I labeled this as an 'On a lighter note' however it isn't really that funny because this is the law.
Apparently you can no longer smile on your driver's license in Virginia.
Anyone else find this ridiculous? I mean it is obvious why it is this way. Face recognition technology has problems if the reference image in sufficiently distorted. So by not having people smile the system will be more accurate. This is a good thing for automatic recognition, however it is questionable as to why this needs to happen? Do we need a police system where you are photographed everywhere you go? I definitely don't think so. Anyway. Enjoy the lunacy of the Virginia legislature. Don't worry it will be coming to a legislature near you soon I am sure.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
California Dreaming
In an interesting turn of events, California is no longer the most liberal and proactive state. The supreme court upheld the ban on same-sex marriage. (MSNBC article here.) While I think the amendment that passed in November should never have passed, I feel justice was done in this case. Let me explain.
In the American political system the courts are meant to up hold the will of the people (as embodied in the constitution and laws in an order of importance). In California the people said that they do not want to allow gay marriage. Thus if the court had struck down the amendment then the court would have been placing itself above the constitution which would have far reaching consequences for the country. What is slightly confusing is that the case made it to the supreme court, it should have been an open and shut case, the constitution says it is illegal so the court must uphold it. So the court had to rule that the amendment was constitutional.
I know a lot of people do not like this ruling, me neither, however you have to agree that the opposing ruling of the court would have undermined the system entirely. The issue on the table is that in the next election (or voting period) there will need to be another ballot measure to reverse the November amendment and instead affirm the rights of gay people to marry. I know it is not immediate and it may not be what some people want, but the system is what it is and it is there for a reason. If we sidestep the system (which has happened in the past) then the system starts to fail and people lose faith. The system is made to prevent huge changes all the time based on popular opinion at that time, think of it as a low-pass filter of the current political climate if you will.
What is more ambiguous is that the affirming the already signed marriage licenses. This is actually a productive ruling in that respect as well. If they removed them then they set a precedent of rejudging actions and people by laws made after that action. This would also be very bad. You could own a red car, then a law could be made to put in jail all people with red cars and then you would be guilty even if you sold that car years ago.
So basically, in a state that rarely has rationality, I feel that justice was done in this case. Even though I do not agree with the 50%+1 people in California who voted against gay marriage.
In the American political system the courts are meant to up hold the will of the people (as embodied in the constitution and laws in an order of importance). In California the people said that they do not want to allow gay marriage. Thus if the court had struck down the amendment then the court would have been placing itself above the constitution which would have far reaching consequences for the country. What is slightly confusing is that the case made it to the supreme court, it should have been an open and shut case, the constitution says it is illegal so the court must uphold it. So the court had to rule that the amendment was constitutional.
I know a lot of people do not like this ruling, me neither, however you have to agree that the opposing ruling of the court would have undermined the system entirely. The issue on the table is that in the next election (or voting period) there will need to be another ballot measure to reverse the November amendment and instead affirm the rights of gay people to marry. I know it is not immediate and it may not be what some people want, but the system is what it is and it is there for a reason. If we sidestep the system (which has happened in the past) then the system starts to fail and people lose faith. The system is made to prevent huge changes all the time based on popular opinion at that time, think of it as a low-pass filter of the current political climate if you will.
What is more ambiguous is that the affirming the already signed marriage licenses. This is actually a productive ruling in that respect as well. If they removed them then they set a precedent of rejudging actions and people by laws made after that action. This would also be very bad. You could own a red car, then a law could be made to put in jail all people with red cars and then you would be guilty even if you sold that car years ago.
So basically, in a state that rarely has rationality, I feel that justice was done in this case. Even though I do not agree with the 50%+1 people in California who voted against gay marriage.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Woohoo, give me your data...
Give me your weary data, your sick data, your ....
This is huge to me: data.gov.
Why is it huge? Now there is more access to numbers and statistics from the government. This will allow the public to be more informed and for bloggers to have more tools to keep the government accountable. My only concern is that recently government programs of this type die a slow and painful death. This is compounded by the fact that current the website is a little light on data. However there is always hope. I hope someone puts together a website that does a good job of representing this data and allow for use to search it well. (Google, do you hear me?)
This is huge to me: data.gov.
Why is it huge? Now there is more access to numbers and statistics from the government. This will allow the public to be more informed and for bloggers to have more tools to keep the government accountable. My only concern is that recently government programs of this type die a slow and painful death. This is compounded by the fact that current the website is a little light on data. However there is always hope. I hope someone puts together a website that does a good job of representing this data and allow for use to search it well. (Google, do you hear me?)
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Twit Post: So true
This made me laugh a lot. Unfortunately this is very true. What I would say to those who do research is to make C, D, and E more obvious in your work. I know it is nice and note worthy to say A -> B but there are a lot of people out there who don't actually read the entire article so the assumptions should be more obvious.
They did miss one step. It was someone becomes an experts in the problem and then University of Phoenix online will start offering a degree in it. :-)
Friday, May 22, 2009
The winds of change
Promise this will be short today. I came across an interesting map on the economist, it is linked from this article. The map is about gay marriage and shows the way in which gay marriage or rights have been enacted by state. This is an interesting to see the places things have changed. It is my opinion that the world has changed enough that this flood will eventually cross the entire country. I am also jazzed that this is happening at the state level (since this is a right reserved to the states). I am so glad the federal government has not stepped into this area (yet, you know they can't help themselves). I am slightly disappointed to see the number of places where the courts did it instead of the legislature (4/13). However the majority is on the right side so I am more happy than sad.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Plastic Changes
So for those of you whose radar does not catch all of the things going on in congress, there is a very interesting bill being debated. This is the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act. This bill (text here) is to limit the practices that the general public think are unfair. This recently passed a major hurdle in congress. This is a very interesting bill for me for a couple of reasons. I have run across an interesting article discussing the merits of the bill (here a short but well worth it read). I quick search will find a lot more website articles, I leave that as an exercise for the reader. ;-)
First, it is important to protect the customers from various underhanded things. This is a very 'big government' policy. This bill effectively tells the country that the federal government will be in charge of putting cuffs on the credit card industry instead of the states. For a long time the different state laws has been a major headache for consumers. For customers who can get credit this is a very good bill. This will prevent major increases without warning, outlaw universal default, and force old interest rates on old debt. For the consumer these are good things. However there is 45 day time frame for the laws to become enforceable and in that time expect very large increases in rates.
Second, this law will be an interesting application of government intervention because the affects are likely to be large. Mostly this will affect customers with poor credit. If I am a credit card company and I can't charge people based on their situation then the risk will have to be spread over all customers. So the low-risk customers will have to subsidize the poor credit customers. This will raise rates. (Though you should never carry a balance anyway.)
In the long run the consequences of this bill are unknown as both sides have very good points. I believe that in time credit card companies will find a way to make money on risky customers through credit cards again but in the short term this will (while helping most customers) hurt most customers and will significantly change the game. I can see a world where credit card companies become more like auto insurance companies where they have 'high risk' arms of their business.
As a outrageous side note: (Read the article I linked to,) 'The bill also allows carrying of loaded guns in national parks.' Just shows how 'efficient' the government is. I mean credit cards and carrying guns into national parks are connected in my mind. I hate the way bills are written these days. (What a boondoggle.)
First, it is important to protect the customers from various underhanded things. This is a very 'big government' policy. This bill effectively tells the country that the federal government will be in charge of putting cuffs on the credit card industry instead of the states. For a long time the different state laws has been a major headache for consumers. For customers who can get credit this is a very good bill. This will prevent major increases without warning, outlaw universal default, and force old interest rates on old debt. For the consumer these are good things. However there is 45 day time frame for the laws to become enforceable and in that time expect very large increases in rates.
Second, this law will be an interesting application of government intervention because the affects are likely to be large. Mostly this will affect customers with poor credit. If I am a credit card company and I can't charge people based on their situation then the risk will have to be spread over all customers. So the low-risk customers will have to subsidize the poor credit customers. This will raise rates. (Though you should never carry a balance anyway.)
In the long run the consequences of this bill are unknown as both sides have very good points. I believe that in time credit card companies will find a way to make money on risky customers through credit cards again but in the short term this will (while helping most customers) hurt most customers and will significantly change the game. I can see a world where credit card companies become more like auto insurance companies where they have 'high risk' arms of their business.
As a outrageous side note: (Read the article I linked to,) 'The bill also allows carrying of loaded guns in national parks.' Just shows how 'efficient' the government is. I mean credit cards and carrying guns into national parks are connected in my mind. I hate the way bills are written these days. (What a boondoggle.)
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The conscience of Paul Krugman
I know this blog can have a slightly libertarian slant and thought I would discuss some non-libertarian authors that I read and listen to, to try to balance the opinion of those 3 people who read my blog.
I have read and watched Paul Krugman for a long time. The following are two videos I have found on google videos given by Paul Krugman. For those of you who don't know, he recently won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel for his work on trade patterns. Other famous people you may have heard of who won the prize: John Nash (the movie A Beautiful Mind was about him), and Milton Friedman (a very famous free market capitalist).
Recently I ran across the following as well:
In the last week I finished his book "The conscience of a liberal" which is the same title as his New York Times blog. (I am adding his blog to my 'People trying to help' list on my blog with this posting, I think his blog is well worth the read even if you do not completely agree with him, he is entertaining and very smart.) I will try to talk in generalizations about my thoughts on his work and writings and as the opportunities come up in the future I will post specific thoughts on specific aspects of work and specific posts.
I have a very conflicted relationship with the writings of Paul. I think partially because his work is largely slanted heavily to the left. (I mean look at the title of his book.) However I am getting ahead of myself. His book largely traces the history of the modern Republican party from an economic standpoint, the opposition to the new deal, opposed to social security, the acceptance of social programs, and the current neo-conservatives. This is a history which is well stated in many books and publications. Throughout the book Krugman attacks the right viciously. Mostly the biased language he uses is the most unhelpful. For instance when talking about Social Security he says, 'The left supports the program while the right undermines the program.' For someone who is suppose to write in common language for the average American about politics and economics this statement is decidedly one-sided and unhelpful. The 'undermine' word implies not just against which is the actual intent (and truth) at the time he was talking about. He also casually dismisses valid libertarian thought about various aspects of the social order in that time. Essentially it is obvious that Paul Krugman is way to the left on the political spectrum and despises the Republicans.
I agree with almost all of his points about the history of the modern Republican movement and I have most of the same opinions, however his attacking is unhelpful. He should be trying to provide an unbiased opinion and critique of the current system. There are plenty of people who will tell you their thoughts on the other side (I am one of them, but I don't have a Nobel Prize...). Why should a proficient economist waste time with such things? Now in the book he devotes a lot of time to health care and why it is terrible that America does not have a national health care system. He calls for a New 'New Deal' where health care is the major component. This is most of the reason for the back story about the Republican party. There is significant disagreement over the implementation of health care policy but I do not feel after reading a lot on the subject that the right is as naive or stupid as Krugman would like to believe. They just have different views (both sides have entrenched corporations writing their bills about this). The goal is to find the best policy not to attack the other side, in this respect Krugman fails. In regards to health care policy it is important to also see the failings of the Democratic party and to understand why both sides act the way they do. I think this is sorely missed by the book.
However Krugman does point out rightly in a lot of cases the stupidity of actions by the Republicans (supporting racism for one). As I said before I feel that he should leave the general politics to other people and write about the stupidity in economics, there is no lack of them on either side (though if you only read Krugman you would assume the Democrats were almost angelic).
In the end while I completely disagree with his stances so far to the left I feel (unlike a lot of both Democratic and Republican writings) that his writing is at least intelligent and fun. While I would expect more from a Nobel Prize winner and I honestly would expect less from your average columnist so I feel he is someone that should have everyone's ear at least part of the time.
As an aside: Google Blogger thinks Democractic should be capitalized but not Republican. Seems shady to me.
I have read and watched Paul Krugman for a long time. The following are two videos I have found on google videos given by Paul Krugman. For those of you who don't know, he recently won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel for his work on trade patterns. Other famous people you may have heard of who won the prize: John Nash (the movie A Beautiful Mind was about him), and Milton Friedman (a very famous free market capitalist).
Adblock
Recently I ran across the following as well:
In the last week I finished his book "The conscience of a liberal" which is the same title as his New York Times blog. (I am adding his blog to my 'People trying to help' list on my blog with this posting, I think his blog is well worth the read even if you do not completely agree with him, he is entertaining and very smart.) I will try to talk in generalizations about my thoughts on his work and writings and as the opportunities come up in the future I will post specific thoughts on specific aspects of work and specific posts.
I have a very conflicted relationship with the writings of Paul. I think partially because his work is largely slanted heavily to the left. (I mean look at the title of his book.) However I am getting ahead of myself. His book largely traces the history of the modern Republican party from an economic standpoint, the opposition to the new deal, opposed to social security, the acceptance of social programs, and the current neo-conservatives. This is a history which is well stated in many books and publications. Throughout the book Krugman attacks the right viciously. Mostly the biased language he uses is the most unhelpful. For instance when talking about Social Security he says, 'The left supports the program while the right undermines the program.' For someone who is suppose to write in common language for the average American about politics and economics this statement is decidedly one-sided and unhelpful. The 'undermine' word implies not just against which is the actual intent (and truth) at the time he was talking about. He also casually dismisses valid libertarian thought about various aspects of the social order in that time. Essentially it is obvious that Paul Krugman is way to the left on the political spectrum and despises the Republicans.
I agree with almost all of his points about the history of the modern Republican movement and I have most of the same opinions, however his attacking is unhelpful. He should be trying to provide an unbiased opinion and critique of the current system. There are plenty of people who will tell you their thoughts on the other side (I am one of them, but I don't have a Nobel Prize...). Why should a proficient economist waste time with such things? Now in the book he devotes a lot of time to health care and why it is terrible that America does not have a national health care system. He calls for a New 'New Deal' where health care is the major component. This is most of the reason for the back story about the Republican party. There is significant disagreement over the implementation of health care policy but I do not feel after reading a lot on the subject that the right is as naive or stupid as Krugman would like to believe. They just have different views (both sides have entrenched corporations writing their bills about this). The goal is to find the best policy not to attack the other side, in this respect Krugman fails. In regards to health care policy it is important to also see the failings of the Democratic party and to understand why both sides act the way they do. I think this is sorely missed by the book.
However Krugman does point out rightly in a lot of cases the stupidity of actions by the Republicans (supporting racism for one). As I said before I feel that he should leave the general politics to other people and write about the stupidity in economics, there is no lack of them on either side (though if you only read Krugman you would assume the Democrats were almost angelic).
In the end while I completely disagree with his stances so far to the left I feel (unlike a lot of both Democratic and Republican writings) that his writing is at least intelligent and fun. While I would expect more from a Nobel Prize winner and I honestly would expect less from your average columnist so I feel he is someone that should have everyone's ear at least part of the time.
As an aside: Google Blogger thinks Democractic should be capitalized but not Republican. Seems shady to me.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Olympic Bid Politics
So in one of my daily surfs I was wondering how the Olympic bid was going for Chicago. So I surfed on over to Wikipedia. Imagine my frustration when I came across the following passage*:
So I do not take exception to the housing part of the bid. That makes sense, in America we feel we should subsidize housing for the poorer parts of society. I'll leave that aside for the time being. It is a very socially responsible thing to do, however it has the affect of artificially lowering wages for the poorer people in the city, which is in the long run can hurt those people you want to help. If the poorer people do not need a living wage to pay for housing then they can accept a lower wage and still survive which causes the lowest wage levels to decrease. If people moved more freely (they are currently less likely to not move due to social reason like being near family) then not subsidizing housing would have a leveling effect on the economy in that city. If a worker cannot make a living wage then they move (this is something I think the government should subsidize for lower paid workers). Then the only people left require pay to afford housing in the city. This raises the wages which raises the cost of goods. If instead no one wants to hire someone at that price then they will be understaffed. It is supply and demand. I'll post more on my thoughts later (more you think, I know, I have a lot to say).
The part that really gets me is the part where a certain percentage will go to women and minorities. First if your society and selection committee are unbiased then this sentence is completely without any information. If your selected process awards purely on merit then it doesn't matter what the biological grouping of the CEO is. However this statement is like a blanket acceptance that the selected will not be equal in two ways:
Basically I advocate and always will against affirmative action in governmental contracts (I actually dislike it in ALL cases but lets focus on this one). Besides outwardly saying that the committee cannot recognize the best company and will use the race or gender to decide the contract, they have said that they will (instead of fixing the process) fix the outcome. This hurts the economics of the entire thing. Thus in the end the process becomes a politic tool for an agenda instead of a beneficial process of normal business.
* What I am not saying in this article is that women or minority companies shouldn't be contractors nor am I saying anything about the quality of those contractors. In fact there is the real possibility that companies run by these groups could significantly outperform the others and win a disproportionate amount of contracts based on proportion of minority companies compared to the rest. I have read about studies that show companies headed by people in the aforementioned groups are more likely to do better work due to the pressures of society against them. I just really really want the process to completely ignore irrelevant variables when deciding the contracts and this action by Alderman Toni Preckwinkle does NOT indicate that.
"...After the IOC commission left Chicago, the Chicago City Council approved an Olympic Community Agreement ordinance that was drafted by Alderman Toni Preckwinkle. The agreement commits 30 percent of Olympic Village units to affordable housing conversion and guarantees women and minorities a portion of Olympic-related contracts. Former Illinois Senate President Emil Jones derided the agreement as an inadequate deal." (I couldn't find the percentage, sorry.)For reference the article links to the following webpages: 1, 2. Why would this frustrate me? From previous posts everyone knows I am not a fan of affirmative action anymore than I am a fan of racism. Both are morally, economically, and logically inconsistent. If your goal is equality by spreading inequality then you are not helping the problem. I will post more of my thoughts on affirmative action in the future as I do not think as a movement all of the output is bad, however as a policy it is.
So I do not take exception to the housing part of the bid. That makes sense, in America we feel we should subsidize housing for the poorer parts of society. I'll leave that aside for the time being. It is a very socially responsible thing to do, however it has the affect of artificially lowering wages for the poorer people in the city, which is in the long run can hurt those people you want to help. If the poorer people do not need a living wage to pay for housing then they can accept a lower wage and still survive which causes the lowest wage levels to decrease. If people moved more freely (they are currently less likely to not move due to social reason like being near family) then not subsidizing housing would have a leveling effect on the economy in that city. If a worker cannot make a living wage then they move (this is something I think the government should subsidize for lower paid workers). Then the only people left require pay to afford housing in the city. This raises the wages which raises the cost of goods. If instead no one wants to hire someone at that price then they will be understaffed. It is supply and demand. I'll post more on my thoughts later (more you think, I know, I have a lot to say).
The part that really gets me is the part where a certain percentage will go to women and minorities. First if your society and selection committee are unbiased then this sentence is completely without any information. If your selected process awards purely on merit then it doesn't matter what the biological grouping of the CEO is. However this statement is like a blanket acceptance that the selected will not be equal in two ways:
- The committee will take into account (unconscientiously maybe) the race or gender of the person when deciding and will thus it is natural for your committee to not pick those minorities.
- The committee will take into account (conscientiously) the race or gender of the person when deciding to actively enforce a distribution of minorities across the contract process.
Basically I advocate and always will against affirmative action in governmental contracts (I actually dislike it in ALL cases but lets focus on this one). Besides outwardly saying that the committee cannot recognize the best company and will use the race or gender to decide the contract, they have said that they will (instead of fixing the process) fix the outcome. This hurts the economics of the entire thing. Thus in the end the process becomes a politic tool for an agenda instead of a beneficial process of normal business.
* What I am not saying in this article is that women or minority companies shouldn't be contractors nor am I saying anything about the quality of those contractors. In fact there is the real possibility that companies run by these groups could significantly outperform the others and win a disproportionate amount of contracts based on proportion of minority companies compared to the rest. I have read about studies that show companies headed by people in the aforementioned groups are more likely to do better work due to the pressures of society against them. I just really really want the process to completely ignore irrelevant variables when deciding the contracts and this action by Alderman Toni Preckwinkle does NOT indicate that.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Logical Fallacies to spur Public Outcries...
So I would like to state from the onset the following:
First (entirely from the implications of the content in the trailer) : I agree it is abhorred that congressman persecute gay couples and deny t hem benefits. The federal government should not be in the business of telling us what we can and cannot do in the bedroom (nor should the state). If the government does want to step in to 'think of the children' then they should do it in constructive and scientifically aware ways. The government has conducted many studies which show that having two parents, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, is way better for the children than single parent or divorced homes. If the government would do anything it should be to prevent those kinds of households. (I am not actually advocating this but if the politicians want to hide behind helping the kids they should do that.) That being said the same scrutiny paid to heterosexual couples should be paid to homosexual couples. We need to 'think of the children'. On the issue of gay rights, well, I think I have stated where I stand. The government should afford protection for them like they do every other attribute specific group of people.
Now what I do not like. This video implies that because the congressmen conduct their private lives as gay men (or have in the past, one sexual encounter doesn't make you anymore gay than one heterosexual encounter makes you straight, just like eating a tomato doesn't make you a botanist). The video is playing on the discord between a man (or woman) who votes against gay rights who has gay encounters in their private lives. This is a logical fallacy. Let me explain.
There are many people who support speed limits who speed. They will quote speed limits as being in the best general interest of all people as they keep people from being killed (though the evidence on this is circumstantial). Or that the speed limit exists to keep down noise or some other thing. Basically they are good because they fill some opinion (rightly or wrongly, it is irrelevant) and thus is a good stance. However they speed, all the time. Thus by the logic in this trailer since they speed they must vote to abolish or raise the speed limit or else they are inconsistent. Is this really true? No. They are doing something illegal (for reference homosexual sex is banned in many states) but their opinions are that the rules for all of society should transcend either their personal struggles or should transcend people and look towards the good of society.
So lets bring this back to the issue of gay marriage. Maybe these congressmen actually believe that gay marriage is wrong even though they conduct their personal lives like gay men. It isn't impossible. For instance during the American revolution not all Americans were for the war. Some believed we shouldn't sever ties with Britain. They were still Americans and conducted business and lives here. The revolution was for people that belonged to this group but even though severing ties would have helped all Americans some still did not support it. If we were to follow the logic implied in this video then we would assume that all Americans should have supported the war or they were self-contradictory. However many had valid reasons to not support the war.
Now why do the politicians feel the way they do? Well this is likely the point the video is trying to attack. However the cultural background of all people is what makes us unique and is what makes the world interesting and what makes it work. Politics would be boring (and arguably more helpful) if everyone agreed the logical or research supported options were the best. However opinions and background cause these to be different. It is likely that part of the reason these politicians vote the way the do (or did) is because of a philosophical idea. Many people hate something about themselves (for good or bad, right or wrong) and would not support that action in a political context because they feel it is bad.
I just think it is a very bad idea to stir up public outrage by using logical fallacies. I feel that the pro-gay rights movement should be above this. Logical fallacies are hard to distinguish sometimes especially when you are close to the issue. However a proper perspective will make the movement more successful in the long run. The other difficulty is that rest a leg of the movement on that supposed hypocrisy of the other side will not work in winning the support of sympathetic voters because if the politician goes out and says 'I am sorry and broken and I am going to make it right' then you just let the issue become a moral issue resting on the opposition. Instead the pro movement should point out the virtues of it's platform regardless of the actions of the other side. Now the other side is not involved. The problem is on both sides the voters and politicians are swayed by their own blinders. You can't win the battle by telling the other side their blinders are idiosyncratic, you will lose their ear.
- I do not support these congressmen and politicians in their crusade against gay marriage.
- I do support gay marriage as legalized by legislative action. (1 and other posts in prep).
- I do not think that logical fallacies should be used in politics regardless of the outcome.
- I do not think that gay marriage would undermine traditional marriage and traditional families more than the current rot of marriage from the inside (abusive parents, single parent families, etc.) Studies show that having two parents (even if they are the same gender) is better than single parent families. (References: Wikipedia, Scholarly, if you have better references please post them.)
First (entirely from the implications of the content in the trailer) : I agree it is abhorred that congressman persecute gay couples and deny t hem benefits. The federal government should not be in the business of telling us what we can and cannot do in the bedroom (nor should the state). If the government does want to step in to 'think of the children' then they should do it in constructive and scientifically aware ways. The government has conducted many studies which show that having two parents, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, is way better for the children than single parent or divorced homes. If the government would do anything it should be to prevent those kinds of households. (I am not actually advocating this but if the politicians want to hide behind helping the kids they should do that.) That being said the same scrutiny paid to heterosexual couples should be paid to homosexual couples. We need to 'think of the children'. On the issue of gay rights, well, I think I have stated where I stand. The government should afford protection for them like they do every other attribute specific group of people.
Now what I do not like. This video implies that because the congressmen conduct their private lives as gay men (or have in the past, one sexual encounter doesn't make you anymore gay than one heterosexual encounter makes you straight, just like eating a tomato doesn't make you a botanist). The video is playing on the discord between a man (or woman) who votes against gay rights who has gay encounters in their private lives. This is a logical fallacy. Let me explain.
There are many people who support speed limits who speed. They will quote speed limits as being in the best general interest of all people as they keep people from being killed (though the evidence on this is circumstantial). Or that the speed limit exists to keep down noise or some other thing. Basically they are good because they fill some opinion (rightly or wrongly, it is irrelevant) and thus is a good stance. However they speed, all the time. Thus by the logic in this trailer since they speed they must vote to abolish or raise the speed limit or else they are inconsistent. Is this really true? No. They are doing something illegal (for reference homosexual sex is banned in many states) but their opinions are that the rules for all of society should transcend either their personal struggles or should transcend people and look towards the good of society.
So lets bring this back to the issue of gay marriage. Maybe these congressmen actually believe that gay marriage is wrong even though they conduct their personal lives like gay men. It isn't impossible. For instance during the American revolution not all Americans were for the war. Some believed we shouldn't sever ties with Britain. They were still Americans and conducted business and lives here. The revolution was for people that belonged to this group but even though severing ties would have helped all Americans some still did not support it. If we were to follow the logic implied in this video then we would assume that all Americans should have supported the war or they were self-contradictory. However many had valid reasons to not support the war.
Now why do the politicians feel the way they do? Well this is likely the point the video is trying to attack. However the cultural background of all people is what makes us unique and is what makes the world interesting and what makes it work. Politics would be boring (and arguably more helpful) if everyone agreed the logical or research supported options were the best. However opinions and background cause these to be different. It is likely that part of the reason these politicians vote the way the do (or did) is because of a philosophical idea. Many people hate something about themselves (for good or bad, right or wrong) and would not support that action in a political context because they feel it is bad.
I just think it is a very bad idea to stir up public outrage by using logical fallacies. I feel that the pro-gay rights movement should be above this. Logical fallacies are hard to distinguish sometimes especially when you are close to the issue. However a proper perspective will make the movement more successful in the long run. The other difficulty is that rest a leg of the movement on that supposed hypocrisy of the other side will not work in winning the support of sympathetic voters because if the politician goes out and says 'I am sorry and broken and I am going to make it right' then you just let the issue become a moral issue resting on the opposition. Instead the pro movement should point out the virtues of it's platform regardless of the actions of the other side. Now the other side is not involved. The problem is on both sides the voters and politicians are swayed by their own blinders. You can't win the battle by telling the other side their blinders are idiosyncratic, you will lose their ear.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Pet Peeve #2: Bluetooth Ear Pieces
So, I have another pet peeve that annoys me to no end. As the title says, BLUE TOOTH EARPIECES DO NOT MAKE YOU SPECIAL. I would like to say that no one I have ever meet is important enough to have a blue tooth ear piece in their ear while they pick up their dry cleaning or ordering an overpriced glass of water with suspended particles in it. Additionally as has been said by many people, I don't need to hear your conversation, nor do I can what she did, with whom, and where, nor do I care about your uninformed opinion about the president, congress, whatever pet project you have, or whatever your work/union/friends tell you. (I realize the irony if you are reading my blog, it was suppose to be funny.)
Anyway as I was saying, no one is that important. I would also like to add that you can take it out of your ear and interact with real people. However I will say on a plus note that it is refreshing to see some people actually following the law and not talking on the phone without a headset while driving. At least I am assuming this, as I have yet to see someone driving who was talking on the phone using one.
Anyway as I was saying, no one is that important. I would also like to add that you can take it out of your ear and interact with real people. However I will say on a plus note that it is refreshing to see some people actually following the law and not talking on the phone without a headset while driving. At least I am assuming this, as I have yet to see someone driving who was talking on the phone using one.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Exposing the Fire of Reverse Discrimination
This has been under the news and I have had a tough time finding articles to support both sides of the case. At the onset I would like to say I find it deplorable that the news media are not discussing this court case as it is huge to the near future of our country. It ranks on the same level as the Michigan Entrance Points case. While the Michigan case was decided (in my opinion) correctly, this situation is just as important. In the current case the issue is whether race should be important to promotion decisions whereas the Michigan case was whether or not race could be considered in entrance decisions.
So let me start with a quick list of publications online that I have read and a quick overview.
If you actually browse the SCOTUS Wiki you will see all the 'friend of the court' (Amicus) briefs you will see a significant amount of 'non color blind' organizations filing briefs. (I personally do not support organizations that make a distinction between people based on skin color, or other minority group, and thus promote that minority without regard to equal protection and fair competition.) These organizations have a significant skin in the court case as they promote various (self-interested) things (like in the Michigan case) where they do not always promote equal protection and no discrimination for ALL races in ALL cases.
The problem is this issue has been made a partisan issue where the conservatives support the oppressed (majority) and the liberals support the color non-blind policies that are suppose to make opportunities more equal (thus provide advantages to the minority). Both sides actually have historically and currently relevant points.
For non-color blind policies:
The real problem with this case is that the case is hardly covered by the media. Instead we worry about a couple of people getting the flu, or what country Jolie is adopting a kid from today. This case has wide reaching consequences and should be scrutinized by all people on all sides of the issue. It seems that since Obama was elected the news media wants to believe that racism is dead. Well it isn't, it just hides itself in plain sight. I'll keep those who read my blog posted on the status of the decision once it is available. I encourage you to read the cites articles and postings as they will help provide a fuller picture of the case.
So let me start with a quick list of publications online that I have read and a quick overview.
- Wikipedia's overview. (Make sure you read the links at the end.)
- Reason.com (Seems to be the only publication that is interested in this case. For reference reason.com is a publication that is decidedly libertarian and decidedly freedom based. I am sure you can predict what side they agree with, they filed a 'friend of the court' brief.) Article.
- SCOTUS Wiki. (This site is cool.) (This has links to all 'friends of the court'. Very cool.)
- SCOTUS Blog. (Another great site.)
If you actually browse the SCOTUS Wiki you will see all the 'friend of the court' (Amicus) briefs you will see a significant amount of 'non color blind' organizations filing briefs. (I personally do not support organizations that make a distinction between people based on skin color, or other minority group, and thus promote that minority without regard to equal protection and fair competition.) These organizations have a significant skin in the court case as they promote various (self-interested) things (like in the Michigan case) where they do not always promote equal protection and no discrimination for ALL races in ALL cases.
The problem is this issue has been made a partisan issue where the conservatives support the oppressed (majority) and the liberals support the color non-blind policies that are suppose to make opportunities more equal (thus provide advantages to the minority). Both sides actually have historically and currently relevant points.
For non-color blind policies:
- Historically the white establishment kept the other races suppressed in America.
- Socially people tend to associate with people of their own race and economic background.
- Most people will not willing change their ways willingly.
- Government intervention in social interactions and business transactions were expanded under the post 'guilded age' (1920's) and so the precedent had been set.
- There may be latent racism and policies should be used to mitigate that.
- Economically these policies help bring up minorities in the population and provide opportunities that may not have been available at the expense of others who may have been more qualified and so these policies represent an inefficiency in the market economy we have (or are suppose to have).
- It is against Martin Luther's dream to make any decision based on race.
- Socially people in most areas of the country are color-blind and other areas have pressure to be more accepting (mostly from government interaction)
- People under the age of 30 are decidedly color neutral on many issues and have friends of all races in huge numbers. Promoting discriminatory policies will hamper these connections and could case a major reversal of these trends as people become more aware of the problems systemic.
- Enforcing color blind policies will disenfranchise those affected by the reverse discrimination. In the Michigan case and this case the people hurt are younger and more apt to encourage change. This disenfranchises people when the roles and opinions they will have in their life are starting to solidify as they have kids. If social engineering is to be attempted it should not be done to disenfranchise the leaders of tomorrow.
- Economically having non color blind policies will lead to lower earnings and lower productivity (since the best candidate didn't get the job, resources are inefficiently allocated) in any corporation. While this case is about government whose only output in general is inefficiency, in an age where taxes are on the raise it is important to not encourage inefficiencies.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."I think you know who's quote that is. I would like to think that a world like that is possible. However quotas, reverse-discrimination, racism, etc. are not helpful to that vision and I personally believe that the man quoted above would be against reverse discrimination outright. Most especially when they are enforced or allowed by the federal government. I hope this court case is decided appropriately. The reason article paints an optimistic picture for those who dislike racism as it seems that there is a higher probability that the court will side with Ricco in this case. (This is the opinion of the author, who is not a supreme court judge.)
The real problem with this case is that the case is hardly covered by the media. Instead we worry about a couple of people getting the flu, or what country Jolie is adopting a kid from today. This case has wide reaching consequences and should be scrutinized by all people on all sides of the issue. It seems that since Obama was elected the news media wants to believe that racism is dead. Well it isn't, it just hides itself in plain sight. I'll keep those who read my blog posted on the status of the decision once it is available. I encourage you to read the cites articles and postings as they will help provide a fuller picture of the case.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Twit Post: Why Mensa is ridiculous
(I promise I will get away from twit posting (defined as short posts with little analysis) soon. I have just been really busy.)
This video just highlights what is wrong with the inclusion criteria for Mensa (the group of 'really smart people'). This girl is essentially a memory machine. I think it is horrible that we have reduced the 'intelligence' of a person to their ability to verbally recite things. It is really sad. Should not intelligence be the ability to make connections, to think rationally, to invent or innovate, etc.? When did we get away from that. While I am not saying this girl is not smart, I am saying there is no evidence either way based on this video. (For reference there have been about 4 videos like this recently where a 'smart' kid is brought on and then just shown to be an encyclopedia on something. One I remember was that she knew all the presidents forwards and backwards.)
Now what does this mean for this little girl? Everyone will always be telling her she is smart which is a self-fulfilling prophecy just as much as the converse is. Thus she likely has a more productive and fulfilling life ahead of her as a result of this. The question is, 'For such a trivial trick why not get more kids recognized as "smart" and give them a leg up in life?' I think that is an important question to ask as it returns to the heart of the issue. Now of course if she had devised a new quantum unification theory instead of just reciting facts, well then she wouldn't have even needed the smart term anyway.
This video just highlights what is wrong with the inclusion criteria for Mensa (the group of 'really smart people'). This girl is essentially a memory machine. I think it is horrible that we have reduced the 'intelligence' of a person to their ability to verbally recite things. It is really sad. Should not intelligence be the ability to make connections, to think rationally, to invent or innovate, etc.? When did we get away from that. While I am not saying this girl is not smart, I am saying there is no evidence either way based on this video. (For reference there have been about 4 videos like this recently where a 'smart' kid is brought on and then just shown to be an encyclopedia on something. One I remember was that she knew all the presidents forwards and backwards.)
Now what does this mean for this little girl? Everyone will always be telling her she is smart which is a self-fulfilling prophecy just as much as the converse is. Thus she likely has a more productive and fulfilling life ahead of her as a result of this. The question is, 'For such a trivial trick why not get more kids recognized as "smart" and give them a leg up in life?' I think that is an important question to ask as it returns to the heart of the issue. Now of course if she had devised a new quantum unification theory instead of just reciting facts, well then she wouldn't have even needed the smart term anyway.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Twit Post: Update on Diamonds
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
