Race and Revisionist Politics

 

(Caption: I demand an end to anything i don’t like, whether i understand it or not, it is my right)

Ever since President Trump was elected Democrats have been trying to find a way of removing him. Given his blatant lying (he does), working with WikiLeaks and Russia to get ‘dirt’ (he did) Junior Congress folk have been talking about impeachment whilst the senior members (Pelosi) talk about policy. Whether or not President Trump has done enough to be impeached is irrelevant as with a Republican controlled Senate for the next two years assured impeachment would never go through. Whilst this has been happening one of 22 Democrats running for President, Joe Biden, has been staying under the radar. With his political comments directed at President Trump on policy he is essentially saying to the democratic field, you can eat your babies if you want to but I’ll leave you in your sandbox and focus on the real prize- becoming president (for the record, my ticket would be Joe Biden/Kamala Harris). Naturally, the spurned democrats are attacking probably their best chance of winning due to historical events- events taken completely out of context. In 1994 President Clinton passed the’ The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, H.R. 3355, Pub.L. 103–322’ (crime bill). The bill reduced crime and resulted in mass incarnation. Most people, you assume, would look at this and say fewer criminals= less crime but, as with most issues, liberals look at skin colour before deciding how they feel. The crime bill (which Clinton apologised for when campaigning for Hillary who, herself, apologised for voting for the Iraq War) meant that more (in relative terms) blacks went to prison than whites. Naturally the reaction should be that criminals are criminals regardless of skin colour and not having people selling drugs to kids and shooting people is good, the reaction was, predictably, that Mr Biden is racist. Whilst we can say that mandatory minimums are racist- the sentence for powder cocaine less than crack which more blacks use, statistically, we cannot blame Mr Biden for someone selling drugs or committing murder and to do so is beyond absurd. The facts are that there were some very problematic areas of America and by passing a bill, criminals went to prison meaning that there was less crime. Yet black people cannot protect themselves and cannot be held accountable for their actions as they are incapable and to treat them like any other criminal is just racist, isn’t that correct liberal Intelligentsia?

The ink from this scandal of protecting communities from crime was hardly dry when Mr Biden was once again hit by the left. Mr Biden said that when he was younger, he worked with people (other Democrats) who were pro-slavery. Why did he work with them? Because he was a professional who was putting his dislike of a person to one side to do what is best for the whole, something McConnell, Schumer et al could really learn from, yet all liberals saw was the word ‘slave’ which to them meant ‘black’ and, of course, they were offended that Mr Biden spoke to a person with a different opinion to them and thusly Mr Biden must be the enemy.

I am a liberal by nature, I believe that government should make sure all people can have health care, education and security yet now to be a liberal I must feel smug and superior to everyone else, hate people who think differently to me and believe their attempts at rewrite history, ala, Orwell and realise that women are inferior to men which is why everything must be made equal (even language- history? Oo no, no, Herstory- ah much better, that readdressed the gender divide, why not just say history using the original etymology of ‘late Middle English (also as a verb): via Latin from Greek historia ‘finding out, narrative, history’, from histōr ‘learned, wise man’, from an Indo-European root shared by wit’), that other people cannot pull themselves up by their bootstraps if I don’t help them and I must feel outraged on the behalf of anyone who is slighted for they are defenceless without me, I have to resent anyone who works hard and is successful (in our culture success, unfortunately, equates to economics- I personally dislike Apple, not because they are successful, not because their products are inferior (I wouldn’t know) but because of its exclusivity- you can only use Apple tools to open Apple products, you can only use Apple software, you cannot ‘build your own’ etc.). The sooner the Democratic party, and liberals all over the world, return to the notion that all are equal in the eyes of the law and human rights and fight for those who genuinely need it, not focusing on superficial battles, the sooner we can start to readdress some of the serious problems tearing the world apart, the sooner we can bring about  things such as a crime bill which makes the streets safe for people to walk at night and for people to grow away from the influence of criminals and those others who spit on the very notions which we liberals claim to uphold.

 

‘till next time

 

The Pursuit of Perfection

 

One saying which we often hear, indeed it is regarded as a perfect saying, is that there is no such thing as perfection. We all smile and nod and go ‘ah, very wise’ but how true is the saying?

To answer this we must first ask, what is perfection? Perfection is something without flaws, it is complete and does not need anything added or taken away. It falls under logical sense, even if the logic is beyond us. Although we may not be able to know it, perfection would be absolute.

We have, very cleverly, created the means to shape and understand (contradiction) our reality. We have created languages to explain everything from letters, to picture grams to numbers. We know that 1 can be afforded a meaning which is universal, and that meaning can then be expanded to another context, for example ‘Yes’ equates to 1 and ‘No’ to 2 meaning it is possible to make words quantifiable  however, we never question whether or not our language is natural or fabricated by us (by the way, the answer is the later). The big problem between quantum theory and Einsteinian relativity is that the numbers don’t add up (pun intended). The question should then be, are numbers the best way to try to answer these questions? M theory (string) had to create multiple dimensions just to make the maths add up. Instead of going ‘hmm, maybe the concept of mathematics is flawed’ one just twists reality until it fits. As an art teacher once said to me as I was trying to colour the sky on a picture by contorting my arm ‘the paper moves, you don’t have to…idiot’ (he didn’t say that last part), could it not be that mathematics is trying to do the same? Contort reality until it can be coloured how you want it to?

 

An example that I can give which is closer to the realms of the concrete (non-abstract) is chess. Chess is a game which has a very clear set of rules. The possibility of every action, move, has been thought out and the pieces fit within this completely. From a very simplistic perspective we can say that chess is perfect. However, as the entirety of our perception is blanketed by subjectivity, we impose ourselves upon it. We say that it is ‘fun’ or ‘boring’ or ‘tedious’ or ‘intelligent’, all things which it is not, in itself, but rather which we impose upon it. The fundamental basics of chess are perfect in themselves, regardless of whether they were created by a flawed human mind, or not, so then we cannot offer an objective judgment on whether chess is perfect as we only see it from our own perspective and language (subjectivity). Even if chess can be broken down into mathematics, it is not saying what chess ‘is’, rather, how we understand it (as illustrated by the Moneyball theory). Likewise, in a more daily example, is the glass half empty or half full? The answer is neither, it is as it is i.e. perfect in itself, however, we insist upon imposing ourselves upon it and instead of seeing whether it is perfect or not, we see it as we are, imperfect.

Whether or not perfection exists we cannot know (I don’t have the space here to go into Theology but likewise with God, we cannot know if God is perfect or not as we impose our imperfection upon him) as we lack the tools and perspective to know but one thing for sure is that the truism ‘there is no such thing as perfection’, is, undoubtedly, imperfect

 

‘till next time

 

Universal Laws

 

The other day I was looking at a Newton’s Cradle, a Newton’s Cradle is a device where ball bearings hang suspended and by lifting one and letting it go it collides with the other balls thus illustrating Newton’s 3^rd law,  it’s the sort of thing stupid people have on their desks to delude themselves that they are smart. So, anyway, I was looking at the Newton’s Cradle on my desk which I had recently purchased as I liked how it represented the Universal Law that every action has an opposite and equal reaction when it hit me (serves me right for sticking my face into the apparatus) this Universal Law is not true and I can even produce evidence which shows this to be the case. What black holes are remains to us a mystery. Are they collapsed stars, gateways or anomalies, no one knows, but what is known is that they are gravitational forces from which very little can escape.  If, as Newton’s law dictates, every action has an opposite and equal reaction, then black holes cannot exist (unless they expelled the equal energy elsewhere).

The more I thought about it, the more it appeared that one could not say that Newton’s third law was a Universal Law. If, for example, I was to take my cradle and hurl it up into the air, it would complete its graceful arch and fall into the bin, probably where it deserves to go. However, if I was in an environment in which there was no gravity, space for example, then unless another force acts upon the cradle the cradle will continue to go at the speed which was converted from the energy that I expelled to throw it and will continue until, it is either acted upon by another force, it bumps into something or it reaches the edge of the universe and who knows what will happen then (scientists have shown that the universe expansion has increased 9% back to primordial expansion rates- no one knows why, personally I’d like to think God finally had enough, and keeping his promise not to wipe us all out, has flipped a switch to, indirectly, wipe us out (he is smart, after all)).

The counter argument to this would be, ah but in certain conditions, with X variables, this law is without exception, and indeed it is, however a Universal Law must expand beyond context/conditions and work in every possible condition. Even notions such as the sun being big and hot (you can tell I’m a scientist, eh?) falls down in comparison to other stars or water being what we call ‘wet’ when in different forms it takes on different properties. Whilst we can, although I am resisting the temptation to, expand this into the realms of metaphysics such as morality for although morals may seem different in different contexts, fundamentally they are universal, it seems that we can conclude that within the realms of what we call natural science Newton’s Third Law is not a Universal Law and it is indeed possible that within the realms of the physical universe there are no Universal Laws, not even in quantum theory.

 

Anyway, back to my toy.

 

‘till next time

Is It Necessary?

 

In his critique of pure reason, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant concludes, to paraphrase, that the things are only done out of necessity. Is this true? Let’s find out.

 

The basic function for many of us is to go to work. Regardless of the job, we all have the same basic needs- that is shelter and sustenance. And without an occupation these things cannot be and we would die. Regardless of the task it is necessity that drives us. ‘Ah!’, you might very cleverly argue, ‘what about the whole invention of the stock market and business, you, yourself have argued that these are pointless, so surely there is no necessity there?’. To your clever retort I would have no reply, but the great Greek philosopher Plato would say, do not forget, those best suited for power etc. are those who desire it less. From this one could argue, based on Plato’s words, that needs are not only external and experiential (such as hunger) but also internal. Surely, if we take Plato’s word we could say that those who try to succeed by becoming very rich and powerful are acting out of a desire for such things they do not inherently possess, and therefore it is necessity for them which drives them onwards. Don’t forget the gods do not desire that which they already possess. Your reply to this would be even more brilliant, you would say ‘ok, sure, but what about interrelationships? Yes people have families to continue their name and to find people who they can disagree with but never be shot of, but what about those who enjoy the intoxication of alcohol and the company of fine women (or men). Surely sexual intercourse, done for fun, is not a necessity, is it? One cannot live without food but one can live without sex’. Your clever comments here would give me pause until I utter, is it not possible, if those who long for power and prestige act from a necessity which is internal, then is it not possible that there may be a spiritual reason or psychological that people feel the cold, feel empty and through ‘fun’ they can placate these feelings for a moment, after all Nietzsche said that the Greeks used to think what is fun and how can I do more whereas we modern folk (he was in the 19^th Century) think what is bad and how can we relieve our suffering slightly.   ‘Ah, but you have just undone your own argument,’ you will joyfully exclaim, ‘is not theology proof of things coming from unnecessity?’ to which Voltaire would leap in and cry ‘If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him’ and then go into a long spiel about how God may be necessary as sexual intercourse is and so on and so forth. At this point you would explain ‘it is irrefutable, your boy Plato said that artist were unnecessary, therefore we win!’ to which I would reply, could it not be that they wish to show the world as being beautiful, a beauty rarely seen, or like lovers who engage in the act to displace energy so do artists displace emotion etc. etc.

 

This we would continue ad nauseum until you would fall down, dead bored, and raise your hands and say, ‘ok, you win, you clearly need this discussion, therefore we will leave you to it’. And as you leave and I revel in my victory, you will turn to me and say ‘was it really necessary to write all of this down for your audience, our pitiful conversation of tedium which will not make the sun rise or black holes suck less?’, to which I would fall down to my backside and stare at the sky, lost is fevered thoughts, was any of this really necessary or have I just undone my whole argument?

 

‘till next time