Search This Blog

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Liberal cognitive dissonance making us laugh

You believe what you believe and therefore sometimes you will attempt to force evidence that conflicts with your fondly held belief into a box and call this evidence and experience misleading or false. You were lied to! They were just plain wrong! It was just an amazing coincidence multiplied by a million. This tendency to disregard the real truth in favor of false personal ideology is called cognitive dissonance and we all fall prey to it from time to time. I have never before found a more glaring paradigm of this fallacy in action that in the following example. The author's article is reporting about the commonly held fear that artificial intelligence will supplant humanity at some indefinite date in the future and gives numerous examples and thought experiments supporting his conclusion that, yes, humanity could one day be replaced. I was reading along complacently and in agreement, when suddenly one of his examples jumped out and slapped me, right in the face—HAH!
Last May, ProPublica examined predictive software used by Florida law enforcement. Results of a questionnaire filled out by arrestees were fed into the software, which output a score claiming to predict the risk of reoffending. Judges then used those scores in determining sentences.

The ideal was that the software's underlying algorithms would provide objective analysis on which judges could base their decisions. Instead, ProPublica found it was "likely to falsely flag black defendants as future criminals" while "[w]hite defendants were mislabeled as low risk more often than black defendants." Race was not part of the questionnaire, but it did ask whether the respondent's parent was ever sent to jail. In a country where, according to a study by the U.S. Department of Justice, black children are seven-and-a-half times more likely to have a parent in prison than white children, that question had unintended effects. Rather than countering racial bias, it reified it.

It's that kind of error that most worries Doshi-Velez. "Not superhuman intelligence, but human error that affects many, many people," she says. "You might not even realize this is happening." Algorithms are complex tools; often they are so complex that we can't predict how they'll operate until we see them in action. (Sound familiar?) Yet they increasingly impact every facet of our lives, from Netflix recommendations and Amazon suggestions to what posts you see on Facebook to whether you get a job interview or car loan. Compared to the worry of a world-destroying superintelligence, they may seem like trivial concerns. But they have widespread, often unnoticed effects, because a variety of what we consider artificial intelligence is already build into the core of technology we use every day.
Don't laugh! Yes there are numerous articles that attempt to libsplain why objective study results are biased against blacks because...well because the results are just not possible gosh darn it! You really have to stop...........

And do a little self-examination of your fondly held beliefs about human nature, racial prejudice, and its opposite which is not reverse racism but in fact nihilism. How did America become suicidal as a nation? I know when, it started about fifty years ago, it's the how that has me baffled. The only thing I've got so far is a slippery slope and a whole lot of really shitty Supreme Court Justices.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Liberals, the topic under discussion is over. You lose!

As the Democrats become ever more unhinged and as the derailed cars tumble off the tracks, and as chaos and destruction rain down on various and sundry Democrats, Rinos and other useful idiots, understand that the destruction impacts not just the liberals riding the train, but passers by, buildings, land, cars, factories, whatever undertaking happens to be in the way of this massive tumbling disaster.

The election was cleverly orchestrated by the left. They knew how deeply unpopular Obama was, how even more deeply unpopular Hillary was, but that didn't matter. They mistakenly believed that with their election science, their identity politics, their sanctimonious stance on every divisive issue, from abortion to racism to misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, transgender-phobia, xenophobia, et-cetera phobia, the unemployed, and the poor, they had the votes to defeat white heterosexuals with jobs. That's it. They had the numbers. People with some kind of chip on their shoulders are more numerous than those who believe in doing their jobs and raising their families without government assistance or interference.

Trump is proof their science is flawed, proof that their models are wrong, proof that there are still more makers today, than there are takers. The full-freakout behavior of the mainstream media since after the election and especially since the inauguration is frankly astounding. Have you ever seen anything like this? Just WOW! The wolves in their sheep clothing have revealed themselves fully. We are witnessing the baying and circling of a pack of pissed-off hungry wolves denied their deserved bloody dinner.

In the last few weeks we've been treated to a veritable cacophony of ever-more hyperbolic and asinine accusations about the character, the temperament, and the ultimate goals of President Donald Trump. So finally, here we are. I believe that this article from The Huffington Post is the final absurd straw. The fake news, the lying mainstream media has gone full Hitler. The only problem with grasping at this final absurd straw, is ... They lose! You ass-hats lose! You've once again proven Godwin's law. Therefore ... you lose.
Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage which asserts that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1"[2][3]—​​that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler.
Promulgated by American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990,[2] Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions.[4] It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forumschat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric[5][6] where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.

In 2012, "Godwin's law" became an entry in the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.[7]
It is understood that hyperbolic and unhinged comparisons to Hitler and Nazis is tantamount to conceding any argument under discussion. If you go there it means you have literally nothing at all left to say in defense of your position. Violating Godwin's law is demonization times infinity. As such, wise men and women—wiser than tantrum throwing children—recognize that once you've gone Hitler, the discussion is over. Beat on the floor with your fists and howl away in the night about the sins of your fathers if you want to, but nobody is listening anymore. You lose. This conspicuously odious rancid steaming dump on the carpet is brought to you by The Huffington Post. Or, as I like to call, it HuffandPuff Post.
I have never been more acutely aware of the fact that I am Jewish than at this moment in history, with the newfound spike in anti-Semitism and hate crimes throughout the campaign season and since the election of the new President.

When asked about the impact of his campaign rhetoric on spiking anti-Semitism in a recent press conference, Trump somehow responded by congratulating himself on his election victory margins – and stated that he knew Jewish people, including his son, daughter, and grandchildren without addressing the topic at all. When asked about how his administration plans to respond to the undeniable surge in anti-Semitism at a subsequent press conference, he responded by calling the Jewish reporter’s question unfair, saying he hated it and found it insulting, and instructed him to sit down without offering any answer whatsoever – aside from blaming the press. Trump called himself the “least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life,” though refuses to outright condemn by name, show up alongside, step up to protect the targeted, or order an investigation of the spike in hatred, hate-fueled violence and hate crimes against Jews or other peoples; the President and Administration are deafeningly and dangerously silent on anti-Semitism.

An unprecedented 67 bomb threats have been phoned in to 56 Jewish centers across 27 states and one Canadian province since the start of the year has barely made headlines, yet invoked a paralyzing fear and terror in thousands of families, staff and community members of all faiths. A truck purposefully running over young Jews in Israel made the news cycle briefly. New Yorkers discovering and erasing swastikas from subway cars was a feel good story spotlighted for but a moment. A Chicago synagogue defaced with swastikas and a broken window is barely even searchable online.

How many swastikas is too many? One. How many slurs? How many hate crimes?

Saturday, February 4, 2017

The Culling

The human race is long overdue for a culling. We are seven and a half billion strong, or perhaps I should say weak. How does a person get stronger? By straining his muscles, exercise, struggle. How does a person get smarter? By wracking his brain, studying, struggle. How does a person become more graceful? By practice, careful rehearsal, struggle. I could go on and on. We get better, stronger, faster, smarter, more competitive through work and struggle. Therefore, by simple logic we can predict that the incessant use of antibiotics and inoculations—methods which bypass the immune system—have coddled the immune system of the typical human to the point where it is as weak as the muscular system of a quadriplegic.

History is a futile and clueless guide in these ever faster and faster changing days we live in. Nowhere in history have we ever placed such unalloyed faith in that great all-powerful god called science, to ease us painlessly through every natural struggle. We no longer adapt to our environment, instead we've spent at least the last few centuries adapting our environment to us. With refrigeration, central heat, soap, gasoline powered transportation, and modern medicine, we've exploded as a species across the face of the Earth. Our numbers make us strong. Our reliance upon a fickle god named science makes us weak.

Did you think that antibiotics would always work? Do you fear germs? Do you obsessively wash your hands, take daily baths, sanitize every object and device you may have to touch? Do you get your kids their inoculations? Do you obsess about a clean and neat house, car, clothing, furniture, dusting vacuuming, wiping, scrubbing? Of course you do. Doesn't everybody?

You and I have grown used to the absence of harmful bacteria and viruses. The worst most of us have experienced is the flu and even that seasonal malady is strongly mitigated by yearly vaccines. Face facts, the human race hasn't struggled with a truly virulent epidemic since AIDS.
On Friday [01/13/2017], the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a disturbing report about the death of an elderly woman in Washoe County, Nev. What killed her wasn’t heart disease, cancer or pneumonia. What killed her were bacteria that were resistant to every antibiotic doctors could throw at them.

This anonymous woman is only the latest casualty in a war against antibiotic-resistant bacteria — a war that we are losing. Although most bacteria die when they encounter an antibiotic, a few hardy bugs survive. Through repeated exposure, those tough bacteria proliferate, spreading resistance genes through the bacterial population. That’s the curse of antibiotics: The more they’re used, the worse they get, especially when they’re used carelessly.

Already, more than 23,000 people in the United States are estimated to die every year from resistant bacteria. That death toll will grow as microbes develop new mechanisms to defeat the drugs that, for decades, have kept infections at bay. We are on the cusp of what the World Health Organization calls a “post-antibiotic era.”
In 1918, fifty to seventy-five million people around the world died of the Spanish Flu. The true numbers will never be known, only guessed at. (record keeping at this time was not 100%) The population of Earth was perhaps 1.5 billion. If you multiply that out, the Spanish Flu would decimate the world-wide population by 400 million. This would be a civilization killer. The fact is however that it would be worse than that. People in those days had never had inoculations. They'd survived every childhood epidemic. They'd survived without antibiotics, without soap in many cases. They were in a word 'survivors.' Do you honestly think that the survivor percentage of today's coiffed, perfumed, inoculated, and spoiled humanity would be as high?

Any massive die-off would spin civilization off its axis. If one in ten people died in the space of a year or less, that would cause everybody to stay home. Garbage collectors would stay home. Truckers would stay home. Store clerks would stay home. Electricians, and engineers would stay home. Everyone would find it hard if not impossible to go about their daily tasks. Everything would break down.

We rely on electricity to the point that if it was cut off for an extended period the human die-off would collapse civilization as we know it. Almost nobody these days knows how to build shelter, hunt, fish, forage, find clean water, deliver babies, remove badly decaying teeth, design safe sewage systems, navigate without GPS, build carts, boats, plows, catch train and shoe horses, make whiskey, farm, can food, etc. The list of things most of us don't know how to do is so overwhelming that it's virtually certain that a national or worldwide power outage would wipe out almost every person alive.

We rely on specialization, medicine, electricity, clean water, store bought food, and gasoline powered transportation to survive. (I probably left a few things out.) In summation, the case seems clear. Another super-flu like the Spanish Flu and its attendant societal consequences would cause a culling of humanity to the point where this world would be unrecognizable.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Why do people want money?

Answer: Because they can buy stuff with it.

Rebuttal: that's just circular reasoning. "Circular reasoning is often of the form: 'A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.'" So people want money because they can buy stuff from other people with it, and they can buy stuff from other people with it because other people want money? That's the dumbest thing I ever heard! The truth is that today's currency is fiat money. It's valuable because the government that prints it says it's valuable.
Most of the world’s money is called fiat money, meaning it is accepted as money because a government says that it’s legal tender, and the public has enough confidence and faith in the money’s ability to serve as a storage medium for purchasing power.

A fiat system is based on a government’s mandate that the paper currency it prints is legal tender for making financial transactions. Legal tender means that the money is backed by the full faith and credit of the government that issues it. In other words, the government promises to be good for it.
This explanation assures us that our government promises to be "good for it." So, by that explanation we can conclude that money is a debt incurred by the issuing nation to the owner of the currency? Fine, I want to redeem the debt that the USA has incurred. I'll turn in my dollars tomorrow. The USA is good for it right? I'll suppose I'll take gold bullion. That's the most transportable right?
One of the long-standing myths about modern currency is that it is backed by the U.S. gold supply in Fort Knox. That is, you can trade your greenback dollars to the U.S. government for the equivalent amount of gold bullion at any time.

At one point, this was true of most paper currencies in the world. However, the U.S. took away the government backing of the dollar with an actual gold supply (known as leaving the gold standard) in 1971, and every major international currency has followed suit.

The obvious question is, "Without gold, what does guarantee the value of our money?" The answer is: nothing at all.

The only reason a dollar, or a franc, or a Euro has any value is because we have a stable system in which people are known to accept these pieces of paper in return for something valuable. Or, as Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman puts it, "the pieces of green paper have value because everybody thinks they have value."
"Gosh!," Jack exclaimed in amazed wonder. So a government says that its fancy paper is valuable and abracadabra it suddenly just is valuable. Well, by that logic why doesn't Obama declare that CO2 is valuable and then everyone will hold their breath ... global warming, unemployment, poverty, saving the whales ... problem solved solved solved and solved!

Obama's Not So Secret Betrayal

How does Obama make decisions? It's really simple actually. He asks one basic question, Will the proposed action help America, or will it harm America? If the answer is [help America] he hinders the plan. Keystone XL Pipeline. If the proposed action will do harm to America, then Obama helps it along. Ending the Cuban Medical Professional Parole Program.

Imagine refugees from the now defunct USSR or East Berlin being sent back to their communist oppressors by the nations of the free world. You don't have to imagine it, after World War II America and Great Britain did exactly that!
With the invasion of Western Europe in June 1944, thousands of Russian prisoners fell into the hands of the Allies. Many were forced laborers who had been working on the Atlantic Wall for the Todt Organization. Others were simply refugees. However, the Western Allies were surprised to discover that thousands had willingly joined the Wehrmacht. Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov asserted in May 1944 that the number of Russians serving in the German armed forces was “insignificant.” Actually, approximately one million of Stalin’s subjects had joined the other side.

By late June the British Foreign Office decided to repatriate all Russian POWs, callously disregarding the consequences of such a policy (early in the war Stalin had made it clear that any Soviet citizens who were even temporarily out of Communist control would be regarded as traitors. Official Orders threatened “deserters” and POWs with draconian measures). On June 24, 1944, Patrick Dean, the Assistant Legal Adviser of the Foreign Office, declared: “In due course all those with whom the Soviet authorities desire to deal must … be handed over to them, and we are not concerned with the fact that they may be shot or otherwise more harshly dealt with than they might be under English law.”

Saturday, January 7, 2017

What we have here is a failure to communicate

Even though Tom and Joe both use the same set of words, what they each mean by what they say is so colored by preconceptions, misconceptions and simple inattention that more often than not, what they are saying to each other is heard by the other as something completely different. Tom says, "I love America!" Joe also says, "I love America!" What are they really telling each other?

When Tom says that he loves America he means that he learned America's history and its heritage at the feet of his father, a patriot who willingly joined the Army during the Vietnam war. Tom's father joined the Army knowing that he might soon have to go overseas to an enemy land, and in the process of eventual battles might even be compelled to sacrifice himself if need be, leaving behind forever all the scores of forsaken family and friends he'd ever known, and the scores more he never would, and also leaving behind his own young son, Tom.

Tom's father made his decision to join during the Vietnam war without even really understanding why there was a war. He didn't need to know why there was a war because he trusted America's leaders to be the kind of patriots that he was. Tom's father trusted America to have patriot leaders who truly love what America is, what it represents, and what we all hope it eventually will become.

Tom was taught by his patriot father that at its essence, America is Freedom. It's the freedom to say what you think, the freedom to try and succeed as well as to try and fail. It's the freedom to compete. America is the freedom to be a winner and a loser. America is safety from powerful men with money and guns who would seek to subjugate, confiscate, eliminate, and finely extirpate the very freedom that Tom and his father so rely upon. Tom and his father know that these petty tyrants—these enemies of freedom—really do exist, but they also know that America with its 2nd Amendment guarantees the freedom to own weapons and to be armed in order to protect ourselves and every other American from the evil desires of these tyrants and would-be kings.

Joe also says he loves America. What he doesn't bother to mention, is that he also loves every other country on Earth. Joe knows that every culture and its attendant societies are special in their unique way and each deserve to exist uncontaminated by the provincial thinking and unnecessary protections inscribed within ancient documents like America's Constitution. In the same way that Joe loves an America where all women have the freedom to wear a bikini and attend a University, Joe also loves the completely different sort of freedom found in Saudi Arabia, where women are free to wear a hijab and burqa while staying safely at home, protected from the lustful stares of strange men.

Joe understands one thing more clearly than all the less enlightened hicks and bigots who he so despises. He understands that America is nothing special. It's merely one of many equally valid cultures. Joe believes that going to war to protect one aggressor from another more powerful aggressor is the very definition of arrogance. Who are we to decide who governs whom?

Joe was only taught one thing by his father, never count on your father. Joe was taught by his mother that if you fill out the correct forms and wait long enough in the proper lines, America will eventually give you a place to live and food to eat. What's not to love about that?

Both Joe and Tom love America. Tom loves it for what it is and for what its people can accomplish, and he truly admires its historical heroes, men like George Washington, Patrick Henry, Nathan Hale, Abraham Lincoln, to name just the barest fraction of American heroes waiting their deserved turn to be mentioned. Even though Joe hates America as it is, he loves the idea of the America as he thinks it should be. Joe despises America's income inequality and its constant meddling in foreign affairs. He never tires of pointing out the manifest character flaws he believes are to be found in every single American hero—with the one exception of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. of course—who were variously: racists, misogynists, homophobes, transphobes, bigots, and bitter clingers. Most importantly, Joe loves America mainly because of what it does for him every month. He Love-love-loves his EBT-card, section 8 housing, and his ever growing collection of Obama-phones.

Monday, January 2, 2017

Our replacements are already on the drafting board.

Universal Basic Income. Call it what it is. Allowance. You can earn more but you are guaranteed that figure, whatever it happens to be this year. Suppose they set it at $500.00 per month. With a selection of similarly nonproductive UBI recipients, the crowd of you could inhabit an apartment and live in spartan comfort. With six of you drawing $3000.00 per month you could pay the utilities, and even have the very occasional luxury dinner or night out. That—along with my very own communist fantasy UBW (universal band width)—and a commune of sponges like yourselves could while away their days and nights doing nothing at all. Think cows. Think sponges. Think drifting absorbers of nutrients. Even a carrion eater like a maggot or a buzzard is more productive than your sort would be.

I can already hear the naysayers objecting that it wouldn't work, that there aren't and never would be a sufficiently abundant community of productive workers able to afford such a vast horde of layabouts living out their days simply laying about. If it were ten years ago I too would have stated with absolute certainty the impossibility of such a world. After all, who would voluntarily submit to what seems on its face mere slavery? I work. You laze about. No!

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. If you could quit your job today, and yet keep your income with the obligatory yearly cost of living increases, for the rest of your life, would you take it? You take the rest of your life off. Watch TV. See movies. Go on the occasional vacation as finances permit. Spend time with family, grandchildren, cousins uncles aunts, etc. Give that hobby a real go. Play sports, watch sports. Gamble. Learn a new language a musical instrument, ice sculpture, et cetera. ... experience all the thousands of things that a person suddenly freed from a lifetime of labor can experience. Would you take the deal?

If you said no, if you said that that you would rather continue working day in and day out then ... why not stick a broomstick up your bum and sweep the floor as you go about your sanctimonious day.

For the rest of us who would retire today given sufficient funding, what do you think about Finland's social experiment?
Finland has an ambitious New Year's resolution in mind: learn how offering free money for two years helps the unemployed get back to work.

Starting January 1, 2017 and lasting until 2019, the federal social security institution Kela will distribute roughly $590 each month to 2,000 jobless Finns.

Regardless of whether they find work during that period, the money will keep coming in at the beginning of each month — a trial version of basic income, one of the past year's most popular theories of how to solve poverty.

Under universal basic income (UBI), people receive a standard amount of money just for being alive. By handing out the money to everyone, regardless of their income status, UBI advocates say the system prevents people from falling through the cracks.
You say it will never work? Of course it won't. Those who are ambitious and want more than subsistence living will get a job and those who don't won't. In neither case will the substantial monetary outlay change those basic tendencies. In essence, nobody is going to go out and get a job just because you give them a check every month. Intuitively we could certainly intuit the reverse.

UBI isn't just pie in the sky however. What if there were no jobs. What if everything was done not because of humanity, but in spite of it. What if the world went on and we humans became ever more redundant, ever more the unnecessary third wheel? Look at Insurance, transportation, farming, education, etc.

I stopped not because I ran out of things that robots and computers would replace, but because there wasn't anything left that they wouldn't. How could such an automated world exist with humans unless there was such a thing as universal basic income?