Five Popular Posts Of The Month

Tuesday, December 31, 2019

The Biggest Fakes and Breakthroughs of The Next Decade.

The biggest fakes.

1. Artificial Intelligence.

There is nothing really intelligent about it.
I have written numerous papers on the matter and address everyone to this page.
What “AI” represents and will be representing for a long time ahead is an advanced pattern-recognition system with limited ability to self-adjustment. Nothing more. It’s not a trivial matter, but it is not going to get close to human intelligence any soon. Of course, AI-called systems will penetrate many different practices, because they can significantly speed up any pattern-recognition process. But that’s that. Writers who write about AI do not even have a definition of intelligence (I do). They do not even know the difference between “a definition” and “a description”. The core of intelligence is not pattern recognition but imagination (google - Einstein on intelligence), because imagination is the source of creativity (e.g. Confessions of a Creative Brain). The only option for a breakthrough in the field of actual artificial intelligence is to initiate a deep and targeted research into human intelligence, its functioning, its structure. But that would mean hiring people who have a deep knowledge in the field of human intelligence; how it functions, how it is developed. But that would need people who (a) have the access to top level of decision making, and (b) already have such knowledge. It will take another decade to have that people at those levels, hence – a decade of faking is upon of us.

Naturally, media tells a very different stories. It's because people in the field use a very powerful tool reduction/reducing. They say artificial intelligence but then ignore the true meaning of intelligence (because they do not know it) and reduce intelligence to pattern recognition and then say - we can do that. They say machine leaningbut then ignore the true meaning of learning (because they do not know it) and reduce learning to animal training and then say - we can do that. They say data science but then ignore the true meaning of science (because they do not know it) and reduce science to statistical analysis of correlations and then say - we can do that. Many of the methods for correlation analysis have been around for decades and well used in many fields beyond statistics (e.g. physics). All developed sciences are based on the detailed analysis of a vast amount of data and use the same method of reasoning - a scientific method of thinking. Data science requires first and foremost an ability to apply that method for establishing a strategy for the future search of relevant/important correlations. And only then apply a specific statistical method. It's like coding - first a coder needs to establish a set of actions (in a from of commands), and then to choose a programming language and apply it (of course, an experienced coder does it almost at the same time). But media do not tell public about all this. Media just fakes the level of achievements in all those fields.

2. Educational Technologies.

Computers, tablets, smart-phones, the Internet, MOOCs, online home-work systems, online lab systems, etc. – you name it. They all have failed to make any visible difference in education (except making tons of money for some players), and will be failing again and again. Granted, above the K12 level some technologies brought some convenience to some students. But that's that. Technologies have failed for K12 schools. Imagine bringing in a kindergarten the most advanced computers and just giving them to kids saying - learn! If you expect the kids would really benefit from that – you have no idea what learning is, and how it happens. But in this example, computers represent all technologies that are being pushed on to teachers, and kids represent teachers. Not all of them but the vast majority. In order to be able to use any technology effectively, a teacher has to be good at teaching in the first place. Otherwise no technology will make any difference. Of course, if we had robots as smart as good teachers, that would allow to replace bad teachers with machines. But this is not going to happen any soon (see the first fake). Hence, the only way technologies will make any difference if – first and foremost – schools will be getting lots and lots of good teachers.

Some additional publications on the matter:


3. Education Reform.

Reforming education has come to it’s failing end. EdReform is dead! Hail to EdReform! Naturally, politicians, the government, the NSF will revile very soon a new approach to reforming education. And that will be a fake. America simply does not have yet enough people who understand what education is and how should it function, hence have a sense of the change required by the new paradigm. The Department of Education is not responsible for reforming schools, it is responsible for establishing stable functioning. Reformation is the duty of the NSF. As I pointed out in How much of the NSF funded fundamental scientific educational research is really fundamental? and Publicity v. The Mission; a tough decision For The NSF., the NSF does not have people who are capable to envision bold approaches and approve ideas that do not fall into work of already existing groups. For decades every single “innovator” was advocating for an “evidence-based approach” to reforming education. What they all really meant, though, “our evidence-based”. Since the end of the WWII America was draining the brains from all over the world in science and technology, but not in education. Even after JFK's talks about education, CIA would steal secrets of the latest Russian missile, but no one wanted and still wants to “steal” the latest math and physics textbooks (and here is the result). 

Take physics, for example. If an experiment is done in one country, physicists in other countries do not reject it because of the territorial difference. In education there is plenty of evidence coming from Russia, China, Finland and many other countries for what works in education. But American “scientists” (in the field of education) simply ignore all that data. Despite the fact that all human are equally human independently of the place of living. And will keep ignoring, because that is the only way for them to defend their own turf, and to keep all those grant money (millions of dollars) they use to do the “research”, that is absolutely trivial (as described in this paper), and does not make any impact. American “scientists” (in the field of education) do not even know what “science” is. If they did, they would follow the scientific method of reasoning, including “deriving from the first principles”. Take physics, again. No one needs to perform more experiments with weights and springs to prove the second Newton’s law – that law now is the first principle, and is used to arrive at other conclusions about mechanical systems. Humans (in all countries) function according to the same physiological and psychological laws. Imagine an experiment with two groups of people who have similar physical abilities. For a month, one group will exercise both arms, and another just a left one. If in a month we measure the strength of the people’s arms – what do you expect to observe? The answer is trivial. And does NOT require conducting of an actual experiment, because it is based on a simple fundamental principle – when a muscle is being exercised, it gets stronger, otherwise it is not (or even gets atrophic). The same principle (that I've been successfully using in my classes for more than twenty years) describes a brain development. In education, it leads to a simple rule – when a learner is immersed in a learning process learning happens; the absence of learning is an indicator of the absence of a learning process. Period. There are many similar rules that do not require exhausting specific experimentation – they require mass implementation (using a specific strategy, called Professional Designing for Teachers). The knowledge and the use of those fundamental principles makes the vast amount of the NSF “research” in education useless. But no one will ever confirm this as a fact. For at least two decades the “reform” was based on the

“idea” that schools are factories with assembly lines, and teachers are workers who have to be punished for every mistake and paid extra for something that reformers did not even know how to assess. But when Henry Ford developed his assembly line, he did not just open doors to workers and told - go, figure out how it works. No, he trained them. American teachers are badly trained, en masse. There is virtually no system of teacher professional development. It could exists, but no one wants it. Because if smart, educated, and powerful people would wanted it, it would exist already (another example of reasoning from the first principle). There is a specific governmental unit that is responsible for technological breakthroughs to keep America ahead of the world – DARPA. I have been advocating for such an “agency” in the field of education – since 2004 (Perimeter Institute for Learning and Teaching (PILT): the future of the future of education reform.). In fact, since 2004 (when my English became OK) I have been reaching out to politicians, officials, educators, philanthropists, venture capitalists, the NSF, altogether hundreds of people, not once I was able to elicit any response. From about 40,000 American visitors (from total of more than 87,000) of my blog no one found anything interesting to write a logical response to any conclusion, project, proposal. Despite the fact that the vast majority of my publications offer more than just a critical analysis of the issues, but also specific steps to resolve them. No one reflects on the logic of the publication; everyone dismisses it based on a simple fact – the author has no name. With this level of anti-curiosity and self-absorbedness the next stage of “reforming” will be just a next stage of fighting for the slice of the money-pie. And there will be no help from philanthropy. As I described in  Seven Reasons Why Rich Philanthropists Fail at Making Systemic Changes in Education, philanthropists like surrounding themselves with the people who like them. So, no room for “the team of rivals”, no competition of ideas. Till these days, philanthropy has never spurred any innovation. The best it can do is to preserve the status quo. Hence – stagnation. And the last possible force, venture capital, will not be able to make the turn in EdReform. As I described (in part) in “Will Artificial Intelligence Save, Replace or even Affect Education Practices? (a venture capitalist’s view)”, those people so strongly believe in their own powers, so they are absolutely convinced that their primitive view on education is the only way to approach education. My long-term experiment demonstrates that, although America has individuals who truly want improve mass education, she does not have people who want to do that. People (who belong to different social circles) want participate in continuous endless improvement of education. The end game does not interest anyone.

Maslow pyramid is a good working model that explains a lot. Nowadays working in STEM may become very profitable for people who know the right people and say the right words. Doing the right things is not required. Money goes not to one who makes STEM better, but to one who promises(!) to make STEM better in the future. Without real measurability accountability is a fiction. So, the main criterion for support is the name, the list of citations, and a new intriguing term (forget STEM, let’s erase any differences and do STEAM!). 

In reality, these days, we do not need new ideas on how to teach - we need to ensure broad and effective implementation of ideas that have been known for decades. But things will not change any soon, because the NSF likes the things the way they are. 

“I am very good at teaching, I can teach more students”. “Thanks, but, no, thanks.”I have a unique experience that I can offer to help instructors and teachers teach better”. “Thanks, but, no, thanks.” This way of management is everywhere in educationall areas, all levels. For the next decade.


4. American Democracy.

Vast majority of Americans believe that “voting” is an equivalent of “democracy”. Of course, educated Americans know the difference, but the number of those people have been gradually decreasing for the last 30 years. The result is that three pillars of democracy – separation of powers (a.k.a. check and balances), free speech, and the rule of law – have been significantly corrupted. This corruption demonstrates the fact that American is in the stage of the elite change: the old elites have degraded and have become out of touch with the reality, the new elite does not yet exist, it is just in the process of being created. America is entering the period of ethnic battles; people on the conservative side have been preparing this for a long time, and now use all options to install their supporters to as many official places as possible (e.g. the judges who will not use their power to uphold the law, but will use the law to increase the power of the social group they belong to). America has now its own “state media” (e.g. FOX), and social media only strengthen that type of influence leading to further clusterization of American society. That will lead to even stronger polarization. The period of political and social chaos (plus the market crash in 2021/22) inevitably leads to the further weakening of democratic institutions and strengthening authoritarian tendencies.


The biggest breakthroughs.

1. Ability to grow and regenerate biological tissues and organs.

2. Ability to interpret electric impulses of a mind (“mind reading”).

3. Ability to use electromagnetic waves/beams to induce different states of mind. Combined with #2 it brings an ability to share states of mind directly between individuals.

4. Developing of a vast database of correlations between different teaching and learning actions and outcomes (the strategy for such approach is described here). 

5. Brain Augmenting Technologies 


Note: this post is a part of the series:

China v. The U.S.: The Battle Of Strategic Thinking




Friday, December 27, 2019

Checking the Intelligence of Massachusetts Republicans

A regular reader of my blog knows that I am very critical to Republicans.

But it does not mean I am rooting for the Democrats.
I am rooting for smart politicians. Smart, and hopefully, decent.
That is why a week ago I sent to Governor Charlie Baker a short letter.
This is what I wrote (due to the low quality of the pictures, not sure why, I also provide below the copies of the statements).




Governor Charlie Baker – a pragmatic who bases decisions on common sense for the good of the commonwealth.

Elizabeth Warren – an idealist, the hart is in the right place, but the proposed solutions may destroy economy.

Governor Charlie Baker Respectful  GOP politician. Will be listened by Mass GOP

Senator Ed Markey is closely associated with Elizabeth Warren and vulnerable due to multiple democratic candidates for his seat
A perfect time to unseat Ed Markey with a politically moderate professional

Mass GOP should approach a potential Senate candidate, who is:

1. Not affiliated with either Democrats nor Republicans (could be independent or a third-party candidate) – that will allow to criticize Markey, Warren and Trump

2. A well know pragmatic, a businessman or a businesswoman (preferably a woman)

3. Pursing centrists’ ideology: politics of common sense (working across all party lines, solving problems, designing solutions, not fixating on ideological dogmas)

4. Ideologically close to Mass GOP, being supported by Mass GOP

Goal: balancing out an ideological populist/extremists (e.g. Warren) with a moderate conservative-leaning professional.

Future aim: testing the approach for replacing an ideological populists/extremists  with another moderate conservative-leaning professionals.

In the long-term, even though the Senators may not be Republicans by the party affiliation (that is a difficult goal for Massachusetts), they may be ideologically close.

Good luck!
Dr. Valentin Voroshilov (http://iergo.xyz/)

This letter is in line with my long-standing ideology of bringing to a political power the 3rd political force - not Republicans, not Democrats. Since I have been extensively writing on the matter, I send readers to the following post: "The True Role Of The Third Party In The U.S.In The Current Political Environment" that also has links to many other posts on the matter. I just want to say, again, that anyone who confuses “a third-party political force” with “a third-party presidential candidate” is an idiot.

One may wonder, what’s in this for Massachusetts Republicans?

If they are smart and not radicalized by the ideology, if they practice pragmatism over dogmatism, they should see the difference between
1. We want to elect a Republican.
and
2. We don’t want to elect a Democrat. We would rather elect an independent who has views close to ours.

Evidently, the Democrats are not smart enough to see that difference. So, now it is the time to test how smart and pragmatic Republicans are.

On a personal note: I believe a good candidate for this non-Republican-non-Democrat position would be - 

wait for it -

Tom Brady!

Well, maybe not for 2020 yet, but his career as a professional athlete is coming to an end - nothing lasts for ever. And he could be such a figure for whom many people would vote, regardless his independent status, and regardless their political affiliation. He could start slow - Boston or state level, and them move up the ladder. I bet, politics could give him as much adrenaline as football does. 

And a strong sense of accomplishment. Again.

Friday, December 6, 2019

China v. The U.S.: The Battle Of Strategic Thinking

America is in a dreadful state. Has been for awhile. One of the reasons for that was and is the awful state of public education.
_________
Note: this post is a part of the series:







Albert Einstein said that the true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.
So, let’s use our imagination.

Let us imagine an economy where almost all jobs require physical strength (digging trenches, lifting heavy things, etc.). What will happen to this economy if due to whatever reasons eventually 90 % of all people become dystrophic with some kind of muscular atrophies? The best-case scenario, they all will be so smart and will build robots that can build other robots and will do all the physical work. The worst-case scenario – that economy will decline, that society will degrade.

Our current and future economy is said to be based on extensive use of high-level knowledge. In 2016, two-thirds of the labor force had at least some college experience. Another report says that in 2018 nine out of ten jobs went to people with college a degree. And another report says that in 2020 out of 55 million job openings only 36 % can be filled by high-school graduates, and the rest will require some college education.

There is no doubt that in the future, the majority of jobs will require people with advanced abilities to think. As I wrote in The Road To World Domination Lies Through Mass Education; Part II, the knowledge economy has not reached yet its full capacity, but it has already become outdated, because the future economy will not be based on the ability to quickly retrieve some facts from a memory, but will be based on the ability for designing solutions to new problems.

And that ability is based on a highly developed brain.

What will happen to an economy if the majority of people will have an underdeveloped atrophic brain?

=>  That economy will become stagnant; that society will become the loser of the economic world.

It will not happen tomorrow, or even in a decade. But it will inevitably happen if the education of the masses will lag the demand for smart people – not just knowledgeable, but also smart!

And the education of the masses will lag the demand for smart people when the government does not state such a goal (i.e. producing smart people) – as a specific goal for the full educational system.

There is another famous saying that is attributed to Albert Einstein: “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity.”
I’m pretty sure that Einstein meant a different word, like “idiocy” or “stupidity”, but he was just too polite to use it.

However, according to the Einstein’s definition, all administrators on all levels of American system of education, and all people running various educational programs in the government (including NSF) and philanthropy (including Gates Foundation) are insane. For decades (!) those people have been doing the same things over and over again, without making any significant difference.

“Design economy” may seem like in a distant future. But it will never be achieved if someone – an individual, or an institution, or an agency – will not start a deliberate research on how to make all students to be (1) knowledgeable and (2) smart.

NOW!
Before it’s too late.

Evidently, China becomes the front-runner in the race toward the development of the mass education system that will be required for the economic domination in the future world.

15-year-old students in China are almost four full grade levels ahead of
15-year-old students in the United States in mathematics.

When formally a nine-grader has an actual math skill of a fifth-grader, that person will never be able to reach any sufficient level of thinking. Never. Too late. Period. And there are many colleges where college-level education is not much better (I have evidence!).
https://www.cognisity.how/2019/03/math.html

The question remains – who, and more importantly – when – will some person with a developed brain (hence – imagination), or an institution/organization ran by a person with a developed brain (hence – imagination) take this issue as serious as it must be taken and starts doing something about it?



Appendix I
What if even though 90 % of the population has underdeveloped brain, the other 10 invent advanced AI that builds robots enough to take care of the economy? Possible?

Well, theoretically - yes. Practically, (a) the human-level AI is not coming any soon (decades!); (b) what a society that would be?

Appendix II
About ten years ago I read some piece on China. The author was ensuring people that China would need decades to catch up with the U.S.. I wrote a short comment: there is "no" China, there are two "Chinas" - "Poor China" that is a constant supply of a cheep labor for "Rich China", that already has the size of America. In America there are 300 million people. "Rich China" already has 300 million RICH people, rich by American standards. This is how economists and politicians have to analyse China.
In ten years this comment has become only stronger.

Click here for the full list of the posts on education

Thursday, November 28, 2019

Why Do I Want To Vote For Trump?


A disclaimer: the add for this post was banned by Facebook. 
_____
America is in a dreadful state. Has been for awhile. That is why 2020 election will be pivotal for American future.

In 2016 I didn't want to vote for Donald J. Trump.
But now I do.
Why?
I want to start from an old joke (used on July 7, 2017 in “When will the Democrats make the first step of the 12-step program (admitting!)? Seems - never!”).

To study the development of intellectual abilities in a monkey researchers designed a cage with a tree and hanged a banana on a branch to keep the banana high enough. Monkey enters the cage and sees the banana. He tries to jump, but the banana is too high. He tries to clime the tree, but it is covered with plastic, so the monkey just slides back. Monkey looks around and sees a stick. He takes the stick and hits the banana down. Success!
Researcher prepared the cage for the next run, placed a new banana and left for a lunch. Suddenly a hungry physics graduate gets in the cage. He sees banana. He jumps, but the banana is too high. He tries to clime the tree but slides back. He starts to shake the tree, but the banana holds tightly to the branch. He keeps shaking the tree. Nothing happens. Researches returned from lunch and see the student shaking the tree. Finally, one researcher gets tired of watching, switches on an intercom and says: “Hey, take a second, think it through.” “F@#k thinking”, says the student, “All I need - just shake it, shake it harder”.
__________

I want to vote for Donald Trump. 

Will I vote for him?

My heart does not want to let me to vote for such a person.

By my mind wants me to vote for him. So, it's a struggle.

My reason is not the same reason that every Trump-bro supporter has: “He may be a racists misogynist bigot, a liar, a thief, a narcissistic psychopath with a dying brain, and a traitor, but as long as he keeps kicking the Democrats in the nuts and filling offices with our people, HE'S MY GUY!”

No.

My mind tells me that in 2020 all Americans will have to chose between a bad choice and a very bad choice. And my reason tells me that Trump is bad. But he is the lesser of the two evils. In a long run, if in 2020 a Democrat will take the White House, he/she will do more damage than four more years of Trump.

Because none of the Democrats has any idea about what has gone wrong with the country and what to do about it. Moderates (e.g. Biden) simply have no vision of what needs to be done; hence, in four years there will be no serious changes in politics and economy; people will not get what they been promised; people will get even more disappointed, and America will enter the era of Trump-2.0. If an extremist (e.g. Sanders) takes the WH, American economy will fall into a state of permanent chaos; progressive extremists wants to drastically alter the fabric of American economy making it government-based; the fight will consume all the energy; people will not get what they been promised; people will get even more disappointed, and America will enter the era of Trump-2.0.

By my calculations, the chance that in 2020 a Democrat will win is very small. Progressive extremists will lose the electoral college because they are blinded by their own ideas, and do not see that those American voters who will make the difference do not want any “free stuff” promised by the progressive extremists. Americans want to feel proud of their lives, and for that they do not want charity, they want decent jobs, they want decent wages that would let them pay for things they need (including food, college, and healthcare), not be handed down by a government.

The most vocal and energetic support for the progressive extremists comes from youngsters. There is nothing wrong, or strange, or new about it. Young people inherently are prone to extreme ideas. For example, review the history of the Cultural Revolution in China. If you don’t know that history, but you care about politics – search it and read about it. If you don’t know that history, and do not care about politics – you deserve Trump.

Anyway, the point is, none of the progressive extremists will be able to win over enough voters in the swing states. The #1 question that progressive extremists should ask themselves but don’t is “why did people who voted for Obama then voted for Trump?” Hence, they will not get those votes.

A moderate Democratic candidate also will not have an appeal strong enough to attract voters who in 2016 switched to Trump from Obama. In 2020 the psychology of that voter will be “Yes, Trump is awful, but economy seems fine, I'm doing OK, why shake it?”. Minority voters could swing the victory to a Democrat, but they do not want to use their own power.

My personal vote for Trump or against him will not make any difference. He will almost certainly win. Even though, there is a strategy that would guaranty the victory for the Democrats. But in order to develop and to pursue that strategy Democrats need to have people who have all four following traits: smart (to recognize and accept the most important aspects of economic and political reality), visionary (to be able to design a long-term multi-step poly-version plan of actions), bold (“having balls” to make risky decisions), powerful. Evidently, such people don’t exist. I’ve been writing about such a strategy for three years, and so far, no Democratic political strategist would even have mentioned something in that venue. And this is the most important reason a Democrat in the WH would be even worse than Trump – Democrats are not ready for the Presidency; they don’t have powerful people who are smart, visionary, and bold. It's bad when people cannot produce any original idea. It is even more sad when they even can't steal one from someone else.
NOTE: offering people policies that have been tried and failed in other countries is not smart or visionary, but still can be considered as bold. Governmental takeover a la “socialism” in such a country like U.S. cannot be any similar to Finland or Switzerland due the huge structural differences between the U.S. and Finland or Switzerland. Governmental takeover a la “socialism” in such a country like U.S. would be more similar to the USSR, and we all know how did it go.

People say: “Fooled me once, shame on you; fooled me twice – shame on me”. Democrats do not want to accept/believe that they have been fooled, and because of that they keep using the same foolish strategy that failed in 2016. Folk wisdom teaches - it's got to get worse before it gets better. Only when the Democrats lose again, they may finally take a hard look in a mirror and start asking hard questions, like – what did I do wrong, again?

That is why Trump’s victory in 2020 will be the best thing that will happen to the Democrats. It at least then they will begin to rethink their old playbook.

I know that using a third-party candidate for a switch is unconventional and hence seems risky (and America has lost the ability to take risk - in politics, management and in business). But Democrats had another (but kind of a similar) winning strategy in 2016, and still have it for 2020. Imagine that Bernie and Hillary would flip a coin - who will be the President and who will be VP. And ran together. Trump would had no chance. Now, Bernie and Joe could do the same (as I suggested three years ago). But they will not. Why? Because at the bottom, the Democratic party suffers from illiteracy, and at the top from arrogance and ignorance. I assume Biden could offer a hand to Sanders, but Bernie has ego matching Trump's. He would need a strong push from his base, but that is not going to happen.

And why, when marketing, are they stuck on the pictures of only two people - P, and VP? Joe and Bernie could announce their "shadow cabinet" (Harris for the Secretary of State, Booker for ..., etc.) and plaster all faces everywhere - WE ARE THE TEAM! Even Stalin has posters where he was the fourth - after Marx, Engels, and Lenin.

In full disclosure, three years ago I wrote that Trump’s victory was the best thing that happened to the Democrats, but the Democrats succeeded in proving me wrong. Well, let’s hope that the Democrats aren’t people who – in order to start thinking “outside of the bubble” –  need to be taught a hard lesson three or even more times.

Although, who knows?

People on the conservative side of politics do act like they are insane. Democrats may not be immune to the insanity, as well.

Albert Einstein said: “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity”. And that is what the Democrats have been doing so far for all three years.

In three years after the loss, democrats did only two smart/visionary/boldly things. The first was the initiation of the impeachment hearings. And the second one just recently happened.

This is what I wrote on July 6th, 2017 in my post Peering through the fog of brainwashing: “Conservatives have been quietly building up a brainwashing media machine. If you think FOX News, or Breitbart – you are wrong. Those guys are not quiet. Think Sinclair; and check the latest John Oliver’s piece on it (https://youtu.be/GvtNyOzGogc). BTW: what do Democrats do about it? Nothing. They do not have any vision.”

The point was that republicans have been quietly building a propaganda machine on a local level, not just via national broadcasting venues. And democrats did nothing beyond screaming to each other from one national network to another one. What’s the point of screaming if people who need to hear it do not even listen to you?

But three days ago my eyes caught this title: The Left’s Plan To Counter Trump In Swing States: Fake Newspapers. If a right-wing paper uses a degrading or dismissive language, it means they are scared, it means they know that whatever they write about may matter, may make a difference. So, I checked it out. Finally, a national level Democrat turned toward a local level news production. If they have read my piece two years ago, they could have started earlier, but better late than never. Probably, too late, but still, better than never.

It also means, there is a chance that some top-level democrat may mull on the winning strategy I have been explaining for three years. I know, it requires such difficult actions like reading, thinking, and that takes time, and the dominant acting stile (or ability?) is the opposite of that. But, since things are not looking good for any Democratic candidate, maybe it’s time to stop fidgeting and take a pause for the cause?

The latest polls show no definite frontrunner among the Democratic candidates. None. This can’t be good for the Democrats. It rises the uncertainty to the dangerous level. Way too dangerous.

But why did it happen? Why people cannot yet agree mostly on one person?

Because the #1 quality people are looking for in a candidate is an ability to beat Trump. And evidently, they do not see the one. They don’t see anyone who in their eyes is strong enough to win. That is why they look for secondary features – charisma , familiarity, age, proposals, etc. And everyone finds something here and there, hence – no front-runner, everyone is good for someone.

Political strategists, pundits, analysts, operators, donors think – let’s double-down on promoting candidates, eventually people will choose the one. Of course, eventually it will happen; someone will eventually get 50% + 1 vote on the convention. But as I described before, there is no democratic candidate who can beat Trump in 2020.

But there is a strategy that will bring the Democrats to the victory in 2020.

The strategy is not about one specific candidate.

On the contrary, because no candidate can win, the strategy has to be name-independent. This is when all political strategists, pundits, analysts, operators, donors make an immediate decision that I am insane. “It’s never about a strategy! It’s always about a candidate! All we need is a good candidate!” And how has it been working out for you?

This is my absolute belief.

Whoever democrat will get the nomination on the convention will not be able to win – alone.

Democrats want Trump removed, beaten, out.

Who will do it is secondary. How it’ll be done is secondary.

Now, hear me out. As the ultimate goal, “beating Trump” is NOT the same as “wining the WH by my guy”. If this sentence confuses you – retake 5th grade math (from a good teacher). If this sentence upsets you - Grow up!

“Beating Trump” can only happen if (1) not only democrats will vote for a Democratic candidate, but (2) also un-enrolled, independent, third party voters will vote against Trump.

And for that they – un-enrolled, independent, third party voters – will need their own candidate.

Who?

Does not matter as much as how will that candidate end his/her run.

One possible scenario (there are many).

Democratic convention is over. Whoever comes the second or third makes an announcement that he/she will run as an independent. 

Now I want to repeat my own words from another post: Anyone who thinks that a third-party candidate can become the President is an idiot. But everyone who thinks that because of this the third-political party (including independents) is irrelevant is even a bugger idiot”.

So, this guy - who was not elected as a presidential contender, becomes an independent, runs as an independent and says:

“I still believe that I am a better choice. And I will do my best to beat Donald Trump. But I am not suicidal, and not an arrogant jerk. My Country is more important for me than anything else. If I see that people do not support me as much as needed for a victory. If I see that me running may help Trump to win, I will step aside. But that will not happen until people will tell me to do so” (e.g. see my tweet at the end of this post).

And about a month before the election day he/she steps aside and tells the supporters: “We had a good run, we did everything we could to beat Trump. But the odds are not in our favor. If we keep going, we may help Trump stay and we don’t want to have this on our conscious. Let’s give all our votes to …”

Done.

However, as I said before, there is almost no chance that Democrats would even consider this scenario. For that they would need to have people who are smart, visionary, bold, and powerful. And they don’t. That is why I can share this strategy despite my own belief that Democrats are not ready to have the WH. On another hand, if by a weird stroke of good luck, they will use my strategy and win, there is a chance they will also be open to revise some of their economic policies making those less extreme (how I described in several of my publications). 

So, I want to vote for Donald Trump. 

Will I vote for him?

My heart will not allow me to vote for such a person. My heart will stop me, because I have a belief that the President of one of the most important countries in the world should be a decent person. He or she should be knowledgeable, educated, intelligent, smart, visionary and a decisive person, too. But above all – decent. And Donald Trump is not. That is why my heart will make me vote against him.



BTW: in 2020 primaries I voted for Sanders (again). He is not ready to be the President, but no Democrat is, anyway. Plus, as it clear now, he will not be the nominee. However, he still has a chance to make history.

Note: I believe that when Albert Einstein said what he said, he meant a different word, not “insanity”. He was just too polite to say “idiocy” or “stupidity”. Those both are terms with a specific clinical meaning. Insanity is acting against the reason, meaning, be able to reason but choosing not to follow it. Idiocy and stupidity are terms for describing people who (due to different reasons) are not capable of logical thinking.Idiocy means the ability to reason exist but one chooses not to use it (hence, inability to reason due to psychological reasons). Stupidity means inability to reason due to genetic or cultural reasons. The top of the Democratic party has been regularly demonstrating all three. They could not even to exploit a natural tendency of Americans to decency (at least of the undecided ones). For three years they should have been running a general campaign “Americans are decent people” - no political names, just making sure that terms “an American” and “a decadent person” would become synonymous. Then they should have started adding examples of decent actions by previous Presidents, imprinting the idea “the President is a decent persons”. And in 2020 - the next stage - Trump is no a decent person, thankfully, there are plenty of examples of that.

Note: My motto (one of several) says: “Be ready to the worst-case scenario, but be happy if it doesn’t happen”. Climate change is happening but not everyone is on board with it. Climate scientists and proponents blame climate change deniers for not taking things seriously. For example, in a recent interview Noam Chomsky said With regard to the climate crisis, yes, it’s time to panic. We are in deep trouble.” These should be the defining terms of the 2020 election”. What he and others do not realize that under the cloak of a climate change denier there often may be hiding a climate change greeter, meaning, a person who wants the climate to change in such a way that people would get hurt hard. In “1984” George Orwell explains a meaning of a war as a tool for preserving a hierarchical society. But a war is just one of the possible instruments for that. The general term for any hierarchical social structure to be strong and “needed” is “tough times”. Because “tough times” require “a strong hand”. The existence of powerful people who sabotage any actions directed at slowing down climate changes is my “worst-case scenario”. And I’m afraid, progressives, democrats do not take this scenario into an account.


Note: What is the function of money? Left or right, conservatives or democrats – they all give the same answer to this question, not difference there. Money is the measure of purchasing power. Who has more money can buy more stuff. Simple! The Federal Reserve may have its own theory of economic development, and economists of progressive politicians may push for another theory (MMT, for example), but their theories only differ by how to use money (different rules for distribution), the fundamental basis is the same: money is the measure of purchasing power. What is good about a theory, any theory – it’s a theory, meaning, people wrote it. Anyone who had an encounter with science, any science, knows that theories evolve. They have a structure and that structure may change. And sometimes, a new theory replaces on old one. I believe, it is time to reexamine the answer to the question about money. Money should be considered as the measure for productive power. If money is used to just make more money it violates its function. Unfortunately, this is how money has been seen for decades – just a source of more money. This view distorts economy and skews it more and more in a favor of people who already have more money. However, if money is the measure of a productive power, it changes the criteria of how money is being used. It also affects the rules of money distribution. For example, if money is concentrated in one place, it negatively affects production in the form of overproduction. There are many questions that may need to be revisited and the answers to which may be revised.
For example:
Where does money come from?
Who, how and why decides how much money is needed to be printed?
What is the purpose of taxes?
Why do people have to work?
Do people have to work?
How to establish the value of a person?
Who establishes the value of a person?
Is wealth and money the same thing?
How to decide what is a fair?
Who decides what is fair?
… The list is long.

Note: My recent tweet: