Gun Debate

Taking it off FB for now. I welcome dialogue here. Dialogue, no name calling. And no need to get the last word. But I will start with what I believe is true.

• The proliferation of guns and easy gun access in America is directly related to 

1. More homicides
2. More suicides
3. More accidental shooting

• The notion that high levels of civilian gun ownership is what keeps us free from tyranny is false.
• The NRA serves gun manufacturers and gun dealers much like the Tobacco Institute served the tobacco industry.
•  I have every right to be angry with our unwillingness deal with our gun problem, our denial that there even is a problem or that the "problem" has nothing to do with guns. This is bullshit*.
•  I am frustrated by false dichotomy:  the notion that if you think there is a gun problem, then you must be in favor of banning all guns.  Also bullshit*.

Here is a thought experiment for you:  I propose that, at any car or truck owner's discretion, a machine gun be mounted on the roof of their car.  It can be operated by the driver via a heads up display.  This would (by logic I have heard over and over and over again)

• Reduce road rage violence
• Make driving safer
• Protect us from over zealous cops

Get my drift?

*If you don't think it's bullshit, state your case.

The two biggest reasons I am voting Hillary, and you should too.

I am going to keep this short because I know these days everyone is very tired of all the politics. Though, no one can say this election is usual, by any standard.

As an over-arch, let me state that the biggest malaise of American politics is that the attribute of "likability" ( or more perversely, "dislikability") has become the gold standard for whether someone deserves (or does not deserve) your vote. That is a terrible criterion. You don't have to like them; you need to have the person in charge who gives us the best chance for success - and the least chance of catastrophic failure. Having said that, and admitting that we are faced with two "unlikable" candidates, this is exactly why I will vote for Hillary. And it's not close.

1) Regardless of left or right, there is only one candidate who has a very high probability of steering the ship directly into the rocks, and it is not Hillary Clinton. And I do not have to explain this assertion. I could try, but I will not insult you by explaining it. You know I am right.

2) If we elect Trump, it will embolden and reinforce some of the worst America has to offer: Racism, Misogyny, and Xenophobia (and then some but I want to keep this short). If you think today that the alt-right is coming out of the closet (so to speak), just wait until Trump wins. If you don't fear that element becoming even more emboldened and main streamed, you are not paying attention.

Yes, I have more reasons, but if you planning to vote for Trump, I figure my other reasons don't matter to you. And if neither of the above do, it says more about you than it does about Hillary Clinton.

Quick Comment on Race Relations for my white friends

Though, I could write a long time on this subject, I am truly not an expert. I am white.  I grew up in a mostly white suburb, went to mostly white schools at every level, work in a mostly white company and currently live in a mostly white suburb.  But, having said that, I just want to say this:

STOP IT my white friends, you are embarrassing me.  Please stop posting things that seem to be saying*

• Poor race relations are primarily the fault of Al Sharpton, Obama, Jessie Jackson et. al.
• There is no such thing as white privilege
• Look! A conservative black person!!!!
• Race relations are only a problem because of black people and liberals (and the liberal media) keep seeing it that way
• White people are victims of reverse-racism**
• Clearly racial inequality is all better now because the President is black
• Black people vote Dem because they like free stuff from the government  
• Lots of other stupid stuff

Instead, I suggest admitting you don't know shit and start listening.   In short, stop blaming black people and start asking yourself whether YOU need to think differently.

That is all for now.


* Unfortunately, ALL of the above examples have passed into my Facebook newsfeed over the last few months.
**Racism < > racial prejudice, by the way. 

ODS - follow up given the most recent "outrage"

Ah, the timing is so perfect.  As I was saying.

Anyway,  do you remember this outrage?

Or maybe this one?

No?

OF COURSE YOU DON"T!

And why is that?  I am going to tell you.  Confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is when you search for things that confirm narratives you already believe.  In America, conservatives love the narratives that liberals don't respect our soldiers, don't love America and liberals are not patriotic.  So, at every opportunity, if they see something they can *use* to support this narrative, they jump on it.   They see certain things as compelling evidence that no other sane person would interpret that way.

On the other hand, liberals don't generally have these narratives regarding conservatives (though we have a few others of our own).  So, when Bush I and II committed these completely trivial non-events, no one noticed.  I didn't, you didn't, no one did. Because they didn't "confirm" anyone's desire to believe that Bush (I or II) hates our troops.  But we all know what it means when Obama commits similar "outrages".

Let me show you how it works from the other side.  Here is a narrative the left likes to tell about the right: Conservatives are basically racist.  You see, the "outrage" over Obama not properly saluting his subordinates is all about it: A black man (the uppity n-word) has reversed the proper order of things.  And white people don't like it.  And the more the right bitches, the more the "right wing is racist" narrative is confirmed (to those that believe it).

Now, do I think it's really racism?  Maybe it feeds some of it, but the likely driver is just what I am suggesting:  People on the right getting their already held beliefs "confirmed" by what, to anyone else, is basically nothing. 

And for the record,  Petty and supports the narrative that Obama doesn't care about our troops.

Obama Derangement Syndrome is trending up these days.

It must be getting close to an election, because my Facebook news-feed is hit multiple times a day with rabid anti-Obama posts.  I can generally categorize them into one of four types:

1)  Lies, quotes taken out of context, hyperbole and unsubstantiated innuendo
    
     Comment:  It's absolutely astounding to me the percentage of this crap that can be debunked with less than one minute of Google searching.  And, you would think, that decent people would want to check their facts before attacking someone on a public forum.  Nope.

2)  Petty attacks

     Comment: Yes, petty.   Typically, Fox or some other usual suspect, "discovers" a heretofore unknown rule of presidential etiquette that Obama has egregiously violated.  Now, it usually turns out that previous presidents (including Republican ones) have done the same or similar things, but that was before Fox discovered the rule.  Regardless though, it's amazing how many of the complaints about something Obama did (or didn't do) are just petty.  And I am being nice because a better word for most of them would be "stupid".

3)  Juvenile insults or applauding someone showing Obama disrespect.

Comment:  I get it, you hate him.  I got that the first 1000 times you implied it. 

4)  Something (everything) bad is Obama's fault or something is bad because Obama supports it.

Comment: I think John Stewart nailed it when he said  that there is only one way to get the GOP to come around to believing the climate change science - Barack Obama must publicly deny global warming.

You would think there would be a category for lucid, well thought out and objective criticism of his leadership and/or policies.  There should be, because coming up with such critiques would not be hard to do.  But I don't see those get posted.  I guess that must just be too boring.  And it takes effort and thoughtfulness too.

For those of you who have not heard the term "Obama Derangement Syndrome", you must be new.  
And to be fair, a conservative pundit really invented this concept. He called it Bush Derangement Syndrome.   It was is his name for the inability of left wingers to come up with anything beyond irrational and knee jerk hatred of all things GW Bush.  For example,

"Bush was is on 9/11 as a conspiracy. "
"Bush lied, people died"
"Bush doesn't care about black people"

OK, so here is the deal:  I don't think Bush participated in a plot to murder 3000 people in order to consolidate his power.  I don't think Bush believed that he was lying about WMD in Iraq (I don't, honest).  I don't think he under-responded to Katrina because he doesn't care about black people. That is all garbage.

And for the record, I think he is likely an OK guy (who like all of us has flaws).   He loves his family and wants the best for America.

Guess what?  I think Obama is likely an OK guy (with flaws) who loves his family and wants the best for America.     Say WHAT!!!!???

Yes, you heard me, I am actually so defective that I don't think that Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya who hates America and also is just like Hitler, Stalin and Osama bin Laden combined.   And that is my point.  There are people who want you to believe certain narratives.  The purpose of the narratives are of course to make you hate him.  Because disagreeing with him isn't what we do anymore, we must demonize, dehumanize and hate. Here is a partial listing of these narratives:

• Obama does not love America
• Obama doesn't care about our soldiers
• Obama is a secret Muslim
• Obama hates white people
• Obama hates Christians
• Obama is in league with terrorists
• Obama is stupid and incompetent
• Obama is weak
• Obama is a dictator
• Obama wants to destroy our way of life
• Obama is a self-centered jerk
• Obama rapes puppies and drinks white baby blood (ok, I made that one up)

So, next time someone posts an anti-Obama link,  don't get mad. Play a game. Ask yourself two questions:

1. Which of the four categories is this?
2. What anti-Obama narrative does it support?

Beats getting mad.
 

On Praying

Well, it's not that I want to hurt anyone's feelings, it's just that I want to say this. 

What is the point of Praying? It appears that the answer is this:  It benefits the person praying.  And I would argue, the person being prayed for - provided they know they are being prayed for.

Does this mean I think that praying actually helps God decide whom He will help?  No.  And Duh!

To be clear, I originally wanted to write a post ripping the logical (and theological for that matter) soundness of efficacy of prayer.  But my interest in  behavioral psychology, cognitive biology etc suggests to me that this may be a premature judgment.  But again, to be clear, this does not mean that I think this is evidence of God; it is not.

So let's start with what I would call the common notion of prayer and how it works and why I think it's complete crap. Then I will come by the points I made above.

Conventional notion of prayer:  You make this sincere appeal to God for X, Y and/or Z and, if you pray hard enough (whatever that means) and if your request is holy, God will answer your prayer.  For example, someone's mother or son or whatever gets super sick and is expected to die.  Everyone starts praying and lo and behold, they recover.  See?  God answers!

But of course, the truth is that people who are prayed for often die anyway. In often horribly painful deaths.  Why is that?   And even so, why would God need us to tell Him who to save and who to let suffer?  How could our desires (expressed through prayer) possibly cause  the infinitely wise know-it-all we call God to change His mind?  This makes no sense.  If the right thing is that Grandma should live to 92 instead of 82, He already knows that. He doesn't need you to tell him that.

And in general it makes no sense.  If God is all knowing and perfectly good, then your emotional appeals to him are a waste of time. Seriously, they are.  Assuming you think there is a God.

This is basic irrationality of prayers.  If they pray, and something good happens, obviously god has answered.  If not, then He has a plan, just trust Him.  God is in a no lose position.  Nothing can happen that would suggest that He doesn't actually exist. This is Anthony Flew's argument:  What can you imagine could happen that would make you believe that God does not exist? The answer for nearly all believers is this, nothing. And that is the point.  Their belief is unshakable.  And therefore NOT empirical.  It is simply wishful thinking.  And that is what prayer is all about - wishing.

So, given my observation, what are the benefits of prayer? Well, there is evidence that praying increases one's subsequent level of self control (there are other ways to do this, like drinking a glucose drink).  And that is a good thing.  Not sure we know how that works, but a good guess is that it is because the prayer feels like that you have had a social interaction.  Talking to your dead father or sister I think would likely work about as well.

Another benefit is that people who know they being prayed for appear to enjoy a placebo effect.  And that's not bad either I don't think.  Of course, like all placebo things, they don't work on the informed.

So where does this leave me?  I don't pray and never will.  It makes no sense.  On the other hand, I can benefit from having conversations with imaginary people, or the sky, or the moon, or whomever.   But I will not pray for your mother, or you child, or you for that matter.  However, I will put you in my thoughts.  Because it is what I do when I care about people but can't really do anything for them other than to tell them that I love them.  And that is what I am saying when I say you are in my thoughts.

Now, does it bother me when someone prays for me?  No.  Why not?  Because it is their way of saying that they love me. And that is a good thing. Note of course, I would not include the acerbic "I am praying for you to change your ways" or "I pray for your soul" which in context generally means "fuck you! But I pretend I am too nice to say it". 

To sum up, I think prayer is mostly a waste of time and the conventional view of the religious that God is listening is complete crap.  But I admit that there are benefits for those that believe in God (just as placebos work for those that "believe" in the placebo).  I won't pray for anyone. But I am not bothered by people praying for me, provided they mean it kindly.

Why I don't believe in Zeus

Do you believe in Zeus? You know, the King of the Gods who hurls lightning bolts at people and at the gods he is mad at (that is, when he is not defiling human females because of his insatiable lust)?  No? Well, I don't either.

Why don't you?

What about Odin? Zoroaster? Vishnu?

Why not?

Perhaps your answer is that you believe in Jehovah (or Yahweh or Jesus, etc). Okay then, sorry, but that is a terrible answer. Why is it terrible? Because from my perspective, you have only stated that you deny an unprovable assertion because it contradicts another unprovable assertion that you happen to believe is true (and that is most likely because your parents told you that it is true and that you would be a wicked person if you didn't believe it). For example, I could say that I know that there cannot be an invisible pink unicorn because my religion "informs" me that invisible unicorns are always purple. It makes as much sense as most people who say "I know Islam is false because I know the Bible is true."  Does in not occur to you that the Muslim terrorists who will gladly kill you "know" that Christianity is false because the Koran is true?

Enough ranting. Let me give you the main themes that lead to my unbelief:

1)  Intellectual. There simply is not compelling evidence that there is a super being acting and changing our world according to Its plan. Nor that the Bible is even remotely true. And there are so many reasons here.  But I won't rehash them.  Let's just say that all of the arguments I have ever seen were not at all compelling.  Rather, they strike me as desperate attempts by believers to reassure themselves that they were not being irrational.

2) Moral. Let's face it, the God depicted in the Bible is a bastard. I mean, have you read the Old Testament? This guy is a total jerk. Why would you worship him? I think Anthony Flew aptly described him as a "Cosmic Saddam Hussein".  Though I am  not sure Saddam has committed anywhere near enough atrocities nor shown enough vanity to earn such accolades.

3) Intellectual. What does the evidence really suggest? Perhaps that there is an "Ultimate Unknowable" that is "Being Itself". But what does that mean? Well, nothing I have heard anyone coherently articulate. But, from my perspective, what does this "unknown" aspect of reality imply? I don't know - there is something about reality I don't understand?  That's it. But I would say this: I find that the hypothesis of a God who is totally indifferent to human happiness makes much more sense than the idea that there is a God who gives a shit.

4) Moral. And to that point, considering the awesome vastness of the Universe, I find it even more unlikely that this God not only gives a shit, but that "he" cares whether Earth males get their dick sucked by males or females. Or whether Earth women kiss women. Or whether Earth men wear a condoms during sex. Why would such an all-powerful being over such vastness give a crap about how we get our rocks off? Speaking of vanity.

5)  And let's talk about what I call the "God accountability flow chart". Here is my rendition:

       Did a bad thing happen? If No, Praise God.
 Else,

       Did you or your loved ones survive unscathed?, If yes, praise God.

Else,

      Did you or your loved ones survive, but now your quality of life now sucks? If yes, praise him.  He has has a plan.  Praise him!

Else,

If you don't praise Him, burn in hell, you ungrateful sinner.

End


6) Okay, consider this story. God makes humans whom He knows will disobey him. But, he gets pissed at them anyways (and kills a bunch of them in a tantrum). But wait!  He will forgive them if only 2 things happen: 1) They have to beg forgiveness, and 2) Someone has to get tortured and killed, anyone, even his Son will do. Sure, that makes sense.  I mean, he couldn't just forgive us.  No, someone has to suffer.

7) Oh, did I mention that the Bible is wrong about science on almost every turn? Oh, never mind...