Let me, therefore, start by thanking you for keeping the global warming issue alive. This is an important achievement in a moment when it has already become half-forgotten. It has not happened accidently, it was and is planned. It is a part of a carefully prepared tactic of global warming alarmists how to – once and for all – win their case. In the past two decades, they tried to do the opposite. They wanted to be as loud as possible to arouse our fears, now – when the whole issue becomes more and more suspicious – it is in their interest to stop any public discussion. This is the reason why they try to pretend that “the science is settled”, that the debate is over. We should not let them do it. [...]The general idea is that the alarmists have already succeeded in indoctrinating a whole generation of children and have already gotten many crazy regulations in place so now it is time to work the back channels: the politicians and the courts.
The undeniable fact is that almost from one day to the next the global warming debate ceased to be fashionable. It disappeared from the headlines. It may weaken the position of the global warming fundamentalists but it makes it more difficult for us, the “deniers” or “skeptics”, as they call us, to motivate people to think about this issue and to openly and politically express their views about the irrational, human freedom curtailing, human prosperity undermining measures and policies introduced by the political establishments in most of the countries of the world in the last two decades, not to speak about the measures prepared for the future. We have to keep repeating that our planet is determined not only by anthropogenic influences but dominantly by long term exogenous and endogenous natural processes and that most of them are beyond any human control.
The alarmism has subsided, they want to make it “low profile”.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Low Profile Warming
In a recent speech at a conference on global warming sponsored by the Heartland Institute, climate skeptic Vaclav Klaus say he thinks that climate alarmists are changing their approach (emphasis added by Klaus):
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Might Makes Right: God
The construct of God in many religions is the single most blatant appeal to Might Makes Right. After all, it's not "god, kinda wimpy who'd sorta prefer things be
done a certain way, but hey, if not don't sweat it", but rather "God
Almighty Who Commands Us and Judges Us with Tremendously Horrible Consequence Should We Disobey (that burning in hell for all of eternity sort of thing)!". Things are good and right
because God who's infinitely powerful says so and when we question Him
we are told that He works in mysterious ways beyond our comprehension.
While I'm not personally religious, it's clear to me that various manifestations of gods exist in the minds of believers. There are, for example, more than one billion Roman Catholics in the world, the vast majority of which believe in their God and put some level of effort into following His Word. So their God, even if He is completely fictitious and intangible, really is amazingly powerful and mighty in that He substantially affects the feelings, thoughts, behaviors and actions of a huge number of people, both individually and collectively.
Since humans seem to have evolved a proclivity to believe in god(s), my guess is that belief was directly helpful in the survival of the fittest competition. The primary mechanism by which it made believers more fit is that it provided an organizing principle and social cohesion that not only transcended individuals, but whole tribes, the leaders of those tribes, and even whole generations (in other words, god, being immortal, transcends time).
Whether or not god exists in reality (natural or supernatural) in this context is immaterial. The difference between a real god who once created the universe but is now taking a more hands off and judging approach versus one who exists solely in the minds of believers has the identical tangible effect here on earth.
God's might is used to enforce god's word (either interpreted or made up) which acts as an organizing principal and creator of social cohesion which then creates real power.
In other words, Might Makes Right Makes Might.
While I'm not personally religious, it's clear to me that various manifestations of gods exist in the minds of believers. There are, for example, more than one billion Roman Catholics in the world, the vast majority of which believe in their God and put some level of effort into following His Word. So their God, even if He is completely fictitious and intangible, really is amazingly powerful and mighty in that He substantially affects the feelings, thoughts, behaviors and actions of a huge number of people, both individually and collectively.
Since humans seem to have evolved a proclivity to believe in god(s), my guess is that belief was directly helpful in the survival of the fittest competition. The primary mechanism by which it made believers more fit is that it provided an organizing principle and social cohesion that not only transcended individuals, but whole tribes, the leaders of those tribes, and even whole generations (in other words, god, being immortal, transcends time).
Whether or not god exists in reality (natural or supernatural) in this context is immaterial. The difference between a real god who once created the universe but is now taking a more hands off and judging approach versus one who exists solely in the minds of believers has the identical tangible effect here on earth.
God's might is used to enforce god's word (either interpreted or made up) which acts as an organizing principal and creator of social cohesion which then creates real power.
In other words, Might Makes Right Makes Might.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Intelligence: Muscles of Thought
When I watch a hand pick a piece of fruit, I marvel at the intelligence exhibited. It doesn't matter if it's a human hand or the hand of another primate. I find it exquisite to watch the coordination of countless neurons carefully controlling a huge number of individual muscle fibers within the numerous muscle groups of the fingers purposely grabbing the fruit, exerting just enough force to remove it from the tree, but not so much force as to crush it. The movement is purposeful, controlled, and coordinated. In other words, it's intelligent.
E-mails are dispatches without the physical form of mail. Somewhat analogously, e-motions are dispatches or signals without the physical motion, and in fact emotions are often coupled with actual motion (fear->fight or flight, happiness->smiling, anger->violence, etc.). As the brain processes get more and more decoupled from motion, those processes are less emotional and more what we think of as thoughts. Even these thoughts are generally coupled, at least loosely, with emotion and sometimes motion.
When I look at the numerous theories (all unproven) of how the brain is fundamentally structured, I personally find the analogy of the brain being the muscle of thought the most compelling:
E-mails are dispatches without the physical form of mail. Somewhat analogously, e-motions are dispatches or signals without the physical motion, and in fact emotions are often coupled with actual motion (fear->fight or flight, happiness->smiling, anger->violence, etc.). As the brain processes get more and more decoupled from motion, those processes are less emotional and more what we think of as thoughts. Even these thoughts are generally coupled, at least loosely, with emotion and sometimes motion.
When I look at the numerous theories (all unproven) of how the brain is fundamentally structured, I personally find the analogy of the brain being the muscle of thought the most compelling:
...that cognition is a phylogenetic outgrowth of movement and that cognition utilizes the same neural circuitry that was originally developed for movement.From this point of view, intelligence in thinking is little different than intelligence in controlling motion. In other words, it's the ability to coordinate the actions of different muscles groups, but in this case, without the muscles.
Movement relies on the deliberate, smooth, properly sequenced and coordinated, graded, contractions of selected ensembles of discrete muscles. Therefore, the neural circuitry of movement was specialized for this purpose. Soon, a new design possibility emerged: the elaborate neuronal machinery of movement control could be applied to brain tissue itself. In particular, discrete brain structures, modules, emerged that could be controlled exactly like individual muscles. ... By manipulating these modules in properly coordinated 'movements' (thought processes), valuable information processing (cognition) could be carried out – thereby further enhancing animal competitive success and diversity.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
The Demons of Volatility
Do speculators increase market volatility? Our president claims to think that:
Speculators absolutely increase price volatility but that volatility is an important feature of the speculator's function in the market that ultimately, over time, benefits the consumer.
Speculators' trades push the price up and down in a given market. That's inherent in the whole concept of trading. Activity moves prices. No activity implies stable/stagnant prices.
So how is the price movement beneficial? Many price movements either are proxies of actual information or beget real information that can and should cause changes in economic activities and allocations. There are myriad mechanisms for this, but I'll describe one of them.
Actually, I'll let our president describe the first one:
In that case, the price increases and extra volatility due to speculators and people making "various bets" can be quite beneficial. First, if the supply disruption occurs, we will already be partially adapted to the higher prices that will result from the disruption. Second, the oil is still currently being extracted and the higher prices mean that more is being currently stored, so if a disruption happens, there will be more stored oil available. Third, because demand is already lower and storage is higher, when the disruption of middle eastern oil occurs, the ensuing gap between supply and demand will not be as large and the smaller gap will attenuate the price spike and/or shortages and therefore reduce the negative impact on the rest of the economy. Fourth, current higher spot and future prices of oil stimulates more drilling and reserves all over the world, which, as they come on line, mitigate the future impact of any disruption of the middle eastern oil supply.
Yet Obama is absolutely correct in that the speculators' activities are spiking "up prices significantly", at least in the short term, and perhaps needlessly should a supply disruption never occur.
If a supply disruption never materializes, what happens? Most likely, the price will drop substantially over time. After all, new supply has been stimulated, storage has been increased, and demand has been reduced. All of these typically lead to lower prices. Assuming that the price drops substantially, the speculators lose a ton of money. The speculators, as a group, only make money if the price goes higher.
But if the price does go higher because of a disruption, instead of thanking them for blunting the effect of the disruption, we become even angrier at them because they're making tons of money while we're feeling pain at the pump. It's far less pain than we would've felt without the activity of the speculators, but we won't know and/or understand that as the gasoline purchase drains our wallets.
In my personal experience and observing other speculators, significant money is only made on about one in ten trades. The rest of the trades either lose money or more or less break even. Each of those trades adds volatility to the price action. The losing ones add unnecessary volatility but the benefit from the winning trades makes the entire economy better off in the long run by anticipating and blunting the negative effects of future events.
Speculators are very important for the economy, but they're damned if the prices rise and screwed if the prices fall and demonized in either case.
"President Barack Obama on Tuesday asked Congress for $52 million in new federal funding to boost oversight of oil markets, increase penalties for price manipulators and raise margin requirements to reduce market volatility."On the other hand, many economists claim the volatility is not increased by speculation. Here is one example:
"And yet even with no traders to blame, the volatility in onion prices makes the swings in oil and corn look tame, reinforcing academics' belief that futures trading diminishes extreme price swings."I've been doing the speculating thing for decades now and I'm certain that both Obama and the economists are confused, misleading and/or just plain wrong.
Speculators absolutely increase price volatility but that volatility is an important feature of the speculator's function in the market that ultimately, over time, benefits the consumer.
Speculators' trades push the price up and down in a given market. That's inherent in the whole concept of trading. Activity moves prices. No activity implies stable/stagnant prices.
So how is the price movement beneficial? Many price movements either are proxies of actual information or beget real information that can and should cause changes in economic activities and allocations. There are myriad mechanisms for this, but I'll describe one of them.
Actually, I'll let our president describe the first one:
"The problem is ... speculators and people make various bets, and they say, you know what, we think that maybe there's a 20 percent chance that something might happen in the Middle East that might disrupt oil supply, so we're going to bet that oil is going to go up real high. And that spikes up prices significantly."Obama is a pretty confident guy and is probably certain that his brilliant and flawless foreign policy will prevent any middle eastern oil supply disruptions. But let's say, just hypothetically of course, that instead of a perfect and all-powerful United States government under a president who can slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet and apparently keep the oil flowing, we lived in a world where there really was a chance of a supply disruption.
In that case, the price increases and extra volatility due to speculators and people making "various bets" can be quite beneficial. First, if the supply disruption occurs, we will already be partially adapted to the higher prices that will result from the disruption. Second, the oil is still currently being extracted and the higher prices mean that more is being currently stored, so if a disruption happens, there will be more stored oil available. Third, because demand is already lower and storage is higher, when the disruption of middle eastern oil occurs, the ensuing gap between supply and demand will not be as large and the smaller gap will attenuate the price spike and/or shortages and therefore reduce the negative impact on the rest of the economy. Fourth, current higher spot and future prices of oil stimulates more drilling and reserves all over the world, which, as they come on line, mitigate the future impact of any disruption of the middle eastern oil supply.
Yet Obama is absolutely correct in that the speculators' activities are spiking "up prices significantly", at least in the short term, and perhaps needlessly should a supply disruption never occur.
If a supply disruption never materializes, what happens? Most likely, the price will drop substantially over time. After all, new supply has been stimulated, storage has been increased, and demand has been reduced. All of these typically lead to lower prices. Assuming that the price drops substantially, the speculators lose a ton of money. The speculators, as a group, only make money if the price goes higher.
But if the price does go higher because of a disruption, instead of thanking them for blunting the effect of the disruption, we become even angrier at them because they're making tons of money while we're feeling pain at the pump. It's far less pain than we would've felt without the activity of the speculators, but we won't know and/or understand that as the gasoline purchase drains our wallets.
In my personal experience and observing other speculators, significant money is only made on about one in ten trades. The rest of the trades either lose money or more or less break even. Each of those trades adds volatility to the price action. The losing ones add unnecessary volatility but the benefit from the winning trades makes the entire economy better off in the long run by anticipating and blunting the negative effects of future events.
Speculators are very important for the economy, but they're damned if the prices rise and screwed if the prices fall and demonized in either case.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Might Makes Right: The Bully and the Bully Pulpit
Much has made of Romney's alleged bullying when he was in high school. He has apologized. If it had been me, I wouldn't have been able to keep a straight face while apologizing. It's hard to take it seriously given that the time elapsed since the event is measured in significant fractions of a century.
Really? That's the best they can do? Find (or possibly make up) an incident half a century ago in order to identify character flaws? As a teenager? Surely there's something more recent (other than the dog thing) for which one can criticize Romney?
I was a fairly small kid and subjected to plenty of bullying. As a result, I'm rather an expert at being on the receiving end and from that I have a lot of experience observing bullies.
Unless one is a masochist (which I am definitely not), being on the receiving end is universally bad. But in observing it, I noticed that the lead bullies were actually exhibiting leadership skills and getting practice wielding power. In their limited sphere of the moment where their "might makes right", if due to teenage hormonal overload or significant brain dysfunction or both they decided it was right to do the bullying, then that's simply the way of the world and hardly the most egregious infraction against morality.
Sure, if half a century later the person was still an arrogant bully, then we'd know it was brain dysfunction and we'd want to keep him away from the Bully Pulpit. If not, then the negative aspects of the bullying are long gone, and the leadership and wielding power experience remain. As a result, I find the story a positive for Romney, not a negative. I'm apparently the only one.
Being president of the United States isn't all fun and games. Occasionally, the president needs to be ruthless and perhaps even cruel. With Romney, I'm actually sort of relieved that maybe, just maybe, he might be able to reach deep inside and be able to be sufficiently ruthless for certain situations that will almost certainly present themselves during his term. That capability might well have faded with his teenage years, but maybe there's still some remnant.
Obama's kowtowed and bowed and groveled at the feet of every ruthless leader in the world. Not a good idea in my opinion. Maybe Romney can do better.
Really? That's the best they can do? Find (or possibly make up) an incident half a century ago in order to identify character flaws? As a teenager? Surely there's something more recent (other than the dog thing) for which one can criticize Romney?
I was a fairly small kid and subjected to plenty of bullying. As a result, I'm rather an expert at being on the receiving end and from that I have a lot of experience observing bullies.
Unless one is a masochist (which I am definitely not), being on the receiving end is universally bad. But in observing it, I noticed that the lead bullies were actually exhibiting leadership skills and getting practice wielding power. In their limited sphere of the moment where their "might makes right", if due to teenage hormonal overload or significant brain dysfunction or both they decided it was right to do the bullying, then that's simply the way of the world and hardly the most egregious infraction against morality.
Sure, if half a century later the person was still an arrogant bully, then we'd know it was brain dysfunction and we'd want to keep him away from the Bully Pulpit. If not, then the negative aspects of the bullying are long gone, and the leadership and wielding power experience remain. As a result, I find the story a positive for Romney, not a negative. I'm apparently the only one.
Being president of the United States isn't all fun and games. Occasionally, the president needs to be ruthless and perhaps even cruel. With Romney, I'm actually sort of relieved that maybe, just maybe, he might be able to reach deep inside and be able to be sufficiently ruthless for certain situations that will almost certainly present themselves during his term. That capability might well have faded with his teenage years, but maybe there's still some remnant.
Obama's kowtowed and bowed and groveled at the feet of every ruthless leader in the world. Not a good idea in my opinion. Maybe Romney can do better.
Friday, May 11, 2012
A Conflict of Inference
Lately, my favorite saying has been:
The only thing that keeps me from feeling totally humiliated by my inability to write clearly is that it happens to real authors as well. I recommended Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" to a friend and when he wrote a summary/critique of what he had read, I was wondering if he had read a different "A Conflict of Visions" than I did. It turns out it was the same book, but we had just interpreted it completely differently.
Poor Sowell, either my friend or I or both have completely misinterpreted his work. But that's the curse of authorship.
The curse of authorship is that the information conveyed is not necessarily what the writer intended, but rather what the reader chooses to infer.As someone who attempts to write, both for fun on this blog and the technical, management, and business documents as part of my work, I'm often flummoxed and bemused by the apparent lack of clarity in my writing when a reader ends up inferring meaning that not only didn't I intend, but would've never guessed in a million years that's how they would interpret what I had written.
The only thing that keeps me from feeling totally humiliated by my inability to write clearly is that it happens to real authors as well. I recommended Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" to a friend and when he wrote a summary/critique of what he had read, I was wondering if he had read a different "A Conflict of Visions" than I did. It turns out it was the same book, but we had just interpreted it completely differently.
Poor Sowell, either my friend or I or both have completely misinterpreted his work. But that's the curse of authorship.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Nevada Issues License for Autonomous Car
I occasionally give talks on the future of robotics and since about 2000, I've been predicting that the technology required for cars to drive themselves would be feasible around 2020 or so. My definition of feasible for this means robust enough, safe enough, and inexpensive enough that a manufacturer could sell autonomous vehicles to willing buyers.
However, I always added the following caveat: while the technology would be there, it might take decades before the public accepts autonomous vehicles. This acceptance would include social tolerance of the whole concept of driverless cars, liability laws, and vehicle licensing.
In some sense social tolerance might be the biggest issue as it is an important driver of the other issues. As an example of resistance to this sort of thing is that while airplanes could fly themselves, virtually nobody (including me) is willing to get on an airplane with no pilot, and most of us are uncomfortable (to say the least) with the concept of large, potentially explosive aircraft cruising around above our heads with no human guidance or backup.
On the other hand, cars are not aircraft, the cost of a pilot or two or three relative to the overall cost of operating an airline is relatively small, and autonomous cars seem more like robots and lots of people think that robots are cool. Furthermore, there are several very difficult tradeoffs regarding driving that society has and is increasingly being faced with.
For example, the fatal accident rate per mile driven for drivers over 75 goes way up and our society is aging rapidly. This leaves the unfortunate choice of either limiting the mobility of many older drivers by taking away their licenses or allowing them to continue to drive and risk them killing themselves and others. The autonomous car provides a third, and likely preferable, option.
Liability laws are a tough issue as well. I wrote a humorous post about an early accident involving an autonomous research vehicle, but more seriously, if a manufacturer, with deep pockets until bankrupt, is liable for every accident, it's a huge disincentive to produce robotic cars. While I used to think that this would be the biggest stumbling block, now I'm not so sure. With Toyota being scapegoated and incurring massive costs when some drivers couldn't remember which pedal was the gas and which the brake, and others committing fraud to ride on that wave, perhaps the impact won't be as bad as I thought relative to what reality currently is.
So that leaves licensing. Governments are generally slow to respond, so I figured it would take forever for the government innovations required for licensing driverless cars. But I was wrong. Nevada has just issued the worlds first license for an autonomous car! And California might do the same soon!
So at this point, I'm definitely encouraged, and I think there could be some sort of licensed autonomous vehicle available for purchase sometime early next decade.
However, I always added the following caveat: while the technology would be there, it might take decades before the public accepts autonomous vehicles. This acceptance would include social tolerance of the whole concept of driverless cars, liability laws, and vehicle licensing.
In some sense social tolerance might be the biggest issue as it is an important driver of the other issues. As an example of resistance to this sort of thing is that while airplanes could fly themselves, virtually nobody (including me) is willing to get on an airplane with no pilot, and most of us are uncomfortable (to say the least) with the concept of large, potentially explosive aircraft cruising around above our heads with no human guidance or backup.
On the other hand, cars are not aircraft, the cost of a pilot or two or three relative to the overall cost of operating an airline is relatively small, and autonomous cars seem more like robots and lots of people think that robots are cool. Furthermore, there are several very difficult tradeoffs regarding driving that society has and is increasingly being faced with.
For example, the fatal accident rate per mile driven for drivers over 75 goes way up and our society is aging rapidly. This leaves the unfortunate choice of either limiting the mobility of many older drivers by taking away their licenses or allowing them to continue to drive and risk them killing themselves and others. The autonomous car provides a third, and likely preferable, option.
Liability laws are a tough issue as well. I wrote a humorous post about an early accident involving an autonomous research vehicle, but more seriously, if a manufacturer, with deep pockets until bankrupt, is liable for every accident, it's a huge disincentive to produce robotic cars. While I used to think that this would be the biggest stumbling block, now I'm not so sure. With Toyota being scapegoated and incurring massive costs when some drivers couldn't remember which pedal was the gas and which the brake, and others committing fraud to ride on that wave, perhaps the impact won't be as bad as I thought relative to what reality currently is.
So that leaves licensing. Governments are generally slow to respond, so I figured it would take forever for the government innovations required for licensing driverless cars. But I was wrong. Nevada has just issued the worlds first license for an autonomous car! And California might do the same soon!
So at this point, I'm definitely encouraged, and I think there could be some sort of licensed autonomous vehicle available for purchase sometime early next decade.
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Government Is Ugly
My kids are always trying to determine my favorite color. That's a difficult task since I point out that I find blue a rather nice color for the sky and green a good color for plants, but if it was instead a green sky and blue plants I would find that ugly. Nonetheless, they persevere, and through a series of questions about whether I'd rather paint a given wall Color A or Color B, they've determined, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that my favorite color is blue and that I definitely find pink ugly (at least when considering painting walls).
It's true. I do find pink ugly. I don't know why and there's probably no rational reason for it. And even if you could prove to me that pink was objectively a great color, that if I painted my walls pink the world would be a better place, that I'd be healthier with pink walls, etc., I'd still rebel against having my walls painted pink.
To me, government is ugly.
Unlike pink, for which I can give no rational reasons why I find it ugly, I can spew forth many supposedly objective reasons why I find government ugly: the corruption, the lies of politicians, the inefficiency, the waste, etc., etc., etc.
Yet even if you could prove to me with certainty that all of my reasons for finding government ugly are wrong, I would still find government ugly. Even if you could prove that government is perfect, that it can solve all of our problems, that an ever bigger government makes the world an ever better place, I would still find government ugly and I'd still want to shrink government as much as possible.
It's part of my nature.
Just like I inherently find pink ugly, I inherently find government ugly.
Which means that my supposedly objective reasons for government being ugly are not objective at all. Or perhaps at least some of the facts are objective, but my specific collection of those facts and reasons only exists because I'm just a matched filter designed to specifically collect facts and reasons to match my inherent subjective preferences.
My collection of facts and reasons therefore shouldn't convince anybody else of anything. If you share my view that government is ugly, then you'll probably find my collection of reasons appealing. If you inherently think government is beautiful, you won't be convinced by my arguments and there's no reason that you should be. My arguments are incomplete and just happen to match what I like and dislike.
So there's not much to debate. You won't somehow convince me that government is not ugly and I shouldn't be able to convince you that government is ugly if you don't already believe that.
It's true. I do find pink ugly. I don't know why and there's probably no rational reason for it. And even if you could prove to me that pink was objectively a great color, that if I painted my walls pink the world would be a better place, that I'd be healthier with pink walls, etc., I'd still rebel against having my walls painted pink.
To me, government is ugly.
Unlike pink, for which I can give no rational reasons why I find it ugly, I can spew forth many supposedly objective reasons why I find government ugly: the corruption, the lies of politicians, the inefficiency, the waste, etc., etc., etc.
Yet even if you could prove to me with certainty that all of my reasons for finding government ugly are wrong, I would still find government ugly. Even if you could prove that government is perfect, that it can solve all of our problems, that an ever bigger government makes the world an ever better place, I would still find government ugly and I'd still want to shrink government as much as possible.
It's part of my nature.
Just like I inherently find pink ugly, I inherently find government ugly.
Which means that my supposedly objective reasons for government being ugly are not objective at all. Or perhaps at least some of the facts are objective, but my specific collection of those facts and reasons only exists because I'm just a matched filter designed to specifically collect facts and reasons to match my inherent subjective preferences.
My collection of facts and reasons therefore shouldn't convince anybody else of anything. If you share my view that government is ugly, then you'll probably find my collection of reasons appealing. If you inherently think government is beautiful, you won't be convinced by my arguments and there's no reason that you should be. My arguments are incomplete and just happen to match what I like and dislike.
So there's not much to debate. You won't somehow convince me that government is not ugly and I shouldn't be able to convince you that government is ugly if you don't already believe that.
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
I Had a Pretty Good Streak...
... until Oroborous broke it.
I only ever lost one bet where the bet was a personal bet about a real-world prediction (as opposed to games of chance or general investment and speculation). Not that I bet very often. Nor do I bet much money - as shown in the picture above, a dollar is my favorite amount. (That plaque was created by a guy who watched me win a long streak of bets, then bet against me and also lost.)
The vast majority of the bets I've taken were against gloom and doom scenarios where given objective market prices and volatility the odds were at least three-to-one in my favor. In these case, either a whole lot of people are quite wrong and are going to lose a lot of money, or the person I've taken the bet against was a little bit over passionate about how bad things are going to be. In many of these cases, if the bet was large enough, I could literally cover my position with puts or calls and guarantee myself profit whether or not I won the bet! The bets were never large enough to do that, but it's still a good bet.
So along comes Oroborous, once a co-blogger at The Daily Duck, and just before the collapse of the housing bubble and resulting financial crisis he states that the stock market is going to drop precipitously. I look at the S&P500 index and its volatility and calculate 95% confidence bands for various time frames (that effectively gives me 20-to-1 odds). Oroborous picks a time frame and its associated index level, takes the bet, and the day before time is up the S&P500 drops below that level.
So I finally lost one. This is old news in that I lost this bet over 3 years ago. However, Oroborous seems to have dropped off the face of the earth so I've been unable to pay him. Recently, Hey Skipper (a one-time co-blogger of Oroborous) gave me Oroborous' email address and I sent Oroborous an email asking how I should pay but got no response. Perhaps he'll show up again one day.
At 3-to-1 or even 20-to-1 odds it was inevitable that I'd eventually lose. I'll have to admit that I'm surprised that I lost because of something Oroborous foresaw. Usually such losses are caused by random, or nearly random events and/or fluctuations. Like a war starting. Or a particularly bad set of politicians being elected. Or an Oil embargo. Or something like that.
That it was foreseeable and only Oroborous and a relatively small number of others foresaw it is remarkable. He's either amazingly lucky or incredibly prescient. Or both.
I only ever lost one bet where the bet was a personal bet about a real-world prediction (as opposed to games of chance or general investment and speculation). Not that I bet very often. Nor do I bet much money - as shown in the picture above, a dollar is my favorite amount. (That plaque was created by a guy who watched me win a long streak of bets, then bet against me and also lost.)
The vast majority of the bets I've taken were against gloom and doom scenarios where given objective market prices and volatility the odds were at least three-to-one in my favor. In these case, either a whole lot of people are quite wrong and are going to lose a lot of money, or the person I've taken the bet against was a little bit over passionate about how bad things are going to be. In many of these cases, if the bet was large enough, I could literally cover my position with puts or calls and guarantee myself profit whether or not I won the bet! The bets were never large enough to do that, but it's still a good bet.
So along comes Oroborous, once a co-blogger at The Daily Duck, and just before the collapse of the housing bubble and resulting financial crisis he states that the stock market is going to drop precipitously. I look at the S&P500 index and its volatility and calculate 95% confidence bands for various time frames (that effectively gives me 20-to-1 odds). Oroborous picks a time frame and its associated index level, takes the bet, and the day before time is up the S&P500 drops below that level.
So I finally lost one. This is old news in that I lost this bet over 3 years ago. However, Oroborous seems to have dropped off the face of the earth so I've been unable to pay him. Recently, Hey Skipper (a one-time co-blogger of Oroborous) gave me Oroborous' email address and I sent Oroborous an email asking how I should pay but got no response. Perhaps he'll show up again one day.
At 3-to-1 or even 20-to-1 odds it was inevitable that I'd eventually lose. I'll have to admit that I'm surprised that I lost because of something Oroborous foresaw. Usually such losses are caused by random, or nearly random events and/or fluctuations. Like a war starting. Or a particularly bad set of politicians being elected. Or an Oil embargo. Or something like that.
That it was foreseeable and only Oroborous and a relatively small number of others foresaw it is remarkable. He's either amazingly lucky or incredibly prescient. Or both.
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Part of the official Britain's Met Office forecast for April: "...drought impacts in the coming months are virtually inevitable...". So confident were they in those predictions that they plastered ads on the sides of buses.
The following picture is the result.
Turns out this picture is not an isolated rainstorm. Rather, there's been flooding across Britain. In fact, April was the wettest month for 100 years.
The following picture is the result.
Turns out this picture is not an isolated rainstorm. Rather, there's been flooding across Britain. In fact, April was the wettest month for 100 years.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Google Truth
Sometime I just want to type something like the following into Google: "Really, can't you just tell me if the world is warming? Like what's the probability that the global average temperature is more than 2C higher in the year 2100 than it is now?"
I'd even be willing to type "mirror, mirror on the wall" first. And oh-by-the-way, Google, just who is the fairest of them all these days anyway. And show me her picture (fully clothed of course - what were you thinking?).
Then Google would respond (about the temperature question): "Given the current state of knowledge, 11.3%". Or something like that.
All Google has to do to make that happen is to have their search engines actually understand all that information that they have in their servers and to figure out which sources are more reliable than others via the accuracy of previous prediction and reliance on the sites by other sites.
Piece of cake. I imagine they'll have something like that going within a decade or so.
They'll call it Google Truth.
I'd even be willing to type "mirror, mirror on the wall" first. And oh-by-the-way, Google, just who is the fairest of them all these days anyway. And show me her picture (fully clothed of course - what were you thinking?).
Then Google would respond (about the temperature question): "Given the current state of knowledge, 11.3%". Or something like that.
All Google has to do to make that happen is to have their search engines actually understand all that information that they have in their servers and to figure out which sources are more reliable than others via the accuracy of previous prediction and reliance on the sites by other sites.
Piece of cake. I imagine they'll have something like that going within a decade or so.
They'll call it Google Truth.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Might Makes Right: Undisguised Lust for Power
"Justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger." Thrasymachus.
I'm a "Might Makes Right" kinda guy (which is what my man Thrasy is trying to say in the quote above). Not that I'm personally mighty (definitely not). Rather it's that when I observe behaviors and actions by living entities (and even some non-living entities), I can virtually always trace those behaviors and actions to some fundamental source of Might. My observations align very closely with Nietzsche's "will-to-power" musings.
To accrue power, the potential accruer usually needs to disguise the fact that power is what they're after. The accruer can't usually say, "I want more power - give it to me" and hope for a positive outcome. Therefore, the basis of most political interactions is for the potential accruer of political power to lie through his teeth and say, "I want to do all these wonderful things and make life better for you. All you have to do is give me power. Really, you can't do it without me. Trust me."
However, there have been a number of recent events where the power grab was surprisingly undisguised.
Calling for Zimmerman to be locked up, whether guilty or innocent, Daily Beast columnist Mansfield Frazier writes:
However, a much larger power grab was allegedly successful during the last presidential election:
Might makes right and he who controls the ballot box, controls the election. Then he gets to decide what's right.
I'm a "Might Makes Right" kinda guy (which is what my man Thrasy is trying to say in the quote above). Not that I'm personally mighty (definitely not). Rather it's that when I observe behaviors and actions by living entities (and even some non-living entities), I can virtually always trace those behaviors and actions to some fundamental source of Might. My observations align very closely with Nietzsche's "will-to-power" musings.
To accrue power, the potential accruer usually needs to disguise the fact that power is what they're after. The accruer can't usually say, "I want more power - give it to me" and hope for a positive outcome. Therefore, the basis of most political interactions is for the potential accruer of political power to lie through his teeth and say, "I want to do all these wonderful things and make life better for you. All you have to do is give me power. Really, you can't do it without me. Trust me."
However, there have been a number of recent events where the power grab was surprisingly undisguised.
Calling for Zimmerman to be locked up, whether guilty or innocent, Daily Beast columnist Mansfield Frazier writes:
"America can only dodge so many racial bullets, and a not-guilty verdict in this case could very easily turn the racial cold war into a very hot one."That's not very well disguised Mr. Frazier. You want the power to put whitey (or rather someone not-black) behind bars just because you say so. Or else! Between Mr. Frazier, the New Black Panthers who put a bounty on Zimmerman's head, and a number of others in the black community, this is a blatant threat-of-violence based attempted grab for power.
However, a much larger power grab was allegedly successful during the last presidential election:
The black Dems were caught stuffing the ballot boxes in Philly and Ohio as reported the night of the election and Sen. McCain chose not to fight. [...]If true (and skepticism is certainly called for), that's quite a power grab (though keep in mind that Obama still would've won without Ohio and Pennsylvania). I've been wondering why polls show Obama and Romney neck-and-neck (which should be a bad omen for Obama at this point in the campaign cycle), yet intrade.com shows a steady 60% chance of Obama being re-elected. The explanation might be that Romney may well win the election by legitimate votes cast, but lose it when all the votes (legitimate and otherwise) are counted.
After discussions with his inner circle, which explains the delay in his speech, McCain decided not to pursue the voter fraud in PA and Ohio, despite his staff's desire to make it an issue. He said no. Staff felt they could get a federal injunction to stop the process. McCain felt the crowds assembled in support of Obama and such would be detrimental to our country and it would do our nation no good for this to drag out like last go around, coupled with the possibility of domestic violence.
Might makes right and he who controls the ballot box, controls the election. Then he gets to decide what's right.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
YES WE CANine
My favorite so far:
"Seamus might’ve shat himself in the crate.
But Obama surely shat the dog he ate."
Monday, April 16, 2012
Young Drivers
There're a bunch of these signs all over my neighborhood, but with my 15 1/2 year old daughter getting her learner's permit, I'm thinking they might have it wrong. Perhaps it should be "Live like my kids drive here" or at least "Drive like my kids drive here".
All I can say about teaching a new driver in a crowded urban environment with steep hills and aggressive, fast, uncourteous drivers (like, um well, me) is, "Holy _____!!!!", where you fill in the blank with your favorite expletive. The two questions that immediately came to mind when sitting in the car with my daughter were, "Was I really that bad when I started learning how to drive?" and "Is it really possible that my parents had the patience and fortitude to deal with me when I was learning how to drive?" Again, all I can say is, "Holy _____!!!!"
The good news is that the law requires that the new driver have 2 hours behind the wheel with a professional instructor before the parents get the "opportunity" to be involved in the learning process. It sets you back some serious money and I wonder how poor folk manage to pay for it, but I've never been more grateful for the "Nanny State" than for that specific piece of legislation (yes, I'm well aware I could've paid for lessons anyway, but honestly, it wouldn't've occurred to me to do so). I'm wondering what the life expectancy of the professional instructors is? Yeah, they got that extra brake pedal on the passenger side (I now wish my car had one of those), but still, the stress alone must take years off of their lives.
Speaking of that extra brake pedal, several people have asked me if I find myself stepping on an imaginary brake pedal as my daughter drives. Not so much, as my hand is on or near the emergency brake that's conveniently directly between the driver and the passenger seat (I haven't actually used it yet). Instead, I find myself stepping on the imaginary gas pedal. If she drove any slower, we could just walk and get there faster. If she doesn't start driving a little faster, it'll be a miracle if we don't get rear-ended. There's already been numerous honks and a few close misses on the rear end of the car.
She's now been driving about 20 hours and she's gotten better enough that I find myself glad to be chauffeured around most of the time. Except when, out of nowhere, one of those unexpected and unusual situations occurs that completely flummox the inexperienced driver whose ensuing lack of judgment causes a near catastrophic situation.
Then all I can say is, "Holy _____!!!!!"
Monday, April 09, 2012
Looters Among Us
The best lies we tell are to ourselves and I believe that nowhere is this more true than the lies we tell ourselves regarding our noble and moral natures. Who doesn't want to look in the mirror and say, "I'm a good person, full of virtue, and deserving of respect and trust?"
Yet we're probably as flawed as the next guy. It's oh-so-easy to see and tally the flaws in those around us, yet much harder to have the faculties of introspection, the will to introspect, and an ego that can withstand a true and total accounting of our own flaws. Seems like a lot of effort and pain for not much gain, so why bother? Much easier just to maintain the delusion that our flaws are few and inconsequential, if they exist at all.
But from this delusion about our own nobility and altruistic nature springs the good intentions which pave the road to hell: "If only I, or people like me, were given the reins of power and could therefore access the right resources, we could solve many of the problems that are currently causing misery and despair. Sure, we'll need a big and powerful government to solve the problems, but if people like me are in charge, we'll be much better off than leaving the nasty free-market to provide for all."
The above quote, while not a real quote, could have easily been uttered by one of my left-leaning friends. They project their nobility, their altruism, and their incorruptibility onto an image of themselves working for the government. They project these attributes onto others in government as well. This provides a significant portion of the basis for their high level of confidence in government to solve problems and for government to out-perform the free-market in most instances.
On the other hand, if I imagine a bunch of people like me running a large and powerful government, I cringe because I'm sure it would be an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions.
It's not that I'm so wildly evil (or maybe I am but just tell myself good lies). All else being equal, I'd want to do the best job possible for the country as a whole if I were in government.
The problem is that all else is not equal. I admit that I care more about my family, friends, and communities (real and virtual) than I do about those I don't know. If I can benefit these groups, I do. If I were a government worker (elected or semi-permanent bureaucrat) and imposing minor cost on taxpayers (say maybe a few cents or few dollars each) would benefit those I care about, I wouldn't hesitate. After all, what's a couple of bucks?
The problem is that those few bucks for each of hundreds of millions of tax-paying entities multiplied by millions of government workers like me all doing the same thing would ultimately lead to the collapse of the government. There might be "watchdogs" to reduce this behavior somewhat, but who will watch the watchers?
When I observe current governments (federal, state, and local), I like to estimate whether or not the behavior I see and the associated results seem to be more like what I'd expect if they were run by my noble liberal friends or if they were run by people like me.
Unfortunately, it looks to me like they're mostly run by flawed people like me, and as a result, I think we're in trouble.
What do you think?
Thursday, April 05, 2012
Institutions of Science
The war on conservatives by (many) scientists continues. Both Instapundit and Roger Pielke Jr. pointed to a study by the American Sociological Review (study behind a paywall so I shan't even link to it) that concludes "that conservatives in the United States have become increasingly distrustful of science" and that "[c]onservatives distrust is attributable to [their] political philosophy and intellectual culture."
Since the paper itself is behind a paywall, I haven't read it. But from Pielke's characterization, it seems to me that the paper is using three things interchangeably that are, in my mind, radically different with minimal overlap: "Institutions of Science"; scientists; and science.
"Institutions of Science" which act as institutions at all seem to be mostly congregations of leftish democrats pursuing policy objectives who, oh-by-the-way, just happen to be scientists. Obviously, a conservative would have no reason to "trust" such an entity, while of course a democrat would.
Scientists are just humans. Some of them trustworthy, some not so much, but as far as I can tell they're no more (or less) trustworthy than anybody else. Per Sowell's "Conflict of Visions", conservatives are less trusting than average (rightfully so!) so of course they will less trust the average human, including the average scientist.
Lastly, there's "science", and that term means a lot of different things to a lot of people. As far as the body of theories, hypothesis, conjectures, methods, models, etc. and the associated evidence supporting them (or not), trust isn't the right concept. Interpretation as to relevance in the real world is required and two people, with different subjective viewpoints can rationally come up with radically different conclusions about what that knowledge means when applied to real-life circumstances.
On the other hand, using science as a basis for an already large government to continue expanding without discernible bounds in order to pursue policies that are supposedly good for us, especially when the basis is one of the "almost" sciences like sociology or economics, is obviously not going to be "trusted" by those whose subjective preference is for limited government.
So without having a precise definition of what the paper means by "science", I can't really know whether the conclusions contain any useful information.
I suspect not.
Since the paper itself is behind a paywall, I haven't read it. But from Pielke's characterization, it seems to me that the paper is using three things interchangeably that are, in my mind, radically different with minimal overlap: "Institutions of Science"; scientists; and science.
"Institutions of Science" which act as institutions at all seem to be mostly congregations of leftish democrats pursuing policy objectives who, oh-by-the-way, just happen to be scientists. Obviously, a conservative would have no reason to "trust" such an entity, while of course a democrat would.
Scientists are just humans. Some of them trustworthy, some not so much, but as far as I can tell they're no more (or less) trustworthy than anybody else. Per Sowell's "Conflict of Visions", conservatives are less trusting than average (rightfully so!) so of course they will less trust the average human, including the average scientist.
Lastly, there's "science", and that term means a lot of different things to a lot of people. As far as the body of theories, hypothesis, conjectures, methods, models, etc. and the associated evidence supporting them (or not), trust isn't the right concept. Interpretation as to relevance in the real world is required and two people, with different subjective viewpoints can rationally come up with radically different conclusions about what that knowledge means when applied to real-life circumstances.
On the other hand, using science as a basis for an already large government to continue expanding without discernible bounds in order to pursue policies that are supposedly good for us, especially when the basis is one of the "almost" sciences like sociology or economics, is obviously not going to be "trusted" by those whose subjective preference is for limited government.
So without having a precise definition of what the paper means by "science", I can't really know whether the conclusions contain any useful information.
I suspect not.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Accelerating Creative Destruction
Not just one, but two liberal friends independently pointed me to a New York Times posting titled "Is This the End of Market Democracy?" I've often been harshly critical of things written by the Times staff, but I think this one actually makes some good points. The most important one is regarding the effects of the "gale of creative destruction" which really isn't being addressed by anyone and I think it may be important to consider when formulating policy.
The phrase "creative destruction" was popularized by Schumpeter as a description of an evolutionary process of continuous innovation. The creation of the automobile destroyed the horse and buggy industry, the creation of the telephone destroyed the telegraph, and in general, the creation of automation and other technologies and business innovations have and will continue to destroy huge numbers of jobs. The job destruction isn't necessarily a problem since when the U.S. economy is healthy, millions of jobs are destroyed every year, but even more jobs are created.
While the creation part of the process makes the general population better off, it's always been true that those who lose their jobs face some or even a great deal of hardship while they transition to something else (or retire or become permanently unemployed or whatever). The next generation always benefits because they don't yet have jobs to be destroyed.
As long as the creation is significantly beneficial and the rate of destruction is not overwhelming (or the cost and effort of transitioning to new jobs isn't too high), significant progress in terms of wealth creation is made without intolerable pain.
The rate of creative destruction has been rapidly increasing over the last few decades, taking us to the point where there's an uncomfortable and perhaps intolerable rate of destruction. While many people like to blame foreign trade (which I lump in with general business innovations), new technology destroys far more jobs than the Chinese. How many bank tellers lost their jobs to ATMs, how many stores have closed due to Amazon's automated order system, how many factory jobs are lost to robots and automation, etc.? Far more than have been lost to the Chinese making cheap widgets. Nonetheless, both technical and business innovations have been aligning to destroy jobs at an ever increasing pace.
Further exacerbating the problem is that the jobs being destroyed are potentially being replaced by jobs that require far more skill and talent and the people whose jobs are being destroyed are simply incapable of filling those new jobs. So they often end up being unemployed for a long time.
I also agree with the article that neither Democrats nor Republicans have discussed the issue of accelerating creative destruction and what, if anything, to do about it. The article is a little short on solutions as well.
So am I.
The phrase "creative destruction" was popularized by Schumpeter as a description of an evolutionary process of continuous innovation. The creation of the automobile destroyed the horse and buggy industry, the creation of the telephone destroyed the telegraph, and in general, the creation of automation and other technologies and business innovations have and will continue to destroy huge numbers of jobs. The job destruction isn't necessarily a problem since when the U.S. economy is healthy, millions of jobs are destroyed every year, but even more jobs are created.
While the creation part of the process makes the general population better off, it's always been true that those who lose their jobs face some or even a great deal of hardship while they transition to something else (or retire or become permanently unemployed or whatever). The next generation always benefits because they don't yet have jobs to be destroyed.
As long as the creation is significantly beneficial and the rate of destruction is not overwhelming (or the cost and effort of transitioning to new jobs isn't too high), significant progress in terms of wealth creation is made without intolerable pain.
The rate of creative destruction has been rapidly increasing over the last few decades, taking us to the point where there's an uncomfortable and perhaps intolerable rate of destruction. While many people like to blame foreign trade (which I lump in with general business innovations), new technology destroys far more jobs than the Chinese. How many bank tellers lost their jobs to ATMs, how many stores have closed due to Amazon's automated order system, how many factory jobs are lost to robots and automation, etc.? Far more than have been lost to the Chinese making cheap widgets. Nonetheless, both technical and business innovations have been aligning to destroy jobs at an ever increasing pace.
Further exacerbating the problem is that the jobs being destroyed are potentially being replaced by jobs that require far more skill and talent and the people whose jobs are being destroyed are simply incapable of filling those new jobs. So they often end up being unemployed for a long time.
I also agree with the article that neither Democrats nor Republicans have discussed the issue of accelerating creative destruction and what, if anything, to do about it. The article is a little short on solutions as well.
So am I.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Way Out There Nerd Humor
On a group email thread that consists of my college frat brothers discussing one of the professors at out alma mater (MIT):
Frat Brother 1:
Frat Brother 1:
New York Times has article on Emmy Noether, who brought us noetherian rings.Frat Brother 2:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/science/emmy-noether-the-most-significant-mathematician-youve-never-heard-of.html?_r=1&ref=science
[MIT Course]18.715 Homological Algebra (a)
Prereq: 18.706
Year: G (1)
3-0-9
Abelian categories, derived functors, spectral sequences, the functors Tor and Ext, cohomology of sheaves, homological properties of noetherian rings.
President Santorum will ban homological algebra in the Republic of Gilead.Frat Brother 3:
not what i heard; he's just gonna rename it to "heterological algebra" as part of his "sanctity of math & family values" initiative.And yes, I'm almost (but not quite) too ashamed to admit that I'm such a nerd that I broke out laughing hysterically when I read the last comment.
Blog Friends
Today I had the pleasure of not only having his company, but also of having Hey Skipper of the Daily Duck treat me to lunch. He's every bit as insightful, thought provoking, and witty in person as he in his posts and comments and I thoroughly enjoyed my time with him. This is the first time I've met in person a "virtual" friend from the blogosphere and given the positive experience, I hope to have the opportunity to meet more blog friends in the future.
A second blog friend, Jeff Shattuck from Cerebellum Blues, just finished his first album. I've listened to it several times now and it's an amazingly, stunningly, jaw-droppingly good album. In fact, it's really two amazing albums as there are 14 songs. As a song writer I'm feel very humbled by his accomplishment.
Jeff Shattuck's narrative prior to the release of his album was that he suffered a brain injury and "woke up" with a "rekindled" desire to write songs. My feeling was that this was a great human-interest story that could be leveraged to help sell his music if he wanted, almost regardless of the quality of the songs.
That's all out the window now as he's proven himself to be a truly great song writer. The background is no longer interesting in comparison to the music.
My 15 year old daughter also likes the album a lot so the music appears to have wide appeal. The chord changes are innovative and sophisticated so I was concerned that it might be what I call "an album by and for musicians", where the appeal to mere mortals was limited, but my daughter walked into the room when I was first playing it and quipped, "I really like this song - who is it by?" and has since really enjoyed the rest of it as well, so I think most people will enjoy it.
A second blog friend, Jeff Shattuck from Cerebellum Blues, just finished his first album. I've listened to it several times now and it's an amazingly, stunningly, jaw-droppingly good album. In fact, it's really two amazing albums as there are 14 songs. As a song writer I'm feel very humbled by his accomplishment.
Jeff Shattuck's narrative prior to the release of his album was that he suffered a brain injury and "woke up" with a "rekindled" desire to write songs. My feeling was that this was a great human-interest story that could be leveraged to help sell his music if he wanted, almost regardless of the quality of the songs.
That's all out the window now as he's proven himself to be a truly great song writer. The background is no longer interesting in comparison to the music.
My 15 year old daughter also likes the album a lot so the music appears to have wide appeal. The chord changes are innovative and sophisticated so I was concerned that it might be what I call "an album by and for musicians", where the appeal to mere mortals was limited, but my daughter walked into the room when I was first playing it and quipped, "I really like this song - who is it by?" and has since really enjoyed the rest of it as well, so I think most people will enjoy it.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Double Standards are Good Things?
Columnist Stanley Fish of the New York Times has no problem with that which others might consider to be a double standard:
If we think about the Rush Limbaugh dust-up from the non-liberal — that is, non-formal — perspective, the similarity between what he did and what Schultz and Maher did disappears. Schultz and Maher are the good guys; they are on the side of truth and justice. Limbaugh is the bad guy; he is on the side of every nefarious force that threatens our democracy. Why should he get an even break?
There is no answer to that question once you step outside of the liberal calculus in which all persons, no matter what their moral status as you see it, are weighed in an equal balance. Rather than relaxing or soft-pedaling your convictions about what is right and wrong, stay with them, and treat people you see as morally different differently. Condemn Limbaugh and say that Schultz and Maher may have gone a bit too far but that they’re basically O.K. If you do that you will not be displaying a double standard; you will be affirming a single standard, and moreover it will be a moral one because you will be going with what you think is good rather than what you think is fair. “Fair” is a weak virtue; it is not even a virtue at all because it insists on a withdrawal from moral judgment.
I know the objections to what I have said here. It amounts to an apology for identity politics. It elevates tribal obligations over the universal obligations we owe to each other as citizens. It licenses differential and discriminatory treatment on the basis of contested points of view. It substitutes for the rule “don’t do it to them if you don’t want it done to you” the rule “be sure to do it to them first and more effectively.” It implies finally that might makes right. I can live with that.
At least he's honest in his lying sorta double standard kinda way.
When I first read this, I was wondering if some sort of satire or parody was involved. But given the author and the paper in which this appears, I have to believe it's genuine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)