A Search For Something Better

I'm in the process of moving my blogs to Google's Blogsite.  The following post was originally dated March 15, 2017.

--

Americans are more polarized now than I've ever seen them. I didn't think it could get any more polarized than it was when George W. Bush was in office, but here we are.

The political parties have become stereotyped into extreme positions from which they may never recover. Republicans are characterized as fascists, and Democrats are perceived as communists.  The actuality is that opinions on the many issues facing our country are not black-or-white, but a spectrum, stretching from one extreme to the other.  Like light passing through a prism, any single color blends into another with no boundary between them.

Having tired of the either-or of the major parties, the "if you're not with me, you're against me" attitude, I went looking for an alternative.  I went looking for a "Moderate Party".  The theory was that moderates examine - FULLY examine - all aspects of an issue or policy, and make intelligent, informed decisions based on the factually corroborated information available.  Far from being wishy-washy non-committals, they are as passionate about the issues and policies as the staunchest Democrat or Republican, but are not afraid to pick-and-choose what they perceive as what's best for America and its people.  They are unconstrained by the Party Line.

What I found in my search was that Moderates can be as extreme-to-the-extreme as those they criticize.  Instead of intellectuals who engage in rational examination of an issue or policy, I found just as many irrational, reactionary, and ill-informed Moderates as I saw in the two major parties.

So, I guess you could call me non-aligned.  Better yet, call me Independent.  I will continue my rational examinations of issues and policies with regard to what is best for America, in order to make informed decisions based on the (factual, verifiable, and corroborated) information available to me.  Not as a wishy-washy non-committal, but as an activist working within the system in order to enact change, and to do so within the law.  For we must now and always remain a nation of laws.  If the laws don't work, let's change them, but do so within the framework of the law.

Let's do away with extremism, and work together.  Without debate and compromise, our system of government will fail.

Bias in computer algorithms - the case for and against government regulation

I'm in the process of moving my blogs to Google's Blogsite.  The following post was originally dated March 7, 2017.

--

This blog is in response to an article on the TechRepublic on February 10, 2017

TechRepublic article:
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/biases-in-algorithms-the-case-for-and-against-government-regulation

Algorithms are almost always proprietary, for a variety of reasons (e.g., competitive advantage).  The same can be extrapolated to any source code of any system, engineering designs, new product development, and more.  If the algorithm is made Open Source, then the developer needs to understand that they forfeit their claim to that technology into the future.

It is incumbent upon the developer (and his employer) to ensure that the algorithm is correct, unbiased, and does what is advertised and only what is advertised, just as it is for any software application.

Algorithms SHOULD NOT be regulated.  The only alternative for the consumer is an escrow arrangement, in which the source code is maintained in an independent third-party facility (usually to be accessed only in the extreme case of business failure, or by court order).  This is expensive, cumbersome, and a maintenance nightmare, judged by many as not viable.  Examination and evaluation of algorithms under non-disclosure agreements are a weak alternative, and not enforceable in the long run.

Unless they are specifically Open Sourced, no company is going to open their algorithms for examination or regulation.  This would be tantamount to giving away the "Keys to the Kingdom".

Sorry state of Journalism today

I'm in the process of moving my blogs to Google's Blogsite.  The following post was originally dated February 12, 2017.

--

A recent article by Todd Richmond of the Associated Press is one (of many) illustrations of the sorry state of journalism today ("Wisconsin lawmakers want to make the sun set earlier in the summer"; Friday, February 10).

Let's begin by addressing the primary issue with such reporting.  Journalists have an obligation to report the news impartially, unbiased by their own beliefs.  If they choose to pontificate on any issue, whether for or against, then they should not call it journalism - it's simply that person's opinion.

In the article, Mr. Richmond stated the impossible proposition that legislators can determine when the sun rises or sets.  Specifically, the debate and controversy in this case is over DST, or Daylight Savings Time.  I'm not alone in the opinion that DST is a ludicrous artifice of humans to "fool" themselves into believing that the sun rises and sets on their dictum.  The sun will rise and set of its own accord, without any help from humans, as it has for billions of years.  "High noon" will always be high noon (that is, when the sun is at its zenith) regardless of our irrational declaration otherwise.

The number of hours of daylight at the winter solstice will always be significantly less than the number of hours of daylight at the summer solstice.  Since we already have more daylight during the summer (naturally!), why artificialize it by moving clocks forward an additional hour?  It makes no sense.

If an individual or group of people choose to rise or retire at an earlier or later time of the celestial day, then they merely have to set their alarm clocks an hour earlier or later, rather than artificially impose the ridiculous concept of DST upon large population segments of the world.  Obviously, I am in favor of eliminating DST.

Let's bring responsibility back to journalism, and refrain from stating opinions as fact.

Violence and the Mental Illness Excuse

I'm in the process of moving my blogs to Google's Blogsite.  The following post was originally dated November 6, 2017.

--

Re: "A Separate Justice System for the Mentally Ill?"
Ozy.com; Daily Dose; Jan. 5, 2017; Libby Coleman

http://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/a-separate-justice-system-for-the-mentally-ill/74505?utm_source=dd&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=01052017&variable=e65694d331035292eae700e2949ce2c6

I must respond to the article noted above.  It seems as though every day there is an atrocity committed by someone claiming “mental illness”, and I am sick of it.  “The devil made me do it” doesn’t cut it, folks.

If "no one in their right mind" would commit heinous crimes like mass murder, the implication is that all of those offenders suffer from mental illness.  Should we then excuse these behaviors, diverting them to "safe harbors" for "treatment" only after the act?

This question raises a corrollary query: Should every person be screened for deviant behavior, so that they can be removed from society before such deviant acts can be committed?  Should they be quarantined, removed from "normal" society and prevented from owning a car or truck, a gun, sharp objects, or anything else that can be used as a weapon?  Of course, such a suggestion is, itself, insane.

What is "deviant" behavior anyway, if there is no longer a "normal"?  Who determines what is normal, and by what criteria?  The very idea of any external person or entity making such a judgement is repugnant.

The result of the inability to prevent deviant behavior until such acts are proven to be imminent, based upon evidence which qualifies under jurisprudence, is that we are doomed to the reactionary stance of dealing with the aftermath of these acts.

Mankind has committed acrocities against mankind since the beginning of time.  Are we to turn the other cheek, forgive and forget, and move on?  Contrary to most religious beliefs, this is an unrealistic solution which would only lead to an increasingly rapid decline in civilization, and the ultimate destruction of society.  However, neither will the problem be solved by resorting to vengeance - "an eye for an eye" justice.

Until recent history, criminals at a capital level were terminated with prejudice.  Today, we have swung to the other extreme, excusing such acts as the result of mental illness.  There can be no excuse for capital crimes, no “get out of jail free” card.


We are left with the quandary of how to prevent such behavior, or dealing with the equally unacceptable, but inevitable, consequences.

Daylight Savings Time - NO

Daylight Saving Time is ridiculous.  All of the world's technology (everything touched by computers) runs on UTC time, which is the time standard around the wold.  Are we in the U.S. so arrogant as to expect the rest of the world - and all technology everywhere - to accommodate our denial of true time?  Absurd!