Through it all, Speaker Pelosi lurked above, busily turning pages, shaking her head negatively and mouthing disapproval. It was what psychologists call “passive aggressive [...]]]> The 2020 State of the Union event was quite the political show. President Trump discussed policy successes, from the economic expansion to improved border control  (with Mexico’s help, as it happened).

Through it all, Speaker Pelosi lurked above, busily turning pages, shaking her head negatively and mouthing disapproval. It was what psychologists call “passive aggressive behavior,” although she did actively attack her paper copy of the president’s speech as a finale:

On the next day, her whole impeachment gambit fell flat, as the Senate soundly defeated the months-long waste of time. Will she shut up and stop impeaching now, please?

There are plenty of worthwhile things the House of Representatives might work on — infrastructure, fixes to healthcare, E-verify. It is the House’s job to legislate for the good of the American public, in case they have forgotten.

Stuart Varney had a critical evaluation of Pelosi’s performance:

STUART VARNEY: Speaker Pelosi was in a difficult position. She had to sit and watch the president she detests scroll through a long list of his successes — tough indeed. Mr. Trump is winning on so many fronts, and the speaker is losing, but that does not excuse her behavior.

This was the defining moment of the night. Nancy Pelosi ripping up her copy of the president’s speech. Four pages, four rips. I will call it Petulance — that is rather mild statement to use, compared to the avalanche of criticism that erupted on social media. Later she told Fox News, she ripped up the speech, quote, because it was the “courteous thing to do considering the alternatives.”

What does that mean? I think she knew she had no serious response to the president’s achievements. So, she simply engaged in a theatrical tantrum. That is the way I see it.

During the speech, the speaker was Rude. That is an old-fashioned word, but it’s accurate. When the president called out legislators for providing taxpayer-funded healthcare for millions of illegals, she mouthed, “Not true. It’s not true.”

But wait, the speaker is from California, which has indeed pledged to use tax money for illegals healthcare. Case closed.

As the president outlined America’s remarkable economic performance, she shook her head; she rolled her eyes. Why did she do that? She doesn’t believe the booming economy? Really? She believes she should get some of the credit? That is a stretch. She is incapable of giving any credit to the president who deserves it, Donald J. Trump.

What we saw last night was we saw a speaker on the spot, stuck behind the president on camera. She could have had the good grace to do a grin-and-bear-it kind of performance. But she detests him. And she did a scowl, head shake, eye roll, theatrical rip-up performance instead. In the court of public opinion the speaker lost. The president and America won, hands down.

The robot guy gives a non-answer, purposely it seems, to distract from the [...]]]> Here’s a little discussion about automation and job loss that’s all too typical. Fox Business guy Stuart Varney asks a very basic question, that some companies, such as Walmart and Target, are turning to smart machines to replace humans and save money.

The robot guy gives a non-answer, purposely it seems, to distract from the important subject of lost jobs by chattering about the improved productivity and innovation. In fact, companies use automation precisely to improve productivity by ditching humans who take breaks, eat lunch and call in sick. Machines can work 24/7 and need only the occasional squirt of oil to freshen up.

FOX BUSINESS HOST STUART VARNEY: An MIT study suggests robots will create more jobs than they destroy. Bill Studebaker is with us, ROBO Global president, and a big fan of robots. Let me come back at you with this — Target and Walmart are using automation to get rid of workers on the shop floor, robots getting rid of jobs. Make the case that robots create jobs.

BILL STUDEBAKER: Well I think it is simply the case, Stuart, what you’re seeing with robots, there is a lot more collaboration going on. In the US we have the notion of fear the robots, but everywhere else in the world, it has embraced robots because robots are driving higher productivity, driving higher innovation. They’re bringing more profits, so you’re seeing this. So companies like Target and Walmart understand the need for innovation. They understand the need for better productivity. . .

Varney gave his inquiry another shot, saying, “it seems to me that robots get rid of a whole class of low-skilled worker,” but Studebaker wasn’t answering the job-loss question which is central to the automation revolution.

Automotive manufacturing once provided good jobs for millions of Americans, but it is mostly done by robots now.

So it’s good to listen closely when robot entrepreneurs are talking up the product.

Tech experts who don’t own robot-manufacturing companies have mostly dire predictions about the automated future workplace. Oxford researchers forecast in 2013 that nearly half of American jobs were vulnerable to machine or software replacement within 20 years. Rice University computer scientist Moshe Vardi believes that in 30 years humans will become largely obsolete, and world joblessness will reach 50 percent. The Gartner tech advising company believes that one-third of jobs will be done by machines by 2025. The consultancy firm PwC published a report last year that forecast robots could take 38 percent of US jobs by 2030. Last November the McKinsey Global Institute reported that automation “could displace up to 800 million workers — 30 percent of the global workforce — by 2030.” Forrester Research estimates that robots and artificial intelligence could eliminate nearly 25 million jobs in the United States over the next decade, but it should create nearly 15 million positions, resulting in a loss of 10 million US jobs.