In case you haven't heard, Hillary Clinton is no longer the only liberal candidate with widespread support in the 2016 Presidential Election. An Independent Senator from Vermont is running on the Democratic ticket. His name is Bernie Sanders, and he is exactly what America needs. First off, he outright refused to accept campaign donations from a Super PAC and is running without one. This very roughly equates to refusing money from billionaires and corporations that was legalized in the Citizens United case. I strongly support Bernie Sanders for many reasons, including:

1. He opposes the decision in the Citizens United case.
2. He supports raising the minimum wage.
3. He believes that a bank "too big to fail is too big to exist".
4. He supports free and guaranteed healthcare for all citizens.
5. He supports tuition-free public universities.

But most of all, he strikes me as a completely authentic candidate. His voting record and actions fully support his stances on the issues. He wants America to catch up with the rest of the civilized world in implementing aspects of a Social Democracy to replace the corrupt Oligarchy that is currently in power. First, here are some videos to give you a general feel for Bernie:

• Official Campaign video (Video 5:12)
• Interview on Late Night with Seth Meyers (Video 5:16)
• Sample Senate hearing on the budget (Video 13:05)

And here are some links where you can find out more:

• Official website litsing his positions
• Why he has a real chance of winning
• Policy differences with Hillary Clinton

As always, draw your own conclusions and seek out your own sources. However, if the issues are what you truly care about, try taking this quiz to find out which candidate you most closely identify with. For reference, I scored 97% for Bernie Sanders.

EDIT: Changed campaign video link.

I've been frequenting StackExchange sites for quite some time; if you're not familiar, they're basically Yahoo Answers done right. Reading through the Anime and Manga forum, I came across a post about racism in One Piece. This also led me to read this blog post and this rather long post on IGN (WARNING: links contain One Piece spoilers. The rest of this post contains very minor spoilers.)

All of them pointed out that many One Piece characters became markedly lighter in skin tone after the time skip in the series. There are some very telling pictures of this happening to Usopp and Zoro. But even more than that, there is a character who is able to change genders, and for some reason Inazuma is much lighter as a woman than a man. The same can be seen with a random guy who also switched genders. In all of these cases I really don't understand what the animators were thinking; there's no apparent reason for it, and it seems blatantly racist. On the other hand, I don't agree with calling Oda (the author) racist, since the same differences don't appear in the manga cover art. (Skin tone obviously isn't a thing in the normal black and white chapters.) But I digress.

Obviously racism is usually bad thing; discriminating solely based on skin color or ethnicity makes zero sense in most settings. (And yes, I did say "most" and not "all". Sometimes you do have to treat different ethnicities differently; for example, South Asian men are 50% more likely to develop heart disease than the general population. A doctor not taking that into account during a diagnosis would at the very least be viewed as negligent.) What I don't agree with is forcing ethnicity into media for the sake of "diversity" and making sure no one feels "left out". That line of thinking has a fundamental flaw. To showcase this, I'm going to make some assumptions I think someone arguing for equal representation in media would hold, then use a scenario to demonstrate the hipocrisy inherent in the set of assumptions.

Assumptions

1. All ethnicities have the same rights. Believing otherwise is racism.
2. It is infeasible to represent every single ethnicity in a work.
3. A work is labeled as "racist" by an ethnic group if they are not represented.

Scenario

• Group A is represented in the work and does not view it as racist as per #3.
• The very obscure Group Z is not represented in the work and thus views it as racist as per #3.
• Group A still does not label the work as racist since Group Z is so obscure and few in number as per #2.
• Therefore Group A believes they have a right that Group Z does not and Group A is racist as per #1.

Therefore it is wholly illogical to deride a work for "racism" due to exclusion of ethnicities. Even if every single character in a work is white, you cannot call it racist without yourself being racist. As soon as you are content with the set of ethnicities represented in the work, you are effectively being racist by picking and elevating favroites. So we have to change at least one of the assumptions. Overall, #1 is agreed on by much of society (although we would do better with something like "Every person has certain rights") and #2 is simply fact. Thus, to resolve the contradiction, we should get rid of #3.

Again, I am not defending the practice of whitewashing characters as happened in One Piece, or more famously in The Last Airbender. Neither of those make sense to me, and I would call them, at the very least, racially insensitive. I am also not defending other racist behaviors such as insulting stereotypes or blatant discrimination. I am attacking what seems to me an extension of Reverse Discrimination. Obviously if an employer refuses to hire an employee solely based on skin color then he is in the wrong. But just because an employer has no (insert ethnicity here) on his staff does not mean he is racist. Let me repeat that a little "louder" since it's the main message of this post:

Just because an employer has no (insert ethnicity here) on his staff does not mean he is racist.

The above assertion is an example of the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" (if you aren't familiar, please do follow that link). I think we should be striving for true Racial Blindness, which not only excludes the discrimination of minorities, but also Reverse Discrimination, Racial Integration, and Racial quotas. While I expect it will be a long time coming, I look forward to the day when it does.

It is a strongly held belief in America that "Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion." After all, we live in a Democracy, and everyone should have an equal say. However, this assertion is fundamentally flawed when viewed from a rational standpoint.

As an easy example, if you were to say that "the sky is blue" and I were to say that "the sky is red with green polka dots," then you are right. It is an indisputable fact that the sky is blue. If I say that "it's my opinion that the sky is red with green polka dots," it does not change the truth. Rather, it is wholly disingenuous and underhanded of me to try and mask the truth using that phrase.

When "opinions" really become a problem, however, is when they are used as a final argument on controversial topics. Let's say, for example, that you and I are arguing about the safety of nuclear power. I believe that living within a few miles of a nuclear power plant makes me more likely to get cancer because radiation is dangerous. You believe that nuclear power plants are entirely self-contained and release negligible amounts of radiation. You then cite a study showing that radiation levels do not increase near nuclear power plants. In retaliation, I simply say, "Well, it's just my opinion that radiation is dangerous and living close to a nuclear power plant is bad for you." The fact that it is "my opinion" does not make it a valid argument; I am simply wrong.

Life is basically one big optimization problem. We want the most fun for the least amount of money, the most money for the least amount of work, the most enjoyment (or least displeasure) per unit of work, etc. As a rational thinker, your "opinion" should always be your best estimate of a given choice based on your available information. Since no one is omniscient, at least some of everyone's opinions are flawed. Therefore, when you cite the study on radiation, I should realize that you have given me new information, which I should then use to reformulate my opinion.

This applies to all opinions, even to the personal realm of beliefs and desires. You are the only one who knows what makes you happy; you are the only one who can view your utility function. Since no one else knows how much fun you find in video games or rock climbing, your opinion is the ultimate authority. Everyone else has zero knowledge on the subject. Yet, even in this case, listening to the opinions of others is worthwhile. Even though they do not know your utility function, others may propose ideas that you yourself had not thought of. This could lead to a better optimum allocation of time or money to yield maximum pleasure. After all, just because you've never tried rock climbing doesn't mean you won't end up liking it more than video games.

Refusing to re-evaluate your opinion after hearing new evidence is entirely irrational. In doing so you are likely hurting yourself by refusing to change from a sub-optimal course of action. If you are ever tempted to say "well, that's just my opinion" to refute an argument, take a step back and analyze yourself for bias. You are never "entitled" to your opinion; you are only allowed your best guess given your current knowledge. As soon as someone else comes along with a better guess or new information, you should change your "opinion" immediately.

This all boils down to one very important, rare, and difficult skill: admitting when you're wrong. If you can't admit when you're wrong, then you can't improve. If everyone in the world could freely admit when they're wrong, I think we could make some truly terrifying progress both scientifically and socially.

Based on this blog post of the same name.

I recently started reading some media about the concept of a Universal Basic Income. If you are interested and have the time, I highly recommend reading these links in the order presented. The first is a relevant (and short; only 8 chapters) Sci-Fi story, the second a brief analysis and speculation on the US economy and its future, and the third an argument in favor of a Universal Basic Income.

1. Manna
2. Robotic Nation
3. Reddit, Robots, and Resources

While I personally support the idea of a universal basic income after reading these articles, I encourage everyone to read them and draw your own conclusions.

EDIT: Here's a nice video if you'd rather watch than read.