Thoughts: new old, and borrowed

Right now, both the Democrats and the Republicans are over selling the idea that US elections are not fair and honest.   President Trump, " If we don’t root out the fraud, the tremendous and horrible fraud that’s taken place in our 2020 election, we don’t have a country anymore.";  Democratic Majority Lead Steny, " As the Senate prepares to vote on proceeding to Floor consideration of S.1, we wanted to remind you that not only are Republicans  in 48 states  jamming through legislation designed to stifle the vote, they are also working to target election officials they don’t agree with – at every level of government – and expand partisan control of elections. Don’t miss this write up in the  New York Times  on what’s at stake – our very democracy hanging in the balance".  Neither of these positions are warranted by the events.  While there is always some degree of fraud and cheating in any election, the multiple investigations into the 20...

 The way language is being forced to change at the whims of a small minority of the population is really strange - and kind of dangerous.  Language matters, and forced "acceptable" language is basically a form of population thought control that I find really offensive.  The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has presented a list of words it can't say - beyond the already outlawed N word.  https://www.zerohedge.com/political/eighteen-offensive-words-you-cant-say-canada If you don't  want to read the article, here are the words that are too nasty for the CBC: Ghetto; sell someone down the river; blackmail; brainstorm; savage; gypped; pow wow; tribe; spooky; black sheep; blind spot; blindsided; first world problem; spirit animal; tone deaf; lame; grandfathered in; crippled

 Society often wants lies to be treated as truth.  For many years (far too many), the idea that individuals of African ancestry were intelligently and emotionally inferior to individuals of European ancestry was encouraged by society.  It is false, but was widely believed and acted upon.  Now a new societal "truth" is gaining ground that is demonstratively false - A male cannot become a female and a female cannot become a male.  Individuals can dress the part, use names associated with the opposite sex, asked to be recognized as their new "preferred Gender" - all well and good.  But to claim they are actually a new sex is false.  The environment in the womb and development of the fetus before birth are controlled by hormones that are unique to each sex in concentration and ratio.  No amount of later desire or chemical treatment or surgery can change the basic development of body and mind that occurred before birth.  Neither societal pressure ...

 There have been 3 recent trials that have gotten considerable press.  The Kyle Rittenhouse, Ahmaud Arbery , and  Jussie Smollett all were high visibility, and had (or at least tried to have) political overtones.  I think that justice was served in each case.  The closest call was the Rittenhouse case, but acting legally does not provide incitement to be attacked, so he was innocent of the charges.  The Arbrey case appeared to be a slam dunk - I'd hang the actual shooter.  The Smollett case was also pretty clear and I'm glad that fake race crimes are prosecuted. To me, these 3 results indicate that the US justice system, while not perfect (what is?), works well.

 https://www.sciencealert.com/large-study-links-cannabis-smoking-to-sleep-disruption-especially-among-heavy-users  Pot is not harmless and folks who say so are ignoring considerable data on the mental and physical negative effect.  This article is just the most recent example.

 The issue of replication of results in the social sciences is huge and pretty widely known.  This result in the biological/medical area is worrisome ( https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cancer-biology-studies-research-replication-reproducibility ).   When widely used, referenced, and relied upon studies can't be replicated, it is dangerous.  Replication is the key to having confidence in the scientific process and deserves much more attention that it gets.  The media is quick to celebrate any result they think is important, but rare (never?) ask about replication.  It gives folks the wrong impression of how science works - especially when (generally years later) it is determined that the "accepted science" was wrong all along.  "Accepted science" is a term that flags a problem it me, unless it has been replicated numerous times in experiments - not computer models.

 Any Government needs it's citizens to have some faith in it's ability and stability.  This is especially true of democratic forms, where power is explicitly based upon the will of the people.  Given this, commentary and actions that reduce that faith are dangerous.   Which is why I'm displeased with both major political parties on this issue.  The Republicans, as repeatedly pointed out in the MSM, are commonly supporting the fiction that the last Presidential election was stolen.  The data does not support that.  The Democrats have a similar problem, that is not as commonly discussed.  All their claims about voter suppression also decrease faith in the system, and - as with the Republicans - the data does not support any significant suppression from the legal changes implemented.   So both parties are taking positions that decrease faith in the election system - both positions are dangerous to the stability of our democratic system...