draft
Some Biden questions:
1. Will he take a fitness test to prove he is physically and mentally competant? (same question for Trump, of course), 2. Where does he stand on prosecuting russians and traitors, 3. Where does he stand on prosecuting Trump and his family? 4. Where does he stand on prosecuting people like Barr, Pruitt, Nunes, etc? 5. Where does he stand on term limits for justices and what will he do to help make that happen? 6. Where does he stand on the electoral college, changing it to see that we are not victimized by it ever again, 7. Where does he stand on changing statute of limitations? 8 As more crimes of the Trump administration come out (torture, destruction of records, etc), where does he stand on prosecuting those people, 9. Where does he stand on prosecuting big tech for their crimes (FB putting Trump in power, for example) and criminalizing behavior like Twitter and hate tweets, etc.)
Of these, I think that #1 would be hard to do because Trump would never agree to be tested, not really. Also #9 is perhaps controversial.
Do we know the answer to any of these questions? Yes, of course I will vote for Biden over Trump, but then who wouldnt?
Thursday, March 19, 2020
Sunday, March 15, 2020
Are Interpretations of Silence a Form of Delusion of Reference?
draft
I do perhaps 99 percent of my social interaction via "electronic mediation" whether that be texting, email, Facebook, telephone or instant messaging. Sometimes a friend does not reply and then time passes and he/she does not reply to another message and then months go by and he/she does not respond to another message (email, whatever) that may be particularly chosen to be easy to reply to and relevant, entertaining, whatever to his/her interests.
Obviously I wonder if I am being ghosted. But there are lots of reasons a friend might be doing this beyond the possibility that one is being ghosted, ostracised or rejected. He/she may be going through a particularly intense time in their family or in their career or in other areas of their life. They might be helping a friend or themselves get through a serious illness. They might be travelling or trying to make a deadline that is not happening for them. There are lots of things that may be going on. After all, it is likely that you are not the center of interest in their life even if you are a friend for many years.
But since sometimes you are being ghosted, or at least that has happened to me in the past, and so the question is, is it a delusion of reference to interpret silence as a signal of social rejection? Maybe "delusions of reference" lite?
Delusions of Reference on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideas_of_reference_and_delusions_of_reference
[Addendum: the best algorithm I have found for evaluating if you are ghosted, is as follows: You send short emails at a constantly increasing interval: e.g. 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, etc. Each email is constructed to be easy to respond to. No major questions that require thought. Then if you still dont hear from him after some long period of time, you assume you are ghosted and try not to worry about it.]
[Addendum: my friend got back to me, so I am not exactly ghosted, and he is probably just very busy. However, it definitely makes me wonder if I have overstepped some bound, so we will see.]
I do perhaps 99 percent of my social interaction via "electronic mediation" whether that be texting, email, Facebook, telephone or instant messaging. Sometimes a friend does not reply and then time passes and he/she does not reply to another message and then months go by and he/she does not respond to another message (email, whatever) that may be particularly chosen to be easy to reply to and relevant, entertaining, whatever to his/her interests.
Obviously I wonder if I am being ghosted. But there are lots of reasons a friend might be doing this beyond the possibility that one is being ghosted, ostracised or rejected. He/she may be going through a particularly intense time in their family or in their career or in other areas of their life. They might be helping a friend or themselves get through a serious illness. They might be travelling or trying to make a deadline that is not happening for them. There are lots of things that may be going on. After all, it is likely that you are not the center of interest in their life even if you are a friend for many years.
But since sometimes you are being ghosted, or at least that has happened to me in the past, and so the question is, is it a delusion of reference to interpret silence as a signal of social rejection? Maybe "delusions of reference" lite?
Delusions of Reference on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideas_of_reference_and_delusions_of_reference
[Addendum: the best algorithm I have found for evaluating if you are ghosted, is as follows: You send short emails at a constantly increasing interval: e.g. 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, etc. Each email is constructed to be easy to respond to. No major questions that require thought. Then if you still dont hear from him after some long period of time, you assume you are ghosted and try not to worry about it.]
[Addendum: my friend got back to me, so I am not exactly ghosted, and he is probably just very busy. However, it definitely makes me wonder if I have overstepped some bound, so we will see.]
Saturday, March 14, 2020
Michael and the Saxophone of St. Timothy
draft
I know you will find the following story hard to believe but I swear every word of it is true. I am of course oversimplifying since what had occurred is not spelled out well in our sources but I am loathe to elaborate freely. Many decades ago, a young boy tried to learn three musical instruments and failed at all three. The first was a cheap recorder which he had bought at a gift shop and which made plausible pleasant noises but nothing coherent. The second was his brothers 1959 Fender Stratocaster with which he could make chord changes and even some version of the rhythm accompaniment of some songs but it mutilated his fingers and he stopped. But the third was the most frustrating and confusing. It was his brother's clarinet and all he could ever do was to have it make horrible squeaking noises. The young boy was crushed and knew he was a complete failure and withdrew from society and lived in total isolation in the horrible wilderness in N San Diego County. But one day, many decades later, he took a very rare trip to the north and staying at the house of his friend Tom, a house filled with music, he happened to mention to his friend that he could never figure out how to play a reed instrument. One of the sons of the family overheard him and being a trained musician and filled with the spirit of hospitality, undertook, on his own initiative and at his own expense, to show the visitor whom he had never before met or even heard of, how to play a reed instrument, an antique saxophone. To the hermit's astonishment he was able to, with the instruction of his friend's son, immediately make plausible if unrefined saxophone sounds. This so amazed him that his depression and sense of failure dropped visibly from his shoulders like some great winter coat and he was inspired to go out into the world and help many of the poor and downtrodden. His name was Michael and as you may have guessed this is the origin of our famous story that every child knows, "Michael and the Saxophone of St. Timothy". I swear every word of this is true, so help me God.
I know you will find the following story hard to believe but I swear every word of it is true. I am of course oversimplifying since what had occurred is not spelled out well in our sources but I am loathe to elaborate freely. Many decades ago, a young boy tried to learn three musical instruments and failed at all three. The first was a cheap recorder which he had bought at a gift shop and which made plausible pleasant noises but nothing coherent. The second was his brothers 1959 Fender Stratocaster with which he could make chord changes and even some version of the rhythm accompaniment of some songs but it mutilated his fingers and he stopped. But the third was the most frustrating and confusing. It was his brother's clarinet and all he could ever do was to have it make horrible squeaking noises. The young boy was crushed and knew he was a complete failure and withdrew from society and lived in total isolation in the horrible wilderness in N San Diego County. But one day, many decades later, he took a very rare trip to the north and staying at the house of his friend Tom, a house filled with music, he happened to mention to his friend that he could never figure out how to play a reed instrument. One of the sons of the family overheard him and being a trained musician and filled with the spirit of hospitality, undertook, on his own initiative and at his own expense, to show the visitor whom he had never before met or even heard of, how to play a reed instrument, an antique saxophone. To the hermit's astonishment he was able to, with the instruction of his friend's son, immediately make plausible if unrefined saxophone sounds. This so amazed him that his depression and sense of failure dropped visibly from his shoulders like some great winter coat and he was inspired to go out into the world and help many of the poor and downtrodden. His name was Michael and as you may have guessed this is the origin of our famous story that every child knows, "Michael and the Saxophone of St. Timothy". I swear every word of this is true, so help me God.
Betrayal and the Virus
draft
I feel betrayed by our government's failure to use reason and science and experience to help set policy and to be proactive in this pandemic. We have had years to improve our medical system in general, and years to improve our system's response to an unspecified pandemic. We knew that a pandemic was a risk, possibly even an increasing risk, based on history and a number of factors (international air travel being only the most obvious).
But specifically we lost 2.5 months at the beginning of this pandemic when we knew we had a respiratory illness on our hands. Training health care workers in this specialty and possibly increasing the number of respirators in hospitals are two obvious things that could benefit from those 2.5 months. Another, mentioned so many times in the press, is the issue of testing. You need testing to know what is going on or you are flying blind.
The point is, we pay our government and its elites to deal with a number of very difficult problems. Many of those problems include uncertain risk. Classic examples are the risk of nuclear war, the risk of earthquakes, and so forth. We spend a lot of money preparing for these disasters even if we dont know that they will happen for sure and when. To make decisions about these things requires a lot skill, expertise and judgment.
I am going to give an example of this. Los Angeles is not known for planning for the future and yet they have spent a fair amount of money preparing for an event which is sometimes called the 50 year flood and the 100 year flood. These are events where there is so much precipitation that the normal water management capability is overwhelmed. I can point you to many examples of infrastructure hidden in plain site where the city has prepared emergency water diversion infrastructure to accept a huge amount of water overflow until the normal system can process it. And this is Los Angeles where corruption and failure to deal with important known issues is infamous.
I propose to you that our federal government has been given ample warning of various pandemics and could have done a better job preparing for this threat. Thats their job.
I feel betrayed by our government's failure to use reason and science and experience to help set policy and to be proactive in this pandemic. We have had years to improve our medical system in general, and years to improve our system's response to an unspecified pandemic. We knew that a pandemic was a risk, possibly even an increasing risk, based on history and a number of factors (international air travel being only the most obvious).
But specifically we lost 2.5 months at the beginning of this pandemic when we knew we had a respiratory illness on our hands. Training health care workers in this specialty and possibly increasing the number of respirators in hospitals are two obvious things that could benefit from those 2.5 months. Another, mentioned so many times in the press, is the issue of testing. You need testing to know what is going on or you are flying blind.
The point is, we pay our government and its elites to deal with a number of very difficult problems. Many of those problems include uncertain risk. Classic examples are the risk of nuclear war, the risk of earthquakes, and so forth. We spend a lot of money preparing for these disasters even if we dont know that they will happen for sure and when. To make decisions about these things requires a lot skill, expertise and judgment.
I am going to give an example of this. Los Angeles is not known for planning for the future and yet they have spent a fair amount of money preparing for an event which is sometimes called the 50 year flood and the 100 year flood. These are events where there is so much precipitation that the normal water management capability is overwhelmed. I can point you to many examples of infrastructure hidden in plain site where the city has prepared emergency water diversion infrastructure to accept a huge amount of water overflow until the normal system can process it. And this is Los Angeles where corruption and failure to deal with important known issues is infamous.
I propose to you that our federal government has been given ample warning of various pandemics and could have done a better job preparing for this threat. Thats their job.
The Sepulveda Dam in the San Fernando Valley is one of the City (or County?) of LA's emergency water diversion sites.
Saturday, March 7, 2020
So Here It Comes Again
draft
So here it comes again. The Democrats nominate a "moderate" guaranteed to allow no change and support the rich. Their candidate will fail to prosecute criminals on Wall Street, any change to the economy will be minimal. (Editor's note: Michael is just blowing off steam again).
So here it comes again. The Democrats nominate a "moderate" guaranteed to allow no change and support the rich. Their candidate will fail to prosecute criminals on Wall Street, any change to the economy will be minimal. (Editor's note: Michael is just blowing off steam again).
So Its All Over
draft
The country failed and armed revolution is the only solution. Not aware of any argument against this. (Editor's note: Yes he is.) Its too bad. Also I tried as a citizen to find a way to participate but failed. No one had any ideas and I sure didnt. (Editor's note: Yes he did.)
The country failed and armed revolution is the only solution. Not aware of any argument against this. (Editor's note: Yes he is.) Its too bad. Also I tried as a citizen to find a way to participate but failed. No one had any ideas and I sure didnt. (Editor's note: Yes he did.)
Monday, February 10, 2020
Is It Wrong to Accuse Someone of Violating a Law That Does Not Exist?
draft
I asked a friend the following hypothetical question:
And my friend the Harvard-trained entertainment attorney replied:
To which I said:
I asked a friend the following hypothetical question:
Imagine the following. Person A is an official of our government charged with, among other things, the responsibility to abide by and enforce the law. In the course of normal politics, Person A accuses his/her enemy, Person B who is also an official of the goverment, of a crime. Lets say that Person A accuses Person B of putting pesto sauce on his kale on Fridays. "Thats outrageous, its against the law!". But as far as anyone knows, the laws about kale make no mention of pesto sauce, nor has there been any case about pesto sauce and kale in all of recorded history, and it is reasonable to expect Person A to know this. In other words (a) the issue is not at all subtle, and (b) Person A is responsible in some sense of that word in his official capacity, to understand, in broad strokes, the state of the law about kale and pesto sauce (and if he was confused, he could go ask somebody). The question is, has Person A, in accusing Person B of violating the law, in fact violated the law himself?
And my friend the Harvard-trained entertainment attorney replied:
You are right that there is an idea that people in office are supposed to understand and respect the law, but mostly it’s just aspirational, not a legal standard to which they are held. It’s probably not a crime for a public official to make outrageous statements claiming violations of the law that he knows are not violations at all. If you and I (i.e someone not protected by making a statement relating to duties in a public office) did the same thing, it might be defamation because it is defamatory to wrongfully state that someone committed a crime, though maybe not because if he really did put pesto on his kale and the only falsehood in my statement is that in doing so he committed crime, it is possible that might not be considered defamation, because defamation usually goes to the truth of the underlying act not to its characterization as good/bad or legal/illegal. In making the statement in his official capacity and even in wrongfully prosecuting a case for violation of a law that he knows that he is making up, he is probably immune from prosecution under several different theories, but it could be grounds for removal from office.
To which I said:
We must thank our friends the Russians for their help in improving Democracy by stress testing it. It wont be possible to indulge this kind of behavior going forward now that we have endured Trump. Sadly, even lawyers, and particularly lawyers in positions of trust, must now be held to a higher standard. But that does not necessarily mean an orange onesie learning new skills, it may merely mean they are not permitted to be Attorney General or POTUS.
Thursday, February 6, 2020
Guidelines for Crossing Into Canada for a Conference
draft
This is what I learned from being unable to cross the border into Canada to attend an academic conference. I probably did everything wrong. You can learn from my mistakes.
The guiding principle is to avoid the appearance of someone who is going to cross into Canada and then become a "problem", someone who intends to stay in Canada and who may need financial assistance or try to get or take a job from a more deserving Canadian citizen. In order to sniff out these potential miscreants, the border officials have certain things that they look for and I managed to get a perfect score, I think.
To that desired end of convincing the nice people at the border to let you through, the following guidelines are suggested: 1. Fly directly, do not use the bus from Seattle to Vancouver. I attempted to cross the border via the regular bus shuttle from Seattle because I thought it would allow me to be more flexible and save money. A false economy, I think. Had I flown directly to Vancouver, I think I would have appeared to have more financial means and to put more value on my time which is the sort of thing they look for when separating the wheat from the chaff. 2. You should have booked a return ticket and be able to prove it on paper without any hesitation. I did have a return ticket, but it was from Seattle to Santa Barbara, my plan was to return by bus to Seattle and did not make a reservation since I was not completely sure when I wanted to return. Definitely a mistake. 3. Have documentation for where you plan to stay. Avoid the appearance of improvisation. Have your hotel reservation confirmed and carry paper documentation. 4. Carry lots of cash on you. These days most of us rely on getting cash on demand from an ATM. They want to see plenty of financial responsibility in overt ways. $1,000 in cash and maybe $1,000 in travellers checks would not be out of place. 5. Dress like you are going to the bank for a loan. 6. Do not carry your dinner and think you are going to take it over the border with you. 7. Have documentation about the conference you are going to attend. In this case, that would mean a piece of paper that demonstrates that you have preregistered for SIGGRAPH (and spent your $1,000 US in Canada, already). And, finally, 8. When they ask you if you are employed, do not tell them the truth, that computer animation has failed to provide steady employment for so many people, but say that you are self-employed.
Beyond that, it would have been nice if SIGGRAPH had perhaps a volunteer with a car who could escort people from the border to the conference center, as once you are held back for further review, the logistics of getting into the city are non-trivial even if they do let you through.
To recap, the Canadian border officials want to have some confidence that you are not planning to come to Canada to stay, but will come only briefly, spend money, be respectable and go home.
This is what I learned from being unable to cross the border into Canada to attend an academic conference. I probably did everything wrong. You can learn from my mistakes.
The guiding principle is to avoid the appearance of someone who is going to cross into Canada and then become a "problem", someone who intends to stay in Canada and who may need financial assistance or try to get or take a job from a more deserving Canadian citizen. In order to sniff out these potential miscreants, the border officials have certain things that they look for and I managed to get a perfect score, I think.
To that desired end of convincing the nice people at the border to let you through, the following guidelines are suggested: 1. Fly directly, do not use the bus from Seattle to Vancouver. I attempted to cross the border via the regular bus shuttle from Seattle because I thought it would allow me to be more flexible and save money. A false economy, I think. Had I flown directly to Vancouver, I think I would have appeared to have more financial means and to put more value on my time which is the sort of thing they look for when separating the wheat from the chaff. 2. You should have booked a return ticket and be able to prove it on paper without any hesitation. I did have a return ticket, but it was from Seattle to Santa Barbara, my plan was to return by bus to Seattle and did not make a reservation since I was not completely sure when I wanted to return. Definitely a mistake. 3. Have documentation for where you plan to stay. Avoid the appearance of improvisation. Have your hotel reservation confirmed and carry paper documentation. 4. Carry lots of cash on you. These days most of us rely on getting cash on demand from an ATM. They want to see plenty of financial responsibility in overt ways. $1,000 in cash and maybe $1,000 in travellers checks would not be out of place. 5. Dress like you are going to the bank for a loan. 6. Do not carry your dinner and think you are going to take it over the border with you. 7. Have documentation about the conference you are going to attend. In this case, that would mean a piece of paper that demonstrates that you have preregistered for SIGGRAPH (and spent your $1,000 US in Canada, already). And, finally, 8. When they ask you if you are employed, do not tell them the truth, that computer animation has failed to provide steady employment for so many people, but say that you are self-employed.
Beyond that, it would have been nice if SIGGRAPH had perhaps a volunteer with a car who could escort people from the border to the conference center, as once you are held back for further review, the logistics of getting into the city are non-trivial even if they do let you through.
To recap, the Canadian border officials want to have some confidence that you are not planning to come to Canada to stay, but will come only briefly, spend money, be respectable and go home.
Sunday, February 2, 2020
Some Ideas Beyond Voting
draft
Since democracy has failed in the USA, by which I mean the will of the majority of people in this country is ignored, I am collecting ideas for what to do about it. Short of armed rebellion (which I personally think wouldnt work), two other ideas are to (a) move people into states where the Republicans are working to purge voters from the rolls in order to add a few hundred or thousand votes on the side of righteousness and (b) buy a politician or two (how much do they cost? I really dont know). None of these would be enough to restore democracy (see for example the problem of the right wing nuts in the judiciary), so I freely admit these ideas are half baked but nevertheless submit them here in the hope it may stimulate ideas. I wonder if they sell politicians on the dark web?
Since democracy has failed in the USA, by which I mean the will of the majority of people in this country is ignored, I am collecting ideas for what to do about it. Short of armed rebellion (which I personally think wouldnt work), two other ideas are to (a) move people into states where the Republicans are working to purge voters from the rolls in order to add a few hundred or thousand votes on the side of righteousness and (b) buy a politician or two (how much do they cost? I really dont know). None of these would be enough to restore democracy (see for example the problem of the right wing nuts in the judiciary), so I freely admit these ideas are half baked but nevertheless submit them here in the hope it may stimulate ideas. I wonder if they sell politicians on the dark web?
Voting is Not a Solution
draft
Whenever someone tells me to "Vote!" as a solution to the current right wing dictatorship in this country, I have the following comments. 1. For one reason or another I have voted Democrat in all major elections since and including 1972 (I have missed some midterm elections), 2. In one election, 2000, my vote was ignored when the Supreme Court made their right wing stoodge, W. Bush, president over the wishes of the people, 3. In another election, 2016, Russian interference and the insane electoral college (which should have been fixed long ago) was used to put the moron king into power, again my vote was ignored, 4. The supreme court has enshrined Citizens United and destroyed the Voting Rights Act. Without these being reversed and enforced in law and in the field, there can be no reason to think that an election has been fair. 5. By allowing Republicans to put their right wing tools in the judiciary, you can count on any legislative or executive action to restore freedom will be reversed. Therefore any plan to restore freedom has to include a way to get these right wing nuts (like Kavanaugh, Thomas and Gorsuch just to name three) out of the judiciary and review and reverse any decisions they have made. Those three are just the tip of the iceberg. 6. Therefore, any plan you have that does not deal with these issues, the electoral college, citizens united, the voting rights act and the right wing judiciary is just wishful thinking. 7. I will be happy to vote but it is a sucker game as far as I am concerned. 8. Enjoy your dictatorship. I was in Washington protesting the right wing coup d'etat in November, 2000. Where were you?
Whenever someone tells me to "Vote!" as a solution to the current right wing dictatorship in this country, I have the following comments. 1. For one reason or another I have voted Democrat in all major elections since and including 1972 (I have missed some midterm elections), 2. In one election, 2000, my vote was ignored when the Supreme Court made their right wing stoodge, W. Bush, president over the wishes of the people, 3. In another election, 2016, Russian interference and the insane electoral college (which should have been fixed long ago) was used to put the moron king into power, again my vote was ignored, 4. The supreme court has enshrined Citizens United and destroyed the Voting Rights Act. Without these being reversed and enforced in law and in the field, there can be no reason to think that an election has been fair. 5. By allowing Republicans to put their right wing tools in the judiciary, you can count on any legislative or executive action to restore freedom will be reversed. Therefore any plan to restore freedom has to include a way to get these right wing nuts (like Kavanaugh, Thomas and Gorsuch just to name three) out of the judiciary and review and reverse any decisions they have made. Those three are just the tip of the iceberg. 6. Therefore, any plan you have that does not deal with these issues, the electoral college, citizens united, the voting rights act and the right wing judiciary is just wishful thinking. 7. I will be happy to vote but it is a sucker game as far as I am concerned. 8. Enjoy your dictatorship. I was in Washington protesting the right wing coup d'etat in November, 2000. Where were you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)