly benefited wealthy people and corporations, including golf course owners.


Blue states look to be at least as fiscally responsible as red states, if not more so. Blue states have suffered from the bad luck associated with the fallout of the 2016 election, including an incompetent president that allowed Covid-19 to run free and wild. And, since the pandemic has not run its course yet and red states are leading the charge to reopen, they could face even worse impacts than they have so far.

All in all, the authoritarian GOP attack on bue states is built mostly on lies, deflections and blind tribal partisanship.