It was October in 1957, a little blinking light was merrily going around the earth, completely oblivious that millions of Americans were at that moment looking at it and feeling terrified.
The launching of the Sputnik into lower orbit by the Soviet Union created a panic so fierce, that it sent the US into a race that would propel (pun intended) american research and development in science to global leadership.
This competition with the Soviet Union brought the nation together, and allowed congress to pass bipartisan legislation that ultimately resulted in Neil Armstrong walking on the moon.
Presently, China is set to outspend us by the end of the decade, and countries like Finland, South Korea, Israel and Japan already spend more as a percentage of GDP than the US.
Think of Government R&D as the farm where chef's (industry) comes to get the freshest vegetables and meats, and brings culinary dreams to life that benefit diners (the populace) as much as restaurant owners (the Bill Gates of the world). It's a synergistic approach that fuels the economy and keeps the nation updated on defense technology.
So, in times of high political polarization it's reassuring to see a bipartisan bill making strides in the long road to becoming enacted.
S. 3084 American Innovation and Competitiveness Act is currently waiting a second review in the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. This bill promises to reshape the way resources are available to various research interests, while addressing some old administrative quick sand that in some cases saps up to 40% of grant monies. It also seeks to put spending growth at a modest, yet respectable, 4% annually. Finally, S.3084 will try to get industry and public research closer to each other, allowing for smoother integration and collaboration.
This bill is fortunate in that the sponsor and two cosponsors are on the committee where the bill is being referred, with the sponsor being a member of the majority party. That being said, roughly 20% of bills alive at this stage are ever enacted.
Regardless of its success, it's fortunate that across the board, we can make research and development in the STEM field a national, bi-partisan priority (so we can beat China like we beat the Soviet Union!).
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Thursday, June 23, 2016
On Angry People?
Last week, in a damning blog post titled "On Angry White People", Michelle Hinojosa makes one of the best arguments I've read regarding why the 'Bernie or Bust' movement essentially constitutes as [white] privilege. Although it is a declaration I have heard contended viciously, Michelle makes crystal clear that it is essentially dictionary privilege to disregard the major differences in any candidate's policies versus those of Donald Trump. Of course, white people are the only demographic Trump hasn't tried to deport or marginalize, so those to whom his policies are interchangeable with Clinton's, are quite literally in a privileged position.
Michelle buries this gem of an argument under several conflated arguments and partisan endorsements, unfortunately, and makes incriminating claims of a large group of people without citing any source, evidence, or even a corroborating anecdote. In one regrettable sentence she reduces Bernie supporters as moral equivalents to Trump's, declaring that both groups are but varying flavors in a banquet for people merely concerned with vindicating the wrongs they feel have been perpetrated to them, with nor regard to the welfare of the rest. After asserting that this homogeneous mass of white angry people seek to run away from their responsibility as "Bad Guys", she references without explanation, and to the readers bewilderment, their 'role in The Patriarchy'.
Although her arguments get entangled, and sometimes jump to different tracks in order to make the point, Michelle delivers a thought provoking piece, wrought with righteousness and full of kindheartedness( and perhaps a bit of anger too!).
Michelle buries this gem of an argument under several conflated arguments and partisan endorsements, unfortunately, and makes incriminating claims of a large group of people without citing any source, evidence, or even a corroborating anecdote. In one regrettable sentence she reduces Bernie supporters as moral equivalents to Trump's, declaring that both groups are but varying flavors in a banquet for people merely concerned with vindicating the wrongs they feel have been perpetrated to them, with nor regard to the welfare of the rest. After asserting that this homogeneous mass of white angry people seek to run away from their responsibility as "Bad Guys", she references without explanation, and to the readers bewilderment, their 'role in The Patriarchy'.
Although her arguments get entangled, and sometimes jump to different tracks in order to make the point, Michelle delivers a thought provoking piece, wrought with righteousness and full of kindheartedness( and perhaps a bit of anger too!).
Saturday, June 18, 2016
For the Good of the People
If we could take deliberate steps in making our society more democratic, more peaceful, healthier, support better quality of life, and close the inequality gap, wouldn't we have an obligation to do so?
Well, last year the Social Progress Imperative, a Global initiative, released their results of a years long study on social progress where they indexed such things as 'basic human needs', 'foundations of well-being', and ''opportunity'. In an unrelated study, Gallup asked people in various countries to rate how religious they considered themselves to be. The interesting thing is that when you plot these data together you get a strong correlation. Meaning that countries that saw themselves as very religious were worst off in the three indices that SPI looked into. Likewise, the least religious were better off. We can't, simply by looking at this data, determine if there is causality, or if there is, in which direction it goes. At worst, though, the data would lead us to conclude that religion is not a positive influence in our standard of living, well being, or opportunities in life, and at best we would see that religion is an actual impediment to our well-being, etc. The answer is likely somewhere in the middle, which is still not great for religion, especially as fewer Americans today consider themselves religious. Why then, we should ask, is it that to a presidential candidate, there is no higher disqualification for the job than being atheist?
It is time that as a country we take a stand and take deliberate measures to curtail religion's influence in law, government, and civil life. As a country we ought to respect reason, evidence, and learning-- not fight against these things simply to follow an arcane, barbaric book. As such we should have legislation reflecting the separation of religion and law, prohibiting government agencies from using dogma to justify their actions.
Well, last year the Social Progress Imperative, a Global initiative, released their results of a years long study on social progress where they indexed such things as 'basic human needs', 'foundations of well-being', and ''opportunity'. In an unrelated study, Gallup asked people in various countries to rate how religious they considered themselves to be. The interesting thing is that when you plot these data together you get a strong correlation. Meaning that countries that saw themselves as very religious were worst off in the three indices that SPI looked into. Likewise, the least religious were better off. We can't, simply by looking at this data, determine if there is causality, or if there is, in which direction it goes. At worst, though, the data would lead us to conclude that religion is not a positive influence in our standard of living, well being, or opportunities in life, and at best we would see that religion is an actual impediment to our well-being, etc. The answer is likely somewhere in the middle, which is still not great for religion, especially as fewer Americans today consider themselves religious. Why then, we should ask, is it that to a presidential candidate, there is no higher disqualification for the job than being atheist?
It is time that as a country we take a stand and take deliberate measures to curtail religion's influence in law, government, and civil life. As a country we ought to respect reason, evidence, and learning-- not fight against these things simply to follow an arcane, barbaric book. As such we should have legislation reflecting the separation of religion and law, prohibiting government agencies from using dogma to justify their actions.
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Calling a Spade
John Feffer, writing for blogging website smirkingchimp.com in a post titled "Orlando and the Future of Terrorism" says that we should see the union of Omar Mateen and ISIS as opportunistic at best, and implores us to see the events as a 'mass hate crime'. Although I ultimately think he's arguing semantics, it is his assertions about the future of Islam and terrorism that worry me.
Faffer lays it out for us as follows-- terrorism has been on the decline worldwide because the organizations responsible for them where able to find some political purchase for their ideals, and needed little convincing that killing innocents wasn't as effective as policy in advancing their agenda. He warns us though, that jihadists would find no political platform that would ever appease them and so we must take action against them. His suggestion is that violence begets violence, and so we must seek to disarm the likes of ISIS of their social media campaigns, their finance, and their social structure while giving mainstream Muslims a political platform that will "force out" the jihadists.
This argument is simply dishonest, or at best ignorant. There are case studies that show us what happens when political Islam is implemented into Shari'a law.
It is often heard that we are at war with the Muslim world, or at least there are those who wish to make it so. There is infinite difference, however, in arguing ( as I do) that we are, or should be, at war with ideas. The Qu'ran, or as outspoken secularist author Sam Harris calls it, 'the mother lode of bad ideas', is the basis for Shari'a law, and one would be hard press to find a more barbaric instruction manual on how to behave toward a spouse, homosexuals, or a number of liberties that non-Muslim westerners enjoy. Indeed, where the Qu'ran is of moral guidance, almost all the values of tolerance and equality that we wish to see spread across the world are in fact seen as immoral (see page 81 for a case in point about homosexuals). Even if encouraging Islamism was the best way to cut the root system of ISIS, what we would be growing in its stead is a society so against our values so as to be deemed criminal, especially in its treatment towards homosexuals.
So if we wish to end Islamic terrorism, we should have a frank discussion about religion, the power of ideas, and the need to reform the Muslim faith. It should go without saying that there is no implication in these statements of action against Muslim people in any way. We should exercise tolerance, and protect the freedoms of every Muslim while they, as a global community, make every effort to reform their faith.
So long as we shut down all conversation regarding the shortcomings of the Muslim faith by throwing accusations of 'Islamophobia', we will spend the next half dozen generations fighting permutations of Al-Qeada, the Taliban, and ISIS. Because at their heart is an all too plausible interpretation of the word of God (the Qu'ran).
Faffer lays it out for us as follows-- terrorism has been on the decline worldwide because the organizations responsible for them where able to find some political purchase for their ideals, and needed little convincing that killing innocents wasn't as effective as policy in advancing their agenda. He warns us though, that jihadists would find no political platform that would ever appease them and so we must take action against them. His suggestion is that violence begets violence, and so we must seek to disarm the likes of ISIS of their social media campaigns, their finance, and their social structure while giving mainstream Muslims a political platform that will "force out" the jihadists.
This argument is simply dishonest, or at best ignorant. There are case studies that show us what happens when political Islam is implemented into Shari'a law.
It is often heard that we are at war with the Muslim world, or at least there are those who wish to make it so. There is infinite difference, however, in arguing ( as I do) that we are, or should be, at war with ideas. The Qu'ran, or as outspoken secularist author Sam Harris calls it, 'the mother lode of bad ideas', is the basis for Shari'a law, and one would be hard press to find a more barbaric instruction manual on how to behave toward a spouse, homosexuals, or a number of liberties that non-Muslim westerners enjoy. Indeed, where the Qu'ran is of moral guidance, almost all the values of tolerance and equality that we wish to see spread across the world are in fact seen as immoral (see page 81 for a case in point about homosexuals). Even if encouraging Islamism was the best way to cut the root system of ISIS, what we would be growing in its stead is a society so against our values so as to be deemed criminal, especially in its treatment towards homosexuals.
So if we wish to end Islamic terrorism, we should have a frank discussion about religion, the power of ideas, and the need to reform the Muslim faith. It should go without saying that there is no implication in these statements of action against Muslim people in any way. We should exercise tolerance, and protect the freedoms of every Muslim while they, as a global community, make every effort to reform their faith.
So long as we shut down all conversation regarding the shortcomings of the Muslim faith by throwing accusations of 'Islamophobia', we will spend the next half dozen generations fighting permutations of Al-Qeada, the Taliban, and ISIS. Because at their heart is an all too plausible interpretation of the word of God (the Qu'ran).
Monday, June 13, 2016
Let the Blind Lead.
Ann Coulter is a Cornell University
Alumni with a Law degree from the University of Michigan. She's a fierce
conservative, who seems to speak the language of the white minority ( white
Americans who feel their rights and freedoms are trampled on to serve those
of illegal immigrants, liberals, and generally those who don't share a particular flavor of American values). Coulter recently wrote a blog titled "STUNNING NEW
DEVELOPMENT!!! MEDIA CALLS TRUMP RACIST" (she's a fan of caps-lock) on
her website www.anncoulter.com, condemning
the media, liberals and conservatives for calling Trump's comments on
judge Gonzalo P. Curiel "textbook racism". Ann contends that for
decades "we" have been complaining about white juries or
judges being to blame for unfair treatment of minorities, yet now seem to
be blind to the double standard created by absolving judge Curiel from
bias.
Trump thinks that because judge Curiel is of Hispanic decent, he is inclined to be unfair to him as a repercussion for Trump's anti Hispanic rhetoric and calls for a wall separating the southern US border from Mexico. So there are two counts to deal with, 1) judge Curiel disagrees with Trump's policy solely or mostly as a result of his Mexican heritage and 2) he will let his personal feelings toward Trump influence his job as a judge. If there is evidence of this, then Trump is clear of wrong doing, without evidence, his statement is racist.
Trump thinks that because judge Curiel is of Hispanic decent, he is inclined to be unfair to him as a repercussion for Trump's anti Hispanic rhetoric and calls for a wall separating the southern US border from Mexico. So there are two counts to deal with, 1) judge Curiel disagrees with Trump's policy solely or mostly as a result of his Mexican heritage and 2) he will let his personal feelings toward Trump influence his job as a judge. If there is evidence of this, then Trump is clear of wrong doing, without evidence, his statement is racist.
Ann takes as evidence for 1) the fact that
Curiel is member of "The San Diego La Raza Lawyers
Association "a non profit organisation that doesn't seem to have any radical
motives. On the second point, she takes
the assertion for granted, seeing no need to justify herself. CNN checked out his record and found nothing to substantiate
such a claim.
But Ann won't let a lack of argumentative
foundation prevent her from telling everyone how absurdly blind they are. Because what she is really frustrated about isn't Curiel or Trump. She's upset that we would dare call Trump racist when all he has done is what minorities have done to whites for time immemorial. (i.e suggest that race has an influence in judgement). However, Ann only refers to juries when she argues about ethnic bias, and even then she misses the point. Although one would expect some sophistication in the rationale of an Ivy league graduate, she seems to think that the argument made against white juries is that non-whites are immune to dishonesty and thus should be appointed to juries instead of whites. In reality, the argument has more to do with the jury being able to understand the cultural background and environment of the person in court, as well as being a representation of the population, i.e a mix of ethnicities.
Ann offers no case where a systematic abuse of responsibilities by judges on the basis of race or ethnicity. She conflates her arguments of Curiel's association with SDLRLA and impartial juries to not only exempt Trump from being racist but also to condemn essentially everyone else to being racist for suggesting that people of color would be better served with a justice system that was representative of their background and culture.
In all, Ann fails at making a coherent argument in defense of trump ( against the media?). At worst she sounds insensitive to racial tension and blind to institutional racism. At best,her arguments are dodgy, not wrong per-se, but just irrelevant to what she set out o prove.
Ann offers no case where a systematic abuse of responsibilities by judges on the basis of race or ethnicity. She conflates her arguments of Curiel's association with SDLRLA and impartial juries to not only exempt Trump from being racist but also to condemn essentially everyone else to being racist for suggesting that people of color would be better served with a justice system that was representative of their background and culture.
In all, Ann fails at making a coherent argument in defense of trump ( against the media?). At worst she sounds insensitive to racial tension and blind to institutional racism. At best,her arguments are dodgy, not wrong per-se, but just irrelevant to what she set out o prove.
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Why Has Trump Caught Clinton In The Polls?
Anthony Zurcher, BBC News' North America Reporter, recently wrote a very interesting analysis on why Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump has caught up to Democratic contender Hillary Clinton on national polls.
Late last year most national polls had Clinton with a 52% to 35% lead to Trump, an unsurprising chasm for most democrats who consider Trump to be a worst choice of president than good ol' 'W' was in the 2000 elections. But then, seemingly out of nowhere, wee see Trump and Hillary in a fierce polling battle where neither is consistently ahead.
So what happened? Beyond the massive unpopularity of both candidates ( dislike for the the other candidate is the major reason for people voting their respective candidates!), Zurcher proposes that this heated battle will cool down in favor of Hillary once the Democratic nomination settles, just like Trump's number saw a boost once the GOP swallowed their bile and began falling in line behind the man who best represents their constituency. So, the argument goes, as Sanders supporters give up the fight, they too will rally against Trump and reluctantly support Hillary.
Zurcher finishes with the caveat that pundits and prognosticators have learned to live by this election cycle: Trump is conventional wisdom proof, so really, predictions when it comes to him are useless and therefore take this with a grain of salt.
Late last year most national polls had Clinton with a 52% to 35% lead to Trump, an unsurprising chasm for most democrats who consider Trump to be a worst choice of president than good ol' 'W' was in the 2000 elections. But then, seemingly out of nowhere, wee see Trump and Hillary in a fierce polling battle where neither is consistently ahead.
So what happened? Beyond the massive unpopularity of both candidates ( dislike for the the other candidate is the major reason for people voting their respective candidates!), Zurcher proposes that this heated battle will cool down in favor of Hillary once the Democratic nomination settles, just like Trump's number saw a boost once the GOP swallowed their bile and began falling in line behind the man who best represents their constituency. So, the argument goes, as Sanders supporters give up the fight, they too will rally against Trump and reluctantly support Hillary.
Zurcher finishes with the caveat that pundits and prognosticators have learned to live by this election cycle: Trump is conventional wisdom proof, so really, predictions when it comes to him are useless and therefore take this with a grain of salt.
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)