Some say Hitler killed six million Jews. He didn’t.
Some say Stalin and Mao killed even more people than did Hitler. They didn’t.
You German Jews and you Russians and you Chinese were killed by your friends and your neighbors and by strangers whose job it was to protect you.
That dreaded banging on the door announces the arrival of soldiers and police, some of whom are your neighbors, who only a few years earlier, had you and your husband and children as cherished friends and guests in their homes.
As the soldiers march in, with guns drawn, and giving commands, you say, “Karl, what are you doing? You are my friend for many years. Our children play together.”
Karl doesn’t listen as he herds you into a boxcar. He hates you, despises you, now.
Why?
How is it possible that in most nations of the world, people have more to fear from their own armies than from foreign invaders?
These armies all are populated by your fellow citizens, patriotic citizens, even loving friends, and now they are rounding you up.
To my knowledge, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao themselves never killed anyone. How were they able to elicit such savagery — torture, rape, murder — from otherwise decent people?
How did they convince millions of people to hate their own countrymen and women and children — to hate them so much they lined up innocent victims and shot them in the legs, so they could shove them into trenches and bury them alive?
What is the source of such human butchery?
You see it everywhere in dictatorships from North Korea to China to Venezuela to the Philippines to Myanmar. Everywhere.
America, too.
You see desperate families turned away at our border or inhumanely separated and caged.
These are good people, whose only desire is to make a better life for themselves and their children, just as you yourself would do — just as your own ancestors did when fleeing harsh conditions to make the perilous trip to America.
Why do you not speak out? Why do you hate them? More importantly, how can the soldiers and police, decent people whom we honor, participate in such horror.
What do they tell their families when they come home after a day of cruelty to innocents?
The facts tell you that immigrants are more law-abiding, more productive, less burdensome than the average American citizen. Yet you accept false stories about them.
When your leaders tell you immigrants are murderers and rapists, you readily believe. When your leaders claim these innocent people will take our jobs, our schools, and our money, you readily believe. Why?
When your leaders claim immigrants are terrorists, you readily believe. When your leaders falsely your country is full and has no room for more people, you readily believe. Why?
When your leaders offer contradictory, easily disproved lies about scapegoats, you readily believe. and not just believe, but allow yourself to become enraged at the victims. Why?
I suggest it all comes down to the most powerful and Darwinian of all human emotions: Fear,especially as expressed in “loss aversion.”
Wikipedia: In cognitive psychology and decision theory, loss aversion refers to people’s tendency to prefer avoiding losses to acquiring equivalent gains: it is better to not lose $5 than to find $5.
Imagine your neighbor was a salesman, but whose current job is as a concentration camp guard. He justifies his role by demonizing the victims.
He hates them because he fears them because they are demons, who he fears will take from him things he values.
He hates them, not as people, but as generalized, non-human threats.
He doesn’t want to hear the logic and facts that tell him otherwise. The threat must be eliminated, as quickly and harshly as possible.
It isn’t enough just to kill the snake. Fear says it must be chopped into pieces, burned, and the ashes buried.
This is what has happened in dozens of nations.
Fear is the most powerful motivator, so when the leader tells you, “I will protect you if you believe me,” you believe even his most absurd lies — and not just believe, but angrily and ardently defend.
The title of this article is, “Would your friends and neighbors turn you in?”
The answer is, Yes, absolutely, if someone were to convince them that because of your beliefs, your economic status, or your customs you represent a peril to their safety, their self-image, or their desires.
The soldiers of any tyranical nation’s army are the former friends and neighbors of the victims.
If you think the primary function of your nation’s army is to protect the citizens from foreign threats, you would be wrong.
The primary function of any nation’s army is to protect the power of the nation’s leaders.
Keep that in mind when it’s time for the President to leave office. He is the Commander-in- Chief of the armed forces, and the boss of the Attorney General of the Department of Justice, and the man who nominates Supreme Court Justices — all three branches of government plus the army.
When a President, who has defied all the norms of American government, and who spews lies and hatred daily, is told to leave office, and he doesn’t want to leave, what will happen?
The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.
Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.
Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:
“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
lacy: “concerns over what it could mean for people fleeing poverty and violence in Central America.” what about concerns for the American people?
Northfaced: It’s not that you want to work and have a future for your children. It’s that Americans want that same thing. And it’s an issue of numbers. 5 people can’t have the same job. Thus, we do not need any more people in this country at all. Our own birth rates cover what is needed.
Tim: “Bring us your tired masses” was before there was any public assistance. That term should no longer be valid. But some–millions a year–are taking advantage of that further loophole, to the tune of $77k or more per illegal landing here. Per year. Times millions. Just sat in line at the grocery store where the person in front of me paid for sushi and other non essential items with a combo of WIC card and Lone Star public assistance card. Then she got into her $40k jacked up F-150 truck. See the problem here????
Warren: Question. Why would we ever let in a million foreigners every year who most likely will never obtain legal status and probably don’t care one way or the other?
James: Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and other Central American countries have a population that is improperly educated if at all, unwilling to work, untrained and unskilled, who are depending on their respective Governments for food, medical care and even the most basic of goods and services. THE MORE WHO LEAVE THEIR COUNTRIES IS THE PLAN. THIS IS THE BUSINESS MODEL FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP. It is working.
SR: i find it appalling that any American would welcome mass illegal immigration into the US. for any reason. it’s not the responsibility of the US to help every impoverished nation when most of the problem resides within those nations.
no libs: The root cause of the migration? Easy. Thoughts of sanctuary cities and FREE everything. In other words, the democrat paradise.
gene: The root cause is the media all day everyday stating “Claim asylum and you stay with free housing healthcare and food“. If your homeland is that bad stay and fix it.
Larry C: We have plenty of what they claim to be fleeing here and they would be faced with the same … if they were to get … here so they may as well stay … where they at least know and speak the language (spanish) …!
DanI; there is a bad housing shortage here. rents are commonly over 4 figures. and lesser places are horrible. new homes start at 200k for a cheap townhouse, and single fam homes are a third of a mil. we can’t manage influx of lots of new broke uneducated people. we have plenty of that already. add to that the over the top debt this country has, and we are not able in any way to handle it. THAT should be in the news for them to see.
lisa: It will only be a victory for the U.S. when we quit having hundreds piling up at our border demanding to be let in. Until then, keep those tariffs handy.
Shawn: Just get em out and keep em out.. Plain and simple come in the legal way.
The comments go on and on, all in the same vein.
On the surface, you might think the objections to immigration involve the need for the U.S. government, and taxpayers, to pay for immigrants’ benefits.
Or immigrants taking jobs away from Americans. Or immigrants supposedly not contributing to the economy, but only taking from the economy.
But those are mere excuses for a deeper concern: Gap Psychology.
Regular readers know that Gap Psychology describes the desire to distance oneself from those below in any income/wealth/power measure, and to come closer to those above.
It is Gap Psychology that gives us the seemingly ridiculous situation in which many of us resent the relatively few dollars received from the federal government by a poor person, yet have no concern about the astounding $150 billion that has been blessed upon Jeff Bezos, the head of Amazon.
Some might defend the Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffetts of the world as deserving their wealth because they created it. But did they?
Did Bezos create the Amazon wealth, or did the 600 thousand Amazon employees have a hand in it? And what about the lenders who carried Amazon’s famous debt for all those unprofitable years? And then there are America’s generous (to the rich) tax laws.
Is Bezos more important to the future of America than are the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living here? If we spread Bezos’s $150 billion around to the 11 million undocumented immigrants, each would have almost $14,000.
Is Bezos really more important to the future of America than those 11 million people? Thousands of those people will become entrepreneurs, scientists, teachers, architects, doctors, judges, artists, in total contributing more to America than any Jeff Bezos.
Yet, because of Gap Psychology, the aforementioned “lisa,” “Northfaced,” “Tim,” “Warren,” et al are outraged about an “influx of new broke uneducated people” who, like America’s immigrants through the years, will build this nation far beyond what a dozen Warren Buffetts can accomplish.
The outrage stems not from the question of what is best for America, but rather from the fear that the lower levels might close in on the next levels.
In short, Gap Psychology creates the ironic situation in which we don’t resent the vast privileges of the rich as much as we resent the meager benefits to the poor.
We accept the rich and famous being given preference everywhere, but heaven forbid a poor person cutting ahead in line, and the fight will begin.
No facts can overcome Gap Psychology. You can offer proof that the undocumented immigrants are less criminal, more productive, less taking, more giving, and even more patriotic than native-born Americans, and it will make no difference to lisa, et al.
You can demonstrate why taxpayers do not pay even one penny toward federal aid to immigrants, and you can show that immigrants are no burden on the federal government. It will make no difference.
The issue is not in the facts. The issue is the fear that “they” will climb past us, and in doing so, push us further down some measurement ladder.
So if facts alone will not solve the immigration “problem,” what will?
I suggest that just as Gap Psychology is a reflection of “What am I?”, the solution must involve the same reflections.
Am I and my America brave or fearful? Heroic or cowardly? Generous or selfish? Cruel or compassionate? Wise or ignorant? Admired or disdained? Loved or loathed?
“. . . conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal”vs. “America first.”
And this is where our leadership can take us. It sets the tone.
Sadly, today’s America has a “me-first,” “America-first,” selfish, “I’ve-got-mine, to-hell-with-you,” cowardly, lying, anti-science leadership.
Draft-dodging, cheating, bullying and destroying the underdog are seen as clever and strong.
Compassion is thought to be a sign of weakness.
That is today’s America, as given to you by our leaders.
It is not the America of the Declaration of Independence. It is not the America of the Bill of Rights. It is not the America described on the Statue of Liberty. It is not the America of the Gettysburg Address or of the “I have a dream” speech. America is not Reagan’s “shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.”
We have become the harsh, selfish, Fox News, Breitbart, Tea Party, Trump/McConnell, despised America, populated by claims of “fake news,” enemies, “stone-cold losers,” and grade-school insults on Twitter.
We have enabled this America, and only we can change it.
The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.
Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.
Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:
Today, NASA executives announced that the space agency will open up parts of the International Space Station to more commercial opportunities, allowing companies unprecedented use of the space station’s facilities, including filming commercials or movies against the backdrop of space.
NASA is also calling on the private space industry to send in ideas for habitats and modules that can be attached to the space station semi-permanently.
Now that is a truly excellent idea. As Elon Musk and many other creative souls have ceaselessly demonstrated, government employees are not the only people on this planet who can generate ideas.
Rather than trying to do everything internally, allow the massive resources of the private sector to provide free creativity.
A new interim directive from NASA allows private companies to buy time and space on the ISS for producing, marketing, or testing their products.
It also allows those companies to use resources on the ISS for commercial purposes, even making use of NASA astronauts’ time and expertise (but not their likeness).
If companies want, they can even send their own astronauts to the ISS, starting as early as 2020, but all of these activities come with a hefty price tag.
Wait! Why the “hefty price tag”?
Is it to make sure only serious and thoughtful ideas are proposed?
But, won’t the realities of production and testing be costly enough to separate the dabblers from the legitimate idea generators?
It’s a significant turn for NASA, which has long been antagonistic toward commercializing the ISS.
Russia is more open to ads and branding on the ISS (as it was with the Mir space station) and has sent tourists to the ISS before.
But NASA has strictly prohibited the use of its side of the International Space Station for commercial purposes.
Up until now, any company wishing to send products to the ISS had to show that there was some educational component to the undertaking or that it revolved around some kind of technology demonstration.
No purely commercial projects are allowed to be sent to the ISS, and NASA astronauts are even prohibited from working on experiments if there’s a possibility that the research will be used to make a profit.
Utter nonsense. Virtually all research may one day be used for a profit.” No one can identify research that never will be used for profits. There is none.
Instead, just consider the irony of communist Russia encouraging commercial ads and branding, while capitalist America opposes profits.
In August, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine formed a committee to look into ways of opening up the space agency to commercialization, arguing that doing so could provide new sources of revenue and name recognition for NASA.
“Is it possible for NASA to offset some of its costs by selling the naming rights to a spacecraft or the naming rights to its rockets?” Bridenstine said to a group of advisers for NASA in August.
“I’m telling you there is interest in that right now. The question is: is it possible? And the answer is I don’t know, but we need somebody to give us advice on whether or not it is.”
Sorry. You’re not profitable. Bye.
OMG! The idea is not to advance science, but rather to find new sources of revenue for a Monetarily Sovereign government that never can run short of dollars, and in fact has so little use for revenue that it actually destroys all revenues upon receipt.
This is a program that would evolve from idea generation to money generation: “We don’t care if any scientific progress is made. Hey, pay us enough and you can run weddings up there.”
NASA leadership has made it clear that the space agency wants to eventually transition control of the International Space Station and its region of space, low Earth orbit, to the private sector someday.
No trespassing. Property of General Low Earth Orbit, Inc.
They not only want to privatize the ISS, but also privatize low earth orbit?? How about, “This Space Property of General Low Earth Orbit, Inc. No trespassing. If you want to pass through this region of space, buy your ticket on the ground.”
It costs NASA $3 to $4 billion a year to operate the ISS, and by handing over control of the station, NASA could have more money to pursue much more ambitious missions, like the agency’s goals of building a new space station around the Moon and sending humans back to the lunar surface.
The U.S. federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has infinite money. It cannot unintentionally run short of money, and neither can any of its agencies, unless that is what the government wants.
The federal government could give NASA the $3 to $4 billion a year simply by tapping a computer key.
In 2018, the president’s budget request called on ending direct funding for the ISS by 2025 and ceding operations of the orbiting lab to private companies.
Our current President is just another crooked politician, like the infamous Paul Powell of Illinois, who when talking about patronage jobs reportedly shouted, “I can smell the meat a’cookin’.”
Privatizing ISS and space (!), simply makes crooked politicians salivate.
To help achieve this, NASA commissioned 12 companies to study ways of establishing a heavy commercial presence in this region of space.
Each company detailed ideas for new private space habitats that could either be attached to the ISS or fly free in low Earth orbit.
Such platforms could serve as “destinations” for research and even private visitors, according to NASA, generating revenue and opening up entirely new business models.
Here, the goal becomes cloudy. Apparently better science isn’t the prime consideration, but rather the objective is to “establish a heavy commercial presence in this region of space.”
But why? Why is our prime concern, not to advance science, but rather to establish a commercial presence in space?
Turning away from science, and focusing on commerce, will assure that the wealthiest .1% will own us forever. Any resultant science will be in the hands of the big corporations and their leaders.
Imagine if Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, et al owned all uses of radio waves, the Internet, cures for cancer, GPS, DNA, computers, gene editing, water on the moon, blockchain, and every other discovery of modern science.
Public science is differently motivated than is private science. Public science, funded by a sovereign government, is motivated by the common good. Private science, funded by the private sector, is motivated by profits.
Ownership of ideas is power. Privatizing the sources of ideas transfers all the power to the wealthiest individuals in the private sector.
“You see, the space agency is looking at probably another 10 years of the ISS being in orbit, and saying, ‘Okay, how do we move forward?’” Jeff Manber, the CEO of NanoRacks, which coordinates shipments and experiments on the ISS, tells The Verge.
“Let’s put our toes in the water on purely commercial projects. Let’s begin to allow tourism. And let’s begin to have the first commercial platforms supported by NASA. And so it’s a very important step forward. This is the beginning of a new chapter.”
Clearly, Jeff Manber “smells the meat a’cookin’.”
There’s nothing wrong with commercial projects, but why do they have to be purely commercial projects? And why is that where we put our toes in the water?
And what makes that a “very important step forward”?
Using the space station will come with some restrictions. NASA is allocating 5 percent of its resources on the station for these commercial activities.
Only 175 kilograms per year in commercial cargo can be sent to the ISS, and NASA crew will only dedicate 90 hours a year to commercial activities.
NASA has also released a list of approved commercial activities that the agency will allow on board. Private astronaut missions to the ISS are limited to two flights a year, and the astronauts will only be able to stay for 30 days.
Right now, the only viable option for crew getting to the ISS is via new spacecraft being developed by SpaceX and Boeing for NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, which still haven’t flown people yet.
Bottom line, the restrictions are not derived by scientific limitations, but by restricted funding.
Warren Buffett: Those who regularly preach doom because of government budget deficits might note that our country’s national debt has increased roughly 400 fold during the last of my 77-year periods. That’s 40,000%! If you had panicked at the prospect of runaway deficits and bought gold. You would now have less than 1% of what would have been realized from a simple, unmanaged investment in American business.
We walked on the moon 50 years ago, and since then, politicians have decided not to fund future efforts. Fifty years is an eternity in science.
Imagine the scope of the scientific advances that would have been possible, had the government made dollars available. Rocket ports on the moon to facilitate space travel? The capture of asteroids to protect Earth? Medicine in weightless conditions? Discoveries of life on other moons?
Fifty years of space science stagnation, all because ignorant politicians claimed there weren’t enough dollars — dollars of which the U.S. federal government has an infinite supply.
And still spreading the myth of federal money shortages, the politicians continue to dither about cost:
Using the space station’s facilities will be incredibly expensive. It’ll cost $11,250 per astronaut per day to use the life support systems and toilet and $22,500 per day for all necessary crew supplies, like food, air, medical supplies, and more.
Even power will cost $42 per kilowatt-hour.
Ultimately, one night’s stay would be about $35,000 for one person, according to Jeff DeWit, NASA’s chief financial officer.
Will these folks be rich tourists, hoping to take selfies with the moon, or will they be scientists, hoping to develop ideas that benefit humankind? It doesn’t seem to matter; the only criterion is the ability to pay.
If these people would benefit the people of America, why the desire to charge $35,000 per person? For the same reason American governments pay to educate children, why not pay to educate people in space?
Why is money, of which the federal government has an unlimited supply, the criterion?
Some companies might want to go even bigger and send their own module up to the International Space Station. If they do, NASA has made sure that they will have an available docking port.
Why would a company send up a module? Profits. Why not have the federal government hire the private sector to go up in modules, with the discoveries all coming to the benefit of the populace?
NASA made today’s announcement at the Nasdaq Marketsite, with representatives of more than a dozen commercial aerospace companies in attendance.
And some are already taking NASA up on its new policy. Space habitat developer Bigelow Aerospace, for instance, says it has already booked four private flights of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft, and will send up four of its own private astronauts on each mission once the vehicle finally starts carrying people.
Is the purpose of Bigelow Aerospace’s booking four private flights for its own, private astronauts, to benefit humankind — or to benefit Bigelow Aerospace?
And it’s possible that even more opportunities for commercial activities are on their way. NASA executives made it clear that these new policy changes are just the beginning, and that they’re eager to get feedback from the industry.
“This is the beginning of us actively starting open dialogue with the industry to figure out how we can open up space to commercial activities, where revenue can be generated from private sector companies,” said Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA’s associate administrator for human exploration.
If there is anything less intelligent than a federal agency hoping to take dollars from the private sector, I’ve yet to hear it.
The federal government has unlimited dollars. Every dollar taken from the private sector is one fewer dollar for economic growth. That is why federal taxes inhibit economic growth and tax cuts encourage economic growth.
In a healthy economy, the flow of dollars is from the Monetarily Sovereign federal government to the private sector, and not the other way around.
Until the populace understands this, we will have repeats of the unnecessary 50-year lag on trips to the moon and beyond — as well as lags in every field of science.
In summary, the federal government should fund more private access to space to increase the development of worthwhile ideas, not to send private sector dollars to the federal government.
The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.
Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.
Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:
I had some beautiful pictures taken in which I had a big smile on my face. I looked happy, I looked content, I looked like a very nice person, which in theory I am.'”
‘Who wouldn’t take Kate’s picture and make lots of money if she does the nude sunbathing thing. Come on, Kate!’
‘I think I am actually humble. I think I’m much more humble than you would understand.”
‘I’m intelligent. Some people would say I’m very, very, very intelligent.”
‘Being nice to Rocket Man hasn’t worked in 25 years, why would it work now? Clinton failed, Bush failed, and Obama failed. I won’t fail.’
‘My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars.’
‘While Bette Midler is an extremely unattractive woman, I refuse to say that because I always insist on being politically correct.’
(To China) ‘Listen, you m—–f——, we’re going to tax you 25 percent!’
‘I think Viagra is wonderful if you need it, if you have medical issues, if you’ve had surgery. I’ve just never needed it. Frankly, I wouldn’t mind if there were an anti-Viagra, something with the opposite effect. I’m not bragging. I’m just lucky. I don’t need it. I’ve always said, “If you need Viagra, you’re probably with the wrong girl.”‘
(On Puerto Rico) ‘This is an island surrounded by water, big water, ocean water.’
‘People love me. And you know what? I’ve been very successful. Everybody loves me.’
‘A person who is very flat-chested is very hard to be a 10.’
‘It’s freezing and snowing in New York – we need global warming!’
‘By the way, I have great respect for China. I have many Chinese friends. They live in my buildings all over the place.’
‘I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK? It’s, like, incredible.’
‘And did you notice that baby was crying through half of the speech and I didn’t get angry? Not once. Did you notice that? That baby was driving me crazy. I didn’t get angry once because I didn’t want to insult the parents for not taking the kid out of the room!’
“Something very important, and indeed society-changing, may come out of the Ebola epidemic that will be a very good thing: No shaking hands!'”
And then there was this astonishing series: t
May 13, 2019, 4:34 PM – Under my Administration, we are restoring @NASA to greatness and we are going back to the Moon, then Mars. I am updating my budget to include an additional $1.6 billion so that we can return to Space in a BIG WAY!
Fox Business,- June 7, 2019, 12:26 p.m. Neil Cavuto: “NASA is refocusing on the moon, the next sort of quest, if you will, but didn’t we do this moon thing quite a few decades ago?”
June 7, 2019, 1:38 p.m. Bullfrog: “For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon – We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!”
We all should thank FOX News for determining America’s priorities.
The ongoing moral: You get what you vote for. Stupid people are elected by stupid people, who remain too stupid to realize how stupid their vote really was.
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 