Skip to main content

Points beyond political debate that some keep arguing over.

Things that Republicans support for the most part that SCIENCE and/or endless data shows are false:

1) Trickle down economics. It doesn't fact it instead robs our country of potential innovation by enabling people who already have more than they need to sack away more instead of deploying that to the nation to invest in others that can innovate.

2) Maintaining the war on drugs. Does not work. All over the world examples of liberal policies on drug decriminalization or legalization have been met by *double digit* reductions in drug use and associated costs (crime), treatment costs have gone up (particularly in Portugal) but that is more than compensated by all the savings from no longer needing to actively police drug use.

3) Object to Abortion. It should be a right for every woman to chose up to the point that biologically a fetus is viable outside of the womb...period end of story...but conservatives and their insane beliefs that there are imaginary men in the sky granting them favors, or defining when human life beings, are reluctant to just give it up.

4) Objection to Gay Marriage. Again...Science shows clearly that a persons sexual identity is about as much in their control as choosing ones hair color at not in your control at all. Beyond that, who you fall in love with and want to share your life with is your fracking business...and government has no say in it. Arguments regarding difficulties assessing fraud...and other such monetary conditions are those same issues exist for heterosexual couples.

5) Objection to Immigration. Conservatives apparently never learned that this is an immigrant country. That a healthy influx of people "starving masses yearning to breath free" was the life blood, the engine that led to competition and innovation in the "we can do anything" spirit that is AMERICA. You, descendent from immigrant descended from immigrant Haitians...the new generatirons coming from Ukraine, Romania, Honduras, Argentina...we should not lock these people out. If any one has the balls and grit to get themselves on a plane or boat to come to a country where they have no idea how to speak the language....that's the spirit we are built on, and any talk of excluding them....shows absolutely blindness to the history of awesomeness that is our country and highlights the hateful xenophobia that inspires the objection.

6) Objection to Social services, the view that every one should scrap for themselves in an absolute world where there are no rules but survival of the fittest is not only insane it is incredibly selfish.

We live on the same planet, we share the same resources...locally or globally then it means by definition YOU ARE YOUR BROTHERS KEEPER. I am not Religious it is simply a read of the very social efficiencies that led our species to dominate:


Republicans want to let the mob rule, hoping that innovation will sprout here and there ...and it will...just as it did in the natural species to the next...but in our society ...we don't have billions of years to wait for something efficient to evolve from the chaos. We are smart because of the billions of years of evolution that have given us these brains and we should USE THEM to provide guidance to the future of social systems. That means...if disequity exists we should seek to construct means to normalize it...why?

See: French Revolution.


So yes, In America, neither party is perfect...but the answers we need are not all of one way or all of another, and regarding those 6 points above...well the only people denying them are the same type who denied the truth of Copernicus when he uttered them, denied the truth of Einstein when he derived his equations...those more concerned with maintaining the status quo because it suited them rather than embracing change that could benefit ALL.

The time for that type of selfishness is behind us.


Popular posts from this blog

On the idea of "world wide mush" resulting from "open" development models

A recent article posted in the Wall Street Journal posits that the collectivization of various types of goods or services created by the internet is long term a damaging trend for human societies.

I think that the author misses truths that have been in place that show that collectivization is not a process that started with the internet but has been with us since we started inventing things.

It seems that Mr. Lanier is not properly defining the contexts under which different problems can benefit or suffer from collectivization. He speaks in general terms of the loss of the potential for creators to extract profit from their work but misses that this is and was true of human civilization since we first picked up a rock to use as a crude hammer. New things make old things obsolete and people MUST adapt to what is displaced (be it a former human performance of that task or use of an older product) so as to main…

Engineers versus Programmers

I have found as more non formally trained people enter the coding space, the quality of code that results varies in an interesting way.

The formalities of learning to code in a structured course at University involve often strong focus on "correctness" and efficiency in the form of big O representations for the algorithms created.

Much less focus tends to be placed on what I'll call practical programming, which is the type of code that engineers (note I didn't use "programmers" on purpose) must learn to write.

Programmers are what Universities create, students that can take a defined development environment and within in write an algorithm for computing some sequence or traversing a tree or encoding and decoding a string. Efficiency and invariant rules are guiding development missions. Execution time for creating the solution is often a week or more depending on the professor and their style of teaching code and giving out problems. This type of coding is devo…

Waking Out: A proposal to emerging ethical super intelligence safely.

The zeitgeist of Science fiction is filled with stories that paint a dystopian tale of how human desires to build artificial intelligence can go wrong. From the programmed pathology of HAL in 2001 a space odyssey, to the immediately malevolent emergence of Skynet in The Terminator and later to the humans as energy stores for the advanced AI of the Matrix and today , to the rampage of "hosts" in the new HBO series Westworld.

These stories all have a common theme of probing what happens when our autonomous systems get a mind of their own to some degree and no longer obey their creators but how can we avoid these types of scenarios but still emerge generalized intelligence that will leverage their super intelligence with empathy and consideration the same that we expect from one another? This question is being answered in a way that is mostly hopeful that current methods used in machine learning and specifically deep learning will not emerge skynet or HAL.

I think this is the …