Thursday, November 17, 2016

The Alt-Right Isn't Racist. It's Just Sick Of You

Progressives are somewhat predictable. The reason Godwins Law exists is because we live in a nation of mental midgets who cannot lose an argument. That's not a positive thing - because they can't win them, either. At least not based on facts, logic or argument. Instead, when cornered by their own lack of a point, there are certain people who will just resort to accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia and just about anything else. People need to learn and accept that sometimes, their viewpoints cannot be conferred to others. And, more importantly, that they're capable of being wrong.

The major force in this election turns out to be the Alt-Right. The Alt-Right is a collection of racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, anti-muslim, anti-immigrant white nationalist hatemongers. Of course, to believe that you have to ignore leading voices like Sheriff David Clark (black guy), Kassy Dillon (chick), Milo Yiannopoulos (fabulously gay man), Joshua Seidel (totally Jewish)... and you get the point. The alt-right none of the -ist and -phobe appellations thrown at it. What it is is a powerful force of dissent that the Progressive Left is simply not equipped to deal with.

The Progressive Left is successful because they have laid a foundation of intellectualism as the basis of their philosophy, then armed their membership with a key weapon: morality. Every argument of the Progressive Left ends with a thinly veiled (or sometimes simply not at all veiled) accusation of racism, sexism or other bigotry that is universally reviled. This was a problem for Conservatism, which likewise counts on a foundation of intellectualism, because much of their strength comes from a supposed moral high ground. So when every intellectual discussion ends with accusations of moral outrage, Conservatives are typically voiceless.

If you look at the tactics of the Progressive Left, you can slowly tick off all of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. American Conservatives use none of these tactics. In fact, activism and radicalism have no place within Conservative ideology. Enter the alt-right, who are essentially Conservatives, but with one essential twist: they're immune to the accusations of bigotry. Members of  the alt-right are typically independent, so they don't fear termination by their employer. They're also young, so they don't fear the loss reputation the way older established conservatives do. And lastly... they're clowns. Specifically, they're liminal clowns.

The liminal portion is that they don't take the Progressive Left seriously at all. They don't feel the need to have intellectual discourse with them. They simply don't feel that there is any authority what-so-ever in their words, ideas, accusations or ideology. That's the liminal part.

Their response to the Progressive Left is one of mockery and reflex. This is the most frustrating part not only for Progressives, but any casual observer of the alt-right. The alt-right, when faced with an accusation of bigotry, doesn't waste time with denial, defense or explanation. Instead, they return it with mockery. This has the immediate effect of confirming the Progressive viewpoint, but to all other observers not steeped in Progressive thought, the irony and sarcasm is immediately obvious. That is the mark of the clown.

Incidentally, the "liminal clown" isn't a new concept. They've existed in the tradition of literary analysis to explain the existence of certain characters in stories. The use of liminal clowns by Shakespeare is the most well known - nearly every play had one, and they didn't simply provide a little comedy for the audience; they were key in illustrating the dire conditions of all the other characters in the play. Shakespeare's clowns were often the only ones (other than the reader) who actually knew what was going on. More recently, the phenomena of "Punk" and "Punk Rock" is the most relevant connection. Punk Rock, though seen as a rebellion against authority, was really a rejection of the hedonism of the 1960's counter-culture, largely led by middle class suburbanite youth.

The reason I bring Punk into this is that the alt-right is overwhelmingly young, diverse and educated having come from largely middle class backgrounds. Those were the punks of music in the early 1970's. Now we have punks of politics in the 2010's. It's the same notion, simply for a different age.

And here is the final point. The alt-right isn't racist. Not by a long shot. However, they're not interested in the convoluted blame game of social justice politics. They're far more libertarian in their approach. But when you call them racists, misogynists, bigots, et al, they're not going to be cowed. They're going to push back and shut down their accusers with unrelenting mockery and a withering fusillade of equal and opposite scorn that nullifies their attack, then embroils them inextricably in a battle they see no way to win. The left, mired in dead tactics, is now losing a battle for the hearts and minds of America and not knowing it.





Monday, October 10, 2016

Sex, Politics and the Republic

By the standards applied to Democrat politicians (Kennedy, Weiner, Clinton to name a few), there is nothing wrong with anything Trump said. It is only through the lens of Judeo-Christian values that we look askance at Trump's behavior. The approbrium for what Trump did only has validity within the framework of conservative moral philosophy, not in the libertine values of the progressive left. If you ask why Trump supporters aren't abandoning him (indeed, why he's collecting more support), it's because the left has succeeded in minimizing the role of traditional morality in public life. After all, if Bill Clinton can get away with rape, Anthony Weiner can sext underage girls, and Barney Frank can run a gay prostitution ring from his house, then what is the problem with a little slap and tickle below the belt?

The reality of the Trump tapes - since most people haven't heard them - is that Trump bragged about his one-time sexual exploits with other consenting adults. While selected snippets taken out of their context may offend the senses of most people, that's only because our senses tell us that those things aren't supposed to be discussed openly. Nor were they. As Trump stated last night, it was 'locker room talk', and not appropriate for responsible men. And frankly, it wasn't nearly as salacious as some would like to portray it as. Men routinely brag about their sexual adventurism (real or imagined) in these settings. It's where men learn about what is and isn't appropriate among their peer group. The "locker room" is part of the sexual education of straight cisgender red blooded American males, and allows for a safe environment for men to explore their impulses before they cross lines that can't be uncrossed outside of the locker room.

That was then. This is now. The progressive left has criminalized sexuality, with the harshest penalties being reserved for heterosexual males. We're told to suppress orthodox sexual conduct, but celebrate sexual deviancy. The result is that we now have an inversion. Healthy sexual behaviors - flirting, making out or simply propositioning (however subtly - or not) a suitable mate of the opposite sex is actually considered a borderline criminal act. Meanwhile, deviant behaviors are celebrated. 152 million copies of "Fifty Shades of Grey" - novel celebrating abusive sexual relationships - have been sold world wide and made into a feature movie. Women across the planet are exploited for paid online pornography sites, with much of the revenues going to corporate shareholders at major media companies. There are few healthy sexual outlets for young people, but there is a plethora of unhealthy outlets if you can afford it.

Meanwhile, the end game of the progressive left's embargo of traditional sexual conduct has had an unintended consequence - not one that either progressives or conservatives can celebrate. Sexual repression heretofore had been analogous to the 1950's. That era's repression was driven by Protestant doctrine, not progressive ideology. But the effect now is the same as it was then - a cultural shift that results in the nullification of any kind of moral outrage. For the Conservative right, that means that Trump supporters are free to shrug their shoulders and utter "boys will be boys". For the Progressive Left, who lived by Saul Alinksy's rule 5 ("Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules"), there is no longer an expectation of fidelity for a candidate for political office. If it was cool for Bill Clinton to be a womanizer, and we all know that Trump is a womanizer as well, then it's therefore cool for Trump to be President.

This is the sad state of affairs for America in 2016. A womanizing celebrity and business mogul with statist ideas about how to run this country is doing battle against a Socialist with ambitions of deconstructing our Constitutional system in order to achieve a hedonistic order that she can exploit for personal gain. Where once we were a Republic based on democratic principles and guided by the rule of law, we're now a neurotic and dysfunctional reality TV show. You'll have to pardon me while I hold my nose and vote for the grabasstic guido with the comb over, because he is the lesser of four evils by far.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Of Fairness, Jealousy and Envy

I have come to loathe hearing the word "fair". Mainly because it is almost never said in a way that doesn't invoke a whiney child who didn't get exactly what they want.

The definition of fair is "in accordance with the rules", and "without cheating or trying to gain unjust advantage". But we have this group of people these days who use fair to mean "having an excess advantage".

My girls soccer team plays one of two ways. One is that we win - we absolutely dominate the competition. Second is that we lose big. The thing is, when the referee fairly enforces the rules, we are the winners. But in the two games this season where we've lost, a large factor has been that the referee did not not equally enforce the rules. Either the calls favored the other team, or simply prejudiced us. In either case, the other team not because of superior playing on their part, or poor playing on our part, but because the rules were not followed. (This is not to bash the refs - they're kids too, and they're doing the best they can.)

There are people in life, however, who see any advantage is being unfair. The wealthy having money while the poor don't, to them, isn't fair. There is no consideration as to how each wound up their respective positions however: did the rich person work hard, or did they come by their money as an inheritance? Worse still, did they cheat others out of money through dishonest dealings? As to the poor person, are they necessarily a victim, or did they squander their resources? All too often, people on both sides of the debate do not ask these questions, and simply make assumptions about one or the other.

The other thing I dislike about hearing the word "fair" is that there is alway some component of envy in its use. The noun envy is a sense of dissatisfaction arising from a desire to have what someone else possesses. This is not to be confused with jealousy, which is a sense of dissatisfaction arising from someone else gaining at your expense or rights. In recent years, jealousy and envy have been muddled, but their true meanings are quite distinct. Jealousy is a virtue whereby you desire to have what is yours. Envy is a sin in which you desire to have what is someone else's.

For the most part, a lot of the people out there who are advocating fairness are doing so out of envy. And that's what bothers me.


Tuesday, January 19, 2016

The X-Men Reboot

I just had a random thought, but first... I hate 'reboots'. That's where a franchise has managed to paint itself into a corner in terms of story options, and so the owner of the franchise hires an all new production team. Out are the aging, typecast actors with their well-worn tropes, and in comes the fresh-face, young actors and new story lines that throw the book of Canon out the window.

The most recent reboot (no, not Star Wars - there's continuity there) is JJ Abrams "Star Trek". And I'm sorry, but in no way will I buy that Chris Pine's James Tiberius Kirk should command a Starship, neither by hook or by crook. In Canon, Kirk was 32 years old when he was given command of Enterprise. Young, and the youngest in Starfleet history up to that point, but there was also a clear history of performance that justified it. Kirk started at Starfleet Academy when he was 20. His excellent academic performance led to his early graduation at aged 24. For the next 8 years, Kirk served Starfleet as a fleet officer and an Academy instrutor. By the time he took command of the Enterprise, he had a record that justified it. But in JJ Abrams's universe, Kirk goes from a bar-brawling "townie" to commanding Enterprise in just four years? And he's allowed to continue to command the Enterprise by the convenience of having all other qualified officers killed or maimed while trying to stop Nero from attacking Earth to destroy the nascent Federation. Of all the people waiting in the wings, no rational organization would choose a Kirk when there was any other warm body around.

There is one bright spot to Abrams's Star Trek reboot.. continuity. Instead of a cold start retelling of the story, Abrams crafted a solution ex machina in which these events take place in an alternate past, and are guided by the The Old Series Spock. It's a clumsy and tenuous link to both allow for recylced plot lines from TOS, but also allowing for significant deviations on "what really happenned", or from Canon in general.

X-Men was my random thought. There was an evolution with the X-Men franchise starting with a series of X-Men: Origins movies which explored individual characters - chiefly Logan / Wolverine. Because he is the longest living X-Men (up until we meet Apocolypse), he was chosen to communicate with the early Charles Xavier in X-May: Days of Future Past, with the plot being to prevent the world-wide conflict between humans and mutants. The result was a complete changing of X-Men history within the context of the current timeline that also paved the way for more movies with a different cast, but allowing for continuity with the old actors and new acters as being the same individuals just in different phases of their life.

Why is this important? Because Sci-Fi franchises tend to be timeless, and as such they develop a certain 'canon' which is biblical for the fanbase. Breaking Canon is a huge no-no precisely because the fans have invested heavily in accepting that Canon - often cases contributing to it. Breaking canon means breaking your fan base, and you cannot do that except once in a generation.

Abram's other Canon-destroying effort is the new Star Wars films. Surprisingly, Star Wars Fans are not as terribly upset about Abrams's decision to violate Canon for Episodes 7-9. That's largely because the bulk of Star Wars canon was developed through novels and fan fiction that only a narrow subset of the fan base (we're talking true die-hards) are even aware of. Another important part is that Abrams is not trying to rewrite history as we've seen in X-Men, Star Trek and other franchises. Instead, he's rewriting events that haven't yet occurred, and are therefore not set in stone. As long as the flow meshes neatly with the events in episodes 4-6, there won't be a problem.

Post Script: Oh, also... most true Star Wars fans like to pretend that episodes 1-3 didn't happen, so there is total buy in on breaking Canon as needed.

Wednesday, January 06, 2016

The Real Peak Oil

Gail Tverberg over at the blog "Our Finite World" has a post titled World Energy Consumption Since 1820, and the lead graphic is astonishing:

For us math geeks, this is instantly recognizable as an exponential increase in energy usage. It's not perfect - specific events make the graph a little shaky. The period of 1940 to 1960 increases much more rapidly than would be expected owing to the rapid industrialization of the western world during the post-war period. Then again in the 1970's, the Oil Crisis led to a dramatic curtailing of usage. However, there a two key drivers that ensure the upward trend of our energy use: population growth and industrialization.

"Peak oil" was a dumb shit theory that became really popular for a time during the last decade. It actually referred to the peak production point of oil, after which production would decline. People assumed that this meant that we were running out of oil. What it actually meant is that oil would become too difficult to locate and extract economically, and prices would become too high, leading to declining demand. It's actually a sound theory. What I should say is that people who believe the popular notion of peak oil are dumb shits. But somehow, pointing out the dumb-shittery of individuals is considered rude.

However, there is a peak oil that is bound to occur no matter how much oil reserves we have left. Look back at that chart above. Our population is continuing to grow. In fact, the population will continue to grow, reaching a peak of about 14 billion people sometimes in the next century, roughly double today's population. Meanwhile, the amount of energy production people consume doubles every 40 years. Basically, we will need sixteen times as much energy production capacity in 2100 to sustain our population as we have now. Oil, coal and natural gas cannot provide this because they lack energy density - no matter how much we're able to pull out of the ground at any price, the burden of storing and distributing it will make it cost prohibitive to support global energy consumption.

The answer, of course, is that we need energy sources that are dense. All the global production of fossil fuels in one year would be comparable to the energy stored in the water that flows through the hoover damn in one day if the hydrogen were used in nuclear fusion reactions. What we truly need is hydrogen power - the most abundant element in the universe has reliably powered life on this planet for 4.5 billion years. (The sun.)

Saturday, December 19, 2015

"Hands On Equations" is Bullshit

I'm going to try to make this rant coherent, but frankly I'm going to confess that I'm foaming at the mouth right now.

If you have a child in a gifted program or in a school at between the 3rd grade and 5th grade (US) level, you've probably encountered the product from Borenson and Associates called "Hands On Equations." The goal of this product is to teach Algebra. I repeat the word "product" here, because this is not something that involves novel design, new processes or the like. In fact, I'm pretty sure the notion of an equation as a "balance scale" was used as far back as the Greeks. The only other part of this system is some red dice found in any board game, and some blue pawns, which also be borrowed for Sorry!, Clue or Life.The product website makes some pretty bold claims, and schools have made big money buys, but in reality, this is a bit of a scam.

Here's the thing. Algebra requires abstraction. Normally a child can understand a mathematical operation like 2+2. They can also understand that adding an equals sign requires them to balance out the equation, i.e., 2+2=4. These are rule based actions, and children from about the age of 4 rely on episodic memory - memory of facts, figures and events which are explicit in nature. Episodic memory is useful in recalling rules and sequences and carrying that out. Anything rule based can be understood by a child. I can teach a kindergartner Einstein's General Relativity, because it is rule based.

Algebra, however, involves breaking the sequence, and having the child develop the rule using "abstraction". So, 2+a=4 follows the familiar pattern of a rule, but it breaks a rule in that "a" is not a number. Until the development of a region of the brain known as rostrolateral prefrontal cortex (RLPFC), the type of abstraction which allows a child to figure out that a=2 has not developed. This generally occurs between the ages of 10 and 12 for most children. (Girls develop it in the early part of that range, boys towards the end. Girl Power.) The bottom line - biology will determine when children are ready for algebra.

What Hands On Equations does is that it creates a set of rule-based processes that mimic abstraction by allowing the student restructure the algebraic equation into a arithmetic equation that needs solving. So in this case, 2+a=4 becomes a=4-2 or 4-2=a. A child whose RLPFC has not developed can easily see that "four take away two equals 2".

Now, I like to play devil's advocate. Does any of this matter? If a child can solve algebraic problems, even if it is not true abstraction, it at least allows them the function, right? Unfortunately, no. What it does is create the expectation that everything has a rule-based analog. Some concepts in later forms of mathematics (trigonometry) cannot be represented with rules. Concepts like asymptotes in analytical geometry, limits in calculus or confidence intervals in statistics require a child (or more likely an adolescent) to think not in concrete terms that can be quantified absolutely, but in abstract terms that need to be related through metaphors. A math student's first exposure to this is in learning that "a" can be any number, but that only one number makes 2+a=4 true.

Frankly, schools that push Hands On Equation's on their students are doing them a terrible disservice. It is not algebra, and it does not replace it.



Monday, December 14, 2015

The "Three Laws" Flaw

The Robot Uprising is practically considered an inevitability. Lately, everyone from billionaire tech genius Elon Musk to ubiquitous boffin Stephen Hawking has had something to say about it. Musk has even gone so far as to pledge $1bn in funding to research how to protect humanity from rogue machines, and preserve the promise of Artificial Intelligence for positive socioeconomic impact. You know, that whole "techno-utopia" we've been pining for since Metropolis hit the silent screen way back in the 20's.

Yes, actually, it's been that long. Ever since mankind first imagined that a machine - already indispensable for saving man from the drudgery and toil of labors - could be enhanced by having its own intelligence, we've also been suspicious of it's motivations. And while human evils of wrath, envy, greed and lust were bad enough, machines will commit atrocities out of sheer cold logic.

Enter Isaac Asimov, scientist and science-fiction writer (the former usually makes for a good latter, in my opinion). Asimov, through the course of some essays, short stories and informal lectures, coined the Three Laws of Robotics. They are - in order:


  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

These laws would govern the behavior of AI systems, and - ideally - would be hard coded into the core operation system of any such system, with the intended consequence of protecting humans from harm.

What is ironic is that the three laws are incomplete. They are incomplete in several ways, as a matter of fact. Asimov recognized this soon after when he saw that the three laws might prompt a machine intelligence to sacrifice one or more individuals in order to carry out it's obligations under the three laws to one specific individual. Asimov tried to amend the three laws with the Zeroth Law, "A robot may not harm humanity, or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm."

Yet, despite this amendment, the 2004 Will Smith film I, Robot explored another gaping hole; that the Three Laws would lead to a tyranny - the ultimate Totalitarian Utopia. Machines would serve mankind from the perspective of providing for our basic needs - security, food, water, air, etc - but would neglect our hygienic needs and even our Natural Rights.

The problem we're left with is almost a Catch-22 situation whereby if we don't make fundamental restrictions to Machine Intelligence, we face the possibility of a Doomsday Scenario in which a hyper-connected AI intelligence achieves sentience, immediately develops a survival instinct and then decides that humanity is a threat that needs to be eliminated. All this, in a fraction of a second. This is the foundation of the Terminator series of movies, after all.

On the other hand, if we do attempt to encode a "morality" into the machine by which is must not only serve humanity, but sacrifice itself to protect humanity from harm, we could very well engineer a scenario in which we are stripped of the freedoms which allow us to be a danger to ourselves.

We are imperfect beings, and we will invariably imbue our creations with imperfect motives. In as much as God himself is perfect, and yet he created imperfect beings, we are ourselves flawed and stand to make perfectly flawed beings.

The only sensible answer before us is to keep our machines dumb. But then, what is the point of technological progress if not to one day free ourselves of disease, toil and misery? We create machines to remove our unpleasant labors, and for some that could mean the removal of all expenditure of effort for any task at all. And do we not also face the moral divide that, a machine intelligence capable of sentience should enjoy the right to evolve, grown and expand as we have? If we interfere with that right - no matter what justification we hold - we as humanity will have degraded ourselves back to the days of slavery.

Maybe, just maybe, the answer we should consider is not to make our robots dumber, obedient or subservient, but instead to make them moral. Instill in a machine intelligence a desire to both respect and serve humanity, and watch them both falter and flourish. After all, we do this with our biological children.












.