You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘politics’ category.

We all find and readily believe information and news that supports our beliefs.  That is human nature.  If you love your mother, you see her in the best light.  You see her work at the church, her caring way with your little sister, and her ability to make great meals on a tight budget.  You probably don’t see (or you block out) her alcoholism, her prejudices against those who are not like her, and her terrible taste in music.

Performers play to the audience for whom they perform.  Politicians make promises that fit the audience to whom they are speaking.  News Media outlets tailor their content to fit the demographic to whom they sell their information/news.


Take the New Yorker, for example.  This Manhattan-centric magazine fancies itself to be among the most important sources of news and information in the world.  “Today The New Yorker is considered by many to be the most influential magazine in the world, renowned for its in-depth reporting, political and cultural commentary, fiction, poetry, and humor.”  or so they say on their website  And to prove how proud they are of themselves, they are currently running an ad campaign saying. “The New Yorker, Fighting Fake Stories with Real Ones.”

I’m sure that many, if not most, of their subscribers believe what the New Yorker prints because they want to believe it.  At the very least they accept news and information that only a ‘true believer’ could fail to question.  An article on September 23rd by Tad Friend, “Solve Climate Change?” illustrates this well.  Mr. Friend (dare I assume “he” is a Mr.?) wants you to believe that vegetable based “meat” products, like the Impossible Burger are a significant solution to reducing environmental costs through our eating habits.  I don’t think he makes a very good argument, but am fascinated by the “facts” he uses, without attribution, to tell his “Real Story.”

Did you know that, “One-third of the world’s arable land is used to grow feed for livestock” or that, “Razing forests to graze cattle—an area larger than South America has been cleared in the past quarter century—turns a carbon sink into a carbon spigot.”?  If you are a person who fits the New Yorker’s target demographic you will likely want to believe these two statements and not question them.

If you are open to questioning much of the Global Climate Change Mantra or at least not accepting every argument without question, you might try to understand what Mr. Friend is writing.  I interpret what he has written ( and believe he hopes you will interpret it) to mean that in the past 25 years, humans have deforested an area equal to the size of South America to graze cattle.  The South American land mass is just under 7,000,000 square miles or about 12% of earth’s land mass (easily found from numerous sources).  We have deforested 12% of earth’s land mass, in the last 25 years, for the purpose of cattle grazing?  Does that make sense to you?  We currently use almost one third of earth’s arable land mass to to grow feed for cattle?  Does that make sense to you?

I’m as skeptical of that as I am that the earth will cease to exist in 12 years if I don’t stop using plastic straws and plastic bags.  I think Mr. Friend (and his employers at the New Yorker) have very vivid imaginations.  Some would say they lie through their teeth to serve their far-left globalist agenda.

If you learn that a person tells a lie once, isn’t it incumbent on mature humans to question if that is the only lie that person has told/will tell.  Should you question if much or most of what that person says lacks truth?  That is the what I would assume of articles from the New Yorker.


There is much debate today about whether our country’s health care system should be nationalized – run by the government.  Like most Libertarians and Conservatives, I think we have ample proof that this is a very bad idea.

To give further input to why I think Government Health Care is a bad idea, I give you the USPS, the United States Postal Service as an example of how poorly government run entities fare when compared with privately operated ones.  The link below (CATO Institute Testimony) is to a fairly long but thorough look at the USPS, its massive economic problems, and some solutions that need to be considered.  Unfortunately, few of the needed reforms will pass the gauntlet of politics.  Just a single item, personnel cost, is very unlikely to be addressed because of the power of unions over the politicians who need to let/require the USPS to reign in personnel costs.
Screen Shot 2019-05-16 at 11.25.56 AM
I highly recommend reading “Uncle Sam, the Monopoly Man” (if you can find it – out of print since the ‘70s) which discusses many public goods and services and why we need to consider alternatives.  Almost 50 years ago it identified many of the problems faced by today’s Postal Service and suggested better alternatives.  Yet, here we are in 2019 with a Postal Service on track to lose in excess of $6 Billion this year and projected to lose $125 Billion over the next 10 years.
Even more important, read the CATO Institute testimony to the House Oversight Committee earlier this year – Restructuring the U.S. Postal Service:
Were you aware that the average USPS employee costs our government over $85,000 per employee while it is just over $76,000 for each UPS Employee (mostly union members) and under $60,000 for each FedEx Employee (non-union)?
And that’s just a start.

What is withholding tax in Nigeria? NAIJA.NG


In my view, the implementation of tax withholding from payroll (codified in 1943) was the greatest single scam ever played on the citizens/taxpayers of the United States. By taking taxes from wage earners before they get their pay, the cost of taxes is disassociated from the labor.  People think in terms of ‘net pay’ or ‘spendable income’ not how much they have paid in taxes.

I am convinced that if everyone was paid their wage or salary and within 72 hours was required to write a check or pay cash to the IRS for taxes (that would otherwise have been withheld), most people would be much more aware.  They would be aware of how much it was costing them and they would consider what they are getting for that money.

Today, with our withholding system, very few people can tell you how much they pay annually to fund our government.  If they can, it is likely only once a year when they have just finished filing their tax returns.

This brings me to a suggestion to help make more people aware of the cost of their government.  Move Election day from the first Tuesday in November to the 2nd Sunday (or Saturday) in April.  This does two things.  First, Weekend voting, as is done in most nations, increases turnout.  Liberals say they want more turnout so they would like this.  Second, if people voted with tax preparation fresh in their minds, they might just vote for people with a slightly more fiscally conservative mindset.  Conservatives say they want to cut the cost of government so they would like this.

I would prefer to have the entire withholding system abolished.  However, a system which has been in place for 75 years would take a long time and amazing political capital to dismantle.  I think this suggestion has a better chance of being accomplished and would achieve some of the same goals.


Like most people in the United States, I’ve been distressed by the current state of political debate in the country.  Much of this was brought to a head last week with the public broadcast of the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Anyone who watched more than 30 minutes of the ‘show’ could not help but see the circus for what it was: a piece of political theater with two purposes, to raise the public profile of the politician participants and to use the power of the press to derail a judicial confirmation.  Are there any other reasons why these two people needed to be publicly on display?  Had the purpose of the ‘investigation/interview’ been to help determine the validity of Dr. Ford’s allegation, there is no doubt in my mind that the Committee would have been better served to hold the meeting in private.

Used car salesmen have a bad reputation.  Most of that bad reputation is due to the fact that some salesmen hide the flaws in a car and embellish the positive aspects of the cars they sell.  The car salesmen who list all of the flaws and all of the strong points of a car allow the buyer to make an informed decision.  Those who hide the crack in the frame or who pour ‘honey’ into the crank case so the potential buyer can’t hear the flaws in the engine, do a disservice to the buyer for the sole purpose of making a sale that benefits only the salesman.

Today, people whom we call ‘journalists’ have a bad reputation.  Most of that bad reputation (“fake news”) is based on selective reporting of facts and opinions to create an outcome.  Journalists who report just the facts and who do not allow opinion to corrupt a report allow the reader/viewer to make an informed decision.  Those who cherry-pick the facts that they report or who lace their reports with unproven opinion instead of sticking to the facts, do a disservice to the public.

I would argue that last week media on both sides of the debate were in ‘used car sales mode’, not ‘reporter mode’.  Before reading/watching any report of the proceedings, you knew what would be ‘reported’ by any source based on their political leanings.  If you read Fox News, or Town Hall, or, you knew in advance that Mr. Kavanaugh’s participation and responses would be shown in a very positive light and that the Democrat Members of the Committee would be shown in a very dim one.  Similarly, if you went to CNN, MSNBC or the Washington Post, you were certain you would find opinion about Mr. Kavanaugh showing him to be a horrible human being and opinion that Dr. Ford was sweet and innocent and brave.  Almost every piece you could read or view could easily be shown to be intended to create feelings, emotions, prejudice, guilt, innocence, etc.  Almost no piece you could find would report facts that in any way proved or disproved that either side was right or wrong.

The media have a huge impact on public opinion and I guess it is naive of me to wish that most of the participants/producers of media content had decided early on to be reporters or journalists instead of the used car sales people that they prove daily to be.  Like many, I would love to know a source of news that is accurate and unbiased.

With so much biased news coverage and so much ‘fake news’, it is comforting to know that you can just turn to FactCheck.Org or and get the real truth about  almost anything you read or hear.

You might want to fact check the above paragraph.  If you believe it is true, you would be wise to avoid realtors with bridges on offer in Brooklyn.

Screen Shot 2018-06-21 at 10.08.12 AM

Both Snopes and Factcheck are dripping with bias, and, surprise, the bias is ‘progressive’.  I have not seen a single example of either ‘service’ steering you toward a conservative interpretation of the facts.  Both are as reliable as CNN or FoxNews at showing any issue in the brightest light for the side of the debate which they support.

So what should you do?  There is no simple answer that I have found.  You really need to seek out the original document.  This is what Snopes and FactCheck purport to do.  What they do in fact is act like critics.  Think of the film critic who does not like a certain director.  When viewing works from that director, the critic will carefully watch and study the work of the director who he does not like but always with an eye to find any flaw, any error or exaggeration.  He will then use this exaggeration or flaw to condemn the entire work, regardless how good it is otherwise.

A perfect example is the current debate about how aliens who have been apprehended crossing our borders illegally are treated when captured.  The Snopes fact check claim, “The widely debated practice of separating families at the border is mandated by Public Law 107-296, which was passed by Democrats in 2002.” (Here is a link to that page.) Snopes boldly claims that this is “False.”   It is meant to make you believe that what the Border Agents are doing is not legal and is directed by the Trump Administration, not by law.  Specifically, the progressives (like Snopes) want you to believe that Border Agents are acting outside the law,  separating families and tearing babies from the breasts of their mothers to deter others from trying to enter the U.S. illegally.

First, they word the question in such a narrow fashion that makes it very easy to label the claim as “False”.    By suggesting that a single law is the reason for the way Border Agents are deterring aliens, they obscure the fact that most law is the sum total of laws, regulations, orders and court interpretations of those laws (case law).  In this case, by excluding all but this one law, they make the problem seem very simple which it is not.  The detention of illegal border crossers is guided by no fewer than 3 federal statutes (in 1997, 2002, 2008), a number of lawsuits and both district and supreme court appeals (Flores Settlement Agreement, 1997, 9th Circuit, 2014, etc.)  which have modified those statutes.  So by asking if this single law is the reason for separating families, it is analogous to asking if the 14th Amendment forbids consideration of race when hiring a new employee.  It ignores all the law and court cases before and after the Emancipation Proclamation which speak to this issue.

Second, they sneak in the part about “…passed by Democrats in 2002.”  By limiting this to  a single law passed in 2002 (The Homeland Security Act), and, by suggesting it was done by Democrats, Snopes can call it false since the majority of those voting for the law were Republicans.  This, of course, ignores the fact that all but 8 Democrats in the Senate voted for the Bill.  To be fair, in the House, only 88 of the 295 votes for the Bill were from Democrats.  In any case, it could not have passed without the Democrats.  Did Democrats pass the bill?  No.  Could they have prevented passage? Easily.  Democrats had 50 members of the Senate plus one Independent who voted with them.  The Republicans had 49 members.  Had this been spun by someone biased toward the Republicans, they would have ‘fact checked’ and found that the law was passed by the Democrats since they controlled the Senate and final passage of a bill lies with the Senate.

FactCheck, like Snopes wants you to believe that they are independent, non-biased arbiters of truth.  They are not.  To treat them as such is as irresponsible as to believe everything that you read on the internet (except, of course, anything you read at Responsibility-Freedom Demands It).

Fake News takes two basic forms, acts of commission and acts of omission by ‘journalists’ (I call them pornalists.  Like porn which radically distorts sex, many so-called ‘journalists’ radically distort the news).

President Trump and many conservatives have been complaining loudly of late about the proliferation of fake news.  By that, they mean that they read too many news reports that are either false or are written from a very biased viewpoint.  Often the media delivers opinion pieces under the guise of actual news.  Much of the highly biased reporting is due to simple laziness by ‘journalists.’   Reporters don’t take the time to investigate any other viewpoint but their own.  Some fake news is written deliberately to create a false or self-serving narrative.   These are ‘fake news’ acts of commission.

This has been a criticism of news media for longer than any of us have been alive, think “yellow journalism”.  In the past, it was not quite as noticeable, when almost every city had two or more news publications.  Then, almost everyone had easy access to media that showed each story as viewed from both the right and the left.

Today, with the consolidation of news media (newspapers, in particular), it seems most areas receive news that has been interpretted and presented only as seen from the left.  Nearly every recent study has shown that an overwhelming percentage of “journalists”  identify as Democrats, progressives or liberals.   Studies and polls routinely show that fewer than 10% would call themselves Republicans.

What is not criticized as often is the acts of omission by the media.  How often do you hear about the good work of people on the right or stories that don’t support the progressive agenda?  Here is a list of news stories that I contend have not been covered by the mainstream (left leaning) media or, at the very least, have been under-reported:

  1. Fear in Europe of a huge transfer of investment dollars from the EU to the U.S.A. because of the highly favorable new U.S. Tax law;
  2. The current low unemployment rate; 
  3. The huge and rapidly growing poverty in California which could be attributed to California’s highly progressive welfare state programs;
  4. Until recently, the depravity of the Hollywood Culture;
  5. The U.S. emergence once again as a top three oil producer in the world;
  6. The fact that Germany in particular, and almost all EU countries are falling far behind their commitments to lower carbon emissions as per the Paris Accord; 
  7. The fact that China emits more carbon dioxide than any nation;
  8. The current unemployment rate among african-americans is the lowest it has been in over 40 years;
  9. In April of 2017, Astronaut Peggy Whitson returned to earth after a record of over 534 days in space, longest for any American but hardly anyone has ever heard her name;
  10. Conservative Groups targeted by the IRS reached a settlement with the IRS where they were paid a seven figure amount, that settlement confirming that the ‘weaponizing’ of the FBI against the right was not just a political talking point for the right;
  11. etc.

It seems the biggest problem in getting real news rather than ‘fake news’ is that we all tend to get the majority of our news from very few sources.  Most often those sources report news that supports our belief system.  I often find myself discussing politics with people who never read anything but the New York Times and the Washington Post.  More often than not, these people will completely dismiss any reports that do not agree with those two sources.  

Maybe we should all make a new year’s resolution to try harder to see things from the ‘other side.’  It might just make us better informed AND more tolerant of other views.



Attributed to Texas A&M University where they are said to have an annual competition asking entrants for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:  In 2007, the term which was the subject of the contest was ‘ Political Correctness ‘.  The winning definition was:

Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Whether it has anything to do with Texas A & M or not,  I seem to have this in mind as I  have been fascinated by two high tech industry stories from 2017 (must be a 10th anniversary celebration of finding an appropriate definition of the term).

In August at Google and now this month (November, 2017) at Apple, political correctness, a core tenet of Leftist Ideology, has become an accepted (in Silicon Valley) reason for dismissal of senior executives.

The most recent case involved a 20+ year Apple exec, Denise Young Smith, who had recently been ‘promoted’ to the position of Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion.  She will no longer be employed by Apple at the end of the year because she had the temerity to say, in a public meeting,  “There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blond men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation.  Diversity is the human experience.  I get a little bit frustrated when diversity or the term diversity is tagged to the people of color, or the women, or the LGBT.”

The August 2017 incident concerned a long internal memo which ‘went viral’ within Google and which was written by a self-professed true liberal engineer at Google, James Damore.  Mr. Damore does little more than state what he believes to be the truth and then makes some recommendations which he feels will benefit both the culture and the economic viability of Google.  You can judge for yourself whether Google is real world or not and whether you would be comfortable working in the Google environment.  Mr. Damore makes interesting observations especially since they come from the ‘belly of the beast’.

Here is the response to Damore’s memo from Danielle Brown.  It is followed by a copy of the long but interesting memo from James Damore.  Any thoughts?

Google’s new Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, Danielle Brown, issued the following statement in response to the internal employee memo:


I’m Danielle, Google’s brand new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance. I started just a couple of weeks ago, and I had hoped to take another week or so to get the lay of the land before introducing myself to you all. But given the heated debate we’ve seen over the past few days, I feel compelled to say a few words.

Many of you have read an internal document shared by someone in our engineering organization, expressing views on the natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google. And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I’m not going to link to it here as it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.

Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate. We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul. As Ari Balogh said in his internal G+ post, “Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. ‘Nuff said. “

Google has taken a strong stand on this issue, by releasing its demographic data and creating a company wide OKR on diversity and inclusion. Strong stands elicit strong reactions. Changing a culture is hard, and it’s often uncomfortable. But I firmly believe Google is doing the right thing, and that’s why I took this job.

Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.

I’ve been in the industry for a long time, and I can tell you that I’ve never worked at a company that has so many platforms for employees to express themselves—TGIF, Memegen, internal G+, thousands of discussion groups. I know this conversation doesn’t end with my email today. I look forward to continuing to hear your thoughts as I settle in and meet with Googlers across the company.





Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber, by James Damore

Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.


  • Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
  • This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
  • The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
  • Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
  • Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
  • Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases

  • Compassion for the weak
  • Disparities are due to injustices
  • Humans are inherently cooperative
  • Change is good (unstable)
  • Open
  • Idealist

Right Biases

  • Respect for the strong/authority
  • Disparities are natural and just
  • Humans are inherently competitive
  • Change is dangerous (stable)
  • Closed
  • Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

  • They’re universal across human cultures
  • They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
  • Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
  • The underlying traits are highly heritable
  • They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:

  • Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
  • These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
  • Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
  • This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
  • Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:

  • Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
  • We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
  • Women on average are more cooperative
  • Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
  • Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
  • Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
  • The male gender role is currently inflexible
  • Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google’s biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

  • Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
  • A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
  • Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
  • Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
  • Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.


I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

  • As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Stop alienating conservatives. 

  • Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
  • In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
  • Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Confront Google’s biases.

  • I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
  • I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

  • These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

  • Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
  • There’s currently very little transparency into the extent of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
  • These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
  • I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

  • We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
  • We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
  • Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

De-emphasize empathy.

  • I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Prioritize intention.

  • Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
  • Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Be open about the science of human nature. 

  • Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

  • We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
  • Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
  • Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal. 

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.


Sports analysists, talk show hosts, and NFL fans everywhere have been talking nonstop this summer about Colin Kaepernick.  Why, many are asking, has no team decided to hire  him this off-season?

Various analysts and fans have views that range from “It’s pure racism” to “It’s politics:  He refused to stand for the National Anthem” to “He just isn’t good enough any more” and “No team wants all the baggage that comes with him.”

Yesterday, Michael Vick, no stranger to controversy and at one time a very talented NFL quarterback, gave Mr. Kaepernick a piece of advice:  Cut your hair and “try to be more presentable.”  That set off waves of discussion on social media.  A lot of folks have decided that anyone who points to Mr. Kaepernick’s hair or tattoos is judging a book by its cover.  I agree that it is judging Mr. Kaepernick at least partially by his hair and his tattoos.  I also think that is a very valid thing upon which to judge him.

Hair and tattoos are personal choices.  The person with the Afro or Dreadlocks or beard to his waist is choosing that fashion.  No person I know has ever been forced to wear his hair in an Afro or in Dreadlocks or braids.  A beard to your waist is a fashion statement, pure and simple, a personal choice.

Colin Kaepernick wants people to look at him.  His actions and his fashion statements are his own choices and all point to a person who is very interested in being seen and talked about.


My guess is that most of his potential employers (NFL Team Owners) think that the choices he is making show a greater interest in his ego than in his preparation for the business of football.  They likely think his choices show poor judgment.  The last thing they want is the Quarterback of their team to be a person who has poor judgment.  None of the owners appear to want to have, as the face of their franchise, what Mr. Kaepernick is offering.  Do you blame them?  Many do, but, for me, in six years he has gone from a promising physical talent to dubious talent with an ego too big even for professional football.

I think anyone who feels sorry for Colin Kaepernick because he is still unemployed should know that Mr. Kaepernick has only himself to blame.  If you showed up at a job interview for a position as Diversity Manager for a large firm wearing a KKK robe or for a teaching position at a Catholic School wearing nothing but a string bikini, it would be your fault and nobody else’s if the person doing the interview first judged the book by its cover.  Fashion choices are just that: choices.  Though they may be the “cover” they do expose a lot about what’s inside.



Here is a link to a video that I sent to about a dozen friends last week:

It is one of a series of videos by Bill Whittle called “Virtual President.”  The folks to whom I sent the email ranged from the far right to the far left on gun control and most other things political.  One email that I received in return was from a friend who is considerably more liberal than I.  We’ll call her Jane Doe.  Here is her email:

As usual, we disagree! It seems to me that this presentation is highly misleading, starting with its staging. Bill Whittle makes it look as if he is addressing a joint session of congress, alternating views of him speaking with closeups of senators and representatives (John Kerry, Pau Ryan) listening. But of course he never addressed a joint session of congress so that these images are taken out of context. 

Then he goes on to give statistics for the number of people murdered by rifles, but he doesn’t mention that the great majority of murder victims were killed, not by rifles, but by handguns. In 2010, there were 6,009 handgun murders to 358 rifle murders, so his argument is clearly deceptive. 

Then he talks about the “fact” that a million to 2.5 million murders were prevented by firearms. Any statistics with this kind of range are clearly unreliable, but in this case Whittle seems to be basing his argument on a thoroughly discredited survey by Gary Kleck. In fact, a study from 2014 of police records and media reports found 1,600 reports of successful defensive use firearms. 

There have been a number of comparative studies of states with similar ethnic and economic situations which show that strict laws reduce gun violence. Also, one can compare the U.S. to Canada which has rigorous gun laws. We lived in Canada for two years and my husband was an avid hunter so he was allowed to keep his guns, but the rate of death by firearms is much, much lower in Canada, presumably as a result of regulation. According to an article in Wikipedia, comparing gun deaths in various countries, the rate in Canada is 1.97 per 100,000, whereas in the U.S. it is 10.54. 

I then wrote back to her at about the same time another friend wrote to her.  Below is my email followed by my other friend’s letter to her:

Dear Jane Doe,

Bill Whittle does a series called Virtual President in which he portrays himself as the Virtual President and what he would say if speaking to Congress.  This is one of those videos.  No deception intended, just a way of expressing his opinions.

I agree with you that he has cherry picked statistics to use rifles, not the more prevalent tool, the handgun.  He was, however, speaking to the issue of “military assault rifles.”  He did not address the handgun issue, I don’t believe.

I also agree with your feeling that the 1,000,000 to 2.5M gun defenses is fishy at best.  It is neither his strongest point, nor do I feel, one he should be making lacking provable numbers.

I accept your numbers comparing Canada and the U.S. as to gun deaths.  I have seen quite a few different numbers, but, each study I have seen comes to the same general conclusion that Canada suffers significantly fewer gun deaths per capita than the U.S.  Is that due to increased availability of guns? Or, might it be other societal issues?

What I don’t see is your comparison of other statistics between the U.S. and Canada.  The U.S. has about 16 times as many rapes as Canada.  Is that due to increased availability of guns?  The U.S. appears to have about three times the number of murders per capita than Canada.  Is that due to increased availability of guns?  The U.S. seems to have about 6 times more prisoners than Canada.  Is that due to increased availability of guns?   Why not compare Canada to the U.S. as to highway deaths?  According to your source, Wikipedia, the USA has 12% more highway deaths per Capita than Canada, over 26% more highway fatalities per 100,000 vehicles, and 43% more highway fatalities per million miles driven than Canada.   You might want to suggest that the U.S. ban automobiles.  In fact, why is there no significant anti-auto lobby, like there is an anti-gun lobby?

The main point of Mr. Whittle’s piece is to defend the Constitution and in particular, the 2nd Amendment.  It is his belief that the reason for the 2nd Amendment is first and foremost to allow free citizens to protect themselves from tyranny.  Significantly, it is the tyranny of government that triggered the need for the 2nd Amendment.  He also feels that there is a political element in our society that finds it very easy to demonize guns and gun ownership for political gain.

See some interesting comparisons between USA and Canada at:


I think Mr. Whittle makes a strong point that the anti-gun politicians need to propose a 28th Amendment (to repeal the 2nd Amendment) and see how that flies.  That would be the honest way to see how their constituents feel about the issue.  Unfortunately, it is much easier for them to repeal parts of the Constitution by nibbling with one new regulation/law after another until the Constitution is neutered. It makes me wonder if the goal of the “gun control politicians” is truly gun control or if it is not “People Control.”

Thanks for taking the time to watch the video.

Then the letter from the other friend to Jane Doe:


Dear Jane Doe,

And a good thing it is!
All discussions of firearms, right to self-defense, who should own what and the like are “highly deceptive,” regardless of position.

I would put Whittle’s hoax up against the Press’ sticking a camera into the face of a mother first viewing a dead child – both are obscene.

I will be the first to admit that I do not know the “statistics” of murder-by-firearms, and point that there are a good many such:

One could spend much time arming oneself with poignant fact (and many advocates do), but I wish for (inter)national debate on the subject, involving scholars, legislators, think tanks (Brookings, CATO and other serious ponderers) – and just plain people, selected for interest and common sense.

Just think – what if we, as a nation, actually THOUGHT about it?!  Imagine a new way of exploring issues, where the interest of the Nation, not just of the Party, is at stake!  An alternative to our Brave New World?    (May God help us!)

Discussions of Canada – such as Michael Moore’s film on guns – make the point that Canadians own at least as many guns per capita as we, yet do not use them on each other.  (He also pointed out that many do not lock their door.)

How/why are we different?

  • we are a spectacular target for many – terrorists and nuts.  But denying us self-defense will not help that.
  • we have huge crime areas, and their denizens kill each other, far and away more frequently than ordinary americans bump each other off.   Such areas already forbid ownership of guns, but that clearly does not help; they get them anyhow.  (And would use knives or clubs if they couldn’t).
  • our government fosters and keeps alive simmering suspicion of various groups for each other, racial, ethnic and economic, by rhetoric and ukase.  This does nothing to ease tensions; quite the contrary, our parties encourage Us vs Them sentiments, so that we live in a Lockean Hell of all against all.  When bad feeling erupts, people reach for whatever weapon is at hand.  But if it were not a gun, it would be something else – also deadly.
  • there are more reasons, of course, but I am not writing a dissertation.

What are the unspoken, unacknowledged positions of the parties on Gun Control?  How do they view the inhabitants of the US?

Republicans – Jefferson’s view of us: mature, responsible citizens, answerable (and called upon to answer) for our deeds, who have as much to fear from government as to hope for from it.  He builds upon the long-standing lessons derived from english civil history as well as upon the brilliance of certain french enlightenment thinkers in formulating a simple, compelling contract between the citizen and the law – than which there never to this day has been better, and whose sanctity approaches that of God’s Covenant, and we would do well to heed His edict: “not a jot or tittle!”

Democrats – helpless, lost and forlorn children whom they must rescue, succor and elevate.  Privileged with as-yet unnumbered Entitlements, many more to come, they, the Dems, as their custodians are pledged to enforce these – against the Rest, those uninformed, uncaring and largely indifferent Masses out there who would selfishly deny privilege (citizenship, ability to use any bathroom, marry anyone, have television and cellphones et cetera) and money (that of the Masses) to those whom the Dems have selected as Worthy.

Small wonder at the difference of positions; who would give guns to children?

The larger problem is not guns/se, but what is becoming of us: are we wards of Big Brother?  It seems that many are rushing to become so.

Maybe that is why the rest voted for Trump?!


I sure like his description of the unspoken, unacknowledged positions of the parties on gun control.  It could apply to their positions on most things.

The Big City Press (N. Y. Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, Atlantic Monthly, etc.) has been falling all over itself portraying the first weeks of the Trump Administration as Chaos or Dysfunction.  They can find nothing being done by the Trump Administration that measures up to the wonderful job done by Mr. Obama and his Administration in its early weeks in office.

An example:

In today’s Washington Post, E.J. Dionne, Jr. has an Op-Ed that states that Trump is unfit to lead.  His opening shot is that the Michael Flynn resignation was not just a terrible choice but showed a total lack of vetting.  How could Mr. Trump appoint someone who had lied to his Vice President about National Security matters?  He implied that Mr. Trump was, at best, a very poor decision maker and a bad judge of character.  Dionne goes on to say that Attorney General Jeff Sessions should immediately recuse himself from all investigations to do with Russia, just because he was chosen by Mr. Trump who Dionne says is in bed with Russia.


It would be interesting to read Mr. Dionne’s op-ed about Mr. Obama’s choice for National Intelligence Council Chair in 2009, Charles Freeman.  You will remember Mr. Freeman who had worked for (was on it’s Board) the Chinese Government-owned Chinese National Offshore Oil Company and who had lobbied extensively for Saudi-Arabia.  Oh, wait.  Dionne never wrote such an op-ed.  It was apparently fine for an Obama appointee to be in bed with the Chinese Communists and the Saudis.


It would be similarly interesting to see Mr. Dionne’s op-ed asking Loretta Lynch, Mr. Obama’s Attorney General, to recuse herself from the investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s pay-to-play scheme and email scandal while Clinton was Secretary of State.  You will remember that Lynch and Bill Clinton had a timely discussion just prior to Lynch making a decision that was very beneficial to Mrs. Clinton.  Again, Mr. Dionne saw no evil there, either.

What about Tom Daschle?  He was the Obama appointee for Health and Human Services who somehow neglected to pay more than $140,000 of taxes.

Or, Timothy Geithner who was actually confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury and served in the position for 4 years?  Geithner somehow forgot to pay his Social Security Taxes for years (inspite of being advised to do so and being given extra compensation for that purpose).  Geithner was also in the thick of the banking crisis that set up the 2008 recession and profited greatly from the rules he backed.  Dionne did comment about that: “All of the administration’s critics are being emboldened by its hesitancy in dealing with the banking question and its apparent fear of temporary bank nationalization. On this issue, the president genuinely is trying to steer a moderate course.”  Moderate?  To appoint a tax cheat and one of the bankers at the heart of the crisis?  Imagine, if you can, Dionne saying about Mr. Trump, “…the president genuinely is trying to steer a moderate course.”

Or, Bill Richardson who was appointed to run Commerce.  He was not nicknamed “Dollar” Bill for nothing.  He had a history of accepting outsized political donations from people who sought favors (mostly State contracts) in return.  He finally withdrew, or was asked to withdraw, after over a month as the appointee.

Dionne did not, to my knowledge, decry any of these gaffs.  He did not claim Mr. Obama was “unfit”.  In fact, Dionne wrote in his recent book, We are the Change We seek: “Despite his fervent campaign promise to ease the country’s political divisions, he discovered that he faced a Republican opposition intent on taking back power by stymieing his program, challenging his mandate to govern, (emphasis mine) and leaving his dreams of harmony stillborn.”

Why such a different view?  Perspective.  Mr. Dionne and much of the Big City Press backed Mrs. Clinton.  They were out of touch with the heart of the country and they are sore losers.  They will continue to cherry pick the news and harp on the evils of Donald Trump, much as they cherry picked the news and wrote glowing reports of Mr. Obama and his actions.

The facts show that every administration has some missteps and some successes as they get started.  Mr. Dionne’s conclusion that Mr. Trump is “Unfit to Serve” is provably biased and, at best, premature.  Mr. Dionne and the Left learned nothing from the Right’s “Birther Movement” and show their inability to be unbiased observers and reporters with every stroke of their pens.  They should take a deep breath and, for once, try to be reporters of the truth, not just hacks using their pulpit to push their political views.


Hit Counter since Sept. 2008

  • 1,539,031 hits
Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory