Rand Paul and the Status Quo

It is important to draw a clear distinction between Utopia and the path to it.

Upon examination of politics, as a liberty minded person, it is easy to cast all of its activities away as being less than utopitarian. It is true. They will be. Almost all of them. However, the perspective to be gained is 

If you judge each

In judgement of political actions, the morality of endorsing or allowing the status quo is net zero.


What exactly, do you think, decrim is going to look like on the national stage? You think the old guard GOP and many of the dems are just going to throw their hands up and say "ya got me! man I was silly!"; look to the actions of incrementalism, as it will be the only way to start cleaving this gordian knot.

Make no mistake fools. Undoing of incarceration for crimes is a sales worthy approach, and a good direction to go on many things. Knocking something down to a violation offense is a major step in an awesome fucking direction.

What Science Doesn't Do

Science does not tell us why. It is not a value judgement tool. It's really not either a tool for helping to describe what reality is, only does it tell you what reality does.

Science is a tool for giving us useful information. Science is not necessarily in competition with other information sources.

Science only needs to do one thing; produce reliable and measurable results. Nothing more, nothing less.

Its important to understand this. Gravity might as well be caused by invisible, weightless, scentless, ethereal gremlens who have very strict mathematical guidelines for their actions. Science does not care about that which is non-predictive and that which does not leave detectable evidence.

Those who work to "undermine" Science, really must not understand it; for viewed through the lens of those who understand what it is; all a science denier is really doing is screaming at a trendline on a graph.

Unless you have some radical new set of points to place onto that graph; no amount of pleading, begging, or snide remarks will change that trend line.

Simply because you can find collaborative evidence for what you beleive is true; does not mean that it is true. What is true must be determined by a natural repeatable occurrence upon the trend line. Anything else is called Cherry Picking.

Starting with a single idea, and building like a tree upwards and outwards in several branches is not the way your knowledge should be; but rather it should be the conclusion of reoccurring, predicatable, likley activities, which survive the null hypothesis as well.