civil rights

Data Centers as Dual-Use Scaffolds

Standard

The book of Esther tells us the story about Haman—a man who was so obsessed with destroying a rival that it cost him his own life in the end.  It could be read as being a cautionary tale against ambition when it is at the cost of others.  The devices we build to solidify our own power might instead be our own undoing.  

In the same way Haman didn’t anticipate Mordecai being related to queen Esther we can’t always imagine how our own plans will play out and never actually know how the scaffolds we build to deal with others will be used.  There’s a principle about such plots found in Proverbs 26:27, “Whoever digs a pit will fall into it; if someone rolls a stone, it will roll back on them.”  Jesus explained this concept of reciprocation and told Peter “those who live by the sword die by the sword.”  The things we bring into the world can easily come back on us.

We Must Beat China!

A few years ago, policies like confronting China and large-scale deportations of illegal immigrants seemed right to me. I saw them as necessary for national security and for preserving our country’s character. It was never about skin color or the language people spoke. For me, it came down to basic fairness—everyone playing by the same rules—along with the belief that China was acting as a bully in its region and that the U.S. should put the interests of its own people first. Back then, I still trusted that our institutions and the character of the American people, though imperfect, would generally do the right thing.

Fast-forward to today, and—for multiple reasons that go beyond the scope of this post—I no longer trust the government to reliably serve our best interests.

After I’ve watched multiple administrations say one thing while doing another, the actual needs of the American people clearly aren’t a priority in Washington DC or amongst our elites.

A race towards the abyss?

So, when Kevin O’Leary says we need more data centers to beat China, I’m skeptical.  Is all this massive AI infrastructure being built as a tool of protection from a foreign power or is it simply about control, in general, for a few elites?  There’s actually no way to know for certain how this plays out, but there’s no reason to believe that this tool of war and of mass surveillance won’t eventually be used on us.  China may be the excuse.  However, AI is the ultimate dual use technology and as easily domestically employed as it is against an alleged foreign threat.

What Is Actually Coming?

My initial response to data centers was a response to NIMBYism.  It was so ironic to see people, on social media, using ChatGPT to construct arguments against a proposed data center.  Maybe this was just a typical fear of change Luddite response and what is built or not built a matter of the property rights of a land owner.  And yet sometimes a rule is true until it isn’t.  The formula that has worked since that 1800’s invention of the power loom, that technology frees up labor to do other beneficial things, doesn’t work with a machine that does everything at less cost than a human.

Even if the current intent of O’Leary is not to destroy your future, we need to consider the law of unintended consequences.  The rule is that a complex system will often react in unpredictable ways.  And not necessarily an AI going rogue either.  Sure, issues like the paper clip problem must be discussed, but it’s more the tendency of humans given too much power that should be considered.  So even if a leader now is opposed to using AI tools in a way that violates our rights—the next guy to take the reigns may not.  

What sent a chill through me as far as ICE and immigration enforcement was not that it is any different from any other arrest in some regards.  We take criminals off the street all of the time, rip men away from their families simply on the basis of accusations, and this is just an accepted part of civilization.  We have this system to punish the evildoer and it’s better than violent chaos.  But, this only can work when the mechanism is itself bound to law.  What bothers me is how quickly the Fourth and Fifth Amendments were pushed aside for sake of expediency.

Moreover, when U.S. Citizens were killed by ICE the same people who said that we need stronger enforcement to protect citizens did a complete 180 turn and cheered with a FAFO dismissal of those questioning the use of deadly force.

What this tells me is that propaganda from a political regime trumps our Constitutional law.  And it works both ways.  When parents speaking up at a school board meeting can be described as “domestic terrorists” and a Jan 6th rioter be held in indefinite detention, this isn’t about right or left and Democrats versus Republicans.  No, when a partisan sees a legal tool that can be stretched to gain on their enemies they will use it with a completely clear conscience.  There is not a shortage of excuses to abuse power.  That’s why we must stand for civil rights for all, we never know when we’ll be the inconvenience to be eliminated.

Our Hangman’s Noose

In the end, and returning to the thesis (those who plot and build their devices to destroy others end up facing the device they built), there’s been a critical lack of awareness about what we are actually building.  We cheer ICE as surveillance technology developed to kill in Gaza is deployed to our streets.  It is “Homeland Security” and, therefore, this would never be used against the American people, right?

That ‘security’ being the same DHS that a ‘glitch’ had mysteriously as in Tel Aviv, Israel—after X rolled out a feature showing the account location information. 

Strange, huh?

Thankfully our government and the  head of product at X dismissed it as being “fake” or “manipulated media” (it was not) while they took the feature down temporarily and then ‘corrected’ the issue.

So as far as the AI rollout and ICE tactics, what if they’re actually laying the ground work for the surveillance state—manufacturing consent by deploying an acceptable version first (as a trial run) against a population many of us see bad and giving us some tools for free?  We need to ask why are AI companies so willing to lose money (spend three dollars for every one earned) if it’s merely another business venture?  Could we be walking into a trap?  Could those same detention facilities also be used to warehouse American dissidents?

If you’re trying to catch a wild animal you’ll put out a trap.  You will present something for free, lure them into the device you have built to ensnare them, and at an appointed time the mechanism is triggered.  So, think, is there any reason why you would trust the people currently building AI infrastructure?  Are you absolutely certain that this political class that betrays us at every turn is really concerned about illegal immigrants?

Even if this isn’t the plan—what would stop it from becoming the reality?  

Did you see how fast the narrative shifted in Minneapolis?  You know if a Federal agency were to ever raid your home in the middle of the night, ship you away for crimes against the regime, there is nobody coming to save you, right?  If you were to totally disappear few would even care enough to inquire and those who might protest would be quickly drowned out by propaganda that painted you as extreme and dangerous.  Consider this: One moment people praised ICE for protecting citizens, but in the next they’re celebrating when ICE killed two citizens—Alex Pretti and Renee Good.  

Rights that aren’t universal, those which do not exist for everyone, are not long for this world.  We can’t give our abusive elites this kind of surveillance infrastructure and legal power without expecting it to eventually be used against us.  You can’t count on anyone to defend your own civil rights when you do not fight for the rights of others.  For sure, the government will not save you from their own power grabs.  We must see the foot in the door strategy and slam the door on their toes if need be.

We must be wary of those making special exceptions.  And we need to question those who give unexplained gifts.  When—at a flip of a switch—something we build is so easily turned against us, we may just be better off not to build it.  At the very least we should be taking time to consider all possibilities and then create safeguards which are up to the task.  Otherwise we may end up hoisted by our own petard.

A Better Union of Humanity 

We are the only line of defense.  

Our existing institutions are corrupted.

Government and corporations often will serve only the most powerful elites at our expense.

We need a Union of Human Individuals that goes beyond sending a representative to be bought or otherwise manipulated.  We need to address the growing power unbalance—a growing wealth gap that with AI will only be multiplied.  We must put aside old divisions, none of the red team versus blue team stuff really matters where this is all going, so it is time to leave it behind like a middle school clique.  Language doesn’t matter nor does a nation of origin.  Even religious differences are best set aside.  We all have something in common: We’re human.

If we can’t find common ground we’ll be destroyed by our own devices.

The guillotine was eventually used on those who initially used it.  We may build a system aimed at one group of people and yet these things tend to boomerang back at us.  We’re better off to judge as we wish to be judged, forgive as we wish to be forgiven, and stop building infrastructure that can be turned on us as easily as it is used against them.  So let’s do this right, not be a Haman, and just be human to all humans instead.  We don’t need more dual use detention facilities and data centers—we need to complete a more complete and better union of humanity.

Facing the Truth

Standard

I decided to take on one of the lies being spread on social media today and found myself bumping up against the Facebook censorship regime once again.  And what they allow or disallow is purely about the partisan narrative they’re pushing.  Leftists can post memes all day long showing Elon Musk with his hand raised, claiming that he is a Nazi, but you can’t even post a plain old picture of Democrats with their hands in an apparent salute without that “misleading” blackout being slapped on it.

InDePeNdEnT fAcT-cHeCkInG

This is the kind of protection those left of center can expect.  They’re never held to the same standard as those on the right.  If you are conservative any soundbite can ripped out of context and disseminated without a fact-check.  Republicans are guilty until they prove themselves innocent.  By contrast, the corporate media mouthpieces do not confront the left for their hypocrisy and require Democrats to denounce the left-wing violence.   And Billionaire’s like Mark Zuckerberg play interference for them by not even letting us make a comparison to show how ridiculous their claims are.

This is what I posted on Facebook with the image above:

What happens when you put a conservative guy with Asberger’s syndrome in front of an audience of leftists?

Bullying.  

The left is about conformity.  

You march to the beat of their drum or they will ostracize and belittle.  Name-calling is a leftist invention.  They love their categories, white and black, haves versus have nots, and it is always about pigeonholing people into tribal groups and robbing all people of their own unique identities. 

But turning Musk’s awkward movements, as a guy clearly on the Autism spectrum, into a Nazi salute—even the ADL said that’s taking it too far.  Unfortunately this misinterpreting of his hand motion has become that moral justification the far-left wanted to unleash a terror campaign of vandalism and violence—a Krystalnacht redux.  

Why did Nazis hate the Jews?  Well, there was the same envy of wealth and influence then that the left is now directed at public figures like Musk.  To the left a billionaire’s money should belong to them, the ‘fasces’ or their elite managerial class, whereas an American vision is that people should keep their lawfully acquired gains.

Patriotic Americans believe in free markets and rule of law.  In stark contrast, the Antifa left (deceptively named) believe in central control (in their hands) and rule by mob if anyone dares to resist their ‘progressive’ regime.  They are everything un-American bundled into one ugly package, unforgiving, anti-freedom, big government, collectivist (you do what ‘we’ demand or else) and do not believe in civil rights—starting with that of respecting property and persons.

As I travel in Asia there are Swastikas all the place.  If we judged their usage by our own narrow interpretation and understanding we would issue travel warnings to Jews.  But it is not the symbols or gestures that matter—it is the attitudes and actions behind them.  Musk wants taxpayers to keep more of the money they’ve earned.  While the left, along with their Democrat enablers, want to scare you away from choosing the best EV brand there is because they’re control freaks.

The left totally lacks empathy.  Sure, they claim it, like they claim everything else on the planet they didn’t earn with their own work.  It’s all about them, their Narcissistic small-minded worldview, that is why they can only ever project, accuse, self-deceive and destroy the success of others.  They’re an organism that thanklessly destroys their host and condones hate, theft, arson, and murder of anyone who does not lockstep with their cult agenda.

Musk’s “my heart goes out to you” gesture…

The problem isn’t only that the left has a clear double standard, it is that they think they’re the worthy judge when they’re clearly as biased as they come.  A little humility would go a long way for this lot.  At the very least they could let us be free from their grip to spend our own money and live our own lives—but then that would be too democratic for their tastes.

Dead Men Talking—Why MLK Was Made Into A National Hero?

Standard

When I was in elementary school we sang a song with lyrics, “Martin Luther King, Martin Luther King, was a great man.” Looking back it was even strange then.  Why were we, in a rural Pennsylvania public school, instructed to heap such adoring praise on this man?  It was a weird indoctrination.

One explanation is that this was atonement ritual.  Dr. King was murdered.  Thus maybe the weight of guilt on the generation of the Civil Rights Era was just that high that this was a way they try to correct the injustice.  And it is sufficient to explain why the rank-and-file liberals, such as Mrs. Lawrence, my elementary music teacher, would promote his legacy or turn him into a legend.

But was it all well-intentioned?

I don’t have a black and white view of MLK Jr.  I think he was a complex character, he advocated for peaceful protest and yet was also a sexual deviant despite his status as a Baptist Reverend.  He’s probably as worthy of honor as any other figure in the American pantheon.  However, the big question is why is he there?  Why was there a holiday put on the calendar to celebrate this man?

The answer to how is that there was a bipartisan effort, after a significant campaign, to put him there.  Everyone, except a few racist hold out Democrats, supported this move.  Jimmy Carter endorsed it, and Ronald Reagan signed it into law, lauding King as being “a drum major for justice” in a Presidential proclamation.  So it is a reminder to carry on the mission of the man who preached a brotherhood that goes beyond race and reconciliation.

As a child of the 1990s, I was indoctrinated into an ideal of a colorblindness—a society that made the dream of Dr MLK Jr a reality:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

It had worked.  Racial tensions had dropped off and it had really felt then like a new post-racial epoch had begun.

Unfortunately, since then the progress has been backwards.  Or at least as far as sentiment.  Many are convinced that race relations are worse than before.  And that what MLK had preached is impossible, that we must see color, and many advocate that we discriminate in favor of racial minorities—or against them.  Both the far-right and far-left agree with racism.  They both refuse the multi-variant analysis, one which considers factors like fatherless homes apart from race, and have decided that race determines all.

The left claims that the content of character speech is misused and that we must force equal outcomes or we are disingenuous—while the right uses disparity in outcomes as the proof of inferiority at a genetic level.  It is truly amazing how the same data can be read so differently.  However, I disagree with both sides and put far more weight on culture and messaging than they do.  Telling people they need our help in order to reach their full potential is disempowering and the worst kind of political opportunism.

Which does make me wonder if this is the real reason why we celebrate MLK?  Would we ever turn him into an immortal figure if he were alive to speak for himself?

No, I don’t believe so.  I believe that MLK Jr. became much more useful to the political establishment in his death.  No matter what side you’re on, Republican or Democrat, you can make use of his words.  And the reason they recognize him is to use his legacy as a tool for their own ends.  This is the beauty of all those made maytrs for a cause, they always get turned into whatever the current owners of their image want them to be.  I would contend the holiday is intended as a way to co-opt his legacy—both as a way to pacify and to bend it to their own agenda.

MLK was silenced.  His legacy of words and of speeches are now open to interpretation.  He’s a national hero only because he’s dead and cannot oppose those employing his name on all sides of the debate.  Those who made his birthday into a holiday were likely doing it as a virtue signal, a way to prove (to those who cared in the voting public) how they are better than his killers. 

These same people would likely have destroyed him—for his sins—if he were alive and opposed them.  Only dead heroes are useful in politics.

The Customer Is (not) Always Right

Standard

Colorado courts are inconsistent.  Either it is discrimination for a baker to refuse to provide a product that goes against their own moral conscience or it is not.  The courts have ruled two different ways and this seems to reflect the mixed logic (aka hypocrisy) of the general public.

Last year Masterpiece Cakeshop was effectively sued out of the cake making business for refusing to make a cake that was morally offensive to them.  But last week the courts ruled in favor of a bakery that refused a religious customer who wished for a cake to celebrate his own views that offended them.  In both cases an intolerant customer and an intolerant business person clash over services, but only one was ruled as discrimination.

The Right To Moral Conscience

It should not become a lawsuit if a Red Sox fan refuses to bake a “I love Yankees” cake. It not discrimination against a person to refuse to make anything but pro-Boston cakes.

It is not discrimination against a person to refuse to endorse a personally offending message.  A gay placard maker should have every right to turn away Westboro Baptist if they ask for a “God loves Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson” sign.  An atheist book printer should not be legally pressured into printing Bibles or other Christian literature either.

The idea that a business must provide any service that a customer demands is absurd.  It would be plain ignorant for me to go into a Jewish or Muslim restaurant and tell them they must serve me pork.  It would be even more ridiculous if I were to take them to court accusing them of discrimination against me.  But that is essentially what is happening in these various cases.

True Love and Tolerance is Respectful

Tolerance needs to be a two-way street. If we do not wish to be forced to do things against our own moral conscience, then we should be tolerant of those who refuse to go against their own moral conscience and not force them.

Another blogger, a religious business owner who abstains from drinking alcohol, shared a story about how they dealt with a brewer that wanted their services.  The conflict between desired services and moral conscience was solved amicably without legal fees and any unnecessary drama.  That is the model of tolerance more people should copy.

I believe everyone has a right to their own views (offensive, unpopular or otherwise) and should have freedom to share them.  That, however, does not mean anyone has the right to force another person to violate their own moral conscience.  Love and tolerance means respecting those who disagree with us enough to not force them against their will.

“Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that.” (Luke 6:31-33 NIV)

Those are some words that apply equally to all people. If you are against intolerance don’t be intolerant. If you love greater then love enough to not offend those who offend you. Love by the example you want others to follow and not by force of law.