https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/
Frum was a major player with those that got us into Iraq.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum
https://mastersofdeception.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/masters-of-deception-chapter-fourteen/
US involvement in Middle East regime change has accomplished division and unrest to accomplish the agenda of the PNAC.
That same strategy of division and dissent is now being applied to the US by the same actors behind the PNAC to continue their agenda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm
Hide the agenda in plain site by saying exactly what it intends to do then doing exactly that.
That is exactly what the the "Clean Break" did.
That is exactly what Trump is doing in his first 9 days in office.
The actors and agenda of "A Clean Break" are now continuing their agenda "Strategy for Securing the Realm" (Israel) beyond dividing the Mid East to dividing the USA.
This must be our focal point for mass demonstrations against what has gotten the entire world into conflict:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-israel-idUSKBN15E2DW
It will absolutely the most ironic moment in history when these two leaders meet. One the dictating tyrant leader of a nation that joined in fighting WWII and one a leader of people who were victims of that war but now practice ethnic hatred, collective punishment and aggressive territorial acquisition.
Echoes of the past are reverberating in repetition of hate:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/theresa-may-donald-trump-refugee-ban-united-kingdom_us_588e2d42e4b0b065cbbca885?01ndgpk3rzrl2wewmi&
And what does the present leader of that third country involved in WWII say??...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/angela-merkel-theresa-may_us_588f6c97e4b08a14f7e72886?j28ieb648l4n29&
Ironic!
And what does our former leader of the nation that went to war against a totalitarian enemy? What bold attack does that former leader make and lead now as a citizen but one that continues to have power of great free world leadership influence?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-donald-trump-immigration-ban_us_588f8f70e4b0c90efeff0ed0?
A weak bleat so far in my opinion when the nation is in a crises situation. Perhaps he is afraid of causing dissent and division.
More irony in strange bedfellows again:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-putin-phone-call-20170128-story.html
More irony
http://www.juancole.com/2017/01/ambassador-hostility-immigrants.html
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
"the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world"
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+greatest+threat+to+freedom+and+prosperity+in+the+modern+world%22+ebell&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial
"What the Trump transition did was to try to write departmental or agency plans to fulfil and implement every single one of the promises and commitments that Mr Trump made as a candidate," Mr Ebell said.
"There were a number of very clear, black and white promises. He said he will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, he will defund UN climate programs, at the EPA he will potentially withdraw or repeal all of the Obama administration rules regarding greenhouse gas emissions including the so-called Clean Power Plan...........
.........But Mr Ebell said the president had given a clear promise to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and "the president would be odds-on favourite to win any disagreement (with Mr Tillerson) over climate policy".
"I don't think there's any doubt that (Mr Trump) thinks global warming is not a crisis. It does not require drastic and immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions."
From the movie "He's Back": "I told you exactly what I was going to do".
Exactly when and where did Ebell say this: ""the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world" I want to see the video, hear his words. If there is no eyes and ears confirmation I want to see and hear him say that he did in fact say it.
If Ebell denies he ever said it then someone reporting his words must have some proof that he said it.
Did he say it or not?
As a matter of fact.......or not.
One or the other.
"Not a fact" cannot be claimed to be a fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell
"What the Trump transition did was to try to write departmental or agency plans to fulfil and implement every single one of the promises and commitments that Mr Trump made as a candidate," Mr Ebell said.
"There were a number of very clear, black and white promises. He said he will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, he will defund UN climate programs, at the EPA he will potentially withdraw or repeal all of the Obama administration rules regarding greenhouse gas emissions including the so-called Clean Power Plan...........
.........But Mr Ebell said the president had given a clear promise to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and "the president would be odds-on favourite to win any disagreement (with Mr Tillerson) over climate policy".
"I don't think there's any doubt that (Mr Trump) thinks global warming is not a crisis. It does not require drastic and immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions."
From the movie "He's Back": "I told you exactly what I was going to do".
Exactly when and where did Ebell say this: ""the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world" I want to see the video, hear his words. If there is no eyes and ears confirmation I want to see and hear him say that he did in fact say it.
If Ebell denies he ever said it then someone reporting his words must have some proof that he said it.
Did he say it or not?
As a matter of fact.......or not.
One or the other.
"Not a fact" cannot be claimed to be a fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell
Monday, January 30, 2017
Congressmen at Dulles Airport Line in the Sand
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democratic-congressmen-try-to-enforce-court-order_us_588e72aee4b01763779526c7?pdem45nv5zv9529&
I salute these guys. They are boots on the ground with authority. Every member of Congress should go out to Dulles and demand to speak to U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers at Washington Dulles International Airport.
This is where the line is drawn in the sand! The Executive Branch cannot prohibit or even challenge the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch from crossing a line drawn between them and the law they make and adjudicate.
Trump wants some flunky in his administration to draw a line in front of the Legislative and Judicial Branch?
He better go out there himself and deny them entry to where ever they have the right to go.
If it is going to start then let it start there.
Let it start now.
Denying the other two branches of government is not as simple as wiping one of them off the Whitehouse.gov website!
And all this goes the same for drawing a line in the sand in front of the 4th branch of government as well:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kellyanne-conway-media_us_588e3df1e4b0b065cbbcaf48?
The next line that Trump draws is going to be in front of an irate, incensed public majority and that is going to be the end of him, not us and it is not going to come in November 2020.
He is headed for a fast and furious ending.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/attorneys-genereal-trump-order_us_588e43f5e4b01763779511e5?
So where is Trump's Attorney General. Which side of the line?
Duh!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/28/donald-trump-s-refugee-ban-has-attorney-general-nominee-jeff-session-s-fingerprints-all-over-it.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-pick-for-attorney-general-is-shadowed-by-race-and-history/2016/12/24/1432cffa-b650-11e6-959c-172c82123976_story.html
This was quick: Replaced the hold over Acting Attorney General with another Acting Attorney General. You're Fired. New puppet hired!
http://abc7news.com/news/president-donald-trump-names-dana-boente-as-acting-attorney-general/1728760/
Doesn't he realized that he is subject to the Hire/Fire boss rule? Who is his boss?
"At least three top national security officials - Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Rex Tillerson, who is awaiting confirmation to lead the State Department - have told associates they were not aware of details of the directive (What if it was a presidential uni-lateral declaration of war?) until around the time Trump signed it. Leading intelligence officials were also left largely in the dark, according to U.S. officials."
"They should either get with the program or they can go," Spicer said.
Trump has also said he believes the voters who carried him to victory support the plan as a necessary step to safeguard the nation. And he's dismissed objectors as attention-seeking rabble-rousers and grandstanding politicians. .......................Really??????
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/poll-president-donald-trump-disapproval-rating-record
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-fires-attorney-general-sally-yates_us_588ff493e4b0c90efeffbc2f?
From the movie "He's Back": "I told you exactly what I was going to do".
Trump's handlers did it: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-congress-order-234392
Trump vs US Government???: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-refugees-exclusive-idUSKBN15E2U9 Who ya gonna fire now?
Standing Rock has moved to a location outside Washington D.C.
The storm troopers of the Executive Branch can turn the hoses, tear gas and dogs on our Legislative and Executive branch top officials there. I'll go there to stand in front and protect them non-violently until no other way remains to protect.......
Stand fast and stand tall Judge Gee! Contempt will not be tolerated!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iranian-deported-trump-ban_us_588e8cf2e4b08a14f7e6c801?qgfhrtm5qmvn7y14i&
"U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee said in an order Sunday that there is a high likelihood that immigration authorities violated Vayeghan’s constitutional rights and current immigration law with their actions, and directed DHS to fly him back to the U.S. under the terms of his original visa.
Wikipedia:
"Dolly Gee was born in Hawthorne, California, the daughter of Cantonese immigrants from rural China.[1][2] Gee's father was a World War II veteran who later worked as an aerospace engineer on projects like the space shuttle and the Apollo missions, while her mother was a garment worker."
A shout out to Judge Ann Donnelly as well:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/trump-order-170129030842119.html
The enforcement through violence arm of the Executive Branch is concerned about their own Commander in Chief:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/troops-donald-trump-immigration_us_588e114be4b0b065cbbc9573?
I salute these guys. They are boots on the ground with authority. Every member of Congress should go out to Dulles and demand to speak to U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers at Washington Dulles International Airport.
This is where the line is drawn in the sand! The Executive Branch cannot prohibit or even challenge the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch from crossing a line drawn between them and the law they make and adjudicate.
Trump wants some flunky in his administration to draw a line in front of the Legislative and Judicial Branch?
He better go out there himself and deny them entry to where ever they have the right to go.
If it is going to start then let it start there.
Let it start now.
Denying the other two branches of government is not as simple as wiping one of them off the Whitehouse.gov website!
And all this goes the same for drawing a line in the sand in front of the 4th branch of government as well:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kellyanne-conway-media_us_588e3df1e4b0b065cbbcaf48?
The next line that Trump draws is going to be in front of an irate, incensed public majority and that is going to be the end of him, not us and it is not going to come in November 2020.
He is headed for a fast and furious ending.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/attorneys-genereal-trump-order_us_588e43f5e4b01763779511e5?
So where is Trump's Attorney General. Which side of the line?
Duh!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/28/donald-trump-s-refugee-ban-has-attorney-general-nominee-jeff-session-s-fingerprints-all-over-it.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-pick-for-attorney-general-is-shadowed-by-race-and-history/2016/12/24/1432cffa-b650-11e6-959c-172c82123976_story.html
This was quick: Replaced the hold over Acting Attorney General with another Acting Attorney General. You're Fired. New puppet hired!
http://abc7news.com/news/president-donald-trump-names-dana-boente-as-acting-attorney-general/1728760/
Doesn't he realized that he is subject to the Hire/Fire boss rule? Who is his boss?
"At least three top national security officials - Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Rex Tillerson, who is awaiting confirmation to lead the State Department - have told associates they were not aware of details of the directive (What if it was a presidential uni-lateral declaration of war?) until around the time Trump signed it. Leading intelligence officials were also left largely in the dark, according to U.S. officials."
"They should either get with the program or they can go," Spicer said.
Trump has also said he believes the voters who carried him to victory support the plan as a necessary step to safeguard the nation. And he's dismissed objectors as attention-seeking rabble-rousers and grandstanding politicians. .......................Really??????
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/poll-president-donald-trump-disapproval-rating-record
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-fires-attorney-general-sally-yates_us_588ff493e4b0c90efeffbc2f?
From the movie "He's Back": "I told you exactly what I was going to do".
Trump's handlers did it: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-congress-order-234392
Trump vs US Government???: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-refugees-exclusive-idUSKBN15E2U9 Who ya gonna fire now?
Standing Rock has moved to a location outside Washington D.C.
The storm troopers of the Executive Branch can turn the hoses, tear gas and dogs on our Legislative and Executive branch top officials there. I'll go there to stand in front and protect them non-violently until no other way remains to protect.......
Stand fast and stand tall Judge Gee! Contempt will not be tolerated!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iranian-deported-trump-ban_us_588e8cf2e4b08a14f7e6c801?qgfhrtm5qmvn7y14i&
"U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee said in an order Sunday that there is a high likelihood that immigration authorities violated Vayeghan’s constitutional rights and current immigration law with their actions, and directed DHS to fly him back to the U.S. under the terms of his original visa.
“The Court must consider the public interest in upholding constitutional rights,” she wrote in a four-page ruling, which noted Vayeghan stood to “suffer irreparable harm” if she didn’t intervene.
The judge directed the
government to not interfere with Vayeghan’s return under his original
visa, and to communicate to authorities in Dubai the terms of her order."
Wikipedia:
"Dolly Gee was born in Hawthorne, California, the daughter of Cantonese immigrants from rural China.[1][2] Gee's father was a World War II veteran who later worked as an aerospace engineer on projects like the space shuttle and the Apollo missions, while her mother was a garment worker."
A shout out to Judge Ann Donnelly as well:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/trump-order-170129030842119.html
The enforcement through violence arm of the Executive Branch is concerned about their own Commander in Chief:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/troops-donald-trump-immigration_us_588e114be4b0b065cbbc9573?
Judicial Branch Scrubbed from WhiteHouse.gov
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-house-judiciary_us_588eeccce4b01763779547f2?
Prior to election I speculated in a blog prior entry that if Trump was elected WhiteHouse.gov would become a major agenda tool. It would become the "true news" source vehicle to counter "fake news". Increasingly becoming the "GoTo" selected home page of all true believers in the Trump brand philosophy.
He is doing exactly what he said he would do.
He is creating exactly what he said he would create and presenting the structure and function of that creation at Whitehouse.gov. When I put "Whitehouse.gov" into my UIC bar as a search this is what I was taken to:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/transitionsplash/
Its a marketing method to sign up to this website by taking the search to a splash page for the website:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/
Many years ago a made a blog entry stressing the opportunity to use the website "Whitehouse.gov" as a more effective tool of President Obama in the Information Age. He did improve the effectiveness but like so many things he did he did not go far enough, effective enough and fast enough.
The Judicial Branch returns: At least to the website but not to tyranny.
https://www.rt.com/usa/375654-judicial-branch-trump-website/
Prior to election I speculated in a blog prior entry that if Trump was elected WhiteHouse.gov would become a major agenda tool. It would become the "true news" source vehicle to counter "fake news". Increasingly becoming the "GoTo" selected home page of all true believers in the Trump brand philosophy.
He is doing exactly what he said he would do.
He is creating exactly what he said he would create and presenting the structure and function of that creation at Whitehouse.gov. When I put "Whitehouse.gov" into my UIC bar as a search this is what I was taken to:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/transitionsplash/
Its a marketing method to sign up to this website by taking the search to a splash page for the website:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/
Many years ago a made a blog entry stressing the opportunity to use the website "Whitehouse.gov" as a more effective tool of President Obama in the Information Age. He did improve the effectiveness but like so many things he did he did not go far enough, effective enough and fast enough.
The Judicial Branch returns: At least to the website but not to tyranny.
https://www.rt.com/usa/375654-judicial-branch-trump-website/
Partnership On Artificial IntelligenceI To Benefit People And Society
https://www.partnershiponai.org/
https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/27/apple-joins-amazon-facebook-google-ibm-and-microsoft-in-ai-initiative/
This looks good and warrants some speculation of where it is going because where it will go is far and big.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/27/apple-joins-amazon-facebook-google-ibm-and-microsoft-in-ai-initiative/
This looks good and warrants some speculation of where it is going because where it will go is far and big.
Straw Vote Clearing House
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/straw%20vote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_poll
"The idiom may allude to a straw (thin plant stalk) held up to see in what direction the wind blows, in this case, the wind of group opinion."
Prior blog entries regarding a ClearingHouse through which Charitable, Political and Non-Profit donations may be tagged by the donor had some conceptual merit that got carried off into the wild blue yonder until they could not be seen anymore. However, like the programming of a drone to return to its point of origin and land based on Case:Lost or Case:OutOfGasSoon the idea came back to me for a fresh launch.
The idea was to create a structural system facility that would provide any donor to attach their motivating purpose (both what the donation is for and what the donation is against) to the donation. It would go through a single Donation ClearingHouse that strips off the for/against and associated information and anonymize it for retention, analysis and micro/macro level presentation public information at a WebSite. Like the NSA but totally Public not Secret. Unlike the NSA not traceable back to an individual person.
The public face of the StrawPoll ClearingHouse would reflect what way the wind of public opinion is blowing as a function of PublicDonation in support/opposition. The wind blows only two ways if by definition those that don't cast a vote in the poll don't care therefore don't vote and are undecided at any given time of testing the wind direction.
The largest ClearingHouse the general public interfaces with is the domain of CreditCard companies.
What if the "Straw" to convey the purpose of a donation is by system design attached by relationship to CreditCard?
A multitude of Things are presently attached to CreditCard for beyond its MediumOfExchange Attributes, Methods and Messages. Points, awards, privileges, etc. to market its sale in a competitive market. The credit card itself may be associated to a donation based type entity to which some benefit accrues to itself through holders of a credit card with their name on it.
Attaching a "Killer" marketing hook to CreditCard in a highly competitive market is the path to increased MarketShare. This is a time of increased political and social division that carries with it an increased desire for people to express themselves on a more frequent basis on the immediate issues of the day.
Consumers would not go for a credit card that expressed their opinion on any of the most controversial issues of the day. Unless they were Open Carrying. For example: Most people would not use a WhiteRacist CreditCard even if that was their true belief. Fundamentally that is why voting is done in secret.
A StrawVote SubSystem could be built into the ClearinHouse:CreditCard system concept ofSingleDoor PointOfEntry concept that disburses what flows through it to various ClientEntities in a SingleServer/MultipleClientEntity relationship.
The StrawVote SubSystem would be designed to be open only to private individual credit card members, not business entity card members.
Every private credit card holder has password access to their account. Private is a relative term. It does not mean exclusive access. The CreditCardCompany has official access to the account. The NSA and other hackers have unofficial access to it.
InformationAge systems are advancing rapidly in security and cryptology. Hacking attacks the weakest systems. The difficulty of getting into a personal device like an iPhone is extreme. Conceptual "DeadmanSwitch" can be built in for biometric identification based protection. Maybe there will never be a truely absolutely secure system.
If: A credit card holder could go to their secure access to their personal CreditCard and the CreditCard system allowed for user assignment of an arbitrary user code that was cryptographically associated with a user specified for or against any Social/Political user belief choice..
Then: all transactions made with that personal user credit card would carry with it through an anonymized filter and expression of the user's most important priority values regarding Social/Political issues unrelated directly to the financial purpose and function of the credit card.
Somehow, the Twitter model "flash" public reaction to immediate instance issues as well as their higher level parental lineage could be piggy backed onto the CreditCard ClearingHouse system to express anonymized public opinion as a function of attaching it to every personal credit card transaction.
A credit card with that feature would appeal to me. It would make my money "Talk" about more than where and how I chose to spend it but attach to a means to publicly express my private Social/Political beliefs as input to macro analysis of PublicOpinion.
Or something along the lines of this idea......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_poll
"The idiom may allude to a straw (thin plant stalk) held up to see in what direction the wind blows, in this case, the wind of group opinion."
Prior blog entries regarding a ClearingHouse through which Charitable, Political and Non-Profit donations may be tagged by the donor had some conceptual merit that got carried off into the wild blue yonder until they could not be seen anymore. However, like the programming of a drone to return to its point of origin and land based on Case:Lost or Case:OutOfGasSoon the idea came back to me for a fresh launch.
The idea was to create a structural system facility that would provide any donor to attach their motivating purpose (both what the donation is for and what the donation is against) to the donation. It would go through a single Donation ClearingHouse that strips off the for/against and associated information and anonymize it for retention, analysis and micro/macro level presentation public information at a WebSite. Like the NSA but totally Public not Secret. Unlike the NSA not traceable back to an individual person.
The public face of the StrawPoll ClearingHouse would reflect what way the wind of public opinion is blowing as a function of PublicDonation in support/opposition. The wind blows only two ways if by definition those that don't cast a vote in the poll don't care therefore don't vote and are undecided at any given time of testing the wind direction.
The largest ClearingHouse the general public interfaces with is the domain of CreditCard companies.
What if the "Straw" to convey the purpose of a donation is by system design attached by relationship to CreditCard?
A multitude of Things are presently attached to CreditCard for beyond its MediumOfExchange Attributes, Methods and Messages. Points, awards, privileges, etc. to market its sale in a competitive market. The credit card itself may be associated to a donation based type entity to which some benefit accrues to itself through holders of a credit card with their name on it.
Attaching a "Killer" marketing hook to CreditCard in a highly competitive market is the path to increased MarketShare. This is a time of increased political and social division that carries with it an increased desire for people to express themselves on a more frequent basis on the immediate issues of the day.
Consumers would not go for a credit card that expressed their opinion on any of the most controversial issues of the day. Unless they were Open Carrying. For example: Most people would not use a WhiteRacist CreditCard even if that was their true belief. Fundamentally that is why voting is done in secret.
A StrawVote SubSystem could be built into the ClearinHouse:CreditCard system concept ofSingleDoor PointOfEntry concept that disburses what flows through it to various ClientEntities in a SingleServer/MultipleClientEntity relationship.
The StrawVote SubSystem would be designed to be open only to private individual credit card members, not business entity card members.
Every private credit card holder has password access to their account. Private is a relative term. It does not mean exclusive access. The CreditCardCompany has official access to the account. The NSA and other hackers have unofficial access to it.
InformationAge systems are advancing rapidly in security and cryptology. Hacking attacks the weakest systems. The difficulty of getting into a personal device like an iPhone is extreme. Conceptual "DeadmanSwitch" can be built in for biometric identification based protection. Maybe there will never be a truely absolutely secure system.
If: A credit card holder could go to their secure access to their personal CreditCard and the CreditCard system allowed for user assignment of an arbitrary user code that was cryptographically associated with a user specified for or against any Social/Political user belief choice..
Then: all transactions made with that personal user credit card would carry with it through an anonymized filter and expression of the user's most important priority values regarding Social/Political issues unrelated directly to the financial purpose and function of the credit card.
Somehow, the Twitter model "flash" public reaction to immediate instance issues as well as their higher level parental lineage could be piggy backed onto the CreditCard ClearingHouse system to express anonymized public opinion as a function of attaching it to every personal credit card transaction.
A credit card with that feature would appeal to me. It would make my money "Talk" about more than where and how I chose to spend it but attach to a means to publicly express my private Social/Political beliefs as input to macro analysis of PublicOpinion.
Or something along the lines of this idea......
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Taking The Concept of ClearingHouse Up Into The Wild Blue Yonder
Searching........going to the Search Engine.
Search starts here to understand the concept of Clearing House. I have blogged previously about the concept of Clearing House.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_house
The concept of ClearingHouse is mostly applicable to Finance simply because it is the first born concept Object:Child and by birth order claims some Stakeholder first born bragging rights as the privileged child to claim some conceptual inherited ownership of the EntitledParent:Finance. Really only a NominalNamed:EntitledParent:(Finance) because the concept, which is a good one originating in the ProblemDomain:Financial, has leaped out of that of that Domain:Specific to become an Object:Model carrying inherited attributes to multiple other ProblemDomains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_house_%28finance%29
In the ProblemDomain:Financial a ClearingHouse may have many different financially related Children of the Object:Parent:ClearingHouse:Financial depending on the set of attributes inherited by Object:Parent:ClearingHouse:Financial:Child. One of those Children is......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACHA
It appears to be a Child that inherited a most basic Parent:Attribute set. Call it a Child:Attributes:SimpleSet. I call it that because the Attributes:SimpleSet are those object attributes, methods and messages that its ParentObject inherited from its ParentObject.
ObjectOriented:Thinking identifies Parent/Child relationships by asking what Object:(Thing) is the Parent Object of this Child?
Sidebar: In other words... follow abstraction form of MyLanguage and say Words:Other?.... but that carries my on the fly development of an personal Artificial Language beyond where I want to go and furthermore beyond anything even resembling the rigorous development of a formal language structure that only makes it a "let's pretend but I am sure that you may get the idea" language.
So, what happens here is that the Object:Parent:ClearingHouse has a higher order Parent to be discovered. Actually: Many Higher Order multiple logic ObjectParents that contributed their Attributes to the ProblemDomain:Financial.
What is the Object:Parent of the conceptual Object:Finance?
Might it be (Perhaps leaping a couple intermediate Parents in ObjectAttribute lineage)....
Debit=Credit relationship where one thing is the same as (equal to or in notation "=") that is born (given ObjectLife) as pure and only
(most universal and essential to the creation of any and all objects, natural or concetual)
function of ObjectTime?
Object:Time being the Object:Single:Parent:Function from which all Objects (Things and their implementing relationships descend as Objects?
Time only has Object:TopDog dominance determining the the ObjectOriented scheme of AllThings once and one only. That occurs only once at the first time instance of creation. After that it became for all eternity a Function that put any Two/Things together as it continues to create.
Where does looking at Things from this point of view, from this point of entry to the ProblemDomain get me?
To the eternal point I always return to: Climbing a tree to get to the moon? Rapid initial progress but beyond that? Or is it a ladder on top of a ladder in a conceptual climb to get to heaven?
Often I wonder where it is going but those seen to become way points on a continuing journey...?
Is each day lived over and over for a lifetime of the same day
or
is each day a new different day carrying me to somewhere?
Are both true?
Sigh......
Back to the mines of thinking about how a concept thing called ClearingHouse can be a SilverBullet to solve the ProblemDomain of SocialSelfGovernance.
Maybe a step along the way to discovery has been taken by using the Debit/Credit creation model of the constraining balance of things being the model where Constraints among the functional relationships of things (actions between things) are a better way to manage the problems that the establishment of Imperative functional rules?
It is beginning to look like....again....and again...that the Object Oriented approach employing the nature of Constraints among Objects as the functional balancing servant of OperatingSystem design is better than the Functional Approach of establishing ImperativeActions that are dominant determining drivers and by nature of design restriction dictators of relationships among Object Things.
Maybe one is Freedom and the other is Tyranny?
This I know: (I think)
The concept of "Vote" has both and Object and Function apect. What we build into the attributes methods and messages of the Object:Vote determine its functional application.
The Information Age is premised (like nature) on an ObjectOriented design to produce functional relationships among Objects. It is taking us and will continue to take us out of the Imperative of Functional design to define what Functions we determine by system definition to control a FunctionOriented System.
Maybe the difference between what builds itself out of things inter-operating naturally and what we build our of dictating their functional rules to make them operate.
We can't dictate the functional rules of the natural world only discover their inherent properties (truths) and apply them and their inherent object abilities to implement functional relationships among themselves as objects from the micro to the macro levels.
We can dictate the functional rules of any conceptual world we desire to create outside the box of the natural world. 3+2 can equal 6 if we so wish in that concepetual world dominated by a functional rule that says the numerically greater object in the relationship can decide by a functional rule whatever it prefers to be the result of a relationship between itself and another object.
An alternate result in any conceptual world we create outside the box of nature is that the functional determinant dominating rule is our choice the the numerically lesser or least object is dominant to determine or confer control of the resulting relationship between itself and another object.
Enough is enough.
It is a nice day to make an object oriented relationship between myself and a pair of snowshoes to discover what naturally results from all the constraining interacting objects (including myself like a selfie in a picture) and the results of object properties I am related to over time, whatever that may be......what will be will be as naturally as I allow them to be by the interaction of their constraints that I do not control.
I only control my perception of the natural results of relating to objects of nature. A conceptual perception in my head in accordance with my own rules that say what I do drives what I enjoy....results being joy or no joy.
or
What I enjoy as an object relationship between my inherent self and any other object of nature that my functionally driven rules says all is good. Life is good.
Sunday thoughts on a Saturday.
Search starts here to understand the concept of Clearing House. I have blogged previously about the concept of Clearing House.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_house
The concept of ClearingHouse is mostly applicable to Finance simply because it is the first born concept Object:Child and by birth order claims some Stakeholder first born bragging rights as the privileged child to claim some conceptual inherited ownership of the EntitledParent:Finance. Really only a NominalNamed:EntitledParent:(Finance) because the concept, which is a good one originating in the ProblemDomain:Financial, has leaped out of that of that Domain:Specific to become an Object:Model carrying inherited attributes to multiple other ProblemDomains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_house_%28finance%29
In the ProblemDomain:Financial a ClearingHouse may have many different financially related Children of the Object:Parent:ClearingHouse:Financial depending on the set of attributes inherited by Object:Parent:ClearingHouse:Financial:Child. One of those Children is......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACHA
It appears to be a Child that inherited a most basic Parent:Attribute set. Call it a Child:Attributes:SimpleSet. I call it that because the Attributes:SimpleSet are those object attributes, methods and messages that its ParentObject inherited from its ParentObject.
ObjectOriented:Thinking identifies Parent/Child relationships by asking what Object:(Thing) is the Parent Object of this Child?
Sidebar: In other words... follow abstraction form of MyLanguage and say Words:Other?.... but that carries my on the fly development of an personal Artificial Language beyond where I want to go and furthermore beyond anything even resembling the rigorous development of a formal language structure that only makes it a "let's pretend but I am sure that you may get the idea" language.
So, what happens here is that the Object:Parent:ClearingHouse has a higher order Parent to be discovered. Actually: Many Higher Order multiple logic ObjectParents that contributed their Attributes to the ProblemDomain:Financial.
What is the Object:Parent of the conceptual Object:Finance?
Might it be (Perhaps leaping a couple intermediate Parents in ObjectAttribute lineage)....
Debit=Credit relationship where one thing is the same as (equal to or in notation "=") that is born (given ObjectLife) as pure and only
(most universal and essential to the creation of any and all objects, natural or concetual)
function of ObjectTime?
Object:Time being the Object:Single:Parent:Function from which all Objects (Things and their implementing relationships descend as Objects?
Time only has Object:TopDog dominance determining the the ObjectOriented scheme of AllThings once and one only. That occurs only once at the first time instance of creation. After that it became for all eternity a Function that put any Two/Things together as it continues to create.
Where does looking at Things from this point of view, from this point of entry to the ProblemDomain get me?
To the eternal point I always return to: Climbing a tree to get to the moon? Rapid initial progress but beyond that? Or is it a ladder on top of a ladder in a conceptual climb to get to heaven?
Often I wonder where it is going but those seen to become way points on a continuing journey...?
Is each day lived over and over for a lifetime of the same day
or
is each day a new different day carrying me to somewhere?
Are both true?
Sigh......
Back to the mines of thinking about how a concept thing called ClearingHouse can be a SilverBullet to solve the ProblemDomain of SocialSelfGovernance.
Maybe a step along the way to discovery has been taken by using the Debit/Credit creation model of the constraining balance of things being the model where Constraints among the functional relationships of things (actions between things) are a better way to manage the problems that the establishment of Imperative functional rules?
It is beginning to look like....again....and again...that the Object Oriented approach employing the nature of Constraints among Objects as the functional balancing servant of OperatingSystem design is better than the Functional Approach of establishing ImperativeActions that are dominant determining drivers and by nature of design restriction dictators of relationships among Object Things.
Maybe one is Freedom and the other is Tyranny?
This I know: (I think)
The concept of "Vote" has both and Object and Function apect. What we build into the attributes methods and messages of the Object:Vote determine its functional application.
The Information Age is premised (like nature) on an ObjectOriented design to produce functional relationships among Objects. It is taking us and will continue to take us out of the Imperative of Functional design to define what Functions we determine by system definition to control a FunctionOriented System.
Maybe the difference between what builds itself out of things inter-operating naturally and what we build our of dictating their functional rules to make them operate.
We can't dictate the functional rules of the natural world only discover their inherent properties (truths) and apply them and their inherent object abilities to implement functional relationships among themselves as objects from the micro to the macro levels.
We can dictate the functional rules of any conceptual world we desire to create outside the box of the natural world. 3+2 can equal 6 if we so wish in that concepetual world dominated by a functional rule that says the numerically greater object in the relationship can decide by a functional rule whatever it prefers to be the result of a relationship between itself and another object.
An alternate result in any conceptual world we create outside the box of nature is that the functional determinant dominating rule is our choice the the numerically lesser or least object is dominant to determine or confer control of the resulting relationship between itself and another object.
Enough is enough.
It is a nice day to make an object oriented relationship between myself and a pair of snowshoes to discover what naturally results from all the constraining interacting objects (including myself like a selfie in a picture) and the results of object properties I am related to over time, whatever that may be......what will be will be as naturally as I allow them to be by the interaction of their constraints that I do not control.
I only control my perception of the natural results of relating to objects of nature. A conceptual perception in my head in accordance with my own rules that say what I do drives what I enjoy....results being joy or no joy.
or
What I enjoy as an object relationship between my inherent self and any other object of nature that my functionally driven rules says all is good. Life is good.
Sunday thoughts on a Saturday.
Friday, January 27, 2017
We Need a Single National Donation Clearing House
See the prior blog entry.
Money is our social decision making medium of exchange tool for the allocation of resources.
Money is our medium of exchange vote of free choice traded to get what we need and want and satisfy those needs and wants.
"Donations" of money are a Class of monetary transactions that have common attributes that express in the aggregate both what is wanted by the donation as well as what is not wanted. Donations are a social oriented decision at the micro and macro level.
Each individual knows their specific intent in their donation transaction exactly as much as spending money for any other thing they need or want.
What we do not know with equal precision is the aggregate macro level expression of social decision making intent involved in class of Donations.
If all transactions in the Class of Donations go through a single Donation Clearing House point of entry the macro level intent would be subject to aggregation and examination for the benefit of knowing what what we want as well as who the entities are we call "We" that want it.
Money has been given a greater and louder and more measurable voice to convey what it is saying about our decision making too in the Information Age than the simple micro and macro economics of "this thing for that thing" means of revealing or guessing in the past.
"Monetize the Information Data Base" or "Turn Information Into Money" is a business model made profitable expressed in terms of money by the Information Age.
Money transactions in the transaction class of "Donations" are a weird bird. There is certainly money profit to be made in the business of this domain where the business of the domain is called "Non-Profit" and the business of Non-Profit is growing. In large part it is growing as a function of "Monitizing the Information Data Base" to get more money into the the business of "Non-Profit" enterprises.
Beyond the extraction of information for the data base of financial donations for the purpose of getting more donations for the recipient entity purpose their is a vast amount of aggregated information to be extracted regarding the social micro and macro level intent of the donators.
That extracted intent made possible by the Information Age produces metrics in terms of Meaning that can be precisely captured beyond Metrics in terms of money that are precisely capture down to the last accounting penny that have a previously unknown or assumed association with intent.
A single National Clearing House for Donations is the means to capture a more precise and useful measure of the meaning of Donations associated with the financial metrics of donations that was not previously possible because the Information Structure was not in place to provide for that input and capture it.
Aggregate level "Meaning of Donation Transaction" is of interest and value to whom? Not so much the individual recipient entities of financial donations. Getting that aggregate level of "Meaning of Donations" has to be of some value to a major stakeholder in that information before systems are designed to get the "Meaning" and use it.
Who is that "Stakeholder" .
It is all the Donators.
Society.
What agency does Society have to implement its primary Stakeholding interests?
Duh! That is Agency with the big "A".
Clue: "Agency" that acts in the Stakeholding interests of the Public beyond private profit Stakeholding entity agency called business or at the top level "Big Business"?
Its our form of self governance called Government. Or, in derogatory terms "Big Government" when it has a greater Stakeholding interest on behalf of those governed than "Big Business" which is also a governance system. The difference is that one votes with Votes the other votes with Money.
Our governance system, our government, is the responsible agency to establish within the domain of government or the domain of official govern sponsored enterprise entity" a "National Donation Clearing House System" that serves the public as its principal Stakeholder to extract social meaning as a public information decision making tool.
We need to be able to know the meaning of what the public intends to say, for and against, extracted from the association of the expression of that meaning with the decision making tool of money to convey meaning.
We need to see it on an Information Age public website that conveys metrics of meaning for the purpose of an informed public. To tell us what we mean to say as a precise qualitative measure of expression, for and against, extracted from the quantitative measure of money donated.
Who is going to run that flag up the flag pole?
There must be somebody, some entity somewhere that has already run it up where I can join in saluting it?????
Money is our social decision making medium of exchange tool for the allocation of resources.
Money is our medium of exchange vote of free choice traded to get what we need and want and satisfy those needs and wants.
"Donations" of money are a Class of monetary transactions that have common attributes that express in the aggregate both what is wanted by the donation as well as what is not wanted. Donations are a social oriented decision at the micro and macro level.
Each individual knows their specific intent in their donation transaction exactly as much as spending money for any other thing they need or want.
What we do not know with equal precision is the aggregate macro level expression of social decision making intent involved in class of Donations.
If all transactions in the Class of Donations go through a single Donation Clearing House point of entry the macro level intent would be subject to aggregation and examination for the benefit of knowing what what we want as well as who the entities are we call "We" that want it.
Money has been given a greater and louder and more measurable voice to convey what it is saying about our decision making too in the Information Age than the simple micro and macro economics of "this thing for that thing" means of revealing or guessing in the past.
"Monetize the Information Data Base" or "Turn Information Into Money" is a business model made profitable expressed in terms of money by the Information Age.
Money transactions in the transaction class of "Donations" are a weird bird. There is certainly money profit to be made in the business of this domain where the business of the domain is called "Non-Profit" and the business of Non-Profit is growing. In large part it is growing as a function of "Monitizing the Information Data Base" to get more money into the the business of "Non-Profit" enterprises.
Beyond the extraction of information for the data base of financial donations for the purpose of getting more donations for the recipient entity purpose their is a vast amount of aggregated information to be extracted regarding the social micro and macro level intent of the donators.
That extracted intent made possible by the Information Age produces metrics in terms of Meaning that can be precisely captured beyond Metrics in terms of money that are precisely capture down to the last accounting penny that have a previously unknown or assumed association with intent.
A single National Clearing House for Donations is the means to capture a more precise and useful measure of the meaning of Donations associated with the financial metrics of donations that was not previously possible because the Information Structure was not in place to provide for that input and capture it.
Aggregate level "Meaning of Donation Transaction" is of interest and value to whom? Not so much the individual recipient entities of financial donations. Getting that aggregate level of "Meaning of Donations" has to be of some value to a major stakeholder in that information before systems are designed to get the "Meaning" and use it.
Who is that "Stakeholder" .
It is all the Donators.
Society.
What agency does Society have to implement its primary Stakeholding interests?
Duh! That is Agency with the big "A".
Clue: "Agency" that acts in the Stakeholding interests of the Public beyond private profit Stakeholding entity agency called business or at the top level "Big Business"?
Its our form of self governance called Government. Or, in derogatory terms "Big Government" when it has a greater Stakeholding interest on behalf of those governed than "Big Business" which is also a governance system. The difference is that one votes with Votes the other votes with Money.
Our governance system, our government, is the responsible agency to establish within the domain of government or the domain of official govern sponsored enterprise entity" a "National Donation Clearing House System" that serves the public as its principal Stakeholder to extract social meaning as a public information decision making tool.
We need to be able to know the meaning of what the public intends to say, for and against, extracted from the association of the expression of that meaning with the decision making tool of money to convey meaning.
We need to see it on an Information Age public website that conveys metrics of meaning for the purpose of an informed public. To tell us what we mean to say as a precise qualitative measure of expression, for and against, extracted from the quantitative measure of money donated.
Who is going to run that flag up the flag pole?
There must be somebody, some entity somewhere that has already run it up where I can join in saluting it?????
10 Bucks To Tulsi Gabbard! We Need A Single National Clearing House For Voluntary Contributions
I sent $10 to Tulsi via Act Blue because I read these reports:
http://original.antiwar.com/Tulsi_Gabbard/2017/01/25/the-syrian-people-desperately-want-peace/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LRZlfInXNs
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/316430-gabbard-meeting-with-assad-draws-disgust-from-fellow-lawmakers
I fully approve of what she says and does. My donation to Act Blue talks. I wish it would say more. I wish it would say something to those that disapprove of her position on issues and what she says and does. I want my donation to be a two edge sword. I want those that directly disapprove of her like those that express disgust to know that I support Tulsi and oppose them.
Tulsi will know that I donated. At least statistically. I want her opposition to know that I stand with her and oppose them. It sends them a message in a back handed manner and I want them to get it..by name!
What we need is a consolidated single neutral non profit Clearing House entity through which funnel all donations (voluntary act of conscience payments without any expectation of material return) to the entity of choice. Each donation through the clearing house provides the opportunity for the donator to express the reason for donation. Each donation is an expression of monetary and conceptual support for the recipient entity. On the flip side the donation may be in opposition (in order of priority) to some specific entity or concept which may meet the approval of support for its position. An opposition entity that may or may not be a registered recipient of donations to them through the clearing house.
The Clearing House for all donations would be an open website record. It would display public information about the registered recipient of the donation and anonymized information about the donator. The amount donated speaks for itself as a proxy vote for the recipient. The limit of each donation would be less than $10. Each donation would publicly list the names of a limited number of entities either registered as recipients in the Clearing House system or named by the donator as conceptual entities to whom the donator wishes to express disapproval. Cancer for example.
The public Donation Clearing House web site would also display for each single donation transaction the past frequency of association between the anonymized donator account a and donator. All donations would be made only by credit card.
The Clearing House would provide a wide variety of data mined anonymized summarized and donation specific statistical summary data at its website related to all donations. Statistical data would include association of donations to recipient entities as well as donator specified "in opposition to" entities that are either registered to receive donations or abstract conceptual or real entities named by the donator.
All politicians would be registered by definition as donation recipients in the Donation Clearing House system. Other entity classes would also be registered by definition. All other recipients would register by choice to receive donations.
Money talks.
Bull Shit walks!
I want my money voice to talk. Publicly talk loud and clear about exactly what I am for and what I am against like I did when I joined the Women's March last Saturday.
I want a quick and easy way, the Clearing House I propose to throw a $Rose to anyone or entity of my choice at any time by the press of a button and sending a flip $Finger to those I oppose. The two do not necessarily have to be associated in any way except than my free choice of the flip side $Finger. Let the association of the donation to its flip side speak for itself.
I like this idea. Donations of this nature are too stove piped in the current system. Aggregation of Information as well as Information Entities is where the inertia of the Information Age is going.
Throw that $Rose....
Throw that $Rock!
We need a Google of the Donation Clearing House world!
http://original.antiwar.com/Tulsi_Gabbard/2017/01/25/the-syrian-people-desperately-want-peace/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LRZlfInXNs
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/316430-gabbard-meeting-with-assad-draws-disgust-from-fellow-lawmakers
I fully approve of what she says and does. My donation to Act Blue talks. I wish it would say more. I wish it would say something to those that disapprove of her position on issues and what she says and does. I want my donation to be a two edge sword. I want those that directly disapprove of her like those that express disgust to know that I support Tulsi and oppose them.
Tulsi will know that I donated. At least statistically. I want her opposition to know that I stand with her and oppose them. It sends them a message in a back handed manner and I want them to get it..by name!
What we need is a consolidated single neutral non profit Clearing House entity through which funnel all donations (voluntary act of conscience payments without any expectation of material return) to the entity of choice. Each donation through the clearing house provides the opportunity for the donator to express the reason for donation. Each donation is an expression of monetary and conceptual support for the recipient entity. On the flip side the donation may be in opposition (in order of priority) to some specific entity or concept which may meet the approval of support for its position. An opposition entity that may or may not be a registered recipient of donations to them through the clearing house.
The Clearing House for all donations would be an open website record. It would display public information about the registered recipient of the donation and anonymized information about the donator. The amount donated speaks for itself as a proxy vote for the recipient. The limit of each donation would be less than $10. Each donation would publicly list the names of a limited number of entities either registered as recipients in the Clearing House system or named by the donator as conceptual entities to whom the donator wishes to express disapproval. Cancer for example.
The public Donation Clearing House web site would also display for each single donation transaction the past frequency of association between the anonymized donator account a and donator. All donations would be made only by credit card.
The Clearing House would provide a wide variety of data mined anonymized summarized and donation specific statistical summary data at its website related to all donations. Statistical data would include association of donations to recipient entities as well as donator specified "in opposition to" entities that are either registered to receive donations or abstract conceptual or real entities named by the donator.
All politicians would be registered by definition as donation recipients in the Donation Clearing House system. Other entity classes would also be registered by definition. All other recipients would register by choice to receive donations.
Money talks.
Bull Shit walks!
I want my money voice to talk. Publicly talk loud and clear about exactly what I am for and what I am against like I did when I joined the Women's March last Saturday.
I want a quick and easy way, the Clearing House I propose to throw a $Rose to anyone or entity of my choice at any time by the press of a button and sending a flip $Finger to those I oppose. The two do not necessarily have to be associated in any way except than my free choice of the flip side $Finger. Let the association of the donation to its flip side speak for itself.
I like this idea. Donations of this nature are too stove piped in the current system. Aggregation of Information as well as Information Entities is where the inertia of the Information Age is going.
Throw that $Rose....
Throw that $Rock!
We need a Google of the Donation Clearing House world!
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Biggest Bank Robbery Of All Time: Debt Future Based vs Debt Free Now
The purpose for the creation of this blog is to explore the nature of money. It goes off to explore the nature of other things but from the same dominant primary approach to exploration. That approach is from an Object Orientation to know what and object is, what are its properties, to understand first what an object is. What an object is determines what an object does. The alternate dominant approach is to understand what an object thing does to then discover what the object is.
Money is a a strange object. It has an abstract conceptual nature existence connected to a real time physical representation. Maybe the best point of entry to the problem is to look at its point of creation.
In our debt based monetary system money is a conceptual object thing founded on its creation as an abstract thing existing at a future point in time as date of birth. That date is what gives the object its first attribute. Existence in time. That was my first new thought occurring during a semi dream time short transition from sleep to awake this morning. Truly new original thoughts do not come often in life. Most of them are repetitions like a cup of coffee in the morning that I am now enjoying.
Physical natural things in the real world are all created in the past and carried forward in real time time existence as matter and energy that does something by virtue of its properties.
Creating existence of a thing at a point of time in the future is a neat trick of our minds. Things created there have no connection to any physical attribute, only future time. There is no body to its pure soul there! It is meta-physical there. Beyond physical until we make it time travel to the past which is what we call and know at our real time called now (eternally!)
That is the neatness attribute of the trick.
Maybe it is our ultimate trick to play......upon ourselves....it seems.
Or, the ultimate trick played upon us by whomever puts that future date on a figment of their imagination and then makes real time magic beans that carry a time value forward until they meet their creation date in the future at which time they are extinguished into the past.
The life time of money is a count down to meet a future birthday.
This is a good place (point in real time) to illustrate a difference in point of entry to any given Problem Domain. It is only one domain. Just two or more different ways of approaching entry to it and it has an unlimited number of door but ultimately only two?
What are those two? What the Problem Domain "Is" and what the Problem Domain "Does"
The essential Problem Domain of Money is founded in the future and what money does is the drawing of that future into the present by the assignment of a future expiration date to a numerical denoted amount. Our current Monetary System is a IOU system. What the present existence of money owes to the future. The concept is called Debt.
In this Debt based Monetary system is Debt forward looking or backward looking from the real time of Now?
It all depends on a binary view point of entry of a two parties in the Debt based Monetary System.
A Party and a Counter-Party. A Debtor and a Creditor. They both look back and forward in Time. The pot of gold they both look at exists in the past for one and the future for the other. Which one has control of the creation of the money in the first place either the past or the future has control of the who the Monetary System serves first as the principal benefactor. It serves both but by design base: Past or Future it serves one more than the other.
How much more?
By the time based rate of interest over time and associated real time based fees on future debt money.
We (call We = The People) look back to our birth day in the past as the milestone of origination of what serves our real time existence called life in the hear and now counting up to non-existence. If we were not born in the past then we would not be here now........Natural fact of life! It is when we came into existence in the real world. We have a future orientation of out own creation toward and unknown but future point of non-existence
They....... (call them Bankers with whatever adjectives you wish, I like Banksters, a more elegant term since no unnecessary adjective is needed to describe them)......look forward to a money value amount entity (loan) birthday born (originating) in the future as the milestone against which to measure the passage of time in a known count down future point count down to its fixed manner of passing into non-existence......called....Debt pay off.
Like so many things it is how the issue is framed that determines how it is viewed. "Framing" in my definition is how the the entity in control of a conceptual system chooses to frame it for their self interest benefit.
We (The People) would frame things (the Problem Domain) one way to serve ourselves (Common Good, Present and Future)
We (The Few) would frame things (The Problem Domain) a different way to serve themselves (Good for Them, Present and Future).
The Few, the Greedy, are the controlling Creators of the Operating System and Appliction Program Means to implement their future objectives by bring their future creation called money into the present with a firm fixed fixed future price and date of future payment....Their loan becomes We The People's common social decision making tool applied to enable our free present and future decision action to serve our individual and collective wants and needs.
They that have the gold rule?
No, they that have the gold mine rule!
In the case of our Debt Based Monetary System those that own the gold mine that the gold comes from is in the future and the future is ultimately the safest vault from which to mine their gold. Their vault located in the future and protected by all past originated but presently outstanding debt based loans that cannot be robbed from them......as long as any of their losses are covered by their ultimate debtors of last recourse....We the People...of course!
It is a rigged system!
Yes, but the only game in town!
Until the game changes from creation of Money born in future time as debt with a future time date and specified unit value of repayment in a debt based system becomes.....
Money created at a fixed real time and discretely identified lowest level of unit of value of birth that remains in existence over time.
A Positive Money designed by those we choose to create it and manage it for the Common Good must replace the Debt Based money system that serves the few so well.
That Banksters gold mine and safe vault that is protected by their absolute combination lock on the future is taken from them by simply taking the origin birth of money out of the future and count down to expiration at the end of its time terms and bringing the creation of Money into the real time now with no debt to the future counterpart. Money that only owes its current existence as a discrete granular object with a unique identifier and value of 1 unit each to a birthday in the past that remains in existence as long as We The People need it as our individual and collective decision making tool to serve ourselves until a better conceptual tool comes along to serve as a medium of exchange.
The Debt Based Monetary system steals from us as a function the action called Loan by a franchised and protected power entity Banking System that creates future money by bringing the future into the present as debt that has a future date of birth and unit measurement.
We take what is rightfully ours from the future protected mine and vault of the Debt Based Banking system when we take its creation birth out of the future and bring it in to the present and the past of a Positive Debt Free Monetary system based on BlockChain methodology to establish validity and trust.
Debt must become only a single application of a Positive Money BlockChain system designed to serve the Common Good by our collective right to determine the design and control of out monetary system.
We simply change the birthday of Money from a future date that places it in the frame of debt to a fixed creation of life date that becomes its documented Blockchain history that can be traced back from real time existence and ownership.
The biggest Bank Robbery of all Time!
Banksters loose it all when money becomes real time BlockChain based.
We gain it all.
Money is a a strange object. It has an abstract conceptual nature existence connected to a real time physical representation. Maybe the best point of entry to the problem is to look at its point of creation.
In our debt based monetary system money is a conceptual object thing founded on its creation as an abstract thing existing at a future point in time as date of birth. That date is what gives the object its first attribute. Existence in time. That was my first new thought occurring during a semi dream time short transition from sleep to awake this morning. Truly new original thoughts do not come often in life. Most of them are repetitions like a cup of coffee in the morning that I am now enjoying.
Physical natural things in the real world are all created in the past and carried forward in real time time existence as matter and energy that does something by virtue of its properties.
Creating existence of a thing at a point of time in the future is a neat trick of our minds. Things created there have no connection to any physical attribute, only future time. There is no body to its pure soul there! It is meta-physical there. Beyond physical until we make it time travel to the past which is what we call and know at our real time called now (eternally!)
That is the neatness attribute of the trick.
Maybe it is our ultimate trick to play......upon ourselves....it seems.
Or, the ultimate trick played upon us by whomever puts that future date on a figment of their imagination and then makes real time magic beans that carry a time value forward until they meet their creation date in the future at which time they are extinguished into the past.
The life time of money is a count down to meet a future birthday.
This is a good place (point in real time) to illustrate a difference in point of entry to any given Problem Domain. It is only one domain. Just two or more different ways of approaching entry to it and it has an unlimited number of door but ultimately only two?
What are those two? What the Problem Domain "Is" and what the Problem Domain "Does"
The essential Problem Domain of Money is founded in the future and what money does is the drawing of that future into the present by the assignment of a future expiration date to a numerical denoted amount. Our current Monetary System is a IOU system. What the present existence of money owes to the future. The concept is called Debt.
In this Debt based Monetary system is Debt forward looking or backward looking from the real time of Now?
It all depends on a binary view point of entry of a two parties in the Debt based Monetary System.
A Party and a Counter-Party. A Debtor and a Creditor. They both look back and forward in Time. The pot of gold they both look at exists in the past for one and the future for the other. Which one has control of the creation of the money in the first place either the past or the future has control of the who the Monetary System serves first as the principal benefactor. It serves both but by design base: Past or Future it serves one more than the other.
How much more?
By the time based rate of interest over time and associated real time based fees on future debt money.
We (call We = The People) look back to our birth day in the past as the milestone of origination of what serves our real time existence called life in the hear and now counting up to non-existence. If we were not born in the past then we would not be here now........Natural fact of life! It is when we came into existence in the real world. We have a future orientation of out own creation toward and unknown but future point of non-existence
They....... (call them Bankers with whatever adjectives you wish, I like Banksters, a more elegant term since no unnecessary adjective is needed to describe them)......look forward to a money value amount entity (loan) birthday born (originating) in the future as the milestone against which to measure the passage of time in a known count down future point count down to its fixed manner of passing into non-existence......called....Debt pay off.
Like so many things it is how the issue is framed that determines how it is viewed. "Framing" in my definition is how the the entity in control of a conceptual system chooses to frame it for their self interest benefit.
We (The People) would frame things (the Problem Domain) one way to serve ourselves (Common Good, Present and Future)
We (The Few) would frame things (The Problem Domain) a different way to serve themselves (Good for Them, Present and Future).
The Few, the Greedy, are the controlling Creators of the Operating System and Appliction Program Means to implement their future objectives by bring their future creation called money into the present with a firm fixed fixed future price and date of future payment....Their loan becomes We The People's common social decision making tool applied to enable our free present and future decision action to serve our individual and collective wants and needs.
They that have the gold rule?
No, they that have the gold mine rule!
In the case of our Debt Based Monetary System those that own the gold mine that the gold comes from is in the future and the future is ultimately the safest vault from which to mine their gold. Their vault located in the future and protected by all past originated but presently outstanding debt based loans that cannot be robbed from them......as long as any of their losses are covered by their ultimate debtors of last recourse....We the People...of course!
It is a rigged system!
Yes, but the only game in town!
Until the game changes from creation of Money born in future time as debt with a future time date and specified unit value of repayment in a debt based system becomes.....
Money created at a fixed real time and discretely identified lowest level of unit of value of birth that remains in existence over time.
A Positive Money designed by those we choose to create it and manage it for the Common Good must replace the Debt Based money system that serves the few so well.
That Banksters gold mine and safe vault that is protected by their absolute combination lock on the future is taken from them by simply taking the origin birth of money out of the future and count down to expiration at the end of its time terms and bringing the creation of Money into the real time now with no debt to the future counterpart. Money that only owes its current existence as a discrete granular object with a unique identifier and value of 1 unit each to a birthday in the past that remains in existence as long as We The People need it as our individual and collective decision making tool to serve ourselves until a better conceptual tool comes along to serve as a medium of exchange.
The Debt Based Monetary system steals from us as a function the action called Loan by a franchised and protected power entity Banking System that creates future money by bringing the future into the present as debt that has a future date of birth and unit measurement.
We take what is rightfully ours from the future protected mine and vault of the Debt Based Banking system when we take its creation birth out of the future and bring it in to the present and the past of a Positive Debt Free Monetary system based on BlockChain methodology to establish validity and trust.
Debt must become only a single application of a Positive Money BlockChain system designed to serve the Common Good by our collective right to determine the design and control of out monetary system.
We simply change the birthday of Money from a future date that places it in the frame of debt to a fixed creation of life date that becomes its documented Blockchain history that can be traced back from real time existence and ownership.
The biggest Bank Robbery of all Time!
Banksters loose it all when money becomes real time BlockChain based.
We gain it all.
Monday, January 23, 2017
Seema Verma - Trump Health Plan
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/donald-trump-health-plan-medicaid.html
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2017/01/13198/seema-verma-trump-pick-medicaid-and-medicare
If the problem is alligators the mission objective solution is to drain the swamp. Targeting them one at a time to hold them a bay is a tactic. Winning strategy is draining the swamp and all the contiguous swamps they could slither off to.
Trump has frequently said the words "Drain the Swamp"
Note the next day: This blog entry was written entirely yesterday. The beginning links established the specific target alligator. One that I intended to home in on, clarify then the aim and fire at with a silver bullet solution curing the source of the sickness occurring in a single instance with a cure that would be universally applicable to curing the curing all global instances of the same sickness by killing all the same categorical alligators in the specific sector of the swamp.
If what cures, like killing a cancer in one instance also cures by killing every instance of the same cancer. It seems like an effective model. Then I went off target to frame the nature of the swamp the alligators are in.....it turned into a case of having lost sight of my objective I re-doubled my efforts!
Going off target was not a waste of time and ammunition. It was more like firing ideas for effect to see where they landed in relation to the target to straddle it. Then correct and fire again.
Seems like I ran out of ammunition as well as vision and was simply making a big bang but what follows that was written yesterday did get me some results....mostly in re-orienting my resources toward tactics and strategy in draining the swamp today.
Draining the swamp is a meme. An ambiguous natural language expression that sounds good but has little conceptual structure object oriented design supporting it. In the first place it is an action oriented plan to implement a metaphoric object oriented relationship between two (and more) things at top Parent Class level.
Draining the Swamp is conceptually taking a driving dominant Functional Oriented approach course of action to the the solving the Problem Domain. It is a Top Level Action in a plan that then creates a structure of top down breakdown actions to accomplish the Top Level action.
"Draining the Swamp" establishes the frame of the Problem Domain as "Action" and the solutions as a structure of actions.
Wrong Frame! And that is exactly why I went off course chasing Things framed in a dominant Functional Framework action decomposition "Drain the Swamp" approach of: Do this action, then do this sub action to enable that action, etc....etc.....wash, rinse and repeat in increasingly supporting "Do this to support that sub levels.
Wrong Frame! Old School.
New School: (maybe only my own school in which I am the only student as well as the teacher)
1. Identify the "hard science" physical objects in the Problem Domain and discover the truths of their Parent/Child object attributes, methods and messages.
2. Identify the "soft science" conceptual objects in the Problem Domain and discover the truths of their Parent/Child object attributes, methods and messages.
Hard Science: The real world physical object domain of what is factually discovered to be true about existing hard real things with factually ascribed by natural law true properties
Soft Science: The domain of human cognizance that creates conceptual things in our minds and assigns them properties through which we relate to our existence in a real world.
Some say that both Hard Science and Soft Science can relate to a Super Natural world. I believe that is another world beyond what we perceive in real time and space that may or may not exist. Due to the fact that it may or may not exist outside of Space and Time it should have not object relationship to our real world existence of either Hard or Soft Science. If it does not exist it is irrelevant or just a figment of the outer limits of Soft Science because other world thinking really does have influence on our real world existence values.
So I ditch the "Drain the Swamp" functional approach to solving the problem as a less effective methodology but acknowledge it as the dominant direct human nature action oriented "do some thing" inherited from the animal nature of out being. It is a natural tendency approach that constrains our problem solving ability.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/edward_snowden_faith_in_elected_leaders_is_a_20170121
Faith is an ambiguous thing that straddles both the real and supernatural words!
Back to where I went astray down an action oriented solution path yesterday. It had some value to the extent that nothing changes except as a function action. The heart of the problem is in our design of Conceptual Object Soft Science properties by virtue of which they can implement relations with other Soft Science and Hard Science objects to do things for better Human Problem Domain solutions.
Back to what I wrote yesterday:
He is the con man chief alligator that uses lies to hide the truth. His intention is to fill the swamp with alligators while saying he wants to drain it! His base are a multitude of useful idiot alligators that draw attention and resources. The big alligators are his lieutenants and generals in the swamp for the same purpose he is in it. When he puts more of those in the swamp the game becomes "Wack a Mole" to mix my metaphors.
The swamp is never drained it becomes an environment to grow more predatory creatures and draw in prey to feed on when the only way to fight them is one at a time and that tactic becomes a fallacious strategy for winning.......Not!
Health Care is a big issue. It is also a big unhealthy swamp. More like a place to go to get medical care by leaches and financially eaten by alligators.
By design Health Care exists in a financial swamp environment that serves its alligators. Health practitioners in the financial swamp are dedicated to do no harm as a way to do good for their patients. It is a strange paradox.
Seema Verma is an alligator in the swamp. Investigative reporting has shown a spotlight on this creature slithering in the dark. What she is and what she does. She is just one of so many like her existing in her problem domain sector of the swamp. Find the cure for the disease she carries and spreads and the same cure applies to cure the general disease.
The cure? Identification of the disease and targeted treatment to cure one instance cures all that are infected by it. Seema Verma is only one human carrier in a conceptual genetic like structure of trait inheritance from a Conceptual Parent of her domain class sharing the same trait causing the problem.
The solution to the Health Care system is........what......???
The solution is a scientific one.
Why are there so many science deniers in the Trump domain?
Science drains the swamp of what is not true by scientific method application to everything to validate what is true from what is not in the "Hard Science" physical world. Hard Science looks at "Soft Science" in the "Social Science" domain as......not really science but (be-grudgingly and reluctant to admit) becoming more like (walks like and quacks like) real science as technology progresses.
Where is that progress in the ambiguous world the domain of which is encompassed as "Social Science going??
What we have today as social conceptual structure today called Society is a functional result of our Human Intelligence to create a conceptual Social System that relates us to a real world environment in which we live.
In the Problem Domain of Medicine the application of Scientific Method has brought the unknown relationships of the natural physical world into a representational accurate model of cause and effect enabling discovery of what the source cause working back from observable effect connected to action that made it observable. The explanation is expressed in a precise least ambiguous natural language of mathematics that is our tool in discovery of the thing (discretely at the micro level, universally at higher levels approaching macro level) that causes the effect.
Human intelligence applied scientifically to our natural world to discover its relationships got us where we are today. We applied our intelligence to create explanatory structural conceptual models composed of conceptual thing idea beliefs that had ambiguous relation to the relationship to the natural world.
Human Intelligence has brought us a "long way" (as we see and think know it in our terms) from animal intelligence over a long time. That same intelligence is taking us into a future of discovery more about the nature of our own intelligence of social cognition beyond but based on the natural world we live in.
The real world pre-existing truths expressed by the "Language of Nature" that have been scientifically discovered and expressed in what we call spoken "Natural Language" have gone beyond Natural Language ambiguity to more precise less ambiguous and more provable truth based languages of expression.
It is amusing that we call it "Artificial Language" when everyone knows that real Natural Language is American! We are highly skilled in thinking and speaking in ambiguity to make anything mean exactly what we intend it to mean.
I give you Donald Trump. Kelly Anne Conway. Alternate Facts.
"Artificial Intelligence" expressed in "Artificial Language" is what we are going to use to drain the swamp.
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2017/01/13198/seema-verma-trump-pick-medicaid-and-medicare
If the problem is alligators the mission objective solution is to drain the swamp. Targeting them one at a time to hold them a bay is a tactic. Winning strategy is draining the swamp and all the contiguous swamps they could slither off to.
Trump has frequently said the words "Drain the Swamp"
Note the next day: This blog entry was written entirely yesterday. The beginning links established the specific target alligator. One that I intended to home in on, clarify then the aim and fire at with a silver bullet solution curing the source of the sickness occurring in a single instance with a cure that would be universally applicable to curing the curing all global instances of the same sickness by killing all the same categorical alligators in the specific sector of the swamp.
If what cures, like killing a cancer in one instance also cures by killing every instance of the same cancer. It seems like an effective model. Then I went off target to frame the nature of the swamp the alligators are in.....it turned into a case of having lost sight of my objective I re-doubled my efforts!
Going off target was not a waste of time and ammunition. It was more like firing ideas for effect to see where they landed in relation to the target to straddle it. Then correct and fire again.
Seems like I ran out of ammunition as well as vision and was simply making a big bang but what follows that was written yesterday did get me some results....mostly in re-orienting my resources toward tactics and strategy in draining the swamp today.
Draining the swamp is a meme. An ambiguous natural language expression that sounds good but has little conceptual structure object oriented design supporting it. In the first place it is an action oriented plan to implement a metaphoric object oriented relationship between two (and more) things at top Parent Class level.
Draining the Swamp is conceptually taking a driving dominant Functional Oriented approach course of action to the the solving the Problem Domain. It is a Top Level Action in a plan that then creates a structure of top down breakdown actions to accomplish the Top Level action.
"Draining the Swamp" establishes the frame of the Problem Domain as "Action" and the solutions as a structure of actions.
Wrong Frame! And that is exactly why I went off course chasing Things framed in a dominant Functional Framework action decomposition "Drain the Swamp" approach of: Do this action, then do this sub action to enable that action, etc....etc.....wash, rinse and repeat in increasingly supporting "Do this to support that sub levels.
Wrong Frame! Old School.
New School: (maybe only my own school in which I am the only student as well as the teacher)
1. Identify the "hard science" physical objects in the Problem Domain and discover the truths of their Parent/Child object attributes, methods and messages.
2. Identify the "soft science" conceptual objects in the Problem Domain and discover the truths of their Parent/Child object attributes, methods and messages.
Hard Science: The real world physical object domain of what is factually discovered to be true about existing hard real things with factually ascribed by natural law true properties
Soft Science: The domain of human cognizance that creates conceptual things in our minds and assigns them properties through which we relate to our existence in a real world.
Some say that both Hard Science and Soft Science can relate to a Super Natural world. I believe that is another world beyond what we perceive in real time and space that may or may not exist. Due to the fact that it may or may not exist outside of Space and Time it should have not object relationship to our real world existence of either Hard or Soft Science. If it does not exist it is irrelevant or just a figment of the outer limits of Soft Science because other world thinking really does have influence on our real world existence values.
So I ditch the "Drain the Swamp" functional approach to solving the problem as a less effective methodology but acknowledge it as the dominant direct human nature action oriented "do some thing" inherited from the animal nature of out being. It is a natural tendency approach that constrains our problem solving ability.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/edward_snowden_faith_in_elected_leaders_is_a_20170121
Faith is an ambiguous thing that straddles both the real and supernatural words!
Back to where I went astray down an action oriented solution path yesterday. It had some value to the extent that nothing changes except as a function action. The heart of the problem is in our design of Conceptual Object Soft Science properties by virtue of which they can implement relations with other Soft Science and Hard Science objects to do things for better Human Problem Domain solutions.
Back to what I wrote yesterday:
He is the con man chief alligator that uses lies to hide the truth. His intention is to fill the swamp with alligators while saying he wants to drain it! His base are a multitude of useful idiot alligators that draw attention and resources. The big alligators are his lieutenants and generals in the swamp for the same purpose he is in it. When he puts more of those in the swamp the game becomes "Wack a Mole" to mix my metaphors.
The swamp is never drained it becomes an environment to grow more predatory creatures and draw in prey to feed on when the only way to fight them is one at a time and that tactic becomes a fallacious strategy for winning.......Not!
Health Care is a big issue. It is also a big unhealthy swamp. More like a place to go to get medical care by leaches and financially eaten by alligators.
By design Health Care exists in a financial swamp environment that serves its alligators. Health practitioners in the financial swamp are dedicated to do no harm as a way to do good for their patients. It is a strange paradox.
Seema Verma is an alligator in the swamp. Investigative reporting has shown a spotlight on this creature slithering in the dark. What she is and what she does. She is just one of so many like her existing in her problem domain sector of the swamp. Find the cure for the disease she carries and spreads and the same cure applies to cure the general disease.
The cure? Identification of the disease and targeted treatment to cure one instance cures all that are infected by it. Seema Verma is only one human carrier in a conceptual genetic like structure of trait inheritance from a Conceptual Parent of her domain class sharing the same trait causing the problem.
The solution to the Health Care system is........what......???
The solution is a scientific one.
Why are there so many science deniers in the Trump domain?
Science drains the swamp of what is not true by scientific method application to everything to validate what is true from what is not in the "Hard Science" physical world. Hard Science looks at "Soft Science" in the "Social Science" domain as......not really science but (be-grudgingly and reluctant to admit) becoming more like (walks like and quacks like) real science as technology progresses.
Where is that progress in the ambiguous world the domain of which is encompassed as "Social Science going??
What we have today as social conceptual structure today called Society is a functional result of our Human Intelligence to create a conceptual Social System that relates us to a real world environment in which we live.
In the Problem Domain of Medicine the application of Scientific Method has brought the unknown relationships of the natural physical world into a representational accurate model of cause and effect enabling discovery of what the source cause working back from observable effect connected to action that made it observable. The explanation is expressed in a precise least ambiguous natural language of mathematics that is our tool in discovery of the thing (discretely at the micro level, universally at higher levels approaching macro level) that causes the effect.
Human intelligence applied scientifically to our natural world to discover its relationships got us where we are today. We applied our intelligence to create explanatory structural conceptual models composed of conceptual thing idea beliefs that had ambiguous relation to the relationship to the natural world.
Human Intelligence has brought us a "long way" (as we see and think know it in our terms) from animal intelligence over a long time. That same intelligence is taking us into a future of discovery more about the nature of our own intelligence of social cognition beyond but based on the natural world we live in.
The real world pre-existing truths expressed by the "Language of Nature" that have been scientifically discovered and expressed in what we call spoken "Natural Language" have gone beyond Natural Language ambiguity to more precise less ambiguous and more provable truth based languages of expression.
It is amusing that we call it "Artificial Language" when everyone knows that real Natural Language is American! We are highly skilled in thinking and speaking in ambiguity to make anything mean exactly what we intend it to mean.
I give you Donald Trump. Kelly Anne Conway. Alternate Facts.
"Artificial Intelligence" expressed in "Artificial Language" is what we are going to use to drain the swamp.
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Marching for Mom(s) and those who choose not to be
I am going to put on a pink hat and and join the local post inauguration women's march today at 11:00.
This morning I am thinking about what I intend to do.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/print/chris_hedges_the_deep_state_will_influence_the_trump_presidency_20170117
Chris Hedges says at the 10 minute point: "....the machinery of the Deep State will be used to marginalize Trump to such an extent that they can finally get rid of him through impeachment"
A crises! The Deep State never let a good crises go to waste. It is the opportunity to seize more power. Control the crises, control the result.
The Deep State wins by being an unseen third party behind the curtain that gets you and him to fight and then is the real winner of the fight regardless of either you or him being the ones standing at the end. Little risk, great reward. The risk factor: Being revealed as the true instigating cause.
I wrote about Stakeholders in a recent prior blog entry.
Women are Social Stakeholders with relatively little collective standing in our society but much greater standing in the family unit. That traditional social nature of the family unit relationships based on "Father Figure" has been fractured in many ways. Women have gained greater Stakeholder standing rights both within the family and collectively in our society. Is it generally true that any gain in Stakeholder rights is at the expense of other Stakeholders especially the principal Stakeholder? How does the principal stakeholder defend against diminished control as a function of loss of rights? By conferring privileges (not rights) that can withdrawn.
Women want rights that are declared for all by self evident Truths. Privileges have been "given" by the traditional dominant Stakeholder. Demands for rights must be satisfied or repressed.
The Deep State behind the curtain is the entity that holds dominant self serving Stakeholder power but does not reveal the authoritarian nature of its true dominant standing that confers power. It is a narrow sector Father Figure with rights to hold a dominant fundamental Money Based Stake in the purpose of governance that has put a (disposable) puppet Father Figure in the chair of POTUS.
The coming crises has the potential to convey rights, power and increased Stakeholder standing to other Stakeholding entities in our American society and its governance. Who gets that increased standing an influence depends on who claims and defends their rights. There is always a minority Collective Stakeholder group. The balance of power depends on who has the majority Stakeholder position. Republican/Democrat? Liberal/Conservative? Rich/Poor? WeThePeople/DeepState?
Men/Women?......Maybe? Not in gender specific terms but in conceptual the conceptual terms of George Lakoff Authoritarian/Nurturing that has general historical linage as a progression of Male/Female roles in society. Women with balls have become a conceptual transgender thing. A woman who would assume the conceptual identity of a male authority figure and adopt the "natural" male Stakeholding rights of standing. Something that real gender males must repress.
We would be better off if women ran the world. Not by growing a set of balls but....this is radical...conceptually emasculating those that have them connected to the tool of dominance through power of authoritative control and aggressive tools of domination.
Guys love their guns. It is a guy thing buried down in our reptilian brains and physical chemical biology that enabled continued existence and evolution of our species of animal as a function of the dominant role of a male.
Why can't a woman be more like a man!
If women had majority stakeholder power in this world we would most likely advance to a better place as a function of conceptual role reversal to a dominance of nurturing care for our society and its governance.
Mother Nature, Mother Earth rule the physical domain by natural rights....they make an excellent model for conceptual structures.
Women have always been collectively the predominantly nurturing gender. Men have increasingly become more nurturing in nature. Not a great number for they would be known as wimps or those that throw a ball like a girl. However the emergence of men that have come out of the closet as tending more toward the nurturing nature, the balance of Stakeholder power has shifted to the Nurturing standing power.
When the crises fomented by the Deep State to give it more behind the scenes Stakeholding power and control influence it is the time for the Nurturing nature of human existence to seize control.
I went to Standing Rock as a veteran to stand in front of a society that had a Stakeholding System based on nurturing to the 7th generation rather than extraction. To stand in front of those Stakeholder claiming their rights as dominant. A society that had been corrupted by authoritarian powers of self serving economic exceptionalism expressing its rights in the face of society that must repress them with force for continued economic gain in the name of law and order.
I will be in the background of today's assertion of the rights and interests of women which to a great extent beyond the physical ones are the same interests of us all. In the face of violent repression I would and will move non-violently and defensively to the front.
Something I read this morning gives women substantial Stakeholder standing based on their contribution to the socio-economic capitalistic control of the means of production and the resources that go into production for a profit that drives the philosophy of out country:
"In Italy in the 1970s, at the high point of class struggles between unions and capitalists as well as between workers and their unions, socialist feminists found themselves making use of the concept of social reproduction. How does a society cultivate the conditions of its future existence? Before wage workers could produce things in factories, these theorists reasoned, someone had to produce (i.e., give birth to and raise, feed and clean up for) the workforce. The people who performed this labor were, by and large, women; that they were not paid a wage only confirmed that their role came prior to, and was indispensable for, the parts of common life that official statistics recognized as “economic.” The Italian theorists who proposed the term considered it vital not because they wanted to assert the importance of gender identity over other identities but because without the insight it provided, no understanding of class struggle — and no organization of the working class — could be complete."
Women create and grow the workers.....both men and women that go into both Management and Labor. Yes men play a role in that creation but less in the direct care and feeding nurturing growing.
This morning I am thinking about what I intend to do.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/print/chris_hedges_the_deep_state_will_influence_the_trump_presidency_20170117
Chris Hedges says at the 10 minute point: "....the machinery of the Deep State will be used to marginalize Trump to such an extent that they can finally get rid of him through impeachment"
A crises! The Deep State never let a good crises go to waste. It is the opportunity to seize more power. Control the crises, control the result.
The Deep State wins by being an unseen third party behind the curtain that gets you and him to fight and then is the real winner of the fight regardless of either you or him being the ones standing at the end. Little risk, great reward. The risk factor: Being revealed as the true instigating cause.
I wrote about Stakeholders in a recent prior blog entry.
Women are Social Stakeholders with relatively little collective standing in our society but much greater standing in the family unit. That traditional social nature of the family unit relationships based on "Father Figure" has been fractured in many ways. Women have gained greater Stakeholder standing rights both within the family and collectively in our society. Is it generally true that any gain in Stakeholder rights is at the expense of other Stakeholders especially the principal Stakeholder? How does the principal stakeholder defend against diminished control as a function of loss of rights? By conferring privileges (not rights) that can withdrawn.
Women want rights that are declared for all by self evident Truths. Privileges have been "given" by the traditional dominant Stakeholder. Demands for rights must be satisfied or repressed.
The Deep State behind the curtain is the entity that holds dominant self serving Stakeholder power but does not reveal the authoritarian nature of its true dominant standing that confers power. It is a narrow sector Father Figure with rights to hold a dominant fundamental Money Based Stake in the purpose of governance that has put a (disposable) puppet Father Figure in the chair of POTUS.
The coming crises has the potential to convey rights, power and increased Stakeholder standing to other Stakeholding entities in our American society and its governance. Who gets that increased standing an influence depends on who claims and defends their rights. There is always a minority Collective Stakeholder group. The balance of power depends on who has the majority Stakeholder position. Republican/Democrat? Liberal/Conservative? Rich/Poor? WeThePeople/DeepState?
Men/Women?......Maybe? Not in gender specific terms but in conceptual the conceptual terms of George Lakoff Authoritarian/Nurturing that has general historical linage as a progression of Male/Female roles in society. Women with balls have become a conceptual transgender thing. A woman who would assume the conceptual identity of a male authority figure and adopt the "natural" male Stakeholding rights of standing. Something that real gender males must repress.
We would be better off if women ran the world. Not by growing a set of balls but....this is radical...conceptually emasculating those that have them connected to the tool of dominance through power of authoritative control and aggressive tools of domination.
Guys love their guns. It is a guy thing buried down in our reptilian brains and physical chemical biology that enabled continued existence and evolution of our species of animal as a function of the dominant role of a male.
Why can't a woman be more like a man!
If women had majority stakeholder power in this world we would most likely advance to a better place as a function of conceptual role reversal to a dominance of nurturing care for our society and its governance.
Mother Nature, Mother Earth rule the physical domain by natural rights....they make an excellent model for conceptual structures.
Women have always been collectively the predominantly nurturing gender. Men have increasingly become more nurturing in nature. Not a great number for they would be known as wimps or those that throw a ball like a girl. However the emergence of men that have come out of the closet as tending more toward the nurturing nature, the balance of Stakeholder power has shifted to the Nurturing standing power.
When the crises fomented by the Deep State to give it more behind the scenes Stakeholding power and control influence it is the time for the Nurturing nature of human existence to seize control.
I went to Standing Rock as a veteran to stand in front of a society that had a Stakeholding System based on nurturing to the 7th generation rather than extraction. To stand in front of those Stakeholder claiming their rights as dominant. A society that had been corrupted by authoritarian powers of self serving economic exceptionalism expressing its rights in the face of society that must repress them with force for continued economic gain in the name of law and order.
I will be in the background of today's assertion of the rights and interests of women which to a great extent beyond the physical ones are the same interests of us all. In the face of violent repression I would and will move non-violently and defensively to the front.
Something I read this morning gives women substantial Stakeholder standing based on their contribution to the socio-economic capitalistic control of the means of production and the resources that go into production for a profit that drives the philosophy of out country:
"In Italy in the 1970s, at the high point of class struggles between unions and capitalists as well as between workers and their unions, socialist feminists found themselves making use of the concept of social reproduction. How does a society cultivate the conditions of its future existence? Before wage workers could produce things in factories, these theorists reasoned, someone had to produce (i.e., give birth to and raise, feed and clean up for) the workforce. The people who performed this labor were, by and large, women; that they were not paid a wage only confirmed that their role came prior to, and was indispensable for, the parts of common life that official statistics recognized as “economic.” The Italian theorists who proposed the term considered it vital not because they wanted to assert the importance of gender identity over other identities but because without the insight it provided, no understanding of class struggle — and no organization of the working class — could be complete."
Women create and grow the workers.....both men and women that go into both Management and Labor. Yes men play a role in that creation but less in the direct care and feeding nurturing growing.
Thursday, January 19, 2017
Stakeholder
Coming tomorrow: Perhaps an even more condensed statement on the nature of what Stakeholder is and what Stakeholder does.
Following Day: Rethinking the point.
This blog entry yesterday wandered around with the idea of Stakeholder. The point is this: By some divine right of our Money System that uses Money for resource allocation decisions confers upon those individuals and entities that have the most money the majority vote on any issue where other Stakeholders have a non-monetary interest like quality of life for the common good or guaranteed personal rights not to be infringed upon.
The point: He/She/It that has the Gold........Rules!
Those that don't?
Don't matter!
Money dominates our politics, our governance. Trump and his administration (our government) is all about money as a tool that grants them and their special interests to be the most important Stakeholders to decide how the power of their position and money is to be used and for what purpose.
That purpose is the point: Money for the sake of making More Money.....for them and their tribe.
The Stakeholder Common Good and General Welfare values? Buy their vote with promises of Money (from Jobs).
The business of America is Business!
We can perceive our country in a number of binary entity ways. Republican/Democrat in a political framework for example.
It looks to me like the highest level division in our country is classic Management/Labor. The classic rule there is that if Management does not make a profit (and take the most from profit for themselves first) there is no money for workers called labor jobs.
Management's Stake in the entire system is entirely monetary to enhance their quality of life agenda.
Labor has a monetary stake in a job.
There is a third party Stakeholder that has agenda and interests of the General Welfare. IT has members in both Management and Labor that consider non-monetary matters and benefits to the public to be at least mitigating or balancing and sometimes even exceeding the the Stakeholder with Money as its dominating decision making argument.
That third party is the people. People that will be in the streets on the 20th of Jan. 2017.
Stakeholder is a pendulum that swings. It has swung to the 1% with the money, put more of them in power in government. It must begin to swing back toward the interests of the 99%.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/01/compensating-losers-globalization.html
The Management solution to compensate those that are losing out in the way the system works to benefit the common good? It is.........Give them money in compensation for what they have lost in the the non-monetary common good and general public welfare! The Management Team the Public elected will sell off (monetize) Public Assets by sale to Private Interest. Give a one time benefit payment to the public. Collect rent forever. Everything is all about money, all reduced to money and the money value expression of everything......at least in the frame of relatively few Stakeholders with a whole lot of money and money power as well as political power.
Previous day wandering:::::.........follows.
Stakeholder is an ambiguous term. Wikipedia finds it necessary to disambiguate it in order to describe it. This is a broad attempt at dis-ambiguation but does narrow the problem domain of stakeholder sub-types. The sibling Children inheriting distinguishing attributes, methods and messages of it birthing Parent. (that's Object Oriented framework thinking)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder
Children of the Parent:Stakeholder........are IAW Wikipedia:
Kinda pathetic but it offers a way to define the Object:Parent:Stakeholder in terms of the collective common set of Attributes, Methods and Messages inherited by Object:Parent:Children (and wandering down this yellow brick road of Child inheritance: Children of Children of Children...etc.)
It's a Family Thing. Or, in my Object Oriented OO:Speak: Thing:Family. A Parent is known by the bottom up assembly of all the common Object traits of its Children.
What common Object Attributes, Methods and Messages do all the Children:Ducklings of Duck:Mama possess?
They Walk and Quack. Those are actions. Actions implement Attributes Ducklings share because they inherited them and the linked associated ability to implement them with Methods and Messages from a Parent. In this case "Object:Parent:Stakeholder.
Every thing is a Child of a Parent. An Instance of a higher level conceptual Conceptual Class. The Family Tree goes up as well as down.
What Conceptual Object is the Parent of Stakeholder in OO:Speak.
What does Stakeholder walk an quack like? What by its actions does it look most like a child of?
This is what I say in my version of OO:Speak..........
Money!
Stakeholder walks and quacks like a Child of the Object:Parent:Money
Object, Parent, Child expressed as Object:Parent:Child are simply universal conceptual placeholder terms until we replace them with specified entities. Specified with a Family name having specified Attributes, Methods and Messages. Its all a tree. Right side up or upside down. Top down or bottom up. Look at it either way.
Stakeholder as a Child of Money is a Use Case Thing. In this Case: The way it generally behaves applying the "Walks Like, Quacks Like" analysis of reality. From the way it behaves, it Parental Lineage is inferred.
However, unlike human Parent/Child relationships where two Parents contribute attributes to make and instance of the Class:TwoParent it takes a village to create a conceptual child of the higher level object ParentVillage.
Success has many Parents.
Failure by definition has only one.
If a Child is not the product of at least more than a single parent then it can't have any children because by definition the Child of a single parent can't exist. It is a null, I guess.
The Parent of Money?
Whatever two or more Objects created it.
Parent of Money?
Debt.
Parent of Debt?
A balance sheet equation: Some thing = No Thing (absence of the same thing)
Parent of the creation of the balance sheet equation?
The Ultimate Stakeholder with interest in the equation.
Bankster.
Money is a counter party thing. It takes more than a Bankster Stakeholder vested interest. It takes a recipient Object of the action lending.
Business.
Money is the decision making tool medium of exchange.
The concept of Stakeholder is generally framed in terms of a relationship with Money determining who a Stakeholder in the matter is. The entity that has the most money involved in the matter, whatever it may specifically be becomes the most important Stakeholder, having the most power to influence or control a decision on the basis of the most money invested or to be derived from the decision.
Other stakeholders with non-monetary interests in the matter are secondary by virtue of those with a monetary interest involved frame the issue monetary to their self interest benefit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sonny-perdue-agriculture-secretary_us_588010e9e4b02c1837e9a38d
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mnuchin-denies-exploiting-homeowners_us_5880ebffe4b096b4a23032d8
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-cabinet-ethics_us_5880e8e4e4b0e3a7356770c1
The rich Stakeholders in Trump's administration. They got rich by serving themselves well as the primary Stakeholder and benefactor of their work. How much concern will they have for Stakeholders in our country called citizens? They tend to be from business sectors closely related to their financial Stakeholdings.
I got mine. I'm aboard. Pull up the ladder!
Money interest or ownership must not necessarily confer dominant decision making power those claiming to be the most important Stakeholder in any public matter.
Following Day: Rethinking the point.
This blog entry yesterday wandered around with the idea of Stakeholder. The point is this: By some divine right of our Money System that uses Money for resource allocation decisions confers upon those individuals and entities that have the most money the majority vote on any issue where other Stakeholders have a non-monetary interest like quality of life for the common good or guaranteed personal rights not to be infringed upon.
The point: He/She/It that has the Gold........Rules!
Those that don't?
Don't matter!
Money dominates our politics, our governance. Trump and his administration (our government) is all about money as a tool that grants them and their special interests to be the most important Stakeholders to decide how the power of their position and money is to be used and for what purpose.
That purpose is the point: Money for the sake of making More Money.....for them and their tribe.
The Stakeholder Common Good and General Welfare values? Buy their vote with promises of Money (from Jobs).
The business of America is Business!
We can perceive our country in a number of binary entity ways. Republican/Democrat in a political framework for example.
It looks to me like the highest level division in our country is classic Management/Labor. The classic rule there is that if Management does not make a profit (and take the most from profit for themselves first) there is no money for workers called labor jobs.
Management's Stake in the entire system is entirely monetary to enhance their quality of life agenda.
Labor has a monetary stake in a job.
There is a third party Stakeholder that has agenda and interests of the General Welfare. IT has members in both Management and Labor that consider non-monetary matters and benefits to the public to be at least mitigating or balancing and sometimes even exceeding the the Stakeholder with Money as its dominating decision making argument.
That third party is the people. People that will be in the streets on the 20th of Jan. 2017.
Stakeholder is a pendulum that swings. It has swung to the 1% with the money, put more of them in power in government. It must begin to swing back toward the interests of the 99%.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/01/compensating-losers-globalization.html
The Management solution to compensate those that are losing out in the way the system works to benefit the common good? It is.........Give them money in compensation for what they have lost in the the non-monetary common good and general public welfare! The Management Team the Public elected will sell off (monetize) Public Assets by sale to Private Interest. Give a one time benefit payment to the public. Collect rent forever. Everything is all about money, all reduced to money and the money value expression of everything......at least in the frame of relatively few Stakeholders with a whole lot of money and money power as well as political power.
Previous day wandering:::::.........follows.
Stakeholder is an ambiguous term. Wikipedia finds it necessary to disambiguate it in order to describe it. This is a broad attempt at dis-ambiguation but does narrow the problem domain of stakeholder sub-types. The sibling Children inheriting distinguishing attributes, methods and messages of it birthing Parent. (that's Object Oriented framework thinking)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder
Children of the Parent:Stakeholder........are IAW Wikipedia:
- Stakeholder (corporate), an accountant, group, organization, member, or system that affects or can be affected by an organization's actions
- Stakeholder (law), a third party who temporarily holds money or property while its owner is still being determined
- Project stakeholder, a person, group or organization with an interest in a project
Kinda pathetic but it offers a way to define the Object:Parent:Stakeholder in terms of the collective common set of Attributes, Methods and Messages inherited by Object:Parent:Children (and wandering down this yellow brick road of Child inheritance: Children of Children of Children...etc.)
It's a Family Thing. Or, in my Object Oriented OO:Speak: Thing:Family. A Parent is known by the bottom up assembly of all the common Object traits of its Children.
What common Object Attributes, Methods and Messages do all the Children:Ducklings of Duck:Mama possess?
They Walk and Quack. Those are actions. Actions implement Attributes Ducklings share because they inherited them and the linked associated ability to implement them with Methods and Messages from a Parent. In this case "Object:Parent:Stakeholder.
Every thing is a Child of a Parent. An Instance of a higher level conceptual Conceptual Class. The Family Tree goes up as well as down.
What Conceptual Object is the Parent of Stakeholder in OO:Speak.
What does Stakeholder walk an quack like? What by its actions does it look most like a child of?
This is what I say in my version of OO:Speak..........
Money!
Stakeholder walks and quacks like a Child of the Object:Parent:Money
Object, Parent, Child expressed as Object:Parent:Child are simply universal conceptual placeholder terms until we replace them with specified entities. Specified with a Family name having specified Attributes, Methods and Messages. Its all a tree. Right side up or upside down. Top down or bottom up. Look at it either way.
Stakeholder as a Child of Money is a Use Case Thing. In this Case: The way it generally behaves applying the "Walks Like, Quacks Like" analysis of reality. From the way it behaves, it Parental Lineage is inferred.
However, unlike human Parent/Child relationships where two Parents contribute attributes to make and instance of the Class:TwoParent it takes a village to create a conceptual child of the higher level object ParentVillage.
Success has many Parents.
Failure by definition has only one.
If a Child is not the product of at least more than a single parent then it can't have any children because by definition the Child of a single parent can't exist. It is a null, I guess.
The Parent of Money?
Whatever two or more Objects created it.
Parent of Money?
Debt.
Parent of Debt?
A balance sheet equation: Some thing = No Thing (absence of the same thing)
Parent of the creation of the balance sheet equation?
The Ultimate Stakeholder with interest in the equation.
Bankster.
Money is a counter party thing. It takes more than a Bankster Stakeholder vested interest. It takes a recipient Object of the action lending.
Business.
Money is the decision making tool medium of exchange.
The concept of Stakeholder is generally framed in terms of a relationship with Money determining who a Stakeholder in the matter is. The entity that has the most money involved in the matter, whatever it may specifically be becomes the most important Stakeholder, having the most power to influence or control a decision on the basis of the most money invested or to be derived from the decision.
Other stakeholders with non-monetary interests in the matter are secondary by virtue of those with a monetary interest involved frame the issue monetary to their self interest benefit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sonny-perdue-agriculture-secretary_us_588010e9e4b02c1837e9a38d
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mnuchin-denies-exploiting-homeowners_us_5880ebffe4b096b4a23032d8
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-cabinet-ethics_us_5880e8e4e4b0e3a7356770c1
The rich Stakeholders in Trump's administration. They got rich by serving themselves well as the primary Stakeholder and benefactor of their work. How much concern will they have for Stakeholders in our country called citizens? They tend to be from business sectors closely related to their financial Stakeholdings.
I got mine. I'm aboard. Pull up the ladder!
Money interest or ownership must not necessarily confer dominant decision making power those claiming to be the most important Stakeholder in any public matter.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Transgender Conceptual Shift
There is very little ambiguity in the perceived meaning of the subject title of this blog entry!
The popular perception is related to sexual identity. Which bathroom to use for example. It is a binary thing with a relationship to physical properties and conceptual properties. Physical if there is an actual sex change operation. My mind does not want to go there to either learn more about the operation itself. Some do it. Relatively few I would think. I don't know but tend to believe that most transgender shifting is conceptual related and not related to a medical sex change operation.
A purely conceptual transgender shift results in what? Acting in a manner of the other sex? By their actions they will be identified? If a person of a given physical sex does not look or act like the opposite sex how would anyone know that they don't tend to internally think and feel along the stereo typical social role lines by which society generally defines the differences between men and women in our society?
Men tend to think and feel this way and therefore act like this. Hunters.
Women tend to think and feel that way and therefore act like that. Gatherers.
That is a common perception that seems to play out in reality.
What if a man could shift to the conceptual structure that is the nature of female thinking/feeling?
That is hard to imagine. Harder than the simple empathy of being in another persons shoes.
The colliery is, of course: What if a woman could shift to the conceptual structure that is the nature of male thinking/feeling.
Each nature is driven by biological determinants. We have natural hormonal differences producing conceptual differences at the collective level.
Some say...The world would be a better place in women were in charge. I agree.
Many say that the world is going to be a worse place with Trump, an economic hunter/killer, sexual predator, intelligence challenged man in charge that has great potential danger to us all but perhaps a greater danger to women and women's issues. I say that and believe it.
I'll join the women interest oriented march lead by women on the 21st of Jan. The day after Trump assumes office and a couple days before he can start to do his official damage.
Have I undergone some kind of a transgender conceptual shift in which my nurture nature dominates my hunter nature conceptual structure?
OMG! Is this a come out of the closet thing?
No, I am still an hunter killer attacker of concepts that would destroy us.
Bi-polar maybe?
Should I wear a pink hat on Saturday?
The popular perception is related to sexual identity. Which bathroom to use for example. It is a binary thing with a relationship to physical properties and conceptual properties. Physical if there is an actual sex change operation. My mind does not want to go there to either learn more about the operation itself. Some do it. Relatively few I would think. I don't know but tend to believe that most transgender shifting is conceptual related and not related to a medical sex change operation.
A purely conceptual transgender shift results in what? Acting in a manner of the other sex? By their actions they will be identified? If a person of a given physical sex does not look or act like the opposite sex how would anyone know that they don't tend to internally think and feel along the stereo typical social role lines by which society generally defines the differences between men and women in our society?
Men tend to think and feel this way and therefore act like this. Hunters.
Women tend to think and feel that way and therefore act like that. Gatherers.
That is a common perception that seems to play out in reality.
What if a man could shift to the conceptual structure that is the nature of female thinking/feeling?
That is hard to imagine. Harder than the simple empathy of being in another persons shoes.
The colliery is, of course: What if a woman could shift to the conceptual structure that is the nature of male thinking/feeling.
Each nature is driven by biological determinants. We have natural hormonal differences producing conceptual differences at the collective level.
Some say...The world would be a better place in women were in charge. I agree.
Many say that the world is going to be a worse place with Trump, an economic hunter/killer, sexual predator, intelligence challenged man in charge that has great potential danger to us all but perhaps a greater danger to women and women's issues. I say that and believe it.
I'll join the women interest oriented march lead by women on the 21st of Jan. The day after Trump assumes office and a couple days before he can start to do his official damage.
Have I undergone some kind of a transgender conceptual shift in which my nurture nature dominates my hunter nature conceptual structure?
OMG! Is this a come out of the closet thing?
No, I am still an hunter killer attacker of concepts that would destroy us.
Bi-polar maybe?
Should I wear a pink hat on Saturday?
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Constraints Controls and Imperatives
Looking at the subject line word order and extending the thoughts of the prior blog entry about these concepts.
The giants of the paradigm shift to Object Orientation from in the Information Age from the dominant Functional Orientation of the Industrial Age are old but still around and still advancing the state of the art to the next big step. I think that the best example of that Next Step is Artificial Intelligence. Nothing really artificial about it at all. In fact it is a refinement of Human Intelligence that accomplishes a substantial reduction of total ambiguity coded in our legacy system (Language:Natural:English) and its application to create Natural Narrative Language based social conceptual Operating Systems and Application programs.
"Ockham clearly thought that everything that can be expressed in any language can also be expressed in the mental language. This is because all expressions of the spoken language are subordinate to expressions of the mental language." - Representations and Objects of Thought in Miedevel Philosophy - Henrik Lagerlund, 2016
Interesting link. Read it for more related to his thoughts and thoughts related to Noam Chomsky.
Structured thought and language are not new logic concepts that smack us in the face and look likes something that we never saw before this paradigm shift of Object Oriented thinking expressed in Artificial Intelligence of a machine..
So much for historic background.
A most recent big step in Artificial Intelligence of real and conceptual machines that we create is the emergence of Constraint based structural system that looks like it is more in tune with the way Natural Physical World Systems (Mother Nature) control structure in the physical world.
Constraint/Imperative is starting to look to me like a two fundamental schools of thought about the nature and function of our conceptual thinking and creation of conceptual systems on physical machines analogous to Language:Artificial:Functional/Object. Maybe everything in both the natural world domain and our conceptual world domain exists within a higher level problem domain, I can't see a good name for it.....yet.....that is controlled by Constraint based Objects.
Looking at EveryThing:Natural/Conceptual at both its most granular level of being as well as its most collective level of being in either state in relation to an implementing action of Constraint that connects or relates the logic SubjectThing:Natural/Conceptual state of being (case) to its ObjectThing:Natural/Conceptual receiver of an implementing action in a framework where Constraint is the Master Control Action produces a whole new way to look at the structure of Everything and how it operates at the macro and micro level?
Looks and feels like the the key to knowing it all? At least the best BlockChain door of perception of the Problem Domain to go through on the way to.......continuing on the proven true path of......what...Human Intelligence.
To travel on that BlockChain of HumanIntelligence truth we have to put on better walking shoes and those walking shoes are a better more precise and less ambiguous language. The language we are creating to teach ourselves that we perceive as Artificial until we comprehend that we are not the center of the universe around which all of our so called "Conceptual World" and is organized in our "Natural Language" of our own creations. We orbit a more natural center of a Real World structured on Constraints first and foremost to determine the continuation of the TimeSpace continuum, not Imperatives.
So what......? What does that make things as far as a Parent/Child Object Oriented relationship?
Constraint is the Parent of the Child:Imperative? What are the Siblings of Imperative and their Children? Do they all their relationships implement on the Master Parent Action of Constraint?
What is that all called?
A perfectly balanced Total System?
Test that thought.
I started out this morning to comment on Bill Black's latest statement of Economic Truth.
"The United States government is not – and cannot be except through self-inflicted insanity such as austerity and debt limits – “cash-strapped.” The U.S. creates cash. The U.S. can be resource constrained, but not cash or credit constrained." In accordance with Bill's thinking: "Austerity is an Imperative" solution to the Cash or Credit Problem Domain is entirely wrong. I agree. He implies that we are not cash constrained. Not entirely an absolute truth and his intellectual attackers will seize on that to attack him. We are not cash or credit constrained but the concept of money (cash) is subject to a constraint system designed to fulfill its purpose of balance as a medium of exchange. Subtle but simple. Simply correct.
Before I could get there I wandered of on a BlockChain branch that took me down a different path.
The ultimate BlockChain of TimeSpace is not linear truth....It goes everywhere at once subject to no constraints? The Black Hole Universe on the other side of our Constrained Real Universe that we perceive in conceptual language terms because Balance is the Ultimate Constraint?
Hey.....!
New creative thought here:
Balance is the Ultimate Constraint!..........Only one single Google search hit on that phrase!
(Weird site! Not sure it deals with the same concept I see) Drugs as the door to Intelligent Knowledge? Far out! Some food for thought here but I would be careful in swallowing it!
http://www.supra-id.org Certainly a different Point of Entry than mine. Weird stuff but maybe there is a meeting of minds here from the site even it comes out of left field:
"The SupraIntelligent Design is a scientifically aligned understanding of nature's architecture that identifies the fundamental themes that suffuse nature's designs while also explaining that the overall design has an embedded aim that requires the arising of life and consciousness. Nature is constrained to follow the basal themes of symmetry and quantization, which ascend into the highest complexity realms of life and consciousness. REP explains how these themes are connected to a meaning and purpose embedded within natural reality that require advanced consciousness to arise."
and....
This comment from the discussion segment of the site worth pondering. Simple circular reasoning or profound insight?................
"The design of nature is the principal evidence for the nature of reality."
The same thing as the Imperative; "holding truths to be self evident in all domains"
and this and the following paragraph extracted from the supra.id site regarding Contraints:
My thought:
"Balance is the Ultimate Constraint"
Might I have it all wrong?
Is Balance the Ultimate Imperative?
Down which Branch does the true BlockChain continue?
Whichever branch we choose as true.
One leads one way.
The other leads another way.
Free will decides?
or
Does our best "least constrained by ambiguity Intelligence" decide for us?
Conundrum is the BlackHole of thought.
Think about It.
https://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Visions-Ideological-Political-Struggles/dp/0465002056
Reader comment found there:
"'Inalienable Rights' can never become fully actualized while 'intellectuals' espouse an 'ideology' conducive to their desire for power and control. H.L. Mencken says it best: "As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron."...."
This link looks at Bush as the Moron. Little did we know about the Bigger Moron theory...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/what-would-hl-mencken-think-of-the-spectacle-that-is-the-us-election/article31081254/
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." H. L. Mencken.
Something in that makes the case for AI based on a Natural World of individual living entities operating in a constraint based system to attain balance as a function of interacting constraints to accomplish the common good through the design of the natural world.
We, by virtue of our human intelligence to create un-natural conceptual Imperative based systems will fail to achieve a balance. Our creation of an Artificial Intelligence based on Nature's constraint based system will be the tool to achieve balance in our human existence for the common good.
AI is just a tool we create to enable us to be better, do better....for out collective selves.
http://www.supra-id.org/
"The supraintelligent design does not entertain a free-thinking cognizance (such as human consciousness possesses) transcendent to physical reality. The "thoughts" that comprise the substance of nature are the full mathematical fabric of the complete physical reality. These thoughts are supraintelligent because they embed a highest purpose into their actuality. The SupraIntelligent Design's thesis is: the architecture of physical reality, from the underlying fields and their elementary particle excitations to the macro-cosmic structure of the multiverse, possesses an embedded aim. This aim requires the production of the advanced consciousness of highly evolved life and its purpose is no less than the continuation of existence itself."
The giants of the paradigm shift to Object Orientation from in the Information Age from the dominant Functional Orientation of the Industrial Age are old but still around and still advancing the state of the art to the next big step. I think that the best example of that Next Step is Artificial Intelligence. Nothing really artificial about it at all. In fact it is a refinement of Human Intelligence that accomplishes a substantial reduction of total ambiguity coded in our legacy system (Language:Natural:English) and its application to create Natural Narrative Language based social conceptual Operating Systems and Application programs.
"Ockham clearly thought that everything that can be expressed in any language can also be expressed in the mental language. This is because all expressions of the spoken language are subordinate to expressions of the mental language." - Representations and Objects of Thought in Miedevel Philosophy - Henrik Lagerlund, 2016
Interesting link. Read it for more related to his thoughts and thoughts related to Noam Chomsky.
Structured thought and language are not new logic concepts that smack us in the face and look likes something that we never saw before this paradigm shift of Object Oriented thinking expressed in Artificial Intelligence of a machine..
So much for historic background.
A most recent big step in Artificial Intelligence of real and conceptual machines that we create is the emergence of Constraint based structural system that looks like it is more in tune with the way Natural Physical World Systems (Mother Nature) control structure in the physical world.
Constraint/Imperative is starting to look to me like a two fundamental schools of thought about the nature and function of our conceptual thinking and creation of conceptual systems on physical machines analogous to Language:Artificial:Functional/Object. Maybe everything in both the natural world domain and our conceptual world domain exists within a higher level problem domain, I can't see a good name for it.....yet.....that is controlled by Constraint based Objects.
Looking at EveryThing:Natural/Conceptual at both its most granular level of being as well as its most collective level of being in either state in relation to an implementing action of Constraint that connects or relates the logic SubjectThing:Natural/Conceptual state of being (case) to its ObjectThing:Natural/Conceptual receiver of an implementing action in a framework where Constraint is the Master Control Action produces a whole new way to look at the structure of Everything and how it operates at the macro and micro level?
Looks and feels like the the key to knowing it all? At least the best BlockChain door of perception of the Problem Domain to go through on the way to.......continuing on the proven true path of......what...Human Intelligence.
To travel on that BlockChain of HumanIntelligence truth we have to put on better walking shoes and those walking shoes are a better more precise and less ambiguous language. The language we are creating to teach ourselves that we perceive as Artificial until we comprehend that we are not the center of the universe around which all of our so called "Conceptual World" and is organized in our "Natural Language" of our own creations. We orbit a more natural center of a Real World structured on Constraints first and foremost to determine the continuation of the TimeSpace continuum, not Imperatives.
So what......? What does that make things as far as a Parent/Child Object Oriented relationship?
Constraint is the Parent of the Child:Imperative? What are the Siblings of Imperative and their Children? Do they all their relationships implement on the Master Parent Action of Constraint?
What is that all called?
A perfectly balanced Total System?
Test that thought.
I started out this morning to comment on Bill Black's latest statement of Economic Truth.
"The United States government is not – and cannot be except through self-inflicted insanity such as austerity and debt limits – “cash-strapped.” The U.S. creates cash. The U.S. can be resource constrained, but not cash or credit constrained." In accordance with Bill's thinking: "Austerity is an Imperative" solution to the Cash or Credit Problem Domain is entirely wrong. I agree. He implies that we are not cash constrained. Not entirely an absolute truth and his intellectual attackers will seize on that to attack him. We are not cash or credit constrained but the concept of money (cash) is subject to a constraint system designed to fulfill its purpose of balance as a medium of exchange. Subtle but simple. Simply correct.
Before I could get there I wandered of on a BlockChain branch that took me down a different path.
The ultimate BlockChain of TimeSpace is not linear truth....It goes everywhere at once subject to no constraints? The Black Hole Universe on the other side of our Constrained Real Universe that we perceive in conceptual language terms because Balance is the Ultimate Constraint?
Hey.....!
New creative thought here:
Balance is the Ultimate Constraint!..........Only one single Google search hit on that phrase!
(Weird site! Not sure it deals with the same concept I see) Drugs as the door to Intelligent Knowledge? Far out! Some food for thought here but I would be careful in swallowing it!
http://www.supra-id.org Certainly a different Point of Entry than mine. Weird stuff but maybe there is a meeting of minds here from the site even it comes out of left field:
"The SupraIntelligent Design is a scientifically aligned understanding of nature's architecture that identifies the fundamental themes that suffuse nature's designs while also explaining that the overall design has an embedded aim that requires the arising of life and consciousness. Nature is constrained to follow the basal themes of symmetry and quantization, which ascend into the highest complexity realms of life and consciousness. REP explains how these themes are connected to a meaning and purpose embedded within natural reality that require advanced consciousness to arise."
and....
This comment from the discussion segment of the site worth pondering. Simple circular reasoning or profound insight?................
"The design of nature is the principal evidence for the nature of reality."
The same thing as the Imperative; "holding truths to be self evident in all domains"
and this and the following paragraph extracted from the supra.id site regarding Contraints:
"1) For every truth, there is an explanation of why it is true. This is the principle of sufficient reason.
2) No truth can explain itself. This is the axiom of foundation.
The
first constraint indicates when a search for the truth may
terminate—but only when no further explanation is required for a truth
is that truth self-standing. If a search comprises a “vertical” ascent
into an unterminating chain of higher explanatory truths, a signal is
generated—a highest truth will not be found. The second constraint
blocks a truth from directly explaining itself, which would violate
logic and causality"
"Nature is constrained to follow the basal themes of symmetry and quantization, which ascend into the highest complexity realms of life and consciousness."
"Nature is constrained to follow the basal themes of symmetry and quantization, which ascend into the highest complexity realms of life and consciousness."
My thought:
"Balance is the Ultimate Constraint"
Might I have it all wrong?
Is Balance the Ultimate Imperative?
Down which Branch does the true BlockChain continue?
Whichever branch we choose as true.
One leads one way.
The other leads another way.
Free will decides?
or
Does our best "least constrained by ambiguity Intelligence" decide for us?
Conundrum is the BlackHole of thought.
Think about It.
https://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Visions-Ideological-Political-Struggles/dp/0465002056
Reader comment found there:
"'Inalienable Rights' can never become fully actualized while 'intellectuals' espouse an 'ideology' conducive to their desire for power and control. H.L. Mencken says it best: "As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron."...."
This link looks at Bush as the Moron. Little did we know about the Bigger Moron theory...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/what-would-hl-mencken-think-of-the-spectacle-that-is-the-us-election/article31081254/
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." H. L. Mencken.
Something in that makes the case for AI based on a Natural World of individual living entities operating in a constraint based system to attain balance as a function of interacting constraints to accomplish the common good through the design of the natural world.
We, by virtue of our human intelligence to create un-natural conceptual Imperative based systems will fail to achieve a balance. Our creation of an Artificial Intelligence based on Nature's constraint based system will be the tool to achieve balance in our human existence for the common good.
AI is just a tool we create to enable us to be better, do better....for out collective selves.
http://www.supra-id.org/
"The supraintelligent design does not entertain a free-thinking cognizance (such as human consciousness possesses) transcendent to physical reality. The "thoughts" that comprise the substance of nature are the full mathematical fabric of the complete physical reality. These thoughts are supraintelligent because they embed a highest purpose into their actuality. The SupraIntelligent Design's thesis is: the architecture of physical reality, from the underlying fields and their elementary particle excitations to the macro-cosmic structure of the multiverse, possesses an embedded aim. This aim requires the production of the advanced consciousness of highly evolved life and its purpose is no less than the continuation of existence itself."
Monday, January 16, 2017
MLK Day
Looking at MLK today from a different standpoint as a result of the prior blog entry.
Was his an Imperative based approach to the problem or was it Constraint based?
Morally Imperative as the absolutely right thing to do.
Constraint based as the only the only natural best way to accomplish the freeing of constraining Imperative conceptual moral value chains that bind all of us.
An extremely complex set of constraining relationships can lead to one single simple imperative solution.
That previous statement puts a conceptual Constraint based approach in the Subject drivers seat of the relationship instead of the conceptual Imperative based approach. What becomes conceptually Imperative as a result is analogous to a Natural Physical World result of its Constraint based system of Nature.
His was the natural way of implementing the conceptual dream that he saw?
Whose way is the natural way after all?
Perhaps the human failings that he sought to correct existed because we declare conceptual imperatives in advance rather that let them find their natural course of development as the result of a constraint balanced based system.
He was non-violent.
Violence is Imperative based?
Non-violence is constraint based?
Was his an Imperative based approach to the problem or was it Constraint based?
Morally Imperative as the absolutely right thing to do.
Constraint based as the only the only natural best way to accomplish the freeing of constraining Imperative conceptual moral value chains that bind all of us.
An extremely complex set of constraining relationships can lead to one single simple imperative solution.
That previous statement puts a conceptual Constraint based approach in the Subject drivers seat of the relationship instead of the conceptual Imperative based approach. What becomes conceptually Imperative as a result is analogous to a Natural Physical World result of its Constraint based system of Nature.
His was the natural way of implementing the conceptual dream that he saw?
Whose way is the natural way after all?
Perhaps the human failings that he sought to correct existed because we declare conceptual imperatives in advance rather that let them find their natural course of development as the result of a constraint balanced based system.
He was non-violent.
Violence is Imperative based?
Non-violence is constraint based?
Modularity 2016 Keynote - Alan Borning - Constraints and Modularity
As I was watching the subject presentation by Alan Borning on Youtube.....
......................https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0CCG12ieiU.................
an email notification pop-up appeared on the top left of my screen. The text summary caught my eye.
BREAKING: After Trump refused to address his unprecedented conflicts of interest, Elizabeth Warren announced a bill to force him to sell the Trump Organization and put his assets in a true blind trust.
This is the link: http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/warren-bill-trump-conflicts-dp/?source=npv-welcome&t=2&akid=5072.3972103.JKvq9P
It was an excellent example of relationship constraint application at the top level of design! Furthermore, it appeared at the point..about 20 minutes into the video....where Alan was presenting the constraint example of a physical bridge truss.
Constraints on a president are conceptual but no less absolute in many cases as physical law constraints. If not observed (not constrained (failing to meet min/max parameters) the bridge will not be permitted to be built because it will fail. If the bridge is built it will fail!
Alan was illustrating on a computer screen the graphic representation of constraint programming.
The president operates in a relationship constrained system. Constrained by relational laws programmed in natural language.
What if all these constraints were programmed in a machine language Artificial Intelligence system?
Elizabeth Warren could sit a her computer with a GUI constraint relationship program displaying the structure of the office of the POTUS. She could apply the constraint of the law she proposes and demonstrate results.
Note: Rule of probability applied to self interest might be.....If self interest benefit can sub-optimize the performance of duties the concept of greed unconstrained elevates the importance of personal gain over performance of public benefit duties. Or something like that in the book of rules of human nature.
The need for the law she proposes is based on the truth of the constraint. The absence of observing the truth carries the probability of structural failure.
Elizabeth simply draws a constraint line between the office of POTUS and the private ownership of business by POTUS. Alternately she clicks on the line that POTUS wants to maintain and eliminates it completely. Then she introduces a constraint relationship between a Regulatory Agency AI Constraint enforcement model and POTUS to assure that the constraint is continuously observed. Related to the operation of the Regulatory Agency enforcement responsibility is the requirement for real time monitoring and periodic reporting of compliance by its AI program and action by internal human regulators (or external Attorney General Constraint AI Operating System and Application Programs or human regulators when constraints are violated.)
Congress therefore becomes an Operating System design maintenance and control entity in a check and balance system related to the constraints on the Executive Branch that is all encoded in an Artificial Language Operating System from its current legacy Natural Language Operating System. In that translated Operating system legislators interface with an Open Source Transparent Public System with administration privileges subject to approval of a majority of their legislative peers......or something like that.
The Information Age gives us the model for all of this to be constructed.
Our governance system is......looks and feels like......a constraint based system! But its constraints are ambiguous in nature (loop holes) as a function of its Operating System and Application Programs all expressed in Natural Language.
If the entire system of governance operated on an AI operating system and application programs then SysAdmins (elected officials) could all perform the duties of their office from home state. All relationships between elected officials and the public related to change in the Governance Operating System (any entity having contact with their office) would be through the AI Operating System. That system would be open and transparent and record all interaction content in a BlockChain system that validates the ultimate relational constraint of anything in terms of time and space.
BlockChain is the ultimate constraint to which every change of state complies.
There are multiple points of entry to the solution of any given Problem Domain. One point of entry is necessary to get everyone working on the solution on the same start page. It looks to me like our existence in the natural world is subject to the constraint laws of nature. RealTime and RealSpace being big constraints. The big bubble we all work within in our natural world. We can exceed that natural constraint in our conceptual world but we cannot escape the constraint of expressing what we can exceed in our conceptual dreams and schema in the Here/EternalNow constraint of our natural world.
Our Operating System and Application Programs to address our ProblemDomain of existence in the here and now are ultimately and fundamentally constraint based in nature. Relatively unconstrained in our dreams and schemes related to an open ended future of possibilities but the success of implementing the experimental future is tested by how we draw it into the present BlockChain stream that turns it into the truth of history.
Artificial Intelligence is our best tool to reduce ambiguity in making the future reality to accomplish our collective governance and common good.
When the precise (but what we now call Artificial) Language transforms to a less ambiguous implementation of a common universal Natural Language 2.0 then the conceptual machines we create, like our Governance Machine can be expressed to solve the Problem Domain of our Governance Operating System and Application Program.
The precise Point of Entry to the biggest Problem Domain of our Human Existence looks to me like the concept drawing our future into the present at the price of establishing a monetary debt that constrains us to pay back the future is an absolutely fallacious constraint. Perhaps inherited by the religious conceptual notion that our individual and collective existence is based on conceptual pay debt to the future settled in term of real time pay back....with interest. A conceptual notion entirely of our own creation that finds itself in the model our debt based monetary system.
AI systems are of our own conceptual creation. Free of the ambiguity of our human nature what would AI tell us about what ultimate constraint to build our future on. To draw our future into the present?
Future Debt constraint paid back in Real Time is not the price to pay for our Monetary System.
Our Monetary System must not be constrained in that manner.
All systems are subject to constraint but what natural law system is constrained by payback of future debt constraint?
Constraint based grammar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constraint-based_grammar
"A generative grammar lists all the transformations, merges, movements, and deletions that can result in all well-formed sentences, while constraint-based grammars, take the opposite approach, allowing anything that is not otherwise constrained. "The grammar is nothing but a set of contraints that structures are required to satisfy in order to be considered well-formed."[1] "A constrain-based grammar is more like a data base or a knowledge representation system than it is like a collection of algorithms."[2]
Alan Boring participated in this publication: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ipsjjip/24/6/24_917/_pdf
Babelsberg: http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~borning/papers/felgentreff-babelsberg-semantics-2014.pdf
https://www.holaportal.com/publication/babelsberg-specifying-and-solving-constraints-on-object-behavior-9465/
constraint based natural language parse
This link squares off concepts of (mission) imperatives with (financial) constraints.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/fiscal-and-financial-issues-for-21st-century-cities/
"More and more, solutions to urban challenges involve
creative approaches that circumvent the constraints
of traditional governmental bureaucracies
through greater collaboration with the private sector
and civil society. Yet no amount of innovation
can escape the need to tackle fiscal constraints and
set up mechanisms that allow for a predictable
flow of funding from national and regional governments
to cities. Mapping these arrangements
presents a daunting challenge for city leaders. The
underlying decision-making structures and the
merits of governance arrangements also need to
be assessed from a national perspective if the cities
of the future are to be better and more effectively
governed."
Shifting my thinking toward a philosophical view of Imperatives and Constraints:
If we model our conceptual world on the order of the natural world are the Laws of Nature Imperative or Constraint based?
Side thought: Nature does not borrow physical resources from the future to support real time application on contractual debt terms to pay back the loan. It does not draw the future into the present.....at any price. It evidently cannot. I can't come up with an example. The natural world is solely a function of its BlockChain past of space and time of relational imperative or constrained events.
Maybe nothing is Imperative in the natural world except Space and Time. Everything else is an extremely complex and beautiful interaction of things constraining one another......leading to....
........the Balance of Nature?
Is an Imperative and all Imperatives in the role of the independent declarative based Subject dictating the relationship to an Object only simply and truly a creature of our conceptually created domain more accurately described as Moral Imperative? It is Imperative because we say it is Imperative with an assigned value and therefore dominating design?
There is a sift taking place in the world of programming from Imperative declarative base to Constraint based. Maybe more in tune, more efficient and elegant to solve problems in the same manner as the Natural World solves problems for itself?
......................https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0CCG12ieiU.................
an email notification pop-up appeared on the top left of my screen. The text summary caught my eye.
BREAKING: After Trump refused to address his unprecedented conflicts of interest, Elizabeth Warren announced a bill to force him to sell the Trump Organization and put his assets in a true blind trust.
This is the link: http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/warren-bill-trump-conflicts-dp/?source=npv-welcome&t=2&akid=5072.3972103.JKvq9P
It was an excellent example of relationship constraint application at the top level of design! Furthermore, it appeared at the point..about 20 minutes into the video....where Alan was presenting the constraint example of a physical bridge truss.
Constraints on a president are conceptual but no less absolute in many cases as physical law constraints. If not observed (not constrained (failing to meet min/max parameters) the bridge will not be permitted to be built because it will fail. If the bridge is built it will fail!
Alan was illustrating on a computer screen the graphic representation of constraint programming.
The president operates in a relationship constrained system. Constrained by relational laws programmed in natural language.
What if all these constraints were programmed in a machine language Artificial Intelligence system?
Elizabeth Warren could sit a her computer with a GUI constraint relationship program displaying the structure of the office of the POTUS. She could apply the constraint of the law she proposes and demonstrate results.
Note: Rule of probability applied to self interest might be.....If self interest benefit can sub-optimize the performance of duties the concept of greed unconstrained elevates the importance of personal gain over performance of public benefit duties. Or something like that in the book of rules of human nature.
The need for the law she proposes is based on the truth of the constraint. The absence of observing the truth carries the probability of structural failure.
Elizabeth simply draws a constraint line between the office of POTUS and the private ownership of business by POTUS. Alternately she clicks on the line that POTUS wants to maintain and eliminates it completely. Then she introduces a constraint relationship between a Regulatory Agency AI Constraint enforcement model and POTUS to assure that the constraint is continuously observed. Related to the operation of the Regulatory Agency enforcement responsibility is the requirement for real time monitoring and periodic reporting of compliance by its AI program and action by internal human regulators (or external Attorney General Constraint AI Operating System and Application Programs or human regulators when constraints are violated.)
Congress therefore becomes an Operating System design maintenance and control entity in a check and balance system related to the constraints on the Executive Branch that is all encoded in an Artificial Language Operating System from its current legacy Natural Language Operating System. In that translated Operating system legislators interface with an Open Source Transparent Public System with administration privileges subject to approval of a majority of their legislative peers......or something like that.
The Information Age gives us the model for all of this to be constructed.
Our governance system is......looks and feels like......a constraint based system! But its constraints are ambiguous in nature (loop holes) as a function of its Operating System and Application Programs all expressed in Natural Language.
If the entire system of governance operated on an AI operating system and application programs then SysAdmins (elected officials) could all perform the duties of their office from home state. All relationships between elected officials and the public related to change in the Governance Operating System (any entity having contact with their office) would be through the AI Operating System. That system would be open and transparent and record all interaction content in a BlockChain system that validates the ultimate relational constraint of anything in terms of time and space.
BlockChain is the ultimate constraint to which every change of state complies.
There are multiple points of entry to the solution of any given Problem Domain. One point of entry is necessary to get everyone working on the solution on the same start page. It looks to me like our existence in the natural world is subject to the constraint laws of nature. RealTime and RealSpace being big constraints. The big bubble we all work within in our natural world. We can exceed that natural constraint in our conceptual world but we cannot escape the constraint of expressing what we can exceed in our conceptual dreams and schema in the Here/EternalNow constraint of our natural world.
Our Operating System and Application Programs to address our ProblemDomain of existence in the here and now are ultimately and fundamentally constraint based in nature. Relatively unconstrained in our dreams and schemes related to an open ended future of possibilities but the success of implementing the experimental future is tested by how we draw it into the present BlockChain stream that turns it into the truth of history.
Artificial Intelligence is our best tool to reduce ambiguity in making the future reality to accomplish our collective governance and common good.
When the precise (but what we now call Artificial) Language transforms to a less ambiguous implementation of a common universal Natural Language 2.0 then the conceptual machines we create, like our Governance Machine can be expressed to solve the Problem Domain of our Governance Operating System and Application Program.
The precise Point of Entry to the biggest Problem Domain of our Human Existence looks to me like the concept drawing our future into the present at the price of establishing a monetary debt that constrains us to pay back the future is an absolutely fallacious constraint. Perhaps inherited by the religious conceptual notion that our individual and collective existence is based on conceptual pay debt to the future settled in term of real time pay back....with interest. A conceptual notion entirely of our own creation that finds itself in the model our debt based monetary system.
AI systems are of our own conceptual creation. Free of the ambiguity of our human nature what would AI tell us about what ultimate constraint to build our future on. To draw our future into the present?
Future Debt constraint paid back in Real Time is not the price to pay for our Monetary System.
Our Monetary System must not be constrained in that manner.
All systems are subject to constraint but what natural law system is constrained by payback of future debt constraint?
Constraint based grammar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constraint-based_grammar
"A generative grammar lists all the transformations, merges, movements, and deletions that can result in all well-formed sentences, while constraint-based grammars, take the opposite approach, allowing anything that is not otherwise constrained. "The grammar is nothing but a set of contraints that structures are required to satisfy in order to be considered well-formed."[1] "A constrain-based grammar is more like a data base or a knowledge representation system than it is like a collection of algorithms."[2]
Alan Boring participated in this publication: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ipsjjip/24/6/24_917/_pdf
Babelsberg: http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~borning/papers/felgentreff-babelsberg-semantics-2014.pdf
https://www.holaportal.com/publication/babelsberg-specifying-and-solving-constraints-on-object-behavior-9465/
constraint based natural language parse
This link squares off concepts of (mission) imperatives with (financial) constraints.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/fiscal-and-financial-issues-for-21st-century-cities/
"More and more, solutions to urban challenges involve
creative approaches that circumvent the constraints
of traditional governmental bureaucracies
through greater collaboration with the private sector
and civil society. Yet no amount of innovation
can escape the need to tackle fiscal constraints and
set up mechanisms that allow for a predictable
flow of funding from national and regional governments
to cities. Mapping these arrangements
presents a daunting challenge for city leaders. The
underlying decision-making structures and the
merits of governance arrangements also need to
be assessed from a national perspective if the cities
of the future are to be better and more effectively
governed."
Shifting my thinking toward a philosophical view of Imperatives and Constraints:
If we model our conceptual world on the order of the natural world are the Laws of Nature Imperative or Constraint based?
Side thought: Nature does not borrow physical resources from the future to support real time application on contractual debt terms to pay back the loan. It does not draw the future into the present.....at any price. It evidently cannot. I can't come up with an example. The natural world is solely a function of its BlockChain past of space and time of relational imperative or constrained events.
Maybe nothing is Imperative in the natural world except Space and Time. Everything else is an extremely complex and beautiful interaction of things constraining one another......leading to....
........the Balance of Nature?
Is an Imperative and all Imperatives in the role of the independent declarative based Subject dictating the relationship to an Object only simply and truly a creature of our conceptually created domain more accurately described as Moral Imperative? It is Imperative because we say it is Imperative with an assigned value and therefore dominating design?
There is a sift taking place in the world of programming from Imperative declarative base to Constraint based. Maybe more in tune, more efficient and elegant to solve problems in the same manner as the Natural World solves problems for itself?