Lost in Translation

This is worthy of continued meditation.

When I first met Steve, seventeen years ago on a now defunct forum, I thought I hated him. He was brash, rude, and full of insults. Over the years I continued to meet him, both here and at other forums, and since I could not avoid him, I learned to tolerate him and to eventually respect him. Steve is like Kentucky mash whiskey. He's sour but also filled with warmth, and once you meet him you never forget him. Goodbye, my friend. May your soul live forever in the great void.

I have said hurtful things to people on this forum, many times with malice intent. I have operated from a place of fear and allowed my fear to become anger. Anger never excuses harming another. For this I am sorry. Please accept these words in the spirit that I write them, with sorrowful contrition. Jason

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/ https://casetext.com/case/citizens-united-v-federal-election-comn?ref=Sb!ILRPD3

The plant was built 10 meters above sea level. The tsumai height was 15 meters! Lesson learned? People died from the massive wall of water. No one has died from nuclear radiation exposure. No harmful effects from radiation. Sounds to me like the Fukushima reactor was designed incredibly well. In fact, if it had been five meters higher then it would have probably survived intact. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx This tells me that the UK government is ruled more by emotion than by reason.

Seriously, though. How is this relevant? The gist of the video is not a denial of climate change, but rather an assertion that the best way to combat a changing climate is through a better energy policy, and it lists nuclear chief among those policies. This is what I was saying just a few weeks ago so it seems quite on-point.

I have literally nothing better to do right now.

New vid dropped on PragerU this morning. It's like they read my mind! https://www.prageru.com/video/whats-the-deal-with-the-green-new-deal/

Bump. Ten days and no comments. It's too quiet.

I rewatched the video and I think I found the answer. Just after minute 19 you mention the upper trigram refers to the "surrounding environment or other parties." Is this a fair assessment?

@Harmen The video placed emphasis on the lower trigram's movements since that trigram best represents the questioner. What about the upper trigram? What representation would movement in the upper trigram best represent?

Political ideologies are like a compass: they point in the direction that you want to go, but they aren't actual destinations. No one ever says "I want to go right", or "I want to go left" as an absolute statement. Rather, the desire to go right or go left is always relative to where a person already is. In addition, it must be taken on a case-by-case basis. To illustrate this point, I bring you the Laffer Curve: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve) The Laffer Curve is used in government debate to open a dialog regarding the appropriate level of taxation, the assumption being a desire to maximize revenue to the government. The Laffer Curve posits two main points: at zero percent taxation the government will receive zero dollars in tax revenue ($X * 0 = $0); similarly, at 100 percent taxation the government will also receive zero dollars in tax revenue (since everyone will simply stop working!). The corollary to this is at some percentage of taxation greater and zero and less than 100 the government will receive maximum revenue. It also means that at all other points between zero and 100, the government will receive less than maximum revenue. What does this mean? It means that "lower taxes" (the right's mantra) is not always correct. It also means that "higher taxes" (the left's mantra) is also not always correct. This is really important, since it shows that the correct path (the middle way, if you will) is somewhere between the left's ideological society and the right's ideological society. It shows that it is possible to go too far. You push all the way to the left and you get North Korea and zero freedom. You push all the way to the right and you get anarchy. Neither is good for a society. But somewhere between the two (the exact location is debatable) there is a point of maximum freedom.

Hexagram 61 ䷼ - Chung Fu / Inner Truth The Gentle (Wind/Wood) sits atop The Joyous (Lake). The eldest daughter in communion with the youngest. THE JUDGEMENT INNER TRUTH. Pigs and fishes. Good fortune. It furthers one to cross the great water. Perseverance furthers. THE IMAGE Wind over lake: the image of INNER TRUTH. Thus the superior man discusses criminal cases In order to delay executions. (Wilhelm/Baynes) This hexagram came up last night in my reading. It was static, with no changing lines. Such readings are always challenging to me. Wilhelm writes "In dealing with persons as intractable and as difficult to influence as a pig or a fish, the whole secret of success depends on finding the right way of approach. One must first rid oneself of all prejudice and, so to speak, let the psyche of the other person act on one without restraint. Then one will establish contact with him, understand and gain power over him." This in particular interests me, since it implies that to influence another, one must first allow oneself to be vulnerable, by "let[ting] the psyche of the other person act on one without restraint."

@joeblast Two words: focus. I realized a long time ago that there are basically two modes in which people operate. The first is "what actually works?" and the second is "what makes me feel good?" It's scary to make the transition from the latter to the former, since it means giving up all the pretty ideas of childhood and living in the reality of adulthood. It's the difference between "I'm a good person, I deserve better than this" and "What am I doing wrong and how can I change?"

Let them have their fun. Truth will smack them hard in the face when it is 4:00 AM, they have had zero sleep, and the newly changed diaper is magically filled with poop again...

That's nothing new. PragerU sued Google last year over the same issue. Congress is holding hearings on this very subject.

I'll grant that there is not universal agreement on this. That said, here are some quotes on the subject: This article discusses the relationship immigration has on wages, particularly low-skilled immigration as seen by illegal migrants. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216 This article discusses the elasticity of wages as pertains to illegal aliens. The gist is that illegals will work for any wage, no matter how small. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/03/24/illegal-immigrants-depress-wages-so-make-them-legal-immigrants/#7acdb3963fea Here's an article that claims uncertainty regarding the wage debate as pertains to illegals. It's from NPR, a source I consider heavily biased towards the left, but I am including it out of intellectual fairness. https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs Here's an article that seems biased towards the right. Maybe it's just the unpolished writing. http://jobsback.com/do-illegal-immigrants-take-jobs-from-american-workers/ Here's an older (30 years) article from the General Accounting Office (GAO). This is probably the fairest treatment on the issue. https://www.gao.gov/assets/80/76971.pdf This article staunchly rebukes the notion that illegals work on sectors that citizens do not work. This article details the effects of illegal aliens on wages, jobs, and job conditions. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/the-immigration-debate-its-impact-on-workers-wages-and-employers/ An article detailing the downward push of illegal workers on jobs and wages. This article seems amateurish, so it's probably biased. http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_jobs.html This wasn't really how I wanted to spend my Saturday morning...

Let's think this through. There are hundreds of thousands of illegals entering the country each year. They take many jobs, and generally we know what sectors they work in. Do you really think that absent the illegal aliens those jobs would not be filled? That's an absurd assertion. Of course they would be filled, by US citizens! Employers would need to adjust, likely pay more money, but the jobs will be filled.

If that is true then so is the opposite: the claim cannot be denied. Let's call it stalemate.

I understand that, but it's a disingenuous comparison, since the waves of 100's of thousands of illegal migrants swarming into the country each year are not making a bee-line for the farming sector. Rather, they are dispersing throughout the entire country, into large, 'sanctuary' cities where they meld into the general populace, working all manner of generally blue collar jobs from restaurant workers, landscapers, construction, auto mechanics, machine shops, laborers, etc. These are jobs that US citizens absolutely would do, but are being denied the opportunity because of the downward wage pressure. This is exactly the problem. We have a process to verify worker status. It's called E-Verify. But that system is compromised in a couple key ways: first; not all employers use it, even though it is required, and second; there is a huge market for illegally acquired social security cards. In other words, identity theft. Even if an employer runs the numbers they often come back clean.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. There is a big difference between slaves brought here by force and migrant laborers, even if the migrants were often treated very poorly. On the issue of slavery, the US literally fought a bloody civil war to rectify that wrong, That debt was paid in blood over 150 years ago. As for cheap labor... do you often pay more for something than you need to? Business runs on the bottom line. They don't spend more than necessary. The best way to drive up wages is competition, which gives potential employees options and forces hiring managers to pay higher wages to acquire talent.

Indeed. And the US actually had a formal program importing Mexican farmhands for 22 years up until 1964 because American citizens wouldn't do that hard labor. A "formal program importing Mexican farmhands" is a program to import legal laborers. Legal laborers are not the same as illegal aliens.

But that was never real communism! If I were in charge I would do it correctly.

I am for anything that maximizes freedom of choice. Sometimes that means supporting left of center policies, such as social welfare programs (unemployment insurance, social security, for example), but more often than not that means right of center policies (religious liberty, freedom of speech, right to keep and bear arms, for example). I think that individual leftists often come from a place of well meaning, but well meaning is not enough to ensure maximum freedom. That requires consciously choosing freedom and making it a priority, which is something that I do not see in the left. Out of respect for the OP, I shall refrain from further comments in this thread. I am sure that anyone who cares about my opinion will have no problems finding it elsewhere on this site.

I respect that. However, if I invite someone to my house with the purpose of having a conversation, then I have necessarily given up a certain control. I can rightfully expect that person to speak politely, and I can rightfully expect that person to speak truthfully - to the limits of their ability, but can I rightfully expect to control the specific words that person says? Once that line is crossed we are no longer having a conversation.