Trump continues to amaze me. I voted for him feeling like a Hail Mary pass, a last ditch desperate attempt to turn the country around and with a lot of doubt he would actually do any of the things he promised. I actually disliked him and personally, he is far from someone I'd want to befriend.  But never in my wildest dreams did I think so much would get done so quickly and nearly all of it good for the country and for me personally. ISIS is gone, Kim elnutso blinked, the EU blinked, China is beginning to listen up, unemployment is way down, taxes, oh my God, our 2018 taxes are going to be thousands less because of Trump. Pennies to Pelosi I know but FUCK YOU BITCH and that's all I have to say about that.

What else, oh yeah, environmental regulations being rolled back, other regulations and on and on. Lovin' it.

The management of Coca-Cola is exaggerating the impact of the tariffs so they can make more money. 

This might be true if it were a necessary product and people did not have alternatives. Heroin might fit that profile, once you're addicted there is really no upper limit on the price you'll pay. But soda is not. For a product like soda, a company will raise the price exactly to the point profits are maximized and no more, because past that point sales will decline. They are always looking at that formula and you are correct that if the CEO is blaming only aluminum cost he might be leaving out other factors. But that's not the same thing as using aluminum prices as an excuse to raise prices unfairly. There is no such concept of fair and unfair with a non essential product. What is fair is what people will pay no matter if some people's opinions are soda prices "shouldn't" be that high.

People will stop buying Coke when they feel the price is higher than the value they get from drinking it. I think I see your point if you are trying to say the CEO is attempting to convince consumers to pay more than they otherwise would by implanting the idea that it's not the company's fault prices went up. Possibly he is trying to manipulate consumer decisions that way. And if that is true possibly he is going to try to set the price higher than what is justified just by aluminum cost. And if consumers let themselves be manipulated that way, more profit for my Coke holdings. Yay! But I doubt they will. I don't think the average person puts that much conscious thought into such purchases. What they'll pay is probably more related to their perceived value of it, how good it tastes, how cool it feels on a hot day, the nice fizzy kick- these all subconsciously add up to value x beyond which he will not pay and I think the price of aluminum is not going to be in there much.

The problem is just internal (regulations, minimum wage laws, high taxes, unions, etc).  That is certainly a big part of the problem though.

The tariffs Trump is proposing aren't just protectionist.  They are retaliatory.  Every other country has virtually free access to our markets.  It just ain't the same the other way.  Tariffs and restrictions against the import of American products overseas has been the accepted norm for years.  We have been the proverbial frog in the pot.  People have whined that jobs and manufacturing are leaving the US for years and blamed lazy greedy unions and high taxes, but another big part of the problem is that it is so hard to sell our goods over there, it was necessary to move manufacturing over there to gain market access.

So the problem wasn't just one or the other.  It was both situations.  And Trump is attacking both situations.  And while there may be a little pain at first, we will be greater for it. 

Isn't that what Trump promised and why we elected him?

It is and if nothing else, Trump certainly is fulfilling his campaign promises to an extent I have never seen in my lifetime. It's almost like he's not even a politician.

But so was Obama. 

I just watched a documentary on Trump. I suspected he might be anyway, but now I'm more convinced than ever.  But at this point in history, I think it takes a narcissist to have the supreme level of confidence to stand up to the sustained attacks from the media, the deep state and the hysterical left. He simply refuses to be bested by them. Maybe you have to have a narcissistic belief in yourself to withstand all that.

Obama's narcissism was a fake image (messiah-like) promising a utopia that he never could bring.

Trump's narcissism is fueling a drive to succeed as President against all these enemies - I truly think the more they attack him, the more resolved he is to come out on top.  In his prior life he tended to construct monuments to himself.  Now, he is constructing the biggest monument of all - his legacy as President, and he is trying to make it as great a legacy as possible, and fortunately for us, how he is doing it happens to align with what is good for America.

From his business experience, or his advisers, or where ever, he came up with his campaign promises, and now he is fulfilling them, almost like he made plans for a building, and now he is constructing them.  Fortunately, much of what he's doing is very, very good for America, whether he truly cares, or whether he's just doing it for his own glory, doesn't matter.

Maybe it was only chance that he ran on the Republican ticket, and listens to conservative advisers. Maybe if things had been different, he would have run as a Democrat or a liberal. Maybe he cares less about which side he is on, than about what will uplift him the most. Maybe he simply has enough brains to know that conservative economic policies are what will build America, and hence his own legacy.

In any case, I'm enjoying my tax cut.

Absolute IQ is largely genetic.  This study investigated changes in IQ over baseline.  But the article implies that it proves IQ is not mostly genetic. As usual, bad reporting. And maybe the researchers themselves drew biased conclusions from their own data. That's pretty common and it's not PC to admit intelligence is largely inborn.

My opinion is each person inherits a range of potential IQ.  The environment then influences where you end up in that range. But the range is pretty set and unchangeable and not that broad.  No amount of education and good food is going to make Einsteins out of most of us. You have to be born in that range.

But I can definitely believe there is an overall lowering within the ranges happening now, and it's my opinion that modern diet is largely responsible. When the bodies become obese, the BP and BS run too high, it effects the brain as well as all the other organs.

Interesting articles making good points, but I disagree with the conclusion of the second article about FISA warrants.

There is nothing inherently scandalous about using informants when investigating a presidential campaign, nor about seeking FISA warrants. Republican candidates and their campaigns are just as subject to the rule of law as Democrats, and it’s no less legitimate to investigate Trump than it was to investigate Hillary Clinton.

No no no no no no.  No!  FISA does not legitimately investigate Democrats or Republicans.  FISA stands for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  FISA exists to filter permissions to gather information related to foreign terrorists or other security threats to the U.S. originating from without the U.S. but using communication systems residing within our borders, or involving American citizens.  No warrant to use internally collected information, or to spy on American citizens, may be issued without evidence of criminal intent, connected to foreign powers, to harm or attack the U.S.. 

It seems very clear that the FISA warrants against the Trump campaign were obtained for purely political purposes. Enough information has been released to prove the operatives were extremely biased against Trump and very invested in Hillary winning. The only way these FISA warrants can be justified in the mind of any individual is if that individual believes that Trump winning the election equals an overthrow of the U.S. government, anything less is a misuse of the FISA court, an abuse of NSA data collection, and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  And even then it would have to be a plot conceived of, and carried out by, a foreign power.  Russia would have had to have come up with the idea to run Trump, convinced enough U.S. citizens in key states to vote against Hillary, and then use Trump like a puppet to destroy the U.S. and pave the way for a Russian invasion.

But I'm sure some people are convinced of exactly that; the same people who cannot accept that the Dems lost because Hillary sucked as a candidate and the same people who cannot accept that "flyover country" might be finally fed up with their shit.

Back in 2001 with the Bush post 9/11 ramping up data collection I feared exactly this, that FISA unmasking would be turned against our own people for political purposes, and now it has come to pass.  It happened sooner than I expected. 

As for "truth", you are all wrong. Objective truth goes out the window the second we employ language, because words are symbolic representations of reality, not reality itself. Therefore, it is moot to argue whether two opposites can simultaneously be true.

Here's some light reading material


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigford_v._Glickman
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-18/u-s-supreme-court-halts-redrawing-of-north-carolina-voting-map
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/11/09/courts-side-with-maryland-hbcus-in-longstanding-case-over-disparities-in-state-higher-education/?utm_term=.2e0625ed520d


and for some US history fun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedmen's_Bureau


Afterwards, discover the factors that led to the Bureau being closed. Hint: although race wasn't the only factor, it was the most prominent.

I read them. A whole lot of evidence here that the things that are bad for blacks are Democrats, government "solutions" to problems, and socialist programs in general. The things that are good for blacks are what's good for everyone; an individual struggling to find his own pathway to success, in the context of a healthy economy.

1. Pigford:  Racism by Democrats in the South carrying damaging ramifications for a century, yet blacks insist on staying loyal to the Democrat party and keep believing the lies told by the Democrats that they are the party to right all past wrongs.  (Not talking about you Jaybird, I don't know what party you belong to or how you vote.). Yet here is the evidence right before us, with this improving economy, that the conservative policies of cutting taxes and freeing up regulatory strangleholds on the economy is the true path to success for blacks as well as everyone. 

The solution to improving lives for blacks is not top down management from above but rather organic growth from a free and thriving economy. When the economy thrives it opens doors for everyone. Even if people are still racist and hire a white over a black, a thriving economy means more jobs and people then must resort to hiring the black. Not fair but it does get your foot in the door and give you a chance to prove yourself. But by insisting on eradicating that remaining unfairness blacks support the party that promises this yet fails time and again to do it (because you cannot legislate human nature) and furthermore strangles and kills that very thriving economy that supports more jobs for everyone.

Something this article doesn't address is maybe farming isn't that viable a way to success anymore. Loans to blacks might be curtailed because those loans made were defaulted on because small farms in general are declining, and maybe whites were defaulting also. The failure of blacks to farm is then blamed on racism but possibly a more root cause is that it's harder to survive being a small farm in general due to technology and the rise of mechanized economies of scale in agriculture.

It's typical in many articles about racism that I do not see a comprehensive broad discussion of the landscape behind the issue which often gives a deeper understanding why people are experiencing certain difficulties.

2. North Carolina voting map: gerrymandering is wrong for all parties but over the years I have seen that the Democrats don't want fair boundaries, they want to do what the Republicans did; skew them in their favor. Two wrongs don't make a right. I agree with Justice Clarence Thomas on this issue: Race should NOT be a factor in drawing district lines.

3. Higher education- my problem with this entire case is that once again it presupposes a socialist solution to a human problem - a top down forcing of markets and behaviors.  We are starting from the assumption that government owes us all a higher education - that isn't even questioned- and the article then bemoans that the government isn't applying its funds fairly between black and white institutions. Maybe the basic assumption is wrong. Left entirely to an unregulated free market, perhaps anyone can get the education they seek and if it is too expensive, competitors will enter the market until it's affordable. But this libertarian viewpoint has never been allowed a trial.

We also are under the assumption that everyone needs a collage education and that a four year degree is necessary for success. That supposition is now being debunked for those who are paying attention. Once again the truth is that in the area of education as in all others, a thriving economy results in more opportunities for all races. In good economic times black institutions were funded well by philanthropy and government (unequally maybe but still well).  In bad economic times these funds dried up and black education suffered.

Once again I say there might be inequality but when times are good for everyone, blacks do better. And times tend to be good when economic policy allows free market competition.

One of the best jobs for freed blacks and their descendants during the rise of the rail industry was to be porters and conductors on trains. When the government destroyed the rail industry in a badly misguided attempt to address their admittedly monopolistic ways, those jobs dried up.

Government that keeps its hands off industry and the economy creates conditions that improve things for blacks. Government that strangles and over-regulates and over-taxes, creates conditions that worsen things for blacks.

4. The Freedmen's Bureau:  A Band-Aid; oh like so many government "fixes" of huge problems. By making a sudden and sweeping declaration that slaves are all now free we have a massive population now cut loose to fend for themselves and whites suddenly relieved of their "property" with hence now NO incentive to help.  The entire institution of slavery was a horrific monster created by forcibly removing humans from their native homeland, requiring them to work in unfamiliar conditions and alien culture in exchange for "we'll feed you just enough to keep you alive" but at least there's that, and the emancipation removed even that. Now we have freed people in need of jobs and we have jobs in need of people (field work and housework) so the obvious solution is a transformation to a free wage and salary based labor market, but more than that, the vision was to assimilate this population into white culture complete with college education and equal social status to pedigreed descendants from Western Europe. Yeah right like there's a snowball's chance that'll happen in one generation. (Hint: it's going to require centuries of interracial marriage and cultural mixing.)

And we are surprised there was massive white hostility to this? And we are surprised blacks couldn't just on the whole step up to intellectual and productive equality to a well nourished privileged white? Yes great support and assistance was needed. The product of multiple generation slavery was a person less nourished, severed connections to his own blood kin, no wealth at all, no system of jobs in place in which to try to build any wealth, little liiteracy or sophistication in dealing with the functioning dominant culture. Multiply this by massive numbers and place them in the middle of this dominant culture but not allow them to actually be a member of it - more like a parallel universe co-existing, one in which the freed slaves had virtually no tools with which to break through that barrier and join the other side, or bring that success over to theirs.  (But the latter is exactly what they did, eventually; there was a rise of black professionals; doctors, lawyers, businessmen, teachers - when economic times were good.)

But immediately post war, how do you quickly fix this? As the article points out, you can't. Eventually white southern hostility forced the bureaus closure and please note once again it was the Democrats doing this. The Democrats opposed giving the freed black man the vote, the Democrats pushed the close the bureau.

Anyhoo aside from the failure of a quick and painless redress of centuries of slavery, little by little and one by one, solutions were found. Former slaves kept as servants, field workers tenants. These were imperfect and inequitable solutions and often barely a step above slavery but they were a first step however small. We go through state and local laws against blacks, once again government being anti-freedom, and at best the federal government's top down attempt to fix which in the end, like all government programs, it was only a drop in the bucket. The real reason blacks recovered from the horrific mire of their past was individual effort along with gradual social change AND - have you got the message yet? - economic booms in general.

Turns out, when you look at wealth and employment and quality of life among blacks since the Civil War, you see a positive correlation with the economy in general. It does well, blacks do well, it does poorly, blacks do poorly. True blacks always do more poorly than whites, but nevertheless their ups and downs correlate all the same with the economy.

So here is where we stand: Black activists today concentrate on the difference between black and white of the lines on the graph. "The white line is always above the black line, that's not fair!" they say. But they completely disregard the fact that BOTH lines move up when the economy improves.

Where do we actually have power? We have power to move both lines up or down. Lower corporate taxes, more jobs open up, more blacks get work, black wealth and success goes up. White wealth and success goes up too and white's total is still higher than black's. But blacks are still better off. But black community leaders and Democrat politicians ignore this because to point it out will remove their power. The power relies on getting money and votes by stirring up black emotions about racism. If they actually cared about how blacks fare in reality, they would focus on what raises the line of wealth and success for blacks, regardless of whether whites are also better off too.

Do we have the power to quickly make the difference between the black and white line disappear? Apparently not. The factors responsible for that difference are many and complex. I keep going back to the inner cities but that is where a huge portion of black unemployment and poverty is concentrated. If we solve that problem, the difference between the lines would be much reduced. What are the biggest causes of that problem? The loss of manufacturing jobs and small business opportunities in the inner cities. Nothing to do with racism, everything to do with tax and trade and macro economic policy and with local and federal burdensome regulations on businesses. (Once again predominantly Democrat doings.) Also the very failed war on drugs. (Some Republican here.) If ever there was a racist war, this is it: take jobs away from inner cities and then make drugs illegal creating a way for inner city men to earn lots of money for a short time before being killed or imprisoned. But we are a long way from fixing these inner city problems due to people's general stupidity understanding these factors and the greed and money being made at the high levels of corrupt politicians and corrupt business (the prison industry for one).

Racial healing and harmony will only come about when all people have barriers removed from their climb to wealth and success. Black activists focus too much on real or perceived racism and not enough on policy that is good for the economy in general.  You cannot achieve wealth and success and equality by punishing whites, or by transferring white wealth to blacks. All that does is kill the goose that lays the golden egg not to mention cause whites to really, really hate you and cause blacks to become dependent on wealth transfer entitlements, making them obligated to vote for the party that has been more responsible than any other for keeping them down: the Democrats.