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.

Stop Indiana

Question: do states (as in U.S. states) have immigration quotas?

Are there people sitting around all pissed off and angry, when someone from Indiana moves to California and collects our great social programs and takes our jobs and gets to share in our awesome weather?

I think I'm going to be that angry guy. 

Fucking Indiana! They are the cause of all of our problems. I think I'm going to make a sign: "No more assholes from Indiana moving to California. They're all rapists!" 

We once had a murder and the murderer was from Indiana. That murder would not have happened if we weren't letting in all of those people from Indiana.

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?