National Anthem Sit Down

I was at a sporting event this weekend and I noticed that every player on the team was sitting during the national anthem.

So I asked, "Why are you all sitting?".

The first guy said, "I'm sitting for Malala. I will sit until any girl who wants an education can get an education without fear of being shot. "

The next guy said, "I'm sitting for transgender people. I will sit until transgender people are treated equally. I'm sitting because transgender people have the highest suicide rate. I will sit until transgender people can safely use the bathroom of their gender - anywhere in the U.S."

The next guy said, "I will sit until we have had our first gay president." 

The next guy said, "I will sit until we have had our first dwarf president."

Then I got to the last guy and asked him why he was sitting. 

"I'm sitting because Ron at the office told me he liked my kinky hair. What a racist dick! Then, when I called him a racist, he had the nerve to tell me he voted for Obama and had lots of black friends. Then I told him that makes him even more of a racist. And then his feelings got hurt. Can you imagine that! A white person with feelings. I am sitting until we can end white fragility once and for all."

National Anthem Sit Down

I was at a sporting event this weekend and I noticed that every player on the team was sitting during the national anthem.

So I asked, "Why are you all sitting?".

The first guy said, "I'm sitting for Malala. I will sit until any girl who wants an education can get an education without fear of being shot. "

The next guy said, "I'm sitting for transgender people. I will sit until transgender people are treated equally. I'm sitting because transgender people have the highest suicide rate. I will sit until transgender people can safely use the bathroom of their gender - anywhere in the U.S."

The next guy said, "I will sit until we have had our first gay president." 

The next guy said, "I will sit until we have had our first dwarf president."

Then I got to the last guy and asked him why he was sitting. 

"I'm sitting because Ron at the office told me he liked my kinky hair. What a racist dick! Then, when I called him a racist, he had the nerve to tell me he voted for Obama and had lots of black friends. Then I told him that makes him even more of a racist. And then his feelings got hurt. Can you imagine that! A white person with feelings. I am sitting until we can end white fragility once and for all."

The BLM Logical Escape Hatch

A white guy has to be a complete idiot to offer up any critique of the Black Lives Matter movement. But hey, I like to debate. It's in my nature.

I agree with 90% of the BLM movement. But there are some aspects I don't agree with.

But whenever a white guy attempts the slightest critique of BLM, he gets this standard logical escape hatch response that instantly shuts down any rational debate. It goes something like this: "Oh I'm sorry. Did I offend your white person feelings. Let's make this all about you. Poor offended white person. White fragility. Mansplaining."

The reason I call it an escape hatch is because it gets the person out of addressing the actual critique.

My guess is there are lots intelligent people who take exception to some of the BLM rhetoric, maybe even annoyed by it. Does that mean they are suffering from white fragility?

Question 1: Is it possible to disagree with some aspects of the BLM movement and not be a racist or an insensitive white asshole?

Question 2: How many people will reply with standard escape hatch response?

Multi-national Unions

I just solved the world's problems. This idea will blow your mind. There is no doubt that unions have been a gigantic boon for the rights of workers. But it's also true that some unions have negotiated themselves such good deals that many companies said screw it and moved their operation to another country where labor is cheap. So given the presence of so many multi-national corporations, what labor needs is multi-national unions. If you think we need a minimum wage here, think how workers in Mexico or India feel.

Two Types of Republican in 2016

In 2016 there are two types of republicans: racists and people who tolerate racists.

Before you jump down my throat, think through the logic of this.

None of my friends who still remain true to the Republican party in 2016 are racists. But none deny that there are racist overtones in today's Republican party. And given the current nominee, they are no longer just overtones. The party of Lincoln, who appealed to our "better angles", is now appealing to our worst prejudices. And all of my Republican friends acknowledge this. Even Paul Ryan describes Trump's behavior as the "textbook definition of racism".

But they are still voting Trump.

The reason I quit the Republican party is primarily because of the racism and bigotry.I like small government. I support fewer regulations. I like low taxes. I don't think the middle class suffers because rich people are evil. And I'm not a huge fan of Hillary. In other words, I agree with a large part of Republican thinking.

I can tolerate Hillary but I just can't tolerate racism and bigotry.

Politics at Nine

When I was taught to be a Republican as a child it was based on the following three principles:

1. All of our tax dollars go to lazy black people on food stamps.
2. Jesse Jackson is the devil.
3. Give more money to rich people and they will spend it more responsibly, thus helping the economy and benefiting everyone.

The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill

I was just reading up on HR 3355, the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill. This is the thing that people are using to accuse Bill Clinton of being a racist. Two interesting points:

• Bernie voted Yea on HR 3355
• So did most of the Congressional Black Caucus

That bill had major unintended consequences (against blacks) but I don't think it was racist in intent.

Here is another interesting point: Jesse Jackson (who was the antichrist according to my upbringing) foresaw the negative consequences of 3355 and was against the bill.

God Questionnaire

I often meet people who believe in God but not in the God defined by any of the established religions like Thor, Zeus or Yahweh. I refer to these gods as anti-establishment gods.

Sometimes the anti-establishment god people are a bit vague about what they really mean by god. And to me, if a word, like god, has a different meaning for each person then it's really of no value in communication.

Often the anti-establishment god people choose a different word for their god, like infinite intelligence or higher-power (of AA fame). But I'm not sure this clears things up.

So I find it interesting to clarify; to nail down some of the specifics.

Thus, to remove some of the vagueness of the anti-establishment god, I have created the God Questionnaire.

If you find that getting specific somehow detracts from the religious experience or is otherwise a buzzkill then please stop here. If you think it's interesting, then please proceed.

1. Do you believe in one or many gods?
2. What pronoun do you prefer when referring to your god? He, She, It or Other. (I'll use he, for convenience of discussion).
3. Is your god omniscient?
4. Is your god omnipotent?
5. Is your god omnipresent?
6. Is your god benevolent?
7. Did your god create the universe?
8. If so who created him?
9. Once created, does your god intervene in the universe?
10. Does he listen to (and act upon) your prayers?
11. Do you feel that the wonder, beauty and variety in the universe is somehow evidence of your god?
12. How is your god different from mother nature?
13. Are there any actions or decisions that are impacted by your belief in this god? How so?
14. How strong is your belief in the existence of your god (between 0 and 100%) where 100% means absolute certainty. And 0 means about the same as your belief in the Tooth Fairy.
15. Does your god tie in with life after death? Heaven? Reincarnation?
16. Do you find the whole idea of this questionnaire offensive?
17. Agree or Disagree: Dave, your questionnaire is really missing the whole point. If Agree, then why?
18. What other questions am I missing?

Dave's Solution to the Opioid Problem

The CDC has released it's new Guideline for Prescribing Opioids today. Here is the Dave recommendation which I believe is smarter than the CDC recommendation:

1. When I rent an ATV at Pismo Beach, I have to listen to a 15 minute video and sign in 23 places. It should be the same for Opioids.
   
2. Prescriptions should be given out in special containers that disallow upping the dose. i.e. prevent you from taking a two week dose in two days. This was already prototyped by some students at BYU.

Gun Licence

There is a process you must go through to get a job at Google.
There is a process you must go through to get into Stanford.
There is a process you must go through to get a drivers license.
There is a process you must go through to get a home loan.

None of these processes is perfect. There are false positives and false negatives. But there is a process.

There must to be a more rigorous process you go through to get a gun. And it should be just as rigorous as the processes mentioned above.

We can debate ways to make the process more accurate.

The debate should not be whether or not to *have* a background check. The debate should be: how to design a background check (or application process) to minimize false positives and false negatives.