The Future

It's 2015 and I am one year away from my 50th birthday. I thought I would write down the way I see the future playing out. 100 years from now, my great-great-grand-children can look back and determine how full of crap I am.

• The LGBT community will continue to be more and more accepted and protected by the majority. Anyone claiming that gays should be denied the right to marry will be labeled as a bigot - by all of society, not just left wing liberals. We will eventually elect an openly LGBT president.
• Religion will continue to decline as education rises. The scientific community will gradually move from the position of: science and religion are complimentary world views to the position of: science and religion are competing and mutually exclusive world views. More and more atheists will come out of the closet. We will eventually elect an openly atheist president.
• Modern science and medicine will continue to increase the length and quality of life. Eventually, it will be possible to live forever. The problems then becomes those related to population: running out of earth and ruining the earth.
• The importance of global warming, particularly the need for humans to urgently take action to save our planet, will eventually be recognized by all - not just left wing liberals.
• Machines and computers will become more and more proficient at doing the work that humans currently do. Humans who do things that computers can do better or cheaper will be in less demand. People who can do things that computers cannot do, will be most in demand. 
• Small town values will slowly disappear because, due to technology, there will be no small towns. Everyone will be connected. Everyone will be part of the global melting pot.
• Cognitive Labels.
• Cognitive labels will increase. In addition to labels like ADHD, aspergers, dyslexia, etc. we will identify and label others. For example, I believe there is a common condition (I call it simpleton) where a person tends to over simplify the world. Where a normal person sees a continuum of choices, the simpleton sees a finite discrete set of choices. Where a normal person sees a dozen choices, a simpleton may see only two.
• Cognitive labels will soften. There will be a shift in how we look at some of these conditions: instead of a disability some of these conditions will be viewed as natural and healthy cognitive difference - a possibly valuable difference. In other words, we will come to appreciate neurodiversity.

Obama pardoned a meth dealer

So does anyone think it's a good idea that we pardoned a meth dealer?

NPR interviewed a meth dealer that Obama pardoned. She went on and on about how being jailed messed up her life, screwed up her relationship with her daughter. She showed no remorse or concern for the people she may have hurt. Didn't even mention that side of it. It was all about how prison inconvenienced her. And NPR didn't even bother to ask that question.

When I heard that Obama was pardoning drug offenders, I thought he was pardoning drug users. Or maybe pot dealers. I had no idea he was letting out meth dealers.

I wonder, did he pardon any heroin dealers also?

The Illegal Alien Balance Sheet

My father-in-law put together a plan to address illegal immigration. It is a smart and thoughtful solution.

But it is a solution. 

In my field of software development, before we embark on a solution, we always make sure we have correctly identified the problem.

What I need spelled out is this: exactly what is the problem we are trying to solve and why is it a problem?

I'd like to see a detailed analysis showing exactly and precisely how society is being harmed by illegal aliens? Also, in what way are illegal aliens helping society. Basically a balance sheet. I think that measuring these things is difficult or impossible. But here is the kind of thing I would like to see:

Debits

• they don't pay income tax
• they reap the benefits of costly social programs (schools, etc)
• they're rapists (just kidding)

Credits

• they don't charge much for their services
• they take care of our children
• they clean our houses
• they maintain our yards
• they buy stuff and contribute to the economy
• they pay sales tax
• they start businesses and employ people
• compared to American poor people I find immigrants (legal or otherwise) to be more hard working and honest.

So before I start to give a shit about illegal immigration solutions, I need to be convinced, with evidence and hard facts, not emotions, opinions and prejudice, that illegal immigration is actually harming America. 

Because to my simple mind, it's not obvious.

And once I am convinced that illegal immigration is actually harming America, I need to be convinced that it is harming america in a big way.

It's not like we are running out of space. Have you ever seen Wyoming? Hell, even California, the most populace state in America, is mostly open space.

Thomas Jefferson started the Declaration of Independence with a very long and detailed explanation as to why we need independence. I would like to see the same thing here. 

Why is solving illegal immigration the most important issue in america? Convince me!

Flip Flopping

When a public figure changes his mind, you often here commentators point this out as a weakness.

Here is how Einstein looks at this issue (from Walter Isaacson's Einstein biography):

Like a good scientist, Einstein could change his attitudes when confronted with new evidence. One of his deepest personal principles was pacifism. But in 1933, with Hitler's ascension, the facts had changed. 

The charge of inconsistency amused Einstein. For a scientist, altering your doctrines when the facts change is not a sign of weakness.

Non-Violent, First-Time Drug Offenders

I keep hearing the phrase non-violent, first-time drug offenders. Particularly in discussions regarding drug incarcerations and the war on drugs.

Let me tell you why this phrase worries me.

I agree that the distinction between violent and non-violent offenders is important. And that the distinction between repeat and first-time offenders is also important. But the most important distinction, when it comes to drug offenders is that between drug users and drug dealers. 

The world wants to start treating drug addiction as a health problem more so than a criminal problem. And I agree with this.

But drug dealers are different. Even first-time, non-violent drug dealers should, in my opinion, be put away for life. If that causes a high level of incarceration, then so be it.

I have two boys that will be entering high school in a few years. Like me, my boys are risk takers and somewhat impulsive. They also have some family history of drug addiction. I am doing everything in my power to educate my children on the dangers of drugs. But if I ever found out the name of a drug dealer who sold my children heroin then he better hope he is jailed for life.

Retraction Watch

Just discovered a cool organization that tracks retractions in scientific journals:

http://retractionwatch.com/

Safe Trampolines

Do not buy a JumpSport trampoline!

I was researching trampoline safety and learned that one of the largest causes of head injuries is when the jumper's head hits the metal parts of the frame. This is odd because most trampolines these days have protective padding over the metal parts. But the researchers found that the injuries occur when the padding fails to stay in place, exposing the metal parts. This happens all the time with our trampoline. That's why we are buying a new one.

So I found this company on the web (Jump Sport) claiming to be the Worlds Safest Trampoline. But when I zoomed in on their photo of their top-of-line "safest" model, here is what I saw:

If they can't get the padding to stay in place for a promo photo, I highly doubt it will stay in place in your backyard.

I did not speak out

Here is a poem from Nazi-era Germany. I learned of it from the book "I am Malala".

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Catholic;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Fox News is Corrupting our Elderly

You know how you hear people say that such-and-such or so-and-so is corrupting our youth? I would say that Fox News is corrupting our elderly.

Public/Science Opinion Gap

There is a major opinion gap between the general public and scientists on key issues according to the Pew Research Center:

http://www.pewinternet.org/interactives/public-scientists-opinion-gap/

But I find it interesting to note which issues they differ on? For example, are there members of the general public that don't believe in electrons? Have you ever heard of anyone protesting the existence of UV rays or black holes? I think that mostly the general public and scientists are on the same page except when it comes to issues involving religion (evolution) or big money (global warming, fracking).

Boston Massacre

After the Boston Massacre the British soldiers were given a fair trial. Their attorney was John Adams. Do you think today those soldiers would get a fair trial? Or any trial? Or would they go straight to gitmo?

John Brown and Robert E. Lee

John Brown led an armed uprising to free the slaves. He was hung for treason - by Robert E. Lee.

Rober E. Lee led an armed uprising to keep the slaves.

Between the two men, Brown and Lee. Who killed more men? Who's cause was more just?

Who do you think deserved hanging more, Brown or Lee?

Abe

There was a man who heard voices in his head. The voice said: kill your son. So the man began preparations to kill his son. Then, just before the deed was carried out, the voice told him to stop. So he stopped.

Imagine you walked in on someone attempting to kill their own child. What would you do?

Today we would put a man like this into the nut house. But this guy went on to father 3 of the most popular religions on the planet: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

How much like a nazi are you?

Congressman Steve Cohen, in a house floor speech this week, referenced a Nazi to help drive home a point. He compared his opponent's method of using propaganda to that of Joseph Goebbels. Goebbels was the Nazi's chief propagandist.

As soon as Anderson Cooper heard the word Nazi, his brain completely shut down. He stopped listening. Cooper somehow lost his ability to comprehend Cohen's comparison. Instead of hearing:

My opponent uses the same propaganda techniques as Goebbels

Cooper heard:

My opponent is a Nazi

which, of course, is not what Cohen said.

Anderson Cooper was completely incensed. He was so focussed on his crusade against the N-word, that he completely lost his ability to comprehend the nuance of Cohen's statement.

Cooper made a rounding error. He didn't hear Cohen's actual meaning. He instead heard an oversimplification. He heard something he wanted to hear.  

As far as I can tell, Goebbels propaganda techniques were extremely effective. It is scary and relevant that he was able to convince a huge amount of people to take part in (or go along with) one of the most horrific crimes in history.

Perhaps those same Nazi propaganda techniques could be used to find homes for puppies. Or to convince America to hate Obamacare.

If the same techniques used to make everyone hate Jews are being used to make everyone hate Obamacare, how is that not relevant?

Cooper had no desire and made no attempt to analyze or understand the nuance of Cohen's statement. He made no attempt to actually ponder Goebbels propaganda techniques or how they were (or were not) similar to those used by Cohen's opponents.

This just didn't interest Cooper. He was too focused on the word Nazi. And that the word Nazi must be offensive no matter the context or subtleties of the situation.

Using analogies from history is appropriate when trying to make a point. The Nazi story is a big story, an important story, a story with many facets. It is a huge part of humanity's shared history. It represents not one bad thing but practically every bad thing. Almost every negative component of human nature is somehow contained in that story. And we should never forget it.

If our politicians are doing something that is Nazis-ish, even if just in kind but not magnitude, it is a valid and relevant thing to bring up.

I wish that Cooper would have taken his half hour to objectively investigate the relevant questions:

• What propaganda techniques were used by Goebbels?
• What propaganda techniques are used by Cohen's opponents?
• How are they alike? How are they not alike?
• What are the ramifications?

But perhaps that is just my idea of what is relevant and interesting. Maybe cooper and his audience find it more interesting to talk about how offended they are by the word Natzi.

Because we all know that the best way to prevent something like the Nazi party from every happening again is to make the topic taboo.

Here is the Cohen interview.

By the way, this kind of thing is apparently in fashion. Here is a similar interview by Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer hears the word Nazi and completely shuts down any desire to comprehend the interviewees subtle points. And here is Jon Steward doing the same thing.

So therefore I propose a new website called:

www.how-much-like-a-nazi-are-you.com

Republicans started income tax

Did you know that the first federal income tax was created in 1861 by a republican congress and signed by a republican president?

Extremists and Moderates

It has become fashionable to use the word extremist (or radical) as a way of describing our enemies.

But if you read history you know that many beliefs which today are mainstream and moderate did not start out that way.

Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King were all extremists in their day.

Abolitionists were considered radical extremists in the 1850s. William Henry Seward (who later became Lincoln's Secretary of State) was an outspoken abolitionist in the 1850's. According to the New York Herald, "[His] views are those of the extreme fanatics of the north".

I think we should be more concerned with the wisdom and truth of the message rather than how moderate or extreme it is.

Shakira fights Arizona’s anti-immigration law

http://www.topnews.in/light/shakira-fights-arizona-s-anti-immigration-law-223909

Germany, Minority Religions and Tom Cruise

The country who's history is forever stained by discrimination (in its most extreme form) against a religious minority is back at it again.

According to a New York Times article from June 2007, the German Defense Ministry banned the filming of Valkyrie (Tom Cruise's new movie) at German military sites because they didn't like Mr. Cruise’s religion.

.

Abstinence Ineffective

I have always thought that teaching abstinence is a sin, but apparently it is also ineffective: Teaching Abstinence Ineffective

Why I support legislating from the bench

I understand that the founding fathers intended the Supreme Court to interpret the law - and not make the law. But these same founding fathers expressly established the United States as a constitutionally limited republic and not a pure democracy. This was to protect us against the "tyranny of the majority". I agree with this. So does Ron Paul who said: "Pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty."

In California, a 51% vote of the people is all that is needed to alter the constitution. If this isn't mob rule than I don't know what is.

So given the choice between "legislation from the bench" and "legislation from the mob", I'll take the former.