USA has become a nation's of quitters ?

 The US gymnast Simone Biles withdraw from Tokyo Olympics citing mental health problems.

I never heard of Nadia Comaneci complaining of mental issue.

Catalina Ponor competed till her 30 ties.

The selection for Romanian gymnastics team was tougher, akin to admition to SEALs.

10 yr old were recruited and trained to be champions far away from family.

After you endure years of training and pain you never think to give up, even if your ankles are injured, and you had to land from a jump from parallels.

Andreea Răducan was ill at Sydney Olympics, the doctor gave her a cold medicine, she won gold but she was disqualified, because one component of the medicine ephedrine was baned by athletism association.

This can give you mental health problems. Winning gold after years of work and losing it because of others blunder

What I hate is the media attention of this quitter, which is greater than the media attention for sportsmen and sportswomen who grind away their bodies for success.

Fauci is the scape goat

 I think that democrats and some republicans are closing in on Trump for he did or actually what he didn't, and the Trump side attacks Fauci to share the blame.

Fauci will be sacrificed also by democrats ?

3 types of investors

 I watch lately a lot of economic channels, for entertainment value. Especially funny are those who promote Bitcoin.

I noticed that investors can be divided in 3.

Imagine that a ball is thrown up.

First group says that the ball will never fall down. In fact based on past data, the ball will go upper and upper. This is false and useless. For lack of better term let's call these folks, optimists.

The second group, of pessimists, says that the ball will fall, the bitcoin will fall, the economy will be in taters. They are right but their opinion is useless, unless they say when and where the ball falls.

The thirth group, champions, know when and where the ball falls, but they don't tell you because they are making money out of this information. In fact they can push the ball upward.

Single women with many children are targets for pedophiles ?

 I watched HBO series "Allen vs Farrow" where Mia Farrow a single mother with many children (2 of hers,3 adopted), meets Woody Allen, who convince here to adopt a girl Dylan and they have a boy together Ronan.

Dylan accuses him of sexually abuse when she was 7 years old. Other persons testify Allen's strange behavior. He marries his adoptive daughter Sun Yi age 21. This would be considered incest according with France's penal code. 

On the other side of Atlantic,in France,Evelyne Pinsel-Kouchner, divorcee with 3 children marries Olivier Duhamel, a known advocate, and they adopt 2 children.

Now Camille Kouchner accusses him in a book of raping her brother at age of 12. Oliver Duhamel finally admitted guilt.

Also in arts and literature we have such cases: in the movie Lolita , Humbert the pedophile seduces Dolores's mother to have access her.

Now I am thinking that Lolita story should be mandatory reading for single moms with children.

What is interesting is that Mia Farrow and Evelyne Pinsel, lived in a libertine environment, where sexual boundaries were transgressed. Mia lived in Hollywood, Evelyn in left leaning caviar socialist community from Paris, where they changed lovers like socks.

This environment attracts all kind of sexual deviants. 

Yet, not even in a strict environment like catholic church,your children are not safe.

If in a strict environment like catholic church the threat comes from authority, in a libertine environment the treat can come from anyone because of low moral standards.

For example: in the book "La grande familia", Evelyn ask her daughter Camille: "what is the big deal ? He (her husband) didn't sodomize him (her son). They had only fellatio"

A woman with higher moral standards would have avoided Olivier a womanizer all together. A normal woman would have sided with her children.

If a mother believes her children, she has 2 options: goes to the police or uses violence. But she can't use violence because she will go to prison, and children to orphanage.

These abuse cases where you have only the testimony of a child against of an adult are hard to win.

It is interesting to see in 'Allen vs Farrow' how much influence can have a famous film director in NY:

• Data from Dylan interviews with social workers and psychologist was destroyed after they declared that was no evidence of abuse, despite being required to conserve the data. 
• A social worker from NY was sacked because he didn't played ball, and he declared that Dylan was abused.

What I noticed in both cases was a neglect from the parents:

•  In both cases fathers were away.
• Mia was busy with all the children and didn't noticed anything. (I think she has some problems, she had 2 children she adopted 3 and made another one)
• Evelyn she was depressed and drunk, and ignored her children, who entered under the influence of Olivier Duhamel, the pedo.

If the bond between parents would have been stronger, the children would have said something earlier and both monsters would have been caught.

If the fathers would have kept a stronger connection with their children they would have found out and take some measures, or they would have intimidated the child molester.

But they were disunited families, groups of individuals, easy prey for a lurking predator. 

Ladies, even you have grudge against your ex, let him more close to your children, if he is not a felon,a drug addict or a child molester, of course.

He might lower the chance that other men abuse your children.

We live in a simulation

 Our world is real as can be and we don't live in a computer simulation, yet our society is simulated.

Adam Smith said that the butcher and baker, act in self interest, and provide you with food, and their behaviour is similar with altruism.

Machiavelli recommended to the rulers to act as they are good people.

Sales people act that they care and that they are glad to see you.

Chat bots act as their are human.

But does it really matter if the simulation is convincing ?

Do we care of the feeling of salesman if he is polite wit us and send us what we need?

Do we care about the sincerity of the politician if he behaves as he should ?

Do we care if our spouse doesn't love us anymore if the behaviour doesn't change ?

If we need a low resolution reality, simulation is enough.

Thinking is negative, acting is positive

 Our mind is 3 times more sensitive to bad things.

Look at the news. Read all the philosophers and all are doom and gloom

On the other hand, making something is positive, a sculpture, a painting, cleaning repairing have intrinsic positive value for our mind.

Business people who are first and foremost doers, are optimistic. Four out of five business fail, yet, they jump ahead and risk all.

To compensate negative thinking of the mind you must do something.

To avoid doing wrong things you must think first and be negative

Book review: Slavoj Zizek "First as a tragedy then as a farce"

 I just listened Zizek https://www.blinkist.com/first-as-tragedy-then-as-farce-en 

In the book he says

 1.the current communist regimes were not implemented correctly.

2. We must make a revolution and start from from the ground with a new society

3. All the benefits obtained from working class were obtained by revolution

4. Taking care of the proletariat, mean destroying it. He give the example of a refugee without papers, who once he got papers is no longer a refugee.

I will dismantle all the points.

1. During and after civil war, russian communists tried to implement the most radical ideas.

In the army they abolished the ranks, and all the attacks were decided by vote. After some defeats, Soviets fall back the old military hierarchical organization.

Reading books of Ilf and Petrov, you realize that people tried to make communism work. They implemented a car sharing club, they were thinking of getting rid of money.

Ilf and Petrov criticize very open the communist bureaucrats.

Till Stalin came they tried and failed to apply the most radical communist ideas.

2. In Soviet Union they wanted to erase religion, nationality to create a new world.

This will never work, because what we have now worked in the past. For example nationalism. In the past a group of people with similar cultural background, joined together and fought for a piece of land. They succeeded and their national identity survived till today.

Zizek is like the doctors in the '50 that considered food fiber useless because us not digested, and recommended to avoid it.

Now all doctors recommend fiber for improving gut biome and gut transit.

If a thing exists it exists for a reason. Instead of bulldozing the past, let's see how we can use it for the future.

3. He has some true here. Without unions and struggle, 8h work day, payed vacation, interdiction of child labor would come too late, if ever.

But employees of google didn't stormed the head quarters to get better pay and free food. This was triggered by demand for their labour.

State, unions and revolutionaries can improve things who have little bargaining power. 

4. Why he wants a strict class separation? 

If they could many proletarians would take the place of their bourgeoise bosses. 

Many people work because they have to.

Very few janitors come to work because they like it.

Class has meaning only from statistical point if view. If someone has an income greater than proletariat average, but lower than bourgeoisy where you put them?

Theory must follow practice. Not the way around. But tell this to communists

I don't understand the concept of capitalism.

Communists didn't explain it well.

In feudal period the property was inherited, get through marriage or got with sword in hand.

The property was usually indivisible land.

In modern capitalist period, propriety became gold, which could be divided and transfered.

Capitalism is based on existence of private property and its peacefull exchange for other proprities. 

The early merchants abhorred the medieval war lord, and they tried to placate them with laws enforced by a centralized state.

If the hero of the middle ages was the knight, the hero of modern capitalist period is the lawyer .

All the peaceful civil disobedience used now in a capitalist society wouldn't make sense in a lawless middle ages, where a lord can out your head on a spike.

So where the communists see power as the basis for capitalism?

If in a country the private property doesn't exist but it exists market economy ? We considered capitalist ?

First communists tried to abolish private property with the rifle (Lenin,Stalin,Mao,Pol Pot) now they want to use ideology to make us hand it over property voluntarily.