YouTube video by Re The Narrative Missouri SB 14 Discussion

Here's a longer video about Missouri SB14 and my discussion about it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLxq...

YouTube video by Re The Narrative MO SB 14 Manipulation

I just uploaded a video about an apparent manipulation ad (aren't they all) using China as a scare tactic to pass a bill that would potential weaken Missouri's pesticide labeling laws.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVdg...

The era that so many seem to idolize had marginal tax rates of up to 90% on the wealthy. I think the reason it's a "non-starter" for many politicians is because they don't actually care about their constituents - but rather their donors. And yes for their donors - it is a non-starter.

I was talking with one of Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt's aides last week. In response to him saying we have to cut somewhere I said "We can raise taxes on the wealthy". His response. "That's a non-starter". My question is why is that a non-starter?

Trent Oliphant: Art close to home - Cassville Democrat Barry County, Missouri, is not the first place I think of when you think of “The Arts.”

My first foray into writing for a newspaper (our local weekly). Would have loved an editor to look at it - but otherwise I'm happy..

www.cassville-democrat.com/2025/03/05/a...

I also see a lot of people making posts about SS that make it clear that they don't understand what it is and how it is structured. In order for us to effectively defend and improve SS we need to understand it.

Just got back from a meeting talking about Social Security by a "Financial Planner". I should have been amazed by how little he seemed to actually understand about how SS works. Sure he knew how it affect "financial planning" but not the history and how it was structured.

I know they are just echoing talking points by pundits. How do we overcome this kind of "pundit arguing" and actually get to where people try to understand things. I have my favorite pundits that I use as starting points - but I don't just accept what they have to say. I try to find the experts.

I'm fascinated by the sudden level of expertise in Foreign Affairs. I can understand sharing things from others that give you reason to justify your current position. What gets me is when they start giving their opinion like they have studied this for years.

Silly me - My mind thought "file" instead of "drop" and I was trying to figure out this completely unexpected action. Makes much more sense now.

Of course, right now this is strictly a theoretical discussion for me.

Great question and I wish I had a decent answer. I'd appreciate it if you shared any that you find.

Of course there is the whole "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" that I tend to agree with. That limits my ability to invest in anything if I follow it strictly.

From The Righteous Mind (end of Chapter 4 "In Sum section)

This is why it is so important for us to work together to find the flaws in our own reasoning.

"Reasoning can take us to almost any conclusion we want to reach, because we ask "Can I believe it?" when we want to believe something, but "Must I believe it? when we don't want to believe. The answer is almost always yes to the first question and no to the second."
Jonathan Haidt,

YouTube video by Professor Dave Explains Sabine Hossenfelder Can’t Stop Acting Like a Complete Fraud

I'm especially impressed with the physicists that Dave interviews in this video. I wish he didn't have to use such sensationalistic language about what Sabine is doing. (In general I think Sabine is a good science communicator).

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJjP...

To me the more interesting question is when does the desire to increase exposure and reach of science communication lead to compromising the message?

I think both of them have used sensationalist language and rhetoric. The scientists interviewed in the latest Dave video seem the most reasonable.