Guns Save Lives

Guns Don’t Kill Terrorists, British Firearm Units Kill Terrorists

First, before we get started, allow me to address the inevitable, predictable complaint this article is sure to generate. Specifically, that this article is despicable because it is using a tragedy to advance a political point of view. My response to this is rather lengthy and nuanced. I don’t care.

With that lengthy and nuanced discussion out of the way, I think that President Trump’s tweet on the London Bridge terrorist attack deserves some scrutiny:

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump Jun 4
Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That’s because they used knives and a truck!

To be clear, what President Trump was referring to was the London Bridge terrorist attack where three terrorists used a van and knives to murder seven people and injure scores more. Two unarmed British police officers attempted to tackle the terrorists and were both severely injured in the attack. A British Firearms Unit was called in and eight British police officers armed with guns fired a total of fifty (50) shots to kill the three terrorists and end the threat.

There were many that thought this particular tweet was odd. Not quite as odd as “covfefe”, but odd none-the-less. Here’s how I took it. Every time there is some sort of attack that involves guns there is the standard, typical, predictable outcry over gun violence and an effort to ban guns or otherwise infringe upon the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Why then shouldn’t we point out when guns actually save lives, as in the case of the London Bridge terrorist attack? Without guns, there would have likely been many more deaths and injuries resulting from the terrorist attacks. Who knows, guns could have saved the entire population of Britain.

Herein lies the fallacy and hypocrisy of gun control advocates. Where is the outcry to ban knives and vans? There is none. And there is no acknowledgement from these groups that, in point of fact, guns saved the lives of countless British citizens. To an objective observer, this is the height of hypocrisy and is a disservice to honest debate on the topic. Gun control advocates should at least admit that guns can save lives as well as take them.

Solar Change Deniers

The True Lesson from Trump’s Exit of the Paris Accords

President Trump recently came out and announced the United States’ exit from the Paris Accords. In doing so, Trump claimed that the trivial, immediate concerns of jobs, economics and fairness to the United States were more important than vague, unspecific, purported, future harms to the environment from climate change. Climate change advocates were quick to denounce this point of view, arguing that a 0.2 degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures after 100 years is far, far more important. I must go on record and agree 100% with the climate change advocates. Obviously, putting trivial, immediate concerns ahead of vague, unspecific, purported, future harms is stupid, pigheaded and wrong. However, I must also go on record as saying that climate change advocates are also stupid, pigheaded and wrong for their continued support of the trivial, immediate concern of climate change. Let me explain.

You see, climate change advocates are concerned about the potential effects on humans from climate change such as rising water levels, increased violent weather and other matters that make life on Earth more difficult for humans. However, what they are missing is the very real threat of life on Earth being completely extinguished and the Earth itself ceasing to exist. These are the very real concerns of Solar Change. You see, billions of years from now the Sun will begin to change. As the Sun’s reserves of hydrogen become depleted, the Sun will change into what is known as a red giant star. The Sun will cool, becoming more reddish and expand, eventually consuming the Earth before collapsing into a white dwarf star. When this happens, all life on Earth ceases to exist. Anyone that does not believe this is simply a Solar Change denier, a science denier and a complete and utter idiot of the highest magnitude for the science behind Solar Change is absolute. It will happen.

Obviously then, through the same logic as climate change advocates (which kind of makes it sound like they want climate change…) what we need to do is to forget about trivial, immediate concerns like climate change and instead invest hundreds of trillions of dollars into preventing or delaying Solar Change. A 0.02% reduction in solar emissions means that the Sun will continue to burn for an additional 100 million years. That’s 100 million more years of life on Earth or 4 million more generations of humans, albeit each generation having to endure a bit more asthma in the summer. Who can argue with 100 million more years of life on Earth? Only pathetic, stupidly uninformed, moronic Solar Change deniers that’s who. Ptuhh! I spit on such filth. Besides, we simultaneously solve climate change, reduced solar emissions means a cooler Earther.

In order to achieve this lofty goal of a 0.02% reduction in solar emissions, what we need to do is focus on crafting a global agreement or accord on Solar Change. Such an agreement would naturally be voluntary and have no teeth, but would dictate in an extremely unspecific way that we must make technology investments into slowing Solar Change. Since third-world countries have so little Solar Change technology this will necessarily mean a huge transfer of wealth from prosperous nations like the United States. In addition, since China has a long history of Solar Change denial, or for whatever random reason we might invent, they would be exempt from such technology investments for a few million years or so.

Since the true fate of humans and the world is involved here, we must immediately end all unnecessary investments in frivolous pursuits such as green energy. What do a few degrees matter in the face of staving off the apocalypse? Also, since such an endeavor will require huge amounts of time and energy, we must divert all resources from trivial industries like movies, songs and entertainment, which do nothing but consume energy and resources without contributing at all to Solar Change technologies.

In conclusion, climate change advocates are absolutely correct that we must focus on vague, unspecific, purported, future harms at the expense of trivial, immediate concerns of jobs, economics and fairness. Unfortunately, they have also exposed themselves as Solar Change deniers, the worst possible villains in all of villainy. These Solar Change deniers must be denounced and stopped before their ignorance and abject evilness dooms us all.

Hooray for Kathy Griffin

Exposing All the Losers

Before we get started, I do want to state for the record that Kathy Griffin’s President Trump beheading photo is unquestionably the most vile, hateful, disrespectful, unfunny, desperate, stupid, foolish, idiotic stunt that I have ever seen. It calls into question her mental health and, frankly, her humanity and ability to productively contribute to a sane, peaceful society. OK, fair, her ability to productively contribute to society has always been in question, but; still, this act makes it even more obvious that she is incapable of doing so. And should she be prosecuted? It’s hard to prove intent. For example, there are those that claim that when Kathy Griffin speaks that her intention is to be funny. I have personally never seen any evidence of this so, you know, intent is a tough thing to pin down. Now, with all of this being said, I am so very, very glad that Kathy Griffin did what she did. Let me explain.

Look, what Kathy Griffin really did with her President Trump beheading is simply expose the true attitudes and intentions of President Trump’s detractors on the left, in the liberal media, the deep state and even Hillary Clinton. In one, stark, picture is worth a thousand words moment, Kathy Griffin exposed all of these factions and people who are effectively trying to “behead” President Trump for what they are. These factions and people are attempting to behead President Trump in no less vicious a way than an ISIS loser who would use a sword to behead someone. What Kathy Griffin did was to accurately portray herself in the role of a loser, which she is. And thus so is the left, the media, the deep state and Hillary Clinton, all losers. Hillary Clinton quite literally so…twice…at least.

Let’s do these in reverse order. Hillary Clinton is trying to behead President Trump through a de-legitimization narrative by quite pathetically lamenting about her Presidential election loss and trying to blame it on some sort of Russian collusion along with a long list of other ridiculous conspiracy theories. Loser. Literally a loser…to Trump. Sour grapes go away.

The deep state is also trying to behead President Trump by treasonously leaking information intended to disparage and harm their sitting President. Losers. Criminal losers this time. These individuals are life-long politicos who have no concept of anything outside of their little beltway bubble. They are losers in anything and everything that could be considered American and life in general.

The liberal media. Where to begin. The liberal media has reached a state now where they do not even pretend not to be biased or even concern themselves with trivial things like journalistic integrity. The liberal media is trying to behead President Trump by conflating weak, ill-sourced conspiracy theories and attempting to pass it off as news or by ignoring actual news and instead covering puff pieces about hand shakes, hand slaps, weight gain and other absolute drivel, all spun to present President Trump in a negative way. Losers. Not only losers at life but losers at their own “profession”. And yes, the air quotes. The liberal media are such losers they have actually destroyed any honest ability to refer to journalism as a true profession.

Finally, the left. The left are trying to behead President Trump through their efforts at stonewalling and obstructionism. Losers. These people are losers because they are elected officials whose jobs are paid for by the American people but have nothing but contempt for those same American people. These people are perhaps the biggest losers and they should lose more. The American electorate deserves a government that at least functions properly and this means cooperation between parties that do not always see eye-to-eye. That is not what we currently have. We currently have a completely dysfunctional government because a bunch of losers are in there intentionally mucking up the works.

This is what Kathy Griffin exposed in that single photograph. She exposed the true intentions of all of these losers and, actually, cast President Trump in the role of the hero, fighting and giving his life in an attempt to make his country great again, which is what all of our young men and women fighting terror overseas do and risk every day. Who knew that the potentially greater threat to America would come from inside, from a bunch of domestic terrorist losers? Probably only Khrushchev…

Published 6/1/2017

Freedom of Stupidity

Fighting Anti-Free Speech with Anti-Free Speech

The mayor of Portland, Oregon; Ted Wheeler, has recently come out and asked that allegedly alt-right rallies be banned from the city. This includes the “Trump Free Speech Rally” on June 4th, 2017 and the “March Against Sharia”, a nationwide demonstration characterized as anti-Muslim. Wheeler’s comments come after two men were stabbed to death after trying to intervene on what reports say is a bigoted, anti-Muslim tirade by a man directed at two women.

Now, let’s back up here a minute and look at this objectively. First, there are numerous reports that state that the incident that sparked all of this was an “anti-Muslim attack”. However, that’s not what it was. It was actually an “anti-Muslim rant”. Now, this is an important distinction because while such rhetoric is obviously despicable and vile speech, it’s still technically OK to go on an anti-Muslim rant according to the First Amendment. It is still protected speech. What is further interesting is that the New York Times includes a quote from a Mr. Khan that says about the two slain men that “They really stood up for the values of the Constitution.” I really hate to say it because this is going to land me in a lot of hot water but, technically; no, they didn’t. They actually acted exactly counter to the Constitution in trying to suppress free speech. I know, I know, everyone is going to hate me for saying this, but it’s actually a fact. Technically, it was the crazy nut job that was actually defending the Constitution…technically.

OK, so, now that you are all worked up and hate what I am saying, let’s move on to this business of banning demonstrations. And I don’t care or have to know about what either of these rallies is really about. But, can we all just agree that being against Sharia law does not make one anti-Muslim? I mean, because Sharia law sucks and is anti-free speech, anti-religious freedom and pretty much anti-Constitution? You can not be a fan and not be anti-Muslim for Christ’s sake. (See how I did that?) Thus, the mayor is effectively trying to defend freedom of religion by suppressing free speech and defending a philosophy (Sharia law) that is, itself, anti-religious freedom.

Look, free speech is a cornerstone of our republic. It is the very first Amendment to the Constitution for crying out loud. It cannot be infringed in the manner that Mr. Wheeler is trying to infringe upon it. For very important reasons. For instance, when Martin Luther King marched, protested and spoke, the powers at be at the time could have labeled it as “hate speech” against whites. Where would we be today had we allowed that to happen? And who is to make judgements about what is hate speech and what is not hate speech? See my article on Racism and Free Speech and you will have a deeper understanding that speech that you find vile, hateful and disgusting still needs to be protected. It needs to be protected because otherwise it leads to totalitarianism.

But, with that being said, I am willing to give Mr. Wheeler’s ideas a try. You see, because I consider free speech, true free speech, so important and so untouchable that I view Mr. Wheeler’s comments on the subject as hate speech against free speech. Obviously then, using Mr. Wheeler’s logic what needs to happen is that Mr. Wheeler and any another other duly elected official that has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States needs to be immediately removed from office and banned from ever holding office again if they engage in hate speech against free speech. It’s only logical.

And if you don’t feel that is logical, then you understand the insanity of what Mr. Wheeler is pitching here. Look, at the end of the day, Ted Wheeler has the right to his views and he has the right to express those views; which is to say, he has the right to be incredibly stupid. It is unfortunate that Portlandians have such a dangerous and moronic leader of their fine city. Being objective about the matter, Mr. Wheeler is anti-Constitution, anti-American and anti-intelligent. He should be drummed out of office immediately by anyone that claims to want to live in a free society, not because he is engaging in hate speech against free speech, but because it should be obvious by now that he is incompetent at protecting our freedoms (his job as an elected official) and apparently incapable of understanding his own lunacy.

Published 5/30/2017

Racism and Free Speech

What’s Wrong With Racism?

Look, the simple fact is, there is nothing, technically, wrong with being a racist. I know, I know, this looks really bad, but read on and I’ll explain. Being racist simply means that a person has a particular opinion about something. Now, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion, ANY opinion. It is wrong to act unlawfully because of an opinion, but there is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with the opinion itself. Racism is simply comprised of a different worldview and opinion. And, that worldview and opinion is absolutely just as valid and protected as any other worldview and opinion.

Now, in saying all this. Racism is stupid. However, this could simply be my close-minded opinion. You see, people call racists close-minded, but they do not generally realize that they are being just as close-minded, if not more so, than the racists. Immediately and unequivocally invalidating and not listening to an individual’s opinions is about as close-minded as it gets. In fact, I think that racists are among some of the more open-minded people that I have talked to. They are dumb as a box of rocks, but they will listen to you and argue with you. When most people talk or debate a racist, they simply call them names and spit on them and otherwise act extremely close-minded. People need to remember, wrong opinions are still valid opinions and points of view. Any and all wrong opinions and viewpoints can be shown to be wrong through a process of logic, reasoning and analytical thought. One does not need to resort to name calling, spitting, fighting or any other means. There is no reason to get upset with racists, they have their point of view, I have mine, you have yours. You would not want someone telling you that your point of view has no merit, or shouting you down, or otherwise infringing upon your rights to have and express your view. Well, then the same goes for the racists. Hence, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with racism, it is simply another point of view and opinion that must be dealt with in this world.

And racism is not the only idiotic, stupid, half-assed, weakly inflated idea, opinion or point of view in this world. There are lots and lots of idiots in this world. We have to deal with them all the time. There are the idiots that buy SUV’s and never learn how to drive or park their behemoths. There are the abortion rights activists. There are the right to life folks. There are the gun control proponents. There are the gun control opponents. There are those that believe we never landed on the moon, or believe that the earth is flat, or believe they were abducted by aliens. There are the people that believe that dinosaurs were cold blooded and those that believe they were warm blooded. There are lots and lots of opinions and points of view out there in this world. People are allowed to have and express these points of view and thank goodness. Yes, it means that we have to put up with a bunch of idiots, but it also means that there is the free exchange of ideas without fear of prosecution.

Oh, except for hate crimes. And this is one of the primary reasons why hate crimes are fundamentally wrong and stupid. However, the main reason hate crimes are wrong is because they prescribe certain special circumstances to a particular motive. The law generally does not care why a person committed a crime, only that they committed a crime and how that crime was carried out. One does not add an additional charge to someone who murdered their wife for money versus murdering their wife to run away with another woman. It’s the same crime, murder. And if the murder was premeditated, that speaks to how the crime was committed. Same goes for “special circumstances” such as performing the murder with “malice” or “lying in wait”. These all penalize based upon how the crime was committed, not the particular, original motive involved. Yes, motive is important to show at a trial, but it should not mean that an individual serves more or less time for a crime. Hate crimes are not needed because there are already provisions in the law regarding performing acts out of malice, etc. We do not need to get specific as to the source of that malice, having malice should be enough. In addition, hate crimes legislation has a chilling effect on free speech. Now, suddenly, we are coming dangerously close to outlawing certain opinions and ideas. But it is random and arbitrary. How would you like to get an additional $100 tacked onto your next speeding ticket because you were gay, or wearing a blue shirt, or speeding because you were late (Late Crime Legislation), or because you were driving a Datsun, or because you were smoking at the time? It is arbitrary and wrong and it is penalizing a group of people because of their deeply held beliefs and opinions. If it is wrong for religion, then it HAS to be wrong for racism and any other ‘ion or ‘ism.

And let’s all be honest with one another, the mainstream Black movement in this country is FAR more racist than whites. And I say this with all sincerity. There are more black racists, percentage-wise, than white racists. The racism is more organized, systematic and rampant within the Black community than within the white community. The mainstream Black movement in this country is absolutely not concerned about achieving a colorblind society, which is what we should all be striving to achieve. Instead, the Black movement in this country is all about getting preferential treatment in order to make up for the past wrongs of slavery. Affirmative action does nothing to promote a colorblind society, instead, it is solely designed to give one group of individuals preferential treatment over another group of individuals based solely upon the color of their skin. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but last I checked, that was commonly referred to as racism. Reparations are in the same boat. Reparations do absolutely nothing to promote a colorblind society, instead, reparations are solely designed to give one group of individuals preferential treatment over another group of individuals based solely on the color of their skin. Again, that is racism, plain and simple.

The problem here is two fold. First, when the Thirteenth Amendment was passed outlawing discrimination based upon race, it did not do so based on only certain types of discrimination, whites discriminating against Blacks, it did it for ALL such discrimination. The pro for blacks here is that this is exactly what they asked for, to not be discriminated against based upon the color of their skin. The law now covers this. However, the con that Blacks seem to find extremely distressing nowadays is that it also covers blacks discriminating against whites. That is also illegal, Constitutionally, as specified by the Thirteenth Amendment. When discrimination based on race was outlawed, this means that blacks immediately lost their recourse to atone for these past mistakes and injustices as a collective unit. Personal, specific, past injustices could be remedied but seeking recourse based solely upon the race of the parties involved is inherently racist because it is grouping a large class of individuals (whites) together based solely upon the color of their skin. This is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is never, never, never, never, ever right to group a bunch of people together based solely upon their skin color for any reason whatsoever. Ever! It just simply should never be done. And did I mention that goes for any reason under the sun? That includes affirmative action, reparations, and any other hair-brained idea that comes down the pipe. If it in ANY way groups people together and makes assumptions about them based solely on the color of their skin, then it is wrongheaded and stupid. No further analysis required. It does not make sense to try to correct past mistakes by subjecting still more people to those exact same mistakes. This is commonly referred to as “fighting fire with fire” and guess what? That’s a bad idea. All you get is a building that burns down twice as fast, which is all you will get by such racist activities as affirmative action, reparations and the like. Racism is racism, regardless of intent.

The second problem is that everyone is trying to enforce today’s societal values on a past society. Let me clue you in here; that cannot possibly work. Take a look at the time when slavery was going on in this country. We had men out West marrying 13 and 14 year old girls. 11 and 12 year old boys fighting in the Civil War was not unheard of. We had people freezing to death and eating one another after getting their covered wagons trapped in the Rockies. People were being hanged for petty theft. We were committing mass genocide on Native Americans. There was little or no indoor plumbing for Christ’s sake! Notice anything about this world? How about the fact that it was COMPLETELY different from today’s world. Did you notice that? Values, morals, EVERYTHING were completely and utterly different back then. Today’s morals, values and opinions do not apply to what went on in the past. Today, we happen to judge certain things that past society did as wrong. Now, all that means is that TODAY we do not feel that they were right. This actually does not mean that they WERE wrong. At the time, that society felt they were right. Newsflash, slavery WAS legal. At some future date, our society may change to feel that these types of things are OK. Let’s hope that we never see that day, but it is still a possibility. The point here is that what is wrong and right is defined by society at a particular point in time. One cannot go back and second-guess a society, because that society might as well be a foreign country or alien planet. Our rules, morals and values are absolutely irrelevant and meaningless in such a historical context.

So what am I saying? I am saying that while I do not believe in racism in ANY form, including affirmative action and reparations, there are those that do not believe in some racism, those that denounce racism against blacks but promote racism against whites and there are those that think racism has some good points and those that are full blown racists. There is a whole spectrum of opinions and attitudes about racism in this country. And you know what? That is a GOOD thing. I happen to think that it would be a better thing if everyone subscribed to MY view of racism, but I am not going to go around and shout at or persecute people because of their beliefs. I will point out why I think they are wrong and ignorant, but I am not going to persecute them. Persecuting people because of their opinions and beliefs, religious or not, is wrong. If they do something unlawful, that is another matter, but the fact that people have certain opinions and points of view should never single them out for persecution or special circumstances for being prosecuted. Pardon the pun, but this is an extremely black and white issue. There is no gray area where it is OK to either stereotype people into groups based upon skin color or persecute individuals because of their beliefs. Oh yeah, I am also saying that it is OK to be a racist. Hell, every Black leader that speaks out for affirmative action or reparations is a complete racist just like the KKK is a racist organization. Its OK to be racist, I wish you were not, but it is your right. If you are a racist and you truly and honestly believe in it, then don’t let those idiot do-gooders get you down, go be a racist with pride. Just don’t do anything unlawful or you will be persecuted for your beliefs.

Originally Published July 2003

Trump Eats Baby for Breakfast

The Trouble with Unnamed Sources

While the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus has shuttered its doors, the three-ring circus is alive and well in Washington DC. Where once we might hear from the President of the United States or have a political scandal a few times a year at most, it seems that now there is a new furor at least once or twice a week. Much of this furor and circus are driven from reports that come from “unnamed sources” These unnamed sources are apparently seeking to embarrass or otherwise drive negative innuendo around the legitimacy of the current administration.

The trouble with unnamed sources however is that they are, well, unnamed. While this might seem more like a statement from The Obvious Observer versus The Objective Observer, this is an important point and needs to be explained in such a way that people understand. Unnamed sources are unverifiable. They are unnamed so no one can go to the source and ask “Did you say this?” More importantly, they may be entirely fabricated.

Now, before any “journalists” or other “Trump deniers” out there go bananas over me saying that the sources could be fabricated, let’s just jog your memory about Jayson Thomas Blair shall we? Remember that guy, who fabricated quotes, sources and stories for years at none other than the New York Times? How about the Killian documents controversy (Rathergate) where forged documents were used to call into question W’s military record? Or, more recently, Juan M. Thompson, another reporter that fabricated quotes and sources.

So, the problem for anyone that might get their shorts all in a bunch over me questioning the legitimacy of unnamed sources is, well, something that reporters pay far too little attention to these days, the facts. The facts are that reporters HAVE fabricated quotes, sources and stories. Fake news, in point of fact, exists and has existed for quite some time. The fact is that journalists have only themselves to blame for the erosion of public trust by failing to control the professional standards of their peers.

You see, the issue with unnamed sources is that unnamed sources can say anything and they do not even have to be real. Let’s imagine what unnamed sources might say about certain journalists.

Unnamed sources say:
Paul Krugman likes small children.

Unnamed sources say:
Phillip Bump is a proponent of rape.

Unnamed sources say:
Maureen Dowd thinks everyone should do drugs.

You see, these unnamed sources are entirely fabricated but it is reasonable to believe that Paul Krugman likes small children. I mean, when they aren’t crying or whining, children are adorable. Who wouldn’t like them? And Mr. Bump might very well believe that you should not discuss religion, abortion, politics or economics on a first date. And I am very certain that Maureen Dowd believes that everyone should get proper medical attention for their illnesses and ailments. So, I make up unnamed sources and then spin the “quote” to generate click-bait and introduce negative innuendo. Easy-peasy Jayson Blair reporting.

Trump himself has called into question these unnamed sources, referring to them as potentially fabricated, and this has driven the media into an outright frenzy. And all of the political pundits point to this as being an immature and stupid thing to do, in essence “throwing fuel onto a fire”. Nobody can seem to understand why Trump continues to do it other than that he is a moron. But, let’s take a step back and look at the facts objectively and follow it to perhaps a logical conclusion.

First, let’s dispense with the assumption that Trump is an absolute moron and evil. Trump is an incredibly successful businessman and his consummate ability to promote his brand is unquestioned. So, Trump is probably reasonably intelligent and has a knowledge of how to engage the media to his own ends. Second Trump has a history of being able to drive a narrative within the media to his own ends. He did this incredibly effectively during this past Presidential campaign, garnering huge amounts of free air time. Third, one of his chief advisors is Stephen Bannon, an individual who ran Breitbart News and certainly no friend of the established media. In fact, I am certain that Mr. Bannon would like nothing more than to eradicate the legitimacy of the media.

So, where might we take these assumptions and facts to some reasonable conclusion? Well, could we not hypothesis that Trump’s incitement of the media is, in fact, intentional and intended to drive a specific narrative to a specific end? What might that narrative and end be you ask? Easy, the narrative is de-legitimization of the established media with the eventual goal being that the established media is entirely viewed as illegitimate by a large majority of Americans and the world.

You see, by inciting the media, the media fights back and makes up more and more outlandish headlines on flimsier and flimsier material from “unnamed sources”. What if; what if, the Trump administration KNOWS that there was no Russian collusion but allows “unnamed sources” to “leak” information, knowing that the media, in their furor, will latch on to these reports and publish outlandish reports that will eventually be shown to be without merit. The phrase “enough rope to hang oneself” comes to mind. And no, that is not of a racist remark the same way that saying “I finally found a final solution to that Laplace transform problem” is not a racist, bigoted or anti-Semitic remark.

I mean, it has gotten so bad that if Trump ate an egg for breakfast, I would fully expect the headline to be “Trump Eats Baby for Breakfast” or “Trump Performs Late Term Abortion”. Both of these statements, while factually true regarding eating a baby chicken are intentionally spun to generate click-bait and introduce negative innuendo. But, Trump can’t win. If he doesn’t like eggs for breakfast and orders his chef not to cook them, then the headline would be “Trump Supports Ban on Abortion”.

You see, this is how a large portion of the American population view Trump and the media. A solid majority of people in this country just accept that the media is going to attack Trump regardless of what he does. And the media is going to attack Trump in a way that seeks to delegitimize his Presidency and spread around negative innuendo of misdeeds without any actual proof. I have to believe that Trump knows this and is therefore encouraging this kind of media behavior because, say what you will about Trump, he proved during the campaign that he was the only one with a true read and pulse on the American electorate.

Published 5/29/2017i

Proper Labeling Solves Everything

With Apologies to Marion Sinclair

Buried deep within Obama’s new health care law is a provision that requires retail fast food chains to list calorie counts on their menu boards, including their drive-through boards. It is almost without question that some will argue that such a “frivolous” provision has no place in a bill that is ostensibly designed to address weighty issues like health insurance affordability and insurance industry abuses. Also some right-wing nut jobs are certain to lambast this as yet further proof of encroachment by an increasingly intrusive “nanny-state”. However, the simple fact of the matter is that this type of protection of the public, particularly the children, is not frivolous at all and long, long overdue. Furthermore, the real tragedy here is that this type of law and provision just simply does not go far enough…not nearly far enough.

The provision, Section 2572 of the health care law, is really a merging of Senator Tom Carper’s LEAN Act with that of Senator Tom Harkin’s and Congresswoman Rosa Delauro’s MEAL Act. It is essentially a food labeling requirement targeted to fast food chains, those businesses with more than 20 locations. It has been a popular idea among progressives and public health advocates for years. While some argue that it is targeted toward inner city residents whose diets are disproportionately composed of fast food, I would argue that its primary beneficiaries are really the children.

Let’s face it, one of the main customers at fast food restaurants are kids. McDonalds blatantly advertises to children with their creepy Ronald McDonald clown character and his hoard of equally creepy, and apparently mute, friends like the Hamburglar, Mayor McCheese, the “Fry Guys”, etc. It is probably one of the main reasons why children’s obesity rates have climbed steadily since the 1970’s. Note, Ronald McDonald was introduced in 1967. Also consider that a third of children aged 2-19 in the United States are considered overweight or obese.

It is actually kind of funny that in recent years there has been some ballyhoo about the childhood obesity rate in the US “leveling off”. Hell yes it has leveled off, a third of all children are already fat! The only way to sustain the increasing rates of childhood obesity that this country has seen in the last 30-40 years would be to widen the doors at McDonalds and put in a couple more drive thru lanes. I mean, it has only leveled off because all of those fatty fat fat-tards can’t possible fit in the restaurants all at once.

So, this bill is really about protecting the children from obesity and it is about time. I actually see this as personal vindication of my position with my ex-wife. I have told her for YEARS that it is simply not my obligation as a parent to regulate my child’s intake of calories. She simply cannot seem to get it through her thick skull that I am not a bad parent but that the government has simply been failing me by not doing its part to parent my children for me. No matter how much I tell her this, she simply doesn’t “get it”. This was actually the main cause of our divorce, her inability to comprehend this simple truth…oh, along with her compulsive lying, blatant disregard for family finances, abject evilness and generally sucking-out-loud as a person. But those were minor items…comparatively.

So, this law will go a long way to help parent those children whose parents are simply incapable or unwilling to spend the time to look-up the information for themselves. I mean, it is not like we have some kind of fancy “world wide web” of information where corporations post this kind of data coupled with ubiquitous, free access at one’s local library. And even if we had that kind of magical technology, it is not like it would be fully indexed and searchable from a clean, easy to use interface. ( Besides, anyone with a brain already understands that it isn’t the responsibility of parents anyway. Obviously, it is more properly handled by large, unaccountable bureaucracies, which is how it has been done since the stone ages.

But, like I said, this law does not go far enough, not nearly far enough. The problem is that this new law only covers a single aspect of children’s lives but does not cover everything that might potentially impact them or that they might consume.

For example, my ex-wife is always nagging me in the winter about my kids showing up in T-shirts, shorts, flip-flops and minor cases of frostbite after spending the week at my place. It happens every winter and every time I try to explain it to her that it’s just the loss of a couple fingers and toes.. big deal. It is not like these articles of clothing come with instructions as to what temperature degree ranges for which they are suitable and not suitable. I mean, that is really the proper role of government, to mandate that kind of information be placed on permanent clothing labels, right? Am I right? Of course I am. But she never listens. “Blah blah blah bad parent blah blah blah you suck blah blah blah”. Man can she nag…let me tell you. How can I tell when she is nagging? Her lips are moving.

Another area that I wish the government would address with these kinds of labeling laws are TV programs and songs. I mean, I set my kids in front of the TV all day long and I have no idea what they are watching or whether or not it is good for them. Who has the time to research all that or pay attention to what they are watching and listening to? And those “rating” things don’t help. What we really need are some meaningful labels for TV programs, nursery rhymes, books and songs that explain the potential issues with each item of media. I can imagine one such label for the deceptively innocent-seeming Kookaburra song:

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Parental Guidance for: Kookaburra (song)

Parents should be advised of the following federally approved observations:

  • This song does not adequately explain its subject matter. The Kookaburra is a large, terrestrial kingfisher (bird) native to Australia and New Guinea.
  • This song may promote the concept of royalty or royal status with the designation of the Kookaburra as “king”. This concept is at odds with the democratic/republic nature of the United States of America and our Constitution, which specifies that “all men are created equal”. Therefore, this song may be considered subversive to our way of life.
  • This song makes inadequate geographic references, thus promoting ignorance of world geography. The Kookaburra lives in Australia and New Guinea, not just in any old “bush”.
  • This song may attempt to humanize simple, dumb animals. Kookaburra’s do not actually “laugh” but rather their normal bird call may sound similar to what some people would consider a “laugh”, or at least maniacal cackling in the case of the Blue-winged Kookaburra.
  • This song may promote homosexual stereotypes with the inappropriate use of the word “gay”
  • This song may confuse children into believing gum drops really grow on trees. Note that a “gum tree” grows neither gum nor gum drops. “Gum trees” are actually a colloquial term used to refer to Eucalyptus, Corymbia and Angophora, three similar genera that are referred to as “eucalypts”, and are known as “gum trees” because many species exude copious amounts of sap from any break in their bark.
  • This song promotes overeating, which is generally regarded as an unhealthy life-style choice according to the Surgeon General of the United States of America. You should not attempt to eat all of the gum drops that you can see.
  • This song may make inappropriate statements about the supposed evolution of humans from lower primates by eluding to confusion over distinguishing a human from a monkey. This passage could also be considered racist.
  • This song promotes inappropriate medical treatment procedures. You need to get a tetanus shot after being punctured by a rusty nail, not just cry about it and lament life’s misfortunes.

Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree
Merry, merry king of the bush is he
Laugh, Kookaburra! Laugh, Kookaburra!
Gay your life must be

Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree
Eating all the gum drops he can see
Stop, Kookaburra! Stop, Kookaburra!
Leave some there for me

Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree
Counting all the monkeys he can see
Stop, Kookaburra! Stop, Kookaburra!
That’s not a monkey that’s me

Kookaburra sits on a rusty nail
Gets a boo-boo in his tail
Cry, Kookaburra! Cry, kookaburra!
Oh how life can be

By: Marion Sinclair

See, how am I as a parent supposed to know all that or in any way interpret those kinds of things from that song? I don’t want my kids picking up negative homosexual stereotypes from what is a seemingly innocent song. But, if we had warning labels for songs, TV programs, books and nursery rhymes, then every time I heard my kids singing Kookaburra, I could whip them with a vacuum cleaner cord, make them kneel on rice and send them to bed without any supper because they were engaging in vile hate speech against degenerate, pillow-biting fags.

Originally published 2010

The Climate Change Heresies

What Dinosaurs Can Teach Us about Global Warming

Where o where is Robert Bakker when you need him? I mean, if there is one person on the face of the Earth that could help clear up this whole global warming/climate change mess I would put my money on the renowned paleontologist Robert Bakker. Why do I believe that someone who typically spends his days digging through the Earth to uncover fossilized bones can help resolve the current climate change debate? Well, for me to explain, we need to review a little history.

In terms of the history, and I’ll keep this brief, you can actually track the “study” of dinosaurs back almost two millennia to a book by Zhang Qu written during the Western Jin Dynasty that described “dragon bones”. Fossilized dinosaur bones are also linked to ancient Greek mythology. “Modern” dinosaur research began either in 1676 with the discovery of the femur of a Megalosaurus or, if you prefer, in 1842 with the coining of the term “dinosaur” by Sir Richard Owen.

So, any way you slice it, the study of dinosaurs has been around for at least 168 years. During most of that time, perhaps the most iconic dinosaur of all time, “Brontosaurus”, supposedly lived submersed in water because its titanic bulk was too heavy for its legs to support on dry land. In general, dinosaurs were universally recognized to be sluggish, unintelligent, cold-blooded and extinct. This view was so pervasive that the word “dinosaur” entered into the English vernacular as essentially meaning anything that is impractically large, slow moving and obsolete.

Guess what? Dinosaurs are now widely regarded as active, reasonably intelligent and warm-blooded with living evolutionary relatives, birds. Brontosaurus’ name has been corrected to Apatosaurus and is now regarded to be an entirely terrestrial animal whose pillar-like legs could support many times its weight. What this means is that, assuming that you discount the first 1,500+ years during which dinosaurs were known, that for at least 130 years of the scientific study of dinosaurs, right up until the 1970’s, the vast majority of the scientific hypotheses and theories about dinosaurs were 100% wrong. Now, mind you, this is not the case of science being slightly off-base or just a little bit wrong but rather the case where science somehow managed to come to the exact opposite conclusion to what is now widely regarded as scientific fact backed up by voluminous supporting evidence.

How did this happen? How could such a highly vaunted discipline as science; ostensibly based upon experimentation, reason, logic and rigid methodologies, go so far off-base? Well, it is an interesting question and while I do not know of a definitive, scholarly account as to why paleontologists got things so wrong for so long, a study of the history of paleontology presents quite a few keen insights into this question.

The first issue that becomes apparent is that early paleontologists often based their scholarly analysis on relatively sparse and incomplete data. Cases in point, Robert Plot’s description of a single femur (now known to be from a Megalosaurus) as a “human giant”, Edward Lhuyd’s scientific treatment of a single sauropod tooth and Rev William Buckland’s scientific journal entry on Megalosaurus, which ended up being reconstructed as a quadruped when, in fact, it was bipedal – just like all other theropods.

The second issue that is apparent from the early days of the science of dinosaurs can best be summed up as “a rush to be first and make a name for oneself”. This is best epitomized by the “Bone Wars” or “Great Dinosaur Rush” conducted between Edward Drinker Cope and Othniel Charles Marsh between 1867 and 1897. This heated rivalry involved Marsh and Cope essentially dueling for “fossil supremacy” in order to secure funding for their research and eventually led to bribery, theft and the destruction of each other’s fossil finds. They even went so far as to attack each other in scientific publications in an attempt to destroy each other’s reputations and curtail funding.

This rush to beat rivals and establish a lasting legacy led to a third problem, tainted data. In their rush to collect fossils, Marsh and Cope regularly employed dynamite to extract fossils from bedrock. This not only destroyed some fossils but also the contextual locality information critical for interpreting the fossils.

A fourth issue can best be summed up as hubris or arrogance. Because man is a mammal and the current dominant organism on the planet; dinosaurs, for all of their impressive diversification and size, must have been flawed and it was these flaws that led to their extinction. Dinosaurs were “too dumb” to survive or “too slow” (cold blooded). The hubris of mankind led to all kinds of incorrect conclusions about dinosaurs. Because mankind existed and dinosaurs were extinct, obviously humans and mammals in general were “better” and “more fit”. However, we now know that most animals went extinct at the KT boundary, the time when dinosaurs became extinct, and the major reason why some species went extinct and others survived was a large measure of luck. It is not like species evolve to take into account impacts by large asteroids.

Finally, the last issue that becomes apparent is what is best described as “group think”. Essentially, one scientist that is a supposed expert in the field makes a claim and others that might disagree do not have quite the stature of that individual within the scientific community and thus are loath to publish their own analysis and scientific opinions for fear of being ostracized by the scientific establishment. If you do not think that science is a social and “political” venue, then you really do not know much about real world science. In theory, science is 100% objective. In the real world, scientists have friends and colleagues that work together to promote and preserve each other’s reputations.

So, because of these factors, the “science” behind dinosaurs remained critically flawed and just plain out-and-out wrong for nearly 200 years. To illustrate this fact, it should be noted that Thomas Henry Huxley theorized the dinosaur-bird connection as far back as the 1860’s but it never gained any support, despite ample fossil evidence of a thoroughly reptilian dinosaur with feathers, Archaeopteryx. It took over 100 years for that view to be resurrected and another 30 for it to become mainstream science.

The man who resurrected Huxley’s theory regarding birds and dinosaurs was one Robert Bakker, who in 1975 published an article entitled “Dinosaur Renaissance” in Scientific America and the book Dinosaur Heresies in 1986. Now, to be fair, Bakker’s work was largely based upon the work of his mentor, John Ostrom and his 1964 discovery of Deinonychus. But, ultimately, it was Bakker that was the “bulldog” that drove real scientific debate and a “renaissance” in our thinking and understanding of dinosaurs.

And that is why I feel that we need Robert Bakker, or an individual like him, to help us bring sanity to the global climate change issue, a subject that is perhaps magnitudes more complex than paleontology and certainly only in its infancy in terms of scientific knowledge. Sure, you may scoff at the unrefined methods and dubious science conducted 100 years ago, but rest assured that individuals 100 years from now will look back upon us as similarly unrefined and scientifically inept. And make no mistake, all of the past sins of paleontology listed here are being repeated today with climate science. The simple fact of the matter is that science gets it wrong far more often than it gets it right. For every correct hypothesis and theory, there are generally ten or more hypotheses and theories that are, quite simply, wrong. And science often holds onto these wrong ideas for hundreds of years.

Beware of science, especially infant science, being used as justification for social and political ends. As with the Nazi’s and their quasi-science used to justify the “master race”, such methods nearly always result in the needless suffering of millions. And be particularly wary of scientists that demonize and ostracize opposition for their agendas are never the agenda of true science. Science thrives on honest and open debate and it is only through this mechanism that true understanding and knowledge can be achieved.

Originally published 2010

Tux Tragedy

The Social Cost of Open Source

Ever since I have been young, I have heard two competing proverbs related to objects of a gratis nature. The first proverb, “The best things in life are free”, seems to speak for the optimist in life, the type of person that views the glass as “half full”. The second has various forms but in general goes something along the lines of, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” This second proverb seems to embody the pessimistic view of freeness, the “glass half empty” perspective.

Being objective about all matters, I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist. Instead, I am a realist and thus while many might believe that these two views of optimism and pessimism are utterly and completely contradictory and mutually exclusive, such is not the case. To point, some object might indeed be free from cost and the best thing in life but still not be completely and utterly “free”, as in there might still be a “catch”. But, this catch may or may not have an impact on such an object’s “best thing in life” status if that catch is not too great a burden compared to its overall usefulness.

One can only conclude from this analysis that the second, pessimistic, proverb is universal while the first is not, for something that is free might be equally worthless to an individual if it does not meet his or her needs while something that individual has to pay for might meet their needs exactly and thus be the “best” in their eyes. Thus, while some free things in life are indeed grand, others are complete and utter crap but regardless; there’s always a catch. Always. It may not be intuitively obvious as to what the catch might be or it might not even be that bad of a “catch”, but it is there, trust me.

I have been moved towards such musings of “free” because of my recent articles regarding the open source and free software movements. I started thinking, what, if any are the true costs of open source? Where’s the “catch” and does this catch or catches outweigh the benefits of open source and thus demote it from its otherwise presumed “best thing in life” status? This exercise took all of about 30 seconds since the “catches” of open source are plentiful; so plentiful, in fact, that it astounds me that I have never really ever seen anything regarding this topic. Apparently, we live in a world of optimists that all assume that open source and free software are “the best things in life” and that there is no impact other than millions of shiny, happy end users who weep with joy and grovel in homage to the magical developers in the sky that rain free software down upon the wretched masses.

Luckily, as I have previously stated, I tend to be a realist and thus, prompted by the; dare I say, overreaction to “Penguin Suicide Bombers” by the open source community, I have identified and categorized a large number of costs or “catches” to open source. I have classified these costs into four categories, environmental, health, social, and economic. While I examine each of these categories of costs below, I leave it as an exercise of the reader, academics and the proponents and opponents of open source and free software to assess the true net gain or loss. A swag at it says it comes out even or quite probably a net overall loss.

First up are the environmental costs of open source. This one is easy. Computers and computer monitors require electrical power to run which increases the carbon footprint of open source developers. Obviously, one would need to examine the environmental damage from 24/7 operation of a computer and a computer monitor versus some other activity which the individual might otherwise engage. But, remember that these are not just your average computer users, these are developers who typically have more powerful computers and even bigger monitors than average computer users. In addition, they engage in CPU intensive activities such as compiling programs and running web servers. Since we could presume that they might otherwise be watching TV, the net environmental impact is a net loss since the monitor would equate to the power consumption of the TV and thus the computer CPU represents additional power consumption. Thus, it is obvious that open source programming is an anti-green activity. Undoubtedly, if Al Gore were to chart increasing carbon emissions along with increased use of computing, there would be a strong correlation.

But, this does not capture the full extent of the damage. We must also consider the efficiency and innovation of open source development. Are amateur programmers as efficient as professional programmers? In this we must give open source programmers the benefit of the doubt and say yes since many professional programmers moonlight as open source developers. But, are their combined efforts as efficient as professional efforts? Probably not. Since open source programmers operate as a loose confederation rather than as highly structured projects, it is likely that open source development efforts are somewhat less efficient than professional efforts.

The reasons are simple. First, it is illogical to think that open source developers are somehow “better” than professional programmers since, as noted, they are often one and the same. Second, professional organizations tend to be money motivated and thus efficient use of resources is paramount. Open source developers have no such motivation because resources are effectively free and thus have no motivation towards efficiency. Third, the loose confederation of the open source community makes it nigh impossible to achieve the same level of coordination and integration as exhibited by large, professional software development firms. For example, the level of integration that Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, SAP and CA are starting to achieve within their own product sets puts open source development to shame. This level of integration makes the whole more valuable than the parts and is not something that open source is ever likely to achieve since its very model nearly excludes the possibility of a singular vision or close coordination of efforts.

As for innovation, open source primarily reinvents the wheel. Again, this shouldn’t be too much of a surprise since many private companies also generally reinvent the wheel but the point is that there is no notable innovation in open source that might otherwise offset and help negate the overall environmental impact of open source. In fact, a better avian mascot for open source might be the mocking bird rather than the penguin. An oft overlooked fact in the annals of computer technology is that the true source of the innovative technologies of the Internet and most other base computing technologies in use today were in fact innovations of United States government funding, specifically the military, and private companies such as Xerox. Open source can claim no meaningful innovations with regards to computing technologies, they simply look at existing proprietary software and mimic it. Linux is a clone of other operating systems. Open office, clone. Firefox, clone. This is not to say that IE or Windows or most other software is not similarly uninspired but at least government and private industry can claim some pedigree of true innovation.

To clarify and summarize this point, the open source movement is simply providing the same types of software as already exist and thus their efforts cannot be viewed as anything other than generally redundant and therefore a waste of electrical energy. While perhaps not the most optimal state in general, the most eco-friendly state of software development would be where there was only a single software program available for any particular task. For example, there would be just a single web browser where all development efforts were focused. This would ensure that no electrical energy was unnecessarily wasted since, as we all know, the frivolous waste of electrical power will ultimately destroy humanity and the entire planet through global warming.

There are likely health costs to open source as well. Coding is a rather sedentary activity and can thus lead to a lack of exercise which in turn might cause obesity and heart disease. Developers are famously stereotyped as addicted to junk food and Mountain Dew, which is not a particularly healthy diet. More subtle, perhaps are issues of sleep deprivation and loss of hearing. Open source developers often burn the midnight oil, as evidenced from personal anecdotes and discussion forum postings time stamped in the wee hours of the morning. Developers are also famously stereotyped as wearing headphones while coding. This prolonged exposure to such concentrated sound waves could lead to hearing loss similar to the issues that iPods are fearing to have on teens.

The social costs are perhaps the most disturbing. Open source programmers might better spend their time volunteering for a charity organization such as the United Way or the Red Cross. They might better use the money they spend on increased electrical bills to send money to a charity organization or a child in a third-world country. Finally, how many young men and women have gone home with the “wrong” person because better suited, open source programmers were busy pounding keys rather than brewskies in a bar?

Finally, there are the economic costs of open source. While economics are generally cited as a benefit of open source development, the economic costs are difficult to refute. Professional software development companies lose millions, if not billions, of dollars in revenue to open source software. This means that these companies cannot hire as many people as they might otherwise employ which impacts consumerism and thus the entire economy of most countries. Corporations also most likely lose worker productivity as a significant portion of developers that they employ who participate in open source projects likely steal hours from their employers similar to what Bruce Peren did at Pixar. And all of this does not even begin to cover the costs associated with compromising intellectual property rights or losses in hygiene products revenue due to unwashed open source developers slaving over their keyboards rather than getting fixed up to get hooked up.

Another economic-related cost is the impact to the professional status and reward of software developers and other computer technology experts. Essentially, the message that is being conveyed by open source programmers is that professional software development, and by association, professional IT expertise is unnecessary. This is akin to believing that a loose confederation of witch doctors, mothers and moonlighting physicians are as good or better than hospitals and professional medical care or that self-taught legal sources are as good as consulting properly qualified attorneys. While I am not aware of any studies on the particulars, it is hard to believe that this does not have a significant impact on the general perception and indeed the wages of IT workers.

In conclusion, open source development appears on the surface to be anti-green, unhealthy, antisocial and damaging to the overall world economy. And this essay barely scratches the surface. Given the extent of such costs, it is rather surprising that these negative aspects or “catches” have not been more widely identified and discussed.

Originally published 2008

Cap and Code

How to Stop Global Warming

So, even though the Earth cooled this year, we still have this “global warming”, oops, I mean “climate change” issue to figure out. So, I, your trusty, authoritative advisor on all things both real and imagined have a real, substantive resolution to this whole global warming…damn it…climate change issue.

OK, so the whole…c l i m a t e c h a n g e…issue is quite simple. Because I am a technologist, it is obvious to any self-respecting egocentric human that technologists such as myself must be causing global change, I mean, climate warming, I mean, oh, forget it. Look, it is perfectly obvious. Computers convert electrical energy into…heat!! That’s right, who cares about carbon dioxide levels. Here we have a direct link between human activity and the warming of the Earth. Think of it, millions of computers consuming electrical energy and essentially converting that energy into heat which, obviously, would warm the Earth’s climate. I mean, why do you think they have all of those air conditioning units connected to computer data centers?

I’m too lazy to make up facts and statistics like Al Gore, but I bet if you manipulated the data sufficiently you could show a direct correlation between the increase in computer data processing to the increase in global temperatures. It is obvious. You take all of the heat generated by producing the electricity needed to power all of those computers and then add to that all of the actual heat generated by those computers and viola! you have your increase in global temperatures.

Think about it. You have a machine that is specifically engineered to convert electrical energy to heat. What do you THINK is going to happen when you put one of those in every household along with a miniature version of that same device that connects that computer to a global network? Of course you are going to heat things up! Whether it is a room or a planet, you are adding heat to the environment when you power up hundreds or tens of thousands of electrical to heat generating appliances such as TV’s, monitors, routers and computers. It’s simple thermodynamics people.

Let’s face it. The computer is an amazingly efficient electrical to heat generating appliance. It kicks the ass of a dish washer or clothes dryer in this category. I mean, at least those appliances actually accomplish something other than delivering a daily porn fix or entertaining the typical overweight shut-in living in his/her parent’s basement with his/her daily MMORPG fix. Computers are amazingly efficient in this category of delivering such little real value as compared to their electrical consumption and heat generation.

So, because I am a technologist and therefore myopic in my view of the world as pertaining only to the things that I feel I know about, the issue of climate change is obviously the result of my activities and has nothing to do with anything unrelated to me such as “sunspot cycles” or “bovine methane emissions” or anything else. Obviously, the climate change issue must be solely controlled by something that I can influence and control because I am the center of the universe. Obviously.

Therefore, to combat this issue of climate change, I have THE solution that will rectify the climate change issue once and for all. It is a simple solution really that I call “Cap and Code”. You see, the root cause of the problem is not computers but the actual code that runs the computers. Just like a car isn’t damaging the environment unless it is running, a computer isn’t doing much damage to the environment unless it is running code. Therefore the basic premise behind “Cap and Code” is that since computers run code in order to convert electrical energy to heat, if you have less or more efficient code, you will have less heat production. Simple.

Therefore, the obvious solution is to create a huge bureaucracy that will be responsible for registering, bonding and licensing every developer, both open source and actual professional. Then, each developer would be granted a set number of “coding credits” by the government.

Each of these credits could represent a certain number of lines of code, but that would probably just lead to perl-style “cheating”. So, it would make much more sense that each credit would represent a certain number of processor cycles and each developer would have to submit their code to the central bureaucracy for testing along with a plan as to how that code would run in production. The code would be tested, the plan analyzed and be assigned a number of credits that it consumed. Of course, such a testing system and facility would require a significant bureaucracy to ensure that coding testing standards were fair and performed properly.

Once developers reached their allowed number of credits, they would not be able to write any more code, or they would have to buy/trade credits with other developers who didn’t need their extra coding credits. An exchange would be created, along with the proper bureaucratic oversight committee, to oversee and approve these coding credit exchanges.

Now, I can hear the cries now regarding how to pay for all of this governmental oversight but the answer to that is also quite easy. The government would simply tax the coding credits so that the consumption of those credits required the developer to pay an appropriate tax. In this way, the entire system could be self funding and the production of code would be appropriately depressed. I mean, that code is destroying the entire planet, so it makes sense to tax it into oblivion, right? Of course it does.

In this way, the entire planet can be saved from destruction. And this is the only way mind you. Rampant use of code is destroying the planet and it must be stopped. I urge legislators in Congress to write and pass this bill to establish this coding credit and trading system. And if you oppose coding credits, then you are nothing other than a greedy, self absorbed developer pig that is out to destroy the planet all for the sake of a line of code. Shame on you.

Originally published 2013